Centre for Internet and Society

D:coding Digital Natives - Seminar with Nishant Shah

praskrishna — 2013-03-06T05:21:27Z

Nishant Shah gave a talk on D:coding Digital Natives at Samhällsvetarhuset on February 26, 2013, from 1.15 p.m. to 3.00 p.m. The event was organized by HUMlab.

Read the original published by HUMlab.

Abstract

The discourse around youth-technology-change - digital natives, if you will - has been shaped by self explanatory buzzwords like participation, collaboration, mobilization etc. These words seem to hold a promise of revolutions and change without actually acknowledging material practices or complex relationships that young people have with technologies and visions of change. Trying to decode these words through case-studies from the Global South, this talk hopes to offer new frameworks through which digital natives can be studied and understood in emerging ICT contexts.

Bio:
Nishant Shah is the co-founder and director of research at the Bangalore-based research organization Centre for Internet and Society. He studies questions of governance, identity, planning and body at the intersections of digital technologies, law and everyday cultural practice.

He is a visiting researcher at the Centre for Digital Cultures at Leuphana University, Germany, and an International Knowledge Partner on 'Youth, Technology and Change' with Hivos, Netherlands. He recently co-edited the four-volume book series "Digital AlterNatives with a Cause?" that captures discourse, practice and policy as it shapes and is shaped by youth driven, everyday practices of digital technologies and is currently working on looking at civic action in networked societies.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/humlab-umea-university-d-coding-digital-natives

Analyzing the Draft Human DNA Profiling Bill 2012

praskrishna — 2013-02-25T09:56:19Z

The Centre for Internet & Society invites you to a workshop on analyzing the Draft Human DNA Profiling Bill on March 1, 2013 in its Bangalore office, from 2.00 p.m. to 5.00 p.m.

The Draft Human DNA Profiling Bill seeks to establish DNA databases at the state, regional, and national level for the purposes of establishing identity in criminal and civil proceedings. The Draft Human DNA Profiling Bill has been critiqued by the committee chaired by Justice AP Shah in the “Report of Group of Experts on Privacy” for a lack of adequate privacy safeguards.

In Fall 2012 the Centre for Internet and Society held a series of public meetings to raise awareness about the Bill and submitted feedback to the Department of Biotechnology. This workshop is in response to an April 2012 draft of the Bill and seeks to analyze the text of the Bill, look at technical aspects of the Bill and DNA profiling, and compare the current draft of the Bill with previous drafts.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/analyzing-draft-human-dna-profiling-bill

Analyzing Draft Human DNA Profiling Bill 2012

praskrishna — 2013-02-25T08:13:16Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/draft-dna-profiling-bill-2012.pdf

International Conference on Contours of Media Governance: Teaching, Disciplinarity, Methodology

praskrishna — 2013-03-05T09:28:27Z

The Centre for Culture, Media & Governance, Jamia Millia Islamia organises an international conference on contours of media governance at Jamia Milla Islamia in New Delhi from February 25 to 27, 2013. The event is supported by Ford Foundation and ICSSR.

Sunil Abraham is participating in the event as a speaker and will present the Pervasive Technologies project.

Click to download the agenda.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/international-conference-on-contours-of-media

Unique Identity Number (UID), National Population Register (NPR), and Governance

praskrishna — 2013-03-01T04:32:06Z

The Centre for Internet and Society and the Say No to UID campaign invite you to a workshop to discuss and learn about the present state of the UID and the NPR schemes. The event will be held on Saturday, March 2, 2013, at TERI, Bangalore, from 10.30 a.m. to 2.00 p.m.

Among other questions, the workshop will address:

What is the UID and NPR?
How do the UID and NPR impact citizenship?
Will NPR and UID schemes transform governance?
Why and how is national security linked with UID / NPR?
What is the relationship between UID and Big Data?

Speakers:

Usha Ramanathan, Independent Law Researcher and Human Rights Activist
Anant Maringanti, Hyderabad Urban Labs & Right to the City Foundation
Kaveri R, Researcher, CES, IISc

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/uid-and-npr

Stop Press Carousel

praskrishna — 2013-03-06T04:27:15Z

The silent blocking of URLs by the DoT assaults freedom of expression.

Arindam Mukherjee's article was published in the Outlook on February 22, 2013. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

Five Questions

On what grounds did the DoT ask for a ban on the 55 Facebook URLs pertaining to Afzal Guru?
Why did the Gwalior court rush into blocking of 73 URLs related to IIPM even though the content was very old and clearly some of it was even prima facie non-defamatory?
Why is the Gwalior court order not being made public?
Why doesn’t DoT keep the whole process transparent by putting up all its block orders on its website, giving reasons in each case?
How many URLs in all has the DoT asked for a ban on so far?

***

It’s the perfect recipe for a potboiler—a sudden, mysterious and arbitrary blocking of web pages, sparked off by an irate ‘educationist’; several upset publications (Outlook included); a government department with a blocked web page; a ministry trying to figure out how to react to a court order that is at the root of all the action, but which no one has been able to see.

As the cliche goes, truth is often stranger than fiction—as the affected parties discovered on February 15. That’s when it became known that the government had sought to block 78 web pages, reportedly following an order from a court in Gwalior. Around 73 of these articles sought to be blocked are on the controversial Indian Institute of Planning and Management (IIPM), promoted by self-styled management guru Arindam Chaudhuri.

What has taken everyone by surprise is how the blocks were executed—in a clandestine manner, without informing the affected parties, without serving them a notice or a copy of the order, or giving them a chance to react or defend themselves. The enormity of the ban is evident from the list of websites targeted, which include The Economic Times, The Indian Express, The Wall Street Journal, FirstPost, Careers360, Rediff.com and Caravan. When it came to Outlook, there was a clear case of overreach, as not just the web pages, but the entire blogs area was blocked for more than eight hours (see Jump Cut).

What is even more surprising is the smokescreen that is being maintained over the Gwalior court order that has caused this consternation on the Internet. At the time of going to print, no one—the affected websites, authors, lawyers or activists—had access to the order or had seen it, and the government was evading media queries on details of the order and the case. Despite repeated requests, the head of the Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT), Gulshan Rai, did not speak to Outlook.

So, in the absence of the order, no one even knows who the complainant is. Significantly, IIPM’s Chaudhuri has said that one of his ‘channel partners’ approached the court, though he clearly is the chief beneficiary of the episode. What this entire episode serves up is a blatant use of the law to muzzle press criticism while the government and official machinery have been willy-nilly forced to become mute players.

This surreal, Kafkaesque scenario continues apace at Outlook’s website, where on protesting the block on its blogs, the ISP said, “As only some of the URLs are mentioned in the DoT letter, we have reactivated the website and requested you to delete the mentioned contents,” adding that they had “attached the DoT instructions alongwith”. What they had attached was not one but two DoT orders, both dated February 14. One was, of course, the order about the 78 URLs. The other order came as news: an order on 55 Facebook URLs on Afzal Guru that the DoT wanted blocked.

As expected, internet activists and advocates of freedom of speech are livid. Shivam Vij, founder of kafila.org, one of the blogs that was blocked in the IIPM matter, says, “We were never given a chance to defend or explain. If only the DoT had put up the notice on their website, there would have been a healthier debate on regulation or censorship. But this was done in an opaque and arbitrary manner. If a book is banned, everyone gets to know. Why was there so much secrecy here?”

The arbitrariness of the twin government action also stems from the new IT Act which authorises the government or a competent authority to block or take down content considered “harmful”. And, according to the law, there is no obligation on the authorities’ part to inform the defendants. Cyber law expert Apar Gupta says, “Under the blocking rules, there is nothing that says that a copy of the court order has to be given to the affected parties. The rules also do not talk about the authors being given a chance to explain. It permits ad interim injunction to block content.”

Says Nikhil Pahwa, internet activist and editor of Medianama, which first reported about the IIPM blocks, “It is not clear why the DoT has taken this cloak-and-dagger approach. These are legitimate issues being raised by people regarding IIPM and its students. This is an infringement on the freedom of speech and expression. The DoT should have executed the blocks in a transparent manner by sending the affected parties a copy of the court order and making it public.”

That’s important, because legal experts feel that full facts may not have been considered in the IIPM case. “For this kind of a blocking order, the content should have come to the notice of the plaintiff recently. In this case, most of the content was much older. But sometimes plaintiffs also do not provide full details in a case,” says Gupta. Lawyers also feel that the Gwalior court may not be equipped to deal with litigation on new technologies.

There are other issues. In the IIPM case, the issue is primarily of defamation. But it is not clear whether defamation was established in all the articles that were sought to be taken down, especially a University Grants Commission (UGC) notice. Thus, the evidence that was presented to the court is important. Once again, till the court order becomes public, no one will know who the complainant was or what evidence was presented. The temporary ban on UGC’s web page is particularly surprising—and this has been noted by Shashi Tharoor—considering it is an independent regulator. “The regulatory body’s job is to regulate and nobody considers its notice as defamatory,” says Parminder Jeet Singh of IT for Change, an organisation dealing with internet issues.

The real purpose of such exercises, say experts, is to create a scare and embroil people in the legal process so that the process itself becomes a punishment and acts as a deterrent to others to engage in such writing. And that is why such cases are filed in remote and unusual destinations like Gwalior, Silchar, Dehradun and Guwahati. “There is a concept of forum shopping and forum shifting where cases are filed at remote destinations and by asking for huge damages, an attempt is made to scare people away from free speech. There are also many bullies who use defamation to create a scare effect. IIPM seems to have pioneered forum shopping in India,” says Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society (CIS).

The problem, everyone agrees, stems from the faulty nature of the Information Technology Act, which is open to interpretation and misuse. Says Singh, “The law tries to cover everything under a single head. It does not look specifically at the nuances of new media and give an appropriate response. So it is misused.” It is time that DoT became transparent and stopped its arbitrary, covert war against freedom of expression.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/outlook-feb-22-2013-arindam-mukherjee-stop-press-counsel

In Memoriam of Rahul Cherian

praskrishna — 2013-02-25T01:51:22Z

The Centre for Internet & Society is organising a memorial function for Rahul Cherian who passed away recently while on a family visit to Goa. He had succumbed to an infection. The function will be held on February 28, 2013, from 5 p.m. To 7.00 p.m. at TERI, Bangalore. Dinner will be served right after the event. Lawrence Liang, Reuben Jacob and Gautam John will be speaking at the event.

Rahul Cherian

Rahul was a lawyer, disability policy activist and the founder of the Inclusive Planet Centre for Disability and Policy, and a fellow at CIS. He was a partner at IndoJuris Law Offices in Chennai, having acted as a managing partner of the firm between 2003 and 2008. He was also the co-founder of www.inclusiveplanet.com, the world's largest social network for persons with visual impairment. He was one of the experts who drafted the Treaty for the Visually Impaired currently being negotiated at the World Intellectual Property Organization. His areas of expertise include disability law, intellectual property law and technology law.

Rahul was on the legal expert panel constituted by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment to give input on the new disability law. He was instrumental in conceptualizing and executing a national Right to Read Campaign to bring about changes in copyright law to enable persons with disabilities access copyrighted work on an equal basis with persons without disabilities. He had helped the State of Kerala draft a plan document with a vision to ensure that by the year 2025 persons with disabilities are completely integrated into mainstream society.

Rahul Cherian's collaboration with CIS

Feedback / Submissions

Making Public Libraries Accessible to People with Disabilities (January 23, 2013): Thanks to Rahul's efforts, CIS was one of the 20 disability rights groups that wrote to the Ministry of Culture.
Comments and Feedback on the Draft Twelfth Five Year Plan with respect to Persons with Disabilities (December 28, 2013): CIS was one of the ten organizations representing people with disabilities that sent comments and feedback on the draft twelfth five year plan.

Analysis

An Analysis of the Comments by World Blind Union and the International Publishers Association (March 30, 2012): Rahul provides an analysis of the comments by the World Blind Union and the International Publishers Association after the 23rd session of the Standing Committee of Copyright and Related Rights.

Blog Posts

Linking Commercial Availability and Exceptions in the Treaty for Visually Impaired/Persons with Disabilities (January 23, 2013).
WIPO to Convene a Diplomatic Conference in Morocco to Finalise TVI (December 24, 2012).
The HathiTrust Judgment and its impact on TVI negotiations at WIPO (October 30, 2012).
WIPO General Assemblies Approve Road Map on Treaty for the Visually Impaired (October 11, 2012).
WIPO Treaty for the Visually Impaired — Moving from a Treaty on Paper to a Treaty that is Workable on the Ground (September 28, 2012).
Breaking News on Electronic Accessibility (September 28, 2012).
Ring Side View: Update on WIPO Negotiations on the Treaty for the Visually Impaired (August 13, 2012).
Copyright Amendments – Empowering the Print Disabled (May29, 2012).
Copyright Law as a tool for Inclusion (March 30, 2010).
Copyright v. Exercise of Fundamental rights (August 6, 2009).

News & Media Coverage

Rahul was quoted in the following:

Disability groups in India welcome progress on treaty for blind persons (The Times of India, December 20, 2012).
US and EU blocking treaty to give blind people access to books (The Guardian, July 30, 2012).
An online community platform for people with different needs (Press Trust of India, December 9, 2010).
Disability rights groups oppose changes to Copyright Act (The Hindu, April 23, 2010).

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/accessibility/events/in-memoriam-of-rahul-cherian

Why was the Gwalior court in such a hurry to block IIPM URLs?

praskrishna — 2013-02-19T11:51:43Z

Is it really that easy to get courts to block online content as it appears from the latest case of the blocking of 73 URLs related to IIPM? Legally speaking, yes.

The article by Danish Raza was published in FirstPost on February 19, 2013. Snehashish Ghosh's analysis on blocked sites is quoted.

In cases of defamation, violations of copyright and trademark law and threats to national security, courts can direct the government agency (CERT-in or Computer Emergency Response Team- India) to take down the offending content. And these can be ex-parte orders. Meaning the person or organisation posting the content online is not intimated every time the material is blocked.

Legality aside however, advocates of free speech say that such court orders should be exceptions and not the rule. There is a perception that the process in its current form – right from the filing of court case to the content being taken offline- is opaque.

Traditionally the Internet has been viewed as a more liberal, open and democratic platform as compared to traditional media. Through such orders, says Delhi based advocate and expert on cyber law Apar Gupta, courts seem to give out a warning that online content is not outside the purview of the law.

The problem in this case however, is not the ‘warning’ itself. It is the way that the warning is being given that is setting the wrong precedent.

The blocks on IIPM related URLs is based on an interim order passed by a Gwalior court. The head of the institute, Arindam Chaudhuri in an exclusive interview with Firstpost, said that the case was filed last year by one his ‘channel partners’. He added that the court had made him a party in the case only in January and he would soon respond to court orders.

Three of the affected parties (Careers 360, Caravan and Kafila), however, said that they were never informed about the blocks, reported Mint.

After the block orders, Shivam Vij, founder of the blog, Kafila, told Firstpost, “This is against the principle of natural justice. The court blocked the URL of my blog without giving me a chance to defend myself.

While there are occasions warranting the urgent removal of content, experts say similar exigency need not be shown in cases of defamatory content.

In his analysis of blocked URLs related to IIPM, Snehashish Ghosh from the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), a Bangalore based organisation, notes that according to the Bonnard Rule, in a defamation case, interim injunction should not be awarded unless a defence of justification by the defendant was certain to fail at trial level. “Therefore, it appears that the (Gwalior) Court order has moved away from the settled principles of law while awarding an interim injunction for blocking of content related to IIPM”, says the report.

Commenting on court ordered blocks, Parminder Jeet Singh, executive director of IT for change, a Bangalore based organisation which works on internet governance issues, says, “When there is clear imminent danger or threat to the society, as in case of possible rioting, immediate removal of content without notifying and hearing the other party is understandable. But defamatory content does not fall in this category. Decisions on such largely civil matter should be taken with due deep consideration, after listening to all parties. And by far the considerations of free speech should have overwhelming weight in making decisions.”

Singh adds that “Even if it is considered necessary to remove any content, a fully transparent process has to be followed.”

The most common reason cited for not sending notices before removing the content is the tiresome process of zeroing in on the one person or authority responsible for posting the content, says Prabir Purkayastha of Knowledge Commons, an organisation which promotes open source information. “If you approach intermediaries such as Google or Yahoo, they will rightly say that they can provide details only if they are allowed to do as per international treaties,” says Purkayastha. But when there is clarity on who put the content online, like in the IIPM case, he says, “DoT cannot absolve itself from the responsibility of writing at least an email to these entities.”

In the case of Tata Sons Ltd. vs Green Peace International, cited by Ghosh of CIS, the Delhi High Court addressed the question whether posting or publishing of libelous material on the Internet calls for a different standard. Ghosh writes, “The court decided that there cannot be a separate standard for the Internet while awarding temporary injunction in defamation cases. The wider viewership or accessibility compared to other medium does not alter the fact that it is a medium.”

Purkayastha agrees. “Freedom of speech and expression and the restraints on it, as enshrined in the constitution, should not depend on the medium of expression. But due to the haste shown by courts in blocking online content, it appears that courts seem be applying two sets of standards with respect to Internet and traditional media,” he says.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/first-post-feb-19-2013-danish-raza-why-was-the-gwalior-court-in-such-a-hurry-to-block-iipm-urls

Indian Users’ Perspective On WIPO Negotiations On Treaty For Visually Impaired

praskrishna — 2013-02-18T09:07:06Z

South-East Asia is host to one-third of the world’s 39 million blind people. Over 20 million live in India alone. This week’s special session of the World Intellectual Property Organization aims to clean up the text of an international treaty to facilitate access to books for the blind and visually impaired community. It is thus of prime importance for India, and some there worry that issues such as commercial availability could undermine the treaty’s effectiveness.

This blog post by Catherine Saez was published in Intellectual Property Watch on February 16, 2013, Nirmita Narasimhan is quoted.

According to Nirmita Narasimhan, policy director with the Center for Internet and Society, barely five percent of published books in India are available in accessible formats. Visually impaired people struggle to get access to “education, news and entertainment, cultural materials, and employment.”

For instance, she told Intellectual Property Watch “even where there are seats reserved forl the blind in universities, there may not be enough applicants/candidates to fill those seats because of lack of educational resources.”

“Leisure reading and being up to date with the latest bestsellers is of course also a problem because these are unavailable at the time these reach the global market,” she said.

“Until last year, we did not have any fair use exception in our copyright law permitting conversion,” Narasimhan said. The new copyright amendment [pdf], which amended the Indian copyright Act of 1957, was adopted in May 2012 (IPW, Inside Views, 22 January 2013) but “has not yet translated into significant results in terms of accessible books,” Narasimhan said. The amendment allows conversion of books to accessible formats.

There are very limited resources in India, “both in terms of finances as well as manpower to carry out conversion activities, and a demand which far outstrips the supply, hence disability organisations struggle to keep up with the demand for accessible books,” she said, adding that “unlike organisations in other countries, organisations in India do not receive any government support for carrying out funding activities.”

Progress is slow and we still do not have complete access to global online collections such as Bookshare since there is some ambiguity regarding the definition of an ‘accessible format’ in our copyright act. Talking books are not explicitly mentioned in the Act,” she added. “Talking books” refer to books under a Digital Accessible Information SYstem (Daisy) format. The Copyright Amendment Bill of 2012 also does not address import and export, she said.

According to the Daisy Consortium, which includes 20 full members and over 40 associate members, a Daisy book is “a set of digital files” that includes “one or more digital audio files containing a human narration of part or all of the source text, a marked-up file containing some or all of the text (…), a synchronisation file to relate markings in the text file with time points in the audio file, and a navigation control file which enables the user to move smoothly between files while synchronisation between text and audio is maintained.“

“The Daisy Forum of India is an active network of over 85 organisations who are converting into Daisy, but the number of books with them is still significantly lower than those available in other countries,” she said.

“Technological solutions are still by and large unavailable in rural areas,” Narasimhan said. “Hence, while solutions like electronic text are useful in cities, audio or Braille would still be the primary means of reading for the blind in rural India.”

India is also working on a draft Rights of Persons with Disabilities Bill. In particular, Article 51 on access to information and communication technology states that measures should be taken so that “all content in whichever medium whether audio, print or electronic shall be

made available to persons with disabilities in accessible format,” and that “persons with disabilities have access to electronic media by providing for audio description, sign language interpretation and close captioning.”

International Treaty of Utmost Importance

“Countries like India could benefit tremendously from access to accessible versions of books in libraries around the world,” according to Narasimhan. “It would dispense with the administrative mechanism of seeking copyright permissions, which would greatly ease the life of disability organisations engaged in conversions.”

A paper, posted on the CIS-India website on 23 January, by Rahul Cherian, founder of Inclusive Planet Centre for Disability Law and Policy, said next week’s session “is probably the last change to sort out the major outstanding issues in the text of the document before the diplomatic conference.”

“One of the most critical issues that remain outstanding is the desire that some government negotiators have to link the use of the treaty provisions or copyright exceptions to commercial unavailability of the work in accessible formats,” he wrote, underlining the “impossibility of verifying commercial availability with any degree of certainty.”

In particular, the linkage between commercial availability and the exceptions appear at two places in the treaty, he said: in Article C (National law limitations and exceptions on accessible format copies) and in Article D (Cross-Border exchange of accessible format copies).

The paper gives the example of the complexity of exception in relation to cross-border exchange. “Imagine that the United Kingdom introduces a provision in their copyright law allowing the Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB) to export accessible format copies to people with visual impairment in Chennai but only after verifying that the accessible format copy cannot be otherwise obtained within a reasonable time and at a reasonable price.”

“Remember that ‘reasonable price’ in India means that the accessible format copy of the work is available at prices that are affordable in that market, taking into account the needs and income disparities of persons who have limited vision and those with print disabilities,” it states.

He questioned how the RNIB based in the UK could even begin to undertake this exercise which would entail several steps such as checking whether the accessible format copy is available in India, understanding the needs and income disparities of those with limited vision and print disabilities, and checking the cost of the accessible format copy and determine whether the cost of the accessible format copy is reasonable.

Linking commercial availability and exceptions as mentioned in Article C, Cherian said, “will lead to countries such as India being put under pressure from the European Union and the United States to amend our Copyright Act and linking our exceptions to commercial availability,” and he added, “the same applies to countries that want to introduce copyright exceptions after the Treaty.”

Rahul Cherian died unexpectedly on 7 February.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/ip-watch-feb-16-2013-catherine-saez-indian-users-perspective-on-wipo-negotiations-on-treaty-for-visually-impaired

Knowledge Sharing through GLAM at Bangalore

praskrishna — 2013-02-18T05:37:46Z

A seminar for GLAM institutions (GLAM stands for Galleries, Libraries, Archives, and Museums) will be held in Bangalore on February 25, 2013, from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. The program is supported by Wikimedia, Creative Commons and the Centre for Internet & Society.

Creative Commons

Creative Commons is a nonprofit organization that enables users to share their knowledge and creativity through free legal tools. They develop, support, and steward legal and technical infrastructure that maximizes digital creativity, sharing, and innovation.

Copyright laws were developed in a previous era where in protection was given to artists, authors, and other creators as a default. In this situation sharing requires a deliberate prior permission. In the internet era, so much of sharing of digital media is happening online, and these require tools that ensure prior permission, and control the level of use. The legal tools of Creative Commons enable controlled sharing.

Creative Commons licenses are not an alternative to copyright. They work alongside copyright and enable users to modify their copyright terms to best suit their needs.

What will users learn?

In this part of the seminar users will learn about:

Creative Commons as an organization
How the Creative Commons licenses work
How they relate to Open GLAM, and Wikimedia
What are the tools? How to choose them and use them
How can people selectively retain rights, while releasing some of it for free public use
Examples of how GLAM institutions are using CC
New business models and online communities
Other applications of CC

The speakers from Creative Commons have a long experience of discussing CC with GLAM institutions.

CC licensing also works for many other applications such as music, video, writing, and many other creative works. Open Education Resources, and Public Data are also some of the domains. The focus of the presentation will be on GLAM. However, people interested in other applications may also be able to take the opportunity to have discussions after the main presentation.

Who should attend the seminar?

The seminar would be of interests to:

Administrators of Public policy
Administrators of GLAM institutions
Art historians, Artists, Photographers, and Sculptors
Legal professionals
Bloggers, Authors, Editors, and Publishers.

Admission:

Admission is free to the public who register. Please bring a print copy of this registration page for admission.

Please visit the link to register: http://bit.ly/VZ8yIE

Location map of venue: http://goo.gl/maps/sYsxI

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/events/knowledge-sharing-through-glam

Bihar Chapter

praskrishna — 2013-03-05T05:06:26Z

This is the draft early chapter of Bihar. It is an outcome of the National Resource Kit Project with Hans Foundation.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/accessibility/blog/bihar-chapter.pdf

Wikimedia Bangalore Meetup @ Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore

praskrishna — 2013-02-14T06:01:28Z

The Access to Knowledge team of the Centre for Internet & Society in partnership with Wikispeed and NASSCOM is organizing meetup at the Indian Institute of Management (IIM), Bangalore on February 25, 2013 at 2.00 p.m. Vishnu Vardhan will speak on the Access to Knowledge program.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/wikimedia-bangalore-meetup-at-iimb

Hate speech: ban or ignore?

praskrishna — 2013-02-13T09:40:37Z

The Social Network discusses the hate speeches: whether they should be banned or ignored. Why does the state take action against some and not against some others. This on a day when Togadia and Owaisi were simultaneously trending on the social media.

This discussion was aired on NDTV on February 5, 2013

Pranesh Prakash, Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society, and Shivam Vij of Kafila.com joined NDTV in the studio while actor and standup comic Sanjay Rajoura joined via webcam.

Pranesh said that the talk of banning these videos is foolish. He added, I don't think that is a solution. But the issue is one of criminal prosecution – whether that should happen or not, and with regard to the interesting dichotomy that Shivam pointed out some people are calling for somethings to be banned but not others. I think that kind of hypocrisy should be pointed out. I am happy that these small incidents of hate mongering are actually being blown out of proportion on social media because it actually gets people to react...to say wait a second...that is not right I might have a certain leanings towards Hindutva but that kind of speech is not what I support, or I might have a certain leanings towards what is called "pseudo-secularism" but that kind of speech is not what I support. So getting out that discussion out is important.

If we were on one hand a society where we had communal peace and then social media were focusing on these small kinds of incidents and blowing it out of proportion then that would be a problem.

Watch the full discussion aired on NDTV

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/ndtv-video-the-social-network-feb-5-2013-hate-speech-ban-or-ignore

Freedom of expression online: identifying and addressing challenges and developing a shared vision and a working partnership (WP1216)

praskrishna — 2013-02-28T08:49:57Z

Wilton Park organized this event at Wiston House, Sussex, UK from February 13 to 15, 2013. Pranesh Prakash participated in it.

Read the report published by Wilton Park.

In support of Her Majesty’s Government priorities with regard to freedom of expression on the internet, the roundtable strategy meeting provided an expert forum for practical discussion in order to:

Identify challenges, drivers and address emerging concerns across a spectrum of stakeholders
Map out ongoing initiatives and draw on lessons learned to pinpoint constraints, opportunities and next steps
Challenge and progress thinking towards norms of human rights behaviour on the Internet
Identify specific streams of work, future projects and practical initiatives that would help protect human rights on the Internet whilst addressing challenges/concerns
Broaden dialogue and expand the expert network with a view to future collaboration

The meeting brought together up to 50 people to include governments, industry, NGOs, human rights groups, activists and other specialists with expertise in online freedom of information.

Click to see the list of participants

Agenda

Wednesday, 13 February

Participants arrive and buffet lunch available

13.00 -14.30	Participants arrive and buffet lunch available
15.00	Welcome to Wilton Park and introduction to strategy meeting Julia Purcell Programme Director, Wilton Park, Steyning
15.15 - 16.45	Online freedom of expression: challenges, constraints and the forward vision Is freedom of expression online important? And why? What are the main challenges and constraints impacting on freedom of expression online? What are the opportunities afforded? Looking ahead - what would be the ideal state of play? And how to attain that vision? Vijay Rangarajan Director, Multilateral Policy Directorate, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, London Johan Hallenborg Deputy Director, Human Rights, Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Stockholm Alessandro Molon Federal Deputy, Brazilian Congress, Brasilia
16.45 - 17.30	Photograph followed by tea/coffee
17.30 - 18.45	Ensuring a human rights perspective: identifying the challenges What can be drawn from existing legal and rights based frameworks and conventions? How to maximise the potential of these mechanisms and ensure that lessons learned are applied? What are the practical challenges as seen from different perspectives? How to address national interests in the context of a global internet? What are the related issues eg impact on trade and other revenue? What are the risks of getting it wrong? How to build trust among communities and engendering a shared understanding. Keir Starmer Director of Public Prosecutions, Crown Prosecution Service, London Agnès Callamard Executive Director, ARTICLE 19, London Chiranuch Premchaiporn Executive Director, Foundation for Community Educational Media, Bangko
19.30	Informal drinks reception
20.00	Dinner Hosted by: Richard Burge Chief Executive, Wilton Park, Steyning

Thursday, 14 February

08.00 - 08.45	Breakfast
09.15 - 10.45	The art of the possible: investigating opportunities What are the motivators and drivers for different communities, including NGOs, governments, technicians and/or users? What about the positive possibilities? Where are the points of friction or disagreement? And where are the points of potential agreement? What are the practical examples of good practice? How to shape communities of concern towards a platform for shared action?
	Session Chair: Andrew Puddephatt Director, Global Partners and Associates, London Eunice Kariuki Deputy Chief Executive and Marketing Director, Kenya ICT Board, Nairobi Cherian George Associate Professor, Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
10.45 - 11.15	Tea/coffee
11.15 - 12.30	Freedom of expression online: expanding understanding World Café style brainstorm 6 hosted tables to represent: Table 1: Users Table 2: Civil Society Table 3: Governments Table 4: Industry Table 5: Regional/global bodies Table 6: Technical Table hosts to include: Elizabeth Linder Politics and Government Specialist, Europe, Middle East and Africa, Facebook, London Andrew Puddephatt Director, Global Partners and Associates, London Patrick Robinson Director, Business and Human Rights, Yahoo!, London Jason Shepherd Policy Adviser, Cabinet Office, London Daniel Weitzner Director, MIT Decentralised Information Group, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge Sameer Padania Programme Officer, Open Society Foundations, London
12.30 - 13.15	Reflections from World Café In plenary - brief reports from brainstorming session by table hosts.
13.15 - 15.00	Lunch
14.00 - 15.00	Optional activity - tour of the Wiston House Gardens led by: Robert Mitchell, Kew Dip. Head Gardener, Wiston House, Steyning
15.00 - 16.15	Discussion groups based on reflections from world café brainstorm
16.15 - 17.00	Tea/coffee
17.00 - 18.15	Practitioners’ exchange: towards realistic recommendations Discussion on norms, experiences and activities. Each group to consider: Blocks/ Risks Opportunities Gaps - what’s missing: research/information needs Ways forward - action for next 3 years
18.15 - 18.45	Review of discussion group outcomes Facilitators/rapporteurs in Library
19.30	Informal drinks followed by dinner

Friday, 15 February

08.00 - 08.45	Breakfast
09.15 - 09.45	Report back from working groups
09.45 - 11.00	Who does what: looking to the future Developed from previous sessions - who does what: remit, roles and responsibilities. Session Moderator: John Kampfner, Adviser, Free Expression, Global Network Initiative, Washington DC Reflections from respondents to include: Jamie Saunders Director, International Cyber Policy, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, London *Ahmed Ashour Journalist/Producer, Al Jazeera Media Network, Doha
11.00 - 11.30	Tea/coffee
11.30 - 12.45	Concluding session: ways forward Session Chair: Louise de Sousa Head, Human Rights and Democracy Department, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, London
13.00	Lunch
14.00	Participants depart

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/wilton-park-feb-13-15-2013-freedom-of-expression-online

Anonymous joins protests against Internet shutdown in Kashmir

praskrishna — 2013-03-01T04:46:06Z

Hacktivist group Anonymous joined thousands of others to protest the shutdown of internet services in Kashmir for the fourth consecutive day by authorities after the hanging of Afzal Guru, a key accused in the Parliament attack case.

Indu Nandakumar's article was published in the Economic Times on February 12, 2013. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

Anonymous, which shot to fame in India after it brought down the websites of the Supreme Court and Congress Party last year, on Tuesday expressed its support to the people of Kashmir until the ban on internet and media services are lifted.

"We stand with # Kashmiras it comes to the end of its 3rd day under curfew. The comms blockade will fall. We are with you. # KashmirNow," a message posted on one of the Twitter accounts of Anonymous read.

Another Twitter account of the same group said, "#OpKashmir - Lift the media and internet blackout in #Kashmir".

Mobile internet services were suspended across Kashmir Valley on Saturday after the hanging of Afzal Guru in New Delhi. Online protests gathered steam by evening and thousands took to Twitter to express their anger censorships and blockades.

A senior official from the Department of Telecom, which had last year ordered the blocking of several Twitter accounts and websites, said internet services were blocked to avoid any further escalation of violence in Kashmir. But internet experts said a ban of communication services do not result in peace, instead it curtails the basic right of citizens to exchange messages.

"Government can ban certain class of messages and certain class of users, but definitely not a blanket ban of all services," said Sunil Abraham, executive director of Bangalore-based research organisation, the Centre for Internet and Society.

Essential commodities such as medicines, newspapers etc too are in short supply in Kashmir, where three people died and over 50 were injured in clashes since Saturday.

Anonymous has also been posting photographs from the region. One of the Twitter accounts of the group, @ anon_warlockon Tuesday tweeted, "A gag has been put on everything, information at best is trickling down".

Last year, Anonymous, known for its use of Guy Fawkes masks, had organised rallies across Indian cities to protest internet censorship after India's Department of Telecom blocked over 250 websites and 30 Twitter accounts for posting communal images and videos that led to people from Northeast exit Bangalore and a few other Indian cities.

"Internet service providers in the Valley were asked by officials in the Ministry of Home Affairs to switch off connectivity on Saturday morning. There has been no further communication from the Ministry until now and we don't expect any withdrawal in the next few days," a senior industry executive with direct knowledge of the matter told ET. He added that any decision on withdrawal of the ban will be taken only after the MHA and intelligence officials take stock of the situation.

Centre of Internet's Abraham said he was not sure if messages on social media were being taken seriously by the government. "Research shows that during the times of public disruption, ban of communication services will only make things worse. Enlightened governments should know this and act accordingly."

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/economic-times-feb-12-2013-indu-nandakumar-anonymous-joins-protests-against-internet-shutdown-in-kashmir