Centre for Internet and Society

Building Knowledge and Capacity around Telecommunication Policy in India

praskrishna — 2012-09-11T14:54:08Z

Ford Foundation has given a grant of USD 200,000 to the Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) over a period of two years (2011-2013) to build expertise in the area of telecommunications in India.

The project involves the following key activities:

Knowledge repository: Creating a repository comprising information about telecommunications related issues and policies and online course materials designed for a multi-stakeholder audience.
Capacity building: organising interactive public lectures and workshops around the country to disseminate information on telecom issues.
Dissemination: using traditional and new forms of media to disseminate information to academia, civil society, policy makers and the general public.

Background

Access to telecommunications facilities and services is a key enabler of socio-economic development of countries in the Information Society. The rapid proliferation of internet and mobile phones as a medium of administration and governance, commerce, education, social networking and communication, has made the development of telecommunications infrastructure and policies a high priority for governments worldwide.

India’s telecommunications sector has been growing at a phenomenal rate of 45 per cent over the past few years and according to Telecommunications Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), has become the world’s third largest network[1] with a tele-density of 65 per cent, 785 million telephone connections (750 million mobile and 35 million fixed landline connections), and 10 million broadband subscribers as of December 2010. The growth of mobile phones has surpassed fixed line networks, making the mobile the primary means of communication.

However, despite the rapid growth and expansion of telecommunications infrastructure in India, there still remains an underserved need for access and availability of services and facilities to persons living in rural and remote areas, poor persons, disabled, illiterate and elderly persons. The rural tele density remains low at 30 per cent and the number of broadband connections is also comparatively quite low. In addition to this, there is also an overall lack of public awareness about legislative and regulatory issues, market trends, international debates and research in this area, which is essential to ensuring that regulatory and market developments promote consumer choice and interests. The imperative to educate and build capacity is one which needs to be addressed both within India and globally.

Problem Statement

The rapid growth in telecommunications infrastructure and services in India over the past decade has not been complemented by correspondingly desirable levels of public awareness and participation. The lacuna in awareness about regulation, international trends and research among stakeholders has given way to minimal representation of public and consumer groups in the policy formulation and regulation process.

There are very few courses on telecommunications which are offered online and in Indian universities and institutions. These deal primarily with technical aspects of telecommunications and do not adequately touch upon other important elements such as regulations and policies or international best practices.[2]

There is a dire need for a dedicated resource focusing on informing and training people on a wide range of issues in the telecommunications sector, as well as bringing transparency to current national developments in policy and project implementation. Such a resource is important to ensure that public interest is protected and critical national resources are deployed in an efficient, just and transparent manner. Similar initiatives such as the Link Centre offer limited support to persons living in India since they do not focus on India.

Project Description

CIS proposes to build awareness and capacity on telecom issues for a multi-stakeholder audience comprising researchers and academicians, policy makers and regulators, consumer and civil society organisations, education and library institutions and lay persons through the creation of a dedicated web based resource focusing on knowledge dissemination. This resource will comprise a repository containing articles and sample course modules on telecommunications issues and policies It will be built on an open platform and all content will be openly licensed under a creative commons license which will be made available free of charge to the users. The content will be on par with international standards and will undergo constant review and updates to keep abreast of current trends and debates. The Moodle learning management system will be used to manage the content.

Project Goals and Activities

The goals and activities of this project are given below:

Knowledge Repository

Goal: To create an on line repository of telecommunications related information and learning materials targeted at a multi stakeholder audience.
Activities:

Create and maintain open educational resources[3] on telecommunications that facilitates self directed and collaborative learning in a Multi user environment.
Provide information in a variety of audio, video, text and alternate accessible formats on telecommunications related topics,
Provide a single source for all information and documentation related to policy environment for telecommunications in India

Capacity Building

Goal: To raise levels of expertise and provide a set of comprehensive skills to interested students, bureaucrats, media personnel and members of civil society, so that they can understand, engage with and influence the development of telecommunications in India.

Activities:

Organise 6 workshops over two years in different locations to test the open education resources and solicit feedback. These will be conducted by the CIS project team and some external resource persons.
Organise 10 public talks by subject experts at the CIS office in Bangalore and different venues around India, which will be podcast live from the CIS web site. These may be more topical and relevant to current developments.

Dissemination

Goal:

To ensure the mainstreaming and sustainability of the learning materials created by CIS by partnering with academia;
To make the telecom policy process in India more scrutable to civil society and politicians; and
To create awareness amongst the Indian Diaspora and Internet users in India.

Activities:

To work with academia to develop teaching modules from the content available in the repository. These modules could be in the form of text or video lectures, podcasts, etc.
To disseminate content in the form of easy to read FAQs, posters, Primers, cheat sheets, DVDs, audio visual materials and other accessible formats to civil society organisations and policy makers.
To execute a comprehensive social media strategy for disseminating information and increasing public engagement. These could include:

Using social networking platforms like Twitter, Facebook, Orkut, My Space etc to infiltrate existing on line communities using carefully crafted tit bits from the repository to increase traffic.
Using You Tube, Blip TV etc for video uploads, web casts and podcasts.
Engaging with existing on line communities by contributing to ongoing and new discussions on mailing lists and blogs.
Building on a regular basis a data base of opinion and thought leaders on line and off line using a constituent relationship management software and using mass personalised e mail to encourage them to popularise our content repository through their communication channels.

Overall project activities:
Identify other senior experts and consultants for the project
Set up server infrastructure and the Moodle Learning Management System and training the project team to use it.
Organise six workshops and 10 public talks with live podcasts over two years to disseminate information on these topics.

Plan and Measurable Progress Indicators

For the purpose of measuring progress, the project can be divided into four phases of six months duration. The total number of learning materials to be created is 230 over two years. These are divided into 150 text lessons (Primers, FAQs, cheat sheets and posters) and 72 videos. The target for each phase will be to create approx 37 texts and 18 videos. Based on that, the project deliverables are as follows:

Phase I

Activities:

Hiring the core team, consultants and technology person to set up and manage the system.
Setting up the Moodle Learning Management System and training the team in using it. Mapping out topics for content generation and allocating work.

Milestones:

Complete the hiring of all project personnel.
Complete the Moodle Learning Management system set up and training.
Completion of 37 text lessons and 18 videos.

4. Organised one workshop and two public lectures to get feedback on the completed modules.
5. Awareness raising and inviting comments on completed modules through social media and mailing lists.

Phase II

Activities:

All relevant policies, legislations, rules and important case law will be mirrored on the web site
Another 38 text lessons and 18 videos will be added to the repository.
The next 2 Workshops and 3 public lectures will be conducted to get feedback on the learning materials and build awareness.
Awareness building, call for comments and community engagement activities will continue through social media, mailing lists and the CIS news letter

Milestones:

Half of the course content (75 text lessons and 36 videos) created and available on site.
Policy and regulatory information available on site.
Engagement with communities on social networking platforms, mailing lists and blogs continues.
A total of 3 Workshops and 5 public lectures conducted.
Engagement with academia for creating course content begins.

Phase III

Activities:

Content generation, capacity building and dissemination activities continue.

Milestones:

75 per cent of the content (112 text lessons and 54 videos) will be up on the web site.
4 workshops and 8 public lectures conducted.
Social media outreach continues with regular traffic on the web site.
Engagement with academia to create course modules continues.

Phase IV

Activities:

All the course modules will be completed and events conducted. A lot of effort will be taken for Dissemination and outreach.

Milestones:

All the content (150 text lessons and 72 videos) will be up on the web site.
All relevant policies, rules and legislations will be on line.
Data bases of course participants, media and other persons who were part of the course outreach will be prepared.
All six workshops and ten public lectures conducted.

CIS interest in the project:

CIS is committed to ensuring public access and participation in the information society through the internet. We work towards creating a policy environment which promotes consumer interests by facilitating unhindered access to web sites, digital content and technologies and fosters creation of networks for sharing knowledge and culture.

Since our engagement with telecommunications issues has been at a very nascent level, we would like to build expertise in this area through this project.

Policy

Regularly provide feedback and comments to proposals and notifications which are issued by the Department of Telecommunications and TRAI,[4] especially with respect to spectrum allocation.
We recently sent some notes to the Government of India in December 2010/January 2011: facts, assessments and suggestions and in February, we expect to meet with a Member, Planning Commission (Arun Maira) to advocate coordinated scenario.
We have initiated the Universal Service Obligation Fund of India to fund several projects for persons with disabilities. To that end, we created a framework document which is available on the USOF website.[5] these projects may come to approximately 1 million dollars.
Providing recommendations on accessibility in telecommunications for persons with disabilities and elderly persons to be included in the New Telecom Policy which is to come out in March 2011.

The International Telecommunications Union

We were contracted by the ITU to prepare a paper on Mobile best practices for Persons with Disabilities in December 2010. The report is complete and we are awaiting feedback from the ITU for finalisation
Edited and published a print version of the handbook on e-accessibility for persons with disabilities, which was sent to over 200 regulators and Ministries of ICT around the world.
Co-organised an event on Enabling Access to Education for Persons with Disabilities (Edict 2010) with ITU and other UN agencies, the Department of IT and civil society organisations in October 2010.
Presently working on a global paper with the co-operation of ITU and G3ict which will look at how the Universal Service Funds of countries are being utilised to fund projects to promote access for the disabled.

Media Intervention

Columns by Shyam Ponappa

Spectrum Auctions: 'Jhatka' or 'Halal'?, Business Standard, February 3, 2011
The Policy Langurs, Business Standard, January 6, 2011
Take 'Model T' for Telecom, Business Standard, December 2, 2010
Ideology & ICT Policies, Business Standard, November 6, 2010
Broad-basing Broadband, Business Standard, October 7, 2010
What a Highway Can Do, Business Standard, September 2, 2010
'Containing Inflation' - A Myth, Business Standard, August 7, 2010
Catching up on Broadband, Business Standard, July 1, 2010
India's Sorry Spectrum Story, Business Standard, June 3, 2010
China Club instead of Bombay Club?, Business Standard, May 13, 2010
The Right Ring Tone, Business Standard, April 1, 2010
Understanding Spectrum, Business Standard, March 4, 2010
Alternative Scenarios, Business Standard, February 4, 2010
Plan and Execute for Results, Business Standard, January 10, 210
Developments in Spectrum Sharing, Business Standard, December 3, 2009
Managing Spectrum, Business Standard, November 5, 2009

Column by Nishant Shah

3G Life, Indian Express, November 14, 2010

Association for Progressive Communication (APC)

APC Open Spectrum for Development India Case Study by Shyam Ponappa, November 2010. The report covers chapters on Spectrum Policy Regulatory Environment, the Spectrum Management Process, Spectrum Management – The Future, Access to Unlicensed/License-Exempt Spectrum, Exploiting Wireless, National Broadband Strategy, International Coordination, etc.
APC Open Spectrum for Development India Case Study by Shyam Ponappa, November 2010.
Article on spectrum policy based on APC’s Open Spectrum Project (by APC in monthly news magazine: ‘India's untapped potential: Are a billion people losing out because of spectrum?’ http://bit.ly/fFQzXj

Open Society Institute

A report on spectrum in India is to be prepared by Robert Horvitz as part of a project of Open Spectrum Foundation in collaboration with the Open Society Institute – Information Programme.
Presently preparing a report on digital media and technology in India, which is part of a larger global survey on Mapping Digital Media in collaboration with Jamia Milla Islamia - Centre Culture and Media Governance?

Academic Interventions

Organised a lecture tour for telecom expert Sagie Chetti in collaboration with the Link Centre in 2009 to share information in various universities and institutions around the country on the landscape of the telecommunications sector in South Africa. Presentations were held at the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Chennai and IIT, Mumbai, the International Institute of Information Technology (IIIT), Bangalore, Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU), National Institute of Science, Technology and Development Studies (NISTADS) and Jamia Millia Islamia University – all based in Delhi. The visit concluded with meetings with officials from the Telecoms Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI).

List of Topics for the Knowledge Repository

Module 1: Introduction to Telecommunications
Forms of Telecommunication

Data
Telephony
Unit 1: Fixed line telephone (Text) - 1
Unit 2: Wireless Communication: Mobiles (Text + Video)
Unit 3: Wireless Communication: PDAs and Stand alone devices (Text ) - 1
Video
Unit 1: Different forms of Video Communication (Text + Video)
Telephony networks
Unit 1: Fixed Networks and their standards (Text) – 1 + Unit 2: Mobile (Text) – 1 + 1 FAQ
Unit 3: Cable TV Networks/ Converged Networks (Text) – 1 + 1

Total = 9 E + 4 V = 13

Module 2: Telecommunications Infrastructure and Technologies

Passive Infrastructure
Active Infrastructure
Unit 1: Access – 1 +1 FAQ
Unit 2: Core - 1
Unit 3: Transport – 1 + 1
Unit 4: Network Management – 1 + 1
Transmission Technology (Text)
Unit 1: Optical Fibre - 1
Unit 2: Microwaves - 1
Unit 3: Satellites - 1
Technology
Unit 1: Fundamental Concepts and changes - 1
Unit 2: Digitalization (Text ) – 1 + 1
Unit 3: Compression (Text) – 1 + 1
Unit 4:Multiplexing and Modulation (Text) – 1 + 1
Unit 4:Packetization (Text) - 1
Customer Premises Devices
Unit 1: Different kinds of handsets available in India (Text) - 1
Unit 2: Various features in the handsets (Text) – 1 + 1FAQ + 1
Unit 3: Technology (Text) – 1 + 1
Unit 4: Standards (Text) - 1
Unit 5: Future Technology (Text) - 1
Technology for Computers Communication:Wifi,WiMax, etc
Unit 1: Internet (Protocols, Security, VoIP etc) - 1
Unit 1: Internet Protocols(Text) - 1
Unit 2: Design Principles(Text) - 1
Unit 3: QoS and Security(Text+ Audio)
Unit 4: Mobility and Nomdicity(Text) - 1
Unit 5: IPv6 (Text) - 1
Unit 6: Standards (Text) - 1
Technology for Mobiles: GSM, CDMA, GPRS etc
Unit 1: Evolution - 1 + 1Overview
Unit1: First Generation (Text)- 1
Unit 2: Second Generation (Text) - 1
Unit 3: 2.5 G – GPRS and EDGE (Text) - 1
Unit 4: Third Generation (Text) – 1 + 1FAQ
Unit 5: Standards (Text) - 1
Services
Unit1: Voice Service (Text) – 1 + 1Overview
Unit 2: Location based service (Text) - 1
Unit 3: Multimedia Service (Text) - 1
Unit 4: Corporate Service (Text) - 1
Unit 5: Mobile Internet (Text + Video) – 1+1
Unit 6: Mobi TV (Text + video) – 1+1
Unit 7: Service Providers (Text) – 1 + 1FAQ
Unit 8: Customer care services (Text) - 1
Future Technology(4G, LTE)
Unit 1: Software Defined Radio (Text) – 1+1
Unit 2: Cognitive Radio (Text) – 1 + 1
Unit 3: 4G and LTE (Text) – 1+1
Convergence
Unit 1: Telecom-Mobile Broadcast Convergence (Text) – 1+1
Unit 2: Fixed-Mobile Convergence (Text) – 1+1
Unit 3: Converged services – VOIP and IPTV(Text+ Video) – 1+1
NGN [Next Generation Networks]
Unit 1: Next Generation Core Networks (NGCN) (Text) – 1+1
Unit 2: Next Generation Access Networks (NGAN) Fixed (Text) – 1+1
Unit 3: Next Generation Access Networks (NGAN) Wireless (Text) – 1+1

Total = 30 E+ 6FAQs + 4PR+ 6 CS + 22 V + 4 PO = 72
46 T + 22V + 4PO

Module 3: Government of India Regulatory Framework for Telecom

Overview of the Indian regulatory environment and relevant legislations
Unit 1: The National Telecom Policies of 1994 and 1999 (includes amendments and sequels) (Text) – 1+1
Unit 2: Cable TV Act (Text) – 1+1
Unit 3: Indian Telegraph Act 1885 (Text) – 1+1
Unit 4: Indian Telegraph Act Amendment Act of 2003(Text) – 1+1
Unit 5: The Indian Wireless Act 1993(Text) – 1+1
Unit 6: TRAI Act of 1995, TRAI Act of 1997, TRAI Amendment Act of 2000(Text) – 1+1
Unit 7: Other relevant legislations and policies - The Indian Copyright Act 1957, privacy and data security, National Electronic Accessibility Policy, The Information Technology Act 2000, Right to Information Act 2005, Consumer Protection Act 1986, Policy on Open standards and Biometric standards, Technical standards for interoperability of E-governance infrastructure, the draft Electronic Service Delivery Bill etc. (Text) – 1+2FAQs
Government Bodies responsible for Telecommunications in India
DOT- its powers and responsibilities
Unit 1: Government Policy and Guidelines (Text) - 1
Unit 2: Regulations (Text) - 1
TRAI
Unit 1: Tariffs (Text) – 1 FAQ
Unit 2: Revenue Sharing(Text, FAQs) – 1 + 1FAQ
Unit 3: Issuance of Licenses (all kinds of licenses including VSAT) (Text) - 1
Criterion to be fulfilled(Text) – 1FAQ + 1
Terms and conditions for every license type. (Text) - 1
Unit 4: Consultation Papers: Impact of consultation papers on policies, regulations and recommendations(Text) – 1FAQ + 1
Unit 5 Mobile Number Portability(Text, FAQs) - 1
Unit 6 NDNC (Text, Faqs) - 2
Unit 7 Policy recommendations (Text) – 1+1
TDSAT
Important Judgements (Text) - 2
Centre for Excellence in Telecom Technology and Management (includes all the centres under this) (CETTM) (Text) - 1
Other Agencies
TCIL
Unit 1: Various Projects (Concentrate on SWAN) (Text) - 1
Unit 2: Role of TCIL in India (Text, FAQs) - 1
BSNL and MTNL (phone, internet and broadband, mobile phones etc)(Text) – 1+1
Services
Unit 1: Basic Telecom Services - 1
Unit 2 Captive user services (Text) – 1
Unit 3: Commercial User Services (Text) – 1
Spectrum Management
Unit 1: Auctioning and allocating process for all kinds of spectrum- 1FAQ+1
Unit 2: The initial process of auctioning (Text) – 1
Unit 3: How are the bidders selected (Text, faqs) - 1
Unit 4: Criterion for allocation (Text) - 1
Unit 5: Time taken to allocate (Text) - 1
Unit 6: Selection of band (Text) - 1
Unit 7: Interference issues (Text) - 1
Unit 8: Spectrum Refarming (Text – 1
Unit 9: Spectrum Reallocation (Text,faqs) – 1FAQ + 1
National Frequency Allocation Plan (Text) - 1
Numbering(Text)
Objectives of numbering - 1
Regulatory framework for numbering - 1
Interconnection issues (Text) - 1
Digital Dividend (Text) – 1+1FAQ

Total = 26 E +13 V +8 FAQ +3 CS+ 3 PR
40 Text+ 13 Videos= 53

Module 4: Telecommunication and the Market

Unit 1: Licensing framework for Telecom including a historical overview – 1

Unit 1: Investment and Ownership in Telecoms – 1+1
6.1.1 Market Structure levels (Text)
Kinds of Competitions (Text) - 1
Unit 1: Revenue Generation (Text) - 1
Unit 1: Taxes and other charges (Text) – 1
Unit 1: SWOT Analysis of current regime – 1+1

6 Text+ 2 Videos + 1 Poster

Module 5: Universal Access and Accessibility

Background of Universal Service regulation - 1

Universal Service Obligation Fund – 1FAQ + 1
Need for rural and remote access - 1+1
Need for accessibility(Text) - 1
Large demographic group - persons with disabilities, elderly persons and illiterate persons
Legal imperative: equality and non discrimination -1
Good business opportunity -1 +1
Accessibility key concepts and requirements(Text)
Universal design – 1+1Overview
Web accessibility – 1+1
Accessibility in services – 1+1
Organizations focusing on providing accessibility to rural areas
TeNet -1+1

Total = 9E+7V+1 FAQ+1 CS+1 PO= 19
11 Text+ 1 Poster + 7 videos

Module 6: The International Telecommunications Union and other International Bodies

ITU
ITU sectors- ITU-R, ITU-T, ITU-D and ITU Telecom. – 2+1
Regulation - 1
Radio spectrum sharing – 1FAQ+1
Standards setting - 1
WSIS
Other international agencies
South Asia Association of Regional Co-operation(SAARC) - 2+1
United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP)
Commonwealth Telecom Organisation (CTO)
International Telecommunication Satellite Organisation (UTSO)
International Mobile Satellite Organisation (IMSO)
Asia-Pacific Satellite Communication Council (APSCC)
International instruments and bi-lateral and multi-lateral trade agreements - 2
Treaty on Broadcasting and the proposed instruments on limitations and exceptions which are being negotiated at the World Intellectual Property Organisation. (Text)
International best practices for policy (Text) –2

8 E+ 3V+1 FAQ+ 1 CS + 2 PR= 15
12 Text + 3 Videos

Module 7: Broadcasting

Radio
Types of radio broadcasting in India – 1+ 2
Unit 1 AIR (Text)
Unit 2 Private Fms which include both commercial radio, campus radio and community radios (Text) – 1+3
Television
Unit 1: Cable TV (Text) – 1+1
Unit 2: IP TV (Text,Faqs) – 1+1
Unit 3: Mobile TV(Text, Faqs) – 1+1
Unit 4: DTH(Text, Faqs) – 1+1
Unit 5: Terrestrial TV(Text) – 1+1
Unit 6: Standards(Text) - 1
Associations regulating broadcasting in India(Text) – 1

Total= 7 E+ 8V+1 FAQ+1CS=17

9 text+ 8 Video

Module 8: Emerging Topics

Broadband Wireless Access
Unit 1: Standards(Text) – 1+1
Unit 2: Technology(Text) – 1+1
IPTV (Text, FAQs) –1FAQ+1
Mobile TV (Text, FAQs) – 1FAQ+1
Fibre to the home (FTTH) – 1+1
Broadband over power-lines – 1+1
Mesh networking – 1+1
FEMTO-Cell and Cable TV – 2+1
Relevant regulations and legal issues – 2+1

Total= 7E+9V+2 FAQ+2CS+2 PO= 22

11 Text +2 Posters +9 Videos

Module 9: Way Forward

Policy Reform – 1+1
Licensing Reform – 1+1FAQ
Regulation Reform – 1+1
Market Place Reform – 1+1

6 Text + 4 Videos

Grand total = 150 Text + 8 Posters + 72 Videos = 230 Lessons

Work Plan for 3 people working on the project

No. of videos in 6 months	18	6 per person
No. of articles in 6 months	26-27	9 per person
No. of videos in 1 year	36	12 per person
No. of articles in 1 year	52-54	18 per person
No. of videos in 2 years	72	24 per person
No. of articles in 2 years	105	35 per person

List of Potential Partners

Centre for Excellence in Telecom Technology and Management (CETTM), Mumbai
Centre for Development of Telematics (C-DoT), Bangalore and Kolkatta
ISRO, Bangalore
National Knowledge Network, New Delhi ( Programme implementation unit)
Telecommunication Engineering Centre, New Delhi
IITCOE at IIM Ahmedabad
AIIScCET at IISc Bangalore
BITCOE at IIT Kanpur
RITCOE at IIT Madras, Chennai
VEICET at IIT Kharagpur
AICET at IIT Delhi
TICET at IIT Bombay, Mumbai
Centre for Culture, Media and Governance, New Delhi
IEEE Bangalore Section

Key contact details

Sunil Abraham (Executive Director)
Centre for Internet and Society
194, 2nd C Cross, Domlur 2nd stage, Bengaluru: 560071
Tel: 080 25350955
Mob: + 91-9611100817
Email: sunil@cis-india.org
Nirmita Narasimhan (Programme Manager)
Centre for Internet and Society
194, 2nd C Cross, Domlur 2nd stage, Bengaluru: 560071
Tel: 080 25350955
Mob: + 91-9845868078
Email: nirmita@cis-india.org
Narasimha Rao (Administrative Officer)
Centre for Internet and Society
194, 2nd C Cross, Domlur 2nd stage, Bengaluru: 560071
Tel: 080 25350955
Mob: + 91-9886193846

[1].http://www.dot.gov.in/osp/Brochure/Brochure.htm

[2].Examples of such courses are:Telecom datacom and networking- 3 days course http://goo.gl/cvnai Telefocal Asia http://www.telefocal.com/topics.php
[3].These open educational resources should be freely shared through open licences which facilitate use, revision, translation, improvement and sharing by anyone. Resources should be published in formats that facilitate both use and editing, and that accommodate a diversity of technical platforms. Whenever possible, they should also be available in formats that are accessible to people with disabilities and people who do not yet have access to the Internet.
[4].Telecom Regulatory Authority of India
[5].http://goo.gl/t2XRs

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/telecom/knowledge-repository-on-internet-access/knowledge-and-capacity-around-telecom-policy

Knowledge Repository on Internet Access

praskrishna — 2016-07-17T03:40:18Z

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

Should the censors tighten Savita Bhabhi’s hook?*

praskrishna — 2012-05-02T06:31:11Z

"Should the censors tighten Savita Bhabhi's hook, asks a blog entry published in Churumuri on May 1, 2012.

GAGAN KRISHNADAS writes from Bangalore: With the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011 in place, internet censorship has gone high and degree of criminality has fallen down. Be it Kapil Sibal or Mamata Banerjee, the people at the helm of power are trying to gain a control over internet.

The effect of existing law: To put it in simple terms, if anybody finds a particular post on this blog illegal, he/she may bring it to the notice of the owners of this blog. If the blog owner does not take any action within 36 hours, the liability on the content immediately shifts to the owner of the blog.

If at all there are about 200 ‘take down’ requests in a day, the blog owner surely cannot ascertain the legality of the content within 36 hours. Surely, the owner will find it convenient to remove the content instead of contesting the claim.

Resistance: The resistance for the said rules was not strong until recently when Kapil Sibal became vocal on pre-censorship on internet.

On April 21, there was a press conference in New Delhi by Knowledge Commons, Software Freedom Law Center, Delhi Science Forum, Save Your Voice Campaigm, Internet Democracy Project, Center for Internet and Society, Free Software Movement India, IT for Change, and Alternative Law Forum.

Two events were organised in Bangalore on the same day to voice against Internet Censorship. Let me juxtapose how media professionals and Free Software Movement people respond on the issue.

Senior Journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurtha said: “This is a matter of considerable concern. It is known to a relatively small section because; ordinary people do not understand the intricacies. It is a matter of freedom of speech and hence it concerns not just the netizen, but every citizen. At the legal and larger philosophy, Article 19 lays down reasonable restrictions like public order, national security and so on. But who decides these reasonable restrictions on the internet?”

Mahesh Murthy, went a step ahead to declare: “I feel there should be no censorship of any kind of information, be it Savitha Bhabi or pornography or a hate speech. All such information already exists in the society. By censoring them, you are not achieving any results. The Abhishek Manu Singhvi’s alleged sex video was removed from Youtube just within 5 hours, but if someone hosts it on Piratebay, it’s almost impossible to censor.”

Na Vijayashankar said that the internet cannot be left unregulated and at the same time the regulation should not take away the basic rights of the citizens. He recalled that right from the initial days of the internet, he advocated for an internet law made by the netizens themselves, because the lawmakers hardly understand the technology.

Soon after the meeting, I moved to the town hall to participate in a protest convened by the representatives of Free Software Movement of Karnataka (FSMK) along with Software Freedom Law Centre (SFLC). The crowd predominantly comprised of Engineers and Engineering students.

I was surprised that the Engineers also had acquired a good understanding of the rules which are in detriment of their interest. While the group of media persons was more worried about censorship and freedom of speech, the ambit of concerns was larger with the Freedom Software advocates.

Senthil from the Free Software Movement of Karnataka was skeptical about similar laws being passed in other jurisdictions. Recently, USA was on its way for passing the controversial SOPA/PIPA legislations which was halted due to public pressure.

People have used internet to question the established governments, be it wikileaks, networking during the Egypt revolution or Lokpal movement. Senthil feels that the intermediary guidelines would be a hindrance in taking technology to the people.

Member of Parliament, P. Rajeeve has introduced a motion in the Rajya Sabha calling for the Internet censorship law passed last year (“Intermediary Guidelines Rules”) to be annulled. This motion will be taken up once the Budget Session 2012 reconvenes, and will need the support of the majority of both Houses to be passed.

Until the Parliament meets again, we the netizens and citizens need to ask our MPs to support the motion when it is introduced.

(Gagan Krishnadas is a post-graduate student at the National Law School of India University, Bangalore)

Read the original post.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/should-censors-tighten-savita-bhabi

2012 Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest: Call for Participation and Save the Date

praskrishna — 2012-05-02T05:05:57Z

The Second Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest will take place in FGV Law School, Rio De Janeiro, Brazil from December 15 to 17, 2012. The theme for this year’s Congress will be “Setting the positive agenda in motion.” We invite applications to attend the Congress, including proposals to chair workshops or deliver a paper or presentation related to the Congress’s theme.

Application and Cost

The application form is available online . Due to generous support from our sponsors, the Congress will cover the registration fees and all on-site costs for all attendees, including lunches and dinner receptions. Limited travel grants to cover accommodation and/or travel to the Congress will be available, with priorities for those from developing countries.

Deadlines

Priority applications for travel assistance and to present or chair a workshop at the Congress will be due by August 1, 2012.
Final applications for travel grants, subject to funding availability, as well as applications to present at the Congress, will be due by September 1, 2012.
Applicants not seeking travel assistance or presentation opportunities may apply to attend the Congress by November 1, 2012.

Background and Explanation of the Theme

The first Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest was convened in 2011 to define a positive agenda for policy reform, build a global network of scholars and advocates to promote the agenda and provide opportunities for the sharing of research and strategies. The nearly 200 inaugural participants from over 30 countries and 6 continents deliberated over three days through in-person meetings and web-based collaboration to produce the Washington Declaration on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest (http://infojustice.org/washington-declaration) -- an action agenda for promoting the public interest in intellectual property and information law reform around the world.

Sixteen months later, we come together to measure our progress and expand the positive agenda. To this end, we invite applications to attend the Congress and contribute to its deliberations identifying forums where policy is being developed, proposing policies or actions that promote public interest goals and principles, and identifying and planning to respond to research and analysis needs.

Presentation Opportunities

Because the primary purpose of the Congress is to promote deliberation and action planning, the opportunities for formal presentation will be somewhat limited. We will, however, have spaces for keynote presentations or panel discussions for each session (see below). In addition, as in the inaugural year, the Congress will host small works-in-progress workshops to allow participants to share their own work and solicit feedback from peers.

Draft Workshop Sessions

Six main tracks will include a half day workshop introduced by a lecture or panel discussion on one or more of the themes noted below. The keynote introduction will be followed by deliberation in which participants will, first, review progress and opportunity in existing or potential policy forums and, second, review the current state of research and identify policy and empirical research needs and resources. Tracks will also have opportunities to draft statements or action plans for adoption at the closing plenary of the Congress or for discussion and online after the Congress ends.

We encourage applicants to identify specific sessions in which they would like to contribute.

Regulating Intellectual Property: This session will survey recent developments and proposals to regulate uses of intellectual property through other legal doctrines that express and safeguard human values, including human rights, consumer protection, competition and privacy laws.

Valuing Openness and the Public Domain: This session will survey recent developments and proposals to ensure that creative and innovative works ultimately become free for all to use as part of the public domain, including through open licensing, open access, open educational resources, open data, open standards, open government, and related open information policies.

Strengthening Limitations and Exceptions as Enabling Tools for Innovation and Expression: This session will survey recent developments and proposals to use limitations and exceptions as positive enabling doctrines to ensure that intellectual property law fulfills its ultimate purpose of promoting essential aspects of the public interest.

Setting Public Interest Priorities for Patent and Research and Development Reform: This session will survey recent developments and proposals to ensure that patent and other research and development policies serve all segments of society, and particularly the most disadvantaged, and accommodate the diverse needs of a complex world with a more diverse structure of incentives for innovation.

Supporting Cultural Creativity: This session will survey recent developments and proposals to maximize opportunities for creativity while increasing access to creative works and helping to end disputes over practices like non-commercial file-sharing.

Checking Enforcement Excesses: This session will survey recent developments and proposals to ensure that intellectual property enforcement policies and practices respect the human rights principle of proportionality and are not used as a diversion from the difficult task of tailoring intellectual property norms to their social contexts.

Implementing Development Agendas: This session will survey recent developments and proposals to fully integrate the development dimension into intellectual property policy and norm-setting at all levels of international and national intellectual policy making. The session will have a special focus on developments in the BRICS group of emerging economies.

Targeted Research: Given the spectrum of issues described above, what are the key research needs? Given academic incentive structures, what kinds of research fall through the cracks? Given the funding crisis in this field, how can we meet research needs on the cheap? Given the international scope of many policy issues, how can we work collaboratively and comparatively? Given the Internet, how can we develop and leverage new software tools for data collection?

In addition to the above sessions, we invite presentations on other topics relevant to the positive agenda the Washington Declaration promotes, including:

the role of mobilisation and activism.
collaboration between ISPs and governments in enforcement
the ecology of access to educational materials
designing copyright from scratch
updates and lessons from specific forms, e.g. WIPO, national legislatures, trade negotiations, etc.

The application form is available here . Please forward this invitation to interested lists and individuals. For more information or questions, you may contact globalcongress2012@gmail.com.

Global Congress Planning Committee

Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade – CTS | FGV DIREITO RIO, 2012 Chair
American Assembly, Columbia University, New York
International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, Geneva
Centre for Internet and Society, India
Open African Innovation Research and Training (Open AIR) initiative
Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property, American University, Wash. D.C.

Click to read the original published in infojustice.org

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/global-congress-on-ip-call-for-participation

2012 Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest

praskrishna — 2012-05-02T05:04:57Z

We are pleased to announce the Second Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest. The theme for this year’s Congress will be “Setting the positive agenda in motion,” and will have a special focus on developments and opportunities in the so-called “BRICS” group of emerging economies. This note invites applications to attend the Congress, including proposals to chair workshops or deliver a paper or presentation related to the Congress’s theme.

Application and Cost Information

The application form is available now at http://infojustice.org/globalcongress2012/registration. Due to generous support from our sponsors, the Congress will cover the registration fees and all on-site costs for all attendees, including lunches and dinner receptions. Limited travel grants to cover accommodation and/or travel to the Congress will be available, with priorities for those from developing countries.

Deadline

Priority applications for travel assistance and to present or chair a workshop at the Congress will be due by August 1, 2012.
Final applications for travel grants, subject to funding availability, as well as applications to present at the Congress, will be due by September 1, 2012.
Applicants not seeking travel assistance or presentation opportunities may apply to attend the Congress by November 1, 2012.

Please forward this invitation to interested lists and individuals. For more information or questions, you may contact globalcongress2012@gmail.com

Global Congress Planning Committee

Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade – CTS | FGV DIREITO RIO, 2012 Chair
American Assembly, Columbia University, New York
International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, Geneva
Centre for Internet and Society, India
Open African Innovation Research and Training (Open AIR) initiative
Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property, American University, Wash. D.C.

Read the original published on infojustice.org

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/global-congress-on-ip

From Cyber India to Censor India: Groups challenge didactic govt

praskrishna — 2012-05-01T09:14:54Z

Aseem Trivedi is a political cartoonist who was closely associated with Anna Hazare's movement against corruption in India. Having published his cartoons in several newspapers, the 25-year-old, who hails from Kanpur, launched a website called www.cartoonsagainstcorruption.com last year with the intention of reaching his cartoons to a wider audience. But barely two months later, the website was taken down and access to it barred — without any notification to Trivedi.

This article by Satarupa Paul was published in the Sunday Guardian on April 29, 2012.

"After several phone calls and emails to Big Rock, the Web portal which hosted the site, I was informed that it had to be taken down as it contained 'derogatory and defamatory' content," he says. "They refused to divulge further details and instead directed me to the Mumbai Cyber Cell where an advocate had lodged a complaint against my website."

Repeated attempts to contact the Cyber Cell yielded no result, and the lack of an appeal mechanism for such cases meant that Trivedi was left with no means to direct an investigation into the matter. He says, "There is no scope for a hearing, no effort at authentication. Once such a complaint is received, intermediaries like Big Rock can go out of their way to remove content and even entire websites, thus abusing the fundamental right of freedom of speech of users."

Part of the Information Technology (IT) Rules of 2000 which were amended in 2008, the highly controversial Intermediary Guidelines were issued in April last year. This set of rules has since created a mechanism for intermediaries to receive protection from legal liability in return for trading away the freedom of expression and privacy of users. For the in-conversant, the umbrella of intermediaries include everyone from Internet service providers like Airtel and MTNL and web hosting portals to search engines like Google, video sharing sites like YouTube, online payment gateways like PayPal and even your much-loved social networks like Facebook and Twitter. Once these intermediaries receive a complaint against any website, photo, blog, status or comment, the guidelines require that they take action against the content within 36 hours.

Anja Kovacs of the Internet Democracy Project (IDP) says, "While a set of guidelines is required for what is acceptable on the web, the vague directives of the Intermediary Guidelines makes it possible for just about anyone to complain against any content on grounds ranging from grossly harmful, disparaging, hateful, to ethnically and racially objectionable." With no clear cut definitions for these terms, Kovacs says that the Guidelines have made cyber polices out of all and sundry, who can now complain about anything that they might find 'offensive'. "And since intermediaries are after all more concerned about their businesses than the rights of users, in a bid to avoid legal hassles, they end up over-complying and taking down more than what is required," she says.

Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), elaborates, "There are four things that are worrisome in the Intermediary guidelines. Firstly, they place additional unconstitutional limits on Freedom of Expression. Second, there is no transparency and no proper recourse to the person whose content has been censored. Moreover, instead of a court deciding what makes content illegal, private intermediaries get to decide. And there is no penalty for anyone abusing the take-down notice system."

Since intermediaries are after all more concerned about their businesses than the rights of users, in a bid to avoid legal hassles, they end up over-complying and taking down more than what is required. — Anja Kovacs

Little wonder then that while Trivedi's website was taken down, a 20-year old student named M. Karthik was arrested in Hyderabad for posting comments against religion and more recently, Ambikesh Mahapatra, a professor from Kolkata was arrested for merely circulating a 'defamatory' cartoon of Mamata Banerjee.

A motion for annulment of these rules has now been proposed in the Rajya Sabha by MP P. Rajeeve. Last Saturday, a number of organisations like IDP, CIS and others, including Trivedi's Save Your Voice campaign organised discussions, protests and a press conference in Bangalore and New Delhi simultaneously to raise awareness about the draconian rules and to garner support for the motion of annulment. Regular Internet users can write to their Members of Parliament in the upper and lower house and sign a petition on change.org to urge their MPs to support and help pass the annulment.

"Unlike the SOPA and PIPA bills of the US which had financial roots, the Intermediary rules here are attaining more and more political hues," says Trivedi. Hence, the only way to tackle the loopholes in the Intermediary Rules is to annul it or re-draft it from scratch to ensure that India doesn't become another China-in-the-making.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/from-cyber-india-to-censor-india

ITU Tutorial on Audiovisual Media Accessibility

praskrishna — 2012-07-03T08:53:04Z

The fourth meeting of the ITU-T Focus Group on Audio Visual Media Accessibility (FG AVA) took place at the India International Centre, New Delhi on March 13, 2012. The meeting was held in furtherance to an invitation of the Centre for Internet & Society (CIS), in cooperation with the ITU-APT Foundation of India. A two-day tutorial on Audio-Visual Media Accessibility followed the meeting on March 14 and 15, 2012 at the same venue. A total of 20 people participated in this event.

Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, CIS was the Master of Ceremony on Day 1, March 14, 2012. Mr. Ravi Shanker, Administrator, Universal Service Obligation Fund, Dr. Govind, CEO, National Internet Exchange of India, Ms. Swaran Lata, Director and Head of Department, TDIL Programme, DIT, Mr. R.N. Jha, Deputy Director General (International Relations), Department of Telecommunications and Ms. Archana Gulati, Financial Advisor, National Disaster Management Authority gave the welcome addresses. FG AVA chairman, Mr Peter Olaf Looms (European Broadcasting Union and Denmark) chaired the meeting assisted by the Working Groups coordinators.

The event provided an in-depth insight of topics and measures to improve the accessibility of AV media: Captioning (pre-prepared and live), Audio/Video Description and spoken captions, visual signing and sign language, emergency access services with examples referred from digital broadcast television and mobile telephony media. The participants gained a better understanding of:

How to Get started – that is, the strategies for establishing and expanding new accessibility services (how it can be done, what it costs, what business models exist to ensure the viability of accessibility services);
How standards can help developing countries plan and implement the transition from analogue to digital TV (what issues need to be addressed to optimize the Digital Dividend; making sure that various groups of vulnerable viewers are not disenfranchised by the digital switchover);
Human resource development for improved usability and accessibility (closely tied to work being done by the Audiovisual Media Accessibility Focus Group’s Working Parties).

Regulators and legislators working on measures to improve digital media’s compliance with international accessibility conventions and directives; accessibility service advocates from organizations representing persons with disabilities; media executives from public service and commercial TV channels seeking compliance with media accessibility regulation; consumer electronics manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers examining the business implications of demographic changes and media regulation participated in the meeting.

Peter Olaf Looms, Chairman, ITU-T, FG AVA made a presentation on Introduction to the Tutorials covering topics like what does this tutorial cover, what will I be able to do, focus on action, target groups, the rational of accessible media who needs them, what can be done to improve television accessibility, etc.

Dr. Takebumi Itagaki made a presentation on Producing and delivering access services – the options covering topics like the current situation in EU, chain of power / funding public broadcasting in EU, analogue to digital switchover, activity 9 TV standards and regulation, etc.

Mr. AK Bhatnagar, Engineer-in-Chief, Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation of India) also participated in this event.

Click for the meeting report on ITU website.
Click for the agenda of the meeting on ITU website.
Download the list of participants here

VIDEOS

VIDEOS

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/accessibility/itu-tutorial-event-report

All India Privacy Symposium (File)

praskrishna — 2012-04-30T05:13:14Z

This is the file of the event organised in Delhi in February 2012.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/all-privacy-symposium.pdf

Rahul Cherian

praskrishna — 2012-04-30T04:50:49Z

Rahul Cherian is a lawyer, disability policy activist and a co-founder of Inclusive Planet, the world's largest social network for persons with visual impairment.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/accessibility/rahul-cherian.pdf

It’s mainstream vs social

praskrishna — 2012-04-30T04:23:27Z

Mainstream and social media share an increasingly uneasy relationship. Mahima Kaul, a Guest Columnist with the Sunday Guardian wrote this article. Sunil Abraham is quoted in this.

The Abhishek Manu Singhvi CD scandal brought into focus the increasingly confrontational relationship between social media and mainstream media. When a court order kept the mainstream from broadcasting the CD, social media took centrestage in spreading it online and keeping a buzz about the scandal for days. Many termed it as a "victory" for social media. Others slammed social media users as "eternal voyeurs" and wondered why they seemed to be above the court order. In return, blogs went as far as to title a post, "Why the Indian MSM (mainstream media) Wants Social Media Dead".

A quick recap: after the CD leak, Singhvi moved court to stop certain media organisations from telecasting it. The Delhi High Court gave an ex parte order that "the defendants (media house), their agents ... are restrained from publishing, broadcasting and disseminating or distributing in any form or any manner..." However, people caught hold of the video and kept linking it on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube etc. It went viral. Singhvi resigned from all political posts and settled the matter out of court. In his statement of resignation, Singhvi's bitterness at the role of social media was apparent: "in either event it raises no public interest issue... contumacious internet violation of a flagrant kind." I will save you a Google search: contumacious means to be wilfully disobedient to authority.

There are questions to be asked. Who was the 13 April court order aimed at? Is Singhvi's proposition that an internet violation took place true?

The order was explicitly binding on only specific organisations (Aaj Tak, India Today Group and Headlines Today). The rest of the mainstream media showed remarkable restraint. In the case of the video being linked on social media, it was users' prerogative, as they were not covered under that order even though Singhvi's statement suggests otherwise. However, there is another angle to consider. Social media users would have broken the law only if the video content itself was objectionable. "If the video is judged to be 'obscene', then under s.67 of the Information Technology Act, 'causing [obscenity] to be transmitted', is also a crime," says Sunil Abraham of the Center for Internet and Society. So, the question is, was this video obscene? While my journalistic integrity did not extend to watching the video, I've been told it has neither nudity nor explicit sexual activity, and cannot be considered obscene. Therefore, it appears that social media has functioned well within its rights.

What remains, then, is the view that social media "should" be restrained. How? A court order could stop users from linking the video online, but it would only be applicable in India. Also, there are already provisions in the IT Amendment Act 2008, which allows for "offensive" material to be removed by the intermediary, or site blockage by the government. Twitter has already announced national policies of censorship, although this incident would probably not qualify for such a drastic action. Sunil Abraham adds that the court could also give a "John Doe order" against prospective offenders that enables the IP owner to serve notice and take action at the same time against anyone who is found to be guilty. However, this step is to be taken with caution. In criticising the existing order on the Singhvi case, Arun Jaitley wrote in an editorial that "a pre-publication injunction (should) ... be exercised with great caution specially in a case of libel and slander," because in this case it was yet to be proven that the CD was indeed fabricated.

It seems there is offline outrage about online outrage. However, for mainstream media to call for restraint on social media based on their own actions seems to be hypocritical in this particular instance, because they did so only because of a court order. One need to look at stories ranging from the Mumbai attacks to the Arushi Talwar murder case to understand the invasive nature of mainstream media in India. What is more worrying is that the mainstream media is equating itself with social media in some ways, wondering why it needs to have editorial checks if citizens can gossip away on Twitter. In return, social media is counting its victories against the mainstream in a manner that suggests that the two consider each other competitors. Although most conversation on social media would not exist without mainstream news sources, ultimately their function in society is not the same. The media is considered the fourth pillar of democracy, while social media is considered an "unofficial" channel. If either is found indulging in illegal or harmful activities, they can and must be checked. But, in the end, it serves freedom of speech to keep the two functioning in context, not in confrontation.

Read the original published in the Sunday Guardian on April 30, 2012.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/mainstream-vs-social

Intermediary Liability in India

praskrishna — 2013-11-16T14:55:00Z

The report was produced by Rishabh Dara as part of the Google Policy Fellowship programme initiated jointly by the Centre for Internet and Society and Google.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/intermediary-liability-in-india.pdf

Social Media 1, Indian Government 0

praskrishna — 2012-04-27T04:44:39Z

The futility of the Indian government’s attempts to control what is posted on Facebook, YouTube and other social media sites was thrown into high relief this week, after a video purportedly showing Congress spokesman Abhishek Manu Singvi having sex in his office resulted in his resignation.

The article by Heather Timmons was published in the New York Times on April 26, 2012

Mr. Singhvi, who also is a prominent lawyer, said the video was a fake, but resigned from his spokesman spot and from a parliamentary law committee he headed Monday evening, to “prevent even the slightest possible parliamentary disruption,” he said in a statement.

The video, which has now been viewed by hundreds of thousands of people on YouTube and other social media sites, is neither explicit, nor immediately incriminating – most of it appears to show little more than the top of Mr. Singhvi’s balding head, in profile, bobbing above the top of his desk. He might be waxing his office floor, or searching somewhat frantically for a dropped contact lens.

Still, a Delhi High Court injunction on April 13 banned television stations from broadcasting the video, which was originally distributed to media outlets on a CD. Perhaps frustrated by their inability to show the footage in question, India’s television news stations have been engaged in unusually highbrow debate about whether India actually needs stricter privacy laws for public figures.

There’s no such talk on social media sites, though.

The video was quickly posted on Facebook, Pirate’s Bay and other social media and video-sharing sites. While a Facebook page especially created for it has been taken down, there are now dozens of versions of the video on YouTube, in increasingly pixelated versions as users copy and post it again and again. (One YouTube user even helpfully posted a video of the Facebook page, and filmed the process of opening all the links on the page.)

Social media companies received requests from Indian law enforcement officials and court orders asking them to remove the video, which they did, executives in social media companies said on background. But it kept popping up again and again.

Tejinder Pal Singh Bagga of the Delhi-based Bhagat Singh Kranti Sena, a right-wing group, told wire service IANS that he posted the video on Twitvid, which allows users to distribute videos via Twitter. “I am not afraid of these people and they deserve this,” he said. “I am prepared for any consequences,” he said.

Facebook officials said they couldn’t comment on the situation. The page in question that featured the Singhvi video was created with by a “fake” user, which is against Facebook’s rules.

Google received a copy of a generic court order from Mr. Singhvi’s lawyers on April 24 asking it to remove the video, which it followed.

“Our policy prohibits inappropriate content, on YouTube and our community effectively polices the site for inappropriate material,” the company said in an e-mailed statement. Inappropriate material includes videos that “contain pornography, harassment, content that violates privacy, illegal acts or explicit violence violate the YouTube community guidelines,” it said. Users can flag content they feel is inappropriate, she said, and then the company’s staff reviews the content and removes it if it violates guidelines. “In addition, Google acts to promptly remove an offending video if a court order requires it,” the statement said.

But since Google has taken down the first offensive videos and copies of videos, others have sprung up. Per Google’s general policy, these will only be removed if YouTube users or others complain about them.

On Wednesday, the Delhi High Court dismissed a petition by the Bar Council of Delhi (of which Mr. Singhvi is a member) seeking to take action against Mr. Singhvi’s driver, who had allegedly originally distributed the CD.

Investigating who first introduced the video to social media sites and circulated it there is next to impossible, Internet experts say.

“No country, even though its law might say so, is able to exercise jurisdiction across the world” on the Internet, said Sunil Abraham, the executive director of Bangalore’s Center for Internet and Society, a research and advocacy group. Because India does not have a bilateral cyber-crime agreement with the United States (as the European Union does), getting American companies like Facebook and Google to take down or investigate the source of content that offends Indian government officials can be a slow and cumbersome process, he said.

The Indian government may never be able to track down who first posted the video, Mr. Abraham said. “Drawing a chain of causality and trying to arrive at the first person who introduced it onto the Internet is a bit of a complicated task,” he said. “Even if you find one version of the story, there might be another one,” he said. In addition, the Indian government might only be able to access records from Indian telecommunications providers, he said, and related to Indian ISP addresses.

A screenshot of the YouTube page displaying several video clips that show up with the search terms “Abhishek Manu Singhvi sex CD.”

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/social-media-indian-govt

Private sector censors

praskrishna — 2012-04-26T13:30:47Z

If business decides what’s ‘good’ and ‘bad’ speech, it can lead to multiple interpretations and arbitrary decisions. The article by Salil Tripathi was published in LiveMint on April 25, 2012.

In Milan Kundera’s 1967 Czech novel, Žert (The Joke), Ludvik Jahn sends a postcard to an intense classmate who takes herself too seriously. In the card, he makes sarcastic comments against the Communist Party. Unsurprisingly, others don’t see the joke. He gets expelled from the party, conscripted and has to work in mines.

While The Joke was a work of fiction, in the real Soviet era as punishment for such actions, many people lost jobs, sometimes their homes; some went to jail, often betrayed by those they trusted. In Czechoslovakia (as the country was then known), the state ran the postal service and those who read the postcard were party members. In India, the private sector provides Internet access and others don’t have the legal right to see what’s being transmitted, unless they are intended recipients, or if the material is broadcast publicly. The state now wants the private sector to police and censor the Internet.

Under the draconian Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011, any intermediary (a search engine, a website, a domain name registry, a service provider, or a cyber café) must take down the “offending” material from its website within 36 hours. The intermediary need not inform the person who posted the material, nor would the creator get the right to respond. As Apar Gupta points out on the Indian Law and Technology Blog, in one recent case, based on these rules, an injunction has been granted.

These rules go significantly beyond the existing restraints on speech. The Constitution limits speech and sections of the criminal code impose further restrictions. To that, add the IT rules’ vaguely defined terms of what can’t be said—content which is “grossly harmful, harassing, blasphemous, defamatory, obscene, pornographic, paedophilic, libelous, invasive of another’s privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically objectionable, disparaging, relating or encouraging money laundering or gambling or otherwise unlawful in any manner whatever, harms minors in any way, or infringes any patent, trademark, copyright, or other proprietary right”. Who decides that? The intermediaries.

These rules make the private sector act like the state. Nobody elected business to play such a role; it does not have the expertise, capacity, legal training, or authority to act as the state. Censorship is bad; whether in state or private hands. If business decides what’s “good” and “bad” speech, it can lead to multiple interpretations and arbitrary decisions, without recourse to appeal. In a country where those who feel offended have often threatened violence, businesses will understandably take the cautious approach and not allow anyone to say anything that’s remotely controversial, even if it is an opinion about a film.

Decisions will be made on opaque criteria. Apple and Amazon have arbitrarily stopped some products from being sold on their electronic stores, citing “community standards”. Amazon stopped providing server space to WikiLeaks, even though no government had asked it to do so. Credit card companies stopped processing donations going to WikiLeaks, without any legal order. Even Google, which has admirably stood up to China’s bullying, has had to take down content when governments have required that it does so through proper legal channels. India’s record is poor: of the 358 complaints India lodged with Google, 255 were about content that was controversial or political, but not illegal.

To demonstrate the reach of the rules, the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore sent random notices to seven companies, asking them to take down content. Of them, six complied beyond what they were called upon to do—instead of the three pages that the centre asked for, one company blocked an entire website. A few legally worded letters were enough to get compliance from companies. The centre’s executive director, Sunil Abraham, told me recently: “Companies which have no interest in free speech are now taking these decisions. They have the power to do so and they are using it without any sense of responsibility.”

Aseem Trivedi knows this well. The cartoonist who ran a website called cartoonistsagainstcorruption.com, found that his site had disappeared after a complaint from an individual that the cartoons violated laws. Since then he has been campaigning for freedom on the Internet. Everyone’s freedom is at stake—whether you want to see cartoons of Sonia Gandhi, Narendra Modi, Ramdev, Kisan Hazare, Binayak Sen, Arundhati Roy, Sachin Tendulkar, Poonam Pandey and even Mamata Banerjee. And yet look at what happened to Ambikesh Mahapatra, the professor who sent a cartoon mocking Banerjee to some friends via the Internet. He was arrested and later roughed up. These rules chill speech.

Last year, Kapil Sibal, minister for information technology, asked companies to screen content manually and censor the Web. The demand was audacious. It showed lack of understanding of how the Internet works and revealed fundamental ignorance of the state’s role: it has to protect the rights of the one who wishes to express and not the one who claims offence.

In Parliament, P. Rajeev, member of Parliament (Rajya Sabha), wants to annul those rules. Everyone should support him.

Read the original in LiveMint here

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/private-sector-censors

Views | Why the Left may for once be right

praskrishna — 2012-04-25T11:48:50Z

The article by Pramit Bhattacharya was published in LiveMint on April 23, 2012.

India’s information technology (IT) minister, Kapil Sibal appears to be running into rough weather over IT rules framed last year, which curb freedom of expression on the internet. The rules have incensed India’s growing blogging community and piqued at least a few of his fellow parliamentarians.

On the opening day of the upcoming parliamentary session on Tuesday, the Rajya Sabha is set to vote on an annulment motion against the IT rules, moved by P. Rajeeve of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), a rediff.com report said. Ironically, the party that still treats Stalin as a hero (quoting him unfailingly in its political resolutions) has become the first to stand up for internet freedom.
Rajeeve is of course not the only parliamentarian to take exception to the rules. Jayant Choudhry, a member of parliament (MP) from the Rashtriya Lok Dal, was the first to draw attention to the draconian rules late last year, and MPs from other regional parties such as the Samajwadi Party and the Asom Gana Parishad criticized the rules in a parliamentary discussion in December.

Two sets of rules, one governing cyber cafes and the other relating to intermediaries have attracted most criticism. The rules relating to intermediaries such as internet service providers, search engines or interactive websites such as Twitter and Facebook are the most disturbing. Intermediaries are required under the current rules to remove content that anyone objects to, within 36 hours of receiving the complaint, without allowing content creators any scope of defence.

The criteria for deciding objectionable content, laid down in the rules, are subjective and vague. For instance, intermediaries are mandated to remove among other things, ‘grossly harmful’ content, whatever that may mean.

This is a unique form of ‘private censorship’ that will endanger almost all online content. In this age of easily offended sensibilities, it is virtually impossible to write anything that does not “offend” anyone. For instance, even this piece may be termed ‘grossly harmful’ to the CPI(M) party.

However far-fetched this may sound, this has already become a reality. A researcher working with the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) tried out such a strategy with several different intermediaries, and was successful in six out of seven times, always with frivolous and flawed complaints, Pranesh Prakash of CIS wrote in a January blog-post. It has become much easier in India to ban an e-book than a book, Prakash pointed out.

The rules regulating cyber cafes are no better. Cyber cafes are required to keep a log detailing the identity of users and their internet usage, which has negative implications for privacy and personal safety of users, analysis of the rules by PRS legislative research said.

Internet freedom in India has declined over time and is only ‘partly free’, a 2011 report on internet freedom by US-based think tank, Freedom House said. India has joined a growing club of developing nations where, “internet freedom is increasingly undermined by legal harassment, opaque censorship procedures, or expanding surveillance,” the report noted.

The only saving grace is that some of the IT rules are drafted in a language so arcane that anyone will find it hard to decipher them, leave alone implementing them. Sample this: “The intermediary shall not knowingly deploy or install or modify the technical configuration of computer resource or become party to any such act which may change or has the potential to change the normal course of operation of the computer resource than what it is supposed to perform thereby circumventing any law for the time being in force: provided that the intermediary may develop, produce, distribute or employ technological means for the sole purpose of performing the acts of securing the computer resource and information contained therein.”

The first task at hand for Sibal may be to explain to fellow lawmakers what the above rule is supposed to mean, before he defends such rules.

Click for the original, Pranesh Prakash is quoted in this article.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/left-may-for-once-be-right

International ‘code-athon' in Bangalore

praskrishna — 2012-04-27T10:48:34Z

The Centre for Internet & Society hosted this event in Bangalore. The Hindu covered the event.

April 22 will be the second day of an international code-athon being held simultaneously in cities across the world. In Bangalore, this International Space Apps challenge is being held at the Centre for Internet and Society in Domlur. This event, coordinated by the U.S. space agency NASA, is part of the U.S.'s programme to promote Open Government Partnership.

The challenge is grouped into four categories: Software Development, Open Hardware, Citizen Science Platforms and Data Visualisation. The contest aims at addressing strategic space exploration needs, a press release from CIS stated.

Click for the full story published in the Hindu on April 22, 2012.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/sms-feature-on-google-plus