Centre for Internet and Society

Note on the Authorities under the Working Draft of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2011 (9th February 2011)

praskrishna — 2011-08-24T05:42:13Z

The Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment (MSJE) released a revised draft of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act which is up for comments on the MSJE website. The Centre for Law and Policy Research, Inclusive Planet and the Centre for Internet and Society jointly submitted a note on the section on statutory authorities.

This Note is on the Working Draft of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2011 (Hereinafter "The PWD Act, 2011") which was released on 9th February, 2011[1] to specifically review the authorities established under the PWD Act, 2011, the powers and functions assigned to the authorities and the effect of the establishment of these authorities.

The Disability Rights Authority
Vague provisions

The main functions of the DRA are to formulate rules, regulations, guidelines, schemes and other activities. Under section 29 (I), the DRA also has the power to monitor enforcment of the Act and to protect the rights of persons with disabilities and to suo moto address violations of rights of perosns with disabilities. In this regard, the provisions of the Act are vague. There are no provisions to indicate what penalties the DRA may impose in the event of any violation of the provisions of the PWD Act 2011. Wide powers are given to the DRA with regard to promotion, protection, monitoring and even enforcement of rights under the Act. However it is not clear as to how exactly these functions, especially the monitoring and enforcement of rights should be performed.

Powers of review and advice

Under Section 29J, the DRA has the power to review and advise the government to take measures with regard to laws that discriminate against persons with disability. This power will affect the functioning of the authorities under the other disability legislations such as the Mental Health Act,1987 and the National Trusts Act, 1999 as these legislations will be considered to be discriminatory on the issue of legal capacity. Therefore these other disability legislations need to be amended before the DRA can act on its review and advice powers.

Further, in many of the provisions of the Act, there is a mention of a 'designated authority' to perform certain functions without specifying what the designated authority is or who designates the authority. It is unclear as to whether the 'designated authority' refers to a new authority to be established under the Act or it refers to the DRA.
The Disability Courts

Multiplicity of Fora for grievance redressal

There is no clarity on the intended structure of the courts at different levels. The word “Court” is not defined anywhere under the Act, which is a great lacuna. There are several different for a provided for grievance redressal under the Act – the DRA, the Court of the National Disability Commissioner, the State Disability Courts and the Grievance Redressal Officer in each establishment. It is not clear as to whether these authorities under the Act have concurrent power or whether a person has to approach one authority and seek remedy before going to another. Over and above these courts and fora, the regular civil courts, family courts, High Courts would also have jurisdiction. It is not clear as to whether the jurisdiction of all other courts is ousted by the Act in setting up the special State Disability Courts and the Court of the National Disability Commissioner.

Section 6(7) and (8) empower “a court or the disability court” to make suitable orders on finding the occurrence of discrimination. These Sections merely mention a ‘court’ without specifying which court is referred to as there is no definition of ‘court’ under the Act. There is also no provision under the Act which allows a person to approach any other ordinary court for reliefs under the Act. Therefore it is not clear as to what this Section refers to when it uses the word ‘court’.
The Court of the National Disability Commissioner

Under Section 29S (2), the Act allows a person to directly approach the National Disability Commissioner only if the person is aggrieved of “discrimination” under the Act and not for other cases of violation. On the other hand, under section 29S (1) (c ) the Court of the National Disability Commissioner has the power to suo moto address all infringment of rights. There is a great contradiction therefore in the jurisdiction of the Court of the National Disability Commissioner.

Further, although there is an entire part of the Act which is dedicated to the imposition of penalties and sanctions, there are no provisions for the National Disability Commissioner to impose any penalties and sanctions.

The National Disability Commissioner acts as the appellate authority on the orders of the DRA. But there is no provision to appeal from the orders of the State Disability Court.
The State Disability Courts

The State Disability Courts have a wider jurisdiction that the National Disability Commissioner in that a person can approach the State Disability Courts complaining of violation of any rights under the Act.
Even in case of the State Disability Court there is no specific provision that allows the court to impose penalties and sanctions detailed under the Act.

Conclusion

The PWD Act, 2011 has made some changes from its earlier draft in December 2010. With regard to the authorities established under the Act, there are many inconsistencies which need to be resolved before the Act can come into force. The powers and the functions of all the authorities need to be clearly demarcated. Further, the empowering provisions should be linked to the provisions which prescribe the procedure through which the powers can be exercised. Provisions imposing penalties and sanctions should be linked to the authorities which have the power to impose the same. There are several authorities which all have power to look into violations of the Act, which can confuse a person seeking remedies under the Act. Unless these issues are addressed, the PWD, Act 2011 would cause major practical problems at the stage of implementing the rights recognised under the Act.

[1]See Working Draft of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2011, available at http://socialjustice.nic.in/pdf/workdraftdd.pdf (Last visited on 21-02-2011)

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/accessibility/blog/rights-of-persons-with-disabilities

Accessible Mobile Handsets in India: An Overview

praskrishna — 2012-12-14T10:29:30Z

Over a thousand mobile handsets are sold in India today and new models are launched almost every few weeks. However, the number of accessible handsets continues to be disproportionately low. The Centre for Internet and Society conducted a research on the mobile market to gauge how many handsets in India are accessible for persons with disabilities. Handsets were judged on the basis of a few common accessibility features and pricing.

The findings reveal that 108 handset models came with screen readers and 100 were magnifier compatible. Thirty one of them were touch phones and only 15 models had QWERTY keypads.

The study found that the price of 60 of the available options was either high or very high (Rs. 10,000 and above) and only 48 handsets are available at a reasonable or low price.

For available handset options for persons with disabilities, click below:

PDF [612 kb]
Open Office [24 kb]
Word [42kb]

Some of the major cross platform and proprietary mobile operating systems were also examined for their accessibility features. These included Windows Mobile, iPhone for Apple, Blackberry, Android, Symbian and Windows Phone 7. All the operating systems offer features such as font customization, menu style, menu icons and voice recognition. However, only two offer built-in screen readers and only one OS offers a built in screen magnifier. Three operating systems support third party screen readers and two also support third party screen magnifiers.

The table [click on the links below] (also compiled by Mukesh Sharma) provides more details on the features offered by various operating systems:

Word [14 kb]
PDF [16 kb]
Open Office [15 kb]

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/accessibility/blog/accessible-mobile-handsets

Facebook Resistance Workshop at CIS, Bangalore

praskrishna — 2011-10-21T08:24:19Z

Facebook designing your online identity is like designing your rooms with furniture from the bazaar. The only individuality lies in your family pictures standing on the shelves. On Saturday, April 2, 2011, CIS is organising a workshop for people to learn on how to think beyond the rules and limitations of Facebook, to tweak and play around the features and design to generate useful, creative, and funny concepts and explore how this creative intervention can be turned into a real software developed by the Facebook Resistance.

In the Web 2.0 world, most users of technology are reduced to being mere ‘users’. We are offered almost an endless number of choices but do not have the freedom to go against the ‘laws’ and ‘rules’ of the system we operate in. Take Facebook for example. Have you ever wondered if you can change the way Facebook works? Sure, we can start campaigns and mobilize people to impact some of the policies but we never think about the very design of Facebook and the laws that govern it.

What if you could change Facebook’s laws? In this workshop we begin modifying Facebook.com for ourselves, using the unique concept of “browser-hacks”. The aim is to think beyond the rules and limitations of Facebook’s software to generate useful, creative, and funny concepts. We further want to explore, how this creative intervention can also be turned into a real software developed by the Facebook Resistance.

Facebook Resistance is a research initiative accepting the status quo of Facebook being the dominant social identity management system, researching on the ways to change its rules and functionality from inside the system. Facebook sets the rules of how-to behave, so we’re asking: Are we happy with their interface, features and rules or do we want to change them? A change can be as trivial as adding a background-image. As initiator Tobias Leingruber (@tbx), puts it: “Facebook designing your online identity is like IKEA designing your apartment. The only individuality lies in the family pictures standing in your BILLY shelves.”

While early online networks like Geocities.com encouraged its users to entirely modify their online presence, Myspace.com and Web 2.0 have steered this “User Generated Content” into a commercially valuable structure. Facebook has finalized this “evolution” by disabling the user to do anything but feeding the system that gives Facebook it’s estimated value of 50 Billion US$. Facebook is taking over the social web, and its design follows Mark Zuckerberg’s ideals. To quote Lawrence Lessig: “The code is law. The architectures of cyberspace are as important as the law in defining and defeating the liberties of the Net.”

Trainer

Marc Stumpel (@Zuurstof) is a privacy/user-control advocate, holding a MA degree in New Media and Digital culture. He has recently discussed browser hacks in his thesis:

‘The Politics of Social Media. Facebook: Control and Resistance’, and continues to elaborate on this type of resistance while travelling in India. Several Facebook Resistance workshops already took place in Europe, organized by initiator Tobias Leingruber (@tbx) a famous artist and free communication designer working in viral media, popular culture, amateur aesthetics and browser apps.

Example Ideas

Dislike Button
Graffiti Wall (based on GML/webmarker.me)
Auto-comment generator (e.g. LOL or Kanye West speak)
Custom background images and visual css styling for your visitors
Themes, e.g. change your Facebook’s colour: pink, yellow…

Skill-set participants

It would be great to have a few people with some web development experience (html/css/javascript), or Photoshop skills, but also people who can write good (philosophical) texts are very welcome. In the end everyone who really uses web 2.0 will fit in, so just come and join us!

Information and registration

We have place for 20 people. You can register by sending an email to digitalnatives [at] cis-india.org. The workshop takes place at the the Centre for Internet and Society on Saturday, April 2nd from 11.00 to 17.00 hr. There is no charge for taking part in the workshop, but make sure to bring your laptop or mobile computing devices with you.

If you have questions please contact Marc Stumpel: m.stumpel[at]gmail.com.

VIDEO

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/events/facebook-resistance

New Indian Rules May Make Online Censorship Easier

praskrishna — 2011-04-01T15:57:20Z

Draft rules proposed by the Indian government for intermediaries such as telecommunications companies, Internet service providers and blogging sites could in effect aid censorship, according to experts. The article by John Ribeiro was published in Yahoo News on March 7, 2011.

Under the draft rules, intermediaries will have to notify users of their services not to use, display, upload, publish, share or store a variety of content, for which the definition is very vague, and liable to misuse.

Content that is prohibited under these guidelines ranges from information that may "harm minors in any way" to content that is "harmful, threatening, abusive."

Some of the terms are so vague that to stay on the right side of the law, intermediaries may in effect remove third-party content that is even mildly controversial, said Pavan Duggal, a cyberlaw consultant and advocate in India's Supreme Court.

While the definition of some of the terms like obscenity have been ruled on by India's Supreme Court, some of the other terms do not have a precise legal definition, said Pranesh Prakash, program manager at the Centre for Internet and Society, a research and advocacy group focused on consumer and citizen rights on the Internet.

"Would creating a Facebook profile for a minor, for example be considered as harming a minor ?" Duggal said.

The draft rules are secondary legislation framed by the government under the country's Information Technology (Amendment) Act of 2008. Under the IT Act, an intermediary is not liable for any third-party information, data, or communication link made available or hosted by him, if among other things, he has observed due diligence under the draft rules.

The new rules will give rise to subjective interpretations, thus giving a lot of discretion to non-judicial authorities in the country to decide whether the intermediary has observed due diligence or not, Duggal said.

According to the draft rules, an intermediary has to inform users that in case of non-compliance of its terms of use of the services and privacy policy, it has the right to immediately terminate the access rights of the users to its site. After finding out about infringing content, either on its own or through the authorities, the intermediary has to work with the user or owner of the information to remove access to the information.

Rather than recognizing the diversity of the businesses of intermediaries, the draft rules use a "one-size, fits all" set of rules across a variety of intermediaries including telecom service providers, online payment sites, e-mail service providers, and Web hosting companies, Duggal said.

An intermediary such as a site with user-generated content, like Wikipedia, would need different terms of use from an intermediary such as an e-mail provider, because the kind of liability they accrue are different, Prakash wrote in his blog.

The draft rules also add new provisions that appear designed to give the government easier access to content from intermediaries. Intermediaries will be required to provide information to authorized government agencies for investigative, protective, cybersecurity or intelligence activity, according to the rules.

Information will have to be provided for the purpose of verification of identity, or for prevention, detection, prosecution and punishment of offenses, on a written request stating clearly the purpose of seeking such information, the rules add.

The IT Act already has specific procedures in this connection for very specific information requirements, but the draft rules have broadened this to a general requirement for intermediaries to provide information, Prakash said. The new rule could in fact be a way of circumventing the earlier laws, he added.

The draft rules assume significance in the context of recent moves by the Indian government to get Research In Motion to provide access to information on BlackBerry services in India. While providing lawful access to its consumer services like BlackBerry Messenger, RIM has declined to provide access to its corporate service, BlackBerry Enterprise Server, claiming that it does not have access to customers' encryption keys.

The Indian government has previously also said it would demand lawful access from Google's Gmail and Skype, but has not taken any action so far in this direction.

The draft rules will require compliance from a number of entities who until now had thought they were outside the ambit of compliance, Duggal said.

Google did not immediately respond to e-mailed requests for its comments on the new rules. Microsoft said that the government should set the policy objectives and provide directional framework, and still allow flexibility to intermediaries to set the data protection measures as they deem fit for different situations and services.

"We believe that the intermediary should be obliged to take down non-compliant content on being notified of the same as well as terminate access rights for those who use these platforms for dissemination of non-compliant content," Microsoft said in an e-mailed statement. Non-compliance include, but is not limited to, copyrights, it added.

John Ribeiro covers outsourcing and general technology breaking news from India for The IDG News Service.

Read the original in Yahoo News here

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/online-censorship

Tactical Tech's ONO Party!

praskrishna — 2011-04-04T07:19:47Z

Tactical Tech has made friends with ONO Robot , a friendly Robot Guide and the star of four animated shorts of a series called Survival in the Digital Age, and we'd like to invite you to watch the series with us at our ONO Party.

Activists and independent journalists don't often realise that the information and communications technologies they use can compromise their security and have implications for privacy, freedom of expression and access to information. As an organisation working at the meeting point of advocacy and technology, Tactical Tech finds these issues essential to anyone using technologies to facilitate and strengthen their advocacy work. To raise awareness about the digital traces we leave behind Survival in the Digital Age aims to engage activists to better understand the information and communications technologies they use, so that they can make more informed decisions about the risks they may face.

We're going to be showing the four shorts over party games, snacks and drinks at our ONO Party so do join us on Thursday, March 3rd

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/events/CIS-tacticaltechONO

February 2011 Bulletin

praskrishna — 2012-07-30T11:16:29Z

Greetings from the Centre for Internet and Society! In this issue we are pleased to present you the latest updates about our research, upcoming events, and news and media coverage:

Researchers@Work

RAW is a multidisciplinary research initiative. CIS believes that in order to understand the contemporary concerns in the field of Internet and society, it is necessary to produce local and contextual accounts of the interaction between the Internet and socio-cultural and geo-political structures. To build original research knowledge base, the RAW programme has been collaborating with different organisations and individuals to focus on its three year thematic of Histories of the Internets in India. Monographs finalised from these projects have been published online for public review:

Internet, Society & Space in Indian Cities

Digital Natives

CIS has interest in developing Digital Identities as a core research area and looks at practices, policies and scholarships in the field to explore relationships between Internet, technology and identity. The Digital Natives project is funded by Hivos, Netherlands. CIS involvement has resulted into these:

Columns on Digital Natives

A fortnightly column on ‘Digital Natives’ authored by Nishant Shah is featured in the Sunday Eye, the national edition of Indian Express, Delhi, from 19 September 2010 onwards. The following articles were published in the Indian Express recently:

Pull the Plug [published in the Indian Express on February 20, 2011]
A FLASH of Change [published in the Indian Express on February 6, 2011]
Wiki changes the world [published in the Indian Express on January 23, 2011]

Workshop

The third and final workshop in the Digital Natives with a Cause? research project took place in Santiago, Chile, from 8 to 10 February 2011. Samuel Tettner wrote a report about the workshop:

Digital Natives with a Cause? —Workshop in Santiago — an Afterthought

Blog Entries by Maesey Angelina

Maesy Angelina is doing Masters on International Development, specializing in Children and Youth Studies at the International Institute of Social Studies, Erasmus University of Rotterdam. She is working on her research on the activism of digital natives under the Hivos-CIS Digital Natives Knowledge Programme. She spent a month at CIS, working on her dissertation, exploring the Blank Noise Project under the Digital Natives with a Cause? framework. She writes a series of blog entries. The new ones are:

Blog Entry by Samuel Tettner

Samuel Tettner is a Coordinator in the Digital Natives project. He has written one blog entry:

Computer Science & Society – The Roles Defined

Accessibility

Estimates of the percentage of the world's population that is disabled vary considerably. But what is certain is that if we count functional disability, then a large proportion of the world's population is disabled in one way or another. At CIS we work to ensure that the digital technologies, which empower disabled people and provide them with independence, are allowed to do so in practice and by the law. To this end, we support web accessibility guidelines, and change in copyright laws that currently disempower the persons with disabilities.

New Blog Entry

The Working Draft of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2010: Does it exceed its Mandate in Including Provisions Relating to Other Disability Legislations?

Intellectual Property

CIS believes that access to knowledge and culture is essential as it promotes creativity and innovation and bridges the gaps between the developed and developing world positively. Hence, the campaigns for an international treaty on copyright exceptions for print-impaired, advocating against PUPFIP Bill, calls for the WIPO Broadcast Treaty to be restricted to broadcast, questioning the demonization of 'pirates', and supporting endeavours that explore and question the current copyright regime. Our latest endeavour has resulted into these:

New Blog Entries

Openness

CIS believes that innovation and creativity should be fostered through openness and collaboration and is committed towards promotion of open standards, open access, and free/libre/open source software, its latest involvement have yielded these results:

New Blog Entries

Internet Governance

Although there may not be one centralised authority that rules the Internet, the Internet does not just run by its own volition: for it to operate in a stable and reliable manner, there needs to be in place infrastructure, a functional domain name system, ways to curtail cyber crime across borders, etc. The Tunis Agenda of the second World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), paragraph 34 defined Internet governance as “the development and application by governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet.” CIS involvement in the field of Internet governance has taken the following shape:

Announcement

Google Policy Fellowship Program: Asia Chapter

New Blog Entries

Privacy

CIS is doing a project, ‘Privacy in Asia’. It is funded by Privacy International (PI), UK and the International Development Research Centre, Canada and is being administered in collaboration with the Society and Action Group, Gurgaon. The two-year project commenced on 24^th March 2010 and will be completed as agreed to by the stakeholders. It was set up with the objective of raising awareness, sparking civil action and promoting democratic dialogue around challenges and violations of privacy in India. In furtherance of these goals it aims to draft and promote over-arching privacy legislation in India by drawing upon legal and academic resources and consultations with the public.

Blog Entries by Elonnai Hickok

Elonnai Hickok is a Programme Associate in the Privacy in Asia project. She has published a series of Open Letters to the Finance Committee regarding the UID:

Other New Blog Entries

Telecom

The growth in telecommunications in India has been impressive. While the potential for growth and returns exist, a range of issues need to be addressed for this potential to be realized. One aspect is more extensive rural coverage and the second aspect is a countrywide access to broadband which is low at about eight million subscriptions. Both require effective and efficient use of networks and resources, including spectrum. It is imperative to resolve these issues in the common interest of users and service providers. CIS campaigns to facilitate this:

Column

Shyam Ponappa is a Distinguished Fellow at CIS. He writes regularly on Telecom issues in the Business Standard and these articles are mirrored on the CIS website as well.

Spectrum auctions - 'Jhatka' or 'Halal'? [published in the Business Standard on February 3, 2011]

Forthcoming Events

CIS is holding some conferences/workshops in the month of March in Delhi and Bangalore:

Role of the Internet in Fostering Freedom of Expression and Strengthening Activism in India - A Workshop in Delhi (March 4, 2011, Constitutional Club, Rafi Marg, New Delhi)
Global Challenges to Freedom of Expression (March 4, 2011, Constitutional Club, Rafi Marg, New Delhi)
Electronication: Ragas and the Future (March 6, 2011 Jaaga, Bangalore)
Design!publiC (March 18, 2011, Taj Vivanta, New Delhi)

Staff Update

Deepti Bharthur

Deepti Bhartur is a Research Intern at CIS. She did her BA (Hons) in Journalism from Lady Sriram College, University of Delhi and completed her Masters in Communication from Sarojini Naidu School of Arts and Communication, University of Hyderabad. Deepti joined the Accessibility team of CIS and is working on accessibility in telecom policy in India.

News & Media Coverage

Growing cyberspace controls, Internet filtering (Hindu, February 20, 2011)
2(m) or not 2(m) (Business Standard, February 19, 2011)
Can the twitterati change the world? (The Times of India, February 12, 2011)
Can the mouse be a tool of revolution in India? (DNA, February 12, 2011)
Social Network Suicide (Bangalore Mirror, February 6, 2011)
New Kids on the Blog (Indian Express, February 6, 2011)
Procuring books in Indian libraries (Hri Institute for Southasian Research and Exchange, February 4, 2011)
What Are You Accused of? Find Out Online (Wall Street Journal, February 1, 2011)
One among the clan of Wikipedians (Hindu, January 27, 2011)
Digital Wrongs (Forbes India, January 24, 2011)

Follow us elsewhere

Get short, timely messages from us on Twitter
Follow CIS on identi.ca
Join the CIS group on Facebook
Visit us at www.cis-india.org

Looking forward to hearing from you. Please feel free to write to us for any queries or details required. If you do not wish to receive these emails, please do write to us and we will unsubscribe your mail ID from the mailing list.
CIS is grateful to Kusuma Trust which was founded by Anurag Dikshit and Soma Pujari, philanthropists of Indian origin, for its core funding and support for most of its projects.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/about/newsletters/february-2011-bulletin

Growing cyberspace controls, Internet filtering

praskrishna — 2011-08-20T14:36:26Z

OpenNet Initiative investigates, analyses filtering and surveillance practices, writes T Ramachandran in this article published in the Hindu on Sunday, February 20, 2011.

Governments in many parts of the world have been aggressively adopting a new generation of controls aimed at filtering and controlling information flow on the Internet, citing concerns such as cyber security, crime and terrorism, according to the OpenNet Initiative.

The OpenNet Initiative, which says it “investigates and analyses Internet filtering and surveillance practices in a credible and non-partisan fashion,” in its updated study released last year titled, “Access Controlled: The Shaping of Power, Rights, and Rule in Cyberspace,” said that it was fast becoming the global norm to control information flow on the Internet.

The OpenNet is a collaborative partnership between the Citizen Lab at the Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto, the Berkman Centre for Internet and Society at Harvard University, and the Ottawa-based SecDev Group.

Asked whether the trend was likely to become more pronounced, given the recent developments in the Middle East, one of the contributors to the study, Ethan Zuckerman, a senior researcher at the Berkman Centre, said, “In general, we see governments becoming more aggressive and more overt about their Internet filtering.”

The OpenNet has described the recent Internet blackout in Egypt as ‘just-in-time-blocking' - when information flow is brought to a halt during critical times such as political crises, elections, or social unrest. Discussions have resurfaced about the deployment of 'Internet kill switches,' a way in which nations could snuff out the Internet when such a crisis occurs.

“For all the talk of Internet kill switches, turning off the Internet is a relatively easy and unsophisticated thing to do. What is hardest to do is filtering on finer, more granular levels,” Mr. Zuckerman told The Hindu.

The first-generation controls were deployed primarily at Internet “choke points,” places in the network where Internet addresses that had been blacklisted by the authorities could be filtered and blocked. These were mainly the gateways run by the Internet Service Providers (ISPs). The number-based IP addresses connected to particular websites or domain names could be used for the blocking. Keywords could also be used in weeding out proscribed sites or pages.

Reports of watchdogs such as the OpenNet and Freedom House indicate that though not pronounced, selective filtering has been a part of the Indian Internet scene. Google's Transparency Report for the first half of 2010 also shows that India is among the nations from where a number of government inquiries for information about users and requests to remove or censor content emanate.

“As far as censorship of Internet goes in India it is still first generation in terms of blocking and filtering at the Internet choke points. However, the Indian government has made and is making several moves that continue to undermine privacy and anonymity on the Internet. This has a chilling effect on freedom of expression and information accessing behaviour on the Internet,” says Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society.

Second and third generation techniques of Internet filtering, as described in Access Controlled, are “more subtle, flexible, and even offensive in character,” often using legal regulations to supplement or legitimise technical filtering measures, extralegal or covert practices. These include the use of viruses to infiltrate computer systems, the launching of distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks and surveillance at strategic points in the Internet and telecommunications infrastructure. The DDoS attacks involve directing traffic of such large volume at targeted sites during a particular period, in order to crash them, or keep them largely inaccessible. Counter-information campaigns could also be mounted, supplemented by policy measures and other strategies, including legal ones.

Governments have also been assiduously building up capabilities for monitoring and intercepting the large volume of information that flows on the Internet, including email, which mostly flows through the infrastructure of Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and Internet exchange points. In the Indian context, the I.T. Act “along with the ISP licences allows for blanket surveillance and also data retention,” says Mr. Abraham.

It is difficult to say if this sort of monitoring and interception is really effective in countering terrorism and other national security threats, says Mr. Zuckerman. “I don't believe trading privacy for security is a fair trade.”

Read the original news in the Hindu

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/growing-cyberspace-controls

Social Network Suicide

praskrishna — 2011-04-01T15:54:43Z

Those disillusioned with their virtual friends circle are saying goodbye through web applications that wipe out your net identity. What’s more, you can even have your own memorial page, says Sahana Charan in this article published in the Bangalore Mirror on Sunday, February 6, 2011.

It is funny that even though some young people claim to have a thousand friends on social networking sites, they may actually never socialise with any of their virtual buddies. So when the “net” benefits don’t translate to reality, there is disillusionment. And then they may stop being active on networking sites. That’s the beauty and tragedy of virtual friendships.

And this is just one of the many reasons why your friend — who was otherwise tweeting her every mundane activity or would update her status message on Facebook every nano-second — might have suddenly become incommunicado.

As pressures to keep up virtual appearances become taxing and unpleasant experiences make social networking sites “not-so-safe” to share intimate details, many young people are opting out of these networks, deactivating their accounts and taking web sanyaas.

Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore says that in India this is a relatively new phenomenon and only a small group of people have actually committed web suicide using applications that wipe out your virtual identity. But a bigger number of netizens may be killing their networking accounts, because of a variety of resons — ranging from internet stalking to “no guaranteed benefits.”

“Many people may get onto a social networking site to use it for meeting rituals, to look for partners and to get information on jobs. When these are fulfilled they may decide to move out. Some people realise that a lot of their time and energy goes into updating accounts on Facebook, Twitter or Myspace, but it has not helped them get ‘real world’ benefits, so they just stop being active,” says Abraham.

Virtual disappearance

With the deactivation came some applications which help you go peacefully into a social network death — Web 2.0 Suicide Machine and Sepukkoo.com promise to remove your virtual identity completely so that you can make real friends. While Suicide Machine irreversibly removes all your friends, groups, photos and vidoes one by one and joins you to its “Social Network Suiciders,” Sepukkoo goes one step ahead and creates a memorial page for you.

What’s ironical is that you are actually going to another network and this one’s called ‘suicide networking’, where you encourage friends to leave their social circles. Both applications have been banned by Facebook but work on other sites.

So why would a popular guy deactivate his account ? Joe V J, a 28-year-old IT professional, who was regularly uploading pictures of his new bike or parties with friends on Facebook, took himself off the site recently. He realised that people who were not meant to see his profile and candid shots, had access and were posting comments.

“I got into the site because it was a great place to bond with friends. But then I realised that relatives and acquaintances who I had no clue about, were on the social network, had started pinging. They would look at pictures and express shock and then tell other people. It became a little too much, so I just decided to click the deactivate option,” he says.

Privacy concerns

It can get really ugly and those being harassed online may just disappear to save their privacy. Tinu Cherian, a techie and Wikipedia administrator speaks of an incident where another administrator was harassed by a cyber troll because he had blocked this guy from making wrong updates on Wiki’s pages.

“He had no option but to wipe out his Twitter account, which was hacked into and damning information was uploaded.”

Privacy concerns rise as Facebook decides to share account information with marketeers. “When Facebook first started, only 10 per cent of your information on the site could be seen by an outsider, but in 2011, 90 per cent of your information can be accessed by people other than your friends,” says Abraham.

There is another reason why people go off online networks. “When it first came, Facebook was considered the Ivy league and everyone wanted to be there. Youngsters suddenly thought Orkut was infradig and ceased to be on that site. So sometimes, people may just move out because they want to be somewhere else.” And that’s why the networking tamasha continues.

Read the article in the Bangalore Mirror

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/social-network-suicide

Electronication: Ragas and the Future

praskrishna — 2011-04-04T07:18:29Z

What more is better than listening to music and later on getting into a discursive conversation with its composers to better understand the transformative power of high-energy music. CIS is pleased to invite you to an evening conference followed by a concert by Charanjit Singh, Samrat B. and Imaad Shah playing improvised versions of Charanjit Singh's “Ten Ragas to a Disco Beat”.

About the Music

In 1982, seasoned Bollywood composer and arranger Charanjit Singh visited Singapore and got his hands on the now holy trinity of a Roland 303, 808, and Jupiter 8 - the core of acid house and the gear that forged the genesis of electronic dance music as we know it today.

Later that year, EMI India releases an album limited to a few thousand copies: "Synthesizing: Ten Ragas to A Disco Beat". It presents Charanjit's effort at using what was then an entirely new technology to bridge the gap between programmed beats, synth lines, and classical Indian music motifs.

It essentially sinks without a trace.

In 2008, Dutch label Bollywood Connection re-released this LP to an unsuspecting and wholly ignorant public, convinced that these beats were established in the clubs of Chicago and Detroit in 1986, except they never were.

Since the re-release, this album has been raising eyebrows worldwide.

About the Musicians

Charanjit Singh is a seasoned Bollywood composer and arranger who lives in Bombay. We recently met him, and we are now working with him to bring his work back into the twenty-first century and into the public eye, where it belongs. On March 6, he will give a performance from this landmark album for the first time in nearly 30 years.

Samrat B. performs under the name Teddy Boy Kill along with another musician. Streaming from continuous transmutation of music & audio-emotive desires, the sound of Teddy Boy Kill stems out of Psychedelic, Dub, Electro, Rock & Funk. The music is an attempt to revive the dance & groove mentality.

Imaad Shah is a musician, writer, and actor based in Mumbai. An avid enthusiast of music and pop history, he has dug deep into the Bollywood sound culture and is part of Pulp Society, a funk jazz act from Mumbai.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/events/electronication

Google Policy Fellowship Program: Asia Chapter

praskrishna — 2011-08-02T07:34:24Z

For the ardent followers of free and open Internet and for those who love to debate on technology, media law and Internet-related policy issues, there is some good news. The Centre for Internet and Society, India is conducting a Google Policy Fellowship program this summer!

Offered for the first time in Asia Pacific, the Google Policy Fellowship offers successful applicants the opportunity to develop research and debate on issues relating to freedom of expression for a minimum of ten weeks from June to August 2011. The applicants will be selected in Australia, India and Hong Kong respectively.

The Centre for Internet and Society will select the India Fellow, and is accepting applications for the position before March 27, 2011. Google is providing a USD 7,500 stipend to the India Fellow, who will be selected by April 18, 2011.

To apply, please send to google.fellowship@cis-india.org the following materials:

Statement of Purpose: A brief write-up outlining about your interest and qualifications for the programme including the relevant academic, professional and extracurricular experiences. As part of the write-up, also explain on what you hope to gain from participation in the programme and what research work concerning free expression online you would like to further through this programme. (About 1200 words max).
Resume
Three references

More information about the focus of the work that the Google Policy Fellow will take on is described below1. More information about the Google Policy Fellowship program is available in the FAQ2.

Research Agenda Outline

The research proposals, and the fellowship itself, are to be anchored in the reality of the growing threat to civil liberties in cyberspace, with the consequent curbs on free expression that arise. The aim of the research is to chart out a comprehensive map of the legal and policy frameworks relating to free expression within the Asia-Pacific region and also examine people’s attitudes and ground-level movements relating to the same. This second component will necessarily involve some amount of empirical research: the fellows across different regions (for 2011, there will be fellows from India, Australia and Hong Kong) will be expected to use a survey on similar lines, so that the results could be adequately contrasted.

The research would involve but not necessarily be limited to the following areas:

Understanding Dissent

This component would involve looking at how dissent is negotiated in the region by the legal system and the ways in which governments seek to stifle and control online dissent. Specific points of interrogation would include:

The extent to which the constitution and other laws in the region protect freedom of expression and the extent to which they are enforced.
Judicial decisions relating to free expression, censorship and dissent. Have they examined how speech and other activities on the Internet should be afforded free speech protection?
The kind of material deemed objectionable and subject to censorship and/or penalization.
The kind of penalties placed on writers, commentators and bloggers for posting objectionable materials on the Internet.
Understanding the economic environment in which free expression operates: chains of media ownership, state restrictions on the means of journalistic production and distribution, and the levels of state control through allocation of advertising or subsidies would be part of this question.
Further, what are the laws relating to encryption and telecom security, as well as to intermediary liability, and how do they affect free expression?

Understanding Free Expression

To be examined here is the question of how freedom of expression is perceived by people. What is the extent to which people believe the right is available to them — as balanced by conceivably conflicting rights such as privacy?

One part of proceeding on this would be to track a set of activist bloggers, gauging their take on various issues.
Another part would include tracking public opinion through comments pages on articles relating to free speech issues; taking a survey or coordinating focus group research. However, this is by no means the most reliable way to gauge the same and is, in particular, one area that will require an appropriate methodology to be developed by the fellows in consultation with the partner organizations.

Both these components are essential in being able to proceed with the third aspect, mentioned below.

Understanding and Facilitating Movements

This final aspect will involve looking at how free expression advocates come together, or fail to do so.

Is there a defined activist community in the region?
If not, what are the possible reasons behind failure of collaboration or organization? Have there been attempts towards the same?

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the Google Policy Fellowship program?

The Google Policy Fellowship program offers students interested in Internet and technology related policy issues with an opportunity to spend their summer working on these issues at the Centre for Internet and Society at Bangalore. Students will work for a period of ten weeks starting from June 2011. The research agenda for the program is based on legal and policy frameworks in the region connected to the ground-level perception of free expression.
Applications for the Fellowship should carry these:

Statement of Purpose: A brief write-up outlining about your interest and qualifications for the programme including the relevant academic, professional and extracurricular experiences. As part of the write-up, also explain on what you hope to gain from participation in the programme and what research work concerning free expression online you would like to further through this programme. (About 1200 words max).
Resume
Three references

Important Dates
What is the program timeline?

March 27, 2011:	Student application deadline; applications must be received by midnight 00:00 GMT.
April 18, 2011:	Student applicants are notified of the status of their applications.
June 2011:	Students begin their fellowship with the host organization (start date to be determined by students and the host organization); Google issues initial student stipends.
July 2011:	Mid-term evaluations; Google issues mid-term stipends.
August 2011:	Final evaluations; Google issues final stipends.

EligibilityI am an International student can I apply and participate in the program?

Are there any age restrictions on participating?

Yes. You must be 18 years of age or older by 1 January 2011 to be eligible to participate in Google Policy Fellowship program in 2011.

Are there citizenship requirements for the Fellowship?

For the time being, we are only accepting students eligible to work in India (e.g. Indian citizens, permanent residents of India, and individuals presently holding an Indian student visa. Google cannot provide guidance or assistance on obtaining the necessary documentation to meet the criteria.

Who is eligible to participate as a student in Google Policy Fellowship program?

In order to participate in the program, you must be a student. Google defines a student as an individual enrolled in or accepted into an accredited institution including (but not necessarily limited to) colleges, universities, masters programs, PhD programs and undergraduate programs. Eligibility is based on enrollment in an accredited university by 1 January 2011.

I am an International student can I apply and participate in the program?

In order to participate in the program, you must be a student (see Google's definition of a student above). You must also be eligible to work in India (see section on citizen requirements for fellowship above). Google cannot provide guidance or assistance on obtaining the necessary documentation to meet this criterion.

I have been accepted into an accredited post-secondary school program, but have not yet begun attending. Can I still take part in the program?

As long as you are enrolled in a college or university program as of 1 January 2011, you are eligible to participate in the program.

I graduate in the middle of the program. Can I still participate?

As long as you are enrolled in a college or university program as of 1 January 2011, you are eligible to participate in the program.

Payments, Forms, and Other Administrative Stuff

How do payments work*?

Google will provide a stipend of USD 7,500 equivalent to each Fellow for the summer.

Accepted students in good standing with their host organization will receive a USD 2,500 stipend payable shortly after they begin the Fellowship in June 2011.
Students who receive passing mid-term evaluations by their host organization will receive a USD 1,500 stipend shortly after the mid-term evaluation in July 2011.
Students who receive passing final evaluations by their host organization and who have submitted their final program evaluations will receive a USD 3,500 stipend shortly after final evaluations in August 2011.

Please note: Payments will be made by electronic bank transfer, and are contingent upon satisfactory evaluations by the host organization, completion of all required enrollment and other forms. Fellows are responsible for payment of any taxes associated with their receipt of the Fellowship stipend.

*While the three step payment structure given here corresponds to the one in the United States, disbursement of the amount may be altered as felt necessary.

What documentation is required from students?

Students should be prepared, upon request, to provide Google or the host organization with transcripts from their accredited institution as proof of enrollment or admission status. Transcripts do not need to be official (photo copy of original will be sufficient).

I would like to use the work I did for my Google Policy Fellowship to obtain course credit from my university. Is this acceptable?

Yes. If you need documentation from Google to provide to your school for course credit, you can contact Google. We will not provide documentation until we have received a final evaluation from your mentoring organization.

Host Organizations

What is Google's relationship with the Centre for Internet and Society?

Google provides the funding and administrative support for individual fellows directly. Google and the Centre for Internet and Society are not partners or affiliates. The Centre for Internet and Society does not represent the views or opinions of Google and cannot bind Google legally.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/google-policy-fellowship

Global Challenges to Freedom of Expression

praskrishna — 2011-04-04T07:17:59Z

The Centre for Culture, Media & Governance, Jamia Millia Islamia, Delhi, Human Rights Law Network, Delhi and the Centre for Internet & Society, Bangalore are pleased to invite you to a public lecture by Mr. Frank La Rue, President of the Central American Institute for Studies of Social Democracy and UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression on March 4, 2011, 6 pm at the Constitutional Club in New Delhi.

Frank La Rue

Mr. La Rue is the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression for the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. He has worked on human rights for the past 25 years. He is the founder of the Centre for Legal Action for Human Rights (CALDH), both in Washington DC and Guatemala, which became the first Guatemalan NGO to bring cases of human rights violations to the Inter-American System. CALDH was also the first Guatemalan NGO to promote economic, social and cultural rights. Mr. La Rue also brought the first genocide case against the military dictatorship in Guatemala. As a human rights activist, his name was presented to the Nobel Peace Prize committee in 2004.

La Rue has previously served as a Presidential Commissioner for Human Rights in Guatemala, as a Human Rights Adviser to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Guatemala and as a consultant to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. He is President of Instituto Demos in Guatemala City. La Rue holds a BA in Legal and Social Sciences from the University of San Carlos, Guatemala and a postgraduate degree in U.S. foreign policy from Johns Hopkins University.

The entrance is free. Refreshments will be served from 5.30 pm onwards.

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

Design!publiC

praskrishna — 2011-06-03T13:27:22Z

The Centre for Internet and Society in partnership with Centre for Knowledge Societies, Venkataramanan Associates, Centre for Law and Policy Research and LiveMint is organising Design!publiC on March 18, 2011. Design Public is a conversation about whether and how to bring design thinking to bear upon the challenges of government so as to promote governance innovation.

Background

The problem of governance is perhaps as old as society, as old as the rule of law. But it is only more recently -- perhaps the last five hundred years of modernity -- that human societies have been able to conceive of different models of government, different modalities of public administration, all having different effects on the configuration of society. The problem of governments, of governmentality, and of governance is always also the problem of how to change the very processes and procedures of government, so as to enhance the ends of the state and to promote the collective good.

Since the establishment of India’s republic, many kinds of changes have been made to the policies and practices of its state. We may think of, for instance, successive stages of land reforms, the privatization of large-scale and extractive industries, the subsequent abolition of the License Raj and so and so forth. We may also consider the computerization of state documents beginning in the 1980s, and more recently, the Right To Information Act (RTI). More recently there have been activist campaigns to reduce the discretionary powers of government and to thereby reduce the scope of corruption in public life.

While all these cases represent the continuous process of modification, reform, and change to government policy and even to its modes of functioning, this is not what we have in mind when we speak of ‘governance innovation.’ Rather, intend a specific process of ethnographic inquiry into the real needs of citizens, followed by an inclusive approach to reorganizing and representing that information in such a way that it may promote collaborative problem-solving and solutioneering through the application of design thinking.

The concept of design thinking has emerged only recently, and it has been used to describe approaches to problem solving that include: (i) redefining the fundamental challenges at hand, (ii) evaluating multiple possible options and solutions in parallel, and (iii) prioritizing and selecting those which are likely to achieve the greatest benefits for further consideration. This approach may also be iterative, allowing decisions to be made in general and specific ways as an organization gets closer and closer to the solution. Design thinking turns out to be not an individual but collective and social process, requiring small and large groups to be able to work together in relation to the available information about the task or challenge at hand. Design thinking can lead to innovative ideas, to new insights, and to new actionable directions for organizations.

This general approach to innovation -- and the central role of design thinking -- has emerged from the private sector over the last quarter century, and has enjoyed particular success in regards to the development of new technology products, services and experience. The question we would like to address in this conference is whether and how this approach can be employed for the transformation public and governmental systems.

What is the Evidence that Design Thinking Positively Impacts Governments?

Many European countries have government-supported design conglomerations for the purposes of enhancing business and the government’s interface with the public. Design Council in the UK not only works to create public identities but also helps formulate national design strategies that help the United Kingdom to differentiate its national brand and achieve broad national benefits. Elsewhere in the UK, a private organization, Think Public, and various governmental agencies, are working through a consultative approach with citizens to better target governmental services so as to maximize citizen benefits.

In the context of public health, the first major public health information system has been built in Canada, and in many ways it may serve as a reference and benchmark for other countries around the world. The first deployment of a public health information system in developing country contexts is in Ghana, where a specialized Resource Center is even now being conceived to enable the support and further development of this new system.

In India, early innovation research and concept development activities by the Center for Knowledge Societies for the Gates Foundation has shown promising results in terms of new opportunities to enhance the quality of health care delivery through the Bihar pilot itself, using the tools and techniques of ethnography, design, and user experience enhancement. In its studios in New Delhi and Bangalore, it has hosted innovation workshops with international health experts, public officials and other stakeholders to envision new kinds of technologies and solutions for improving public health delivery. In future, it may be possible to organize these kinds of efforts in the form of an Innovation Lab or Innovation Center.

Whereas, in the past, diverse attempts have been made to reform government, to make it more efficient, to reduce corruption and the arbitrariness of decisioning authority. Beneficial as these approaches may have been, they have not always been successful in fundamentally transforming the ways in which bureaucracies think about their mission, objectives and goals. They have not resulted in greater consumer orientation of these cadres, or greater public participation in the decision-making of these bureaucracies. These are the kinds of benefits that design thinking can bring to governmental and quasi-governmental bureaucracies.

In this conclave, our interest is to explore how design thinking and user-centered innovation might help such organizations better accomplish their mission and better serve their beneficiaries. We also seek to explore and establish particular modalities through which governance innovation can be achieved, as well as to identify key stakeholders and personalities gripped of the challenge of governance innovation. Our larger goal is to craft a path forward for integrating design thinking and innovation methodologies in the further re-envisioning, refashioning and improvement of public services in India and elsewhere in the world.

Specific Expected Outcomes

A shared understanding and common vocabulary around design thinking and innovation
A review of insights and outcomes from the event by members of government with a view to routinizing and institutionalizing innovation in government
A documentation of case-studies, concepts and perspectives from different participants emerging from the conclave
An emerging community of thinkers and practitioners interested in working together to share information and insights to accelerate governance innovation
A consensus on the modalities and occasion for the conduct of a follow-up conclave, possibly in Bangalore as soon as September 2011

An Invitation to Dialogue

Design Public is a conversation among a select group of high level thinkers and actors who care about public services design. No more than 50 persons will be in attendance. Presentations will be brief. Panel discussants will intersperse with the other participants for greater involvement and equal opportunity for dialogue and response. All attendees will be asked to participate in the emerging dialogue through the day.

Draft Schedule

10.00 am
What do Designers do? How can Physical, Informational and Interaction Design Impact the Everyday Life of Citizens?

Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, Centre for Internet and Society (Moderator)
Aditya Dev Sood, CEO, Center for Knowledge Socities
Abhimanyu Kulkarni, Design Director, Philips Design
Younghee Jung, Senior Designer, Nokia Corporation
Daniela Sangiorgi, Lecturer, Lancaster University
Sudhir Krishnaswamy, Founder, Centre for Law and Policy Research
Naresh Narasimhan, Principal Architect, VA Group

11.00 am

How Can the Government Best Use Designers and Design Thinking?

Aditya Dev Sood, CEO, Center for Knowledge Societies (Moderator)
Niels Hansen, Project Manager, MindLab
Aparna Piramal Raje, Design Thinker, Mint
Anant Shah, Program Officer, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
Harsh Shrivastava, Consultant (Planning), Planning Commission of India
Kiran Dhingra, Secretary, Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation
Shubhagato Dasgupta, Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Policy Research
Steven Solnik, Member-Government Performance and Accountability, Ford Foundation

12.00 pm

How can Social / Media Promote Design and Governance Innovation?

Suresh Venkat, Executive Producer, CNBC TV18 (Moderator)
Vibodh Parthasarthy, Associate Professor, Jamia Milia Islamia
Yatish Rajawat, Editor-in-Chief, Business Bhaskar
R. Sukumar, Editor, Mint
Sashwati Banerjee, Executive Director, Sesame Workshop India
Aditya Mishra, Founder, Headstart Foundation

1.00 pm

Working and Networking Lunch

2.00 pm

Innovation Workshopping Breakout Sessions

Track One:

Conducting Ethnography to Inform the Innovation Process

The group is responsible for coming up with an innovative approach to curbing power theft in peri-urban locations in India. Many factors are responsible for this phenomenon. What questions will you ask and how will you collect information on the ground to inform any future innovations you might come up with? (Case Study subject to change)
Brainstorming and Concepting in Response to Ethnographic Data

The group is responsible for conceptualizing a new ways to promote maternal and child health using mobile devices. Data on this question has already been collected and will be shown to you in the form of a brief presentation. You must come up with as many different ideas or concepts as possible using post-its. Then you must prioritize these concepts and vote on the ones you would like to see implemented. (Case Study subject to change)
Approaches to Institutionalizing Innovation in Government

This group will consider ways and means for accelerating and institutionalizing innovation in governance, through for example, the provision of knowledge, best practices, support, training, and organizational change. Ideas may include, but not be restricted to new kinds of handbooks, online sources, academic and applied training and other ideas. Approaches should be evaluated and prioritized prior to presentation back to the group.

4.30 pm
Team Presentations (over tea served at tables)

5.00 pm
What institutional and organizational models can best foster Governance Innovation?

Amit Garg, Director, MXV Consulting (Moderator)
Arun Maira, Member, Planning Commission & Member, National Innovation Council
R. Gopalakrishnan, Member Secretary, National Innovation Council
Mohammad Haleem Khan, Director, CAPART
D S Ravindran, CEO, Center of e-Governance, Government of Karnataka
Aditya Dev Sood, CEO, Center for Knowledge Societies

Other Notable Discussants and Interactants

Anil Khachi, Deputy Director General, UIDAI
Narahari Mahato, Member of Parliament, AIFB
N. Cheluvaraya Swamy, Member of Parliament, JD(S)
Syed Azeez Pasha, Member of Parliament, CPI
Moinul Hassan, Member of Parliament, CPM
Amit Garg, Director, MXV Consulting
William Bissell, Managing Director, FabIndia
Kalpana Awasthi, Officer on Special Duty (OSD) to Sam Pitroda
Abhimanyu Kulkarni, Design Director, Philips Design
D. Raja, Member of Parliament, CPI
Josh Glazeroff, Visa Chief, US Embassy
Pooja Sood, Curator and Director, Khoj Foundation
Ravina Agarwal, Program Officer, Ford Foundation
Nita Soans, Advisor, Center for Knowledge Societies
Ekta Ohri, Head of Project Operations, Center for Knowledge Societies

Individual Participation

In order to make each voice count, entry to the conclave will be by arrangement only. Others who are truly interested, should please drop us a few lines on how they would like to contribute and we will be glad to get back in touch.

There are no registration fees. However, we would like to see participants take their own initiative in covering their own travel costs and making their own arrangements for stay so far as possible. If specific needs are perceived, please communicate them to the organizers.

Institutional Participation

Confederations of industry, associations of management, departments of government and diverse development sector and civil society organizations are invited to express their interest in supporting this event.

Organizers

Center for Knowledge Societies (CKS)
Center for Internet and Society (CIS)

Sponsors

Venkatramanan Associates (VA)
Center for Law and Policy (CLP)

Date and Venue
The date for the event has been decided for Friday, the 18th of March, 2011. It will be held at the Taj Vivanta in Central Delhi.

Thought Leadership and Dialogue
Dr. Aditya Dev Sood, CEO, Center for Knowledge Societies
aditya@cks.in

Naresh Narasimhan, Principal, VA Associates
naresh@vagroup.com

Sudhir Krishnaswamy, Founder, Center for Law and Policy
sudhir.krishnaswamy@ashiralaw.co.in

Participation Enquiries

Sumeet Malhotra, Business Development Manager
sumeet@cks.in

Download the book here [PDF, 2.8 MB]
Download the case studies here [PDF, 641 KB]
Download the glossary here

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/events/design-public

The Working Draft of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2010: Does it exceed its Mandate in Including Provisions Relating to Other Disability Legislations?

praskrishna — 2012-12-14T10:32:18Z

The Centre for Internet and Society, Inclusive Planet and the Centre for Law and Policy Research in this legal note analyse how far the January draft of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act touches upon the provisions of the other disability legislations, namely the Mental Health Act and The National Trusts Act and thereby exceeds the mandate given by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment to amend only the Persons with Disabilities Act.

Introduction

This is a brief Note on the Working Draft of the Persons with Disabilities Act dated 1.12.2010 (“Working Draft”) on the specific issue of how it relates to the three other disability legislations being the National Trusts Act 1999, the Mental Health Act 1987 and the Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992.

From the Working Draft it is seen that there are several provisions which are contradictory to some of the provisions in these three legislations in significant ways. This Note also raises concerns as to whether the Working Draft has exceeded its mandate given by the Committee to only amend the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (“PWD Act”) by attempting to draft a comprehensive disability law which includes even the other disability legislations .

The Committee and its Mandate

The Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, through an Office Memorandum1, constituted a Committee to “draft a new legislation to replace the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995” (“Committee”). 2 The main aim of setting up the Committee was to ensure that the PWD Act was in consonance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and not to amend any of the other disability legislations. 3

After the Committee was set up, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee dated 22-07-2010 4 show that the Chairperson reminded the Committee members of the specific purpose for which it was set up and was therefore “not going to debate on formulating one comprehensive law that would repeal all other current disability legislations such as The National Trust Act, Mental Health Act and Rehabilitation Council of India Act, etc.”5

Subsequently, the Consultant appointed by the Committee released several drafts and the latest Working Draft of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2010 is dated 01.12.2010(“Working Draft”). 6 The Working Draft surprisingly states that “the mandate of the Committee to the Consultant was to put together a comprehensive legislation which covers all rights of all persons with disabilities.” 7

Further, the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Working Draft proposes to “replace the current disability legislations with a comprehensive law which recognizes all rights of all persons with disabilities.” 8

These statements in the Working Draft raise some confusion as to whether the mandate given by the Committee has been clearly understood before the drafting process commenced. If the mandate was indeed to only amend the PWD Act and not to amend any of the other legislations such as the National Trusts Act, the Mental Health Act and the Rehabilitation Council of India Act, then the drafting should have been restricted to amending the PWD Act to the extent possible, and not to affect the provisions of the other legislations.

The Working Draft on Other Disability Legislations

The Working Draft does not suggest any amendments to the other disability legislations such as the National Trust Act, 1999, Mental Health Act, 1987 and Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992. However, as to the effect that the Working Draft should have on these other legislations, it leaves a “Pending Question” which states9:

“The issue of the induction of the National Trust and the Rehabilitation Council as separate chapters could not be attempted primarily because there was no time left to undertake a coherent and systematic exercise. It may also be noted that as the length of the statute expanded we felt a constraint of space in even incorporating all the provisions of power and accountability in the chapter on the Disability Rights Authority. It may also be noted that all significant authorities in the country have dedicated legislations around them. In this view of the matter the Committee would need to consider whether it would wish to suggest the creation of One Disability Law Code and within which have legislations on : Disability Rights; the Disability Authority; the National Trust; and the Rehabilitation Council. Or whether it would also wish to induct the National Trust and the Rehabilitation Council into this legislation?”

Added to this, the Memorandum on Disability Code (“Memorandum”) prepared along with the Working Draft explains that the reasons mentioned in the Pending Question along with the lack of time prevented the working out of the linkages between the DRA, the National Trust and the Rehabilitation Council of India.10

About the other dedicated legislations, the Memorandum states as follows11:

“Since we reached the opinion that the newly established DRA should have its own legislation we also concluded that the National Trust and the RCI should have their own legislations which should spell out the specific tasks each of those authorities should carry out to implement the rights recognized in the New Rights for Persons with Disabilities Act. The National Trust should be the authority which addresses the issue of multiple discrimination and be mandated to proactively formulate policies and programs by which to ensure the equality and non discrimination of persons with disabilities who are so disadvantaged and the RCI could work on HRD. The composition and powers and functions of the three bodies should be so created that it ensures convergence of operation.”

With regard to the Mental Health Act, the Memorandum makes the following recommendation12

“The proposed new law recognizes the paradigm of legal capacity with support. It also recognizes the right to life, liberty and integrity of all persons with disabilities. The recognition of these rights requires a re-examination of the Mental Health Act. Even if it is accepted that community living and no force are what is required for all; it is necessary to ask what should be done with the existing institutions and the inmates housed in them. The process of dismantling cannot be done without creating alternative services and there is a need to make a transit legislation which addresses this interim situation. The reason for making the transit legislation comes from the main law but to allow coherent operation and efficient implementation of these transitory measures it is better that they are contained in a separate legislation.”

These statements in the Explanatory Notes to the Working Draft shows that it not restricted itself to only amending the PWD Act as envisaged by the Mandate given by the Committee. An examination of the Working Draft shows that it has neither completely substituted the provisions of the three other disability legislations into the Working Draft, nor has it restricted itself to amending only the PWD Act - it is somewhere in the middle, where some many provisions which are covered by the three other disability legislations are significantly altered and at the same time these legislations are not sought to be amended simultaneously.

If the intention of the Working Draft is to replace all the other disability legislations, then it clearly exceeds the mandate of the Committee.

Section 7A(2) of the Working Draft

Section 7A (2) and 7B (2) in the Working Draft are included only within the chapter relating to Legal Capacity. They are phrased unusually to render any legislation, rule, notification, order, bye-law, regulation, custom and practice that deprive a person with disability from exercising his legal capacity as void.

Such a provision in one statute which declares a provision in another statute as void may not even be constitutionally permissible. The function of the legislature is to enact, re-enact, amend and repeal laws. The judiciary under Article 13 of the Constitution can exercise its powers of judicial review to render a provision which infringes on the fundamental rights as void. The legislature however, has no such power.

The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in P.L. Mehra and Ors v. D.R. Khanna and Ors (AIR 1971 Delhi 1) held as follows:
“…the decision in Mahendra Lal Jaini's case, as to the nature of a statute becoming void under Article 13 confirms the view that the statute itself continues to exist on the statute book but has become "ineffectual, nugatory and devoid of any legal force or binding effect". The thrust of these words is that such a law cannot be given effect to by the Courts in deciding upon the rights of the parties. These words are significant only for the purposes of the Courts vis-a-vis the rights of the parties. They would be meaningless if applied to the power of the Legislature to re-enact, repeal or amend a statute. For, one can hardly say that these powers of the Legislature cannot be exercised in respect of a statute which is ineffectual, nugatory and devoid of any legal force or binding effect. Indeed, it would be all the more necessary for the Legislature to amend or cure statutes which are suffering from such defects. The nature of the defects is such that only a judicial decision can point them out. It is not by an act of Legislature but only by a judicial decision that one would know whether a statute is ineffectual, nugatory and devoid of any legal force or binding effect.”

Therefore, the declaration of a statutory provision as ‘void’ can only be done by the judiciary as “voiding” of the law only comes into question at the time of the enforcement or implementation of the law. The legislature’s function is to repair the defect in legislation by amending it or repealing the whole legislation.

The Working Draft, in declaring other legislative provisions as void is being vague as to the specific provisions of specific legislations which are to fall under the Section. The Working Draft cannot make a blanket declaration of all laws inconsistent with legal capacity as void without taking steps to identify the provisions and make amendments or deletions.

Effect of the Working Draft without amendment of other disability legislations

The provisions of the Working Draft are introduced in such a way as to affect the provisions of the other disability legislations. In light of this, the need for amending the provisions of these disability legislations is a pressing one. The inconsistencies between the Working Draft and the other disability legislations range from the definition of ‘persons with disability’ to the recognition of the basic principle of legal capacity. As detailed in the table, the National Trust Act follows a completely different basis for determining who a ‘person with disability’ is. If the definition is not amended under the National Trust Act, it results in an inconsistency in the language under the various disability legislations.

Further, the Working Draft is not correct in declaring that other legislative provisions which deprive a person of legal capacity as void. Declaration that a provision of law is void is not the function of the legislature. Its function is to adequately amend it so as to be consistent with the principles it intends to introduce and enforce. This applies to the principle of legal capacity which the Working Draft aims to bring into all the disability legislations. In order to do so, it has to amend the Mental Health Act and the National Trust Act accordingly.

The authorities under the various disability legislations have their set functions. However, the Working Draft is uncertain as to how to divide the responsibilities of the various authorities. It does not incorporate the various authorities under the Working Draft provisions itself. However, it encroaches on the powers and functions of those authorities by making the Disability Rights Authority or some other ‘delegated authority’ in charge of them. While doing so, it does not even amend the provisions of the other legislations. This is a serious discrepancy as the enforcement of rights and performance of duties under the legislations. If there is a confusion as to which authority is responsible to perform a specific function, then a person might be deprived of the very rights that the Draft seeks to enforce.

Leaving the other disability provisions unamended leads to an especially difficult situation when the courts have to determine the intention of the legislature while drafting and have to apply that intention while interpreting it. Further, it is not clear as to what rights should be enforced against which authority in court. Therefore, the merging of the areas of function between the various authorities makes the enforcement of rights itself difficult and therefore uncertain.

Conclusion

Thus, as seen from the Working Draft, it is clear that it seeks to be one comprehensive law on disability, which would encompass issues addressed by several other disability laws. The explanatory notes state that it leaves the issue of the DRA and the authorities such as the Rehabilitation Council and the National Trust as a Pending Question.

It also refers to a Disability Code, which would encompass all disability legislation within its framework and raise this as an issue for the Committee to decide, when that has never been the mandate of the Committee. The explanatory notes state that it would bring within its fold all authorities such as the Rehabilitation Council and the National Trust and that the linkages between these authorities and the new Disability Rights Authority set up under the Working Draft would have to be worked out through transit legislation. The Working Draft leaves the discretion to the Committee to come to a conclusion as to whether all the authorities have to be incorporated under the same legislations or a separate Code with all the legislations has to be prepared. Thus, the roles which the authorities have to perform are left uncertain. The Mandate of the Committee was to replace the PWD Act, 1995. Therefore, the powers and functions of authorities which are established under the other disability legislations ought to have been left untouched. Instead, the Working Draft seeks to make a comprehensive legislation covering all the disabilities while it leaves the implementation aspect uncertain and undecided.

These statements along with some of the specific provisions mentioned in the table above show clearly that the Working Draft aims to be some kind of a comprehensive code to bring in all disability legislations within its fold and not only to amend the PWD Act, which was its specific mandate. For these reasons, the Working Draft has exceeded the mandate given to it. This has been suggested even by some members of the Committee. 13

Further, the Working Draft by only including Section 7A(2) in its chapter relating to Legal Capacity, which would render all other legislation in contravention to it as void, is not suitable and adequate. There would be adverse consequences if the other legislations are not suitably amended. For example, the entire Mental Health Act would need an overhaul if the right to legal capacity is introduced in the Working Draft. The local committees set up under the National Trusts Act would have to be completely abolished as their only role is to appoint guardians, which is completely done away with in the Working Draft. Thus, the mere inclusion of Section 7A (2) is not sufficient and workable, nor is it within the powers of the legislature to include.

The Working Draft has listed in Schedule 1 the amendments suggested to other legislations. This Schedule is incomplete and the specific provisions relating to the National Trusts Act 1999, the Rehabilitation Council of India Act 1992 and the Mental Health Act 1987 are also legislations which need amendment and should be included in this Schedule.

It is crucial that there is clarity on these important issues as to what exactly is being proposed to be amended. Whether it is only the PWD that is sought to be replaced or all other disability legislations are to be replaced by a Disability Code need to be understood by the drafters. If the mandate is only to amend the PWD Act, then it is important that we restrict ourselves to this mandate so as to ensure that other disability legislations are not affected. The other legislations can be amended at their own time, after the present PWD Act has been revised as per the mandate of the Committee.

Download the working draft in the format you may prefer:

For word, click here
For pdf, click here

Notes

1GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. DEP’T OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EMPOWERMENT, OFFICE MEMORANDUM FOR THE CONSTITUTION OF A COMMITTEE TO DRAFT A NEW LEGISLATION TO REPLACE THE PWD ACT, 1995., F.No. 16-38/2006-DD.III, (30th April 2010).

2 id

3See id

4See MINUTES OF MEETING, 2ND MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE TO DRAFT NEW LEGISLATION FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES., ( 22nd July 2010).

5See id at Page 1.

6See Working Draft of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2010, available at http://www.disabilitystudiesnalsar.org/newlaw.php. (Last visited on 24-01-2011).

7See id at Explanatory Note.

8See id at Statement of Objects and Reasons.

9Explanatory Notes: Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act Working Draft, Part IV, available at http://www.disabilitystudiesnalsar.org/explanatory-notes.php. (Last visited on 24-01-2011)

10See Memorandum on Disability Code, Background, available at http://www.disabilitystudiesnalsar.org/bcp-disability-code.php. (Last visited on 24-01-2011)

11See id at Dedicated Legislations.

12See id at Transitory Measures

13“Crisis hits panel on new Disability law” Available at http://www.tribuneindia.com/2010/20101224/main5.htm

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/accessibility/blog/working-draft

2(m) or not 2(m)

praskrishna — 2011-04-01T15:55:48Z

An article by Nilanjana S Roy was published in the Business Standard on February 19, 2011. In this article Nilanjana Roy explains to us how a copyright amendment might change the way we read, write and publish in India.

Call this the war of the slogans. On one side, copyright lawyers and the Ministry of Human Resource Development offer the lure of cheaper books for Indian readers. On the other, publishers and authors speak of the death of Indian publishing as we know it.

Section 2(m), a proposed amendment to India’s copyright law that would allow the parallel import of books, is a dry piece of legalese, but it’s sparked a blog war, a flurry of publisher white papers, and a wide debate on copyright and territory.

The rationale is a legally sound one — to align Indian copyright law with Indian patent and trademark law, both of which follow the principle of “international exhaustion”: once a product has been legitimately sold, that product can be resold anywhere in the world without the consent of the owner of the copyright, be that the author or the publisher.

According to the Association of Publishers of India, “This proviso would mean that books published in any country could be freely made available and sold in India, without this amounting to infringement of copyright.”

Theoretically, parallel imports would allow a publisher or a printer who does not hold copyright to an Indian edition of a book to print his or her own editions of the book, under certain conditions, and release them back into the Indian market. There is also a fear among publishers that this might lead to widespread “dumping”, where the market is flooded with cheap, remaindered books.”

When this applies to books, specifically, one side argues that allowing “parallel imports” of books would open up the Indian publishing market to competition and would allow readers access to cheaper books. The other side argues that authors and publishers would suffer, and that in the long run, so would the reader. Thomas Abraham, managing director, Hachette India, states his position succinctly: “This would be the death of publishing and writing as we know it in India — and ironically by a surfeit of books.”

Step back from the rhetoric and the very complex issues involved about the intricacies of copyright law, territoriality in publishing, the book remainders market and book dumping, and here’s how the amendment is likely to affect readers, authors, publishers and booksellers.

Booksellers

Perhaps the sharpest summary comes from Landmark Bookstore’s Madhu Mohan: “As booksellers, we want to give our customers a wider range at a lower price. An open market immediately affords both: the cost of this is that publishers with Indian market rights might suffer. The more significantly affected parties are authors, publishers and readers. If, arguably, territorial rights are not sold, authors might earn lower advances. Publishers who have paid for territorial rights, are not able to get the full benefit of their monies. Readers should welcome the change, because at the outset they will get lower priced books.”

His view is echoed across the bookselling industry, with reactions ranging from indifference to the possible repercussions to cautious alarm — for many booksellers, a weak or damaged Indian publishing industry is also a negative.

Almost all booksellers agree that the short-term benefits of allowing parallel imports would be to lower the price of books. India already has among the lowest-priced English language books in the world, but it would be interesting to see if even lower prices reeled in a different kind of reader. As Mohan points out, book imports would be cheaper; books published in India by Indian or foreign authors would be adversely affected. The long-term scenario is another matter; if the Indian publishing industry is hit hard, we could be flooded with cheap, low-quality remainders, or lose price benefits in the long run.

Authors

For authors, what’s key about the 2(m) amendment is the way in which it would affect the writer’s copyright over his/ her work — and also the shifts it might bring about in the industry in general. Copyright lawyer Nandita Saikia observes that once a publisher effectively loses control over an edition of a book — if competing editions are allowed into the market — “This would significantly diminish the ability of publishers to invest in Indian authors and Indian writing.” From Abraham at Hachette to Chiki Sarkar at Random House to Tata McGraw Hill, there seems to be consensus on this aspect of the amendment.

In contrast, Pranesh Prakash of the Centre for Internet and Society argues strongly in favour of 2(m) and dismantling the “licence raj” that requires booksellers and distributors to have authorisation to import books: “Allowing people to import goods without permissions (with appropriate duties) is taken for granted in all other areas, so why not copyrighted works? After all, it is not the act of publication that gets affected, but the right of exclusive distribution.”

But many authors point out that publishing and bookselling operate differently from other industries, and the dynamics of writing and bookselling are not comparable. Author Amit Varma puts forward the writer’s objections: “As the author of a book, I should have the right to assign the rights to sell my book to any publisher in India that I feel like, and the law should protect that right, and my contract with the publisher. Parallel import obviously makes a mockery of that right, and can deny me significant potential royalties.”

Publishers

At Penguin India, Andrew Phillips is blunt: “We stand firmly against the amendment. Penguin is both a ‘foreign’ publisher and an Indian publisher and we believe it will affect both parts of our business. We don’t believe the effects will be minor — to the contrary, this would have a fundamental impact on the publishing business both for international authors and Indian authors who aspire to be read outside India.”

The publishers’ arguments are complex, but stripped of the technicalities, they rest on the question of territoriality. When publishing worldwide operates on the basis of territorial agreements — authors sell rights to their works for specific regions — opening up the market unilaterally makes little sense. India might open its market, via 2(m), to competing imports and editions; but Indian publishers don’t have the right to sell similar editions of books in the UK or US markets.

In other words, the market would open up only in one direction — and this could diminish Indian publishers’ ability to nurture new writing, release Indian editions of foreign authors, and pay authors significant royalties.

Behind the rhetoric, nothing about this proposed change in copyright laws is simple, and the repercussions for authors and publishers are likely to be both significant and adverse. There’s an interesting parallel in the Australian market, which, like the Indian publishing industry, is thriving but relatively young, and lacks the clout of the formidable US, UK and European markets.

Two years ago, when the move to allow parallel imports of books was discussed in Australia, that discussion was fierce, impassioned and hotly contested. Nor was it limited to the industry; when readers realised that the debate was really over what they would get to read, which authors would benefit or lose out, and how this would impact their intellectual lives, the debate went public.

In the case of Australia, it took a full year of discussion before it was finally decided not to introduce parallel imports for the publishing industry. Whatever the possible adverse effects — or benefits — of parallel imports, we haven’t had that discussion yet in India. It’s a necessary one, and it affects anybody equipped with a mind, a wallet and the ability to walk into a bookstore. This would be a good time to have it, before the law is set in stone.

The original article was published by Business Standard.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/copyright-amendment

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

praskrishna — 2011-04-04T07:18:10Z

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

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

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

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

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

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

Looking forward to welcoming you at the workshop!

The Agenda

9.30-9.45: Welcome and introductions

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

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

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

11.30-11.50: Tea/Coffee Break

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

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

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

14.00 - 15.30: Parallel sessions:

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

15.30 - 16.15: Strategies for the way forward

Moderated by Mr Frank La Rue

16.15-16.30 : Closing remarks

16.30 - 17.00: Tea/Coffee

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

Information about the Organisers

The Centre for Internet and Society

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

DEMOS Institute

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

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