Centre for Internet and Society

I&N Partners’ Meeting – Rio

praskrishna — 2013-01-07T12:24:59Z

Information and Networks Partners is organising this event in Rio de Janerio on December 11 - 13, 2012. Sunil Abraham is participating as a speaker in the session on Open Business and IP.

Agenda

Day 1, December 11, 2012

8:30-9:30	Introduction – Why we are here
9:30-11:00	Session 1: The Networked Landscape in the South Mike Jensen and Steve Song/ Helani Galpaya, Alison Gilwald, Roxana Barrante Helani Galpaya, Alison Gilwald, Roxana Barrantes
11:00-11:15	Break
11:15-12:30	Session 2: Open Governance and Rights Emmanuel Lallana, Elisa Calza/Tim Davies, Carly Nyst, Robert Guerra, Nagla Rizk
12:30-1:30	Lunch
1:30-3:00	Session 3: Learning and Science Cheryl Hodgkinson-Williams, Gustavo Fischman, Francois Grey, Eve Gray
3:00-3:15	Break
3:15-5:00	Session 4: Open Business and IP Ronaldo Lemos, Jeremy Debeer, Sunil Abraham, Joe Karaganis

Day 2, December 12, 2012

9:00-10:45	Exploring Openness and Interdisciplinarity
10:45-11:00	Break
11:00-12:00	Exploring Openness and Interdisciplinarity
12:00-1:30	Lunch
1:30-2:45	How to Build research capacity (SIRCA) and foster innovation (SEED Alliance)?
2:45-3:00	Break
3:00-5:00	Exploring Grants + (Intro to DECI)

Day 3, December 13, 2012

9:00 - 10:45	Planning Ahead and Working Together
10:45 - 11:00	Break
11:00 - 12:00	Planning Ahead and Working Together
12:00 - 1:30	Lunch

Click to download the full details here

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/i-and-n-partners-meeting-rio

I Spy

praskrishna — 2013-10-23T09:33:47Z

I Spy

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

I don't want my fingerprints taken

praskrishna — 2011-04-02T11:41:46Z

Through this article published in Down to Earth, Nishant Shah looks at the role of the state as arbiter of our privacy.

The census, or the collection of citizen data, has been a fundamental aspect of governance for most modern nations. It reminds us that modern governance has been wedded to information, even before it became fashionable to talk of the information age after the digital explosion. Different governments have sought mechanisms to gather and centralize citizen data to effectively administer public services, equity and justice. We have appointed the state as a repository of this data and also the trustee of privacy of this data.

However, lately, in India as well as other countries, there has been a growing anxiety about the role of the state as the arbiter of our privacy.

As public-private-partnerships become a desirable norm for many governments, the citizen data is available to private players who can exploit it for vested interest. In everyday life, this proliferation of citizen data can manifest itself from spam calls by product bearing companies that all of us experience on a regular basis to shattering violence inflicted on selective communities as was seen in Gujarat in the aftermath of the communal conflict in Godhra. While we have, reluctantly, invested our faith in the government in offering our personal data, it comes as a shock that the data has been compromised in the government’s partnerships with the market.

We have always known that even in its physical form, the citizen data often travels through insurance companies, private healthcare systems, financial databases and opens us to invasive surveillance by their operators. But the data is not immediately linked to our bodies. It is possible to deny the data related to our name, sex, occupation and class, or escape it, if necessary. The data resides in large databases, so huge that they fail to make sense to anybody who has to browse through the records.

With the digital data gathering—the kinds that the Unique Identity Project (now known as Aadhar) uses—these safety nets were already weakened. In its digital form, the data suddenly became vulnerable to algorithmic searches and queries that allow for extremely customized and selective data to be made available to operators who are not accountable to us.

Moreover, the digital data can now travel easily across fault lines and previously accepted boundaries to mark citizens in ways that make survival precarious. The anxieties that have surrounded the Aadhar project have been fuelled by the lack of transparent accountability about citizen data usage.

These anxieties around digital data collection get aggravated by the introduction of the biometric protocols into the system. Even with digital data, there was a certain amount of autonomy and agency available to the citizen, to either morph or escape the data production that the system required. Like in earlier times, the relationship of the data was not with the individual citizen’s body but with the citizen as a representative of the larger population. There was no undeniable link that would bind the data on the physiological presence of the citizen.

Biometric system makes the citizen data personal—they tie it up with our inalienable self and body. The data once gathered offers no escape from the information webs, and the possibilities of abuse and violence in such a link between citizen data and the individual citizen’s presence are mind-boggling. We are talking about a dystopian sci-fi vision where each individual has a unique relationship through his/her unique identity with systems of justice, regulation, consumption and production. Everything from what you wear to what you eat to who you are friends with and what you do in your spare time can be tied to your physical body and self. This posits a fundamental threat to the human rights, dignity and security offered by the Constitution.

The census promises the safety of the citizen through anonymity. The biometric data collection violates this safety and suddenly makes us vulnerable to being single, unique and alone in our identity which can be exploited by anybody. The biometric fixity of our identity identifies us, marks us and ties us down to the mass abuse that any information system is always susceptible to. There will be no escape.

Read the article in Down to Earth

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/fingerprints-taken

I dare you, I double dare you: Social media celebrates Sec 66A verdict

praskrishna — 2015-03-26T16:33:55Z

Users across social media platforms on Tuesday welcomed the Supreme Court's scrapping of the controversial Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, hailing it as a measure that will strengthen freedom of expression online.

The article by Vishakha Saxena published in the Hindustan Times on March 25, 2015 quotes Pranesh Prakash.

"This is the first SC judgment since the 60s to plainly strike down a law for free expression violation! #66A," tweeted Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Centre for Internet and Society in Bengaluru.

Prakash, who tweeted "I AM ECSTATIC!!" minutes after the judgement, was one of the most vocal critics of Section 66A - which made offensive comments online punishable with jail terms - and played a key role in creating awareness about freedom of expression.

Apar Gupta, a representative of the People's Union for Civil Liberties (one of the parties that petitioned the Supreme Court against section 66A), also took to Twitter to jubilantly declare victory.

"My TL is a little crazy right now…This decision means a lot to me. Thank you. I am smiling." he posted.

Supreme Court advocate Karuna Nundy, who too represents PUCL, expressed her happiness on Facebook.

The top court struck down the provision, described as draconian by many internet rights activists, describing it as "unconstitutional" and a "restriction on free speech".

Section 66A, incorporated through an amendment of the IT Act in 2009, prohibited the sending of information of a "grossly offensive" or "menacing" nature through communication devices. It was used by several states to arrest people over posts on social media that officials claimed were "seditious" or "communally sensitive".

Discussions on social media against the provision had gained pace hours ahead of the court's ruling. Twitter, in fact, was abuzz as thousands used the hashtag #No66A to voice their opinions.

Reddit, known for being unabashed with opinion and language, wasn’t far behind. The first post announcing the verdict was upvoted 96% and garnered 460 points within four hours.

"Supreme Court zindabad! Now can we abuse Azam Khan without any fear?" commented user Apunebolatumerilaila.

Another user, Indian_galileo, wrote, "FINALLY, SOME SENSE HAS PREVAILED PRAISE THE OVERLORDS AT SC THANK YOU SC THANK YOU VERY VERY MUCH."

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/hindustan-times-march-25-2015-vishakha-saxena-i-dare-you-i-double-dare-you

I Bragger

praskrishna — 2012-05-23T08:22:35Z

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

I & P Partners Meeting at Rio

praskrishna — 2013-01-07T12:22:36Z

Sunil Abraham made a presentation on Open Business and IP.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/i-and-p-partners-meeting.pdf

Hyderabad Labelathon

praskrishna — 2018-08-22T15:08:41Z

Hyderabad Labelathon 2

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/HyderabadLabelathon2.jpg

Hyderabad Labelathon

praskrishna — 2018-08-22T15:07:12Z

Hyderabad Labelathon

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/HyderabadLabelathon1.jpg

Humming bird drone

praskrishna — 2013-02-25T06:51:59Z

humming bird drone

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

Human rights, freedom of expression and free flow of information on the Internet

praskrishna — 2013-11-09T03:38:59Z

This session will offer a multistakeholder overview of the current status of human rights, freedom of expression and free flow of information on the Internet. Pranesh Prakash was a speaker at this event.

Click to read the details posted on IGF website here.

The interactive discussion will touch upon many of the key issues that will be discussed in related workshops prior to the session and will give all stakeholders an equal platform to address issues related to human rights and the Internet to find points of consensus, points of convergence and points of further action/research/referral to other institutions or actors if appropriate.

Policy related questions that this session will address include:

What are/have been the main themes at the nexus of the Internet and human rights in 2013? What have been the policy responses? What are the key strategies and actions for responding to these themes?
What is working well to promote human rights, freedom of expression and the free flow of information on the Internet? What are areas for concern?
What HR standards can be applied in the digital environment?
The HRC adopted a milestone resolution in 2012, in which governments agreed that the same HR apply online as offline (Res 20/8). Do all stakeholders agree with this core concept? What is the relevance of this resolution to Internet public policy making? What has been the impact of the revelations of wide-spread mass surveillance been on taking the implications of this resolution forward?
How can all stakeholders, taking their different roles and responsibilities into account, respect, protect and promote human rights on the Internet nationally, regionally and globally?

Speakers:

Host Country Chair: Prof. Dr. Harkristuti Harkrisnowo (Director General of Human Right, Ministry of Law and Human Right)
Moderators: Anja Kovacs, Internet Democracy Project, New Delhi and Johan Hallenborg, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Stockholm, supported by Anriette Esterhuysen, APC, Johannesburg.
Remote Moderator: TBC
Rapporteur: Joy Liddicoat, APC, Wellington (The rapporteur will summarise the session at the end and report into 'Taking Stock')

PART 1: Regional perspectives on human rights on the Internet [45 minutes]

To get the discussion going, the moderators will ask the following people to respond, from a regional perspective, to the question: What are/have been the main themes at the nexus of the Internet and human rights in 2013 in your region?

Eduardo Bertoni, CELE, University of Palermo, Buenos Aires
Fadlah Adams, South African Human Rights Commission, Cape Town
Gayathry Venkiteswaran, Executive Director, Southeast Asian Press Alliance, Bangkok
Jochai Ben-Avie, Access, New York
Moez Chakchouk, ATI, Tunis
Lee Hibbard, Council of Europe, Strasbourg

PART 2: Delving into specific issues [45 minutes]

What is working well to promote human rights, freedom of expression and the free flow of information on the Internet? What are areas for concern? What HR standards can be applied in the digital environment?
Potential Speakers from the Audience:

Freedom of expression: Guy Berger, UNESCO, Paris; Cynthia Wong, Human Rights Watch, Washington DC; Beryl Aidi, Kenyan Human Rights Commission, Nairobi; Ramiro Alvarez Ugarte, Association for Civil Rights, Buenos Aires.
Internet intermediary liability: Gbenga Sesan, Paradigm Initiative, Lagos; Zahid Jamil, Barrister-at-law, Karachi; Malcolm Hutty, LINX, London.
Sexual rights (rights of LGBT communities): Bishakha Datta, Point of View, New Delhi; Nadine Mouawad, EROTICS, Beirut.
Free flow of information, access to knowledge and IP issues: Stuart Hamilton, International Federation of Library Associations, The Hague; Nick Aston Hart, International Digital Economy Alliance (IDEA), Geneva; Pranesh Prakash, CIS, Bangalore; Claudio Ruiz, Derechos Digitales, Santiago.

Network neutrality (in terms of free flow of information): Lisl Brunner, GNI, US/Europe; Luca Belli, Dynamic Coalition on Net Neutrality, Tech and academic community, Europe; Paul Mitchell, Microsoft, US.

Surveillance and transborder access to data: global and national dimensions: Nicolas Seidler, ISOC, Geneva, Ross LaJeunesse, Global Head of Free Expression and International Relations, Google, Mountain View; Seth Bouvier, US Dept. of State, Government, Washington DC; Meryem Merzouki, EDRI (European Digital Rights), Paris.

PART 3: Input from IGF workshops, dynamic coalitions, open forums and other focus sessions [45 minutes]

Organisers of workshops etc. related to Human Rights will be asked to respond to further questions from the moderators, from the perspective of the outcome of their workshop/event.

How can all stakeholders, taking their different roles and responsibilities into account, respect, protect and promote human rights in Internet related public policy making nationally, regionally and globally?

What are some points of consensus; points of convergence; points of further action/research/referral to other institutions or actors that emerged from their sessions?

PART 4: Discussion and going forward [45 minutes]

The following questions will be addressed:

The Human Rights Council adopted a milestone resolution in which governments agreed that the same HR apply online as offline. Do all stakeholders agree with this core concept? What is the relevance of this resolution to Internet public policy making? What has been the impact of the revelations of wide-spread mass surveillance been on taking the implications of this resolution forward?

What do you think we should do next and what is the role of the IGF?

The rapporteur will be given 6 minutes at the end to summarise.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/igf-2013-october-24-human-rights-freedom-of-expression-free-flow-of-information-on-internet

Human Rights vs National Security

praskrishna — 2017-05-20T02:48:20Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/human-rights-versus-national-security.pdf

Human Rights & Privacy Laws

praskrishna — 2013-03-20T05:22:37Z

Human Rights & Privacy Laws

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/PI.png

Human DNA Profiling

praskrishna — 2016-01-03T09:26:04Z

Human DNA Profiling

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

Huge outcry forces India to backtrack on social media data proposal

praskrishna — 2015-10-01T01:31:55Z

Govt retracts move after strongly negative reaction to 90-day message-saving policy

The article was published by Today on September 24, 2015. Pranesh Prakash has been quoted.

Responding to a chorus of withering criticism, Indian officials have withdrawn a draft policy on encryption that would have required users of social media and messaging apps to save plain-text versions of their messages for 90 days so they could be shared with the police.

The proposal, which many condemned as both draconian and impractical, came as an embarrassment days before Prime Minister Narendra Modi travels to Silicon Valley to try to attract investment and promote India as an emerging market for digital technology.

Mr Modi is an avid user of social media and has mobilised large networks of online activists during his party’s campaigns.

The government issued a statement on Tuesday saying the draft proposing that users save messages for three months had been withdrawn, as officials hurried to distance themselves from the idea.

“I wish to make it clear that it is just a draft and not the view of the government,” said Mr Ravi Shankar Prasad, the Minister of Communications and Information Technology.

Internet policy activists discovered the draft on a government website late last week and began to lampoon it online as “absurd”. One offered the example of an iPhone, which automatically encrypts messages.

“They can’t intentionally want people to copy and paste every message a person gets on their iPhone on to another device,” said Mr Pranesh Prakash, a policy director at the Center for Internet and Society in Bangalore.

The draft, which was put forward by a committee of unidentified experts in the Department of Electronics and Information Technology, also overlooked the fact that most Indians use mobile phones with very little storage space, said Mr Nikhil Pahwa, the editor of MediaNama.com, which covers digital media issues in India.

“It is incomprehensible how they would have expected users to keep their messages in plain-text format,” he said. “And I don’t think that anyone can argue that keeping data in a plain-text format makes it secure.”

An official in the Communications Ministry, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorised to talk to the media, said the expert committee had been convened to formulate a policy on the “phenomenal rise” in encrypted communication over the Internet.

He said the committee had intended to require social media platforms and messaging apps, such as WhatsApp and Viber, to save plain-text versions of messages and did not intend to impose that burden on individual users.

“It was interpreted by the netizens as ‘you and I’,” the official said. He added that interpretation was misleading.

But that version of the requirement would also be “outrageous,” Mr Prakash said. For example, WhatsApp uses “end-to-end” encryption and does not save communications between users or have access to plain text, he said.

Mr Prakash said that as officials revised the proposal, the government should reach out to “experts in cryptography and human rights”.

“This is a very crucial combination of three rights: the right to security, the right to freedom of expression, and the right to privacy,” he said.

On television, spokesmen for Mr Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) found themselves debating their counterparts from the opposition Indian National Congress Party, one of whom remarked that “tomorrow they will start demanding that you videograph what has been going on in your bedroom for the past 90 days.”

The BJP’s national spokeswoman, Shaina Nana Chudasama, responded with some exasperation. “I don’t know why we have to have this hue and cry,” she said.

“Our Prime Minister believes in absolute freedom on social media. There is no question of our trying to come down heavily on the freedom of the public at large.” THE NEW YORK TIMES

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/today-september-24-2015-huge-outcry-forces-india-backtrack-social-media-data-proposal

Hubli Workshop Press Coverage

praskrishna — 2013-07-31T07:52:39Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/hubli-workshop-press-coverage.zip