Centre for Internet and Society

Gig

praskrishna — 2021-12-07T02:07:32Z

Gig

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

Gig

praskrishna — 2021-12-07T01:57:40Z

Gig Work

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

GI-tagged products to get Wiki pages

praskrishna — 2016-01-27T16:33:47Z

Ever realised that the famous, red hot Naga Mirchi (a special variety of chilli from Nagaland) doesn’t have a Wikipedia page?

The article by S. Anandan was published in the Hindu on January 26, 2016.

And that Cannanore Home Furnishings — textile home furnishings from Kannur — is a brand with geographical indication (GI) registration? Wiki, which is an open and free repository of knowledge on the Internet, does not have pages, in English and other recognised Indian languages, on most GI-tagged Indian products.

The Centre for Internet and Society-Access to Knowledge — popular as CIS-A2K— which is a not-for-profit movement to promote the fundamental principles of justice, freedom, and economic development, launched an India Edit-a-thon for seven days from January 25 to generate Wikimedia pages in English and Indian languages on Indian products recognised by the GI Registry of India.

“Kerala alone boasts 23 products, mostly agricultural, with the GI tag. But Malayalam Wiki doesn’t have information on all of them. Besides the Aranmula Kannadi, none of the other GI-tagged products from Kerala have Wiki pages in English. Nationally, there are about 213 GI-tagged products and we know nothing of most of them. There isn’t a single article on many of them even in English. It’s in this context that the Edit-a-thon becomes extremely relevant. It’s being held to celebrate the Republic Day,” says Wiki activist Manoj Karingamadathil.

13 pages already

The campaign, launched on Monday, has evoked enthusiastic response from Wiki activists who have begun to create pages on most of these products. At the time of going to press, 13 GI-tagged Kerala products have got Wiki pages and editors are at work to generate content for these products in English.

Apart from existing Wiki editors, freshers may also be part of the campaign. “All they have to do is to create a Wiki account before sending in researched content,” points out Mr. Manoj. The campaign will be on till January 31.

Seven-day India Edit-a-thon begins; Wiki activists begin creating pages.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/news/the-hindu-s-anandan-january-26-2016-gi-tagged-products-to-get-wiki-pages

GFM 2013

praskrishna — 2013-10-06T07:58:06Z

Nishant Shah participated in a panel discussion with Wendy Chun, Tom Levine and Geert Lovink , around 'The End of Bibliographies: New Media and Research'. Nishant also participated as a panelist in a panel discussion on 'Open Up: Pragmatism and Politics of Open Access'. The programme was held at the University of Luneberg in Germany from October 3 to 5, 2013.

Read the original posted on GFM Blogspot

Donnerstag, 03. Oktober 2013, ab 10:00 Uhr - Registrierung im Hörsaalgang

Begrüßung | Donnerstag, 03. Oktober 2013, 12:00 Uhr–13:30 Uhr in C HS1
Grußworte und Eröffnungsvortrag von Hans Jörg Rheinberger (Berlin) Wissenschaftsgeschichte und das Wissen der Medien

Mittagessen | Donnerstag, 03. Oktober 2013, 13:30 Uhr–14:30 Uhr in der Mensa

Session 1 | Donnerstag, 03. Oktober 2013, 14:30 Uhr–16:30 Uhr
Panel 1.1 | Maß und Medium – Medien der Messung in C HS3
Elektrisierte Zeit. Mediale Strategien in Helmholtz’ Messung der Nervenleitgeschwindigkeit von Henning Schmidgen (Regensburg)

Nachhall: Schallmessung im elektroakustischen Zeitalter von Roland Wittje (Regensburg)

Measuring with moving images in Albert Michotte’s perception experiments von Sigrid Leyssen (Paris | Regensburg)

Understanding Television: TV – als Meßgerätegeschichte von Bernhard Dotzler (Regensburg)

Moderation: Markus Krajewski (Lüneburg | Weimar)

Panel 1.2 | Medienanthropologische Szenarien. Wie situieren sich die Medien der Psychophysik und Psychologie? in C HS4

Intensität und Infinitesimales. Grenzen der Messbarkeit bei Hermann Cohen und Gilles Deleuze von Astrid Deuber-Mankowsky (Bochum)

Empfindung, Wahrnehmbarkeit, Medialität. Historische Psychologie und ihre Medien von Anna Tuschling (Bochum)

Was Zahlen in der sozialpsychologischen Medienwirkungsforschung erzählen. Das Problem der »Gewaltmedien«
von Estrid Sørensen (Bochum)

Moderation: Christoph Engemann (Lüneburg)

Panel 1.3 | Mediale Bedingungen von Behinderung in C HS5

Die (Re-)Sozialisierung technischer Objekte in Patientennetzwerken. Ein Fallbeispiel zur Herstellung des Cochlea-Implantats von Markus Spöhrer (Konstanz)

Netzhautimplantate und Eyeborgs. Visualisierungstechniken zwischen Prothese und Human Enhancement von Robert Stock (Konstanz)

Zur Produktion von Behinderung im Fotoarchiv von Anna Grebe (Konstanz)

Zur Um/Bildung von Gemeinschaften. Das Cochlea-Implantat und die »Sourds en colère« von Beate Ochsner (Konstanz)

Moderation: Anne Ganzert (Konstanz)

Panel 1.4 | (Film-)Wissen als Modus der Kinoerfahrung in C 14.027

Transnationale Filmgeschichte(n) schreiben von Wolfgang Fuhrmann (Zürich)

Filmwissenschaft und ihre Quellen. Historisches Wissen und digitale Repräsentationsformen von Film und Kino von Franziska Heller (Zürich)

Filmwissen/Erfahrungswissen/Kinoerfahrung. Anmerkungen zum Verhältnis von Kinoerfahrung und Wissenserwerb von Florian Mundhenke (Leipzig)

Moderation: Florian Mundhenke (Leipzig)

Panel 1.5 | Was vom Leben bleibt in C 14.001

Vom täglichen Kampf gegen das ›Gestaltsehen‹ und der Hartnäckigkeit von Bildtraditionen. Biologisches Wissen auf der Schwelle eines Medienwandels von Nina Samuel (New York | Berlin)

Über zwei Arten des Gebrauchs von Datenbanken in der Molekularbiologie von Robert Meunier (Berlin)

Moderation: Janina Wellmann (Lüneburg)

Workshop 1.6 | Fakturen in C 14.006

In der Ausstellung »Fakturen – Medien der Wissenschaften«, die anlässlich der GfM–Tagung an der Leuphana stattfindet, reflektieren Künstler_innen wie Martin John Callanan (UK), Driessens & Verstappen (NL), Sabrina Raaf (US), Jan Peter E.R. Sonntag (D) und Herwig Turk (A|PT) über die Ästhetik wissenschaftlicher Instrumentarien, Modelle und Methoden.

In diesem Workshop stellen die Künstler_innen ihre Projekte vor und diskutieren mit den Teilnehmer_innen die spezifischen Erkenntnismöglichkeiten künstlerischer Forschung und Darstellung.

Organisiert vom Leuphana Arts Program (Andreas Broeckmann, Alexandra Waligorski) mit freundlicher Unterstützung des Kunstraum der Leuphana Universität Lüneburg.

AG-Treffen 1.7 | Comicforschung in C 12.001

AG-Treffen 1.8 | Auditive Kultur und Sound Studies in C 12.006

Kaffeepause | Donnerstag, 03. Oktober 2013, 16:30 Uhr–17:00 Uhr im Hörsaalgang

Session 2 | Donnerstag, 03. Oktober 2013, 17:00 Uhr–19:00 Uhr
Panel 2.1 | Medien der Philologie – Philologie der Medien in C HS3

Was ist eine medienphilologische Frage? von Rupert Gaderer (Bochum)

Ist Medienphilologie reaktionär? von Friedrich Balke (Bochum)

Medienphilologie als Verfahren von Natalie Binczek (Bochum)

Braucht die Medienwissenschaft Philologie? von Harun Maye (Weimar)

Moderation: Daniel Eschkötter (Weimar)

Panel 2.2 | Kosmotechnologie in C HS4

Freischwebende Sterne im Stereokomparator von Kohei Suzuki (Berlin)

Nomos, Physis, Techné. Zum Konzept der Kosmotechnologie bei Walter Benjamin von Hans-Christian von Herrmann (Berlin)

Vektorkosmologie. Buckminster Fullers Ausdehnungslehre von Christina Vagt (Berlin)

Das Projektionsplanetarium als Medium kosmologischer Weltbilder von Julian Furrer (Berlin)

Moderation: Isabell Schrickel (Lüneburg)

Panel 2.3 | Akustische Medien als Werkzeuge wissenschaftlicher Erkenntnis in C HS5

Stimmgabeln. Vom Lernen über das Hören und der Verwissenschaftlichung des Gehörs am Beispiel der Zeitschrift für Psychologie und Physiologie der Sinnesorgane (1890–1915) von Heiner Stahl (Erfurt)

Geschulte Ohren und akustische Repräsentation. Zur Geschichte der auditiven Kultur der Naturwissenschaften von Axel Volmar (Siegen)

Tiere, Töne: Tatsachen? Zur Rolle von Medientechnologien in bioakustischer Feldforschung von Judith Willkomm (Siegen)

Insect Noise in Stored Foodstuff. Zur Interferenz von Wissenschaft und Kunst im Feld der Radiophonie von Ania Mauruschat (Basel)

Moderation: Ute Holl (Basel)

Panel 2.4 | Wissenschaft und Audiovision. Vom Denken in und mit bewegten Bildern in C 14.027

Filmmaterial, Fühlbarkeit und Diskurs von Naomi Rolef (Berlin)

What you see is what you get. Zur Rhetorik wissenschaftlicher Vorträge von Christina Schmitt (Berlin) | Sarah Greifenstein (Berlin)

Animierte Filmwissenschaft. Multimediale Publikation und analytische Zugänge zur Ästhetik audiovisueller Medien
von Jan-Hendrik Bakels (Berlin) | Cilli Poggoda (Berlin)

Das Gehirn als Kosmos. Neurowissenschaftliche Bilder und ihre Präsentation in populärwissenschaftlichen audiovisuellen Formaten von Regina Brückner (Berlin) | Sarah Greifenstein (Berlin)

Moderation: Andreas Kirchner (Lüneburg)

Panel 2.5 | Experimentelle Anordnungen zur Erforschung des Medialen in C 14.001

Stil, Experiment und Medium – die epistemische Dimension des Stilbegriffs in Wissenschaft und Kunst von Veronika Pöhnl (Konstanz)

Experimental Television: Versuchsanordnungen der Fernsehkunst von Samantha Schramm (Konstanz)

Die Erkundung des »videospace« in der Arbeit des National Center for Experiments in Television (1967–1975)
von Barbara Filser (Karlsruhe)

Wenn das Wohnzimmer zum Labor wird von Matthias Wieser (Klagenfurt)

Moderation: Isabell Otto (Konstanz)

Panel 2.6 | Medien im Maßstab. Wie sich Feld- und Laborforschung als situierte Medienpraxis untersuchen lassen in C 14.006

Sammeln, Ordnen, Vergleichen. Über die Domestizierung fremder Dinge von Anna Brus (Siegen)

Andere Medien? Anderes Wissen? Anderes Streiten? Weblogs als Formen der internen Wissenschaftskommunikation von Matthias Meiler (Siegen)

Wissenschaftsmedien in »freier Wildbahn«. Computersimulationen und gesellschaftliches Zukunftswissen in Wirtschaft und Politik von Cornelius Schubert (Siegen)

Fliegen, Fotografieren und Wettermachen. Zur Relevanz fotografischer Praktiken im Cloud Seeding von Nadine Taha (Siegen)

Moderation: Gabriele Schabacher (Siegen)

AG-Treffen 2.7 | Medienkultur und Bildung in C 12.001 AG-Treffen 2.8 | Medienwissenschaft und politische Theorie in C 12.006

Abendessen | Donnerstag, 03. Oktober 2013, 19:00 Uhr–20:30 Uhr in der Mensa

Podiumsdiskussion | Donnerstag, 03. Oktober 2013, 20:30 Uhr–21:30 Uhr
Am Ende der Bibliographien. Vom neuen (medialen) Selbstverständnis wissenschaftlichen Arbeitens in C HS 1
mit: Wendy Chun (Providence | Lüneburg), Ute Holl (Basel), Thomas Y. Levin (Princeton | Lüneburg), Geert Lovink (Amsterdam | Lüneburg), Nishant Shah (Bangalore | Lüneburg), Frank Schirrmacher (Frankfurt)

Moderation: Wolfgang Hagen (Lüneburg)

Session 3 | Freitag, 04. Oktober 2013, 9:30 Uhr–11:30 Uhr
Panel 3.1 | Dokumentarischer Film zwischen wissenschaftlicher Forschung und populärer Wissensvermittlung in C HS 3

Die Welt mit dem Röntgenblick sehen von Kay Hoffmann (Stuttgart)

Körperpolitik zwischen den Trümmern: Gesundheitsfilme aus der Besatzungszeit 1946 bis 1949 von Ursula von Keitz (Konstanz)

Die Encyclopaedia Cinematographica – ein analoger Computer von Eva Knopf (Berlin)

Dokumentarische Langzeitstudien als Gegenstand und Verfahren sozialwissenschaftlicher Forschung von Britta Hartmann (Bonn)

Moderation: Thomas Weber (Hamburg)

Panel 3.2 | Informationsumwelten in C HS 4
Record and Erase: Magnettonbandtechnik und die Historiographie des Kalten Kriegs von Monika Dommann (Zürich)

What you see is what you get? Grafische Benutzeroberflächen als infrastrukturelle Bildsysteme von Margarete Pratschke (Zürich)

Die Grenzen der Cyborgmetaphorik. Zur Rolle des fliegerischen Gefühls im Zeitalter der Flugautomation von Christian Kehrt (Hamburg)

Psychologie und Schalttafel. Oder, Informationszeitalter »from below« von Max Stadler (Zürich)

Moderation: Cornelius Borck (Lübeck)

Panel 3.3 | Aperture Sciences. Spielen im Labor des Spielens in C HS 5

»The Cake is a Lie«. Das Portal-Labor als Verhaltensexperiment von Rolf F. Nohr (Braunschweig)

Von sprechenden Kartoffeln und anderen (epistemischen) Dingen. Portal als Experimentalensemble von Markus Rautzenberg (Berlin)

Laborgeschichten von Benjamin Beil (Köln)

»Know your paradoxes!« Das Computerspiel als multistabiles Bild von Thomas Hensel (Siegen)

Moderation: Panelteilnehmer

Panel 3.4 | Szenariotechniken des Anthropozäns. Daten, Kosmogramme, Simulationen in C 14.027
Analoge Signale. Das Anthropozän im geohistorischen Rauschen von Christoph Rosol (Berlin)

Welt – Bild – Technik. Zum Begriff des Visineerings von Isabell Schrickel (Berlin)

Burning Planets – Kosmogramm des Anthropozäns? Eine Medienkritik der Klimavisualisierung von Birgit Schneider (Potsdam)

Vernetzte Daten – Webbasierte Datenbanken in der Klimafolgenforschung von Christine Hanke (Potsdam)

Moderation: Sebastian Vehlken (Lüneburg)

Panel 3.5 | Vor Augen führen in C 14.001

Von Bildern, die »freylich noch vollkommener seyn könnten«. Vetreter der frühen Hirnforschung als Bildkritiker von Wibke Larink (Hamburg)

Orpheus im Atlas oder: Das epistemische Bild bei Aby Warburg von Eva Frey (Lüneburg)

Aufzeichnen. Transformieren. Verzeichnen. Medien der Geschichtsschreibung ephemerer Kunstformen (Performance und Aufführungen) von Barbara Büscher (Leipzig | Köln)

Medien der Medienwissenschaft. Zwischen Gebrauchs- und Diskursgeschichte von Martina Leeker (Lüneburg)

Moderation: Wolfgang Hagen (Lüneburg)

Workshop 3.6 | Das Wissen der Instrumente in C 14.006

Der Workshop »Das Wissen der Instrumente« präsentiert konkrete (medien-)instrumentale Settings als Materialisierungen ästhetischen Wissens. Dabei wird sensorische Medienarbeit mit akademischen Diskursen kurzgeschlossen. Dafür werden die Settings nicht nur in theoretischen Statements vorgestellt, sondern auch von den Teilnehmenden praktisch erprobt.

Organisiert vom Schwerpunktbereich audio^[+] Ästhetische Strategien des Instituts für Kultur und Ästhetik Digitaler Medien, Leuphana Universität Lüneburg (Rolf Großmann, Sarah-Indriyati Hardjowirogo, Andreas Otto, Malte Pelleter) und der Forschungsstelle Musik und Medientechnologie der Universität Osnabrück (Arne Bense).

AG-Treffen 3.7 | Medien und Kunst / Kunst und Medien in C 12.001

AG-Treffen 3.8 | Daten und Netzwerke in C 12.006

Kaffeepause | Freitag, 04. Oktober 2013, 11:30 Uhr–12:00 Uhr im Hörsaalgang

Session 4 | Freitag, 04. Oktober 2013, 12:00 Uhr–13:30 Uhr
Panel 4.1 | Wissensmedium Patent – Kulturtechnik Patentieren in C HS 3

Patentstörungen. Sollbruchstörungen im Medium des Patents von Christian Kassung (Berlin)

Be it known that I ... - Digitalisierte historische Patente als Gegenstand wissenschaftlicher Forschung von Marius Hug (Berlin)

Was erzählt ein Patent? Casellis bildtelegraphische Patente als Medien der Wissenschaften von Julia Zons (Konstanz)

Moderation: Thomas Brandstetter (Basel)

Panel 4.2 | Verhalten bilden in C HS 4

Wahnsinnige Bilder. Zu einer medialen Wissensgeschichte des Irrationalen um 1900 von Veronika Rall (Zürich)

Familien-stellen. Zur Medialität der systemischen Therapie von Katja Rothe (Berlin)

Fotografie, vergleichende Verhaltensforschung und Evolutionslehre am Moskauer Darwin Museum von Margarete Vöhringer (Berlin)

Moderation: Christoph Windgaetter (Berlin)

Panel 4.3 | Programme verstehen - Verstehen programmieren in C HS 5

Source Code als Quelle. Arbeiten mit Friedrich Kittlers Programmierwerk von Paul Feigelfeld (Berlin) | Peter Berz (Berlin)

»Digital Humanities« und das neue Wissen der Bilder. Über Praxis, Theorie und Geschichte der apparativen Bildsortierung von Matthias Wannhoff (Berlin)

Intermedialitätsbegriff und Sinnverstehen im Kontext alternativer Arbeitstechnik von Miklas Schulz (Lüneburg)

Moderation: Martin Warnke (Lüneburg)

Panel 4.4 | Diagramme als Medien des Wissens in C 14.027

Information als Konfiguration. Zum Verhältnis von Gestalt und Gehalt in Diagrammen von Matthias Bauer (Flensburg)

Diagramme als Generatoren wissenschaftlicher Autorität von Christoph Ernst (Erlangen | Nürnberg)

Konfiguration, Leib und Geometrie. Merleau-Pontys Philosophie der Mathematik von Jan Wöbking (Berlin)

Moderation: Gottfried Schnödl (Lüneburg)

Panel 4.5 | HIV|AIDS als visuelles Wissen in C 14.001

Der AIDS-Atlas. AIDS als klinisches Krankheitsbild von Lukas Engelmann (Berlin)

Toxische Körper. Medien der Ansteckung und Affektpolitiken zur Zeit der frühen AIDS-Krise von Katrin Köppert (Berlin)

»Art about AIDS«. Über die Konstruktion von Wissen über Menschen mit AIDS von Sophie Junge (Zürich)

Moderation: Brigitte Weingart (Bonn)

Panel 4.6 | Wissenschaft in Serie. Fernsehen als Versuchsanordnung in C 14.006

Serielle Epidemiologie von Daniela Wentz (Weimar)

Situationen, Labor, Experiment. Die Sitcom als Medium der Wissenschaft des Menschen von Herbert Schwaab (Regensburg)

Die Physik der Serie. Modell und Motiv der Tafel in »The Big Bang Theory« von Dominik Maeder (Siegen)

Moderation: Thomas Waitz (Wien)

AG-Treffen 4.7 | Genre Studies in C 12.001

AG-Treffen 4.8 | Games in C 12.006

Mittagessen | Freitag, 04. Oktober 2013, 13:30 Uhr–14:30 Uhr in der Mensa

Session 5 | Freitag, 04. Oktober 2013, 14:30 Uhr–16:30 Uhr
Panel 5.1 | Medien(Affekt)Wissen in C HS 3

»Von uns schweigen wir...«. Narrative Affektmodulationen in Philosophie und Wissenschaft von Bernd Bösel (Köln)

Affektenlehre, Sonic Warfare und die Medienschriften der auditiven Affizierung von Rolf Großmann (Lüneburg)

Verdrahtete und durchleuchtete Gehirne. Zur Verwendung von Videospielen in neurologischer und psychologischer Forschung von Serjoscha Wiemer (Paderborn)

Affektmedialisierung im diskursiven und sozialen Bereich von Michaela Ott (Hamburg)

Moderation: Marie-Luise Angerer (Köln)

Panel 5.2 | Geteilte Bilder. Fotografieforschung im Internet in C HS 4

Digitale Bildbestände als Grundlage neuer Visualisierungskulturen von Winfried Gerling (Potsdam)

Die Wiederkehr des Analogen. Rezeptionsweisen von Fundfotografien von Susanne Holschbach (Berlin)

Collective Collections. Wissensordnung digitaler Bildersammlungen von Petra Löffler (Berlin)

Neue Bilder, alte Orte. Räume der Bildberichterstattung von Kathrin Peters (Oldenburg)

Moderation: Katja Müller-Helle (Berlin)

Panel 5.3 | Das Wissen der Oberfläche in C HS 5
Oberflächenmoderne von Stefan Rieger (Bochum)

Das Display. Am Beispiel akustischer Texte von Natalie Binczek (Bochum)

Oberflächen und Ränder des Urbanen. Photodokumentarische Forschungen um 1970 von Christoph Eggersglüß (Weimar)

Vom Grund zur Oberfläche. Messung, Behandlung und Beschreibung von Oberflächen in volkssprachlichen Fachtexten der Frühen Neuzeit von Christina Lechtermann (Bochum)

Moderation: Claus Pias (Lüneburg)

Panel 5.4 | Passt schon! in C 14.027

»Pi mal Daumen«. Medien der Ingenieurswissenschaft zwischen »Applied Sciences« und »reiner« Wissenschaft von Florian Hoof (Frankfurt)

Siegesversuchskörper. Planen, Prüfen, Erinnern von Ingo Landwehr (Berlin)

Bilder von antizipierten Ruinen als Orte der Identitätsformation von Sibylle Machat (Flensburg)

Messen ohne Skalen. Warum der Geigerzähler kein Messgerät ist von Marc-Robin Wendt (Berlin)

Moderation: Peter Berz (Berlin)

Panel 5.5 | Weltfrieden. Medien und Methoden möglicher Zukünfte in C 14.001

Nash Equilibrium von Ana Teixera Pinto (Berlin)

Der globale Körper. Heinz von Foerster und Noa Eshkol am Biological Computer Laboratory von Eva Wilson (Berlin)

Unzeitgenössische Welt von Ana Ofak (Berlin)

Moderation: Isabell Schrickel (Lüneburg)

Panel 5.6 | Mediamorphosen der Wissenschaft. Zwischen Unsinn und Eigensinn in C 14.006

»Wenn Sie mir dies einmal beschreiben würden…«. »Medien der Wissenschaften« in audiovisuellen Essays von Alexander Kluge von Florian Wobser (Rostock)

Philosophie diesseits der Wende zur Bildlichkeit. Der Buch-Bausatz Kant für die Hand als mediale Herausforderung
von Hanno Depner (Rostock)

Paranoische Decodierung. Zur Intermedialität einer Pseudowissenschaft von John Seidler (Rostock)

Die Quantifizierung von Reputation in den Sozialwissenschaften. Zitationsindizes und Zeitschriftenrankings – reflexive oder vorreflexive Beziehung zur eigenen Medialität? von Dennis Wutzke (Rostock)

Moderation: Elizabeth Prommer (Rostock)

AG-Treffen 5.7 | Filmwissenschaft in C 12.001

AG-Treffen 5.8 | Medienphilosophie in C 12.006

Kaffeepause | Freitag, 04. Oktober 2013, 16:30 Uhr–17:00 Uhr im Hörsaalgang

Session 6 | Freitag, 04. Oktober 2013, 17:00 Uhr–19:00 Uhr
Panel 6.1 | Medien der Universität in C HS 3

Die Medialität wissenschaftlicher Zeitschriften von Martina Franzen (Bielefeld)

Medienreflektionen im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert: »Massenmedien im gelehrten Diskurs« von Kai Lohsträter (Hamburg)

Entwürfe der Grenzüberschreitung. Interdisziplinarität und die mediale Konstitution von Epistemologien (1960 – 1980) von Susanne Schregel (Weimar)

Das technische und das ökonomische Regime der Universität. Effekte der Ökonomisierung und des Internets auf Wissen und Lehre von Stefan Heidenreich (Lüneburg)

Moderation: Claus Pias (Lüneburg)

Panel 6.2 | Mit/in/durch Medien? Praktiken der Medientheorie in C HS 4

Trennen und Verbinden von Peter Bexte (Köln)

Revidieren von Manuela Klaut (Weimar)

Reflektieren von Katerina Krtilova (Weimar)

Re-make von Katharina Wloszczynska (Weimar)

Moderation: Lorenz Engell (Weimar)

Workshop 6.3 | Open Up! The Politics and Pragmatics of Open Access in C HS 5
Our academic landscape adapted fast to the disruption of Open Access: commercial publishers have started several successful Open Access platforms, and Open Access is by now the EU's official funding guideline. But there remain open questions. What modes of openness are called for in knowledge production and dissemination? Does the take-up of Open Access fully satisfy the drive towards openness stirred up by digital media? How is Open Access challenging academic research practices or even our understanding of knowledge? What are the limits to openness? The Hybrid Publishing Lab and its international guests will present their research.

The workshop is also open to short example-oriented presentations of participants who want to engage in the discussion. Please email us beforehand at hybridpublishing@inkubator.leuphana.de

Organisiert vom Hybrid Publishing Lab der Leuphana Universität Lüneburg mit Janneke Adema (Coventry University) und Nishant Shah (Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore).

Panel 6.4 | Wissenschaftsdiskursivierung im Medium Comic in C 14.027
Comic als Medium der Wissenschaft von Jens Meinrenken (Berlin)

Selbstreflexive Wissensvermittlungen im Comic. Wenn Comics Comics erklären von Simon Klingler (Hamburg) | Andreas Veits (Hamburg)

Die Szenographie der Alltagsnavigation: Manga-Grafiken zur Darstellung von Wirkungszusammenhängen im öffentlichen Raum von Lukas Wilde (Tübingen)

Ikonizität und Zeugenschaft. Dokumentarische Comics über den israelisch-palästinensischen Konflikt von Roman Mauer (Mainz)

Moderation: Véronique Sina (Bochum)

Panel 6.5 | Modelle als Medien in C 14.001

Fragile Netzwerke, zerbrechliche Schönheiten. Die Harvard Glass Flowers als Medien zwischen Wissenschaft und Kunst von Florian Huber (Wien)

Von Modell zu Modell von Jan Müggenburg (Lüneburg)

Modell-Licht-Bild. Medien im Mathematikunterricht 1910 bis 1920 von Anja Sattelmacher (Berlin)

Drogulus. Ein mechanisches Modell maschinischen Lebens um 1960 von Thomas Brandstetter (Basel)

Moderation: Stefan Rieger (Bochum)

Panel 6.6 | Wissenschaftskulturen der Bio- und Öko-Medialität in C 14.006
Conways »Game of Life« zwischen Unterhaltungsspiel und epistemischem Werkzeug von Serjoscha Wiemer (Paderborn)

»What I cannot create, I do not understand«. Synthetische Biologie, Biopolitik, Biomedialität von Martin Müller (Paderborn)

Für eine kleine Ökologie von Maren Schwieger (Bochum)

Leben im Kreis. Uexkülls Medien von Christoph Neubert (Paderborn)

Moderation: Marie-Luise Angerer (Köln)

AG-Treffen 6.7 | Treffen in C 12.001

17:00 Uhr–18:00 Uhr: AG »Medienindustrien«
18:00 Uhr–19:00 Uhr: AG »Fotografieforschung«

AG-Treffen 6.8 | Gender Studies und Medienwissenschaft in C 12.006

Abendessen | Freitag, 04. Oktober 2013, 19:00 Uhr–20:30 Uhr

Buffet mit Weinempfang im Hörsaalgang

Keynote | Freitag, 04. Oktober 2013, 20:30 Uhr–21:30 Uhr in C HS 1

Feierliche Eröffnung des Digital Cultures Research Lab der Leuphana Universität Lüneburg

Festvortrag von Bernard Stiegler (London)

Digital studies as an organology of mind
anschließend Party im Salon Hansen

Session 7 | Samstag, 05. Oktober 2013, 9:30 Uhr–11:30 Uhr

Panel 7.1 | KonferenzWissen in C HS 3

Do’s and Don’ts and How to Break Them: Conferences and the Mediated Performance of Knowledge von Kristoffer Gansing (Berlin)

Das Wissen der Versammlung. Vorschlag zur Einrichtung eines experimentellen Lecture Theatre von Sybille Peters (Gießen)

Stammbücher als Medien der methodischen Orientierung von Anna Echterhölter (Berlin)

Ethos, Pathos, Logos – Über Digitales Präsentieren von Wolfgang Hagen (Lüneburg)

Moderation: Oliver Lerone-Schultz (Lüneburg)

Panel 7.2 | Medienbildung und Digital Humanities. Die Medienvergessenheit technisierter Geisteswissenschaften in C HS 4

Die Digitalisierung der Medienwissenschaft? Computergestützte audiovisuelle Analyse und Software Studies – Methoden zur rechnergestützten medienwissenschaftlichen Forschung und Lehre von Petra Missomelius (Innsbruck)

Unbegrenzte Möglichkeiten und die Grenzen der Möglichkeiten. Das Web 2.0 und seine Erkenntnispotentiale von Katja Grashöfer (Bochum)

Digital (Media) Studies zwischen Datenbank und Narration von Roberto Simanowski (Basel)

Algorithmische Kritik oder Kritik der Algorithmen? von Till Andreas Heilmann (Basel)

Moderation: Petra Missomelius (Innsbruck)

Panel 7.3 | Aus dem Rahmen fallen in C HS 5

Wuchernde Milieus. Meeresbiologische Medien um 1900 von Christina Wessely (Berlin)

»The Breaking of the Second Frame«. Transgressive Denkfiguren der Avantgarde von Katja Müller-Helle (Berlin)

Die Kinoleinwand als Ausstellungsobjekt von Dennis Göttel (Braunschweig)

Touristische Selbst- und Fremdbeobachtung. Film, Reise und Reflexivität von Thomas Morsch (Berlin)

Moderation: Gloria Meynen (Friedrichshafen)

Panel 7.4 | Spielend wissen in C 14.027

Robot Challenges. Zur Performanz künstlicher Intelligenz von Ulf Otto (Hildesheim)

Welt spielen. Sim Earth als Grenzfall zwischen Spiel und wissenschaftlicher Simulation von Niklas Schrape (Lüneburg)

Spielprototypen als Form spielanalytischer Wissensproduktion von Stefan Werning (Bayreuth)

Potentiality and Actuality of Computer-based Simulation Environments von Sabine Thürmel (München)

Moderation: Jan Müggenburg (Lüneburg)

Panel 7.5 | Medienwissenschaft ohne Gedächtnis? Hindernisse und Lösungswege beim Zugang zum audiovisuellen Medienerbe in C 14.001

Sind Rundfunkarchive immer noch Geheimarchive? Oder bewegen Sie sich doch?
von Michael Crone (Darmstadt)

Vom Geheimschatz zum Allgemeingut? Strategien der audiovisuellen Medienerbe-Verwaltung im internationalen Vergleich
von Leif Kramp (Bremen)

Das Recht als Schranke. Juristische Perspektiven beim Umgang mit dem audiovisuellen Medienerbe in Deutschland
von Paul Klimpel (Berlin)

Digitale Archive der »zweiten Öffentlichkeit«. Forschungsmethoden und »participatory research« von Katalin Cseh (Wien)

Moderation: Christoph Classen (Potsdam)

AG-Treffen 7.6 | Treffen in C 12.001
9:30 Uhr–10:30 Uhr: AG »Populärkultur und Medien«
10:30 Uhr–11:30 Uhr: AG »Animation«

AG-Treffen 7.7 | Medienwissenschaft und Wissenschaftsforschung in C 12.006

Kaffeepause | Samstag, 05. Oktober 2013, 11:30 Uhr–12:00 Uhr im Hörsaalgang

Session 8 | Samstag, 05. Oktober 2013, 12:00 Uhr–13:30 Uhr
Panel 8.1 | Eingeräumt: Darstellen in 3-D in C HS 3

Das Bild des Raumorgans. Zur historischen Epistemologie der Dreidimensionalität von Stephan Günzel (Berlin)

Dreidimensionale Bilder als Medien der Teilchenphysik von Jens Schröter (Siegen)

Vom Raum im Raum. Mutmassungen über die Anfänge menschlicher Raumbildungen im Tanz von Walter Siegfried (München)

Moderation: Inge Hinterwaldner (Lüneburg | Basel)

Panel 8.2 | The Revolution Will Not Be Televised in C HS 4
Netzkritik revisited! Eine Diskursgeschichte der Medienwissenschaft von Clemens Apprich (Lüneburg)

Die Aporie des Neuen. Medienwissenschaftliche Deutungsmuster des Internets von Linda Groß (Hamburg) | Lisa Wiedemann (Hamburg)

Moderation: Andreas Broeckmann (Lüneburg)

Panel 8.3 | Licht – Glas – Kälte. Zum Tempus »wohltemperierter« Bilder der Wissenschaft in C HS 5
-273 °C – Eine Reise in die Tiefe der Temperaturskala. Die Exploration der Kälte im populären Wissenschaftsfilm von Claudia Pinkas–Thompson (Karlsruhe)

Gläserne Gebilde. Zur Transparenz der Medien und Symbolik des Wissensdurstes von Szilvia Gellai (Karlsruhe)

Spiegelplaneten und kosmische Archive. Eine medienarchäologische Perspektive auf die Popularisierung astronomischen Wissens im 19. Jahrhundert von Dominik Schrey (Karlsruhe)

Moderation: Andreas Böhn (Karlsruhe)

Panel 8.4 | Populäre Wissenschaftskulissen. Wissen(schafts)formate in populären Medienkulturen in C 14.027
Wissen(schaft) für die Masse. Die »Urania-gesellschaft« und die Popularisierung wissenschaftlicher Erkenntnisse im 19. Jahrhundert von Thomas Wilke (Halle)

Philosophie im/des Fernsehens. Metamorphosen philosophischen Wissens in den Fernsehformaten »Das philosophische Quartett« und »Precht« von Marcus S. Kleiner (Siegen)

Folksonomies. Wissensaggregate im Social Web von Ramón Reichert (Wien)

Moderation: Holger Schulze (Berlin)

Filmvorführung 8.5 | »Odyssee und Nahverkehr« (2012) in C 14.006

Ein Film von Martin Schlesinger (Bochum) und Marius Boettcher (Weimar)

AG-Treffen 8.6 | Fernsehgeschichte und Television Studies in C 12.001

Kommissionstreffen 8.7 | Lehre in C 12.006

Kommissionstreffen 8.8 | Medien/Recht in C 12.006

Mittagessen | Samstag, 05. Oktober 2013, 13:30 Uhr–14:30 Uhr in der Mensa

Mitgliederversammlung | Samstag, 05. Oktober 2013, 14:30 Uhr–16:30 Uhr in HS 3
Verleihung des Best Publication Award der AG Gender Studies und Medienwissenschaft
Verleihung des Karsten-Witte-Preis der AG Film
anschließend Mitgliederversammlung der GfM

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/gfm-2013

Getting Strategic about Openness and Privacy

praskrishna — 2014-11-09T09:19:23Z

This blog post by Tim Davies, Open Data Research Lead at Web Foundation was published in Open Up? on November 3, 2014.

Click to read the original post here. Sunil Abraham gave his inputs.

Information is powerful. And in a world where the amount of information generated, captured and stored has grown exponentially in recent decades, getting hold of the information you need, when you need it, relies upon having access to the data that describes it. That makes the control of data especially powerful.

Modern transparency initiatives, promoting the idea of open data, have been seeking to break the data-monopoly of privileged actors within the state — unlocking key datasets and making them available for public scrutiny and reducing the information inequalities that undermine open public discourse. Opening up government data is *one* way in which citizens can reclaim some power and reestablish the principle that “they work for us”. Open government data gives us power to know how the government is spending money, what companies are getting public sector contracts and licenses, who owns these companies, what profits they make and what royalties and taxes they pay. Yet, progress has been slow, and we have faced substantial challenges in securing reliable and standardised flows of public data that can be joined-up to give a true picture of how public resources are being used, and key decisions made. Although millions of public datasets have been placed online, the most politically salient are often lacking. The 2013 Open Data Barometer found fewer than 1 in 10 accountability datasets were truly open.

At the same time, advocates of building a more open government need to grapple with three other trends that are shaping discussions of data, power and the state:

Firstly, and most important, the revelations brought to our attention by whistleblower Edward Snowden have confirmed the extent of the secret state and the profound imbalance of power between citizens and their state created through mass surveillance. Whilst projects to disclose even basic data on the state like public spending are underfunded and ad hoc, billions of dollars are poured into tools and technologies that violate basic human rights and that threaten trust and security on the Web. Fundamentally the problem with secret mass surveillance is that it destroys the checks and balances that are meant to limit the power of the state over citizens.
Secondly, and in part due to the discussion spared by Snowden, public awareness of the data, and consequently power, held by corporations has grown. The Web has become increasingly centralised, and large companies now harvest large amounts of data on any individual technology user. In parallel, in some countries such as the UK, governments have sought to use open data agendas as cover for increased proprietary sharing of public data with private firms, seeking to go around established principles of consent to share publicly held health, tax or student records with profit-making firms. Such data-sharing is not inherently wrong if there are public benefits, but building citizen trust in the state’s stewardship of personal data, and ensuring safeguards are in place to warrant that trust, is a major challenge.
Thirdly, concerns have been raised that some of the data released through open data initiatives may also affect the privacy of citizens. Some aggregated and anonymised datasets can be combined with other data to reverse engineer identifiable information. Although early calls for “raw data now” were clear that they were not calling for open personal information, in practice the divide between personal and public can be a narrow one.

So, do these trends mean we should be more cautious about opening up? Should the balance swing back towards a focus on protecting privacy? Ultimately, a simple opposition of privacy and openness is a false dichotomy. The question is not should we focus on openness, or should we protect privacy: but is Who should be open? And how? And whose privacy should be protected, and how?

Sunil Abraham, of the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore, has offered a key solution in the idea that:

“Transparency should be proportional to power, privacy inversely so.”

It is on this basis that organisations working for a fairer future, with more vibrant public discourse, greater freedom, and better governments, can campaign for both privacy and openness together. Those who occupy public office, own companies, or tender for public contracts must accept that there is a legitimate public interest in information about their activities in these roles, whilst independent citizens must be afforded space to form views and live lives without constant state surveillance. Companies should not be considered to have a right to privacy: their interests are already protected by other laws and provisions.

To deliver effective openness through open data, the Web Foundation is working to understand how data gets used on the ground in different settings across the world, and, with Omidyar support, is working on the creation of inclusive open data standards for public contracting data. Standards like the Open Contracting Data Standard are part of building a new infrastructure of open governance, making it possible to join-up data from different places, helping tilt the balance of power towards citizens when it comes to scrutinising governments and corporations. Through the Open Data Barometer we keep track of the availability of key datasets that can be used for accountability, and we’re co-chairing the Open Government Partnership Open Data Working Group, seeking to set high standards for relevant and usable data disclosures by governments.

By focussing on the civic use of data, we can better identify those datasets that must be in the public domain. And by thinking about relative power when considering privacy we can address genuine privacy concerns, whilst not allowing corporations claiming privacy rights, or public figures trying to hide their financial interests, from diminishing the power of data to enable accountability.

At the same time, the Web Foundation leads the Web We Want campaign, challenging mass surveillance and seeking to secure a Web where individuals have the right to privacy, and the tools to secure it. And increasingly transparency of what the state and companies do with personal data can help increase the capacity of citizens to respond to threats to their autonomy, and can increase oversight and safeguards on state or corporate capacity.

Ultimately, our ongoing efforts to open up, and to protect individual freedoms, have to be strategic. And keeping an analysis of power, and Sunil’s maxim, in mind, provides a good starting point to guide the strategy.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/open-up-tim-davies-november-3-2014-getting-strategic-about-openness-and-privacy

Getting Connected

praskrishna — 2011-04-01T17:03:14Z

Nishant Shah of the Centre for Internet & Society talks about the growing adoption of social media, and what can constitute a "social media network"

See the video in livemint here

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

Get an Aadhaar card if you don't have one

praskrishna — 2017-04-04T15:39:05Z

The Aadhaar number has been made compulsory for filing tax return. With both the government and private parties insisting on it for various activities despite the Supreme Court's assertion that is not mandatory, you need to get one at the earliest.

The article by Priya Nair and Sanjay Kumar Singh was published in the Business Standard on March 27, 2017. Udbhav Tiwari was quoted.

Until now the need for an Aadhaar card arose if someone wanted to avail of the LPG subsidy, or if senior citizens wanted to enjoy a concession on train tickets. This 12-digit number, which is a proof of identity, is largely used by the government to distribute cash benefits and other subsidies under its welfare schemes. Since submitting the Aadhaar card at the time of opening a bank account, investing in a mutual fund, etc is optional (you can submit another proof of identity), many people have still not bothered to get one. That ambivalent attitude will now have to change.

This year onwards all those filing income tax returns will have to furnish their Aadhaar number. There is a field in the income tax return form for Aadhaar number. Don’t forget to fill it this year. If you do not have an Aadhaar number, you will have to submit the enrolment number of your application for Aadhaar. "In case of failure to intimate the Aadhaar number, the PAN allotted to the person shall be deemed invalid and the other provisions of the Income Tax Act shall apply, as if the person has not applied for allotment of PAN," says Amarpal Chadha, tax partner, people advisory services, EY India.

Experts say that this step has been taken to deal with the problem of duplicate permanent account numbers (PAN) and to control black money. Says Kuldip Kumar, partner and leader-personal tax at PwC India: “Many people have more than one PAN, even though there is a penalty under the Income Tax Act for doing so. The government is linking PAN to Aadhaar to deal with this problem. This step will also help control black money. Whether you invest in stocks, shares, or do any other high-value transaction, over a period of time the tax department will be able to see all this information at the click of a button." Other experts also agree that this step will create an audit trail for various transactions. “Linking of Aadhaar and PAN will throw up any discrepancies in reported transactions and provide a ready database to the revenue authorities for necessary action,” says Vikas Vasal, partner, Grant Thornton India.

Interim problems
This measure is expected to create a slew of problems for people. Many individuals may still not have an Aadhaar card. They should apply for one post-haste. Everyone needs to check if their Aadhaar and PAN details match. If there are discrepancies between the two, get either your Aadhaar or PAN details updated so that you do not face problems at the time of filing returns. Details on how to update the Aadhaar and PAN are available on the web sites of UID and the IT department respectively (see box).

Non-Resident Indians (NRI) and foreign nationals may also need to obtain an Aadhaar number now. Many NRIs have an income (before claiming any deduction) that exceeds the basic exemption limit of Rs 2.5 lakh, and hence file a tax return in India. Foreign nationals who have spent time in India and earned an income also need to file a tax return. Indian residents who have been sent by their companies to work abroad will also have to scramble for the card. "March is about to end and tax returns will have to be filed by the end of July. Persons who have to file a tax return but are abroad will face a challenge getting the Aadhaar card made in time since you have to be physically present in India for this purpose,’’ says Kumar. The government may possibly grant some leeway to such people.

Even though the Supreme Court has said that Aadhaar is not mandatory, there are several instances where the authorities are insisting on it. Those applying for domicile proof and those who want to get their property registered are being asked to provide this number. Some telecom providers also insist on it before giving a connection. Schools are asking for it from students. You need it to appear for competitive exams like IIT JEE. Online providers of financial products insist on Aadhaar since it makes KYC easier. With the government moving strongly towards making Aadhaar compulsory, one can't escape complying with this regulation.

Risks of an Aadhaar-centric system
There are several risks associated with Aadhaar, whose basic purpose is authentication and authorisation. The first problem arises from the fact that it is easily accessible to miscreants. Aadhaar numbers of thousands of people have been uploaded on the Internet. "Since the Aadhaar number has to be given at so many places, it can be misused to pull information about people from the centralised database. In the case of credit and debit cards, we are told not to shares these numbers publicly as the number is the first thing required for carrying out a transaction. That is not the case with Aadhaar. UID's position is that you should treat your Aadhaar number carefully. But the fact is that the Aadhaar number is not used carefully either by consumers or businesses. It is a fairly public number. With Aadhaar too much power is being vested in a number that is quite public,’’ says Udbhav Tiwari, policy officer, Centre for Internet and Society, Bengaluru.

Second, Aadhaar has a centralised database, and all centralised databases are vulnerable to hacking. Third, biometrics are not a very secure form of authentication. "Fingerprints are easy to forge. The UID says that the device (used to check the fingerprint) should not remember the biometrics but should only transfer it to UID which will verify the information. But miscreants could use a device that captures your biometrics," says Tiwari.

Other documents used for identification like PAN and passport are not easy to duplicate because of their security features. PAN, for instance, has a hologram. The power of the passport lies not in the passport number but in the document. Without the passport one cannot travel internationally. But in case of Aadhaar one can go on the Internet and print a new Aadhaar card. “If somebody has managed to capture my fingerprint and has my Aadhaar number, he can use it wherever Aadhaar is required,’’ says Tiwari.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/business-standard-march-27-2017-priya-nair-and-sanjay-kumar-singh-get-an-aadhaar-card-if-you-dont-have-one

Gertjan Boulet

praskrishna — 2013-07-29T04:44:37Z

Gertjan Boulet

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

Geospatial Info Regulation Bill will hurt start-ups, small firms

praskrishna — 2016-05-13T15:46:13Z

The Geospatial Information Regulation Bill, 2016, whose draft outlaws the acquisition of geospatial information without the government’s permission, is expected to impact smaller companies rather more than the large ones.

The article by Varun Aggarwal was published in Hindu BusinessLine on May 10, 2016. Sumandro Chattapadhyay was quoted.

Experts said that the law is being created to keep large corporates in check, but if implemented in its current form, its biggest impact would be on start-ups and smaller firms that use or create geospatial data.

“While companies such as Uber and Google can survive by getting all their maps vetted by the government, smaller companies will be impacted. This will act as a big entry barrier in favour of the dominant players such as Google and Microsoft,” said Sumandro Chattapadhyay, research director at Centre for Internet and Society.

“Smaller companies have no means to know what kind of geospatial information they can store and what they cannot. Moreover, if a start-up requires three months to get approvals for your data before you can use it, it’ll be as good as dead,” Chattapadhyay said.

Google declined to comment on the draft Bill.

U-turn by Centre

Sanjay Kumar, president of the Association of Geospatial Industries, recalled that Prime Minister Narendra Modi had in a speech in September last highlighted the importance of geospatial data in everyday life of the common man. “But now, the government seems to be taking a U-turn,” he said.

The Association has hundreds of members, including Google, offering various geospatial services.

“The PM’s campaigns on skill development, digital India and enhancement of the transport sector are heavily dependent on geospatial data. There are several private sector companies that provide services for these projects. If this Bill is passed as drafted, all this development process will be stalled,” said Kumar.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/hindu-businessline-may-10-2016-varun-aggarwal-geospatial-info-regulation-bill-will-hurt-start-ups-small-firms

Geometric Clarification

praskrishna — 2010-09-20T09:44:00Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/Figure1.jpg

Geographical Indications in India Edit-a-thon

praskrishna — 2016-01-26T15:19:56Z

Between 25 January and 31 January 2016, CIS-A2K is organizing an edit-a-thon to celebrate India's republic day. The goal of this edit-a-thon is to create and improve Geographical Indications articles.

Expectations

We expect that if you participate in this edit-a-thon, you'll create or expand at least 3 articles. However you may work on as many as articles you want.

Rules

For an article to be considered as part of this Geographical Indications in India Edit-a-thon, it must adhere to the following rules

The new article must be created between 0:00 UTC on 25 January 2016 and 23:59 UTC on 31 January 2016.
Creation/Expansion rule: If you are creating a new article the new article must have a size of at least 3,500 bytes and a minimum length of roughly 300 words (the word count excludes templates, infoboxes, references, etc.), If you are expanding an existing article, you need to expand this article by at least 3000 bytes, (the word count excludes templates, infoboxes, references, etc.)
The articles should not copyvio content and should follow verifiability and other important policies of Wikipedia.
The articles should have decent references;
The article must not be purely machine translated.
There should not be any maintenance tags in the articles
The article must have a direct relation to Geographical Indications in India (see Proposed articles).

Participants

Please add your username below. If you can not find your community name, please add a section using level 3 header (eg. === Ukrainian Wikipedia ===). We also encourage you to start an event page on your Wikipedia.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/events/geographical-indications-in-india-edit-a-thon

Geographic file formats

praskrishna — 2012-02-14T09:33:52Z

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

Geocoding

praskrishna — 2012-02-14T09:49:12Z

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

Geo-enabled Databases

praskrishna — 2012-02-14T09:36:11Z

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

Genetic Profiling: Is it all in the DNA?

praskrishna — 2015-09-13T09:47:17Z

A Bill seeks to make genetic profiling mandatory for the fight against crime—and generates a debate about the clash of ethics, freedom, science and data.

The article by Ullekh NP was published in Open Magazine on August 7, 2015. Sunil Abraham gave his inputs.

When British geneticist Sir Alec Jeffreys first developed the DNA profiling test 31 years ago in his laboratory at Leicester University, he didn’t help the police prove a man guilty. His test—back then it took weeks to complete DNA profiling procedures as opposed to a few hours now—proved that a rape suspect in police custody was innocent. Details from the whole exercise also subsequently helped the local police nab the real criminal, who had killed his teenaged rape victim. Later, the police found that he was the one who had committed a similar crime three years earlier in a village nearby. Britain was destined to make great gains in solving crimes thanks to DNA identification, while the rest of the developed world, including the US, caught up later, but only after lagging initially thanks to the relentless—and sometimes ill-founded—opposition from civil liberties activists. In India, the Human DNA Profiling Bill, 2015, a proposed law that envisages collecting DNA finger prints—which are unique to an individual—especially of criminals, has been in the making for the past 12 years. The draft bill, which will shortly be placed before the Union Cabinet for its nod, has been prepared by the Department of Biotechnology and the Centre for DNA Fingerprinting & Diagnostics (CDFD), a Hyderabad-based Central Government-run agency, after examining and reviewing submissions by a panel of experts, holding consultations with various stakeholders and getting responses from the public. Notwithstanding the claims of safeguards against any misuse of the intended DNA data base, activists, lawyers, internet freedom fighters, civil liberty activists and columnists have been up in arms against the Government, arguing that the DNA profiling bill is ill- conceived and naïve—to the extent that it would destroy an individual’s right to privacy as it lacks provisions to check data tampering.

The international experience has proved otherwise. Ever since Sir Jeffreys extracted DNA from human muscle tissue, identified and processed genetic markers (which are unique to individuals except in the case of identical twins) from what was until then considered ‘seemingly purposeless segments of the human DNA’ in the words of writers Peter Reinharz and Howard Safir, more than 500,000 ‘otherwise unsolvable’ cases have been solved in the developed world thanks to the DNA identification, note CDFD scientists. DNA is the hereditary material in the human body. It is found in blood, saliva, urine, strands of hair, semen, tears, skin, etcetera.

Dr Madhusudan Reddy Nandineni, staff scientist and group leader, laboratory of DNA fingerprinting services and laboratory of genomics and profiling applications, CDFD, is worried that opposition to the Bill is gaining momentum in India due to a raft of reasons. Of course, the West, too, has witnessed sharp protests against DNA profiling laws. One of the key reasons anti-profiling activists have an edge, says a senior Home Ministry official who asks not to be named, is that there is a “general public anxiety” over “anything to do with disclosing personal details”. He agrees that the tests are going to be intrusive, because muscle tissue may have to be collected from private parts. The procedure of DNA sample collection—as explained in the draft Bill submitted in January by a committee headed by TS Rao, senior adviser to the department of biotechnology—talks about obtaining intimate body samples of living persons (on page 6-7 of the 48- page document) from ‘the genital or anal area, the buttocks and also breasts in the case of a female’. According to the draft Bill, it also involves external examination of private parts, taking samples from pubic hair or by swabs or washing or by vacuum suction, by scraping or by lifting by tape and taking of a photograph or video recording of, or an impression or cast of a wound in those areas. “But then, it is par for the course,” says the Home Ministry official by way of justification.

American military historian and author Edward Luttwak agrees that DNA profiling is a significant intrusion into the “very body of a citizen”. That is the price one has to pay in the choice between liberty and equality before investigation, he posits. Luttwak is glad that in the US, as well as in other countries that have such profiling laws, DNA identification has yielded results. “It protects suspicious/ low status but innocent people from false accusations and helps to catch clever/high-status law-breakers,” he says.

+++

For his part, Dr Nandineni says that every aspect of the Human DNA Profiling Bill for India is based on similar legislation that has already been implemented in the US, Canada, UK, Australia and Continental Europe for more than 20 years. He also contends that the benefits that have accrued there are enormous, which India has missed out on for all these years. “In all these countries, the concerns of the general public on privacy matters have been allayed in their legislation,” he adds. He points out that the retention of DNA profiles in a ‘DNA Data Bank’ is meant to apprehend repeat offenders and thus serve a larger societal good. As regards privacy concerns, Dr Nandineni says that consultations on the preparations of the Bill lasted for 2-3 years and took into account the views of an expert committee whose members included representatives of NGOs.

Dr Nandineni is of the view that the opponents of the Bill have managed to get an upper hand in a national debate thanks to their media-savvy backgrounds. Agrees the Home Ministry official: “Perhaps the drafters of the Bill have not been communicative enough in getting their points across to the public and the media. Which might explain why the Bill has come under tremendous attack in the media. Even otherwise, global trends also show that civil liberty rights activists have had great initial advantage in their campaign against DNA profiling.” After all, the potential for misuse of DNA samples is not restricted to biological material collected under the provisions of the DNA Bill alone, Nandineni offers. “Any and every blood sample collected by a clinical laboratory has the same potential for misuse,” he says.

While Dr J Gowrishankar, director, CDFD, has been vocal about the positives of the Bill, its opponents have been louder. Many of those who oppose the Bill say the question is not one of being loud or feeble, but about being naïve or not.

The likes of Sunil Abraham, executive director of Bangalore-based internet research organisation Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), have no argument against DNA profiling being the gold standard for all forensic investigations. “There is nothing wrong with using DNA evidence for forensic purposes,” says Abraham, “However, the draft Bill is filled with techno-utopianism; it assumes that the people and machines that leverage DNA technologies are infallible.” He goes on, “This is not true. It is easier to tamper with DNA evidence than it is to tamper with a video recording. Therefore, all we are asking for are process checks that prevent compromised persons and machines from using DNA evidence to convict or exonerate the wrong person.” His contention is that if the DNA sample is sent to two different labs and both labs come back with exactly the same result, then the courts can be convinced of the veracity of the result. “Also the Bill says that DNA labs will give courts ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answers to questions related to DNA matching. But ideally, the lab must give the exact match percentage along with all the detailed information that emerges from the match process so that the court can fully appreciate the significance of the DNA evidence,” he suggests.

Abraham and legal scholar Usha Ramanathan—both members of the expert panel who filed notes of dissent and disagreed with various aspects of the Bill—have a problem with the claim that the proposed DNA data bank will cover only criminals and not the general public. Points out Ramanathan: “The Bill does not restrict the data base to criminals alone, not by a long shot. The provision in the proposed Bill reads: ‘(Clause 31(4)) Every DNA Data Bank shall maintain following indices for various categories of data, namely: (a) a crime scene index; (b) a suspects’ index; (c) an offenders’ index; (d) a missing persons’ index; (e) unknown deceased persons’ index; (f) a volunteers’ index; and (g) such other DNA indices as may be specified by regulations.’ That is an elaborate set of indices. There is certainly a lot of the ‘general public’ in it.”

Supporters of the DNA Profiling Bill have maintained that a DNA data bank is not for the public but only for a limited category of individuals. The proposed law also provides for storing profiles with the consent of relatives of missing children and grownups so that relationship identities can be established.

Ramanathan is also worried that apart from purposes of criminal justice, DNA profiling may be extended to parental disputes (maternity or paternity), issues related to pedigree, those related to assisted reproductive technologies (surrogacy, in vitro fertilisation or IVF, intrauterine implantation or IUI, and so on), to transplantation of human organs (donor and recipient) under the Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994, and also related to immigration or emigration. She had objected to the requirement of revealing a person’s caste in the application form for offering blood samples. “This Bill is certainly not a convict data base. The ambitions are much much vaster, and little to do with crime control,” she alleges.

Abraham agrees that some safeguards have been built in the proposed law to prevent any misuse of DNA data under pressure from expert panel members such as him. However, he says, cyber security and privacy-related issues are not addressed in a comprehensive manner. “The Bill basically hopes that the Privacy Bill will address all of this when it becomes law. But unfortunately, a bill could take 7-10 years before it becomes law,” he says.

Dr Gowrishankar of CDFD and others have conceded that it was the decision of the expert panel to include an enabling provision for the privacy issues of DNA profiling to comply with the proposed Privacy Bill.

Abraham says that various measures to prevent ‘privacy harms’ to volunteers are missing in the latest draft of the Bill. “Given that biometric technology works on probabilistic matching, the larger the size of the database, the larger the incidence of mistaken identification. Therefore it is important that the database remain as small as necessary,” he asserts.

+++

The estimated cost of the Bill is Rs 20 crore—to create the infrastructure for the DNA Profiling Board and the data bank, which includes buildings, furniture, computer servers and so on. Among other things, the DNA Profiling Board is tasked with the responsibility of laying down and implementing standards for laboratories and proper protocols for ‘Data Bank’ operations.

CDFD scientists and government officials are keen to highlight the ‘under- hyped’ benefits of DNA profiling –similar to the Innocence Project in the US, which was aimed at securing the release of people who were erroneously convicted on the basis of other lines of evidence. Abraham has no patience for such comparisons. “DNA profiling for forensic purposes is very advanced and sophisticated, but technologies do not exist in a vacuum,” he says, “These advanced technologies have to work within traditional institutions with vulnerabilities and flaws. We need to, therefore, have non-technological procedural fixes that ensure that these technologies are not compromised by money and power. The choice is between the right to privacy and the rights and requirements of the criminal justice process.”

Ramanathan agrees with that view. “In the Indian context, the state of investigation is so poor that we have been looking for ways of circumventing our problems, not addressing them. That is how narco-analysis began to be used, till the court struck it down. DNA may be more reliable than most other scientific tools available to us today, but it is not all about the science. We also have to worry about contamination, what happens in the chain of custody, its potential for being planted or otherwise abused, and the errors even in the laboratory. You may remember the avowed mix-up of results in the Aarushi [Talwar murder] case, something the lab said they noticed over two years after they had given it to the investigators. The danger of treating DNA as conclusive and not needing corroboration is exacerbated in this kind of a vulnerable system. Which is why bringing this into a DNA data base law and not putting any checks on criminal procedure is less than wise,” she elaborates. She is least impressed with the ‘idea’ of ‘pedigree’ and of ‘population genetics’ in the Bill. “Institutions like the CDFD have been collecting DNA from suspects and asking for the caste of the person on the form. How does this seem innocent and safeguarded?” she asks.

Meanwhile, columnist and author Salil Tripathi says that it is sheer hubris to think that technology will provide all the answers to crime-fighting. “Tech- nology is enormously useful and powerful, but it is value-neutral; it can be used for good or bad ends… There have to be sufficient safeguards, overseen not only by technologists, law enforcement officers and bureaucrats, but also by lawyers and civil liberties experts, who can point out potential flaws and misuse and prevent those.”

Tripathi, too, is piqued that one of the markers sought is of caste. “Why?” he asks, emphatic that the country’s people should be concerned about allowing the state so much power over their lives. “And it may not be only the state; given that the scope of its future expansion is undefined, what guarantees are there that private actors won’t have access to the data, and if so, what security protocols would apply?”

Dr Gowrishankar and Dr Nandineni are right in saying that without DNA fingerprinting, many international criminals would still be at liberty, and the opponents of the Bill do not disagree with the efficacy of the technique developed by Sir Jeffreys. Instead, they are placing the spotlight on various objectionable aspects in the proposed law. In a country which first needs—according to former RAW chief Vikram Sood—to ensure access to Photofit (a technique to create an accurate image of a person that gels with a witness’ description) for its ground-level police operatives to combat crime, critics of the Bill seem to have won the war of words.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/open-magazine-august-7-2015-ullekh-np-genetic-profiling