Centre for Internet and Society

Expiry of Licenses

praskrishna — 2013-03-04T04:54:51Z

Expiry of Licenses

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

Experts' committee moots law to protect privacy

praskrishna — 2012-10-22T10:18:34Z

In its report submitted to the Planning Commission on Thursday, the first ever experts’ group to identify the privacy issues and prepare a report to facilitate authoring of the privacy bill, has said that existing laws have created an ‘unclear regulatory regime’ which allows a state to be intrusive.

Saikat Datta's article was published in DNA on October 19, 2012

The report has been prepared by experts led by justice AP Shah, former chief justice of the Delhi high court.

In its exceptions to the proposed law on privacy, the experts’ group has recommended that national security, public order and disclosures made in ‘public interest’ will be exempted from the limitations of privacy. Several members of the group unsuccessfully argued to bring in the Intelligence agencies which are empowered to legally tap phones, intercept emails and conduct surveillance on citizens under the ambit of the Privacy Act.

The report, a copy of which is available with DNA, recognises that there are major differences in the existing laws that permit intrusive phone-tapping or surveillance of private citizens by the government.The group feels that “these differences have created an unclear regulatory regime that is inconsistent, non-transparent, and prone to misuse and does not provide remedy or compensation to aggrieved individuals.”

Therefore, the group has recommended that when the government conducts any intrusive surveillance like phone tapping, it must adhere to the principles of proportionality, legality and remain within the boundaries of a democratic state.

“The limitation (on tapping phones, etc) should be in proportion to the harm that has been caused or will be caused,” the report states.

Interestingly, the report also exempts the disclosure of personal or private information for journalistic or historical and scientific purposes from being curbed under the proposed Privacy Act. Interestingly, this will give journalists a legal cover from being hauled up under the proposed privacy laws when they file stories.

The government is keen to enact a privacy law quickly because of two major issues. The fallout of the leakage of the tapes of Niira Radia speaking to industry heads like Ratan Tata which led to a renewed clamour for a comprehensive Privacy Act. Ironically, anything related to phone-tapping has now been left out of the provisions of such an Act.

The other reason was the pressure from the industry that is keen to get business from abroad that deals with sensitive personal data. In the absence of any personal data protection laws, Indian companies were not getting any business from European or American firms. With this law, India can look forward to getting substantial business that involves personal data.

With this framework in mind the experts’ group has recommended that notice be given to any individual from whom personal information will be sought. With intrusive government projects like the UID or the NATGRID, the group was worried that this kind of massive data in the hands of the government could turn this into a police state.

It has also mandated that the choice and consent of the individual must be taken before collecting this information. Also, there has to be a limitation on collecting this information and anything that has been collected will use the data for only a limited purpose. A data controller should be appointed to collect, maintain and use the data under strict stipulations.

Therefore, the data controller will be made accountable for any lapse in handling or disclosure of the data. To ensure that this kind of control can be exercised, the group has suggested the appointment of privacy commissioners who will adjudicate on any matter of illegal disclosures and mete out server punishment.

Recommendations

National security, public order and disclosures made in ‘public interest’ will be exempted from the limitations of privacy
The limitation (on tapping phones, etc) should be in proportion to the harm caused or will be caused
Disclosure of personal or private information for journalistic or historical and scientific purposes should be exempted from being curbed under the proposed Act
Notice be given to individual from whom information has to be sought
A data controller should be appointed to collect, maintain and use the data
Privacy commissioners who will adjudicate on any matter of illegal disclosures be appointed

Note: The Centre for Internet & Society was part of the expert committee even though not explicitly mentioned.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/dna-india-october-19-2012-saikat-datta-experts-committee-moots-law-to-protect-privacy

Experts stress on need for enhanced security

praskrishna — 2017-05-20T06:13:19Z

With more and more people falling prey to phishing scams, experts believe that lack of adequate security features in online payment systems will only increase the number of such cases in the coming days. While admitting that the rise in such crimes would be hard to stop or control, cyber security consultants also blame the lack of preparedness before taking the digital economy route as a cause for such problems.

The article was published in the New Indian Express on May 6, 2017. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.

Speaking to Express, Dr A Nagarathna of the Advanced Centre on Cyber Law and Forensics, National Law School of India University, said that apart from the push for digital payment solutions, the merger of various State Bank entities also provided chances for criminals to exploit gullible people.

“People tend to give away critical information since cyber criminals seem so convincing. But they should remember that banks never collect such information over phone,” she said.

The cyber security features of banks and e-wallets are also questionable. Banks and e-wallet service providers should be held accountable for such crimes, so that they make an effort to ensure necessary safety measures, she said.

Pranesh Prakash, Policy Director at the Centre for Internet and Society, noted that there were security concerns with e-wallets. “Many e-wallet apps compromise on security in favour of convenience, but, at the same time, have terms of service that hold customers liable for financial losses. There have been many reports of criminals working with rogue telecom company employees to clone SIM cards and steal money via UPI and BHIM,” he said.

He also criticised the use of biometrics as the only factor for authorising payments to merchants using Aadhaar Pay. He noted, “Your fingerprints cannot be changed, unlike a PIN. So, if a merchant clones your fingerprint, you cannot revoke it or replace it the way you can with a debit card and a PIN.”

Another activist said the recommendations of Watal Committee, which looked into digital payments, should be implemented. “As of now, the law does not focus on the need for consumer protection in digital payments. The Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007, needs to be updated,” he said.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/new-indian-express-may-6-2017-experts-stress-on-need-for-enhanced-security

Expert Roundtable on Reconciling Policy Priorities of the Global North and South: Implications for Norms of Responsible State Behaviour in Cyberspace

praskrishna — 2015-05-01T16:35:50Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/expert-roundtable-on-reconciling-policy-priorities-of-global-north-and-south

Expert Meeting on Freedom of Expression and Intellectual Property Rights

praskrishna — 2012-03-16T07:41:39Z

This report provides an overview of the discussion from the Expert Meeting on Freedom of Expression and Intellectual Property Rights, organized by ARTICLE 19 in London on November 18, 2011.

At the meeting, nineteen international scholars, experts and human rights activists met to explore the antagonistic relationship between Intellectual Property (IP) and the rights to freedom of expression and information (FoE). This conversation is timely if not overdue, as governments are increasingly using the pretext of IP protection to place unjustified restrictions on the exercise of FoE, particularly on the Internet. ARTICLE 19 believes that increasing the profile of the human rights perspective in debates on IP law and policy is essential to protecting FoE, particularly in the digital environment. The objective of the meeting was therefore to develop an appropriate rights framework for evaluating IP law and enforcement mechanisms, to advance a policy paper on the issue and eventually to establish a set of key principles on IP and FoE.

This report outlines:

A summary of the discussions that took place during the meeting; and
Outstanding issues and those requiring follow-up discussion in order to conceptualise and complete a position paper on the subject.

List of Participants

Andrew Puddephatt: Director, Global Partners & Associates
Brett Soloman: Executive Director, ACCESS.
Dinah PoKempner: General Counsel, Human Rights Watch.
Jérémie Zimmermann: Co-founder and spokesperson, LaQuadrature du Net: Internet & Libertés
Jeremy Malcolm: Project Coordinator for IP and Communications; Consumer International.
Jim Killock: Executive Director, Open Rights Group
Michael Camilleri: Human Rights Specialist, Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression at OAS.
Michael Geist: Chair of Internet and E-commerce Law, Univesity of Ottowa.
Pranesh Prakash: Programme Manager, Center for Internet and Society
Raegan MacDonald: Policy Analyst, ACCESS (Brussels)
Saskia Walzel: Senior Policy Advocate, Consumer Focus
Yaman Akdeniz: Associate Professor in Law; Human Rights Law Research Center, Faculty of Law, Istanbul Bilgi University.
Walter van Holst: IT legal consultant, Mitopics
Agnes Callamard: Executive Director, ARTICLE 19
Barbora Bukovska: Senior Direct for Law and Policy, ARTICLE 19
David Banisar: Senior Legal Counsel, ARTICLE 19
Gabrielle Guillemin: Legal Officer, ARTICLE 19
Andrew Smith: Lawyer, ARTICLE 19
Michael Polak: Intern, ARTICLE 19

Welcome, Introductions, Purpose

Agnès Callamard opened the meeting with a welcome and introduction, giving a brief overview of ARTICLE 19’s extensive experience over twenty years bringing together coalitions to increase the profile of various advocacy issues and develop key policy documents, including the Camden Principles on FoE and equality, and the Johannesburg Principles on FoE and national security.

In the last three years, the Internet has increasingly come to the forefront of ARTICLE 19’s work. During this time it has become clear that the agenda for protecting IP negatively impacts FoE, and that there is a notable absence of traditional human rights groups engaged with the IP agenda or campaigning on its implications for human rights. ARTICLE 19 believes that there is a clear need for this gap to be filled, for us to enter this dialogue and challenge current preconceptions with an alternative human rights narrative that counters that promoted by IP industries.

The purpose of this meeting, therefore, is to develop a strategy for promoting the FoE perspective in debates on IP. To do this, it is important to first conceptualise the relationship between FoE and IP within a rights framework: to identify how or if these interests should be balanced and what the areas of conflict and conciliation are. This discussion should clarify the best way to proceed, with a view to arrive at a policy paper and eventually a set of principles on how to best protect FoE in the IP context.

Session 1: Brief comments by participants on issues of concern for freedom of expression campaigners in relation to IPR

The objective of the first session was for all participants to identify the most significant issues in current debates on freedom of expression and IP, and the extent to which some issues may have been overlooked, underestimated, or over-emphasised. These issues, ideas and perspectives would then guide discussions during the remainder of the meeting and at future meetings.

All participants agreed that applying a human rights framework to this debate is an important and worthwhile endeavour. The following issues were identified during the discussions:

Conceptual starting point

Participants agreed that the status quo should not be the “starting point” for discussions, and that we should avoid being trapped in the narrative that has been developed and imposed by IP rights holders. This requires questioning accepted language and norms, pushing the boundaries of the debate and thinking outside the box. The proliferation of terms such as “piracy”, “theft” and other criminal law language to describe non-commercial copyright infringement demonstrates the extent to which corporate interest groups have controlled the agenda. We should reject these terms and instead adopt positive language that emphasises the cultural and economic value of information sharing, and frame IP as a potential obstacle to these values. This dialogue should recognise that the relationship between people and information has changed in the digital age, and that a new generation of people express themselves through sharing media online and creating new works such as video mash-ups.

A human right to IP?
Several participants questioned whether we should accept interests in IP as “human rights”, particularly as the concept is one born from censorship. Rejecting IP as a human right would require challenging accepted language such as “intellectual property rights” and “rights holder”. If we speak of IP interests or claims, rather than human rights, then it is also inaccurate to speak of their interaction with other rights as a “conflict between rights” that requires “balancing”. Instead, certain IP claims, and the detection or enforcement mechanisms that support them, should be framed as restrictions on the right to freedom of expression.

Some participants expressed doubts over the value of advocating that IP is not a human right when the idea is already embedded and various regional courts have already recognised it as such. Such a campaign would be difficult and achieve little, particularly as it may require changing established agreements such as Berne and TRIPS that would take decades to reform. Staying within the existing legal framework may be the only pragmatic way to achieve change in the short and medium-term. There was agreement that understanding how different treaties and human rights instruments or bodies understand IP is important before proceeding.

In the alternative, it was suggested that IP could be viewed as a “human right” to the extent that it complements other human rights, such as FoE. Copyright is often justified on terms that it is essential for incentivising creativity and that it is an “engine” of free speech – this argument needs further exploration, as it shows that the two rights may sometimes be complementary. ARTICLE 19 is familiar with a strategy focussed on complementarity, as the Camden Principles promoted a similar approach to advocate that the right to equality and right to FoE were mutually reinforcing rather than contradictory. Similarly, participants spoke about a “social value” approach to viewing IP as a human right, i.e. the greater the social value behind the IP protection, the more weight it would have in a rights “balancing” exercise.

Other suggestions on reframing or reversing IP preconceptions included recommending a system where the “public domain” is the norm and any monopoly interest the exception. Exceptions would have to be argued on a case-by-case basis and would be granted only when it would be in the public interest to do so.

A consensus seemed to develop that rejecting the idea of IP as a right would not be a helpful strategy. However, between the various alternative suggestions the only agreement seemed to be that the issue requires more exploration so that the nature of IP as a right can be better understood. It is anticipated that reaching a definite conclusion on this issue will inevitably not satisfy everyone, but would be necessary to proceed with an advocacy campaign.

The Right to Culture
As well as the right to property and the right to freedom of expression, there is also the right to culture in Article 27 of the UDHR and Article 15 of the ICESCR. Both instruments reflect the tension between a right to access culture and the competing right of individuals to protect the material interests in their intellectual property. Participants recommended further exploration of the economic, social and cultural rights perspective on IP issues and integrating this into a campaign.

Pulling apart multiple IP issues
Participants identified a number of ways in which IP engages freedom of expression, and that it is therefore important that a FoE analysis dealt with these issues separately. One focus should be on the IP protections themselves – these give individuals monopolies over information and thereby restrict others’ FoE. Within this, the breadth of exceptions regimes is important, as these vary significantly between countries, in particular the duration of copyright protection and how ‘fair use’ or ‘fair dealing’ type exceptions are defined. The use of digital rights management systems (DRMS) as preventative measures also relate to this area. A second focus, and a current “hot topic” in IP circles, is the enforcement agenda. This includes the criminalisation of non-commercial IP infringement, the privatisation of policing IP infringement and its impact on net neutrality, and criminal and civil law protections for DRMS.

The difference between types of IP was also discussed. There are different rationales behind copyright, trademarks, and patents. Our approach should be as nuanced and specific as possible – when we are criticising copyright we should only refer to copyright and not IP generally. Unpacking the issues in relation to the different types of IP will be important for developing a coherent policy.

The way that international trade agreements have consistently augmented IP rights was also highlighted. In relation to electronic data, the copyright holder now has so much control over the use of the information, particularly through digital rights management systems protected by the criminal law, that purchasing such products is increasingly more like renting than owning. This augmentation should be tracked and highlighted in an advocacy campaign.

Advocacy Strategy
It was also noted that developing a human rights perspective on IP is not only an intellectual pursuit but needs to be viewed in terms of a citizen movement capable of achieving outcomes. Participants identified several further issues that should be considered when developing an advocacy strategy.

One consideration would be how we develop campaigning alliances. Some industries are potential allies, in particular Internet intermediaries that are increasingly under pressure to be the private police of copyright holders. Some artists themselves are also sympathetic to FoE arguments. More obviously, consumers and information users should be mobilised by a campaign. It is important to develop distinct strategies for targeting identified groups that reflects our understanding of their diverse interests; this would allow us to build commonalities between actors who may normally be regarded as having divergent objectives, and mobilise each to push for change in a direction that supports our ultimate goal.

Central to a campaign strategy is also the idea of having a clear message as to what the problem is and how it impacts people on a day to day basis. The utility of graphics illustrating the inequitable geographic distribution of IP interests was recommended as a useful tool to demonstrate the scale of this global problem. Ways of countering campaigns conducted by IP holders over the last two decades were also discussed, in particular how to push back against the idea of copyright infringement as “theft”, as has been promoted through slogans such as “you wouldn’t steal a handbag.” Illustrative analogies were discussed, including viewing IP infringement as mere trespass rather than theft and as “copying” rather than depriving a person of property. However, it was concluded that these analogies were helpful for developing our understanding of the issues, but would not be as effective as campaign tools. An effective campaign would have to distinguish between background issues and our actual advocacy points, which would be focussed on a clear set of key fundamental principles.

Participants also identified the importance of engaging governments and the media on the inconsistency of their policies and coverage of FoE and IP. The US, in particular, is loudly proclaiming its commitments to FoE on-line whilst simultaneously promoting aggressive enforcements mechanisms for IP that directly undermine FoE rights.

The campaign against ACTA in the European Parliament (EP) was also recommended as a platform from which to launch further dialogue on FoE and IP. Since the meeting, ARTICLE 19 has released a statement on ACTA that we have shared with all participants, and plans to circulate this statement to various EP committees and MEPs in the coming weeks.[1]

Opportunities for strategic litigation were also identified. In particular, there are a number of Article 10 ECHR cases pending before the European Court of Human Rights on the blocking of websites, many being from Turkey.

Session 2: The tension between freedom of expression and IPR

The second session began with a presentation by Gabrielle of the background paper on intellectual property and freedom of expression. Participants gave feedback on issues raised in the paper and suggested ways of developing it into a policy paper to compliment an advocacy campaign.

Gabrielle’s opening comments acknowledged that the background paper is very much focussed on FoE in the digital age, and is centred more on copyright rather than trademarks and patents. Gabrielle outlined the way in which conflicts between tangible property rights and freedom of expression have been dealt with by the ECHR. She also identified key challenges to reframing understandings of IP, in particular in relation to the notion that the public domain and information sharing should be the norm while information monopolies should be the exception. Gabrielle also highlighted the timeliness of this discussion as significant changes to the enforcement agenda are taking place; including the criminalisation of copyright infringement and DRMS circumvention.

Participants agreed that the policy paper was an excellent starting point for discussions on FoE and IP, and recommended a number of areas for further elaboration in future drafts:

The objective tone of the paper, placing ARTICLE 19 as an impartial arbiter, is a productive starting point.
The legal framework for IP/FoE should be elaborated to acknowledge the right to culture as contained in Article 27 of the UDHR and Article 15 of the IESCR. The ways that states periodically report their IESCR compliance could be explored.
Intermediaries should be referred to in broader terms than just as ISPs. “Information society service providers” is an umbrella phrase that includes search engines, advertisers, payment services.
The Scarlett decision by the ECJ should be incorporated once it is released.[2]
The concept of “filtering” is essentially a type of “blocking”, both may be referred to as censorship to clarify their immediate impact on FoE.
Some participants felt that explaining why the FoE implications are different for civil and criminal law would be helpful.
Participants felt that the section on the implications of the ACTA regime could be built upon.[3]
In developing the section on FoE rights, the Latin American view of FoE as a collective right may also be worth emphasising. It may also be worth comparing the potential balance between IP and FoE to other balancing exercises related to privacy or reputational rights.
The differences between copyright, trademarks and patents should be explained.
A section outlining the philosophical foundations of these protections, in particular the difference between the US (incentivise creation) and European (natural rights) approach to IP might also be helpful.
It should be stressed that the failure of IP law to adapt to new technologies is the problem, not new technologies themselves. This failure undermines the justifications for protecting IP rights.
Greater emphasis should be placed on the way in which the current legal framework is based on an ideal of an 18th century author, and does not acknowledge the impact of IP on scientific research and collaboration, indigenous knowledge, peer-to-peer sharing, the creative power of new technology etc.
Positive examples of IP infringement would be useful for illustrating why IP protection shouldn’t be safeguarded at all costs. In particular, efforts to make works more accessible to minority language speakers (crowd-sourcing methods in particular) and the impact that IP law has on blind people’s access to information.
Similarly, examples of censorship that make the impact of IP protections of FoE clearer to policy makers would be helpful in debunking the myth that the interests of the IP industry giants are synonymous with those of the individual creators.
It would also be helpful to illustrate that IP protection is also a geographic concentration of wealth issues as much as a moral issue.[4]
The role of de minimis exception regimes in protecting FoE should also be explored in greater depth.
Several sources were also recommended, including the Association littéraire et artistique internationale (ALAI)[5], the International Federation of Libraries Association (Stuart Hamilton identified as a contact)[6] and the OSCE study on Internet Freedom.[7]

Session 3: Key questions, issues and challenges

Dave chaired a third session to elaborate upon the key issues discussed prior to lunch, with a view to reaching some level of consensus on the appropriate scope of restrictions on freedom of expression in defence of IPR.

Gabrielle offered comments on the balance that could be applied between the right to property (Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the ECHR) and the right to freedom of expression (Article 10 of the ECHR). However, as the European Court of Human Rights has not ruled on the balance that ought to be struck between these two rights in the context of intellectual property, it is difficult to speculate on how it would be litigated.

Participants agreed that the ‘public interest’ is central to assessing when property rights can be restricted to promote other rights, including FoE. The need to stress the importance of the Internet as a public forum was also identified.

The participants also discussed what limitations are appropriate to place on IP rights. Various ideas were suggested, but it was concluded that any recommended framework on the substance of IP rights would have to be compliant with the Berne Convention. This means that in terms of copyright duration, the minimum that could be recommended is 50 years. It was also stated that any system that recommends a default public domain with a system of registration for copyright “exceptions” would not be compliant with Berne. The augmentation of IP rights through these international agreements was again referenced, as there appears to have been a pattern of the US and EU exporting the worst aspects of their IP regimes abroad through trade arrangements without elaborating on how exceptions to IP rights should be developed. It was also noted that copyright holders will continue to support this process, as their business model depends upon having as much control over the use of information as possible.

Again participants identified the need to distinguish between the limitations that are imposed on FoE by the IP rights themselves, those limitations imposed by preventative technological measures and those imposed by enforcement mechanisms.

The importance of distinguishing the different actors involved was also emphasised, i.e. whether we are discussing competing rights between private creators (e.g. original creator vs. derivative creator) or the direct relationship between the state and individuals (e.g. enforcement of criminal provisions against an individual infringing IP). It is important that our analysis does not conflate private actors with state actors, and that it is clear what positive and negative obligations are on these parties and the rationale for their application.

It was suggested that an approach that balances competing human rights is appropriate where the interests of two creators are in conflict, but perhaps not when the state intervenes to prevent or punish IP infringements. Where the state acts to restrict an individual’s access to the Internet, it is not a balance issue but an unnecessary and disproportionate interference with the right to freedom of expression.

Participants stressed the economic and social significance of blanket (and even many specific) restrictions on Internet access. Blanket prohibitions on access to the Internet was compared to solitary confinement, and participants agreed that sanctions such as these are never necessary or proportionate responses to IP infringement. An analogy was made to a statement recently issued by ARTICLE 19 on services to counterfeit mobile telephones being shut down in Kenya.[8] Participants also indicated that these blanket measures are increasingly rare, but that states still violate the principles of necessity and proportionality through limitations that they impose.

Further FoE concerns were raised in relation to the enforcement of IP rights in the digital environment. In order to monitor the Internet for IP infringement, it is necessary to monitor the content of all Internet communications. This has implications for FoE rights and privacy rights, and has a potential chilling effect on all on-line expression.

There was also some discussion on defining what our working definition of FoE should be in this context, particularly in relation to use of new technologies and DRMS. Does FoE necessarily include the right to scan a document, to use translation technology on it, to copy and paste, to save in various formats etc?

Participants also discussed that the ordinary de minimis exceptions cannot simply be transplanted and applied as ‘exceptions’ or defences to DRMS circumvention offences. DRMS limit the use of works severely, and unless you have the technical knowledge to circumvent these devices, it is not possible to take advantage of exceptions or defences.

There were also discussions on access to justice issues, due to the prohibitively expensive cost of contesting litigation against large corporations.

Several participants mentioned that discussions on these issues have a tendency to become too narrow in their focus. Examples given were that the focus drifts to copyright rather than trademarks and patents, that peer2peer sharing gets more attention than other technology uses, and that artistic expression is talked about but not technical or scientific forms of expression. At the same time, some participants expressed an aversion to a “kitchen sink” approach in any campaign, as it may result in an incoherent message.

Various sources were recommended for further reading. These included a report by Consumers International on best state practices (Brazil, Canada and South Africa mentioned for enacting progressive legislation recently),[9] and the UN guidelines on consumer protection.[10]

Session 4: Measures for protecting and enforcing IP rights on the Internet: finding a better balance with FOE

At the fourth session, Barbora chaired a discussion on procedural issues that pose a threat to freedom of expression and Internet freedom. Key issues identified at the outset were whether sticking to a human rights view that judicial oversight is the best option or is there a human rights compliant alternative model? As it was decided in the previous session that disconnection is disproportionate, are all forms of criminal liability for Internet use disproportionate? And what limits should be placed on civil remedies, such as damages-award ceilings.

Discussions began on whether an administrative model for notice and takedown would be appropriate. Advantages that were identified of non-judicial models include:

An administrative system is more effective in terms of time and cost. The number of notice and takedown requests that happen on-line would overwhelm a traditional judicial organ.
Protections for intermediaries from liability can be built into the system.
Guidelines can ensure compliance with legal certainty, transparency, due process, specificity of remedies, protections for the identities of users.
Could also be subject to judicial oversight.
That limitations on cost would also “disarm” corporations who would not be able to threaten expensive court procedures that intimidate individuals into prematurely settling civil actions.
The need for fast remedies in digital infringements was also stressed. For example, a website may be created only for the 90 minutes of a football game and then disappear – traditional judicial methods cannot be used to provide redress in these circumstances. Although this may appear to be a “shoot first, aim later” approach, one needs to consider these pragmatic concerns. An administrative model is better suited to this than a judicial system.
Alternatives to an administrative model included the use of non-legal ombudsmen or arbitration proceedings. These measures could also keep costs low.

A number of participants disagreed that an administrative model was appropriate. Their concerns focussed on the following issues:

That the independence of an administrative body could not be guaranteed.
That an administrative procedure should never be used to impose criminal liability.
The procedural guarantees in an administrative system are less robust, particularly in countries that do not have a strong separation of powers.
That the time and cost of a judicial system is necessary to comply with international human rights standards.

Concerns were also raised about recommending any boilerplate solution that should be ‘copy and pasted’ into all national contexts without adequate consideration being paid to that country’s legal system or traditions. In terms of accuracy of language, it was also commented that notice and takedown affects hosts of content, and not ISPs, who are mere conduits.

Systems in place in Canada and Japan for “notice and notice” were also discussed. In these systems, the IP holder notifies the intermediary, who notifies the user, who has a time to reply before action is taken. The role of the intermediary in this system is to facilitate communications and they are not subject to liability. The accommodation of “emergency requests” could also be considered within this system.

With any notice and takedown system it would also be important to make it clear to those controlling the content how you object to a takedown notice. Access to justice principles are important here, particularly considering the amount of misinformation that has circulated in recent years on the nature of IP infringement.

Various examples were given of forum shopping by IP owners in provincial courthouses where judges are less experienced in IP law and therefore more responsive to the arguments of IP holders.

There was also a discussion on why copyright holders would favour criminal sanctions as opposed to civil remedies. On the one hand, it seems intuitive that the rights holder would rather receive damages than have a person fined or imprisoned by the government. It was suggested that the criminal law has the advantage of having a more significant chilling effect. Also, in criminal cases, the costs of detection and enforcement can be placed on the state.

A number of initial principles were identified through this discussion:

Intermediaries should be immunised from civil liability.
There should not be liability for hyperlinking. It must be distinguished from “re-publication”.
Non-commercial infringement should not be criminalized. It was noted that TRIPS requires commercial scale infringement to be criminalized. Narrowly defining what is meant by “commercial” is important:

Peer-to-peer sharing should not be considered commercial.
IP infringement committed by individuals should not be considered commercial.

The need for clarity in the law and for information on IP law to be available to end-users facing litigation threats from copyright holders. In particular, states should educate individuals in the exceptions to copyright protections that serve the public interest.
Possible limitations on damages could be developed.

Session 5: Political developments and strategies of response

The purpose of the fifth session was to provide participants with the opportunity to discuss developing strategies for working together to better combat governments’ attempts at restricting FoE on the basis of protecting IP.

The first priority that was identified was to finalise a policy paper on the issue. This would perhaps take some time to formulate, and may require further meetings to discuss key issues.

A second priority for advocacy was identified in relation to ACTA, which will be voted upon by the European Parliament in the coming months. ARTICLE 19 has issued a statement on ACTA that will also be circulated among participants.

A third discussion concerned the possibility of uncovering a wikileaks-type “scandal” in which the hypocrisy of copyrights holders, and their true motivations, could be exposed. Receiving internal emails from whistleblowers interested in exposing such a story would provide a good media storm in which to launch an advocacy campaign. Examples of IP industries illegally lobbying governments or interfering with the administration of justice would be helpful. The involvement of the British Phonographic Industry in lobbying for the Digital Economy Act was referenced in this discussion.

The utility of engaging with the copyright industries was also discussed. These industries have a reputation for not negotiating– they want as much control over information as possible, as control is essential to their business model. There may be some utility in identifying who our enemies’ enemies are. It was mentioned that the occupy movements may be interested in pursuing a human rights narrative against corporate property interests. These groups are very much engaged in promoting FoE rights. The traditional media was also identified as a group that may be interested in supporting a movement for greater FoE protections against IP.

In terms of developing strategy, it was also recommended that we look at successful human rights campaigns from the past, particularly any in the field of cultural rights. Potential partners for coalition building need to be looked at, and many of these partners may be within emerging economies such as BRIC or South Africa.

As we develop a strategy, we need to remain focussed on framing this battle as a human rights fight. We need to identify victims, perpetrators, and a call to action. A different plan may be needed for each audience that we identify. From the experience of activists at the meeting, theoretical arguments will not succeed in rousing a people-driven campaign. The use of new media, such as campaign videos on youtube, that clearly outline the human rights case would be helpful. It is also necessary to bridge the gap between popular campaigns and videos, and getting those campaigns into the mainstream media and creating a political issue out of it. As technology users that would be interested in this campaign tend not to vote, making this a political issue means making people who do vote understand the issue as one that is a mass-scale human rights violation.

Concluding comments and closing

Agnès closed the session by identifying several key steps:

The need to revise the policy paper in light of discussions throughout the day’s sessions.
The need to meet again to discuss the revised policy paper and to continue these discussions.
The objective of developing our role as advocates, identifying what we can initiate, what existing efforts we can support, and what our overall strategy should be.

[1].ARTICLE 19 statement “European Parliament must reject ACTA”, see: http://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/2901/en/european-parliament:-reject-anti-counterfeiting-trade-agreement-%28acta%29

[2].This judgment has since been released. See ARTICLE 19 press release: http://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/2872/en/landmark-digital-free-speech-ruling-at-european-court-of-justice

[3].ARTICLE 19 has since released a statement on ACTA. See: http://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/2901/en/european-parliament:-reject-anti-counterfeiting-trade-agreement-(acta)

[4].http://www.worldmapper.org/images/largepng/167.png was recommended for its map of patent distribution in 2002.

[5].ALAI homepage: http://alaiorg.vincelette.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=50&Itemid=24

[6].See a list of publications at: http://www.ifla.org/en/publications

[7].OSCE study “Freedom of Expression on the Internet” (2010): http://www.osce.org/fom/80723

[8].ARTICLE 19 statement on FoE and counterfeit mobile telephones: http://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/2762/en/kenya:-free-expression-standards-should-guide-fight-against-%E2%80%9Ccounterfeit%E2%80%9D-mobile-phones

[9].http://a2knetwork.org/watchlist

[10].http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/publications/consumption_en.pdf

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/freedom-of-expression-and-ipr-meeting

Expert Committee Meetings

praskrishna — 2015-08-04T01:56:01Z

In 2013 the Department of Biotechnology set up an Expert Committee to discuss the Human DNA Profiling Bill. The Expert Committee met four times with an additional meeting by a sub-committee set up by the Expert Committee. The Centre for Internet and Society was a member of the Committee. The zip file contains: Record Note of discussions of the Experts Committee Meeting held on 31st January 2013 at DBT, New Delhi, to discuss the potential privacy concerns on draft Human DNA Profiling Bill; Record Note of the 2nd discussion meeting of the Expert Committee held on 13th May 2013 in DBT to discuss the draft Human DNA Profiling Bill; Minutes of the 3rd meeting of the Expert Committee held on 25th November 2013 in DBT to discuss the draft Human DNA Profiling Bill; Minutes of the 4th meeting of the Expert Committee held on 10th November 2014 in DBT to discuss and finalize the draft Human DNA Profiling Bill; Record Note of discussions of the Experts Sub-Committee Meeting on Human DNA Profiling Bill held on 3rd September 2013 at CDFD, Hyderabad

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/expert-committee-meetings.zip

Expert Committee meeting on 25th November, 2013

praskrishna — 2013-11-19T10:41:27Z

A meeting of the Expert Committee has been scheduled for 25th November, 2013 at 11.00 a.m. in R.No. 714 (7th Floor), Group Meeting Room, DBT, New Delhi to discuss the draft 'Human DNA Profiling Bill 2012' under the Chairmanship of Dr. T. S. Rao, Sr. Adviser, DBT.

This was communicated by Dr. Alka Sharma, Director/Scientist, Ministry of Science & Technology, Government of India to the following individuals:

Raghbir
RK Gupta
Murali Krishna Kumar
Sunil Abraham
Amar Jesani
Usha Ramanathan
Kamal Kumar
Dr. N. Madhusudan Reddy

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/expert-committee-meeting-november-25-2013

Expert Comments on CDAC document

praskrishna — 2017-05-19T15:17:58Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/accessibility/files/expert-comments-on-cdac-document.pdf

Expenditure

praskrishna — 2016-05-26T02:02:43Z

Expenditure

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/copy35_of_Utilization.jpg

Expenditure

praskrishna — 2016-05-27T16:13:46Z

Expenditure

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/copy2_of_Expenditure.jpg

Expenditure

praskrishna — 2016-05-21T09:12:48Z

Expenditure

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

Expenditure

praskrishna — 2016-05-15T07:42:49Z

Expenditure

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

Expenditure

praskrishna — 2016-04-26T02:35:46Z

Expenditure

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

Expel or not? That is the question

praskrishna — 2011-04-02T12:48:28Z

The decision of an international school to expel 14 students for their alleged ‘promiscuous’ behaviour has led to much debate and discussion.

The International School Bangalore (TISB) said the students were caught in ‘compromising positions’ on several occasions. They did not heed the school’s repeated warnings to desist from such behaviour, school authorities said.

The authorities said they had enough ‘evidence’, collected from social networking sites, to support their claim. The students would not be allowed on the campus anymore. They would, however, be allowed to take the exam in May, the authorities said.

The students have denied the charges. Many boarding institutions said that policing students was not the right approach.

Some of the widely used measures to keep a check on students include monitoring social networking sites, banning laptops on campuses, not allowing students to lock room doors, having security guards patrol campuses and insisting on house masters accompanying students to any part of the campus or hostel after school hours.

“There is no point in expelling students for such an activity,” M Srinivasan, principal, GEAR School, said. “If the students had been indulging in such activities often, what were the school authorities doing till now? There is no point making rules if you cannot enforce them. Clearly, there was a lacuna in the system,” he said.

Many schools said they keep a tab on the online activities of students. “The IT department at the school tracks the Facebook accounts of students,” Bishwajeet Bhattacharya, public relations officer, Trio World School, said. “Trio also has a presence on Facebook. The administration has appointed officials to monitor what is being posted online regarding Trio,” he said. The officials also look for objectionable materials.

Authorities, however, admitted that it was difficult to check all the online activities. “It is impossible to monitor all the social networking sites. You can use evidence from online sites, but why go to that extreme? The children are on your campus, their behaviour on campus is what you should be concerned about,” Srinivasan said.

“At the hostel, dorm wardens conduct room checks every hour,” Chenraj Jain, chairman, Jain Group of Institutions, said. “We don’t police the students. Instead, we adopt a more holistic approach,” he said.

The grey area

The International School Bangalore (TISB) said it had expelled the 14 students after collecting “enough evidence”
from social networking sites about their inappropriate behaviour. The question is: does online content have
legal validity?

Experts believe it falls in the grey area. “India does not have any specific law that restricts users from joining social networking sites just because they are below a certain age,” Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, said. “Many other countries have such laws,” he said.

“If the pictures said to be posted by the students were legal (devoid of vulgarity) and were just posted on a personal profile and not on a college group, then the school was not right in expelling them,” he said. “Students are entitled to privacy and schools shouldn’t be intruding into their privacy. If the school had used snooping software to monitor the students’ online activities, then that is also wrong,” he said. “It’s a different story if one of their classmates had forwarded the pictures to the teacher,” he added.

For link to the original story

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/expel-or-not

Expect anti-net censorship echo in house

praskrishna — 2012-04-25T11:07:43Z

For the anti-Internet censorship movement in the country, hope is now in sight. Their fight against the intermediary provisions (section 79) of the IT laws, according to which, an intermediary (website, domain owner) would have to take off content that a third party (or complainant) finds ‘objectionable,’ without any room for appeal, has now garnered the attention of the government itself. What is at stake is our fundamental rights, warns CPM Member of Parliament P Rajeeve, who was perhaps the first at the government level to realise that there was a gaping hole in the provision, and took up the matter in the Rajya Sabha.

This blog post by Arpan Daniel Varghese was published in IBN Live on April 25, 2012

“A discussion on the annulment of the IT Act 2011 itself is likely to figure in the budget session of the Parliament on April 24. I am trying to mobilise other MPs. We have decided to convene a meeting of organizations, representatives of political parties and MPs to discuss this issue in detail,” says MP Rajeeve.

Noted Twitteratti and former Minister of State for External Affairs Shashi Tharoor too is concerned, particularly about the onus this places on Internet Service Providers.

“If a newspaper publishes something, you go after the newspaper, not the delivery boy. Yes, you can ask the delivery boy to stop delivering the newspaper, but that is such an extreme step that few democracies would contemplate. But what we are trying to do seems to go unacceptably far in this direction and needs further reconsideration,” Tharoor says, adding that he too is planning to raise the issue in the Lok Sabha.

Both Alok Dixit from ‘Save Your Voice’ and Sunil Abraham, the executive director of the Centre for Internet And Society (CIS), say they are speaking to MPs and others in the government and trying to initiate an motion in the Rajya Sabha against the intermediary provisions. And support has been pouring in from all quarters, be it cyber space or through the pan-India protests, including the recent one at the Marina Beach in Chennai that ‘Save Your Voice’ has been holding.

Alok, Sunil and scores of activists across the country are now pinning their hopes on the annulment motion introduced by MP Rajeeve, which is likely to be taken up during the second half of the Parliament session on Tuesday.
The main hassle, however, is ignorance. “People don’t even know about the laws. They are not aware of their rights. So, the kind of support we are getting is quite less,” says Alok.

The legal fraternity and the administration too face the same roadblock, agrees Kerala High Court advocate Jacob. “This is a new area and people are just learning the theoretical side of it. There are not many cases. Trained professionals are not there to train the legal fraternity itself,” he rues.

The fundamental question is, according to Sunil, “why should freedom of speech and expression be any different on the Internet?”
“Remember, this is the same Internet which brought out Kolaveri and structured the Anna movement. So, it affects you,” Alok signs off.

Read the original here

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/anti-net-censorship-echo-in-house