Centre for Internet and Society

Debate over #Aadhaar Turns Nasty as Critics Accuse Supporters of Online Trolling

praskrishna — 2017-06-07T13:09:10Z

Internet Freedom Foundation’s Kiran Jonnalagadda has alleged that iSPIRT and its co-founder Sharad Sharma set up fake Twitter profiles to harass, intimidate Aadhaar critics.

The article by Ajoy Ashirwad Mahaprahasta was published in the Wire on May 19, 2017.

As bizarre as this may sound, one of the founders of the Indian Software Products Industry Round Table (iSPIRT) – an influential think-tank closely associated with the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) – Sharad Sharma, is battling allegations of trolling anti-Aadhar campaigners through fake Twitter profiles.

Kiran Jonnalagadda, one of the founders of Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF), has alleged that a number of fake profiles started to troll him online earlier this month in response to his criticism of Aadhar on Twitter. Surprisingly, he said, one of the profiles –@confident_India – which trolled him was apparently operated by Sharma, considered highly influential within the IT and start-up industry and a governing council member of iSPIRT.

What is iSPIRT?

In 2013, a group of volunteers working with NASSCOM founded iSPIRT to represent the software products industry independently. It is widely known that many of these same volunteers also helped the UIDAI develop much of the initial Aadhaar infrastructure and ecosystem. According to Forbes India, iSPIRT helps Indian software product companies “draft and take policy proposals to government officials; create reusable ‘playbooks’ from successful companies that can be applied by others; and create ‘self-help communities’.” It aims to facilitate Indian software product companies, which build affordable and innovative technologies, get a footprint in sectors like health, education, infrastructure and create conditions so that they get an equal platform to compete with big multinationals.

In this mission, iSPIRT believes that Aadhaar-based technologies, which Indian software product companies may create, could help the Indian software product industry gain an advantage over multinationals, which may be skeptical about using Aadhaar. In other words, iSPIRT, one of the biggest advocates of Aadhaar, sees a commercial advantage to the increasing use of Aadhaar for many of the entrepreneurs associated with the Round Table. To this end, iSPIRT runs two initiatives – ProductNation and IndiaStack, a collection of open APIs for technology infrastructure projects like UPI and Aadhaar.

While the mission may sound fine, many of the Aadhaar advocates within iSPIRT have had to face questions from civil society, most of which have to do with the suspicion that Aadhaar could compromise online privacy. This, over the past few months, has led to heated social media battles between iSPIRT and anti-Aadhaar campaigners.

However, the debate took a darker turn when Jonnalagadda uploaded a video showing that the @Confident_India Twitter handle could be traced back to Sharma’s personal mobile phone number on Twitter. Sharma, has since then, apparently changed his number.

“It was only when I started to grow suspicious of the handle that I thought of using Sharma’s phone number to verify the account,” Jonnalagadda tells The Wire.

In an article – “Inside the mind of India’s chief tech stack evangelist” – where he narrates the events, he says “a flurry of newly created Twitter trolls accounts began heckling me about Aadhaar”.

Around 10 such handles started making unprovoked attacks on Jonnalagadda and another founder of IFF, Nikhil Pahwa, accusing them of being guided by “greed, profit, and deceit” for being in the “#AntiAadhaar brigade.”

As the argument continued, @confident_India called Jonnalgadda “pretentious” mouthing “highfalutin stuff” and “techno-babble”.

“All these did not perturb me as it was a part of routine arguments,” says Jonnalagadda.

However, in what he calls a “lightbulb moment”, he had the first inkling that Sharma could be operating the account of @confident_India through this thread:

“Sharad Sharma’s original account doesn’t follow any of these people on the thread. The conversation would not have shown on his timeline. Yet both @confident_India and Sharad Sharma made the same argument,” says Jonnalagadda.

Then, he says, Sharma gave it out. A question addressed to Sharad Sharma ended up being answered by @confident_India.

@Confident_India also went on a tirade against the IFF fellows and called them “JNUtype”, “ISISstooge” or belonging to Lutyens Delhi, insinuating that the IFF fellows are terrorists or largely belong to a certain social elite category of people.

When this prompted Jonnalagadda to verify the account with Sharma’s number, it matched. He later posted the video on his account.

An email from The Wire to Sharad Sharma remained unanswered at the time of writing.

However, soon after this alleged expose kicked off a Twitter war between the two groups, Sharad responded with a reply to Nikhil Pahwa’s tweet.

iSPIRT also responded in various online forums. “Sharad Sharma, co-founder of iSPIRT, named in these allegations is in the US for a medical emergency in his family. As of this morning, Eastern Standard Time, Sharad has categorically denied these allegations. We will further investigate the confusion around the alleged link of mobile number and clarify all outstanding questions. For the moment, we are prioritising the well-being of Sharad and his family,” says the organisation’s response.

“We want to categorically state that the allegations against iSPIRT coordinating and/or promoting any troll campaign are false and the evidence presented is a deliberate misreading of our intent to engage with those speaking against India Stack” it added.

Interestingly, however, what has emerged out of the controversy is another allegation by the IFF that iSPIRT had made trolling part of its policy to counter Aadhaar’s “detractors.”

At a fellows meeting earlier this year in February, iSPIRT charted out a “Detractors Matrix” in which they categorised the anti-Aadhar campaigners into four categories, namely “misinformed, fearful, and engaging”, “informed, fearful and engaging”, “misinformed and trolling” and lastly, “informed yet trolling”. In an internal iSPIRT presentation, Reetika Khera, IIT professor and a renowned economist, and Nikhil Pahwa, IFF’s co-founder were shown as belonging to the last two categories.

To counter Aadhaar critics on online platforms, iSPIRT volunteers intended to group themselves into “archers” and “swordsmen” who would challenge their theories on Twitter and elsewhere.

iSPIRT has acknowledged discussing the “detractor matrix” in its reply to the allegation but dismissed it being equivalent to trolling, as Jonnalagadda alleges. Co-founder of iSPIRT, ThiyagaRajan Maruthavanan, while responding to allegations said that there was no official involvement on behalf of iSPIRT.

CIS allegations

Many of the pro-Aadhaar Twitter trolls, most noticeably Confident_India, have also lashed out at other Internet rights organisations. This includes the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) which last month released a report that claimed that over 100 million Aadhaar numbers were publicly exposed by four government websites. The Confident_India Twitter handle has alleged that CIS has violated foreign funding regulations (under the Foreign Contributions Regulations Act), that they are likely “funded by ISI” and that because of their “advocacy efforts”, the organisation should be shut down.

It should be noted that the Unique Identification Authority of India has also sent a sharp letter to CIS over its report and has suggested that some of the Aadhaar data that the report documented could not have been gotten through legal means.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-wire-may-19-2017-ajoy-ashirwad-mahaprahasta-debate-over-aadhaar-turns-nasty-as-critics-accuse-supporters-of-online-trolling

Debate on Section 66A rages on

praskrishna — 2012-12-10T09:44:31Z

Last week, a reputed BPO in Chennai took down its Facebook page and introduced stricter moderation for posts on its bulletin board.

Vasudha Venugopal's article was published in the Hindu on December 10, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

The measure, an official said, was aimed at avoiding any "callous remark by any employee." "We have discussions on many raging topics here, and we are just making sure the content is clean with no intended defamation."

The need to present only ‘unobjectionable content’ is just one off-shoot of a controversy that has gripped the country after at least five persons were arrested in recent months for posting their views online. But what started as an outcry by a few voices against the IT Act has now turned into a campaign against the constitutional validity of the Act itself. Last week also saw concerted protests to demand the repeal of Section 66A of the IT Act, under which most of the accused were booked. Human chains and protests were conducted in Chennai, Bangalore, Pune, Hyderabad, Guntur, Kakinada, Vijaywada, Visakhapatnam, Pune, Kozhikode and Kannur, among others.

In the past few months, the debate on the use of Section 66A in particular, and the Act in general, has gathered momentum. The arrests of Jadavpur University professor Ambikesh Mahapatra for circulating a cartoon lampooning West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee; cartoonist Aseem Trivedi; businessman Ravi Srinivasan for tweets against Union Finance Minister P. Chidambaram’s son Karti Chidambaram; and the two girls in Maharashtra for criticising the bandh after Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackeray’s death have sparked popular anger.

“Public anger and media attention have been so strong that the government has been forced to retreat, which is a good first step,” says Alagunambi Welkin, president of the Free Software Foundation Tamil Nadu, which organised the protests in Chennai. "The next step would be to plug the loopholes in the IT Act. After all, this same government has declared in various international forums that it is all for promoting openness online."

Activists say that along with the increased pressure on the government, collecting information on cases of the misuse of the Act are the tasks that have to be fulfilled immediately. Human rights activist A. Marx, who has filed a public interest litigation petition against Section 66A, says the selective application of the law is very troubling. From a broader perspective though, this is also an issue of global proportions. Recently, a man in the U.K. was jailed for 18 months after he was found guilty of posting abusive messages on an online memorial. In July this year, a young Moroccan was arrested in Casablanca on the charge of posting “insulting caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed on Facebook.”

As recently as Tuesday, a Shenzen resident was arrested for posting a letter online, accusing a senior village official of corruption, and last week, a man in Kent was arrested for posting an image of a burning poppy on a social network site.

However, Pranesh Prakash, policy director, Centre For Internet And Society, Bangalore, notes that the more problematic parts in India’s laws are ones that result from adaptation. India’s own adaptation of the U.K. law, for instance, considerably increases punishment from six months to three years. However, if it is any consolation, there are voices worldwide being raised on this issue. Till last week, Google’s search page had a message: "Love the free and open Internet? Tell the world’s governments to keep it that way," and a link for comments directed to the Dubai conference, which will see a wide-ranging discussions and key decisions on global internet governance.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/the-hindu-sci-tech-internet-december-10-2012-vasudha-venugopal-debate-on-section-66a

Debate on Cyber Crime in TV9

praskrishna — 2017-03-28T15:25:40Z

Vidushi Marda took part in a debate on cyber crime which was aired on TV9 on January 13, 2017.

Vidushi spoke about the the definition of "cyber crime" within the IT Act, and also on proportionality of punishment/the best way to deal with such incidents. This programme was aired after a few college websites had been hacked to display false notices from deans, registrars, etc.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/debate-on-cyber-crime-in-tv9

Dear Milind Deora, Prakash Javadekar Deserved The Truth

praskrishna — 2013-09-05T10:38:05Z

Milind Deora, the Minister of State for Communications, Information Technology and Shipping, isn’t your typical politician.

This article by Rohin Dharmakumar was published in Forbesindia Magazine on August 22, 2013. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

At just 36, he’s way younger than the average cabinet minister (64) or Member of Parliament (53). He’s also richer (Rs.17.5 crore compared to Rs.5.3 crore for the average M.P.)

He’s got his own website - www.milinddeora.in - which unlike most of his peer’s websites, is fairly well-designed and constantly updated. He’s also an avid user of social networks like Twitter (@milinddeora) and Facebook.

Oh, he’s also a Blues fan and a pretty good guitarist.

In short, he’s the kind of politician or minister many Indians would like to vote for.

And vote they do, in fact. Deora’s won the Mumbai (South) parliamentary constituency two times in a row, garnering nearly twice his next opponent’s votes during the 2009 elections.

Which is why it’s surprising, and saddening, to see Deora trot out a patently false set of answers to how America’s global dragnet of Internet surveillance is affecting the privacy of Indians.

On 16th August Deora responded to a question from Rajya Sabha M.P. and BJP Spokesperson Prakash Javadekar, asking the following:

(a) whether it is a fact that India was the fifth most tracked country by the United States intelligence, particularly on the internet;
(b) if so, the details thereof;
(c) the impact of USA”s surveillance program-Prism and Boundless Information on the country; and
(d) the steps Government intends to take to protect country”s interests and the privacy of its citizens?

Javadekar’s question was sorely needed in light of the near-daily disclosures being made about the scarily omnipresent extent to which the US Government spies on global Internet users through a myriad of ways.

India, as Javadekar rightly pointed out, was indeed the fifth most monitored country under the “Boundless Informant” data mining tool that tracks the NSA’s (the US’ lead communications spy agency) global surveillance efforts. In just March 2013 alone, according to a leaked presentation on the tool, the NSA collected 6.3 billion pieces of information from India. Suffice it to say, the information would have come from Indian citizens, businesses, ministries, bureaucrats and of course, members of Parliament (most of who now use webmail and social network from the likes of Google and Facebook).

The only countries that were spied upon more than us were Iran, Pakistan, Jordan and Egypt. Some sobering company, that!

One would thus expect Deora to be seized of the urgency and concern behind Javadekar’s questions. His answer was:

(a) & (b) In June 2013, Media reports have disclosed that India is the fifth largest target of United States electronic surveillance programmes, in terms of interception of communications on fibre cables and other infrastructure. As per media reports, United States agencies used a number of methods to gather intelligence including intercepting communication on fibre cables and infrastructure, collecting information from servers of global internet and Telecom Service Providers. Such companies include Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple, Yahoo, AOL,Youtube, Paltalk and Skype.

Here we have a member of Parliament asks India’s Minister for Communications & IT about the extent to which Indian citizens and businesses are being spied upon by the US – ostensibly a friendly country – and all the Minister could do was cite newspaper reports?

What about your own investigations Mr.Minister? What is the opinion of your leading spy agencies like the NTRO, R&AW and IB? Are they also relying on newspaper reports?

But wait, Deora does go on to provide a few more answers:

(c) & (d) Government has expressed concerns over reported United States monitoring of internet traffic from India. Concerns with regard to violation of any Indian laws relating to privacy of information of ordinary Indian citizen as well as intrusive data capture deployed against Indian citizens or government infrastructure have been conveyed to the United States. The issue of United States Cyber surveillance activities was discussed during the Indo-US (India United States ) strategic dialogue meeting held in New Delhi on 24.06.2013.

Whew. That was reassuring. We expressed “concerns with regard to violation of any Indian laws relating to privacy of information” to the US during a “strategic dialogue meeting”.

Let me guess what the US side responded: “Sure. We’ll do that. Come back to us when you have a privacy law. Ha ha!”

As Sunil Abraham, the director for the Center for Internet & Society points out in Forbes India, India has no modern and comprehensive privacy law. And the government is working on a new one for only the last three years:

What would an ideal privacy law for India look like? For one, it would protect the rights of all persons, regardless of whether they are citizens or residents. Two, it would define privacy principles. Three, it would establish the office of an independent and autonomous privacy commissioner, who would be sufficiently empowered to investigate and take action against both government and private entities. Four, it would define civil and criminal offences, remedies and penalties. And five, it would have an overriding effect on previous legislation that does not comply with all the privacy principles.

The Justice AP Shah Committee report, released in October 2012, defined the Indian privacy principles as notice, choice and consent, collection limitation, purpose limitation, access and correction, disclosure of information, security, openness and accountability. The report also lists the exemptions and limitations, so that privacy protections do not have a chilling effect on the freedom of expression and transparency enabled by the Right to Information Act.

The Department of Personnel and Training has been working on a privacy bill for the last three years. Two versions of the bill had leaked before the Justice AP Shah Committee was formed. The next version of the bill, hopefully implementing the recommendations of the Justice AP Shah Committee report, is expected in the near future. In a multi-stakeholder-based parallel process, the Centre for Internet and Society (where I work), along with FICCI and DSCI, is holding seven round tables on a civil society draft of the privacy bill and the industry-led efforts on co-regulation.

Which brings me to the final part of Deora’s response to Javadekar:

United States official responded that PRISM dealt only with Meta Data (related to the direction and the flow of the traffic) and only broad patterns of telephony and internet traffic are monitored. United States Officials maintained that data content/content of emails are not accessed or not monitored under these surveillance programmes; therefore, it is not a violation of privacy. It was stated by United States that its agencies need to get separate authorization from Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court, if they want to access the content of any of the data intercepted by these surveillance programmes.

Dear Mr.Minister, either you have been lied to by your friendly “United States Official”, or, well…

Firstly, by limiting the answer to only PRISM, which happens to be just one of the NSA’s secret tools for online surveillance, you are willfully or inadvertently narrowing down Javadekar’s question which specifically mentions other tools like Boundless Informant.

Almost all of the big Internet companies revealed to be part of the NSA’s global spying mechanism have also used the same tactic to tailor their denials. I suppose they got the cue from the NSA, which loves using the “Under This Program” dodge to derail specific questions about its secret programs, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation:

Another tried and true technique in the NSA obfuscation playbook is to deny it does one invasive thing or another “under this program.” When it’s later revealed the NSA actually does do the spying it said it didn’t, officials can claim it was just part of another program not referred to in the initial answer.

In case you weren’t aware of the NSA’s obfuscation tactics Mr.Minister, here is another great piece on it from the Slate – “How to Decode the True Meaning of What NSA Officials Say”

Thus when your friendly US official tells you that “only meta data (related to the direction and the flow of the traffic) and only broad patterns of telephony and internet traffic are monitored” under PRISM, not “data content/content of emails”, he or she is technically right.

Because the NSA has other programs that capture all of that. For instance, XKeyscore, which according to leaked presentations, it can capture “nearly everything a typical user does on the internet”. This includes emails, visits to websites, web searches and Facebook chats & private messages.

Did you also know, Mr. Minister, that the XKeyscore surveillance program has servers located inside India?

Finally, you make a statement that is patently false. You say that US spy agencies need authorizations from the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Courts (FISC) in order to access the data collected by various surveillance programs.

FISA courts almost always approve any request made to them (they apparently rejected just 11 requests out of 33,900 made by the US government in the last 33 years), so that’s that for oversight.

And in the NSA’s Orwellian world of doublespeak, large scale interception and storage of Internet communications isn’t considered “collected” till such time one of their agents has had a chance to look at it. Which means if you’re reading this post – the NSA’s secret servers over the world and in India can coolly capture that and store it in vast databases for posterity – without it ever registering as a “collection” or requiring any approval from FISA courts.

Fact is, Mr.Minister, we “foreigners” (unless you belong to one of the four other countries that are part of the “Five Eyes” alliance, in which case you’ll be treated with a wee bit more caution) , that is, us, are fair game:

The intelligence data is being gathered under Section 702 of the of the Fisa Amendments Act (FAA), which gives the NSA authority to target without warrant the communications of foreign targets, who must be non-US citizens and outside the US at the point of collection.

The communications of Americans in direct contact with foreign targets can also be collected without a warrant, and the intelligence agencies acknowledge that purely domestic communications can also be inadvertently swept into its databases. That process is known as “incidental collection” in surveillance parlance.

We expected better answers from you Mr.Minister – sorry, expect better.

Alas your recent answers don’t inspire much trust, for instance when you tell us constant surveillance is “good for us” and “will enhance the privacy of citizens”.

Or when you tell us that “Google Hangouts” – a service provided by a company that looms over nearly everything Indians do online – is a better medium to reach out to people than Parliament or Television.

We deserve the truth from you Mr.Minister. Just like Prakash Javadekar.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/forbesindia-august-22-2013-rohin-dharmakumar-dear-milind-deora-prakash-javadekar-deserved-the-truth

Dead and Clicking

praskrishna — 2016-03-23T01:42:20Z

A look at the phenomenon of digital memorials; repositories and time capsules of a life even after it's ended in the real world.

The article by Jayanthi Madhukar and Sowmya Rajaram was published by Bangalore Mirror on March 20, 2016. Rohini Lakshane was quoted.

On the first death anniversary of his father-in-law last week, Pradip Mehta (36) decided to show the 120 relatives gathered at his home in Rajkot the digital memoriam he had created through Shradhanjali.com, India's first and only memory portal. As he clicked on the page, the photograph of his father-in-law popped out to the accompaniment of the Mrityunjaya mantra. Curious relatives looked on as he showed them the photo album on the portal where all good moments with the deceased we're captured for eternity. "There were two reasons why I chose this kind of memoriam," he explains. "Instead of paying a fortune on print media for the announcement, this online profile will be up for 30-odd years. And by uploading all the pictures and videos, my wife and I are making sure that he will be 'alive' for our 12-year-old son in the future." Mehta regrets that he grew up with practically no idea of his ancestors. "We don't take efforts to know our lineage at all."

That may not be the case with the millennial generation and the people who follow them. With an entire life online — selfies uploaded to Facebook, tweets, posts, Instagrams of their meals and dubsmashes — leaving behind a legacy is less a matter of choice and more a matter of inevitability. Everybody leaves behind a footprint on the Internet, but some of it can be controlled even after their death. Today, your loved ones have a 'life' beyond their death — on memorialised pages on Facebook, on webpages dedicated to their memory, and even on QR codes on their gravestones that will link to information about them online.

Indeed, the dead may soon outnumber the living, at least in the virtual space. A US statistician has calculated that Facebook's dead will outnumber the living by 2098. And when that is the case, the rules must evolve.

In memoriam

Take the way social norms have evolved in the virtual space. When a death is announced on social media, online friends begin sharing thoughts and comments. Some may not have even met the deceased in the real world but their digital interactions had been extensive enough for them to suffer a sense of grief.

So, how does one mourn a loved one who has piled up an extensive amount of digital possessions? Do they deserve an online memorial? Facebook certainly thinks so. On the social networking website, families can get full access to profiles only if there's documented instruction from the deceased. You can let the site know if a person has passed away, and Facebook will memorialise the account, which means that person's Facebook account now appears with a 'Remembering' above their name. A legacy contact (someone you choose to look after your account if it's memorialised) can then write posts, respond to new friend requests and such. There are many such accounts on the site — take the accounts (now memorialised pages) of actor Sanjit Bedi (of TV show Sanjeevani fame), Sheryl Sandberg's late husband Dave Goldberg and late F1 driver Jules Bianchi. All this, if you don't explicitly ask for your account to be deleted after your death.

In an earlier interview to The Huffington Post, Facebook spokesperson Fred Wolens had said: "When we receive a report that a person on Facebook is deceased, we put the account in a special memorialised state. Certain more sensitive information is removed, and privacy is restricted to friends only. The profile and wall are left up so that friends and loved ones can make posts in remembrance. If we're contacted by a close family member with a request to remove the profile entirely, we will honor that request."

Time capsule

Shradhanjali.com works a little differently. For Vivek Vyas, co-founder of Shradhanjali.com, the idea was born out of empathy rather than business opportunity. He says one particular incident prompted him to offer the memorial service online. He and his friend (now partner) Vimal Popat were eating samosas at a roadside restaurant off Rajkot in 2011. The paper in which the savouries were packed was the obituary page. "It was disturbing to see the photographs of the deceased wrapped around the samosas, oil-stained and later, discarded as rubbish." The friends spoke of having an online memoriam which would be decorous to the memory of the departed.

Back home, the two researched similar sites and to their surprise, found no other site offering such a service in India. "Let's do this," Popat urged Vyas, and the two quit their jobs in an insurance company to start the memorial portal. The site went live in 2011, allowing you to relive memories of your loved ones.

First, one has to register by going online to this B2C website with a simple user interface. Once a payment of Rs 2,700 is made for a 30-year subscription, the subscriber can upload information, photographs and videos about their loved one. They are offered a choice of 10 languages (for friends and relatives to write their condolences) and a selection of music that they wish to be played whenever someone visits the profile page. The content is completely user-driven and once the page goes 'live' the link is sent to all the emails that have been uploaded.

Vyas maintains that their website is gaining traction — there are about 400 paid subscribers, many of them are agencies which partner with print media giving 'packages' to the client — and in spite of not marketing aggressively, the number is growing. "The concept connects with people in a rather intimate manner," he says, "and some of the people to whom I have explained the site have shed copious tears, they are so moved by the concept of memoralising the departed."

In fact, one of the subscribers initially wrote a cheque of Rs 27,000 insisting that the yeoman service needs better cash appreciation.

The founders maintain that their venture is not comparable with Facebook or a blog as Shradhanjali is free of any advertisements and even sends out reminders of birth and death anniversaries. "Besides, the others are not exclusive platforms for memorials," Vyas stresses.

Life, beyond

Clearly, the meaning of the memory of a loved one is different today. It exists beyond photo albums and physical memories of that person's friends and family. Madhu Nataraj, choreographer and dancer, Natya Stem Dance Kampini, discusses what the community page dedicated to her late mother Maya Rao on Facebook means to her. Although the page was made when she was alive, as a way for her students to address her and to talk about her book, after her death in 2014, Nataraj says today it has become a sort of memorial page, where people post their remembrances of her mother.

"She lives on through her art. Every time I dance or step on stage — and I'm sure this is true even of her students — I remember her. This is just another dimension of that remembering," Nataraj says. In another case, the FB page of Dean D'Souza (a close friend of a writer who did not wish to be named), who died in a helicopter crash in 2013, "brings comfort and a smile". He adds, "Friends are constantly posting on it, and his profile picture is changed regularly, reminding us of a happier time. I found it unnerving at first have FB remind me that "It's Dean's birthday", but not anymore over the years."

Nataraj however emphasises that for an artist of her mother's stature, the legacy is through the memory of her art. Of course it feels good when people pay tribute to her online. But a virtual 'memorial' of her mother's life isn't the only legacy she has.

Digital remembering

But the burgeoning number of such services makes it clear that for many others, a virtual repository of their loved one's life is important. Take The Digital Beyond, a site that discusses how to plan digital legacy management — Facebook accounts, email, bank accounts etc — after death.

There are others. In a page straight out of the movie PS I Love You, a service called My Wonderful Life sends posthumous emails to loved ones. Then there's MyDeathSpace.com, which tracks social media profiles of the dead and maintains an extensive message board and Facebook page.

Services such as Living Headstones allow you to emboss a QR code upon a loved one's headstone. Scanning it connects to a website containing information you and friends add about your loved one, such as: an obituary, family heritage and history, photos, comments by friends and relatives and even links to share content on Facebook or Twitter. Another, Quiring Monuments, adds a link to the granite memorial through which smartphones can connect to your loved one's personalised website.

There are those who might raise their eyebrows at such platforms, but Vyas will have none of it. "Just because you have a mandir (a prayer room) at home, the need for temples will not diminish, will it? There is a decorum given to the memory of the dead on our site."

Do we forget?

But there is also a flipside. In the real world there is a period of mourning, people come to offer condolences and then, it is time to move on. Cyberspace may not allow this clean transition from grief and mourning to a semblance of routine. The thing about having such a digital memoriam is that grieving does not really end. This is a setback, according to clinical psychologist Dr Anand A Rao. "Grief has to be suffered immediately otherwise it will become a reaction later which will require clinical help," he says. But reliving the memory each time someone posts a query or shares a memory does not help either. "Ultimately, grief has to stop and loved one's routines have to continue. Typically I would recommend the presence of such a page for about 15 days, no more," he says.

There is also the matter of insincere tributes. As Nataraj says, she was very hurt when people who "hardly knew" her mother had posted selfies captioned: 'Maya didi', "followed by five hearts". "I found that callous," she says. "There are so many so-called obits and condolence messages and everybody wants to claim that familiarity with her that I'm sometimes wary."

But it doesn't look like the digital memorial phenomenon is going away anytime soon. Rohini Lakshane, researcher at the Centre for Internet and Society, agrees with Dr Rao to an extent, saying that getting constant updates could thwart the process of grieving or healing. "But at the same time, I could see how reaching out to a larger community via public updates or photos could give them strength, moral support and empathy," she says. She points out that if a person feels that their online persona or presence is an extension of themselves, it's a perfectly "legitimate wish" to have. "Given the importance attached to details of events that we post online, I suppose the desire to create a time capsule of it will continue to exist.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/bangalore-mirror-jayanthi-madhukar-sowmya-rajaram-march-20-2016-dead-and-clicking

De facebook

praskrishna — 2011-04-02T13:41:13Z

Facebook used to be our playground but privacy concerns are now souring that fantasy. Why do we trust a clutch of new corporations with such phenomenal amounts of personal data?

The age of privacy is over, Facebook’s fresh-faced founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg declared a couple of months back. Social norms have shifted. We are now used to living out loud. “When I got started in my dorm room at Harvard, the question a lot of people asked was, ‘Why would I want to put any information on the internet at all? Why would I want to have a website?’” he said.

That paranoid past is behind us, claimed Zuckerberg, justifying Facebook’s controversial new decision to fling open the curtains and make maximum visibility the new normal. “In the last five or six years, blogging has taken off in a huge way, and (there are) just all these different services that have people sharing all this information,” he said.

In other words, get over the stage fright. Everyone else is out there over-sharing, arguing, preening, and generally acting out online.

In June last year, Facebook sneaked in a feature called the Everyone update. This makes it much like Twitter, and also allows it to share with and sell information to search engines like Google, Bing or Yahoo. “Facebook’s privacy changes are relevant as it tries to compete with real-time search on platforms like Twitter. It does give you an option to work around that though I am certain the whole process of setting privacy preferences could be a lot more intuitive,” says Sidharth Rao, digital industry watcher and CEO of internet marketing firm Webchutney.

On the surface, the new Facebook settings are better and much more malleable, if you can figure out how to work them — you can now choose, per post, what you want different sets of people to see. They have eliminated regional networks which would unwittingly expose you to an entire city sometimes (meaning that not everyone who is on the Delhi network, say, has automatic access to your information if you are in Delhi). But on the other hand, the default setting that Facebook recommends is deeply problematic. You, your profile picture, current city, gender, networks, and the pages that you are a “fan” of are all “publicly available information”. Earlier, you could make sure only your friends saw the rest of your friends — now, that option no longer exists as a setting.

Wasn’t privacy once a Facebook fundamental? Unlike the seedier environments of Orkut or Myspace, Facebook grew out of a small Harvard community, expanded to cover other East Coast schools, then conquered companies and countries. In September 2006, Facebook opened registration to anyone with an email address. But it was extremely cautious about how it engineered interaction. In essence, you were meant to socialise with people you already knew.

“It felt safer. It wasn’t about random people sending you scraps and stalking you, like on Orkut or whatever. Facebook reflected my real world. It kept you loosely, comfortably connected to so many people”, says Nomita Sawhney, a young Delhi-based architect. Unlike the threat of cyberstalking, intimidation, and impersonation that stalk less selective networks, Facebook remained clear of what media scholar Danah Boyd calls ‘stranger danger’. Only two years back, Zuckerberg told tech blogger Marshall Kirkpatrick that privacy “is the vector around which Facebook operates”.

I Like To Watch

Why are these changes such a big deal? Zuckerberg’s claim about privacy rings true for most unself-conscious Facebookers. After all, only recently, bra colour status updates were the big buzz on Facebook, ostensibly in support of breast cancer awareness. Now, it’s doppelganger week, where you tell the world what celebrity you most resemble. You can take dippy quizzes, remember birthdays, discuss the news, giggle over pictures. Grim warnings about corporate avarice and government spying sound faintly ridiculous in this pleasant context.

Social networks and blogs have certainly reconfigured privacy. Anyone who’s spent time on Facebook knows the impulse to meander through the pages and pictures of people in that amorphous category called ‘friends of friends’. In just a few years, we have got used to the thought that our lives are externalised and sprawled out for near-strangers to see.

In fact, Facebook is now the largest photo site in the world. When you join Facebook, under its Terms of Service, you give it a “license” (that is, legal permission) to use your content “on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof.” It takes some effort to realise how recent all this is, that it’s still a great unfolding experiment, and that we are granting these companies fabulous power.
In his recent book, The Peep Diaries: How We’re Learning to Love Watching Ourselves and Our Neighbors, cultural critic Hal Niedzviecki describes the digital glasshouse: “Peep culture is reality TV, YouTube, Twitter, Flickr, MySpace and Facebook. It’s blogs, chat rooms, amateur porn sites, virally spread digital movies of a fat kid pretending to be a Jedi Knight, cell phone photos — posted online — of your drunk friend making out with her ex-boyfriend, and citizen surveillance. Peep is the backbone of Web 2.0 and the engine of corporate and government data mining.”

Web 2.0 was the clunky name for a whole range of liberating personal expression platforms — from Flickr and Youtube to Livejournal and Facebook. These companies provide the space and you bring the party. They encourage you to feel right at home and treat these platforms like your lounge, confessional or salon. Meanwhile, they also collect and refine data about you, and often wield it without your awareness.
In its over-eagerness, Facebook has blundered into several privacy minefields before this—when it first introduced Newsfeed, pushing a steady stream of your friends’ status updates at you, it embarrassed and annoyed many. Boyd compared it to the experience of shouting to be heard at a party, when the music abruptly stops and everyone else can suddenly hear your careless small talk. Of course, it turns out Zuckerberg was right when he told users to “calm down and breathe”, and Newsfeed has been naturalised into the Facebook experience. Another, more scarring experience was Beacon — its attempt to track what users in the US bought on partner sites — and tell on them to their friends. After an avalanche of protests, Facebook backed down and modified the ad platform. It even employs a chief privacy officer to address our fears.

In the early days, Facebook generated awkwardness because it didn’t respect context — the fact that you wear and cast off selves depending on who you’re interacting with, your crazy roommate or your conservative grand-aunt who decided to befriend you online. “It is the problem that arises when worlds collide, when norms get caught in the crossfire between communities, when walls that separate social situations come crashing down,” writes Chris Peterson of the University of Massachusetts, who has studied Facebook’s privacy architecture.

But now you can tweak settings and set up differential access. People have figured out how to work Facebook and not get burnt. “Profile pictures flatter, tagged pictures shatter,” says Priya Singh, a twenty-something law student, with a laugh. “You never know what someone’s going to put up and who’s going to see what. I don’t want everyone to see drunken party pictures, and so I’ve just learnt to place family on a new level of privacy settings.” And that’s the general pattern on Facebook: most people have learnt to adjust to the public glare, after some initial blinking and bemusement.

Privacy from Whom?

You can segment your social world as minutely as you like, but that doesn’t mean your life is any more private. It’s not just the fact that potential employers can scan and dismiss you, or current employers keep tabs — though such stories abound. For instance, MIT’s Gaydar research project discovered that you can identify a person’s sexual preferences by studying who their friends are on Facebook, even if they have avoided sharing that information in their profile.

But perhaps we have been gulled into thinking that the whole privacy fuss is about each other. “It’s very clever of Facebook to foreground this aspect of control. Your other friends, pictures, the games you play — that’s something we regularly give out anyway”, says Nishant Shah, director of the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society. “But Facebook is not a single entity — it is a collection of third party apps (applications) that we have no control over. A simple birthday calendar can harvest all your data, all your online traces and you grant it access without knowing it,” he says. So Facebook makes a big show of protecting you from your acquaintances, even as it sells your information continuously.

This becomes a much bigger possibility when it comes to search engine integration, which allows the open flow on Facebook to be harnessed for perfect reach and recall.

To get a clearer sense of what’s at stake with these influential corporations, take a more powerful example: Google.com. Every day, we confide our trivial confusions, our deep doubts to one willing ear. And these billions of broken questions can add up to an eerily accurate picture of the world. But do you search Google or does Google search you? “Google can track you across applications: email, search, blogs, pictures and books read. That means they can profile you in a very detailed, exhaustive way, and they do,’ says Rahul Matthan. “They never delete information, and they’re getting progressively more intelligent about you, as they make search more relevant with features like Google Suggest.” As technology scholar Siva Vaidyanathan puts it, “we have to realise that we are not Google’s customers. We are its product. We are what Google sells to advertisers.” These behaviourially targeted ads are the most perfect, evolved form of advertising so far and in concept, the least annoying, because they are customised to you. Google has promised that its information is utterly secure and that search logs are anonymised after a certain period.

It provides limited disclosure of outside ads, lets users manage the categories that Google has assigned to them and tinker with it for a more accurate picture and also provides an opt-out option. But Search 2.0 is a scary beast — it can also facilitate social control and surveillance. Your online activities are not scattered across applications any more, Google can hear what you tell Facebook.

While selling us stuff more efficiently is probably a good thing, what happens when this intimate knowledge shades into active surveillance? Even if we live in countries where rights are respected, “we give out enough personal information in an innocuous way to a single repository. They are sitting on top of a very valuable resource, and all this information can easily be reverse-engineered to reveal specifics about you,” says Rahul Matthan, technology lawyer and founder-partner of Trilegal.

In India, we are even more oblivious to such stealthy watching. “Privacy concerns here are lesser than in the West, where they’re so dependent on digital ID. There, if someone impersonates you or overdraws credit limits, it could affect your house, your job,” says Matthan.

Privacy legislation doesn’t really exist in India — the right to keep personal information confidential has only been articulated as protection against state action. “There’s no easy legal recourse to being thoroughly spied on by a company,” says Matthan (Europe has enforced data protection directives since 1984 — you can control what information is gathered about you, and how it is used. While the US has somewhat diluted laws, personal information is still strongly guarded). While it’s tempting to think that you have nothing to hide, you are acceding to a set-up where outliers can be identified and dealt with. Privacy matters, no matter how unexceptionable your own life. So what’s to be done? “Holding Facebook and other companies to account is crucial. We must set up legislations by which people can look back, ask exactly what about their activity is being tracked. They have to treat consumers as peers,” says Shah. “If Facebook can gaze at us, we must be given the right to gaze back at its functioning — it has to be a peer-to-peer relationship.”

So far, Facebook and the Googleverse and Twitter are still our friends and enablers. But as they amass more and more power, it is better to see them as fallible companies rather than confidantes, and to make sure that they account for our information.

For original article on the Indian Express

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/de-facebook

DE

praskrishna — 2011-06-08T12:18:14Z

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

Dayanand college workshop

praskrishna — 2019-02-26T16:21:39Z

Dayanand college

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

David Drummond, Senior Vice President, Google

praskrishna — 2010-10-13T10:34:40Z

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

David Drummond (Google) és Lord Richard Allan (Facebook)

praskrishna — 2010-10-13T10:43:04Z

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

Daunting task ahead for investigative agencies with WhatsApp's end-to-end encryption

praskrishna — 2016-04-09T09:45:12Z

Messaging service WhatsApp's decision to roll out end-to-end encryption for over 1 billion subscribers has been hailed as a positive step by users across the world, although things are set to get tougher for law enforcement and investigative agencies in India seeking to track terrorists.

The article by Neha Alawadhi was published in Economic Times on April 8, 2016. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

"It was anyway difficult to get any kind of data from WhatsApp and now it is going to be even more difficult," said a person familiar with the working of these agencies who did not wish to be identified.

Encryption scrambles data such as text messages, photos and documents and makes them unintelligible for unintended recipients. A service that is encrypted end-to-end cannot be monitored or intercepted. No one, except the people or group communicating with each other, can access the data. If telecom companies, Internet providers or even companies that run messaging services try to intercept the message, all they would get is garbled data.

While chats will not be accessible, associated information known as metadata will be available, such as when the conversations took place, the identities of senders and recipients, their locations, mobile numbers, profile photos and address books, which may be useful for security agencies.

"Definitely for law enforcement it means a big headache, but the metadata is there and with metadata, if you have a couple of other bits of information, you can piece it together," said Sunil Abraham, executive director at Bengaluru-based research organisation Centre for Internet and Society. "Agencies can get the metadata, but they won't get the payload unless they're able to compromise the device. And that intelligence agencies like NSA (National Security Agency of the US) have been able to do in the past."

While encryption offers privacy and security to users, it is the bane of law enforcement agencies globally, as exemplified most recently and notably by the Apple-FBI dispute in the US. The Federal Bureau of Investigation FBI asked Apple to weaken its encryption to access a dead terrorist's iPhone data and after the company refused, hacked into the device with help from a third party.

In India, it is difficult to bring US-based companies to the negotiating table. "We have had minimum cooperation from WhatsApp. All the data is controlled in the US and they rarely hand over the data that we request. We don't ask them for content. We only ask for metadata," said another person familiar with the process who declined to be identified.

While the Indian IT Act gives wide-ranging powers to the government to ask for access to encrypted information, very few requests for information, very few requests for information take the legal route. One reason is the long time that it takes to process such requests - on average, over three years - and the other, especially in the case of WhatsApp, is little or no cooperation, according to government officials.

WhatsApp, based in Mountain View, California, did not respond to an email request for comment. The messaging company was acquired by Facebook in 2014.

How security and investigative agencies in India use the data they access is also a grey area. "We do not have a privacy legislation here which will take care of the concerns that people have with respect to use of data. If the government needs to have access to communications, they also need to ensure there are adequate safeguards in place," said Prasanth Sugathan, counsel at Software Freedom Law Centre.

"In practice, end-to-end encryption will bring the end user and the device into focus, rather than WhatsApp or any particular messaging service. This should be a trigger for greater clarity on India's data protection policy," said Arun Mohan Sukumar, who heads the cyber security and internet governance initiative at think tank Observer Research Foundation.

In India, requests for information from companies such as WhatsApp and Google are handled by the Ministry of Home Affairs or the Indian Computer Emergency Response Team. Emails to both were unanswered at the time of going to print.

The Indian government was involved in a long-standing dispute with BlackBerry over access to encrypted data on its messenger and corporate email service. BlackBerry set up servers in Mumbai to comply with local regulations, but said it could not access encrypted data on its enterprise servers.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/economic-times-april-8-2016-neha-alawadhi-daunting-task-ahead-for-investigative-agencies-with-whatsapp-end-to-end-encryption

Datawind

praskrishna — 2012-11-02T15:14:03Z

Datawind

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

Data Xgen launches paid Hindi email service

praskrishna — 2016-08-30T02:35:03Z

Jaipur based Enterprise email provider Data Xgen Technologies has launched a paid email service in Hindi Devnagari script. This is especially for .bharat domain names, but can also be used for other domains. As of now, the company offers email packages starting at Rs 99, Rs 499, Rs 999 and Rs 1,499, which look like monthly plans.

The blog post by Sneha Johari was published in Medianama on August 29, 2016.

Ajay Data, the company’s founder and CEO told MediaNama that it plans to launch an app for sending free email in Indic language, starting with Hindi. Data said that he was hopeful about Hindi email adoption given the vast majority of the population in India was rural and did not understand English. “People get left out of communication streams because they do not understand English. But they can still get onto the internet and communicate with all of us. Mobile companies are also selling phones in Indian languages, marketing as Hindi phones.. And this is the right time (for Indic email) since the segment is being created,” he added.

Earlier this month, the Indian government told email service providers to provide users with addresses in Indian languages, starting with Hindi. It also wanted ‘sufficient local language content and tools to access it’ in order to increase internet penetration and push higher rural adoption. This was needed because English speakers and readers in the country were low (10.35%), according to Rajiv Bansal, Joint Secretary at the Ministry of Electronics and IT.

Wikipedia Indic efforts

About 3 weeks ago, Wikipedia launched in Tulu, the 23rd Indian language Wiki. In September 2013, the Goa University had entered into a 3 year MoU with the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) for building the Konkani Wikipedia, which was launched 6 months later. In August 2014, former Bihar CM Nitish Kumar launched the ‘Bihar on Wikipedia’ campaign inviting people of the state to write about their villages, towns, culture, history, development over the years, etc. Note that in 2012, Wikipedia editors were digitizing Indian language, out-of-copyright texts online, trying to address the comparative paucity of Indic language texts online.

As of June 2016, Wikipedia had 16 million page views per month on the Hindi wiki, with overall 106,844 articles. This is not a significant increase. According to this August 2011 report, there were 0.1 million Hindi articles on the platform, and 9 million overall views.

Indian mobile handsets need to support Hindi: BIS

In June, the Bureau of Indian Standards reportedly said that mobile handsets in India would need to support typing in Hindi and English, and reading in all 22 official Indian languages. We’d pointed out at the time that this was essential for growth of access to the internet for handsets in order to access content in users’ local languages.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/news/data-xgen-launches-paid-hindi-email-service

Data Visualization Session

praskrishna — 2017-05-20T02:32:55Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/data-visualization.pdf

Data Swiss Army Knives

praskrishna — 2012-02-14T09:41:05Z

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