Centre for Internet and Society

Twitter users find several accounts suspended for unknown reasons

praskrishna — 2014-12-07T01:27:05Z

Twitter users woke up on Saturday to find several accounts suspended for unknown reasons, triggering conspiracy theories that only the accounts of right-wing supporters had been targeted.

The article by Vasudha Venugopal was published in the Economic Times on November 2, 2014. Pranesh Prakash gave his inputs.

While it was said to have resulted from a technical glitch that suspended random accounts, several tweeters said there was a pattern to the suspension because 'suspended users' were asked to change their behaviour to be able to continue using the micro-blogging site. But by afternoon it was clear that many accounts, irrespective of their posts, had been suspended for a few hours. All suspended accounts were restored by afternoon.

A message sent out to a tweeter whose account was suspended read, "Twitter has automated systems that find and remove multiple automated spam accounts in bulk.

Unfortunately, your account got caught in one of these spam groups by mistake." Twitter also apologised for the inconvenience but added, "It is possible your account posted an update that appeared to be spam, so please be careful what you tweet... You will need to change your behaviour to continue using Twitter. Repeat violations of the Twitter rules may result in the permanent suspension of your account."

This triggered outrage among the Twitteratti who called it internet policing. There was humour too, with a tweeter posting, "In the Twitter canteen you never get chicken wings in pairs because the right wing is blocked."

Twitter officials said there was no deliberate blocking of accounts and that the incident was an accident as part of spam cleaning process. Pranesh Prakash, policy director, Centre for Internet and Society, said though there have been instances of 'privatisation of censorship' in the recent past, this incident did not look like one such attempt. "It doesn't look deliberate especially because even accounts such as eBay India were suspended."

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-economic-times-vasudha-venugopal-november-2-2014-twitter-users-find-several-accounts-suspended-for-unknown-reasons

Twitter handles: How and why govt erred and what it can do to be smarter & more effective

praskrishna — 2012-09-07T09:22:47Z

Here's a weekend reading recommendation for the mandarins who run the Government of India: it's a freely downloadable, a 145-page long document called "After the Riots". It is a report by the Riot Communities and Victims Panel, set up by the British prime minister to study reasons for the cause, spread and the damage wreaked by the riots that occurred in towns and cities in England in early August 2011.

TV Mahalingam and Shantanu Nandan Sharma's article was published in the Economic Times on August 26, 2012. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

During the riots, many British politicians had blamed social media for the quick spreading of lawlessness. "Everyone watching these horrific actions will be struck by how they were organised via social media," British Prime Minister David Cameron had told the British parliament. Others called for social networking sites to be "switched off". That is perhaps why the word Twitter features four times in the report, Facebook twice, BBM once and the phrase 'social media' appears 39 times.

So, what did the report have to say about the role of social media in the riots that tore through England? "Although social media was used to mobilise rioters, it has also been acknowledged that a number of forces used social media extensively to engage with their communities and provide reassurance during the riots," reads the report.

The report also highlights that by using social media to provide and receive intelligence, social media "can become a crime fighting tool". It shot down the idea that social media be switched off during times of widespread and serious disorder. The panel also recommended that every neighbourhood policing team should acquire social media capability by the end of 2013.

Bangalore Falling

Bangalore's deputy commissioner of police Vincent S D'Souza has had a harrowing 10 days. He had been asking most of his friends to post his mobile number on all social media networks. D'Souza's message: if anyone from the Northeast feels insecure in any part of the city, contact him directly.

But by then, the damage was already done. In the three days beginning August 15, as many as 37,000 people belonging to India's Northeastern region fled the city after SMS threats spread like a wildfire among the closely-knit Northeastern communities living in the city.

"A lot of the damage happened through social media. The images of victims of Tibet earthquakes and Gujarat riots were morphed and passed on as those of Assam riots. We busted a module in Bangalore. Seized computers and mobiles have given us enough leads," says D'Souza, who is in charge of intelligence.

Nitin Pai, founder of Takshashila Institution, a think tank, believes that the current crisis unfolded in two phases. The first phase, says Pai, was the events (the riots and mobilised violence) that occurred in Assam before August 15. The second phase, starting August 15, was the flight of Northeastern people from various parts of India after rumours of attacks began to flow. "To be fair, what happened between August 15 and August 18 was unprecedented in India," says Pai.

"Perhaps, for the first time, the Indian government had legitimate reasons to censor speech," says Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore, adding that even international human rights treaties like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), of which India is a signatory, provide for restrictions in free speech for the protection of public order.

However, what most people who have closely followed the events of the last fortnight, will disagree with is the way in which the government has gone about playing censor. "The government got in too late and went about too bluntly," says Pai.

Subtle as a Sledgehammer

"Given that SMS-based mobilisation isn't new in India (stone-pelting incidents in Kashmir led to a ban on SMSes since 2010), the government has had almost 2-3 years to put in place the strategy and ability to counter the problem. The arrests of miscreants spreading rumours through SMSes should have happened sooner," says Pai.

On August 17, two days after the trains from Bangalore began to fill up, an advisory signed by the Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (ICERT) chief Gulshan Rai cautioned intermediaries that "publishing and hosting of hateful and inflammatory content is an offence" under Section 69A and 79-3(b) of Information Technology Act, 2000. The advisory, which lacked specific details such as the names of the offenders and details of such content, asked all intermediaries to disable inflammatory and hateful content hosted on their website on "a priority basis". ICERT falls under the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology.

"That essentially made intermediaries like ISPs the judges of what was inflammatory or hate speech and what wasn't," says Abraham. In the following days, more orders would come, this time from the Ministry of IT and Department of Telecommunications and they would worsen things even more. These orders were a lot more specific: they had URLs of websites, Twitter posts and Facebook pages that were ordered to be blocked.

However, like a Centre for Internet and Society posting revealed: the list wasn't compiled with enough care. Some items did not exist, others were not even web addresses and in some case, thanks to overzealous ISPs, whole websites were blocked instead of a page on the site. One webpage that actually busted doctored riot pictures was blocked.

What gave teeth to the rumours that the government was using the events of August 15 to go after its critics was its crackdown on Twitter accounts. First, the government asked for a list of accounts parodying the PMO's account to be blocked, on charges of impersonation (which Twitter eventually did on Friday).

On late Wednesday, several other people, including journalists, a tech entrepreneur, discovered that their accounts had been blocked by some ISPs. Even as speculation raged if this was the case of yet another trigger-happy ISP, the government maintained a stony silence, The Economic Times broke the story that it was a notification issued by Ministry of IT and Department of Telecommunications that resulted in these blocks. The blocked account holders meanwhile continued to tweet, thanks to the ISP-level blocks, making the whole affair shambolic.

Big, Bad Government?

For its part, heavyweights from the government like Sushil Kumar Shinde and Kapil Sibal have maintained that this was just an effort to censor hate speech and not free speech. That's a line many are increasingly finding tough to believe, especially what this government tried to do late last year. In December 2011, Sibal had called a meeting of social networking companies like Facebook, Twitter and Google and asked them to remove offensive content.

A New York Times report had said that Sibal had showed the companies a page that maligned Congress president Sonia Gandhi and told them that this was "unacceptable". After heavy criticism followed Sibal's call to "pre-screen" content, the government backed off. So, is this government's second attempt to muzzle voices that it doesn't want heard?

"Perhaps not. It's just government being itself: gauche, clumsy, big-brother like and swinging a club when it needs to be using a surgeon's knife," says a cyber security consultant who has worked with the government in the past. "But, it would be a good idea to keep track if any more blocks or bans come our way. That would be crucial," he adds.

As for the companies themselves, Facebook and Google have "co-operated" in removing the "objectionable pages", while Twitter, after taking its time, knocked off the PMO "impersonators".
Rules of Engagement

Social media is posing challenges and opportunities for governments and law enforcement agencies across the world. In the developed world, police departments like the New York Police Department (@nypd) or London's Metropolitan Police department (metpoliceuk) use Twitter to engage with citizens. They upload mugs and profiles of suspects, give advisories and ask for retweets of missing persons' pictures. It's a game Indian authorities have just begun to play.

"At best, cyber monitoring is a reactive intervention. So the strategy must be how best to live with social media and counter it [misinformation] from within," says GK Pillai, former Union home secretary. He suggests that the government must create a separate department to exclusively tackle issues arising out of social media and messages.

"If social media is used for any propaganda, the government should use the same platform to counter it. If one hate message appears, there should be a thousand to counter it. We can't ban social media the way China has done it. We have to live with it," he adds.

Social media is a challenge to existing legal frameworks like never before, even in countries where free speech is protected a lot more than ours. Last week, the New York Police Department went to court to get Twitter to reveal details of a person who had tweeted: "people had gonna die like Aurora" at a Broadway theatre. Initially, Twitter had refused to share details but eventually relented (after lots of criticism) and the matter was resolved 'without an arrest'.

Things get even more complex, say government officials, because Twitter is a US-based company and claims that it is beyond India's jurisdiction. "Social media and disputes associated with it are relatively new areas [for India]. The US is already engaged in court battles with social media sites. We are a bit slow on this matter," admits Mohan Parasaran, additional solicitor general of India.

Centre for Internet and Society's Abraham believes that the government needs to put in a process which is transparent when it comes to censoring hate speech. "Even in Saudi Arabia, when you go to a blocked site, reasons are given why the site is being blocked along with addresses of the offices where redressal can be sought," says Abraham.

For now, observers say the Indian government needs to learn to engage and communicate better on social media. "There is a lot of hyperbole out there because the Indian government doesn't communicate — what it does and how it does things — very well. There is a lot of second-hand information and as a result a lot of speculation," says Pai. "Basically, the government is trying to use industrial age policies [like blocking] to solve information age issues," he adds.

A first step, perhaps, is fine-tuning the guidelines for social media use for its departments published by the government last week. It will be a big challenge — a change of mindset — for the Indian government which is used more to monitoring and posturing than engaging.

When the law & social media worlds intersect, the results can be not so pleasant. Here are a few examples:

1) An anonymous tweet that people were going to "die like Aurora" at Broadway show had the New York police department worried. So, the police approached Twitter for details about the account, which Twitter turned down. After some criticism, Twitter shared the details. The matter was resolved "without an arrest".

2) In Early 2010, Paul Chambers was stranded at Robin Hood Airport, south Yorkshire, thanks to cancellation of flights due to heavy snowfall. "Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You've got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high," he tweeted. He was charged, asked to pay a fine and lost his job. However, two appeals later, Chambers conviction was overturned.

3) When footballer Fabrice Muamba collapsed on the field after suffering a heart attack, 21-year-old Liam Stacey posted a vile, racist remark on Twitter about Muamba. When others questioned him, Stacey was combative and a case was registered against him. Even though Stacey admitted that he was drunk and that he was sorry, a court sentenced him to a 56-day imprisonment.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/economic-times-aug-26-2012-twitter-handles

Twitter

praskrishna — 2019-02-18T14:13:40Z

Twitter

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

Twitter

praskrishna — 2012-02-17T06:28:24Z

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

Twists and turns of the SOPA opera

praskrishna — 2012-01-16T09:48:02Z

Proposed DNS filtering threatens the core protocol on which the Internet's universality depends, writes Deepa Kurup in this article published in the Hindu on 15 January 2012. Sunil Abraham is quoted in this.

As the debate over piracy and copyright infringement on the web hots up in the United States, with the Government seeking to clamp down on intellectual property rights violations online, Internet majors Reddit, Wikipedia and others are planning a complete “Internet blackout” of their services for 12 hours on January 18.

This is in protest against the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), introduced in the House of Representatives last year, and a related legislation in the U.S. Senate, the Protect IP Act.

The way the debate is playing out pits the large media corporations — movie houses, record companies and other IP holders — against ‘Internet users', backed by powerful Internet intermediaries such as Google and Yahoo!, who also stand to lose in a clampdown on websites and services that host content that violates U.S. copyright laws.

Global Relevance

Significantly, the proposed law, backed by big business interests, equips the U.S. Government to act against any website hosting content that it believes infringes copyright, even if hosted overseas. This makes SOPA relevant, globally.

The proposed action could involve domain name system (DNS) filtering or blocking, directing advertisement providers and web payment services to stop doing business with the host and preventing search engines from linking to the site. Penalties for simply streaming copyrighted content, such as movies, personal recordings of television shows or even a clipping of your favourite pop song, could be up to five years.

On the technology side, experts have argued that the proposal to allow DNS filtering (or blocking) can potentially weaken and destabilise the Internet. DNS servers convert every request made in a human-friendly languageto an IP address that computers and networks understand. Now what SOPA proposes is that at this DNS server level, when a request is made for “rogue sites”, it is redirected.

Technically, experts believe that this will have huge implications of the stability of the internet. A whitepaper titled ‘Technical concerns raised by DNS filtering requirements', authored by technology experts, claims that while this will promote more techniques to circumvent the DNS, it threatens “the ability of DNS to provide universal naming, a primary source of the Internet's values as a single, unified, global communications network.”

The DNS is a protocol that allows for universality, which lies at the core of the internet, enabling it to grow and become the important, borderless medium it is today. Further, such blocking would make it tough to distinguish between a resolution failure and a request from a hacked server, creating security concerns. It would also be counterproductive to existing Internet security protocols.

A Firewall

While opponents of the Bill have attacked it as an attempt to create a “firewall” — akin to or even worse than the infamous one that China has for its citizens — they point out that it is at stark odds with the oft-repeated stance of the U.S. on “Internet openness”.

Companies in the business of providing web services are, understandably, against the law as it allows the Government to block access to any intermediaries that facilitate or host any material that infringe on copyrights. This affects every service that hosts user-generated content.

In an advertisement published in The New York Times, nine internet majors including eBay, Google, Yahoo! And LinkedIn, urged the Government to find “targeted ways” to combat “foreign rogue websites” while preserving “the innovation and dynamism” that make the internet a driver of “growth and job creation”. Ironically, the Government too seeks to address protection of jobs and economic interests through this legislation.

Politics of the Internet

In terms of infrastructure, the U.S. controls critical web resources. Contrasting this to the Chinese firewall that blocks content for users within its jurisdiction, the U.S. decision to redirect a link can act as a “global block”, explains Sunil Abraham, director of the Centre for Internet and Society. Physically, seven of 13 root servers (or clusters) that run the DNS system, are located in the U.S., he points out. So, for an Indian citizen who chooses to record the latest episode of Dexter and stream it online, it means that both his site and the intermediary could be blacked out, in a post-SOPA world. Currently, the IP holder would have to take the trouble of reporting or challenging this in an Indian court, Mr. Abraham explains.

In recent years, countries led by Brazil, India and China have been lobbying for a greater role for multilateral bodies in controlling the Internet. In 2010, the U.S. Government “liberated” the ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) from its direct control. But, bringing a law that allows it to come down heavily on “rogues” unilaterally, is being viewed as a step backwards.

For now, all eyes in the tech community are on the legislation, and the many debates surrounding it, which promise to be among the most controversial and interesting ones in technology in recent times.

Read the original published in the Hindu

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/twists-and-turns-of-the-sopa-opera

Twenty-five distinguished experts appointed to Global Commission on Internet Governance’s Research Advisory Network

praskrishna — 2014-04-03T07:20:24Z

Twenty-five distinguished scholars and internationally recognized experts have been appointed to the Global Commission on Internet Governance’s (GCIG) new Research Advisory Network (RAN).

Sunil Abraham is one the 25 experts appointed to the Global Commission on Internet Governance’s Research Advisory Network. Read the original published by the Global Commission on Internet Governance here.

The Global Commission is a two-year initiative launched in January 2014, by the Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) and Chatham House. Chaired by Sweden’s Foreign Minister Carl Bildt, the commission will produce a comprehensive stand on the future of multi-stakeholder Internet governance.

The commission’s RAN, led by CIGI Senior Fellow Laura DeNardis, will assist in identifying and prioritizing Internet governance and Internet policy related issues within the commission’s mandate. Members of the RAN will provide expert briefings to the members of the commission and conduct research and analysis for the commission’s preparatory work and final report.

“The research advisory network will be an indispensable component of the Global Commission on Internet Governance,” said Fen Osler Hampson, co-director of the commission and director of CIGI’s Global Security & Politics program. “Under the direction of Laura DeNardis, the RAN will be of great benefit to this initiative’s critical analysis and findings. I’m grateful that these experts have agreed to participate.”

The twenty-five member network consists of:

Sunil Abraham
Izumi Aizu
Peng Hwa Ang
Subimal Bhattacharjee
David Clark
Sadie Creese
Leslie Daigle
Oleg Demidov
William Dutton
Lorraine Eden
Laurent Elder
Patrik Fältström
Tobias Feakin
Urs Gasser
Clem Herman
Jeanette Hofmann
Konstantinos Komaitis
Ronaldo Lemos
Meryem Marzouki
Carolina Rossini
Michael Schmitt
Emily Taylor
Rolf H. Weber
Andrew Wyckoff
Christopher S. Yoo

Additional RAN members will be confirmed over time. For more information on the GCIG, including its twenty-nine commissioners and twenty-five research advisers, please visit: www.ourinternet.org. Follow the commission on Twitter @OurInternetGCIG.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/25-experts-appointed-to-global-commission-on-ig-research-advisory-network

Twelfth School Board Meeting of IGNOU

praskrishna — 2014-12-06T01:15:12Z

The 12th school board meeting of the School of Journalism and New Media Studies of the Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) was held at the IGNOU campus on November 24, 2014. The day-long meeting was held at the Discussion Room, Convention Centre. Sunil Abraham participated in the meeting.

Agenda

Item No.	Agenda
12.01	Confirmation of the Minutes of the 11th School Board Meeting held on April, 25, 2014
12.02	To consider and approve ATRs on the Minutes of the 11th School Board Meeting held on April 25, 2014
12.03	To consider and approve the recommendations of the Exploratory Experts Committee on M.Phil. in Communication Studies
12.04	To consider and recommend additional names of Unit Writers and Editors for MA-JMC programme
12.05	To consider and approve the names of Experts Committee for Practical Component of MA-JMC programme
12.06	To consider and recommend additional names of Paper Setters, Moderators & Evaluators for PGJMC programme
12.07	To review the PGDAPP programme on offer since 2004
12.08	To consider and approve the proposal of conducting practical training/Internship for CCR & PGDAPP students at headquarters
12.09	To consider and approve the names of Experts for Appreciation Programme in Media Literacy
12.10	To consider and approve the Minutes of the Doctoral Committee meeting held on October 29, 2014
12.11	To consider and approve the revised Phase-I Form and Programme Structure of BA-JMC programme as recommended by Experts Committee held on October 16, 2014
12.12	To consider and approve the names of Experts for Course Design Committees for BAJMC programme
12.13	Any other item with the permission of the Chair

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/twelfth-school-board-meeting

Tweets with "Gender IT"

praskrishna — 2013-10-28T08:52:33Z

Tweets with "Gender IT".

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/20131021T090102_gender-it.csv

Tweets from the afterlife

praskrishna — 2017-06-06T12:46:06Z

What happens to the digital legacy that celebrities leave behind after they die. Heena Khandelwal asks if their families must inherit their digital assets or can social media managers stake a claim.

The article by Heena Khandelwal was published by DNA on May 28, 2017.

Famous personalities and celebrities with millions of followers on social media platforms enjoy the stature comparable to high-value brands. Their Facebook posts, tweets and Instagram images not only have the potential to influence society but often become fodder for news, online discussions and even prime time debates. But have you paused to wonder what happens to their social media accounts in the event of their death? What becomes of the huge bank of online data that they leave behind? Do these digital assets naturally pass onto the next of kin, to the digital platform or to a third party that managed the said account/s in the first place?

While these are not new questions, the tussle over the social media accounts of former president late Dr APJ Abdul Kalam between his family and Kalam's former aide who managed his social media affairs, has thrown the issue under the spotlight. Nearly two years after Kalam's sudden demise, his family and Srijan Pal Singh find themselves on the opposing sides. It all started when Singh began handling Kalam's Twitter and Facebook accounts after his death on July 27, 2015. When the family sought the account details, stating their rights over Kalam's digital assets, Singh changed the username and the handle of his verified Twitter account from @apjabdulkalam to @KalamCentre. At the time of Kalam's death, his verified Twitter account (@apjabdulkalam) had nearly 1.5 million followers and 886 tweets. When this was renamed to @KalamCentre, it stopped being a 'verified' handle. Singh did not hand over the details of this account to the family but the details of a new Twitter account that he'd created with the same handle, @apjabdulkalam, which had barely 50 followers. Incidentally, Kalam's original Twitter account had 829 tweets (at the time of going to press), implying that some of Kalam's tweets have been deleted since his death. Regarding Kalam's Facebook page (Facebook.com/kalamcentre), Singh maintains that its username has always been Kalam Centre and that it doesn't belong to the family.

"These are digital assets of a former President of India. He (Singh) is changing the legacy by changing the name and handle of his Twitter account," says Kalam's grandnephew APJMJ Sheik Dawood, insisting that the account details should be given to the family. "Everybody was following Kalam and not anything or anybody else. He shouldn't have changed the name or handle."

Singh contends that since he was the one who created and managed Kalam's social media presence, he has sole rights over these assets. "Dr Kalam's social media accounts were started to spread the message about his ideologies. I am here to continue his mission... whoever handles his accounts should be in sync with his ideologies," says the 32-year-old. "I practically lived with him in the same house in the last few years of his life and was very close to him. I understood him."

Trust in times of tweets

Ask if his actions tantamount to misleading Kalam's followers and the public at large, Singh is dismissive. "On March 18, 2017, we informed our (Kalam Centre) users of the name change through a tweet, and so it is up to them to follow who they like. There are already plenty of fan pages and other accounts running in his name," says Singh.

Even as he defends his position, the fact that he was using Kalam's verified account for nearly 20 months after his demise can be seen as a breach of the right of reputation. "Posting or tweeting on behalf of a deceased person is breaching their right of reputation," says Chinmayi Arun, executive director, Centre for Communication Governance (CCG) at National Law University, Delhi. Third party agents, according to Arun, should refrain from impersonating their principals in the same manner that secretaries and administrators refrain from impersonating their employers. "In case of an individual's demise, the agents are expected to handover everything to the heirs and this should also apply to digital accounts," she says.

On its part, Twitter India refused to comment when contacted and pointed this reporter to the site's support page on deceased or incapacitated users. The micro-blogging site makes it clear on its website that it does not provide account access to anyone regardless of their relationship with the deceased person, and added that "this policy is about deactivating accounts, not transferring ownership of accounts".

Emails to Facebook India's corporate communication head remained unanswered. The social networking site states on its pages that it neither approves the inheritance of a user's account nor permits using an account following a user's demise. Instagram lists a similar policy and states that an account can be memoralised or removed after the user's demise.

Black, white & grey

While social networking sites' policies clearly mention that an individual user account should be operated by the person him/herself, it is common knowledge that celebrities often outsource the management of their social media accounts to digital and social media agencies or to a select team under their direct watch. They too tread nebulous waters. Digital marketing agency, EveryMedia Technologies, which manages celebrity accounts, states that although there is no clause regarding the protocol to be followed in the case of a client's death, they would do as per the social platform's guidelines after due consent from the family. "Our contracts do not have a clause that states the way forward in case of demise of the account holder and we hope such a day doesn't come," says Gautam B Thakker, CEO, EveryMedia Technologies. "In the event of such an unfortunate incident, the standard operating procedure would be to convert the account into a legacy account and memorialise it for fans and well-wishers or to deactivate and close it — whatever the social platforms' and the client's family permits."

Daksh Juneja says of Avignyata Inc specifies that the work is based on strict contracts, which never mention the course of action to be taken in case of the personality's death. "There is no contractual obligation towards the IPR rights for a celebratory client on both sides but it's important to share the access of the social media pages with the person's manager or a family member," says Juneja, the chief operating officer of the Mumbai-based digital agency, which handles social media accounts of Bollywood celebrities and sportsmen.

Supreme Court advocate and an expert in cyber law, Pavan Duggal, points out that the terms and conditions of social networking sites aren't clear. "Deactivating accounts can amount to loss of data, which can be used for reference and research. I think more clarity is required," says Duggal. "When a person has an account, only he/she should access it. However, if a person has an agent, then (in the case of death), the principle of agent applies."

Courtside view

Given the reluctance of social media platforms to engage and the lack of clarity as highlighted in the case of Kalam's accounts points to several questions — from handing over the digital accounts, intellectual property rights, right to reputation as well as unambiguous policies by service providers. Taking about Kalam's accounts, Duggal feels his family is the rightful legal heir to his digital assets. "The family should approach the court and file a case against Singh under the Information Technology Act and under IPC section 408 — criminal breach of trust," he says. "They can also reach out to service providers, and if they don't co-operate, they too can be sued under the IT Act."

Duggal strongly believes that "if a person has died without specifying, then his/her digital presence or accounts being a digital property, should be treated as movable assets and should pass on to the legal heir or representatives of the deceased person rather than to an NGO".

According to Sunil Abraham, executive director at Centre for Internet and Society, Twitter India should help settle the Kalam case using its existing policy. "And if there is no space for a legacy contact, they might consider resetting the password so that nobody has access to it and then they can memorialise the account," says Abraham. "Social media accounts are increasingly being enumerated under digital assets in wills. Once the asset has been transferred to the heir, the heir can choose to transfer the account to another person or organisation for their services in maintaining the account. While this is not explicitly provided for in the law, there is no prohibition either."

WHEN THEY DIED...

Among the eminent personalities whose social media accounts continue to be operational after their demise are anti-apartheid leader and former president of South Africa Nelson Mandela, pop star Michael Jackson and boxing legend Muhammad Ali.

While Mandela's account has been turned into a foundation, Ali's account states that it pays tribute to the boxing legend. Jackson's account mentions nothing about the fact that he died in 2009. Their Twitter and Facebook pages witness a tweet or a post every few days. Both Jackson and Ali also have verified accounts on Instagram; their photos are posted every now and then.

Among the celebrities whose accounts have been left inactive are Bollywood actress Jiah Khan, television actress Pratyusha Banerjee and British singer-songwriter George Michael. While Khan's last tweet (on May 23, 2013) was an apology message for staying away from the social networking site, Michael had shared his song Heartbreak a day before Valentine's Day on February 12, 2016. Banerjee had tweeted '#prayforparis #prayfortheworld' on November 15, 2015, showing her support against the terrorist attack in Paris on November 13, 2015. This was her last tweet before she was found hanging in her apartment in Mumbai on April 1, 2016.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/dna-may-28-2017-heena-khandelwal-tweets-from-the-afterlife

Tweets and twits

praskrishna — 2012-08-25T07:45:43Z

The orders issued by the Ministry of Communication and IT to block more than 300 items on the Internet, including Twitter handles, Facebook pages, YouTube videos, blogposts, pages of certain websites, and in some cases entire websites, tell a revealing story of a government that has simply not applied its mind to the issue of how to deal with hate speech, both cyber and traditional.

Published in the Hindu on August 25, 2012. Pranesh Prakash's blog post is quoted.

There can be no argument against taking down material that can incite violence, and some of the targeted content rightly needed to be blocked. But this should have been done transparently, with judicial oversight. In the present case, it is not clear what laws have been invoked to block the items specified in the four orders issued from August 18 to 21. Certainly, the orders themselves do not make reference to any law. As pointed out by the Centre for Internet and Society (http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/analysing-blocked-sites-riots-communalism), if the government had acted under the Information Technology Act, the host servers of the affected sites should have been notified and given 48 hours to respond under the IT Rules of 2009; and if it used the emergency provision in the Rules, which are themselves opaque, the orders should have come up before an ‘examination of request’ committee within 48 hours. Another serious problem is that the orders do not mention the duration of the blocks.

Especially disturbing is the decision to block the Twitter handles of right-wing agitators and one pro-Hindutva journalist. Bad taste, warped logic and chauvinist comment do not, by themselves, add up to hate speech or criminal incitement. If an individual is really spreading hate through speech, print or the Internet, let the government proceed against him or her under the Indian Penal Code — where the courts will have the final word — rather than indulging in censorship that is pre-emptive and arbitrary. And mindless too: among the sites blocked is an anti-hate page on a Pakistani website which was one of the first to expose how fake photographs had been used to whip up Islamist passion on the Rakhine clashes in Myanmar. A London School of Economics-Guardian study of the 2011 London riots documents how Twitter was used extensively in a positive way, to organise community clean-up operations after the riots. On the other hand, their analysis of 2.5 million tweets showed, the response to messages inciting riots was ‘overwhelmingly negative’. The lesson from this is that it is possible to counter hate on social media through the same platform. This is really what the government should be doing, instead of the Sisyphean task of trying to block noxious content that will always find other ways of bubbling to the surface.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/www-thehindu-com-opinion-editorial-aug-25-2012-tweets-and-twits

Tweets

praskrishna — 2016-03-16T14:35:34Z

Top Tweets

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

Tweet a Review of Digital AlterNatives with a Cause Books

praskrishna — 2012-01-07T14:42:32Z

Essays from 'Digital AlterNatives with a Cause?' books are getting reviewed. We invite everyone to participate in this book review event! Deadline: January 31

Read one essay from the 'Digital AlterNatives with a Cause?' books published by the Centre for Internet & Society and HIVOS.
Download PDFs here.

Post a review on your blog

Tweet the review's link on Twitter using #TweetReview and copy @cis_india

For e.g. "Unpacking the shiny packaging of Digital Natives" Book 2 To Think #TweetReview http://cis-india.org/digital-natives/unpacking-from-shiny-packaging @cis_india
Send us a link to your view

For more details about the event and the essays you want to review, email: nilofar.ansh@gmail.com

Tweet-a-Review is a monthly event organized as part of the 'Digital Natives with a Cause?' project.

Read previous reviews here

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/digital-natives/events/tweet-a-review

Tweet 4

praskrishna — 2016-12-04T11:49:40Z

Tweet 4

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/Tweet4.png

Tweet 4

praskrishna — 2017-05-12T15:32:19Z

Tweet 4

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/Tweet4.jpg

Tweet 3

praskrishna — 2016-12-04T11:43:37Z

Tweet 3

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/Tweet3.png