Centre for Internet and Society

Train the Trainer

praskrishna — 2013-11-14T08:53:01Z

Train the Trainer

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

Train bullet

praskrishna — 2011-03-28T14:07:42Z

Shepherd Zhou/European Pressphoto Agency

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/TrainBulletTraininChinaNYTFeb22011.jpg

Trail of the Trolls

praskrishna — 2012-01-04T07:55:05Z

Bullying and abuse on the Internet is on the rise. Smitha Verma finds out why most offenders are going scot-free in this article published in the Telegraph on 4 January 2012.

When Shahana Nair Joshi, a young professional from Delhi, wrote a blog post titled ‘An Open Letter to a Delhi Boy’ last year, she was not prepared for the repercussions that followed. The post went viral overnight and received as many as 7,000 comments. Her blog post, which was a rant against the stereotypical Delhi man, became a topic of discussion on social networking sites, inviting with it a flurry of praise. But the fan following also brought with it an equal number of trolls (those who post inflammatory messages in an online community).

“Soon sexual insults, derogatory messages and inflammatory content became the norm,” says Joshi. “Then I started moderating the comments on my blog and went on to block trolls on Twitter,” says Joshi whose Twitter follower list jumped from 100 to 1,000 within a week. “One person even went to the extent of issuing a death threat to me over the phone,” she adds. “I decided to ignore the trolls as that is the best possible solution.”

Cases similar to Joshi’s are on the rise in cyber world. At a time when social networking sites are being asked to monitor and censor their content, bullying on the Internet is at an all time high. Trolls hide behind the anonymity that a social networking site provides to post derogatory comments and obscene remarks.

According to Supreme Court lawyer Pavan Duggal, harassment on social networking sites is emerging as one of the biggest problems in the online world. “Six out of 10 people aren’t aware of what constitutes a cyber crime. As a result they aren’t reported. Neither the victims nor the abusers know what is an offence,” says Duggal.

But even if a case of bullying on the Internet is reported, the law is somewhat fuzzy when it comes to bringing the offender to book. In India, social media come under a variety of civil and criminal laws. The Information Technology Act, 2000, tackles most cases related to cyber crimes. “However, we take recourse to not just the IT Act, 2000, and its amendments thereunder, but also to other legislation, such as the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Trade Marks Act, the Copyright Act, etc., to tackle cyber crimes in India,” says Gurpreet Singh, Internet law head, Amarjit & Associates, Delhi.

Bullying on the Internet consists of abuses that may have emotional and physical repercussions. “Trolling provokes a non-productive argument and as of now it is not considered a criminal offence anywhere in the world,” says Sunil Abraham, executive director, Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore. However, most Internet users point out that trolling is out and out harassment that often verges on sexual harassment as well.

“I am routinely harassed by trolls. Even if I block them, they create a new twitter handle, start following me and post abusive comments,” says Joy Das, an advertising professional from Mumbai. His strong stand on several issues makes him a favourite among the trolls. Once Das had gone to the extent of filing a case and shared the details of the troll with the cyber crime cell department of the state police. He withdrew the case when the abuser retreated.

One of the main problems in taking action against a troll is that no legal definition of bullying is provided in Indian laws. As Karnika Seth, a Delhi-based cyber law expert, points out, “Even though the laws are in place, there is a clear lack of definition of offensive terms.”

Still, the laws do provide some relief in cases of harassment by Internet trolls. Usually, Section 509 of the IPC comes into effect when there is an intention to insult the modesty of a woman. “The offence also extends to an online medium,” says Singh of Amarjeet & Associates. “Besides Section 509, various other sections such as Section 503 and Section 504 of the IPC can also be invoked based upon the particular facts of a case,” adds Singh.

The networking sites on their part aren’t proactive when it comes to keeping a check on trolls. Twitter maintains that it is a communications platform, not a content mediator. “Removal of content does not in and of itself resolve the issue that led to the content being posted in the first place,” blogs the head of Twitter’s safety centre.

If you want to know the IP address and other details about the bully, you will have to file a police complaint and the copy should be sent to Twitter, informs Nabeel Ziyaan, a Bangalore-based entrepreneur and a contributor to Twitter’s ‘#140help’ section which deals with user queries. “In such cases, Twitter will work with the law enforcement agency,” says Ziyaan.

An accused can be booked for mental cruelty and sexual harassment under the provisions of the IPC as well as under Sections 67(a) & 67(b) of the IT Amendment Act, 2008, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. Section 66(a) lays down, for example, that any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication device, any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character or any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with a fine which may extend to Rs 5 lakh or with both.

According to Section 67(a), whoever publishes or transmits in the electronic form any material which contains a sexually explicit act or conduct shall be punished with up to five years’ imprisonment and with a fine which may extend to Rs 10 lakh. And Section 67(b) hands out punishment for publishing or transmitting material depicting children in a sexually explicit act in an electronic form.

But law enforcement agencies are not always able to work out a way to track the trolls. “IP addresses can be spoofed using different software. In fact, innocent people can get punished if a troll hides under a proxy server,” says Seth.

Experts say that cyber laws need clarification and appropriate interpretation. The public should also be made aware of what constitutes a cyber offence. Until that happens, the trolls will, in all probability, trawl the Internet and maul Netizens at will.

Trail of the Trolls was published in the Telegraph on 4 January 2012

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/trail-of-trolls

Trai upholds Net Neutrality in setback to Facebook’s Free Basics

praskrishna — 2016-02-15T02:01:37Z

Trai says Internet service providers will not be allowed to discriminate on pricing of data access for different web services.

The article by Moulishree Srivastava and Shauvik Ghosh was published in Livemint on February 9, 2016. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

India’s telecom regulator has barred Internet service providers from offering customers preferential tariffs to access certain content over concerns that it will violate Net neutrality norms, dealing a blow to Facebook Inc.’s free data service plan.

Internet service providers, including telecom operators, are prohibited from offering discriminatory tariffs for data services based on content, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) said on Monday. Service providers that violate these rules will be fined Rs.50,000 per day to a maximum of Rs.50 lakh. Trai said it may review the rules after two years.

The decision ends a long battle between Facebook and the country’s telecom operators, including Bharti Airtel Ltd, on one side and Net neutrality activists on the other. Facebook had launched an intense lobbying effort that included full-page advertisements in newspapers and an Internet campaign to assure people that its Free Basics plan, which allows access to its social network and some other websites without a data plan, would benefit millions of poor Indians.

“BJP wholeheartedly welcomes the Trai decision on differential pricing. The decision is a clear expression of popular will,” said telecom minister Ravi Shankar Prasad on Monday. “The government made sure proper processes were followed at all levels which eventually led to the victory of an open and equal Internet... It is gladdening to see that the NDA government ensured unparalleled transparency in the entire issue of net neutrality,” he added.

Net neutrality requires Internet service providers not to discriminate on online data by user, content, site, platform, application, mode of communication or price.

“The net neutrality activists... have got exactly what they wanted—the complete prohibition of the differential pricing,” said Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Bengaluru-based research organization Centre for Internet and Society. “Before Facebook started with its aggressive and outrageous campaign to promote Free Basics, the Net neutrality debate was a peaceful discussion. The way it has behaved must have led the regulator to lose trust that big companies can self-regulate.”

It, however, remains to be seen whether telcos challenge the regulation in court, he added.

“This has been a litigious issue and a lot of money is at stake so quite likely, I think, they will go to court,” said Apar Gupta, a lawyer and part of Save The Internet campaign.

The basic rationale behind the regulation is that the network that carries the data should be agnostic to data packets, R.S. Sharma, chairman of Trai, told reporters.

“Anything on the Internet cannot be priced discriminately based on source, destination, content and applications,” he said.

A spokesperson for Facebook said the company will carefully study what the regulator has said and comment accordingly.

Bharti Airtel and Reliance Communications Ltd (Facebook partnered with R-Com in India) declined to comment.

Differential pricing based on the network speed, Sharma said, is a larger issue and so is Net neutrality.

“We have used the term discriminatory pricing in place of differential pricing, because differential pricing in the consultation paper had a particular context. Differential word was quite contextual in the regulation, but it was misunderstood in a very larger context. Therefore, to differentiate, we are calling it discriminatory,” he said.

However, Sharma said that the Net neutrality debate is not over.

“Net neutrality is a larger question, and we have not gone into that question, though, I must admit, differential pricing is looking at Net neutrality from a tariff perspective. Net neutrality has a number of other components which is fast lane, throttling and differentially treating the packet in terms of speed etc. So this is not a part of this regulation,” Sharma said.

Amresh Nandan, research director at Gartner in India, said the Trai order favouring Net neutrality is in line with rules in the US. “The European Union has also ruled in favour of treating all Internet traffic equally,” Nandan said.

Nandan said the proponents of Net neutrality all over the world have been highlighting the importance of democratic values of the Internet and even a marginal attempt to curb it can possibly trigger all kinds of differentiation.

All the major telcos in India have, however, been lobbying the regulator to allow differential-pricing plans for data services. The telcos said such tariffs will increase Internet penetration in the country, benefiting consumers in the long run. They further argued that the existing legal framework is sufficient for regulating and monitoring differential pricing measures provided by the service providers and that Trai can deal with any issue regarding anti-competitive practices on a case-by-case basis as and when they arise.

Activists say such a practice will undermine competition and create monopolies. Differential pricing, they said, will allow big companies to buy favoured treatment from carriers.

Telecom operators said they were disappointed with the ruling. “Differential pricing could be useful in connecting the unconnected in India. This is an upfront disbarment,” said Rajan Mathews, director general of the Cellular Operators Association of India, the lobby group that represent some of the major telcos. “We believe that it was an appropriate tool to allow consumers who have never been on the Internet, to enjoy getting accustomed to it without getting sticker shock.”

Hemant Joshi, a partner at Deloitte Haskins and Sells Llp, said differential pricing was a well-accepted principle across industries.

“The concept inherently recognizes the economic principle of paying differently for different levels of service and experience. In telecom, there are virtual highways that need to follow the same principle. More awareness and education is needed around the economics of differential pricing and its long-term implications on the Industry and the consumer,” he added.

Trai, which put up the consultation paper on differential pricing on 9 December, asked four specific questions, broadly on whether telecom operators should be allowed to offer different services at different price points and models that can be implemented to achieve this.

Trai extended the deadline for comments and counter-comments on its consultation paper to 7 January and 14 January from 31 December and 7 January, respectively. For the consultation process, Trai said that majority of the individual comments received did not address the specific questions that were raised in the consultation paper.

P.R. Sanjai and Ashish K. Mishra in Mumbai contributed to this story.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/livemint-february-9-2016-shauvik-ghosh-moulishree-srivastava-trai-upholds-net-neutrality-in-setback-to-facebooks-free-basics

Trai promises final call on differential pricing by month-end after 'lively' open house

praskrishna — 2016-01-26T02:41:56Z

The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) will take a final call on differential pricing by the end of January , its chairman said, describing the open house discussions on the regulator's contentious consultation paper as "lively".

The article by Economic Times was published on January 22, 2016. CIS gave inputs.

"It was a very lively consultation, the hall was full. We will take all these into account and hope that by the end of the month, we should be able to come out with our position," Trai chairman Ram Sewak Sharma said.

He, however, refused to link this consultation paper to the broader topic of net neutrality . "Net neutrality is a different subject. First we will decide differential pricing, then we will look at other issues. I cannot say at this time what Trai will do on the larger issue of net neutrality , but we will certainly take a call," Sharma said.

The open house saw a near packed house, with representatives from Trai, several telecom companies, civil society organisations, industry bodies, and individuals, but the debate did not turn out to be as explosive as the acrimonious lead-up to it.

Facebook India's policy head Ankhi Das, whose presence was hugely anticipated after a recent round of high octave communication between Trai and Facebook was made public, did not turn up.

A representative of Facebook, whose zero-rated programme called Free Basics has been at the cent re of the controversy surrounding the differential pricing paper, said: "As a company we have commented. With Free Basics we hope to bring people online in a non-discriminatory manner... We hope Trai will encourage Free Basics.

"Telcos including Bharti AirtelBSE -0.37 %, Idea CellularBSE 0.05 %, Reliance CommunicationsBSE -1.58 %, Sistema Shyam, Tata Communications, VideoconBSE -0.54 % Telecom, and Vodafone made a case for allowing differential pricing, and most cited extending the practice from voice to data services.

"Differential pricing should be incorporated as were done in voice telephony. Data should be encouraged while the content part can be taken up in another consultation paper," a Vodafone representative said.

The volunteer-led savetheinternet.in coalition said: "Internet is not a marketplace. Though telcos advocate differential pricing in the name of different customer classes, but when they charge for third party content, it becomes a problem."

Civil society organisations also made detailed submissions, explaining their positions. While most, including industry body Internet and Mobile Association of India, said they were against differential pricing, some took a slightly cautious view. "What hasn't been discussed is that there is already differential pricing and this is undocumented," said a representative of Centre for Internet and Society. "Free Basics isn't following certain protocol standards, and this is a concern. We don't have enough data on internet usage, costs, user experience, to take a decision now," he added.

A representative of Tata CommunicationsBSE 0.58 % said "sponsored data services" exist around the world and argued citing an example that providing free voice service does not confer competitive advantage.

"If there are two pizza vendors: one with a toll-free service for taking orders and the other where you pay money to order without a toll-free service. The uptake in the pizza depends on the quality and the price of the pizzas. It is not because it is a toll free call," he said.

This comparison drew laughter in the open house, and became the butt of jokes on Twitter from internet freedom advocates. "Btw, I think a new analogy from the telco guys today, comparing the internet with pizza. How creative," tweeted Nikhil Pahwa, who under the banner of savetheinternet.in has been campaigning for net neutrality.

IAMAI president Subho Ray's candid commentary on submissions, calling some of them "badly done homework", did not go down well with some members of the audience.

Individual entrepreneurs made a case for not having differential pricing, as that would mean the telcos would get to decide the access for their business. Some people suggested alternatives. Digital Empowerment Foundation founder Osama Manzar said unlicensed spectrum or Wi-Fi could be used to provide access in the rural areas.

Trai launched the differential pricing consultation paper on December 9, which was followed by Facebook starting a mass campaign, asking its users to support Free Basics, urging them to email Trai in support of "digital equality" and supporting Free Basics.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/telecom/news/trai-promises-final-call-on-differential-pricing-by-month-end-after-lively-open-house

TRAI Invitation Letter to discuss Net Neturality

praskrishna — 2016-08-02T15:54:37Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/trai-invitation-letter-to-discuss-net-neturality

TRAI Free Data paper: Paytm to Hike, the responses from other companies

praskrishna — 2016-07-09T02:44:49Z

Here's a look at responses of other players like Paytm, Hike Messenger, Nasscom, Centre for Internet Society to TRAI's paper.

This was published in the Indian Express on July 5, 2016.

While telecos are not too happy with Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI)’s proposal for TSP-agnostic platforms to provide free data, other companies and groups have also responded to the paper.

On May 19, TRAI released a consultation paper on how to provide free data for consumers and whether a TSP-agnostic platform was one possible solution. TRAI in its paper asked if it was possible to give out free data as rewards to customers, and whether such models should be regulated. Here’s a look at responses of other players like Paytm, Hike Messenger, Nasscom, Centre for Internet Society, etc to TRAI’s paper.

Paytm has also issued an official response to TRAI’s paper.

Paytm

Paytm’s response indicates it views TSP-agnostic platforms for free data as being against the principles of Net Neutrality.

In the response Paytm has said, “Telecom Service Providers (TSPs) being the producers/owners of data have an undue advantage compared to others if award is provided in the form of free data. Award in the form of free data can be used to replicate the effect of zero cost of access for selected sites, an outcome that is against the principle of Net Neutrality.”

The company says free data won’t solve the problem and instead of giving data back as rewards, a neutral currency should be employed as an incentive.

Datawind

Tablet maker Datawind has also responded to the paper and said that a “TSP-agnostic platform as suggested in this consultation paper would benefit the ability of content providers and application providers in delivering affordable internet access.”

Datawind’s statement says breaking the affordability barrier is a key issue in increasing broadband adoption in India, and “this consultation-paper is an important step towards exploring such solutions.”

Hike Messenger

Hike Messenger has also argued in favour of a “TSP-agnostic platform” and say it can allow “start-ups like ours to purchase data in bulk that in turn we can use to make certain parts of the app free.”

The response reads, “TSP agnostic platform would allow data purchase from all TSPs in the market and have a very transparent approval process to ensure that no malicious apps abuse (similar to how the Google Play Store operates) and a pricing plan/rate card that would allow start-ups to purchase data potentially availing of discounts based on volume.”

It also favours some “light regulation should be employed” in case TRAI does adopt this model.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/telecom/news/indian-express-july-5-2016-trai-free-data-paper-paytm-to-hike-the-responses-from-other-companies

TRAI Consultation on Differential Pricing for Data Services - Post-Open House Discussion Submission

praskrishna — 2017-03-29T04:35:57Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/net-neutrality/trai-consultation-on-differential-pricing-for-data-services-post-open-house-discussion-submission

Trade Secret Protection

praskrishna — 2015-11-24T14:51:41Z

Trade Secret Protection

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/copy5_of_Flowchart.png

Towards Open and Equitable Access to Research and Knowledge for Development

praskrishna — 2011-08-18T05:04:54Z

There is growing recognition that the capacity to conduct research and to share the resulting knowledge is fundamental to all aspects of human development, from improving health care delivery to increasing food security, and from enhancing education to stronger evidence-based policy making. This article by Leslie Chan, Barbara Kirsop and Prof. Subbiah Arunachalam was published in PLoS (Public Library of Science) on March 29, 2011.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/open-equitable-access-to-research-knowledge

Towards an Equitable and Just Internet

praskrishna — 2014-02-17T11:20:19Z

IT for Change is organizing an international meeting to formulate a progressive response to issues of global governance of the Internet. Bhairav Acharya will be participating in this event to be held in New Delhi on February 14 and 15.

The Internet is emerging as a central feature of contemporary human life. We use it to access and disseminate information, to communicate and build community, to transact business and to practise democracy. Ever increasing dimensions of our social, economic, cultural and political life are tied to the Internet.

However, the benefits of the Internet - knowledge and power, wealth and influence, are distributed unevenly. A technology built on the egalitarian peer-to-peer principle, ironically, is emerging as a key axis of inequality, an instrument perpetuating and reinforcing longstanding social, economic, cultural and political injustices. Snowden's dramatic exposé of a deep nexus between the US government and a few global corporations to enable global surveillance, confirmed just one aspect of the problem. The truth about the Internet and how its socio-technical architecture is being shaped is considerably more complex and insidious. The rapid colonisation of the Internet by a few monopolizing global corporations, and its governance being subject, in a highly disproportionate manner, to the laws and policy priorities of one country, impacts not just privacy, but a huge range of very important social, economic, cultural and political issues. (To a lesser extent, policy frameworks developed by clubs of rich countries like the the OCED also impact the emerging shape of the Internet.)

Questions of democracy, social justice and equity need to become central to how the Internet, and how an Internet-mediated society, are evolving. The smokescreen of technical-neutrality has prevented for too long a critical, political examination of the social underpinnings of the Internet, its normative boundaries and legalinstitutional frames. In addition, self-serving formulations like 'Multistakeholderism' and 'Internet Freedom', are employed by the status quo to maintain a facade of legitimacy. Beyond the rhetoric, it is clear that the Internet – in its dominance by the powerful, is neither genuinely multi-stakeholder nor genuinely free.

There are foundational questions to be pursued, in this regard : How is the Internet redistributing power and resources? How does this impact those at the margins, those on the peripheries of an increasingly globalised world? How is such redistribution connected to the socio-technical architecture of the Internet? What kind of Internet would promote social justice and equity? What needs to be done to make it more just, more egalitarian? Who governs the Internet, and how can its governance be democratized? From the standpoint of global justice, two urgent priorities lie ahead of us.

A progressive conception and vision of the Internet, and
A common global ownership of the Internet that protects and promotes its public-ness, and its evolution as a 'global commons'. The Internet was envisaged as a decentralized network, with control from the peripheries. This characteristic of the network is rapidly eroding, What is urgently needed is a recasting of this technical principle into a socio-political framework for a truly people-owned and people-controlled Internet, and one that works for all. The global governance of the Internet requires a proper institutionalization and legal framework incorporating the true spirit of participatory democracy. It should inter alia serve to insulate the Internet both from corporatist and from statist dominations.

An international meeting, entitled 'Towards a Just and Equitable Internet', is envisaged to address the key issues identified above. It will be held in New Delhi, India, on February 14th and 15th, 2013. The meeting will bring together actors engaged in social justice movements and ICT, communication and media rights advocacy to dialogue with some of those already engaged with Internet governance issues, with a view to chart a progressive response to issues related to global governance of the Internet.

Potential outcomes from the meeting include:

A 'charter for Internet justice and equity';
Specific proposals for democratizing the global governance of the Internet as contributions to the 'Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance' being hosted by Brazilian government in April, 2013, the UN Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation and the WSIS + 10 process.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/towards-an-equitable-and-just-internet

Towards a Multi-Stakeholder Consultation on ‘Internet Rights, Accessibility, Regulation & Ethics’

praskrishna — 2012-05-31T07:14:42Z

This event was organised by Digital Empowerment Foundation, National Internet Exchange of India and Association for Progressive Communications at Mirza Ghalib Hall, SCOPE Complex, New Delhi from 9.00 a.m. to 2.30 p.m. on May 3, 2012. Pranesh Prakash participated as a speaker in the session on Access to Internet: Right to Information.

9.00 a.m. to 9.30 a.m. (Registration)

9.30 a.m. to 11.00 a.m.

Inauguration & Plenary: Internet Rights, Accessibility, Regulation & Ethics

Introduction: Osama Manzar, Founder & Director, Digital Empowerment Foundation
Chair: Aruna Roy, Head, Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) & Member, National Advisory Council (NAC), Govt. of India
Co-Chair: Ajay Kumar, Joint Secretary, DIT, Govt. of India
Plenary Speakers:

Honey Tan, Human Rights Lawyer, Malaysia, APC
Venkatesh Nayak, Co-convener, Secretary, National Campaign for Peoples’ Right to Information
Jitendra Kohli, Executive Member, Transparency International India Summary of the Session by the Chair

11.00 to 11.15 a.m. (Tea break)

11.15 a.m. to 12.30 p.m.

Working Session I - Access to Internet: Right to Information

Chairperson: Basheerhamad Shadrach, Development Consultant
Plenary Speakers:

Pranesh Prakash, Programme Manager, Centre for Internet & Society
NA Vijayashankar, E-Business Consultant, Founder Secretary of Cyber Society of India, Founder Trustee of International Institute of Information Technology Law
Pavan Duggal, Advocate, Supreme Court of India
Varsha Iyenger, Member, Centre for Law and Policy Research
Amitabh Singhal, Former CEO, National Internet Exchange of India (NIXI)
Prof Jagdeep Chhokar, Founding Member, Association for Democratic Reforms

12.30 p.m. to 1.30 p.m.
Working Session II - Internet Right as Human Right: Need for a Holistic Framework towards Universal Access in India

Chairperson: Dr. Govind, CEO, National Internet Exchange of India (NIXI), Govt. of India
Co-chair & Moderator: R. Sukumar , Managing Editor, Live Mint Newspaper
Panel Members:

Subho Ray, President, Internet & Mobile Association of India (IMAI)
Deepak Maheshwari, Vice President - Public Policy, South Asia, MasterCard
Ravina Agarwal, Program Officer, Ford Foundation
Honey Tan, Human Rights Lawyer, Malaysia, APC
Suhas Chakma, Director, Asian Centre for Human Rights
Anoop Saha, Co-Founder, CGNet Swara
Shivam Vij, Writer, Kafila.org

Click to see the original

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/towards-a-multi-stakeholder-consultation

Towards a Global Network of Internet and Society Centres

praskrishna — 2013-06-05T07:29:43Z

This event was held in Istanbul by Bilgi University as part of the collaboration on Global Network of Interdisciplinary Internet and Society Research Centres.

Chinmayi Arun spoke on the Internet Governance panel at the conference on 'ICT, Law and Innovation: Recent Developments, Challenges, and Lessons Learned'.

Tough neighbourhood tests India's e-tolerance

praskrishna — 2011-06-15T10:51:48Z

The combination of having restrictive neighbours as well as security threats could make freedom on the web in India a casualty, writes Anahita Mukherji in this article published by the Times of India on June 12, 2011.

While Indians have enjoyed relatively free cyberspace, growing security threats have resulted in new laws that may tighten the screws on India's freedom on the web. This is one of the findings of a global report titled Freedom on the Net 2011.

There is a widespread fear that the lack of internet freedom in neighbouring countries, like China and Pakistan, may adversely impact India. "If restrictions are placed in certain countries, information links get weakened. Also, governments tend to copy moves of other countries when it comes to a restriction of freedom on the net," said Ketan Tanna, the India researcher for the report.

However, Sarah Cook, Asian research analyst and assistant editor for Freedom on the Net, said that while India may be in a tough neighborhood, it is also possible to seek out the "best practices from countries further afield, or even design its own, and not follow the 'worst practices' from the countries next door".

"It is ultimately up to the Indian government and people to decide how adversely they let being in a tough neighborhood impact internet freedom. It is true that there are objective threats that India faces. All of these can be used as justifications for why the government should be given wide authority to block certain content or monitor internet traffic. But in a democratic society, such needs must be balanced against citizens' rights to free expression and privacy. Ensuring transparency, accountability and legal specificity in any measures taken to restrict the free flow of information is an important way of balancing those factors," said Cook in an email interview with TOI.

Recent regulations have given the government more freedom to censor content. In 2008, Parliament passed amendments to the IT Act, which came into effect in 2009 and have expanded the government's monitoring capabilities. Two months ago, the government enforced another set of guidelines on internet usage. They make it mandatory for intermediaries (ISPs, websites, blogs etc) to notify users not to publish or use information that could be harmful, defamatory or cause annoyance in any way. If an intermediary is informed of such information by the government, it has to block it within 36 hours.

According to the new rules, content that "threatens the unity, integrity, defence, security or sovereignty of India, friendly relations with foreign states or public order" is entitled to a ban.

An RTI activist from The Centre for Internet and Society managed to get a list of 11 officially banned websites in India in April 2011.

Nikhil Pahwa, the founder editor of Medianama, a digital media portal, feels the new guidelines could result in a further slide in India's rank.

Read the original published in the Times of India here

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/india-e-tolerance

TOU Training photo 3

praskrishna — 2013-06-19T07:06:36Z

Telugu Wikipedia Orientation in progress

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/TOUphoto3forCIS.png