Centre for Internet and Society

Third South Asian Meeting on the Internet and Freedom of Expression

praskrishna — 2013-01-17T07:16:58Z

Internet Democracy Project, Voices for Interactive Choice & Empowerment and Global Partners & Associates are organizing this event in Dhaka on January 14 - 15, 2013.

Pranesh Prakash is moderating the session on "Understanding cyber security and surveillance in South Asia today". Chinmayi Arun is speaking in this panel.

The Third South Asian Meeting on the Internet and Freedom of Expression seeks to address the question of how freedom of expression on the Internet is best protected by taking as its starting point two of the biggest challenges for freedom of expression online in South Asia today: hate speech online on the one hand, and cyber security and surveillance on the other.

The meeting seeks to investigate how these challenges affect freedom of expression on the Internet as well as how they can be addressed most effectively while protecting free speech online. It will also touch briefly on the important question of what kind of Internet governance processes are most likely to ensure the desired outcomes materialise.

A very short history of the South Asian Meeting on the Internet and Freedom of Expression
The first South Asian Meeting on the Internet and Freedom of Expression took place in March 2011 in Delhi, and mapped the many challenges for free speech online in our region, as an input into the report on the Internet and freedom of expression of UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, Mr. Frank La Rue.

The second South Asian Meeting, in Kathmandu in November 2011, assessed the extent to which policy and regulation in the South Asian countries complied with the recommendations Mr. La Rue made in his report.

This third meeting will now build on these earlier efforts by bringing together experts from civil society, business, the research community and other stakeholder groups from across the region to discuss two of the biggest shared challenges for freedom of expression online in South Asia today in detail: the rising visibility of hate speech on the one hand, and the impact of discourses regarding cyber security and surveillance on the other.

Why focus on hate speech and security/surveillance now?
Since UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, Mr. Frank La Rue, presented his report on the Internet and freedom of expression to the UN Human Rights Council in June 2011, the complexity of this topic has received growing recognition. However, not all trends that La Rue had pointed out as directly affecting freedom of expression online – from access to the Internet to cyber attacks – are equally important in the South Asian region. Detailed analysis in several South Asian countries has shown that, though Internet penetration rates remain fairly low, most countries do possess, for example, the political will crucial to improve these figures. The two trends that seem to be of greatest concern in our region are that of the fight against hate speech, and the impact on freedom of expression of cyber security and surveillance measures. The latter is foregrounded for a variety of reasons ranging from the safety of individual users to national security.

Incidentally, across the region, as in many parts of the world, hate speech and cyber security have also been among the most important reasons governments have quoted to justify greater government control over the Internet. At the national level, this has at times manifested itself through the approval and implementation of legislation that has far-reaching consequences for freedom of speech online, without consulting many of the stakeholders who are affected at any point in time. At the global level, we see a growing number of proposals by governments that would effectively expand their collective powers to regulate the Internet, though with varying levels of involvement of other stakeholders envisioned.

Yet while governments' intentions when imposing censorship or approving surveillance measures may at times be in doubt, it is difficult to deny that the Internet has facilitated a new proliferation of hate speech, as well as that it has thrown up new security challenges that couldn't even be imagined before.

It is therefore our contention that the challenges of hate speech online and of ensuring cyber security in our region are real, and need to be addressed head-on if we are to strengthen and protect the right to freedom of expression online. For this reason, the meeting seeks to investigate both the precise nature of these challenges and what Internet governance mechanisms we need to evolve to ensure that they can be addressed most effectively whilst upholding and strengthening the right to freedom of expression. If we are to take the challenges the threats of hate speech and cyber security policy embody seriously yet also aim to uphold and strengthen the right to freedom of expression online, then what are the solutions we require? And who will need to be responsible for implementing them?

Participants
Taking into account the many parallels in the shape problems of hate speech and cyber security and surveillance take across the South Asian region as a result of shared cultures and historical legacies alike, participants will be invited from Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka and the Maldives. Moreover, as solutions to these problems will invariably require collaboration among various stakeholders in the Internet governance field in order to be effective, participants will be drawn from a wide variety of stakeholder groups, including civil society, business, government, academia and the media from across the region. In this way, the meeting hopes tofacilitate a South Asia wide, multistakeholder dialogue, to learn, discuss and evolve more detailed thinking on these topics for one and a half days. The meeting will come to an end with a public event at the end of the second day.

The meeting will use a variety of formats, including key note presentations, panel discussions, case studies and small group conversations.

Agenda

January 14, 2013

9.00-09.45	Welcome and introductions to participants
09.45-10.15	Introduction to the meeting: the challenge that hate speech online and cyber security/surveillance pose to freedom of expression on the Internet – Dixie Hawtin Intro: Internet governance and human rights issues in general Why is this event focussed on hate speech and surveillance?
10.15-10.45	Tea/coffee break
10.45-12.15	The challenge of hate speech on the Internet in South Asia Strengthening the right to freedom of expression to curtail hate speech (Anja Kovacs) Three country perspectives, from the Maldives (Mariyath Mohamed), Pakistan (tbc), and Bangladesh (Salim Khan) Moderator: Bishakha Datta
12.15-13:30	Lunch
13.30-14.00	Keynote: Thinking about a rights-based approach to cyber security and surveillance as it relates to speech – KS Park
14.00-15.30	Understanding cyber security and surveillance in South Asia today With Three country perspectives from Bangladesh (Mohammad Rahman), Nepal (Kailash Prasad Neupane) and India (Chinmayi Arun). Moderator: Pranesh Prakash
15.30-16:00	Tea/coffee break
16.00-17.30	Legal and ethical questions and challenges when addressing cyber security and surveillance: two case studies – Rohan Samarajiva

January 15, 2013

9.00-9.15	Introduction to day 2
9.15-9.45	Cybersecurity, surveillance and hate speech online – key issues that need to be addressed in governance in order to protect Internet freedom of expession. This session will discuss particular issues that have relevance for both cyber security debates and hate speech issues in greater depth. Four topics that will be addressed are: The question of anonimity (KS Park) Cross-border cooperation and other jurisdictional issues in context of cloud computing and crossborder data flows and storage (Aditya Rao) Domain Names and registration (Babu Ram Aryal) Intermediaries as law enforcers (Suman Pradhan) Moderator: Shahzad Ahmed
10.45-11.00	Tea/coffee break
11.00-13.00	What kind of solutions could a rights-based approach throw up to the challenges raised so far in the meeting? Open discussion in groups and plenary, following key note speaker, Bulbul Monjurul Ahsan
13.00-13.30	Summing up and thank you
13.30-15.00	Lunch
15:00 – 16:00	Meeting participants move to venue for public meeting, tea/coffee break and arrival of wider public
16.00-18.30	PUBLIC EVENT: The Internet and freedom of expression Confirmed speakers include: Abu Taher, Info Commissioner; Iftekharuzzaman, Executive Director, Transparency International Bangladesh; Sarah Hossain, Lawyer and Honorary Executive Director, BLAST; Shaheen Anam, Executive Director, Manusher Jonno Foundation; Monjurul Ahsan Bulbul, eminent journalist and CEO, Boishakhi Television; and Rohan Samarajiva, Chair and CEO, LIRNEasia.

List of Participants

Aditya Rao, Senior Associate, Amarchand Mangaldas, India
Ahmed Swapan, Executive Director, VOICE, Bangladesh
Amrit Pant, General Secretary, Computer Association of Nepal & President, Information Technology Development Society, Nepal
Anja Kovacs, Project Director, Internet Democracy Project, India
Babu Ram Aryal, President, Internet Society, Nepal Chapter, Nepal
Binaya Guragain, Coordinator of Programs, Equal Access, Nepal
Bishakha Datta, Wikimedia Foundation Board Member & Co-founder, Point of View, India
Chinmayi Arun, Assistant Professor, National Law University Delhi & Fellow, Centre for Internet and Society, India.
Dixie Hawtin, Project Manager for Digital Communications and Freedom of Expression, Global Partners and Associates, UK
Farhana Rumki, Associate Programme Coordinator, VOICE, Bangladesh
Kailash Prasad Neupane, Chief of Legal Section, Spokesperson, Secretary and Registrar, Nepal Telecommunications Authority, Nepal
Khairuzzaman Kamal, Founder Secretary General of Bangladesh Manobadhikar Sangbadik Forum & Senior Reporter at Bangladesh Sangbad Sangstha, Bangladesh
Khawaza Mainuddin, Executive Editor, ICE Business Times Magazine, Bangladesh
K S Park, Executive Director, the PSPD Public Interest Law Center & Professor, Korea University Law School, South Korea
Mariyath Mohamed, Journalist, Minivan News, Maldives
Mohammad Nazmuzzaman Bhuian Emon, Associate Professor, Department of Law, University of Dhaka, Bangladesh
Mohammad Shahriar Rahman, Assistant Professor, Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Asia Pacific & Head, Center for IT Security and Privacy, Bangladesh
Moiyen Zalal Chowdhury, Community Manager, Somewhere.In & Norad Fellow,Bangladesh
Monjurul Ahsan Bulbul, Chair, International Press Institute & Editor-in-chief and CEO,Boiskakhi TV, Bangladesh
Pranesh Prakash, Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society, India
Prasanth Sunganathan, Counsel, Software Freedom Law Centre, India
Rezaur Rahman Lenin, Research Fellow, VOICE, Bangladesh
Richa Kaul Padte, Writer, India
Rohan Samarajiva, Chair and CEO, LIRNEasia, Sri Lanka
Saleem Samad, Columnist & Correspondent at Reporters without Borders, Bangladesh
Salimullah Khan, Writer and Professor, Stamford University, Bangladesh
Sana Saleem, Director, Bolo Bhi, Pakistan
Santosh Sigdel, Advocate and Vice President, Internet Society, Nepal Chapter, Nepal
Shahzad Ahmed, Country Director, Bytes for All, Pakistan
Shehla Rashid Shora, Project Officer, Internet Democracy Project, India
Shehnaz Banu, Media and Communication Officer, Alliance for Social Dialogue, Bangladesh
Soheil Zafar, Editor, Unmochan Blog & TV Producer and Researcher, 71 Television, Bangladesh
Suman Lal Pradhan, CEO, Websurfer, Nepal
Sushma Luthra, Event Coordinator, India
Syeda Fedous Jana, Managing Director and Co-Founder of Somewhere.In, Bangladesh
Tahmina Rahman, Director Bangladesh and South Asia Region, Article 19, Bangladesh
Vasana Wickremasena, Executive Director, Centre for Integrated Communication Research and Advocacy, Sri Lanka

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/third-south-asian-meeting-on-internet-and-freedom-of-expression

Third Multistakeholder Consultation on Encryption

praskrishna — 2017-05-19T09:42:49Z

Udbhav Tiwari represented CIS at the Third and Final Multistakeholder Consultation on Encryption held at the Taj Palace, New Delhi on May 11, 2017. The event was organised by the Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi. Saikat Dutta and Japreet Grewal were also present at the round-table discussion.

The discussion centred around issues such as trust between the government and citizens, key lengths, standards for device encryption and sector-specific security regulations. The primary goal of the meeting was to influence the second iteration of the draft encryption policy, expected soon, which will have bearing on data protection policies, access of law enforcement agencies to electronic information, and the ease of doing business in India's digital economy.

The main questions in the discussion were:

Should the National Encryption policy mandate key lengths for encryption of communications?
Should the policy require the registration of encryption service providers to operate in the Indian market?
What are the challenged faced in the enforcement of the policy?
What steps can the Indian government take to encourage R&D in domestic cryptographic services and products?

Dr. Gulshan Rai, the National Cyber Security Coordinator, was also present in the meeting and provided valuable inputs.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/third-multistakeholder-consultation-on-encryption

Thinking with Data@CIS

praskrishna — 2012-09-05T08:11:49Z

The Thinking with Data course offered at the National Institute of Advanced Studies (NIAS) will be screened at the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore. The screening will be followed by online discussions with the faculty through Skype or Google+ Hangouts.

Introduction to the course

Rajesh and Anand are offering a course titled Thinking with Data at NIAS. It’ll be covered in 12 – 14 two-hour sessions. The course will cover the basic ways in which we can use data to enhance our thinking capacities. Click here for more information about the course.

Salient Features

How to think with data and work on interesting problems.
Refresher course in programming using Python and HTML.
Discussions and FAQs with faculty and participants.
Project work.

Timings and Venue

It will be screened every Wednesday, starting from September 12, 2012, from 6.30 p.m. to 8.30 p.m.
Venue: Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore.

As part of the class, we are also offering a refresher course in Python and HTML

Objectives: Introduction to Programming using Python

Hardware Requirement: Learners should bring their own laptops

Prerequisites: Enthusiasm to learn.

Audience Level: Learners with following answers are welcomed.

I’m not too comfortable with programming
I can program, but not that well in Python
I’m good at Python

Timings of the Refresher Course:

September 16, 2012: 5:00 to 8.30 p.m.

September 17, 2012: 5:00 to 8:30 p.m.

September 18, 2012: 5:00 to 8:30 p.m.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/thinking-with-data

Thinking about Internet Regulation

praskrishna — 2014-07-29T09:26:56Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/thinking-about-internet-regulation.pdf

Thinkathon Position Papers

praskrishna — 2011-12-29T06:41:43Z

The Digital Natives with a Cause? Thinkathon conference co-organised by Hivos and the Centre for Internet and Society is being held from 6 to 8 December at the Hague Museum for Communication. The position papers are now available online.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/digital-natives/position-papers.pdf

Thinkathon

praskrishna — 2012-06-22T04:31:19Z

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

There's a Spy Behind Your Gadget Screen Tracking Data

praskrishna — 2015-05-31T15:50:13Z

More people are becoming aware of the risks that come with online habits.

The article by Evelyn Fok & Krithika Krishnamurthy published in the Times of India on April 25, 2015 quotes CIS research on Privacy.

Thejesh GN, a Bangalore-based technologist, does not have a Facebook app on his phone, often browses on incognito mode and has installed a tool that detects and blocks spy ads and trackers. All this is to escape from the pervasive ads that have now begun to invade his online presence.

But Thejesh knows it's of little use. Given the proliferation of ecommerce companies in India, the barrage of ads are unlikely to stop.

“It's an everyday fight.There is no way to get rid of all these ads,“ said Thejesh, cofounder of data science community Datameet.

Thejesh represents a growing population of Internet users who are becoming aware of the risks that come with their online habits specifically, having each data point of their everyday lives collected by companies and tech startups. This includes an individual's IP address, browser type, pages viewed, and the date and time of use.On mobile, the data collected could be more elaborate and accurate including a user's location, device type and contact list.

Where does all this data go?
Some are sold to brands via ad networks, and others are used by companies to streamline the ads shown to specific users. In India there are no rules explicitly regulating online behavioural advertising, and thus it is not clear what practices different companies and internet service providers undertake. It is not clear what information is collected, how the information is used, how long the information is stored for, and what access law enforcement has to this information, the Center for Internet and Society said in a report titled `Consumer Privacy'.

Siddharth Shankar, a student of statistics from Patna University, who is also learning ethical hacking, is of the view that few people care about privacy in India. “Their simple reply: What will they do with our data?“ said Shankar, who takes steps similar to Thejesh to protect his privacy online.

More people seem to be waking up to the fact that privacy is important and that ads are intrusive. Of the 50 million users who block ads using AdBlock Plus, about 1.2 million are from India. AdBlock Plus, a mobile and browser tool, recently won a case against two publishers in Germany who wanted it to stop blocking ads on their websites. Most digital products, including apps and content, are free. To sustain themselves, the digital product makers sell the data they collect at the time of app installs or website visits to brands or ad networks.In other words, the end-users are not their customers advertisers are.

“It boils down to, `If you are not paying for the product, you are the product,'“ said Vinod Chandrashekhar, chapter leader of DataKind Bangalore, a movement to use big data for the benefit of public causes. “I won't be surprised in the future if a few firms might charge to erase your data.“

And that, he says, is one of the popular ways for restaurant and company review apps to make money: prompting owners to buy a premier account or be charged for ad vertising in order to delete unfavourable reviews.

Privacy breaches also give way to corporate espionage.

“The South Asian market is, in many ways, similar to what we're seeing in South America. They are looking for not only security for their businesses and for their own personal affairs, but they are also looking for something that is affordable,“ said Jon Callas, cofounder and chief technology officer at Silent Circle.

The Swiss-based firm provides an end-toend secure access channel from a smartphone to a telecommunication network allowing users to go about their daily lives without leaking their online footprint.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-times-of-india-evelyn-fok-krithika-krishnamurthy-there-is-a-spy-behind-your-gadget-screen-tracking-data

Theo

praskrishna — 2012-04-11T11:05:52Z

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

The year social media came of age in India

praskrishna — 2012-12-31T03:33:19Z

Sambhavi Saxena, 19, was at Jantar Mantar on December 25 protesting against Nirbhaya's brutal rape when Delhi Police swooped down, rounded her up along with other agitators and took them to the Parliament Street police station. Sambhavi fired tweet after tweet even as she was bundled into a van.

The article by Javed Anwer and Rukmini Shrinivasan was published in the Times of India on December 31, 2012. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

She went on broadcasting to the world all that was happening around her. "Illegally being held here at Parliament St Police Station Delhi w/ 15 other women. Terrified, pls RT," she tweeted. It worked. In a flash, more than 1,700 people retweeted her SOS. Social media analytics firm Favstar later said the message reached over two lakh people.

Police later contested many of Sambhavi's claims. Yet, there was no denying it was her voice that was heard. Her tweets triggered a social media frenzy. The media reacted swiftly. Lawyers volunteered, activists landed up at the police station. Celebrities condemned the action. The police stood no chance.

For the government and keepers of law, it was a PR disaster. They had lost a battle they were accustomed to winning hands down. Now, there was a pesky entity — the public — seeking to change the rules of the game. A teenager armed with a smartphone had used the magic platform called social media to devastating effect, catching the agents of the state flatfooted.

India might have tasted the power of the smartphone first in 2011 when Anna Hazare's stinging anti-corruption message rode the social media wave. But this year saw social media creating a new phenomenon — the rise of the virtually connected Indian youth — which is likely to redraw the terms of engagement between the state and its urban population.

The networking tool that's now a weapon

Finance minister P Chidambaram recently tried to sum up the phenomenon by likening social media-driven snap protests to a flash-mob phenomenon. "Flash mob is a new phenomenon... sometimes they gather to dance and sing. But sometimes they gather to protest... I don't think we are fully prepared to deal with it." Going by the last fortnight, when the government fumbled in dealing with widespread protests over Nirbhaya, the minister's admission was an understatement. Let alone being "fully prepared", they didn't have a clue.

The unbridling of the power of the social media was undoubtedly a top, if not no. 1, trend of 2012 in India. In many cases, it set the agenda of public discourse. As in Palghar, where young Shaheen Dhada's Facebook comment on the shutdown of Mumbai after Bal Thackeray's death kicked off a storm, the virtual world triggered several real-world controversies.

In fits and starts, politicians and the government realized the folly of not joining the fast-unfolding revolution, the exceptions being the Twitter-savvy Shashi Tharoor and Omar Abdullah. The @PMOIndia Twitter handle was born, and today 3.5 lakh people follow it. A host of politicians soon hopped on, realizing the freedom the platform offered for comment on issues, which TV studios didn't.

For Bollywood celebs and cricketers, it became a great way to keep in touch with fans. But the real power of this irreverent and often insolent medium lay with the young aam admi who used social media fearlessly. They voiced their opinion and unsparingly ridiculed leaders with hashtags like #theekhai, making powerful headlines out of what otherwise would have been just whistling in the air.

What's the USP of the social media? On this platform, free speech is unhindered. It's a virtual megaphone with a global reach, as the numbers show. Whether it's Twitter or Facebook, India is a huge presence. Facebook has more than 65 million active users here, putting the country among the top five worldwide in terms of users. Twitter, which has 200 million active users globally, doesn't provide country-specific numbers. But SemioCast, a Paris-based research firm, said in a report in July that India had around 18 million Twitter accounts, placing it sixth among the biggest Twitter nations.

A lot of this social media boom happened in 2012. Research firm SocialBakers estimated in November that the number of Indian Facebook users swelled by 14 million in the past six months. While internet penetration in India is just 11% — three times lower than the global average — around 137million users make the country third biggest in terms of web-connected citizens. Most of these users are urban and young. A Comscore report says 75% of web users here are under-35.

Unlike youngsters in many other countries, Indians are politically active on the web. A Pew Research study this December established that nearly 45% of Indian web users, most of them from urban areas, connect on social media to discuss politics. Only Arab countries scored higher than India on this account. The numbers are backed by GlobalWebIndex, which noted in a September report that India is the third most socially active country with around 78 points.

But this unfettered, unfiltered flow of information and messages showed its ugly side as well. The mischievous rumour-mongering in the wake of the Assam riots was a case in point, as MMSs and incendiary text messages triggered an exodus of people belonging to the northeast from Bangalore, Pune, Chennai and Hyderabad.

Facebook and Twitter started off as friendship and networking tools. But, they have evolved into potent weapons of social mobilization. In a way, India Against Corruption can be credited with starting it in mid-2010. "If you have a worthy cause, social media provides you an unbiased, unfiltered avenue," says Shivendra Chauhan, social media manager for the outfit. "Without it, we wouldn't have got the kind of overwhelming support we received from the youth."

But Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society, cautions against being overly technologically deterministic. "Technology doesn't have agency; human beings do. Transferring energy from social media on to the streets isn't something that'll happen every time. It depends on whether the message resonates," he says.

While the anti-corruption movement ran on a sophisticated social media strategy and campaign, the ongoing anti-rape protests have no single organizer or banner, just a message that resonates, says Abraham. On the other hand, when Anonymous India called for boots on the ground at its protests against internet censorship, the turnout was poor, far lower than the number of hashtags on Twitter would have indicated, he adds.

Abraham points out there are close linkages between internet, text messages, social media and mainstream media. "These channels leak into each other and the causal connection becomes unclear," he says. Madhuresh Kumar, national coordinator of the National Alliance of People's Movements (NAPM), an umbrella organization of grassroots movements of the marginalized, agrees. "We use social media, not so much to mobilize people to come to our protests, but to mobilize the mainstream media."

The message determines the power of the medium. If it's something that connects viscerally, like the Nirbhaya protests, its power and reach can be beyond imagination. If it is a more niche message, like an SOS for a dwindling fish species, it will reach a smaller, targeted audience such as environmentalists. But it will reach — unhindered in the palm of your hand.

Look at it any which way, it is here to stay. So, it's time for the state to learn to deal with the new power of the ordinary citizen.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/times-of-india-december-31-2012-javed-anwer-and-rukmini-shrinivasan-the-year-social-media-came-of-age-in-india

The Write Stuff

praskrishna — 2011-11-14T03:32:00Z

“Digital natives are no longer those youngsters who fit in the bracket of a Harvard return professional, glued to their PC all day,” says Nishant Shah, director of research, Centre for Internet and Society, a Bengaluru-based organisation. For Nishant, and many youngsters across the globe, digital natives are not any of those secluded geeks who spend hours on the Internet. “I am a homemaker, yet I am a digital native,” says Nilofer Ansher, a community manager who manages members from across three continents.

A housewife, a young college graduate, a freelance writer, an NGO professional and many other individuals are behind the Internet activist flurry. Digital Natives, Fair Observer, PC Tech Magazine are just a few of the newsletters and forums that are connecting youngsters from across the globe and are mobilising them to do something beyond information gathering.

Youth-related discussions, inventions in make-shift laboratories from the backyards of homes in Nigeria and action against corruption across the globe; these are just some of the activities that these netizens are involved in. “The idea was to build a network of people from across the globe who are passionate about what they do. We are not talking countries, it is all to do with people with similar interests,” says Shah, who collaborated with Hivos to create the online platform called Digital Natives.

The members collaborate online to write about various issues. But these online movements can have serious repercussions, “In fact, Alaa Abdel-Fattah, one of Egypt’s most vocal activists and bloggers, has been detained. He is our team member. We are now running a campaign supporting his early release,” says Ansher who doubles up as a co-editor of one of these newsletters. Various discussions have led to solutions. “My first challenge was to create a communication system for illiterate farmers. But I wanted a definite solution. So another member from mobile active community sent a message and it worked and we are following the same system,” says Ajay Kumar, manager, ICT operations.

This article was published in the Deccan Chronicle on 14 November 2011. It can be read here

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/write-stuff

The world is your oyster, by invitation only

praskrishna — 2011-05-01T01:40:59Z

Recent trends show the world of social networking actually reflects the social divides and groupings in the real world. This article by Shreya Ray was published in the Livemint on April 26, 2011.

Looking for love and thinking it’s a shame someone as gorgeous as you is single? Worry not, for Beautifulpeople.com is here. The UK-based site guarantees beautiful singletons a chance to find “beautiful relationships” through their network. The homepage gives you a little snapshot into what they are all about. A cluster of model-like people, different ethnicities and yet, ironically, strikingly similar in their Anglo-Saxon good looks: high cheekbones and sharp noses. Membership is open for all with one caveat: The photo you submit must first be rated by your peer group (that is, the people already deemed “beautiful” by the website), only then do you get admission.

Based on a similar principle of peer-group approval is Facebook’s Compare People application, where you rate friends based on their smile, eyes, sex appeal, profile picture (and other school-report card qualities such as “helpfulness”). And then, of course, there are quizzes such as “How Beautiful Are You”, in which too your final score is based on where you stand vis-à-vis other people in the network.

To be fair, this isn’t just a fetish of the beautiful and those who want to officially belong to “beautiful-only” groups. Because, in just the same way, the social networking world is just as populated by people wanting to either be part of “rich-only” (Affluence.org) or “smart only” (Epernicus.com, for researchers) groups, and most recently, the India-based Vagad Visible (Vagadvisible.com, for the Vagads, a small clan within Kutchi Jains), among others. The world of social networking is about everyone wanting to be something “only” and in that sense, to quote Chicago-based social networking expert David Armano, it is “less about being social”.

Exclusivity: The invite-only system allows social networks and other Web platforms to control and stagger the growing load on their infrastructure. Raajan/Mint

Unsocial networking

One of the latest improvements on Facebook towards the end of 2010 was the option that allows you to edit friends with hyperactive user activity (people who are forever cluttering your page with Farmville updates or quizzes) and “hide” such user activity from your feed. “On Facebook, groups are smaller gatherings, individuals which are invite-only. On Twitter, users create lists to help them filter out signal from noise. Lists on Twitter are not really about exclusivity, but they do say something about how people desire to extract more value from a network,” says Armano, in an email interview.

Sunil Abraham, executive director of the research institute Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, says the “hierarchy on the online attention economy often reflects the class and social divides in the real world”.The term attention economy was first used by Michael Goldhaber in December 1997 to describe a new arrangement in which the “flow of attention” metaphorically replaced money as the currency of the Internet.

Quantitative research in the Philippines has shown that rich people are less likely to respond to messages that say “will you be my friend”, he adds, citing the work of researcher Raul Pertierra. “On Facebook, the act of friending someone may appear symmetric. But privacy settings on content, groups and feed configurations may be used to fine-tune the exact power dynamics of the relationship. In platforms such as Twitter, the asymmetry is explicit: For example, Twitter, where I can follow you but you need not follow me,” he says.

Technology has aided this aspect of exclusivity. “There are now beta releases of social software which typically get released to a smaller group of influential and digital savvy individuals. There are now services such as Klout that partner with brands to reward individuals who have the largest social graphs,” adds Armano. Klout measures your overall online influence using over 35 variables on Facebook and Twitter and rates you as True Reach, Amplification Probability, and Network Score.

The other way of practising exclusivity—unlike Facebook, Twitter and other “open” networks—is to just come out and say it: invite only. Beautifulpeople.com will only admit you on the basis of your looks; asmallworld (Asmallworld.net), becoming increasingly popular among the First World swish set, can only be accessed by invitation; and Affluence.org very categorically states it is a place for wealthy individuals to “connect” (membership is free but requires a verifiable minimum household net worth of $1 million, or Rs. 4.5 crore) and “engage in meaningful conversations”. There are others that are slightly work oriented: The Behance network (Behance.net) is a place for creative professionals and you have to seek a membership invitation by describing your creative work. Sermo (Sermo.com) is a place for physicians to “share medical insights”.

Vahad Visible is completely restricted to the Vahad community (a user’s credentials are authenticated by a phone interview and other records), and is social networking meets matrimonial meets classified ads.

The why

There are many reasons for this exclusivity. First, technical. “The invite-only system allows social networks and other Web platforms to control and stagger the growing load on their infrastructure,” says Abraham.

There is also a marketing and commercial aspect to it. Affluence.org, for instance, provides a forum for “exclusive, high quality content and advice from experts on subjects such as art, technology and travel”. Similarly, asmallworld has advertisements for accommodation (it also doubles up as a couch-surfing site of sorts, only these are all rich people living in the First World), among others. Both the technical and the commercial aspects, however, are tied to the larger, that is, sociological aspect of exclusivity. For instance, the “invite-only” system also creates a sense of exclusivity and then drives registrations, says Abraham.

Sociologically, the recipient of this exclusivity, according to Armano, “feels special and rewarded for their social status”. “Those who deal in exclusivity are looking to create smaller “higher quality” networks of individuals who they deem are connected in a way which benefits them,” he says. The way we configure our social network and allow access to our feeds on Twitter or the Facebook page are based on our individual priorities and objectives. “Exclusive social networks are meant for those with overlapping priorities and objectives. The generic social networking websites are meant for finding long-lost classmates and friends and weak ties in general. Exclusive social networks are for accumulating new contacts and building strong ties,” says Abraham.

The dichotomy about social networks, adds Armano, is that “in theory, they flatten social norms” and also make certain things more accessible—like personal publishing. “However, networks do not guarantee that you will find yourself in the desirable social circles. You still have to do that the old-fashioned way—networking,” he adds.

Read the original article published by Livemint here

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/world-is-your-oyster

The World Blind Union document

praskrishna — 2012-03-30T07:25:27Z

WBU Version of the Working Document

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/accessibility/wbu-document.pdf

The Working Draft of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2010: Does it exceed its Mandate in Including Provisions Relating to Other Disability Legislations?

praskrishna — 2012-12-14T10:32:18Z

The Centre for Internet and Society, Inclusive Planet and the Centre for Law and Policy Research in this legal note analyse how far the January draft of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act touches upon the provisions of the other disability legislations, namely the Mental Health Act and The National Trusts Act and thereby exceeds the mandate given by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment to amend only the Persons with Disabilities Act.

Introduction

This is a brief Note on the Working Draft of the Persons with Disabilities Act dated 1.12.2010 (“Working Draft”) on the specific issue of how it relates to the three other disability legislations being the National Trusts Act 1999, the Mental Health Act 1987 and the Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992.

From the Working Draft it is seen that there are several provisions which are contradictory to some of the provisions in these three legislations in significant ways. This Note also raises concerns as to whether the Working Draft has exceeded its mandate given by the Committee to only amend the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (“PWD Act”) by attempting to draft a comprehensive disability law which includes even the other disability legislations .

The Committee and its Mandate

The Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, through an Office Memorandum1, constituted a Committee to “draft a new legislation to replace the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995” (“Committee”). 2 The main aim of setting up the Committee was to ensure that the PWD Act was in consonance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and not to amend any of the other disability legislations. 3

After the Committee was set up, the minutes of the meeting of the Committee dated 22-07-2010 4 show that the Chairperson reminded the Committee members of the specific purpose for which it was set up and was therefore “not going to debate on formulating one comprehensive law that would repeal all other current disability legislations such as The National Trust Act, Mental Health Act and Rehabilitation Council of India Act, etc.”5

Subsequently, the Consultant appointed by the Committee released several drafts and the latest Working Draft of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2010 is dated 01.12.2010(“Working Draft”). 6 The Working Draft surprisingly states that “the mandate of the Committee to the Consultant was to put together a comprehensive legislation which covers all rights of all persons with disabilities.” 7

Further, the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Working Draft proposes to “replace the current disability legislations with a comprehensive law which recognizes all rights of all persons with disabilities.” 8

These statements in the Working Draft raise some confusion as to whether the mandate given by the Committee has been clearly understood before the drafting process commenced. If the mandate was indeed to only amend the PWD Act and not to amend any of the other legislations such as the National Trusts Act, the Mental Health Act and the Rehabilitation Council of India Act, then the drafting should have been restricted to amending the PWD Act to the extent possible, and not to affect the provisions of the other legislations.

The Working Draft on Other Disability Legislations

The Working Draft does not suggest any amendments to the other disability legislations such as the National Trust Act, 1999, Mental Health Act, 1987 and Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992. However, as to the effect that the Working Draft should have on these other legislations, it leaves a “Pending Question” which states9:

“The issue of the induction of the National Trust and the Rehabilitation Council as separate chapters could not be attempted primarily because there was no time left to undertake a coherent and systematic exercise. It may also be noted that as the length of the statute expanded we felt a constraint of space in even incorporating all the provisions of power and accountability in the chapter on the Disability Rights Authority. It may also be noted that all significant authorities in the country have dedicated legislations around them. In this view of the matter the Committee would need to consider whether it would wish to suggest the creation of One Disability Law Code and within which have legislations on : Disability Rights; the Disability Authority; the National Trust; and the Rehabilitation Council. Or whether it would also wish to induct the National Trust and the Rehabilitation Council into this legislation?”

Added to this, the Memorandum on Disability Code (“Memorandum”) prepared along with the Working Draft explains that the reasons mentioned in the Pending Question along with the lack of time prevented the working out of the linkages between the DRA, the National Trust and the Rehabilitation Council of India.10

About the other dedicated legislations, the Memorandum states as follows11:

“Since we reached the opinion that the newly established DRA should have its own legislation we also concluded that the National Trust and the RCI should have their own legislations which should spell out the specific tasks each of those authorities should carry out to implement the rights recognized in the New Rights for Persons with Disabilities Act. The National Trust should be the authority which addresses the issue of multiple discrimination and be mandated to proactively formulate policies and programs by which to ensure the equality and non discrimination of persons with disabilities who are so disadvantaged and the RCI could work on HRD. The composition and powers and functions of the three bodies should be so created that it ensures convergence of operation.”

With regard to the Mental Health Act, the Memorandum makes the following recommendation12

“The proposed new law recognizes the paradigm of legal capacity with support. It also recognizes the right to life, liberty and integrity of all persons with disabilities. The recognition of these rights requires a re-examination of the Mental Health Act. Even if it is accepted that community living and no force are what is required for all; it is necessary to ask what should be done with the existing institutions and the inmates housed in them. The process of dismantling cannot be done without creating alternative services and there is a need to make a transit legislation which addresses this interim situation. The reason for making the transit legislation comes from the main law but to allow coherent operation and efficient implementation of these transitory measures it is better that they are contained in a separate legislation.”

These statements in the Explanatory Notes to the Working Draft shows that it not restricted itself to only amending the PWD Act as envisaged by the Mandate given by the Committee. An examination of the Working Draft shows that it has neither completely substituted the provisions of the three other disability legislations into the Working Draft, nor has it restricted itself to amending only the PWD Act - it is somewhere in the middle, where some many provisions which are covered by the three other disability legislations are significantly altered and at the same time these legislations are not sought to be amended simultaneously.

If the intention of the Working Draft is to replace all the other disability legislations, then it clearly exceeds the mandate of the Committee.

Section 7A(2) of the Working Draft

Section 7A (2) and 7B (2) in the Working Draft are included only within the chapter relating to Legal Capacity. They are phrased unusually to render any legislation, rule, notification, order, bye-law, regulation, custom and practice that deprive a person with disability from exercising his legal capacity as void.

Such a provision in one statute which declares a provision in another statute as void may not even be constitutionally permissible. The function of the legislature is to enact, re-enact, amend and repeal laws. The judiciary under Article 13 of the Constitution can exercise its powers of judicial review to render a provision which infringes on the fundamental rights as void. The legislature however, has no such power.

The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in P.L. Mehra and Ors v. D.R. Khanna and Ors (AIR 1971 Delhi 1) held as follows:
“…the decision in Mahendra Lal Jaini's case, as to the nature of a statute becoming void under Article 13 confirms the view that the statute itself continues to exist on the statute book but has become "ineffectual, nugatory and devoid of any legal force or binding effect". The thrust of these words is that such a law cannot be given effect to by the Courts in deciding upon the rights of the parties. These words are significant only for the purposes of the Courts vis-a-vis the rights of the parties. They would be meaningless if applied to the power of the Legislature to re-enact, repeal or amend a statute. For, one can hardly say that these powers of the Legislature cannot be exercised in respect of a statute which is ineffectual, nugatory and devoid of any legal force or binding effect. Indeed, it would be all the more necessary for the Legislature to amend or cure statutes which are suffering from such defects. The nature of the defects is such that only a judicial decision can point them out. It is not by an act of Legislature but only by a judicial decision that one would know whether a statute is ineffectual, nugatory and devoid of any legal force or binding effect.”

Therefore, the declaration of a statutory provision as ‘void’ can only be done by the judiciary as “voiding” of the law only comes into question at the time of the enforcement or implementation of the law. The legislature’s function is to repair the defect in legislation by amending it or repealing the whole legislation.

The Working Draft, in declaring other legislative provisions as void is being vague as to the specific provisions of specific legislations which are to fall under the Section. The Working Draft cannot make a blanket declaration of all laws inconsistent with legal capacity as void without taking steps to identify the provisions and make amendments or deletions.

Effect of the Working Draft without amendment of other disability legislations

The provisions of the Working Draft are introduced in such a way as to affect the provisions of the other disability legislations. In light of this, the need for amending the provisions of these disability legislations is a pressing one. The inconsistencies between the Working Draft and the other disability legislations range from the definition of ‘persons with disability’ to the recognition of the basic principle of legal capacity. As detailed in the table, the National Trust Act follows a completely different basis for determining who a ‘person with disability’ is. If the definition is not amended under the National Trust Act, it results in an inconsistency in the language under the various disability legislations.

Further, the Working Draft is not correct in declaring that other legislative provisions which deprive a person of legal capacity as void. Declaration that a provision of law is void is not the function of the legislature. Its function is to adequately amend it so as to be consistent with the principles it intends to introduce and enforce. This applies to the principle of legal capacity which the Working Draft aims to bring into all the disability legislations. In order to do so, it has to amend the Mental Health Act and the National Trust Act accordingly.

The authorities under the various disability legislations have their set functions. However, the Working Draft is uncertain as to how to divide the responsibilities of the various authorities. It does not incorporate the various authorities under the Working Draft provisions itself. However, it encroaches on the powers and functions of those authorities by making the Disability Rights Authority or some other ‘delegated authority’ in charge of them. While doing so, it does not even amend the provisions of the other legislations. This is a serious discrepancy as the enforcement of rights and performance of duties under the legislations. If there is a confusion as to which authority is responsible to perform a specific function, then a person might be deprived of the very rights that the Draft seeks to enforce.

Leaving the other disability provisions unamended leads to an especially difficult situation when the courts have to determine the intention of the legislature while drafting and have to apply that intention while interpreting it. Further, it is not clear as to what rights should be enforced against which authority in court. Therefore, the merging of the areas of function between the various authorities makes the enforcement of rights itself difficult and therefore uncertain.

Conclusion

Thus, as seen from the Working Draft, it is clear that it seeks to be one comprehensive law on disability, which would encompass issues addressed by several other disability laws. The explanatory notes state that it leaves the issue of the DRA and the authorities such as the Rehabilitation Council and the National Trust as a Pending Question.

It also refers to a Disability Code, which would encompass all disability legislation within its framework and raise this as an issue for the Committee to decide, when that has never been the mandate of the Committee. The explanatory notes state that it would bring within its fold all authorities such as the Rehabilitation Council and the National Trust and that the linkages between these authorities and the new Disability Rights Authority set up under the Working Draft would have to be worked out through transit legislation. The Working Draft leaves the discretion to the Committee to come to a conclusion as to whether all the authorities have to be incorporated under the same legislations or a separate Code with all the legislations has to be prepared. Thus, the roles which the authorities have to perform are left uncertain. The Mandate of the Committee was to replace the PWD Act, 1995. Therefore, the powers and functions of authorities which are established under the other disability legislations ought to have been left untouched. Instead, the Working Draft seeks to make a comprehensive legislation covering all the disabilities while it leaves the implementation aspect uncertain and undecided.

These statements along with some of the specific provisions mentioned in the table above show clearly that the Working Draft aims to be some kind of a comprehensive code to bring in all disability legislations within its fold and not only to amend the PWD Act, which was its specific mandate. For these reasons, the Working Draft has exceeded the mandate given to it. This has been suggested even by some members of the Committee. 13

Further, the Working Draft by only including Section 7A(2) in its chapter relating to Legal Capacity, which would render all other legislation in contravention to it as void, is not suitable and adequate. There would be adverse consequences if the other legislations are not suitably amended. For example, the entire Mental Health Act would need an overhaul if the right to legal capacity is introduced in the Working Draft. The local committees set up under the National Trusts Act would have to be completely abolished as their only role is to appoint guardians, which is completely done away with in the Working Draft. Thus, the mere inclusion of Section 7A (2) is not sufficient and workable, nor is it within the powers of the legislature to include.

The Working Draft has listed in Schedule 1 the amendments suggested to other legislations. This Schedule is incomplete and the specific provisions relating to the National Trusts Act 1999, the Rehabilitation Council of India Act 1992 and the Mental Health Act 1987 are also legislations which need amendment and should be included in this Schedule.

It is crucial that there is clarity on these important issues as to what exactly is being proposed to be amended. Whether it is only the PWD that is sought to be replaced or all other disability legislations are to be replaced by a Disability Code need to be understood by the drafters. If the mandate is only to amend the PWD Act, then it is important that we restrict ourselves to this mandate so as to ensure that other disability legislations are not affected. The other legislations can be amended at their own time, after the present PWD Act has been revised as per the mandate of the Committee.

Download the working draft in the format you may prefer:

For word, click here
For pdf, click here

Notes

1GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. DEP’T OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EMPOWERMENT, OFFICE MEMORANDUM FOR THE CONSTITUTION OF A COMMITTEE TO DRAFT A NEW LEGISLATION TO REPLACE THE PWD ACT, 1995., F.No. 16-38/2006-DD.III, (30th April 2010).

2 id

3See id

4See MINUTES OF MEETING, 2ND MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE TO DRAFT NEW LEGISLATION FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES., ( 22nd July 2010).

5See id at Page 1.

6See Working Draft of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2010, available at http://www.disabilitystudiesnalsar.org/newlaw.php. (Last visited on 24-01-2011).

7See id at Explanatory Note.

8See id at Statement of Objects and Reasons.

9Explanatory Notes: Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act Working Draft, Part IV, available at http://www.disabilitystudiesnalsar.org/explanatory-notes.php. (Last visited on 24-01-2011)

10See Memorandum on Disability Code, Background, available at http://www.disabilitystudiesnalsar.org/bcp-disability-code.php. (Last visited on 24-01-2011)

11See id at Dedicated Legislations.

12See id at Transitory Measures

13“Crisis hits panel on new Disability law” Available at http://www.tribuneindia.com/2010/20101224/main5.htm

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/accessibility/blog/working-draft

The Wikimedia India Program Trust

praskrishna — 2011-11-13T07:58:38Z

A new entity, the “Wikimedia India Program Trust”, has now been formed and registered (in Delhi.) This will be the organization that will eventually drive India programs and house the team in India.

For some time, efforts have gone into creating an organization that would provide an appropriate structure to support Wikimedia program activities in India. Aspects such as the current regulatory framework (regarding funding, taxation, etc.) as well as the legal protection for the India team have been considered to determine this structure. In this context, a host of options (e.g. subsidiary, branch, Section 25) were evaluated and a determination was made towards an independent non-profit public trust. Legal advice has been taken at every stage in this decision.

Why an Independent Public Trust?

The Trust will provide an effective vehicle within India to marshal resources to support programs and partner with local institutions. The objective of the Trust is to promote the objectives of the Wikimedia movement and work closely with the Wikimedia community on various projects with an India focus. It is important to understand that the Trust will not have any editorial control over content on any of the Wikimedia projects. The Trust is a not for profit organization.

Introduction of Trustees

Trustees have been identified based upon their support for Wikimedia movement's principles and plans in addition to having reputations for good governance and management. Sunil Abraham and Rahul Matthan have been requested to be the initial Trustees. Both are friends of Wikipedia and have extensive experience.

Sunil is Executive Director of the Centre for Internet & Society (CIS), is a long term advocate of free software and IP reform and has been supporting the Wikimedia community and movement for some time now.

Rahul is a partner and heads the technology practice at Trilegal. He brings deep expertise and relationships that will be valuable for the Trust.

These initial Trustees will serve for a term of three years at the maximum. All additional or subsequent Trustees will serve on rotation in accordance with a trustee selection plan that will be prepared.

Trustees will not be compensated for their services. Governance, Funding, Financial Standards & Communications of the Trust. The Trust will be governed by Trustees who will provide oversight and guidance regarding the operations and governance of the Trust. Since the Trust is an independent organization, it will require funding for its operations which is in compliance with the legal and regulatory framework in India. It will seek funding from private donors within India as well as external sources.

The Trust has the support of the Wikimedia Foundation which is a United States based non-profit foundation. However, in India all non-profit organizations need to be in existence for 3 years before they can receive funding from sources outside India. In the interim, they can apply for prior-permission under the FCRA regulations to help expedite the process. As a result, the Trust will shortly be applying for approval to receive funds from the Wikimedia Foundation in the future.

As a Trust, we are required to have an independent external auditor. We have appointed KPMG. KPMG is experienced in auditing non-profit companies and are also auditors for the Wikimedia Foundation. Annually, the Trust will publicly disclose it's independently audited financial statements.

The Trust will publish a monthly newsletter outlining its current activities and future plans. This will commence in December 2011.

Operations of the Trust

The trust deed under which the Trust must operate clearly states that the purpose of the Trust is to independently promote the growth of volunteer activities within India in support of effective and unrestricted dissemination of free knowledge to the public. Hisham will serve as the Executive Director of the Trust. Once it is possible, additional employees will be brought on to the Trust. The Trust will eventually have an office in Delhi. In the interim, a temporary office space has been set up to facilitate establishing the Trust and its mission. It is located at Top Floor, G-15, Hauz Khas, New Delhi - 110 016. It's a couple of minutes walk away from IIT Flyover and Hauz Khas Metro. Do drop in! It's a small but cozy place and we'd love to have you over!

Conclusion

We continue to make progress in setting up program activities to support the growth of Wikimedia in India. We have a long way to go, but are glad that we are starting to build a solid foundation. The following link is for FAQs on this (and related) topics:
http://goo.gl/8Rdr2

As always, do reach out if you have any comments or questions.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/announcement-of-wikimedia-india-program-trust

The War for India's Internet

praskrishna — 2012-06-14T09:12:34Z

Why is the world's biggest democracy cracking down on Facebook and Google? Rebecca Mackinnon's article was published in Foreign Policy on June 6, 2012.

"65 years since your independence," a new battle for freedom is under way in India -- according to a YouTube video uploaded by an Indian member of Anonymous, the global "hacktivist" movement. With popular websites like Vimeo.com blocked across India by court order, the video calls for action: "Fight for your rights. Fight for India." Over the past several weeks, the group has launched distributed denial-of-service attacks against websites belonging to Internet service providers, government departments, India's Supreme Court, and two political parties.

Street protests are being planned for this coming Saturday, June 9, in as many as 18 cities to protest laws and other government actions that a growing number of Indian Internet users believe have violated their right to free expression and privacy online. A lively national Internet freedom movement has grown rapidly across India since the beginning of this year. The most colorful highlight so far was a seven-day Gandhian hunger strike, otherwise known as a "freedom fast," held in early May on a New Delhi sidewalk by political cartoonist Aseem Trivedi and activist-journalist Alok Dixit. Trivedi's website was shut down this year in response to a police complaint by a Mumbai-based advocate who alleged that some of Trivedi's works "ridicule the Indian Parliament, the national emblem, and the national flag."

Escalating political and legal battles over Internet regulation in India are the latest front in a global struggle for online freedom -- not only in countries like China and Iran where the Internet is heavily censored and monitored by autocratic regimes, but also in democracies where the political motivations for control are much more complicated. Democratically elected governments all over the world are failing to find the right balance between demands from constituents to fight crime, control hate speech, keep children safe, and protect intellectual property, and their duty to ensure and respect all citizens' rights to free expression and privacy. Popular online movements -- many of them globally interconnected -- are arising in response to these failures.

Only about 10 percent of India's population uses the web, making it unlikely that Internet freedom will be a decisive ballot-box issue anytime soon. Yet activists are determined to punish New Delhi's "humorless babus," as one columnist recently called India's censorious politicians and bureaucrats, in the country's media. Grassroots organizers are bringing a new generation of white-collar protesters to the streets to defend the right to use a technology that remains alien to the majority of India's people.

The trouble started with the 2008 passage of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, whose Section 69 empowers the government to direct any Internet service to block, intercept, monitor, or decrypt any information through any computer resource. Company officials who fail to comply with government requests can face fines and up to seven years in jail. Then, in April 2011, the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology issued new rules under which Internet companies are expected to remove within 36 hours any content that regulators designate as "grossly harmful," "harassing," or "ethnically objectionable" -- designations that are open to a wide variety of interpretations and that free speech advocates argue have opened the door to abuse. It is thanks to these rules that the website of the hunger-striking cartoonist, Trivedi, was taken offline. Also thanks to the 2011 rules, Facebook and Google are facing trial for having failed to remove objectionable content. If found guilty, the companies could face fines, and executives could be sentenced to jail time.

Saturday's protesters are calling for annulment of the 2011 rules and the repeal of part of the 2008 act. They are also calling for Internet service companies to reverse the wholesale blocking of hundreds of websites, including the file-sharing services isoHunt and The Pirate Bay, as well as the video-sharing site Vimeo and Pastebin, which is primarily used for the sharing of text and links. Internet service providers were responding to a court order from the Madras High Court demanding the blockage, which is aimed at preventing the online distribution of pirated versions of one particular film. The Internet companies, fearing that they would not be able to catch every individual instance on every possible site they host, instead chose to block entire services along with all of their content -- which had nothing to do with the film in question.

Such "John Doe" orders, named because they are directed against unknown potential offenders in the present and future, are characterized "by their overly broad and sweeping nature," argue lawyer Lawrence Liang and researcher Achal Prabhala, which extends "to a range of non-infringing activities as well, thus catching a whole range of legal acts in their net." More broadly, as Delhi-based journalist Shivam Vij wrote in a recent essay: "The current mechanisms of internet censorship in India -- blocking, direct removal requests to websites, intermediary rules -- are draconian and unconstitutional. They need to be replaced with a new set of rules that are fair, transparent and accessible for public scrutiny. They should not be amenable to misuse by the powers-that-be for their own private interests."

Not only are the rules abused, but researchers find that they are causing extralegal censorship by companies that overcompensate in order to err on the side of caution. Last year, the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society performed an experiment in which it sent "legally flawed" takedown demands to seven companies that provide a range of online services, including search, online shopping, and news with user-generated comments. The legal flaws in the notices were such that the companies could have rejected them without being in breach of the law. Yet "of the 7 intermediaries to which takedown notices were sent, 6 intermediaries over-complied with the notices, despite the apparent flaws in them," reads the Centre for Internet and Society report.

Despite the growing public opposition, a motion to annul the 2011 rules was defeated by voice vote in the upper house of Parliament last month. Yet the criticism was sufficiently sharp that Communications Minister Kapil Sibal announced that he will hold consultations with all members of Parliament, representatives of industry, and other "stakeholders" to discuss the law's problems and how it might be revised. Many of the law's critics, however, are skeptical that this will eliminate the law's deep flaws and loopholes for abuse, especially given the government's failure to listen so far. Comments on the 2011 rules submitted last year by the Centre for Internet and Society were not even acknowledged as having been received by the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology. "Sibal uses the excuse of national security and hate speech," says the center's director, Sunil Abraham, "but that is not what is happening."

Abraham worries that what is really happening is a government effort at Internet "behavior modification" through a process akin to an experiment involving caged monkeys, bananas, and ice water. Put four monkeys in a cage and hang a bunch of bananas on the ceiling. Every time one of them climbs up to reach the bananas, you drench all of them with ice water. Soon enough, the monkeys will start policing themselves -- attacking anybody who tries to reach the bananas, making it unnecessary for their masters to deploy the ice water. "This is why the government is being so aggressive so early on, with only 10 percent of India's population online," says Abraham. "If you start the drenching early on, by the time you get to 50 percent [Internet penetration], every one will be well-behaved monkeys." Companies will act as private Internet police for fear of legal punishment before the government is called upon to step in and enforce the law. If it works, Indian politicians could have fewer reasons to worry about online critiques or mockery, because companies fearing prosecution will proactively delete speech that could potentially be designated "harassing" or "grossly harmful."

India is not China or Iran, however. Its politicians may be corrupt, and most of its voters may not understand why Internet freedom matters because they've never used the Internet. But it still has an independent press and boisterous civil society that are not going to give up their critiques and protests anytime soon. India also has a strong, independent judiciary, with a record of ruling against censorship and surveillance measures when a strong case can be made that they conflict with constitutional protections of individual rights. "On free speech I have high faith in the Indian judiciary," says Abraham. "There is a good chance to launch a constitutional challenge."

If Google and Facebook lose at their impending trial -- now scheduled for July -- they will most certainly appeal, which activists hope could provide just such an opportunity to prevent the sort of "behavior modification" process that Abraham warns against. Now India's burgeoning Internet freedom movement needs its own reverse "behavior modification" strategy -- imposing consistent and regular doses of political and legal ice water upon India's bureaucrats, politicians, and companies whenever they do things that threaten to corrode the rights of India's Internet users. Saturday's protest is just the beginning.

Sunil Abraham is quoted in this article. Read the original here

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/war-of-india-internet