The Centre for Internet and Society
http://editors.cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 1 to 12.
Here is why government twitter handles have been posting offensive and partisan messages
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/hindustan-times-danish-raza-october-15-2016-here-is-why-government-twitter-handles-have-been-posting-offensive-and-partisan-messages
<b>You have failed us big time Mr Kejriwal, for your petty political gains you can become headlines for Pakistani press,” read a tweet on October 5 from @IndiaPostOffice, the official twitter handle of the Indian postal service.</b>
<div align="justify" id="div_storyContent">
<p>The article by Danish Raza was <a href="http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/here-is-why-government-twitter-handles-have-been-posting-offensive-and-partisan-messages/story-TETZblpE9F2JVzTYOALMjL.html">published in the Hindustan Times</a> on October 15, 2016. Nishant Shah was quoted.</p>
<hr size="2" width="100%" />
<p>It was a reference to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal urging the Prime Minister to counter Pakistan’s propaganda over surgical strikes.</p>
<p>Within hours, India Post tweeted an apology saying that the account was hacked.</p>
<p>This is the latest in a series of opinions and statements posted from official twitter handles of government departments and bodies. Of late, the Twitter handles meant to broadcast information related to government programmes have appeared like personal accounts tweeting slander and criticism.</p>
<p>Last month, the Twitter handle of Digital India tweeted a poem in Hindi calling on the Indian Army to persistently fire at protesters in Kashmir.</p>
<p>In August, the Twitter handle of Startup India retweeted a post suggesting that the Indian Army should ‘take care’ of #Presstitutes, a reference to sections of Indian media critical of the government.</p>
<p>The tweets expose loopholes in the government’s social media policy and raise questions about the norms followed in the recruitment of social media professionals for ministries and government institutions.</p>
<p><b>Work in Progress</b></p>
<p>The process of adopting new tools is work in progress. While the government agencies are trying to leverage social media to enhance citizen engagement, for the vast majority of government bodies, it is unexplored territory. Babus who have traditionally been dealing in paperwork and file notings are overwhelmed to see hash tags and trends. With a tech- savvy Prime Minister at the helm, every government department is trying to increase its digital footprint. At the same time, they face the challenge of reinterpreting existing work ethics and codes of conduct and applying them to the use of social media. Ministries such as the Ministry of External Affairs, Information & Broadcasting and the Prime Minister’s Office which have cohesive programmes and big mandate, have separate social media wings of their own with well- defined protocols. But these are exceptions.</p>
<p>Overall, the government bodies lack social media guidelines for their own efforts or which others can learn from. According to Chinmayi Arun, executive director, Centre for Communication Governance, National Law University, Delhi, mistakes are bound to happen given that everyone is new to social media. But it should be non-negotiable that when anything is said using an official governmental handle, the government should take more responsibility than just saying ‘oops’. “One of course is a clear and unequivocal statement apologising and taking back whatever was said. However, it should take pro-active measures to train and test people who handle its public-facing accounts and publish a clear monitoring and accountability mechanism by which they can be called to account. It should not be open to anyone to misuse the government’s official handles in this manner,” said Arun.</p>
<p>One of the areas where the lack of sensitisation is apparent is the usage of the same mobile device for multiple twitter handles – the most common reason for such goof-ups cited by social media consultants attached to various government departments. “I believe these were inadvertently posted by people handling these accounts. It may neither have been their mandate nor their intention. It happens when the person has configured multiple twitter handles from the same device and ends up posting from the wrong account,” said Amit Malviya, BJP’s National Convener, IT.</p>
<p>The majority of ministries and government departments do not give phones to members of the social media teams. It is up to the individual to use his personal device or get an additional one to manage the professional handle (s). A mistake will happen if a comment which was to be posted from the personal handle is posted from the official handle.</p>
<p><b>Twitter Goof-ups from GoI Accounts</b></p>
<div class="wrapbox"><img src="http://www.hindustantimes.com/static/ht2016/10/twitter_goofs.jpg" width="100%"/" /></div>
<p>“Because of the personalised and individual nature of social media, it is easy to forget that they are representing an institution and not themselves when using these handles. This also suggests the lack of public usage training in these organisations, and the need to educate our public actors in using social media with more responsibility as office bearers of an institution rather than a personal expression or an opinion,” said Nishant Shah, co-founder of the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore.</p>
<p>Another issue is that access to the account is given to multiple people. “Each one of them brings their individual personality and politics to their operation of the handle,” said Shah.</p>
<p><b>Hiring Issues<br /> </b></p>
Part of the problem lies in the fact that there is no standard protocol on who can access the twitter handle of Indian government bodies and how this person or team is hired.
<p>A few ministries (example: the ministry of railways) have a team comprising of government employees and staff of private agencies handling their account. Others have outsourced the job to agencies.</p>
<p>During the campaigning for the 2009 election, political parties got outside expertise to mark their presence online. The selection parameters of social media consultants – established public relations firms in some cases and individuals in others – was not uniform.</p>
<section class="story_top_news">
<div class="news_photo"><img src="http://www.hindustantimes.com/rf/image_size_800x600/HT/p2/2016/10/15/Pictures/16-10-ht-weup-1-15_636b22d4-92ec-11e6-b1ee-4de56c7571da.jpg" /></div>
<h2></h2>
</section>
<p> </p>
<p>Unlike the traditional public relations officers who are from the Indian Information Services cadre, the social media consultants were selected based on their expertise in the field, political affiliation, and proximity to a party or leader.</p>
<p>Those who started handling social media accounts of political parties and leaders included trolls and social media influencers. “Parties got youngsters who were politically motivated and willing to work for political parties. They became cheaper alternatives for social media experts,” said Ishan Russel, political communication consultant.</p>
<p>After the NDA came to power, almost every ministry outsourced its digital expertise to agencies. Many individuals who were earlier directly working with leaders and parties got back with them via agencies. “If an agency is looking for people to handle the twitter account or Facebook page of a certain ministry in the BJP government, then those who are politically inclined towards the BJP will apply for the vacancies and their chances of getting hired are also much higher than someone who is neutral or known to be an AAP sympathiser,” said Vikas Pandey, 32-year-old software engineer, who headed the “I Support Namo” campaign on Facebook and Twitter, as a volunteer for the BJP.</p>
<p>Last year, the Prime Minister felicitated more than a dozen social media enthusiasts, including Vikas. The move raised eyebrows because many felt that the government was encouraging trolls. “It illuminates the fact that trolls have found gainful employment in the Government of India. Also that the entire edifice of the centre is being taken over by woefully undereducated bigots,” said Swati Chaturvedi, senior journalist and author.</p>
<p><b>Agency, the Soft Target<br /> </b></p>
Till the time the government staff is well versed with social media tools, attributing the mistakes to an ‘outside agency’ appears to be the norm.
<p>In the case of the twitter goof-up involving Startup India, Commerce and Industry minister Nirmala Sitharaman blamed a private agency that was managing the account of Startup India. “The retweets were done by an employee of the agency hired by the department of industrial policy and promotion. The person assigned by the agency for this particular job is not decided by the department and is the sole prerogative of the agency,” she said.</p>
<p>S Radha Chauhan, CEO of National e-Governance Division, attributed the controversial post from Digital India’s twitter handle to an agency called Trivone. “The person responsible had mistakenly tweeted from the official handle what he wanted to tweet from his personal account,” said Chauhan.</p>
<p>Those familiar with the functioning of the government’s social media verticals say that agencies are mentioned to cover up for mistakes often committed by someone from the government staff. “When in crisis, blame the agency, is the thumbrule the government follows. The fact is that each twitter post is approved by the client before it is posted,” said a senior executive with a digital marketing firm attached to a ministry which has recently earned lot of praise for its social media initiatives.</p>
<p>Nishtha Arora, social media and digital consultant in a reputed ad agency, was handling a political account till very recently. She said that the client required her to just randomly tweet or RT to be heard by the followers of a tech-savvy minister and be his digital mouthpiece. “I often had to draft tweets which looked like press releases,” she said.</p>
<p>“Digital faux pas is blamed on to someone who might be an expert in the field but yet has to bow down to the client pressure so that their agenda for the day is met and the said government body or ministry remains in the news,” she added.</p>
</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/hindustan-times-danish-raza-october-15-2016-here-is-why-government-twitter-handles-have-been-posting-offensive-and-partisan-messages'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/hindustan-times-danish-raza-october-15-2016-here-is-why-government-twitter-handles-have-been-posting-offensive-and-partisan-messages</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaSocial MediaTwitterSocial NetworkingInternet Governance2016-10-16T03:24:45ZNews ItemFacebook Free Basics vs Net Neutrality: The top arguments in the debate
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/indian-express-december-31-2015-facebook-free-basics-vs-net-neutrality-the-top-arguments-in-the-debate
<b>On Twitter, there's a whole conversation around Facebook Free Basics and whether zero-rating platforms should be allowed in India. Here's a look at the debate.</b>
<p>The article was <a class="external-link" href="http://indianexpress.com/article/technology/social/facebook-free-basics-debate-the-arguments-that-are-unfolding-on-twitter/">published in the Indian Express</a> on December 31, 2015. Sunil Abraham and Pranesh Prakash were quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Facebook’s Free Basics app, which aims to provide ‘free Internet access’ to users who can’t afford data packs, has run into trouble in India over the last two weeks. After regulator TRAI issued a paper questioning the fairness of zero-rating platforms, it also asked Reliance Communications (the official telecom partner for Free Basics) to put the service on hold.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Facebook on its part has gone for an aggressive campaign, both online and offline, to promote Free Basics and ensure that its platform is not banned permanently. For Net Neutrality activists, zero-rating platforms are in violation of the principle as it restricts access to free, full Internet for users.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On Twitter too, there’s a serious debate unfolding around Free Basics and whether zero-rating platforms should be allowed in India. Here’s a look at some of the prominent voices around this Net Neutrality vs Free Basics debate.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Watch our video</h3>
<table class="grid listing">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th><iframe frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Y6vXJNVUDug" width="560"></iframe></th>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p id="stcpDiv" style="text-align: justify; ">Nikhil Pahwa, founder of news website MediaNama, has been campaigning for quite some time against zero-rating platforms in general and Net Neutrality. On Twitter, Pahwa points out that the problem with the zero-rating apps is that it gives telecos right to play kingmaker, and get into a direct relationship between a website and a user.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Pahwa also wrote a counter-blog to Mark Zuckerberg’s <a href="http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/toi-edit-page/its-a-battle-for-internet-freedom/">column in The Times of India </a> questioning why Facebook is going with this restricted version of the web on Free Basics, rather than giving access to all websites.</p>
<p>He posted recently on Twitter, “Why hasn’t Facebook tried any model other than on which gives it a competitive advantage?”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Pahwa adds, “With zero rating, telcos insert themselves into a previously direct relationship between a site and user. Some sites made cheaper versus others. Said it earlier, saying it again. Problem with zero rating is that it gives telcos the right to play kingmaker through pricing. So Net Neutrality battle isn’t just about Facebook. It’s about telcos lobbying for differential pricing+revenue share from Internet companies.”</p>
<div id="stcpDiv">Check out <a class="external-link" href="http://twitter.com/nixxin/status/681731772682354688">some of this tweets on the issue of Net Neutrality</a>:</div>
<div></div>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Pranesh Prakash, the director for policy at Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) in Bangalore, has said that a total ban might not be the ideal solution and one should look at the platforms on a case by case basis.<br /><br />He writes on Twitter, “My position: We should ban some zero-rating, allow some zero-rating, and deal w/ middle category either w/ +ve obligation or case-by-case. I’m all for banning Free Basics if it harms people more than it benefits them. I’ve even proposed tests for determining this. The regulator needs more data on a) conversion rates to full-Internet; b) cost of subsidy & c) QoE (speed, etc.) of Free Basics.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Check out Pranesh's tweets below</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><img src="http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/P1.png" alt="Pranesh Tweet" class="image-inline" title="Pranesh Tweet" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><img src="http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/copy_of_P2.png" alt="Pranesh Tweet" class="image-inline" title="Pranesh Tweet" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><img src="http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/P3.png" alt="Pranesh Tweet" class="image-inline" title="Pranesh Tweet" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Sunil Abraham, executive director at Centre for Internet and Society, has however questioned Free Basics on Twitter. He also posted counter-points to Pranesh’s tweets about data on conversion being used to create regulations around zero-ratings. He’s also called for a ban on Free Basics.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Check out his tweets below</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><img src="http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/P4.png" alt="Pranesh Tweet" class="image-inline" title="Pranesh Tweet" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><img src="http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/P5.png" alt="Pranesh Tweet" class="image-inline" title="Pranesh Tweet" /></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/indian-express-december-31-2015-facebook-free-basics-vs-net-neutrality-the-top-arguments-in-the-debate'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/indian-express-december-31-2015-facebook-free-basics-vs-net-neutrality-the-top-arguments-in-the-debate</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaSocial MediaFree BasicsInternet GovernanceFreedom of Speech and ExpressionVideoSocial Networking2016-01-07T02:26:16ZNews ItemNo to homosexuals, yes to their vote
http://editors.cis-india.org/news/dna-march-21-2014-yogesh-pawar-no-to-homosexuals-yes-to-their-vote
<b>The ad appears at the bottom of the page. It has BJP’s symbol and Modi’s photograph displayed prominently. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Yogesh Pawar was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-no-to-homosexuals-yes-to-their-vote-1970889">published in DNA</a> on March 21, 2014. Sunil Abraham is quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In a hotly contested election where every vote will count, the scramble among political parties to scrounge for votes is understandable. Yet, what would you make of a party that hates a community but wants their votes? The BJP had opposed any move to nullify Supreme Court's order re-criminalizing consensual sex among consenting adults, dealing a huge setback to any move to scrap or dilute Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Party chief Rajnath Singh went to the extent of saying, "Gay sex is not natural and we cannot support something which is unnatural."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This is why the gay community across the country has expressed surprise to find a BJP ad asking for votes on the popular gay social media dating website grindr. The ad which will obviously lead to to a lot of red faces in the BJP, appears at the bottom of the page has both the party' lotus symbol and their prime-ministerial candidate Narendra Modi's photograph displayed prominently. It exhorts voters to vote BJP to stop price rise.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"This exposes the party's hypocrisy," guffawed India's pioneering gay rights activist Ashok Row Kavi. "So you want our votes and not us. I'm glad this has happened. The country will finally know the true face of falsehood of the party."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">He's not alone. Many from the community have taken to social media sites like facebook and twitter to make their disgust known. Counselling psychologist Deepak Kashyap is one of them. "So, #BJP says it'd never support the "unnatural act" of homosexuality, but #NaMO has no qualms about asking for support on gay dating apps, like grindr! What a sham(e)!" he posted.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Linking most homophobia with an intense struggle with latent homosexuality Kashyap, the University of Bristol pass-out and equal rights activist for the LGBTQ community told <b>dna</b>, "Whatever makes you jump up in your chair, essentially makes you insecure about your own condition in some way or the other." According to him, similar results were shown in a research called 'Is Homophobia Associated with Homosexual Arousal?', by Georgia University published in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">When reached for comment, the BJP's National IT head Arvind Gupta said, "I am not aware of such an ad being placed on this website. If this is indeed true we will take it up with the advertising agency responsible." BJP spokesperson and Lok Sabha candidate from New Delhi Meenakshi Lekhi too told dna, "This is the first I am hearing of such an advertisement," and added, "In the first instance it seems like a deliberate act of mischief in the poll season to embarrass our party."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Centre for Internet and Society, Executive Director Sunil Abraham felt the ad on grindr may have to do more with the lack of knowledge than anything else. "We find many ads by top Indian corporate brands on pirate websites. This happens because people are still not completely conversant with negotiating with advertising networks when it comes to websites."</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/news/dna-march-21-2014-yogesh-pawar-no-to-homosexuals-yes-to-their-vote'>http://editors.cis-india.org/news/dna-march-21-2014-yogesh-pawar-no-to-homosexuals-yes-to-their-vote</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaSocial MediaSocial NetworkingInternet Governance2014-04-04T09:54:39ZNews ItemRegulating Social Media: Unrealistic, Impossible, Necessary?
http://editors.cis-india.org/news/ndtv-video-april-11-2013-the-social-network-regulating-social-media-unrealistic-impossible-necessary
<b>The Press Council of India Chairperson Justice Markandey Katju calls for regulating social media, saying it will prevent offensive material coming into the public domain. But is it really necessary to regulate the social media? If yes, is it possible to do it?</b>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.ndtv.com/video/player/the-social-network/regulating-social-media-unrealistic-impossible-necessary/271183">published by NDTV</a> on April 11, 2013.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">NDTV aired a discussion by Ashwin S Kumar, Co-editor, Columnist, The Unreal Times; Kunal Majumder, Assitant Editor, Tehelka.com and Pranesh Prakash, Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society on April 11, 2013 in response to Justice Katju's comments on bringing 'social media' under the Press Council of India.</p>
<p>Pranesh Prakash laid out four brief points:</p>
<ol>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">'Social media' allows coffee house discussion and toilet wall scrawls to seem like print publications, but it's a mistake to treat it the same way we do print publications. The UK is now planning on using prosecutorial flexibility to refrain from prosecuting simple offensive speech on social media. </li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">The same laws should apply online as they do offline (but how the apply, can differ), and that is currently the case. Most content-related offences in the IPC, etc., are offences online as well as offline. </li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Editors and journalists exist for most print publications and broadcast programmes, while that isn't true for most 'social media'. So guidelines applicable to the press mostly won't be applicable online.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Electronic publications (like Medianama, The Daily Dish, Huffington Post) which consider themselves engaged in a journalistic venture present a special problem that we <b class="moz-txt-star">do<span class="moz-txt-tag"> </span></b> need to have a public conversation about.</li>
</ol>
<hr />
<h3>Video</h3>
<p><iframe frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/wzTJO3Vvmhk" width="320"></iframe></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/news/ndtv-video-april-11-2013-the-social-network-regulating-social-media-unrealistic-impossible-necessary'>http://editors.cis-india.org/news/ndtv-video-april-11-2013-the-social-network-regulating-social-media-unrealistic-impossible-necessary</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaSocial MediaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceVideoCensorshipSocial Networking2013-04-30T16:50:13ZNews ItemAnalyzing the Latest List of Blocked Sites (Communalism and Rioting Edition) Part II
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/analyzing-the-latest-list-of-blocked-sites-communalism-and-rioting-edition-part-ii
<b>Snehashish Ghosh does a further analysis of the leaked list of the websites blocked by the Indian Government from August 18, 2012 till August 21, 2012 (“leaked list”). </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Unnecessary Blocks and Mistakes:</b></p>
<ol>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">http://hinduexistance.files.wordpress.com/..., which appears on the leaked list, does not exist because the URL is incorrect. However, the correct URL does contain an image which, in my opinion, can be considered to be capable of inciting violence. It has not been blocked due to a spelling error in the order. Instead of blocking hinduexist<b><i>e</i></b>nce.wordpress.com/... the DoT has ordered the blocking of hinduexist<b><i>a</i></b>nce.wordpress.com/..., which does not exist.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Two URLs in the block order are from the website of the High Council for Human Rights, Judiciary of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The reason for blocking these two links from this particular website is unclear.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">The website of the Union of NGOs of the Islamic World was blocked. Again, the reason for blocking this website remains unclear.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">URLs such as, http://farazahmed.com/..., mumblingminion.blogspot.com, were blocked. The content on these URLs was in fact debunking the fake photographs.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; ">Certain blocked Facebook pages did not have any bearing on the North East exodus which was the main reason behind the blocks. For example, Facebook link leading to United States Institute for Peace page was blocked.</li>
</ol>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b> </b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Duration of the Block</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Department of Telecommunications (DoT) did not specify the period for which the block has been implemented in its orders. As a result of which certain URLs still remain blocked while a majority of the links in the leaked list can be accessed. Lack of clear directions from the DoT has resulted in haphazard blocking and certain internet service providers (ISPs) have lifted the block on certain links whereas some other ISPs have continued with a complete block.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b> </b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>How have the intermediaries reacted to the block orders?</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Going by the leaked list of websites blocked by DoT, it issued the block orders to ‘all internet service licensees’. Intermediaries that do not fall in the category of 'internet service licensees’ were also sent a separate set of requests for taking down third party content. However, it is unclear under which provision of the law such request was made by the Government.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Internet Service Licensees</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b><img src="http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/chart_1.png" alt="Implementation of the order at the ISP level" class="image-inline" title="Implementation of the order at the ISP level" /><br /></b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The internet service licensee or the ISPs have not followed any uniform system to notify that a particular URL or website in the leaked list is blocked according to DoT’s orders. The lack of transparency in the implementation of the block orders, have a chilling effect on free speech.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">For instance, BSNL returns the following messages:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"This website/URL has been blocked until further notice either pursuant to Court orders or on the Directions issued by the Department of Telecommunications" or “This site has been blocked as per instructions from Department of Telecom (DOT).”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">However, these messages are not uniform across all the URLs/websites in the leaked list. BSNL does not generate any response for the majority of the URLs in the leaked list. This results in ‘invisible censorship’ as the person who is trying to access the blocked URL does not have any means to know whether a particular URL is unavailable or certain sites are blocked by government orders.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Lack of notification does not only infringes upon the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression but also violates the fundamental right to a constitutional remedy guaranteed under Article 32 of our Constitution. The person aggrieved by such block orders cannot approach the Court for a remedy because there is no means to figure out:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">(a) Description of the content blocked?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">(b) Who has issued the block order/request?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">(c) Under which provision of the law such block order/request has been issued?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">(d) Who has implemented the block order/request? and</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">(e) What was the reason for the block?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The intermediaries should provide with the above notification details while implementing a block order issued by the Government. </p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Intermediaries hosting third party content: </b></p>
<p align="right" style="text-align: justify; ">More than 100 out of the 309 blocks are Facebook (http and https) URLs. Facebook has not informed its users about the reasons behind unavailability of certain pages or content. This is another instance of invisible censorship. However, YouTube, a Google service, has maintained certain level of transparency, and informs the user that the content has been blocked as per ‘government removal request’. It is interesting to note that certain YouTube user accounts were terminated as well. It is unclear whether this was as a result of the block order. Furthermore, links associated with blogger.com, which is another service provided by Google, have been removed.</p>
<hr />
<p align="right" style="text-align: justify; ">This was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.medianama.com/2012/09/223-analyzing-the-latest-list-of-blocked-sites-communalism-rioting-edition-part-ii/">re-posted</a> by Medianama on September 26, 2012.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/analyzing-the-latest-list-of-blocked-sites-communalism-and-rioting-edition-part-ii'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/analyzing-the-latest-list-of-blocked-sites-communalism-and-rioting-edition-part-ii</a>
</p>
No publishersnehashishIT ActSocial mediaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityInternet GovernanceIntermediary LiabilitySocial Networking2012-09-27T10:42:30ZBlog EntryOnline Pre-Censorship is Harmful and Impractical
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/online-pre-censorship-harmful-impractical
<b>The Union Minister for Communications and Information Technology, Mr. Kapil Sibal wants Internet intermediaries to pre-censor content uploaded by their users. Pranesh Prakash takes issue with this and explains why this is a problem, even if the government's heart is in the right place. Further, he points out that now is the time to take action on the draconian IT Rules which are before the Parliament.</b>
<p>Mr. Sibal is a knowledgeable lawyer, and according to a senior lawyer friend of his with whom I spoke yesterday, greatly committed to ideals of freedom of speech. He would not lightly propose regulations that contravene Article 19(1)(a) [freedom of speech and expression] of our Constitution. Yet his recent proposals regarding controlling online speech seem unreasonable. My conclusion is that the minister has not properly grasped the way the Web works, is frustrated because of the arrogance of companies like Facebook, Google, Yahoo and Microsoft. And while he has his heart in the right place, his lack of knowledge of the Internet is leading him astray. The more important concern is the<a class="external-link" href="http://www.mit.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/RNUS_CyberLaw_15411.pdf"> IT Rules</a> that have been in force since April 2011.</p>
<h3>Background <br /></h3>
<p>The New York Times scooped a story on Monday revealing that Mr. Sibal and the <a class="external-link" href="http://www.mit.gov.in/">MCIT</a> had been <a class="external-link" href="http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/05/india-asks-google-facebook-others-to-screen-user-content/?scp=2&sq=kapil%20sibal&st=cse">in touch with Facebook, Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft</a>, asking them to set up a system whereby they would manually filter user-generated content before it is published, to ensure that objectionable speech does not get published. Specifically, he mentioned content that hurt people's religious sentiments and content that Member of Parliament Shashi Tharoor described as <a class="external-link" href="http://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/i-am-against-web-censorship-shashi-tharoor_745587.html">'vile' and capable of inciting riots as being problems</a>. Lastly, Mr. Sibal defended this as not being "censorship" by the government, but "supervision" of user-generated content by the companies themselves.</p>
<h3>Concerns <br /></h3>
<p>One need not give lectures on the benefits of free speech, and Mr. Sibal is clear that he does not wish to impinge upon it. So one need not point out that freedom of speech means nothing if not the freedom to offend (as long as no harm is caused). There can, of course, be reasonable limitations on freedom of speech as provided in Article 19 of the <a class="external-link" href="http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm">ICCPR</a> and in Article 19(2) of our Constitution. My problem lies elsewhere.</p>
<h3>Secrecy <br /></h3>
<p>It is unfortunate that the New York Times has to be given credit for Mr. Sibal addressing a press conference on this issue (and he admitted as much). What he is proposing is not enforcement of existing rules and regulations, but of a new restriction on online speech. This should have, in a democracy, been put out for wide-ranging public consultations first.</p>
<h3>Making intermediaries responsible <br /></h3>
<p>The more fundamental disagreement is that over how the question of what should not be published should be decided, and how that decision should be and how that should be carried out, and who can be held liable for unlawful speech. I believe that "to make the intermediary liable for the user violating that code would, I think, not serve the larger interests of the market." Mr. Sibal said that in May this year <a class="external-link" href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304563104576355223687825048.html">in an interview with the Wall Street Journal</a>. The intermediaries (that is, all persons and companies who transmit or host content on behalf of a third party), are but messengers just like a post office and do not exercise editorial control, unlike a newspaper. (By all means prosecute Facebook, Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft whenever they have created unlawful content, have exercised editorial control over unlawful content, have incited and encouraged unlawful activities, or know after a court order or the like that they are hosting illegal content and still do not remove it.)
Newspapers have editors who can take responsibility for content published in the newspaper. They can afford to, because the number of articles in a newspaper is limited. YouTube, which has 48 hours of videos uploaded every minutes, cannot. One wag suggested that Mr. Sibal was not suggesting a means of censorship, but of employment generation and social welfare for censors and editors. To try and extend editorial duties to these 'intermediaries' by executive order or through 'forceful suggestions' to these companies cannot happen without amending s.79 of the Information Technology Act which ensures they are not to be held liable for their user's content: the users are.
Internet speech has, to my knowledge, and to date, has never caused a riot in India. It is when it is translated into inflammatory speeches on the ground with megaphones that offensive speech, whether in books or on the Internet, actually become harmful, and those should be targeted instead. And the same laws that apply to offline speech already apply online. If such speech is inciting violence then the police can be contacted and a magistrate can take action. Indeed, Internet companies like Facebook, Google, etc., exercise self-regulation already (excessively and wrongly, I feel sometimes). Any person can flag any content on YouTube or Facebook as violating the site's terms of use. Indeed, even images of breast-feeding mothers have been removed from Facebook on the basis of such complaints. So it is mistaken to think that there is no self-regulation. In two recent cases, the High Courts of Bombay (<a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/janhit-manch-v-union-of-india" class="internal-link" title="Janhit Manch & Ors. v. The Union of India"><em>Janhit Manch v. Union of India</em></a>) and Madras (<em>R. Karthikeyan v. Union of India</em>) refused to direct the government and intermediaries to police online content, saying that places an excessive burden on freedom of speech.</p>
<h3>IT Rules, 2011 <br /></h3>
<p>In this regard, the IT Rules published in April 2011 are great offenders. While speech that is 'disparaging' (while not being defamatory) is not prohibited by any statute, yet intermediaries are required not to carry 'disparaging' speech, or speech to which the user has no right (how is this to be judged? do you have rights to the last joke that you forwarded?), or speech that promotes gambling (as the government of Sikkim does through the PlayWin lottery), and a myriad other kinds of speech that are not prohibited in print or on TV. Who is to judge whether something is 'disparaging'? The intermediary itself, on pain of being liable for prosecution if it is found have made the wrong decision. And any person may send a notice to an intermediary to 'disable' content, which has to be done within 36 hours if the intermediary doesn't want to be held liable. Worst of all, there is no requirement to inform the user whose content it is, nor to inform the public that the content is being removed. It just disappears, into a memory hole. It does not require a paranoid conspiracy theorist to see this as a grave threat to freedom of speech.
Many human rights activists and lawyers have made a very strong case that the IT Rules on Intermediary Due Diligence are unconstitutional. Parliament still has an opportunity to reject these rules until the end of the 2012 budget session. Parliamentarians must act now to uphold their oaths to the Constitution.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/online-pre-censorship-harmful-impractical'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/online-pre-censorship-harmful-impractical</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshIT ActObscenityFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityYouTubeSocial mediaInternet GovernanceFeaturedIntermediary LiabilityCensorshipSocial Networking2011-12-12T17:00:50ZBlog EntryThe Digital Tipping Point
http://editors.cis-india.org/digital-natives/blog/the-digital-tipping-point
<b>Is Web 2.0 really the only reason why youth digital activism is so successful in mobilizing public engagement? A look into the transformation of Blank Noise’s blog from a one-way communication medium into a site of public dialogue and collaboration reveals the crucial factors behind the success. </b>
<p></p>
<p>What images popped in your head when you hear the term ‘digital
activism’? Those that popped in mine are of campaigns that originated in the
Internet, perhaps with a blog, a Youtube video, or a Facebook group, mobilizing
people to take part in a certain action to advocate for a cause or to respond
to a specific event. Whether the request is to sign a petition for a new
legislation or to wear a specific colour on a specific day, the campaigns also
ask people to spread the message, usually responded by re-tweets, status
updates, and link-shares that appear on my timeline. These campaigns, like the
famous Wear Red for Burma or the Pink Chaddi, are usually responses to certain
events and dwindle after the events have passed.</p>
<p>With its four blogs,
two Facebook groups, a YouTube channel, and a Twitter account, at first glance Blank
Noise certainly resembles the images in my head. However, they popped one by
one as I got to know Blank Noise better. For one, as I have shared before,
Blank Noise was not a response to a specific event but rather the long term,
ongoing, structural problem of street sexual harassment. For another, street
interventions started as the main core of Blank Noise and have remained a
crucial element despite its prolific online presence. Blank Noise did not start
in the Internet nor did it immediately turn to Web 2.0 for its
mobilization.</p>
<p>The main blog was created soon after Blank Noise
started in 2003 to serve as an archive, information center, and space to
announce future street events. The diverse online campaigns, lively discussions
in the comment section of blog posts, and abundant blog post contributions by
people who have experienced, witnessed, or committed street sexual harassment
started after two unexpected events that I call ‘the digital tipping point’.</p>
<p>The first was when
Jasmeen Patheja, the founder of Blank Noise, started uploading pictures of her
harasser, taken with her mobile phone, to the blog in March 2005. The first
picture was of a man who had stalked and pestered her for coffee despite her
rejection to his unwelcomed advances. While some readers applauded her action,
many challenged the post. How is the action different from “Can I buy you a
drink?” Can it trigger the change wanted, especially since the guy might not
even have access to the Internet? Is the action of publicly labeling the man as
a perpetrator of street sexual harassment ethical, especially since the man has
not been proven guilty?</p>
<p></p>
<p>These challenges then spiraled into a long
discussion (72 comments!) about the grey areas of street sexual harassment and
the ethics around confronting perpetrators. Although Blank Noise still continue
to upload snapshots of harassers (this intervention is called ‘Unwanted’),
their pictures have since then been blurred until the face is unrecognizable,
including the one in the original post. This event was when Jasmeen realized
that the blog also has the potential of being a space for discussions,
opinions, and debates – the public conversation that Blank Noise aims for.</p>
<p>The second tipping point was when one of Blank
Noise volunteers proposed an idea of a blogathon to commemorate the
International Women’s Day in 2006. Blogging had become a major trend in India
around 2004 and the blogathon basically asked bloggers around India to write
about their experience with street sexual harassment in their private blogs and
link the post to the Blank Noise blog. The bloggers invited were both women and
men, people who have either experienced, witnessed, or committed street sexual
harassment. The blogathon was an immense success, perhaps due to the
frustration on the silence and downplay of street sexual harassment into eve
teasing. Suddenly, eve teasing became a booming topic on the web and Blank
Noise received media and (mostly the cyber) public attention.</p>
<p>This is when the idea of online interventions
started. In the following year, Blank Noise created the first of its blogs that
consist entirely of contributions from the public: the <em>Action Heroes </em>blog, a growing compilation of women’s experiences in
dealing with street sexual harassment. It is then followed by <em>Blank Noise Guys </em>and <em>Blank Noise Spectators</em>, which
respectively concentrates on the experiences of men and people who have
witnessed street sexual harassment. Other than the community blogs, the main
blog also introduced collaborative online campaigns in 2008, such as the
‘Museum of Street Weapons’ (a poster project that explores how women uses
everyday objects to defend themselves against street sexual harassment) and
‘Blank Noise This Place’ (a photo collection of places where street sexual
harassment occurs). These interventions were not only online; they were also
collaborative and invited the public to participate.</p>
<p>These tipping points are intriguing not only for
being the triggers to Blank Noise’s transformation to one of the most important
digital activism in India (Mishra, 2010), but also for the reason why they are
successful in doing so: they are able to attract public participation.</p>
<p>The first tipping point was able to attract people
to participate by commenting on a post. The said post was very simple; it
consists of a picture and a one-paragraph text that depicts a conversation
between the harasser and the woman:</p>
<p> </p>
<p><em>“stalker no.
1: " Excuse me, have we met before?" machlee: no Stalker no. 1: Yes
we have! On commercial street! I work in a call centre. I am a science
graduate." machlee: why are you telling me all this? stalker no. 1: can I
have coffee with you? machlee: can i photograph you? stalker no. 1: yes! sure
you can! stalker no.1: blah blah blah</em>” (Patheja, 2005)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Having been used to NGO pamphlets and blog posts, I
have come to equate discussion on sexual harassment as a very serious
discussion with long text and formal language. This post is so different from
what I was used to, but it was clear to me that even though the language was
casual, the issue and intention were serious. The casual presentation
spoke to me “we would like
to share our thoughts and activities with you” rather than “we are an
established organization and this is what we do”. It is not the space of
professionals, but passionate people. As a blogger myself, I recognize the
space as being one of my peer’s and immediately felt more attracted and comfortable to jump into the conversation.</p>
<p>The second tipping
point attracted the more active, substantial participation than commenting;
many people actually created texts, photos, or posters for Blank Noise. It was
possible because Blank Noise opened itself. Jasmeen opened up to an idea of a
volunteer, who opened up to the possibilities offered by the cybersphere.
Instead of depending on a core team to conduct an intervention, Blank Noise
opened up to a project that <strong>entirely</strong>
depended on the public’s response to be successful. Moreover, Blank Noise
opened up to diverse points of views and many types of experiences with street
sexual harassment.</p>
<p>It is widely
acknowledged that the success of a digital activism lies on its ability to
attract public collaboration; however, the digital tipping points of Blank
Noise underline several important factors behind the ability. Attracting public
engagement is not always a result of a meticulous pre-planned intervention. On
the contrary, it might spawn from unintentional events that welcome diverse
points of view, adopt a peer-to-peer attitude, invite contributions, and most
importantly, touched an issue that is very important for many different people.
Web 2.0 is an enabling tool and site for dialogue, but it is certainly not the
only reason behind the success of digital activism in galvanizing youth’s
engagement.</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p><em>This is the fifth post in the <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/digital-natives/blog/the-beyond-the-digital-directory" class="external-link"><strong>Beyond the Digital </strong>series,</a> a research
project that aims to explore new insights to understand youth digital activism
conducted by Maesy Angelina with Blank Noise under the Hivos-CIS Digital
Natives Knowledge Programme. </em></p>
<p><em> </em></p>
<p><em><u>Reference:</u></em></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Mishra, G.
(2010) ‘The State of Citizen Media in India in Three Short Ideas’. Accessed</p>
<p>19 May 2010
< <a href="http://www.gauravonomics.com/blog/the-state-of-citizen-media-in-india-">http://www.gauravonomics.com/blog/the-state-of-citizen-media-in-india-</a>in-three-short-ideas/></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Patheja, J. (2005) ‘Unwanted. Section 354 IPC.’ Accessed 25 October
2010. < <a href="http://blog.blanknoise.org/2005/03/stalker-no.html">http://blog.blanknoise.org/2005/03/stalker-no.html</a>></p>
<p> </p>
<p></p>
<p> </p>
<p>SOURCE OF PICTURE</p>
<p><a href="http://blog.blanknoise.org/2005/07/he-placed-his-hand-on-my-breast-and.html">http://blog.blanknoise.org/2005/07/he-placed-his-hand-on-my-breast-and.html</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/digital-natives/blog/the-digital-tipping-point'>http://editors.cis-india.org/digital-natives/blog/the-digital-tipping-point</a>
</p>
No publishermaesyCyberspaceDigital ActivismDigital NativesStreet sexual harassmentBlank Noise ProjectBeyond the DigitalYouthSocial Networkingmovements2011-08-04T10:36:56ZBlog EntrySurvey : Digital Natives with a cause?
http://editors.cis-india.org/digital-natives/blog/survey-digital-natives-with-a-cause
<b>This survey seeks to consolidate information about how young people who have grown up with networked technologies use and experience online platforms and tools. It is also one of the first steps we have taken to interact with Digital Natives from around the world — especially in emerging information societies — to learn, understand and explore the possibilities of change via technology that lie before the Digital Natives. The findings from the survey will be presented at a multi-stakeholder conference later this year in The Netherlands.
</b>
<p>The Centre for Internet and Society, in collaboration with Hivos' Knowledge Programme, launched the "Digital Natives with a Cause?" Programme in 2008. After the initial study (<a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/publications/cis/nishant/dnrep.pdf/view" class="external-link">click here for a free download</a>), we are now gathering responses from young users of technology to help us understand, document and support different practices aimed at social transformation and political participation more efficiently.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>We believe that the world is changing very fast and that the rise of Internet technologies has a lot to do with it. As young users of technology (as opposed to young users who use technology) adopt, adapt and use these new technologised tools to interact with their environment, new ways of effecting change emerge. This survey is an attempt to capture some of the information which gives us an insight into who the people are, using these technologies, the ways in which they use them and what their perceptions and experiences are.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The survey will not take more than 7 minutes of your time but it will help us get a better sense of the way things are.</p>
<p> </p>
<strong>Please click here so start the
<a href="http://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?formkey=dG9reUVvQ0w4d1ZER3lKOUtFanZMUnc6MA" target="_blank"> survey</a>.</strong>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/digital-natives/blog/survey-digital-natives-with-a-cause'>http://editors.cis-india.org/digital-natives/blog/survey-digital-natives-with-a-cause</a>
</p>
No publisherpushpaSocial mediaDigital NativesYouthFeaturedDigital subjectivitiesSocial Networking2011-08-04T10:35:43ZBlog EntryDoes the Safe-Harbor Program Adequately Address Third Parties Online?
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/does-the-safe-harbor-program-adequately-address-third-parties-online
<b>While many citizens outside of the US and EU benefit from the data privacy provisions the Safe Harbor Program, it remains unclear how successfully the program can govern privacy practices when third-parties continue to gain more rights over personal data. Using Facebook as a site of analysis, I will attempt to shed light on the deficiencies of the framework for addressing the complexity of data flows in the online ecosystem. </b>
<p>To date, the EU-US Safe Harbor Program leads in governing
the complex and multi-directional flows of personal information online. As commerce began to thrive in the online
context, the European Union was faced with the challenge of ensuring that personal
information exchanged through online services were granted
levels of protect on par with provisions set out in EU privacy law. This was important, notably as the piecemeal
and sectoral approach to privacy legislation in the United states was deemed incompatible
with the EU approach. While the Safe
Harbor program did not aim to protect the privacy of citizens outside of the
European Union per say, the program has in practice set minimum standards for
online data privacy due to the international success of American online
services.</p>
<p>While many citizens outside of the US and EU benefit from
the Safe Harbor Program, it remains unclear how successful the program will be in an
online ecosystem where third-parties are being granted increasingly more rights
over the data they receive from first parties.
Using Facebook as a site of analysis, I will attempt to shed light on
the deficiencies of the framework for addressing the complexity of data flows
in the online ecosystem. First, I will argue
that the safe harbor program does not do enough to ensure that participants are
held reasonably responsible third party privacy practices. Second, I will argue that the information
asymmetries created between first party sites, citizens, and governance bodies
vis-à-vis third parties obscures the application of the Safe Harbor Model.</p>
<p><strong>The EU-US
Safe-Harbor Agreement</strong></p>
<p>In 1995, and based on earlier <a href="http://www.oecd.org/document/18/0,3343,en_2649_34255_1815186_1_1_1_1,00.html">OECD
guidelines</a>, the EU Data Directive on the “protection of individuals with
regard to the processing of personal data and the free movement of such data”
was passed<a name="_ednref1" href="#_edn1"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"></span></span></a> [1]. The original purpose of the EU Privacy
Directive was not only to increase privacy protection within the European
Union, but to also promote trade liberalization and a single integrated market
in the EU. After the Data Directive was
passed, each member state of the EU incorporated the principles of
the directive into national laws accordingly. </p>
<p>While the Directive was successful in harmonizing data
privacy in the European Union, it also embodied extraterritorial
provisions, giving in reach<a name="_ednref2" href="#_edn2"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"></span></span></a> beyond the EU. Article 25 of the Directive states that the
EU commission may ban data transfers to third countries that do not ensure “an
adequate level of protect’ of data privacy rights<a name="_ednref3" href="#_edn3"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"></span></span></a> [2]. Also, Article 26 of the Directive, expanding
on Article 25, states that personal data cannot be <em>transferred </em>to a country that “does not ensure an adequate level of
protection” if the data controller does not enter into a contract that adduces
adequate privacy safeguards<a name="_ednref4" href="#_edn4"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"></span></span></a> [3].
</p>
<p>In light of the increased occurrence of cross-border
information flows, the Data Directive itself was not effective enough to ensure that
privacy principles were enforced outside of the EU. Articles 25 and 26 of the Directive had essentially deemed all cross-border data-flows to the US in contravention of EU privacy law. Therefor, the EU-US Safe-Harbor was established by the
EU Council and the US Department of Commerce as a way of mending the variant
levels of privacy protection set out in these jurisdictions, while also promoting
online commerce. </p>
<p><strong>Social Networking
Sites and the Safe-Harbor Principles</strong></p>
<p>The case of social networking sites exemplifies the ease
with which data is transferred, processed, and stored between jurisdictionas. While many of the top social networking sites
are registered American entities, they continue to attract users not only from
the EU, but also internationally. In agreement
to the EU law, many social networking sites, including LinkedIn, Facebook,
Myspace, and Bebo, now adhere to the principles of the program. The enforcement of the Safe Harbor takes
place in the United States in accordance with U.S. law and relies, to a great
degree, on enforcement by the private sector.
TRUSTe, an independent certification program and dispute mechanism, has become the most popular governance mechanism for the safe harbor program
among social networking sites. </p>
<p>Drawing broadly on the principles embodied within the EU
Data Directive and the OECD Guidelines, the seven principles of the Safe-Harbor
were developed. These principles include
Notice, Choice, Onward Transfer, Access and Accuracy, Security, Data Integrity
and Enforcement. The principle of “Notice”
sets out that organizations must inform individuals about the purposes for
which it collects and uses information about them, how to contact the
organization with any inquiries or complaints, the types of third parties to
which it disclosures the information, and the choices and means the organization
offers individuals for limiting its use and disclosure. </p>
<p>“Choice” ensures that individuals have the opportunity to
choose to opt out whether their personal information is disclosed to a third
party, and to ensure that information is not used for purposes incompatible with the purposes for
which it was originally collected. The
“Onward Transfer” principle ensures that third parties receiving information
subscribes to the Safe Harbor principles, is subject to the Directive, or
enters into a written agreement which requires that the third party provide at
least the same level of privacy protection as is requires by the relevant
principles.</p>
<p>The principles of “Security” and “Data Integrity” seek to
ensure that reasonable precautions are taken to protect the loss or misuse of
data, and that information is not used in a manner which is incompatible with
the purposes for it is has been collected—minimizing the risk that personal
information would be misused or abused.
Individuals are also granted the right, through the access principle, to
view the personal information about them that an organization holds, and to
ensure that it is up-to-date and accurate.
The “Enforcement” principle works to ensure that an effective mechanism
for assuring compliance with the principles, and that there are consequences
for the organization when the principles are not followed.</p>
<p>The principles of the program are rather quite clear and
enforceable in the first party context, despite some prevailing ambiguities. The privacy policies of most social
networking services have become increasingly clear and straightforward since
their inception. Facebook, for example,
has revamped its <a href="http://www.facebook.com/privacy/explanation.php">privacy
regime</a> several times, and gives explicit notice to users how their
information is being used. The privacy
policy also explains the relationship between third parties and your personal information—including
how it may be used by advertisers, search engines, and fellow members. </p>
<p>With respect to third party advertisers, principles of
“choice” are clearly granted by most social networking services. For example, the <a href="http://www.networkadvertising.org/">Network Advertising Initiative</a>, a
self-regulatory initiative of the online advertising industry, clearly lists
its member websites and allows individuals to opt out of any targeted
advertising conducted by its members. In
Facebook’s description of “cookies” in their privacy policy, a direct link to NAI’s
opt out features is given, allowing individuals to make somewhat informed
choices about their participation in such programs. This point is, of course, in light of the
fact that most users do not read or understand the privacy policies provided by
social networking sites<a name="_ednref5" href="#_edn5"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"></span></span></a> [4].
It is also important to note that Google—a major player in the online
advertising business, does not grant users of Buzz and Orkut the same “opt-out”
options as sites such as Facebook and Bebo.</p>
<p>Under the auspices of the US Federal Trade Commission, the
Safe Harbor Program has also successfully investigated and settled several
privacy-related breaches which have taken place on social networking sites. Of the most famous cases is <a href="http://www.beaconclasssettlement.com/">Lane et al. v. Facebook et al.</a>,
which was a class action suit brought against Facebook’s Beacon Advertising
program. The US Federal Trade Commission
was quick to insight an investigation of the program after many privacy groups
and individuals became critical of its questionable advertising practices. The Beacon program was designed to allow
Facebook users to share information with their friends about actions taken on
affiliated, third party sites. This had included,
for example, the movie rentals a user had made through the Blockbuster website. </p>
<p>The Plaintiffs filed a suit, alleging that Facebook and its
affiliates did not give users adequate notice and choice about Beacon and the
collection and use of users’ personal information. The Beacon program was ultimately found to
be in breach of US law, including the <a href="http://epic.org/privacy/vppa/">Video
Privacy Protection Act</a>, which bans the disclosure of personally identifiable
rental information. Facebook has
announced the settlement of the lawsuit, not bringing individual settlements,
but a marked end to the program and the development of a 9.5 million dollar <a href="http://www.p2pnet.net/story/37119">Facebook Privacy Fund</a> dedicated to
privacy and data-related issues. Other privacy
related investigations of social networking sites launched by the FTC under the
Safe Harbor Program include Facebook’s <a href="http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/12/facebooks-new-privacy-changes-good-bad-and-ugly">privacy
changes</a> in late 2009, and the Google’s recently released <a href="http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/032910-lawmakers-ask-for-ftc-investigation.html">Buzz
application</a>.</p>
<p>Despite the headway the Safe Harbor is making, many privacy
related questions remain ambiguous with respect to the responsibilities social networking
sites through the program. For example,
Bebo <a href="http://www.bebo.com/Privacy2.jsp">reserves the right</a> to
supplement a social profile with addition information collected from publicly
available information and information from other companies. Bebo’s does adhere to the “notice principle”—as
it makes know to users how their information will be used through their privacy
policy. However, it remains unclear if appropriate disclosures are given by Bebo
as required by Safe Harbor Framework, notably as the sources of “publicly
available information” as a concept remains broad and obscured in the privacy policy. It is also unclear whether or not Bebo users
are able to, under the “Choice” principle, refuse to having their profiles from
being supplemented by other information sources. Also, under the “access
principle”, do individuals have the right to review all information held about them as “Bebo
users”? The right to review information
held by a social networking site is an important one that should be upheld. This is most notable as supplementary information
from outside social networking services is employed to profile individual users in ways which may
work to categorize individuals in undesirable ways.</p>
<p><strong>The Third Party Problem</strong></p>
<p>Cooperation between social networking sites and the Safe
Harbor has improved, and most of these sites now have privacy policies which
explicitly address the principles of the Program. It should also be noted that public interest
groups, such as Epic, the Center for Digital Democracy, and The Electronic
Frontier Foundation, have played a key role in ensuring that data privacy
breaches are brought to the attention of the FTC under the program. While the program has somewhat adequately
addressed the privacy practices of first party participants, the number of
third parties on social networking sites calls into question the
comprehensiveness and effectiveness of the Safe Harbor program. Facebook itself as a first party site may adhere
to the Safe Harbor Program. However, its
growing number third party platform members may not always adhere to best practices
in the field, nor can Facebook or the Safe Harbor Program guarantee that they
do so.</p>
<p>The Safe Harbor Program does require that all participants
take certain security measures when transferring data to a third party. Third parties must either subscribe to the
safe harbor principles, or be subject to the EU Data Directive. Alternatively, an organization can may also
enter into a written agreement with a third party requiring that they provide
at least the same level of privacy protection as is required by program
principles. Therefore, third parties of
participating program sites are, de facto, bound by the safe harbor principles by
the way of entering into agreement with a first party participant of the
program. This is the approach taken by
most social networking sites and their third parties.</p>
<p>It is important to note, however, that third parties are not
governed directly by the regulatory bodies, such as the FTC. The safe harbor website also <a href="http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018476.asp">explicitly notes</a>
that the program does not apply to third parties. Therefore, as per these provisions, Facebook must
adhere to the principles of the program, while its third party platform members
(such as social gaming companies), only must do so indirectly as per a separate
contract with Facebook. The
effectiveness of this indirect mode of governing of third party privacy
practices is questionable for numerous reasons.</p>
<p>Firstly, while Facebook does take steps to ensure that
third parties use information from Facebook in a manner which is consistent to
the safe harbor principles, the company explicitly <a href="http://www.facebook.com/policy.php">waives any guarantee</a> that third
parties will “follow their rules”. Prior to allowing third parties to access any
information about users, Facebook requires third parties to <a href="http://www.facebook.com/terms.php">agree to terms</a> that limit their
use of information, and also use technical measures to ensure that they only
obtain authorized information. Facebook
also warns users to “always review the policies of third party applications and
websites to make sure you are comfortable with the ways in which they use
information”. Not only are users
required to read the privacy policies of every third party application, but are
also expected to report applications which may be in violation of privacy
principles. In this sense, Facebook not
only waives responsibility for third party privacy breaches, but also places further
regulatory onus upon the user.</p>
<p>As the program guidelines express, the safe harbor relies to
a great degree on enforcement by the private sector. However, it is likely that a self-regulatory
framework may lead the industry into a state of regulatory malaise. Under the safe harbor program, Facebook must
ensure that the privacy practices of third parties are adequate. However, at the same time, the company may
simultaneously waiver their responsibility for third party compliance with safe
harbor principles. Therefore, it remains
questionable as to where responsibility for third parties exactly lies. When third parties are not directly
answerable to the governing bodies of safe harbor program, and when first parties
can to waive responsibility for their practices, from where does the incentive to
effectively regulate third parties to come from? </p>
<p>While Facbeook may in fact take reasonable legal and technical
measures to ensure third party compliance, the room for potential dissonance
between speech and deed is worrisome. Facebook is required to ensure that third
parties provide “<a href="http://www.export.gov/safeharbor/eu/eg_main_018476.asp">at least the same
level of privacy protection</a>” as they do.
However, in practice, this has yet to become the case. A quick survey of twelve of the most popular
Platform Applications in the gaming category showed<a name="_ednref6" href="#_edn6"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"></span></span></a>
that third parties are not granting their users the “same level of privacy
protection”[5]. For example, section 9.2.3
of Facebooks “<a href="http://www.facebook.com/terms.php">Rights and
Responsibilities</a>” for Developers/Operators of applications/sites states
that they must “have a privacy policy or otherwise make it clear to users what
user data you are going to use and how you will use, display, or share that
data”. </p>
<p>However, out of the 12 gaming applications surveyed, four
companies failed to make privacy policies available to users <em>before</em> they granted the application
access to the personal information, including that of their friends<a name="_ednref7" href="#_edn7"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"></span></span></a> [6]. After searching for the privacy policies on
the websites of each of the four social gaming companies, two completely failed
to post privacy policies on their central websites. This practice is in direct breach of the
contract made between these companies and Facebook, as mentioned above. In addition to many applications failing to clearly
post privacy policies, many of provisions set out in these policies were
questionable vis-à-vis safe harbor principles. </p>
<p>For example Zynga, makes of popular games Mafia Wars and
Farmville, reserve the right to “maintain copies of your content
indefinitely”. This practice remains contrary
to Safe Harbor principles which states that information should not be kept for
longer than required to run a service.
Electronic Arts also maintains similar provisions for data retention in
its privacy policy. Such practices are
rather worrisome also in light of the fact that both companies also reserve the
right to collect information on users from other sources to supplement profiles
held. This includes (but is not limited
to) newspapers and Internet sources such as blogs, instant messaging services, and
other games. It is also notable to
mention that only one of the twelve social gaming companies surveyed directly
participates in the safe harbor program. </p>
<p>In addition to the difficulties of ensuring that safe harbor
principles are adhered to by third parties, the information asymmetries which
exist between first party sites, citizens, and governance bodies vis-à-vis
third parties complicate this model. Foremost,
it is clear that Facebook, despite its resources, cannot keep tabs on the
practices of all of their applications.
This puts into question if industry self-regulation can really guarantee
that privacy is respected by third parties in this context. Furthermore, the lack of knowledge or
understanding held by citizens about how third parties user their information
is particularly problematic when a system relies so heavily on users to report
suspected privacy breaches. The same is
likely to be true for governments, too. As
one legal scholar, promoting a more laisse-fair approach to third party
regulation, notes—multiple and invisible third party relationships presents
challenges to traditional forms of legal regulation<a name="_ednref8" href="#_edn8"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"></span></span></a> [7]. </p>
<p>In an “open “social ecosystem, the sheer volume of data
flows between users of social networking sites and third party players appears
to have become increasingly difficult to effectively regulate. While the safe harbor program has been
successful in establishing best practices and minimum standards for data
privacy, it is also clear that governance bodies, and public interest groups,
have focused most attention on large industry players such as Facebook. This has left smaller third party players on
social networking sites in the shadows of any substantive regulatory concern. If
one this has become clear, it is the fact that governments may no longer be
able to effectively govern the flows of data in the burgeoning context of “open
data”. </p>
<p>As I have demonstrated, it remains questionable whether or
not Facebook can regulate third parties data collection practices
effectively. Imposing more stringent
responsibilities on safe harbor participants could be a positive step. It is reasonable to assume that it would be
undue to impose liability on social networking sites for the data breaches of
third parties. However, it is not
unreasonable to require sites like Facebook go beyond setting “minimum
standards” for data privacy, towards taking a more active enforcement, if even
through TRUSTe or another regulatory body.
If the safe harbor is to be effective, it cannot allow program participants
to simply wave the liability for third party privacy practices. The indemnity granted to third parties on social
networking sites may deem the safe harbor program more effective in sustaining
the non-liability of third parties, rather than protecting the data privacy of
citizens.</p>
<div></div>
<div>
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
</div>
<p class="discreet"><a name="_edn1" href="#_ednref1"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"></span></span></a>[1] Official Directive 95/46/EC</p>
<p class="discreet"><a name="_edn2" href="#_ednref2"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"></span></span></a></p>
<p class="discreet"><a name="_edn3" href="#_ednref3"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"></span></span></a>[2] 95/46/EC</p>
<p class="discreet">[3] Ibid</p>
<p class="discreet"><a name="_edn4" href="#_ednref4"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"></span></span></a><a name="_edn5" href="#_ednref5"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"></span></a>[4] See Acquisit,
A. a. (n.d.). Imagined Communities: Awareness, Information Sharing, and Privacy
on Facebook. <em>PET 2006</em></p>
<p class="discreet"><a name="_edn6" href="#_ednref6"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"></span></span></a>[5] Of the Privacy Policy browsed include, Zynga, Rock
You!, Crowdstar, Mind Jolt, Electronic Arts, Pop Cap Games, Slash Key, Playdom,
Meteor Games, Broken Bulb Studios, Wooga, and American Global Network.</p>
<p class="discreet"><a name="_edn7" href="#_ednref7"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"></span></span></a>[6] By adding an application, users are also sharing with
third parties the information of their friends if they do not specifically opt out of this practice.</p>
<p class="discreet">[7]See<strong>
</strong> Milina, S. (2003).
Let the Market Do its Job: Advocating an Integrated Laissez-Faire Approach to
Online Profiling. <em>Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Law Journal</em> .</p>
<pre></pre>
<div>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
</div>
<h2> </h2>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/does-the-safe-harbor-program-adequately-address-third-parties-online'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/does-the-safe-harbor-program-adequately-address-third-parties-online</a>
</p>
No publisherrebeccaPrivacyInternet GovernanceFacebookData ProtectionSocial Networking2011-08-02T07:19:34ZBlog EntryColour Me Political
http://editors.cis-india.org/digital-natives/blog/dn2
<b>What are the tools that Digital Natives use to mobilise groups towards a particular cause? How do they engage with crises in their immediate environments? Are they using their popular social networking sites and web 2.0 applications for merely entertainment? Or are these tools actually helping them to re-articulate the realm of the political? Nishant Shah looks at the recent Facebook Colour Meme to see how new forms of political participation and engagement are being initiated by young people across the world.</b>
<p></p>
<p>On Facebook, now acclaimed as one of the most popular social
networking sites in the world, the one thing that almost all the users engage
is, in updating their status updates. These updates can be varied – capturing
personal moods and emotions, reporting on things that strike one in the course
of a normal day, offering political opinions, suggesting movies and books to
friends, and often making public announcements of important events in life. The
updates appear as a live feed, updates in almost-real time, letting people in
networks connect, know, discuss and share information about their personal
lives. Often, to outsiders, these updates would appear pointless; I remember
somebody asking me, “But why would I want to know what you had for breakfast?”
Many status updates indeed border on the everyday and ordinary, of no interest
to anybody but the immediate networks.</p>
<p>However, in the first half of January in 2010, Facebook
users across the world started observing a strange pattern. Many people in
their networks were making one word status updates with the name of a colour.
Just that. A colour. Facebook users woke up to find “Green!”, “Red!”, “White!” “Black!”
in their live feed. No explanations and a cryptic silence. It was a viral
phenomenon, with the colours appearing across the board, in different parts of
the world, spanning all languages, cultures, and contexts. Also, it was
observed, almost all of the users putting this update, were women. It created a
lot of discussion, speculation, curiosity and conspiracy theories. Blog posts
discussing this phenomenon started appearing. People were twitting about it.
There was an element of surprise, and perhaps of frustration, because the
people making those colour updates were refusing to offer any explanations.</p>
<p>Eventually, after a few internet years (about 3 days, I
think!) the word got out. It was a meme. A meme is an internet gene (because it
replicates) which spreads virally, through different social communication and
networking sites. It invites people to participate in a series of actions,
either to answer a question or perform a certain act, and pass it along. The
colour updates were a part of the meme which was doing the rounds on the
internet:</p>
<p> "Some fun is
going on.... just write the color of your bra in your status. Just the color,
nothing else. And send this on to ONLY girls, no men .... It will be neat to
see if this will spread the wings of cancer awareness. It will be fun to see
how long it takes before the men will wonder why all the girls have a color in
their status."</p>
<p>
What the message managed to do was take an
important cause and through fun, and play, and a little bit of excitement, got
young women around the world to ponder on the possibility, cure and prevention
of breast cancer. What was just a personal update capturing space suddenly
became a place of political mobilisation and participation. Both, men and
women, reading those colours, took a moment to think about breast cancer and
spread the word among their friends. Discussions, which started with curiosity,
ended with a sombre note. While there are speculative theories about how some
women in Detroit started this particular meme, there is no credible source of
information.</p>
<p> What is particularly of interest, is how, without any apparent
funding, or organisation, or the infrastructure that generally accompanies such
behemoth projects, this viral meme captured more attention and had more people
participating than most campaigns started by traditional activists or
governments. What Facebook, and other spaces like it offer, is the
infrastructure and the potential for such massive movements. As the Digital
Natives grow up with new technologies, they change the landscape of political
and social transformation. And the cryptic colour updates is telling us the
story of how things will change in the future.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/digital-natives/blog/dn2'>http://editors.cis-india.org/digital-natives/blog/dn2</a>
</p>
No publishernishantCyberspaceDigital ActivismDigital NativesYouthSocial Networking2011-08-04T10:34:27ZBlog EntryDoes the Social Web need a Googopoly?
http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/does-the-social-web-need-a-googopoly
<b>While the utility of the new social tool Buzz is still under question, the bold move into social space taken last week by the Google Buzz team has Gmail users questioning privacy implications of the new feature. In this post, I posit that Buzz highlights two privacy challenges of the social web. First, the application has sidestepped the consensual and contextual qualities desirable of social spaces. Secondly, Google’s move highlights the increasingly competitive and convergent nature of the social media landscape. </b>
<p></p>
<p>Last week, and for many a surprise, Google launched its new
social networking platform, Buzz. The
new service is Google’s effort to amplify the “social nature” of their services
by integrating them under one platform, and adding some extra social utility. The social application runs from the Gmail
interface, but also links other Google accounts a user may have, including
albums on Picasa, and Google Reader. The service also allows for the sharing from
external sources, such as photos on Flickr, and videos from YouTube. The service also allows users to post, like,
or dislike the status updates of others which may be publicly searchable if the
user opts. Before a Gmail user may fully
participate in Google Buzz service, a unique Google Personal Profile must be
created. </p>
<p><strong>User Consent</strong></p>
<p>Much of the buzz surrounding the new social networking
service last week wasn’t paying much lip service to the new application. Instead, an uproar of privacy concerns continued
to dominate the Buzz scene, with many critics quickly labeling Buzz a “<a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-31322_3-10451428-256.html">privacy nightmare</a>”. A <a href="http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20100216/epic-files-ftc-complaint-over-google-buzz/?mod=ATD_rss">formal
complaint</a> has been already filed with the US Federal Trade Commission in
response to Google’s new privacy violating service. A
second-year Harvard Law student has also filed a <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/google-buzz-draws-class-action-suit-harvard-student/story?id=9875095&page=1">class-action
suit</a> against the company for its privacy malpractices. </p>
<p>Much of the privacy talk thus far has focused on issues of
consent, or lack thereof, in this case. Upon
Buzz’s launch, Gmail users were automatically subscribed as “opting in” for the
service. Google has used the private
address books of millions of Gmail accounts to build social networks from the
contacts users email and chat with most.
To entice users into using the service, Gmail users were set to
auto-follow all of their contacts, and in turn, to be followed by them,
too. Furthermore, all new Buzz users had
been set to automatically share all public Picasa albums and Google Reader items
with their new social graph. It is
argued that social network services should be <a href="http://jonoscript.wordpress.com/2010/02/20/buzz-off-google-social-networks-should-always-be-opt-in-not-opt-out/">opt-in,
rather than opt-out</a>, and that Buzz has violated the consensual nature of
the social web. </p>
<p>Illuminating the complications of building a social graph
from ones inbox is the story of an Australian women, who remains anonymous. As she claims, most of the emails currently received
through her Gmail account, are those from her abusive ex-boyfriend. Due to Google’s assumption that Gmail users
would like to be “auto-followed” by their Gmail contacts (mirroring Twitters friendship
protocol), items shared between herself and new boyfriend through her Google
reader account had become public to her broader social graph, including her
ex-boyfriend and his harassing friends.</p>
<p>In a <a href="http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2010/02/fck-you-google/">blog response</a>
directed to Google’s Buzz team, the woman scornfully wrote- “<em>F*ck you, Google. My privacy concerns are
not trite. They are linked to my actual physical safety, and I will now have to
spend the next few days maintaining that safety by continually knocking down
followers as they pop up. A few days is how long I expect it will take before
you either knock this shit off, or I delete every Google account I have ever
had and use Bing out of f*cking spite</em>”.
As this case demonstrates, the people we mail most often may not be our
closest friends. As email has replaced
the telephone for many as the dominate mode of communication--some contacts may
be friends, however, many others may not be. </p>
<p>In response to the uproar, tweaks to Buzz’s privacy features
have since been made. Todd Jackson,
Buzz’s product manager, has also posted a <a href="http://gmailblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/millions-of-buzz-users-and-improvements.html">public
apology</a> to the official Gmail Blog late last week for not “getting
everything quite right”. The service will
now assume the more user-centric “auto-suggest” model, allowing users to selectively
choose the contacts they wish to follow, and will also no longer auto-link Picasa
and Reader content. However, as the <a href="http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20100216/epic-files-ftc-complaint-over-google-buzz/?mod=ATD_rss">EPIC’s
complaint notes</a>, many are still unsatisfied with the opt-out nature of the
service, arguing that users should be able to opt-into the service if they so
choose, rather than having to delist themselves for a service they didn’t necessarily
sign up. Ethical quandaries also still
loom over Google’s misuse of the users’ private contact lists to jumpstart
their new service. </p>
<p><strong>Contextual Integrity </strong></p>
<p>The attacks on personal privacy resulting from Google’s model
are vast. As the case of the Australian
woman illuminates, the concept of the “online friend” has completely taken out
of context with Buzz’s initial auto-follow model. Many of the contacts we make on a daily basis
need not be made public through the Google profile. For most, this Buzz’s privacy breach may be
benign or annoying at most. However, those who are engaged in sensitive social
or political relationships via their Gmail chat or email accounts, the revelation
of common contact could have been potentially damaging for many. A reporter from CNET has cleverly labeled
Buzz’ as a “<a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10451703-2.html">socially
awkward networking</a>”, as bringing diverse contacts under one umbrella
doesn’t exactly make the most social sense. In response, Gmail users are
required to sort through and filter their Buzz followers according, or choose
to disable the service all together.</p>
<p>Besides questions of who is stalking whom, the assumptive
and public nature of Google’s new move
has cast a shadow of doubt among Gmail users regarding the ability of Google to
maintain the privacy and contextual integrity of the Gmail account. Should one account be the place to socialize,
and “do business”? Gmail is, and should remain, an email
service. However, Buzz takes the email
experience into new and questionable grounds.
Do Gmail users feel entirely comfortable having their personal email,
social graph, and chat functions all coming under the auspices of one platform?
Many users felt they had been lured
into using a social networking service that they didn’t sign up for in the
first place. </p>
<p><strong>Social Media Competition</strong></p>
<p>In addition to Google’s attempt to integrate their various
service offerings, Buzz is seen as an obvious attempt to bolster
competitiveness in the social media market.
In 2004, Google released Orkut. While the service has become big in
countries such as Brazil and India, it has been overshadowed by sites such as
Facebook in other jurisdictions, and has not been able to prove itself as a mainstream
space for networking. In the past year, Google
had also launched Google Wave, a tool that mixes e-mail, with instant messaging
and the ability for several people to collaborate on documents. However, the application failed to completely
win over audiences, and was considered one of the <a href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/top_10_failures_of_2009.php">top
failures of 2009</a>. </p>
<p>With Google unable to effectively saturate the social media
ecosystem, Buzz is an attempt to compete with the searchable and real time
experiences provided by social media giants, Facebook and Twitter. Increased competition within the social media
market could be a positive development for privacy, as social media companies
could arguably be compete on their ability to provide users with preferable privacy
architectures. To the contrary, however,
such competition has thus far had negative ramifications for user privacy, as
the recent Buzz and Facebook moves illustrates.
Facebook’s loosened privacy settings were a <a href="http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15350984">competitive
knee-jerk</a> to Twitters searchable and real time experience. Through a Twitter search, individuals can
come to know what people are saying about a certain topic, event, or product,
and as a result, the service has received a great deal attention from users,
and non-users such as advertisers, alike.
</p>
<p>In an attempt to one-up, their competition, the “Twitterization”
of Facebook followed in two distinct stages.
First was with the implementation of the Facebook News Feed, which gave
users a real time account of actions their friends on the site. Many argued that this feature invaded user
privacy. However, it was argued by
Facebook that they only were making available information that was already
accessible through individual profile pages.
The News Feed, as it happens, effectively took user information and
actions on the site out of original context by streaming this information live
for others easy viewing. Information
users once had to rummage for had become accessible in real time on the
homepage of the service. </p>
<p>Secondly, Facebooks’ recent <a href="http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/12/facebooks-new-privacy-changes-good-bad-and-ugly">privacy
scandal</a> was a step towards making profile information more searchable and accessible
to third parties, as is most often the case with the more public feeds on Twitter. As <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/•%09http:/www.simplyzesty.com/twitter/unrelenting-twitterization-facebook-continues/">one
commentator notes</a>, “<em>Facebook used to be very private but private
is not great for search, to have great search you need all of the data to be
publicly available as it mostly is on Twitter. Facebook have not quite nailed
real time search yet but they are getting there and it will soon be a great way
of examining sentiment across different demographics</em>”. As a result, information on Facebook, such as
name, profile picture, friends list, location and fan pages have become open
access information. In addition, users
on Facebook have been subjected to new privacy regime without notice, leaving
their profile pages generally more open, and searchable through Google. </p>
<p><strong>Converging the Online
Self</strong></p>
<p>The impact Buzz alone can make on the social media landscape
remains questionable (Gmail heralds only 140 million accounts, which is a deficient
cry from Facebooks’ 400+ million dedicated users). However, despite Googles’ in/ability to
become claim hegemony over the social web landscape, the abuse of private information
to launch a new service has raised serious debate over the privacy and the
future of social networking. The Buzz
service marks more than yet another new social networking service that brushes
aside the privacy of users. As user control
and privacy becomes an increasingly peripheral concern, Google’s shift toward privacy
decontrol also signifies a worrisome supply-side shift towards the
“convergence” of online identity.</p>
<p>Within this new dominant paradigm, privacy concerns are
often interpreted as antithetical to competitiveness in the social media
marketplace. Instead of an imagined ecosystem
based on user control and privacy preference, it can now be inferred that the
competiveness of social networking services will continue to disrupt the
delicate balance between the public and private online. Regardless that greater
visibility and searchability of the social profile may not be in the public
interest, Google’s recent move works to reinforcement of the new status quo of
“openness”. Furthermore, it is
questionable as to how concentrated and integrated a user may want their online
activities to become. A critical
discourse of online privacy must, therefore, take into account the ways in
which the social web has renders the user increasingly transparent through networks
of networking services. </p>
<p>Google’s Buzz illustrates this point quite well. Initially, Gmail was a straightforward email
service. Next, the AdWords advertising service
and Gmail chat had become integrated into the Gmail experience. Because Google was using the confidential
emails of its Gmail users, privacy concerns began to mount upon the launch of
the the AdWords service. However,
turmoil surrounding AdWords died down, notably as Google continues to reassert
that is is bots, not humans, that are scanning the emails in order to provide
the AdWords service. Next, there gradually
occurred a convergence of Google services under the single social profile, or
“email address”. A single Gmail account
potentially includes use of with Google reader, calendar, chat, groups and an Orkut
account. In terms of behavioral targeted
advertising, Google has recently announced that they will be providing
personalized search results even to users who have not signed up for Google
services. This will be done through the
placement a cookie on all machines to provide targeted advertising seamlessly
through each Google search and browsing session. </p>
<p>While many argue that the collection of non-personally
identifiable information poses no privacy harm, this assumption needs
reassessment. As Google comes to offer
us more, they also come to learn more, and Buzz signifies this trend towards a Googopolized
social web. To add another layer of
complexity to Googles hegemony, users of the Buzz service are also required to create
a “Google Profile”, which is searchable online and displays real time status
updates, comments, and connections from other social network services, such as
Facebook and Twitter. As Google recently
launched the beta version of the new <a href="http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/10/introducing-google-social-search-i.html">Social
Search</a>, Buzz was just the service required to increase the relevance to the
new service by encouraging Gmail users to publish even more personal
information. The creation of a personal
Google profile, which is indexed and searchable, raises many concerns about
privacy and identity, and doubts are continually raised over <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/hey-google-thi-i-why-privacy-matter-2010-2">how
much Google should come to know</a> about us.</p>
<p>While Google’s services have arguably made the online social
experience more seamless and tailored, it is questionable as to how relevant,
or even desirable, such a shift may be.
At present, it may appear that Google is wearing far too many hats, and
users should be wary of placing all eggs into one basket. As
the launch of Buzz has shown us, user consent and the contextual integrity of
private personal information can be compromised when a diverse number of online
services are integrated and given a social spin. When competition among social web providers
drives users to lose control of the private information which is inherently theirs,
critical questions surrounding competition, convergence and privacy require
critical exploration. </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/does-the-social-web-need-a-googopoly'>http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/does-the-social-web-need-a-googopoly</a>
</p>
No publisherrebeccaPrivacySocial NetworkingCompetitionGoogle Buzz2011-08-18T05:06:37ZBlog EntryThe (in)Visible Subject: Power, Privacy and Social Networking
http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/the-in-visible-subject-power-privacy-and-social-networking
<b>In this entry, I will argue that the interplay between privacy and power on social network sites works ultimately to subject individuals to the gaze of others, or to alternatively render them invisible. Individual choices concerning privacy preferences must, therefore, be informed by the intrinsic relationship which exists between publicness/privateness and subjectivity/obscurity. </b>
<strong><br />The Architecture of Openness</strong>
<p> </p>
<div>
<div id="parent-fieldname-text">
<p>Through a Google search or a quick scan of Facebook, people
today are able to gain “knowledge” on others in a way never once
possible. The ability to search and collect information
on individuals online only continues to improve as online social networks grow
and
search engines become more comprehensive.
Social networks, and the social web more broadly, has worked to
fundamentally alter the nature of personal information made available
online. Social networking services today enable the average person, with web access, to publish information through a “social
profile”. Personal
information made available online is now communicative, narrative and
biographic. Consequentially, social profiles have become
rich containers of personal information that can be searched, indexed
and
analyzed.</p>
<p>The architecture of the social web further encourages users
to enclose volumes of personally identifiable information. Most social
network sites embrace the “ethos
of openness” as, by default, most have relaxed privacy settings. While
most sites give users relative control
over the disclosure of personal information, services such as MySpace,
Facebook
and Live Journal are far ahead of the black and white public/private
privacy
models of sites such as Bebo and Orkut. Bebo,
for example, only allows users to disclose information to “friends” or
“everyone”, granting little granularity for diverse privacy
preferences. MySpace and Facebook, on the other hand, have
made room for “friends of friends”, among other customizable group
preferences. All networking sites also consider certain pieces
of basic information publicly available, without privacy controls. On
most sites, this includes name,
photograph, gender and location, and list of friends. Okrut, however,
considers far more
information to public—leaving the political views and religions of its’
members
public. This openness leaves the
individual with little knowledge or control over how their information
is
viewed, and subsequently used.</p>
<p>Search functionality has also increased the visibility of
individuals outside their immediate social network. For example, sites
such Facebook and LinkedIn
index user profiles through Google search.
Furthermore, all social network sites index their users, effectively
allowing profiles to be searched by other users through basic
registration data,
such as first and last name or registered email address. While most
services allow users to remove
their profiles from external search engines, they are often not able to
effectively control internal searches. Orkut,
for example, does not allow users to disable internal searches according
to
their first and last names. LinkedIn and
MySpace also maintains that users be searchable by their email
addresses.</p>
<p>Through this open architecture and search functionality, social
network sites have rendered individuals more “visible” vis-à-vis one
another. The social web has effectively
altered the spatial dimensions of our social lives as grounded, embodied
experience becomes ubiquitous and multiply experienced. Privacy, in the
online social milieu, assumes
greater fluidity and varied meaning—transcending spatially
constructed
understandings of the notion. </p>
<p>While the architecture of social networking sites encourages
users to be more “public”, heightened control, or “more privacy” is
generally
suggested as the panacea to privacy concerns.
However, the public/private binary of privacy talk often fails to
capture the complex nexus which exists between privacy and power in the
networked ecosystem. Privacy preferences
on social networks, and the consequences thereof, are effectively shaped
and
influenced by structures of power. In
this entry, I will argue that the interplay between privacy and power
works
ultimately to expose individuals to the subjective gaze of others, or to
render
them invisible. In this respect,
individual choices concerning privacy preferences must be informed by
the
intrinsic relationship between notions of publicness/privateness and
subjectivity/obscurity.</p>
<p><strong>Power and
Subjectivity </strong></p>
<p>The searchable nature of the social profile allows others to
quickly and easily aggregate information on one another. As privacy
scholar Daniel Solve <a href="http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/dsolove/Future-of-Reputation/text.htm">notes</a>,
social searching may be of genuine intent – individuals
use social networking services to locate old friends, and to connect
with current
colleagues. However, curiosity does not
always assume such innocence, as fishing expeditions for personal
information
may serve the purpose of judging individuals based perception of the
social
profile. The relatively power of search
and open information can be harnessed to weed out potential job
applicants, or
to rank college applicants. Made
possible through the architecture of the web and social constructions of
power,
individuals may be subjected to the deconstructive gaze of superiors. </p>
<p>The architecture of social networking sites significantly compliments
this nexus between privacy and power. As
individual behavior and preferences become more transparent, the act of
surveillance is masked behind the ubiquity and anonymity of online
browsing. Drawing
on Foucault’s panopticism, social networks make for the
“containerization” of social
space –allowing the powerful to subjectively hierarchize and classify
individuals in relation to one another<a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/../others/the-in-visible-subject-power-privacy-and-social-networking-1#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"></span></span></a>
[1]. This practice becomes particularly
troublesome online, as individuals are often unable to control how they
are constructed
by others in cyberspace. </p>
<p>Perfect control is difficult to guarantee in an ecosystem
where personal information is easily searched, stored, copied, indexed,
and
shared. In this respect, the privacy
controls of social networking sites are greatly illusory. Googling an
individual’s name, for example,
may not reveal the full social profile of an individual, but may unveil
dialogue involving the individual in a public discussion group. The
searchable nature of personal information
on the web has both complicated and undesirable consequences for privacy
of the
person for, what I believe, to be two main reasons.</p>
<p>The first point refers to what Daniel J. Solve describes as
the “<a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID440200_code249137.pdf?abstractid=440200&rulid=39703&mirid=1">virtue
of knowing less</a>”.
Individuals may be gaining more “information” on others through the
internet, but this information is often insufficient for judging one’s
character as it only communicates one dimension of an individual. In <a href="http://heinonlinebackup.com/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/washlr79&section=16">her
work</a>, Helen Nissenbaum emphasizes the importance contextual
integrity holds for personal information.
When used outside its intended context, information gathered online may
not be useful for accurately assessing an individual. In addition, the
virtual gaze is void of the
essential components of human interaction necessary to effectively
understand
and situate each other. As Solve notes,
certain information may distort judgment of another person, rather than
increasing
its accuracy.</p>
<p>Secondly, the act of surveillance through social networks work
to undermine privacy and personhood, as individuals seek to situate
others as
“fixed texts” <a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/../others/the-in-visible-subject-power-privacy-and-social-networking-1#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"></span></span></a>[2].
Due to the complex nature of the social self, such practice is undesirable. Online
social networks are socially constructed spaces, with diverse meanings
assigned
by varied users. One may utilize a social
network service to build and maintain professional relationships, while
another
may use it as an intimate space to share with close friends and family.
James Rachels’ <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/6152658/Why-Privacy-is-Important-James-Rachels">theory
of
privacy</a> notes that privacy is important, as it allows individuals
to
selectively disclose information and to engage in behaviors appropriate
and
necessary for maintaining diverse personal relationships. Drawing on
the work of performance theorists
such as <a href="http://books.google.co.in/books?id=gyWuhD3Q3IcC&dq=judith+butler+gender+trouble&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=5W56S_aTL4vo7APq4YmfCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CBgQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=&f=false">Judith
Butler</a>, we can assert that identity is not fixed or unitary, but is
constituted by performances that are directed at different audiences<a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/../others/the-in-visible-subject-power-privacy-and-social-networking-1#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"></span></span></a>
[3]. Sociologist Erving Goffman also notes that we
“live our lives as performers…<span class="msoIns"><ins cite="mailto:lynda%20spark" datetime="2010-02-15T17:54"> </ins></span>[and]
play many different roles and
wear many different masks”<a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/../others/the-in-visible-subject-power-privacy-and-social-networking-1#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"></span></span></a>
[4]. Individuals, therefore, are inclined to
perform themselves online according to their perceived audiences. It is
the audience, or the social graph,
which constructs the context that, in turn, informs individual behavior.</p>
<p>Any attempt to situate and categorize the individual becomes
particularly problematic in the context of social networks, where
information
is often not intended for the purpose for which it is being used. Due
to the complex nature of human behavior, judgments
of character based on online observation only effectively capture one
side of
the “complicated self”<a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/../others/the-in-visible-subject-power-privacy-and-social-networking-1#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"></span></span></a>.
As Julie Cohen <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1012068">writes</a>,
the “law often fails to capture the mutually
constitutive interactions between self and culture, the social
constructions of
systems of knowledge, and the interplay between systems of knowledge and
systems of power”. Because the panoptic
gaze is decentralized and anonymous in the networked ecosystem,
individuals will
often bear little knowledge on how their identities are being digitally
deconstructed and rewired. Most importantly,
much of this judgment will occur without individual consent or
knowledge—emphasizing the transparent nature of the digital self. <strong></strong></p>
<p><strong>Power and
(in)visibility</strong></p>
<p>In response to the notion that the architecture of the
social web may render individuals transparent to the gaze of others, the
need
for more “control” over privacy on social network sites has captured the
public
imagination. Facebook’s abrupt <a href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebook_pushes_people_to_go_public.php">privacy
changes</a>, for example, have<span class="msoIns"><ins cite="mailto:lynda%20spark" datetime="2010-02-15T17:58"> </ins></span>received
widespread
attention in the <a href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/why_facebook_is_wrong_about_privacy.php">blogosphere</a>
and even by <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/dec/17/facebook-privacy-ftc-complaint">governments</a>.
While
popular privacy discourse often continues to fixate on the
public/private
binary—Facebook’s questionable move towards privacy decontrol has raised
important questions of power and privilege.</p>
<p>A recent <a href="http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/archives/2010/01/16/facebooks_move.html">blog
post</a> by danah boyd nicely touches upon the dynamics of
power, public-ness, and privilege in the context of online social networking.
As she notes, “Public-ness has always been a
privilege…<span class="msoIns"><ins cite="mailto:lynda%20spark" datetime="2010-02-15T18:00"> </ins></span>but now we've changed the
equation
and anyone can theoretically be public…<span class="msoIns"><ins cite="mailto:lynda%20spark" datetime="2010-02-15T18:00"> </ins></span>and
seen
by millions. However, there are still
huge social costs to being public…the privileged don’t have to worry
about the
powerful observing them online…but most everyone else does –forcing
people into
the public eye doesn’t <em>dismantle the
structures of privilege and power</em>, but only works to <em>reinforce
them</em>” (emphasis added). </p>
<p>This point touches upon an important idea —that publicity has value.
This nexus between visibility and power is
one which unfolds quite clearly in the social media ecosystem. One’s
relevance or significance could,
arguably, be measured relative to online visibility. Many individuals
who are seen as “leaders”
within their own professional or social circles often maintain public
blogs, maintain
a herd of followers on Twitter, and often manage large numbers of
connections
on social network sites. The more
information written by or on an individual online, arguably, the more
relevant
they appear to in the eyes of their peers and superiors alike.</p>
<p>Power and privilege, however experienced, will be mirrored
in the online context. While the participatory
and decentralized nature of Web 2.0 arguably works challenge traditional
structures of power, systemic hierarchies and are often reinforced
online –as Facebook’s
privacy blunders clearly illustrates. The privileged need not worry
about the
subjective gaze of their superiors, as boyd notes. Those who may be
compromised due to the lack
of privateness, however, do. As boyd
goes on to argue, “the privileged get more privileged, gaining from
being
exposed…<span class="msoIns"><ins cite="mailto:lynda%20spark" datetime="2010-02-15T18:04"> </ins></span>and those struggling to keep
their
lives together are forced to create walls that are constantly torn down
around
them”. As public exposure may over often
equate to power, we must <span class="msoDel"><del cite="mailto:lynda%20spark" datetime="2010-02-15T18:04"> </del></span>critically
challenge
the assumption that the move towards more privacy control on social
networks will best empower its members.</p>
<p> If publicity can
potentially have great value for the individual, the opposite also rings
true. Privacy, as polemic to publicness,
alternatively works to diminish the presence of the individual,
rendering them
invisible or irrelevant within hyper-linked networks. With
greater personal protectionism online,
an individual may go unnoticed or unrecognized, fizzling out dully
behind their
more public peers. Drawing on social
network theory, powerful people can be understood as “supernodes” as
they
connect more peripheral members of a network.
As <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=629283">Lior
Strahilevitz notes</a>, supernodes tend to be better
informed than the peripherals, and are most likely to be perceived as
“leaders”. </p>
<p>As the power of the supernode relates to privacy, Strahilevitz
states that that “supernodes
maintain their privileged status by<strong> </strong>continuing
to serve as information clearinghouses….and, in certain contexts, become
supernodes based in part on their willingness to share previously
private
information about themselves”. It is within
the context of visibility and power that the idea of (in)visibility and
powerlessness online unfold. Those who
have most at risk by going public, may chose not to do so. Those with in
comfortable positions with considerably less to lose by going public may
be
inclined to “open up”. Heightened privacy
controls on social network services, therefore, can work to reinforce
the very structures
of power they seek to dismantle. </p>
<p>This is
not to argue, however, that more privacy is necessarily bad, and that
less
privacy is good, or that users shouldn’t be selective in their
disclosures –<span class="msoIns"><ins cite="mailto:lynda%20spark" datetime="2010-02-15T18:08"> </ins></span>to
the contrary. As personal information
has become ubiquitous and tools for aggregating information improve,
maintaining
privacy online becomes more pertinent than ever. However, the concept of
privacy
will only continue to become increasingly complex as digital networks
continue
to deconstruct and reconfigure the spatial dimensions of the public and
private. How are we to effectively understand privacy
in a social environment which values openness and publicity? Can the
fluid and dynamic self gain
visibility online without becoming subject to the gaze of superiors?
Will those who selectively choose
friends and carefully disclose personal information fizzle out, while the powerful
and less inhibited continue to reassert privilege? The interplay
between power and privacy on
the social web is a multiply constitutive and reinforcing synergy
–understanding
how to effectively strike balance between the right to privacy and
self-determination
is the challenge ahead.</p>
<p> </p>
<div>
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<div id="ftn1">
<p><a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/../others/the-in-visible-subject-power-privacy-and-social-networking-1#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1"><span class="FootnoteCharacters"><span class="FootnoteCharacters"></span></span></a><span class="footnotereference"><span class="footnotereference"></span></span>
1. see “Foucault in Cyberspace” by James Boyle</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn2">
<p><a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/../others/the-in-visible-subject-power-privacy-and-social-networking-1#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2"><span class="FootnoteCharacters"><span class="FootnoteCharacters"></span></span></a></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn3">
<p><a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/../others/the-in-visible-subject-power-privacy-and-social-networking-1#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3"><span class="FootnoteCharacters"><span class="FootnoteCharacters"></span></span></a><span class="footnotereference"><span class="footnotereference"></span></span>2.
Julie Cohen</p>
<p>3. Cohen citing Butler</p>
<p>4. Solve citing Goffman</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div id="viewlet-social-bookmarks">
<div id="shareit" class="hidden">
<div id="exit">
<h4>Bookmark & Share:</h4>
<ul id="viewlet_bookmarks"><li>
<a href="http://del.icio.us/post?url=http://www.cis-india.org/advocacy/others/the-in-visible-subject-power-privacy-and-social-networking-1&amp;title=The%20%28in%29Visible%20Subject:%20Power,%20Privacy%20and%20Social%20Networking">
<img src="../../../../++resource++sb_images/delicious.png" alt="Del.icio.us" />
</a>
</li><li>
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=http://www.cis-india.org/advocacy/others/the-in-visible-subject-power-privacy-and-social-networking-1">
<img src="../../../../++resource++sb_images/facebook.jpg" alt="Facebook" />
</a>
</li><li>
<a href="http://www.google.com/bookmarks/mark?op=add&bkmk=http://www.cis-india.org/advocacy/others/the-in-visible-subject-power-privacy-and-social-networking-1&title=The%20%28in%29Visible%20Subject:%20Power,%20Privacy%20and%20Social%20Networking">
<img src="../../../../++resource++sb_images/google.jpg" alt="Google Bookmarks" />
</a>
</li><li>
<a href="http://twitter.com/home?status=http://www.cis-india.org/advocacy/others/the-in-visible-subject-power-privacy-and-social-networking-1">
<img src="../../../../++resource++sb_images/twitter.gif" alt="Twitter" />
</a>
</li><li>
<a href="http://www.myspace.com/Modules/PostTo/Pages/?c=http://www.cis-india.org/advocacy/others/the-in-visible-subject-power-privacy-and-social-networking-1&amp;t=The%20%28in%29Visible%20Subject:%20Power,%20Privacy%20and%20Social%20Networking">
<img src="../../../../++resource++sb_images/myspace.png" alt="MySpace" />
</a>
</li><li>
<a href="http://digg.com/submit?phase=2&amp;url=http://www.cis-india.org/advocacy/others/the-in-visible-subject-power-privacy-and-social-networking-1&amp;title=The%20%28in%29Visible%20Subject:%20Power,%20Privacy%20and%20Social%20Networking">
<img src="../../../../++resource++sb_images/digg.png" alt="Digg" />
</a>
</li><li>
<a href="http://reddit.com/submit?url=http://www.cis-india.org/advocacy/others/the-in-visible-subject-power-privacy-and-social-networking-1&amp;title=The%20%28in%29Visible%20Subject:%20Power,%20Privacy%20and%20Social%20Networking">
<img src="../../../../++resource++sb_images/reddit.png" alt="Reddit" />
</a>
</li><li>
<a href="http://slashdot.org/bookmark.pl?title=The%20%28in%29Visible%20Subject:%20Power,%20Privacy%20and%20Social%20Networking&amp;url=http://www.cis-india.org/advocacy/others/the-in-visible-subject-power-privacy-and-social-networking-1">
<img src="../../../../++resource++sb_images/slashdot.png" alt="Slashdot" />
</a>
</li></ul>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="visualClear"></div>
<h5 class="hiddenStructure">Document Actions</h5>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/the-in-visible-subject-power-privacy-and-social-networking'>http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/the-in-visible-subject-power-privacy-and-social-networking</a>
</p>
No publisherrebeccaSocial NetworkingAttention EconomyFacebookPrivacy2011-08-18T05:06:52ZBlog Entry