The Centre for Internet and Society
http://editors.cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 181 to 189.
Delhi gang rape: What Facebook, Twitter expose about govt
http://editors.cis-india.org/news/times-of-india-december-29-2012-delhi-gang-rape
<b>When constable Subhash Tomar collapsed during the anti-rape agitation in New Delhi, the government was keen to say he suffered injuries inflicted by the protesters. But the administration's version of events was challenged soon on social media, and the mainstream media latched onto the mystery and started pressurising the government to come clean.</b>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article was <a class="external-link" href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/social-media/Delhi-gang-rape-What-Facebook-Twitter-expose-about-govt/articleshow/17806247.cms">published in the Times of India</a> on December 29, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span id="advenueINTEXT">The Tomar episode, when <a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/social-media">social media</a> set the agenda and put the government on the back foot, is one more example of rise of people's power online. The political class in India has been shaken by the speed and efficiency with which the recent protests were coordinated. Some of them, like Abhijit Mukherjee, have ended up putting their foot in their mouth while others like Congress' youth icon and heir apparent Rahul Gandhi have not even cared to react. <br /><br /> The reason for Tomar's death is still unclear, but the post-mortem report has attributed it to external injuries. <br /><br /> "Frankly, right now, we haven't figured out how to deal with this phenomenon," said Congress Party Spokesman Sandeep Dikshit. <br /><br /> The anti-corruption movement of Anna Hazare, the Occupy Wall Street movement in the US, and the Arab Spring were all largely organised through <a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/social-networking-sites">social networking sites</a>. Even in neighbouring Pakistan, the raid that killed al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden was first reported on microblogging site Twitter, further highlighting social media's growing importance as a source of information. Such is the influence and impact of social media that many are increasingly referring to it as the "fifth pillar of democracy".</span></p>
<p>Influence bound to grow<span id="advenueINTEXT"> </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span id="advenueINTEXT">India has over 120 million internet users - Twitter has about 16 million and <a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Facebook">Facebook</a> over 60 million - but this is still just one-tenth of the population.</span><span id="advenueINTEXT"> </span><span id="advenueINTEXT"> </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span id="advenueINTEXT">Also, as 3G penetration increases, data becomes accessible on more feature phones. While about 221 million mobiles were sold in India in 2012, sales are expected to touch 251 million units in 2013, according to technology market researcher Gartner. With so much of growth still left to come, the influence of social media is only bound to grow. <br /><br /> Minister of State for Human Resource Development Shashi Tharoor, one of the early converts to social media and inveterate tweeter, said the social media space is a "parallel universe to the mainstream media" and that stories on these platforms have a "resonance of their own". </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span id="advenueINTEXT">"It is a medium that allows big issues to be made out of issues that mainstream media ignores but politicians cannot," he said. </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span id="advenueINTEXT">Brand guru Harish Bijoor is of the view that the political class must pay attention to the information revolution as India is a very young country in terms of demographics. "The political class appears a gerontocracy while 54% of the population is below 25 and 70% below 35. There is a disconnect that must be addressed." <br /><br /> Kedar Gavane, director at Internet analytics company ComScore India, said an average Indian Facebook user has about 300 friends. "That's the kind of reach an individual and his messages have on social networks," he said. "Twitter has helped us identify the common man's feelings. For instance, when a candlelight protest is organised, you get to know what the protesters are thinking." </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span id="advenueINTEXT">But the real question, he said, is whether people are actually willing to go beyond these platforms. "Whether it can become the Fifth Estate or not is hard to say because at the end of the day, this is just a channel for communication." </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span id="advenueINTEXT">With the government struggling for a credible response to the growing influence of social media, it has often resorted to blocking user accounts and web pages. The government, which blocked 663 webpages in 2012, asked Indian Internet service providers to block 16 Twitter accounts, including those of right-wing leaders and journalists. <br /><br /> In the first half of 2012, the government made 2,319 requests for information on 3,467 user accounts of search engine giant Google. <a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Google">Google</a> complied with 64% of these. <br /><br /> While the influence of social media is not lost on those such as Dikshit, he said the problem is "how to break in with an alternative view". "It is like a community of people who think the same way and validate each others' opinions. The number of people who validate your opinion does not make it the right opinion, but that fine distinction is getting lost somewhere." </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span id="advenueINTEXT">There are others who feel the role of social media in protests is often exaggerated. "The agency for change resides first in people and only secondarily in platforms," according to Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Centre for Internet and Society.</span><b></b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>(With inputs from Joji Thomas Philip in New Delhi)</b> <span id="storyendpath"></span></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/news/times-of-india-december-29-2012-delhi-gang-rape'>http://editors.cis-india.org/news/times-of-india-december-29-2012-delhi-gang-rape</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaSocial MediaInternet Governance2012-12-31T01:02:44ZNews ItemHacktivists deface BSNL website
http://editors.cis-india.org/news/times-of-india-india-times-december-13-2012-kim-arora-hacktivists-deface-bsnl-website
<b>The Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) website, www.bsnl.co.in, was hacked and defaced on Thursday afternoon.</b>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Kim Arora was <a class="external-link" href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/telecom/Hacktivists-deface-BSNL-website/articleshow/17603936.cms">published</a> in the Times of India on December 13, 2012. Sunil Abraham is quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A message on the home page said the attack was carried out by the hacktivist group, Anonymous India, as a protest against section 66 A of the <a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/IT-Act">IT Act</a> and in support of cartoonist Aseem Trivedi, on an indefinite hunger strike at Jantar Mantar since Dec 8 for the same. The website was restored around 7 pm.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Trivedi said he had received a call from Anonymous around 1.30 in the afternoon informing him that the website has been defaced. On being asked if such a form of protest was valid, Trivedi said, "When the government doesn't pay heed to people's protests against its laws and arrests innocent people for Facebook posts, then such a protest is absolutely valid."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">For most of the afternoon and early evening, the BSNL website wasn't available directly. A cached version of the BSNL home page showed an image of cartoonist Trivedi with text that read "Hacked by Anonymous India. support <a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Aseem-trivedi">Aseem trivedi</a> (cartoonist) and alok dixit on the hunger strike. remove IT Act 66a databases of all 250 bsnl site has been d Hacked by Anonymous India (sic)". While this message was repeated over and over on the page, it ended with the line "Proof are (sic) here" followed by a link to a page containing the passwords to BSNL databases. BSNL officials were unaware of the attack until Thursday evening.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Late in the evening, Anonymous India tweeted from their account @opindia_revenge: "BSNL Websites hacked, passwords and database leaked... Anonymous India demands withdrawal of Sec 66A of IT Act." <br /><br /> In an open letter to the Government of India posted on alternate media website Kafila in June this year, Anonymous had explained they only carried out <a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Distributed-Denial-of-Service">Distributed Denial of Service</a> (DDoS) attacks on Indian government websites, which is different from the act of hacking per se.</p>
<p class="callout" style="text-align: justify; ">Contrary views too exist. Sunil Abraham, executive director, <a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Centre-for-Internet-and-Society">Centre for Internet and Society</a>, says the attack was unwarranted. "Speech regulation in India is not a lost cause, the Minister is holding consultations, MPs are raising the issue in Parliament, courts have been approached and there is massive public outcry on social media. Therefore I would request Anonymous India to desist from defacing websites," said Abraham. A group of MPs, including Baijayant Jay Panda from Odisha, are scheduled to present a motion in Parliament on Friday morning for the amendment of section 66A of the IT Act.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Last month, two young girls were arrested in Palghar, Maharashtra, for criticizing on Facebook the bandh that followed the death of Shiv Sena supremo Balasaheb Thackeray. Before that, Karti Chidambaram, son of finance minister P Chidambaram, took a man to court for commenting on his financial assets on Twitter. In both cases, the complainant 'used' section 66 A of the IT Act. The section and the Act have since come in for wide debate regarding freedom of speech.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/news/times-of-india-india-times-december-13-2012-kim-arora-hacktivists-deface-bsnl-website'>http://editors.cis-india.org/news/times-of-india-india-times-december-13-2012-kim-arora-hacktivists-deface-bsnl-website</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIT ActSocial MediaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityCensorship2012-12-14T05:20:56ZNews ItemAyodhya trending on Twitter sparks censorship concerns
http://editors.cis-india.org/news/livemint-december-6-2012-surabhi-agarwal-ayodhya-trending-on-twitter-sparks-censorship-concerns
<b>On the 20th anniversary of the Babri Masjid demolition, the ShauryaDiwas, Ayodhya and Babri Masjid hashtags were trending on Twitter all day, with almost 2,500 messages sent over 48 hours.</b>
<hr />
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent" style="text-align: justify; ">Surabhi Agarwal's article was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.livemint.com/Specials/xFbIgqDW1qRzngiWdvl9NP/Ayodhya-trending-on-Twitter-sparks-censorship-concerns.html">published in LiveMint</a> on December 6, 2012. Sunil Abraham is quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent" style="text-align: justify; ">The tag ShauryaDiwas was used by supporters of the demolition and was used in half the total number of tweets.</p>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent" style="text-align: justify; ">Experts said the public display of extreme views on a social networking platform has the potential to create social unrest, leaving the government with few options but to regulate content, in turn fuelling the Internet censorship debate further.</p>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent" style="text-align: justify; ">A senior government official said that in a situation in which there are serious national security implications, the government has no option but to "block content" in order to stop communal sentiment from flaring up.</p>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent" style="text-align: justify; ">According to social web analytics firm Social Hues, the tweets reached an audience of 456,000 followers. However, according to <span class="person"><a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Vinita%20Ananth">Vinita Ananth</a></span>, chief executive of Social Hues, there were also messages that "condemned the call for ShauryaDiwas” tagging it ShameDiwas. "New platforms like Twitter are providing real-time feedback on public sentiment, which is unprecedented."<span class="person"> </span></p>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent" style="text-align: justify; "><span class="person"><a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Ashis%20Nandy">Ashis Nandy</a></span>, political and social analyst, said that even though very few Indians are on platforms such as Twitter, communications over them give a hint of what a certain section of the society is thinking about.</p>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent" style="text-align: justify; ">"It is a small representation of the middle class, which is driven by ideology and some of the people with extreme opinions may also belong to this group, so perhaps it could have some security implications," he said.</p>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent" style="text-align: justify; ">Fringe groups such as those above tend to take extreme positions to get attention, said <span class="person"><a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Sunil%20Abraham">Sunil Abraham</a></span>, executive director of Bangalore-based research organization, the Centre for Internet and Society.</p>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent" style="text-align: justify; ">Having learnt their lessons after the recent Assam-related panic, intelligence agencies are now keeping a close watch on the Internet, another government official said.</p>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent" style="text-align: justify; ">"If necessary, posts will be removed through legitimate ways," the official said, adding that a debate was underway about how to strike a balance between freedom of speech and the lawful requirement of agencies. "Mischief by a few people creates nuisance in society. The government is now looking for ways through which it can regionally block or remove inflammatory tweets. We don’t want to curb freedom of speech and the government doesn’t have any such intentions either," the official said.</p>
<p class="mceContentBody documentContent" style="text-align: justify; ">Hate messages on social media had sparked a panic exodus of people from the north-east from cities such as Bangalore, Pune and Chennai in August.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/news/livemint-december-6-2012-surabhi-agarwal-ayodhya-trending-on-twitter-sparks-censorship-concerns'>http://editors.cis-india.org/news/livemint-december-6-2012-surabhi-agarwal-ayodhya-trending-on-twitter-sparks-censorship-concerns</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaPublic AccountabilityInternet GovernanceSocial Media2012-12-12T10:38:01ZNews ItemOnline Censorship: How Government should Approach Regulation of Speech
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/economic-times-december-2-2012-sunil-abraham-online-censorship
<b>Why is there a constant brouhaha in India about online censorship? What must be done to address this?</b>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Sunil Abraham's article was <a class="external-link" href="http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-12-02/news/35530550_1_internet-censorship-speech-unintended-consequences">published in the Economic Times</a> on December 2, 2012.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Of course, we must get the basics right — bad law has to be amended, read down by courts or repealed, and bad implementation of law should be addressed via reform and capacity building for the police. But most importantly those in power must understand how to approach the regulation of speech.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">To begin with, speech is regulated across the world. Even in the US — contrary to popular impression in India — speech is regulated both online and offline.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">However, law is not the basis of most of this regulation. Speech is largely regulated by social norms. Different corners of our online and offline society have quite complex forms of self-regulation.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The harm caused by speech is often proportionate to the power of the person speaking — it maybe unacceptable for a politician or a filmstar to make an inflammatory remark but that very same utterance from an ordinary citizen may be totally fine.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">To complicate matters, the very same speech by the very same person could be harmful or harmless based on context. A newspaper editor may share obscene jokes with friends in a bar, but may not take similar liberties in an editorial.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The legal scholar Alan Dershowitz tells us, "The best answer to bad speech is good speech." More recently the quote has been amended, with "more speech" replacing "good speech".</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Censorship by the state has to be reserved for the rarest of rare circumstances. This is because censorship usually results in unintended consequences.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The "Streisand Effect", named after the singer-actor Barbra Streisand, is one of these consequences wherein attempts to hide or censor information only result in wider circulation and greater publicity.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Maharashtra police's attempt to censor the voices of two women has resulted in their speech being broadcast across the nation on social and mainstream media. If the state had instead focused on producing good speech and more speech, nobody would have even heard of these women.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Circumventing Censorship</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Peer-to-peer technologies on the internet mimic the topology of human networks and can also precipitate unintended consequences when subject to regulation. John Gilmore, a respected free software developer, puts it succinctly: "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it."<br /><br />Most of the internet censorship in the US is due to IPR-enforcement activities. This is why Christopher Soghoian, a leading privacy activist, attributes the massive adoption of privacy-enhancing technologies such as proxies and VPNs (virtual private networks) by American consumers to the crackdown on online piracy.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In India, and even when the government has had legitimate reasons to regulate speech, there have been unintended consequences.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">During the exodus of people from the North-east, the five SMS per day restriction imposed by the government resulted in another exodus from SMS to alternative messaging platforms such as BlackBerry Messenger (BBM), WhatsApp and Twitter.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In both cases the circumvention of censorship by the users has resulted in a worsening situation for law-enforcement organisations — VPNs and applications like WhatsApp are much more difficult to monitor and regulate.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Mixed Memes</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Regulation of speech also cannot be confused with cyber war or security. Speech can occasionally have security implications but that cannot be the basis for enlightened regulation.<br /><br />A cyber war expert may be tempted to think of censored content as weapons, but unlike weapons that usually remain lethal, content that can cause harm today may become completely harmless tomorrow. This is unlike a computer virus or malware. For example, during the exodus, the online edition of ET featured the complete list of 309 URLs that were in the four block orders issued by the government to ISPs.<br /><br />However, this did not result in fresh harm, demonstrating the fallacy of cyber war analogies. A cyber security expert, on the other hand, may be tempted to implement a 360° blanket surveillance to regulate speech, but as Gilmore again puts it, "If you're watching everybody, you're watching nobody."<br /><br />In short, if your answer to bad speech is more censorship, more surveillance and more regulation, then as the internet meme goes, "You're Doing It Wrong".</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/economic-times-december-2-2012-sunil-abraham-online-censorship'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/economic-times-december-2-2012-sunil-abraham-online-censorship</a>
</p>
No publishersunilSocial MediaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityInternet GovernanceCensorship2012-12-05T07:06:52ZBlog EntrySo Much to Lose
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/indian-express-dec-2-2012-nishant-shah-so-much-to-lose
<b>Unless you have been hiding under a rock, you have been a witness to the maelstrom of events that accompanied the death of the political leader Bal Thackeray.</b>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: center; ">Nishant Shah's <a class="external-link" href="http://www.indianexpress.com/news/so-much-to-lose/1038938/0">column was published in the Indian Express</a> on December 2, 2012.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Unless you have been hiding under a rock, you have been a witness to the maelstrom of events that accompanied the death of the political leader Bal Thackeray. For me, the brouhaha was elbowed out by the case of the police arresting two women for critiquing the events on Facebook. The person who wondered about the nature of the enforced mourning and the state of our public life, and her friend who “liked” the comment on Facebook, were booked and arrested under charges that can only be considered preposterous.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">I will not repeat these arguments because it is needless to say that I am on the side of the women and think of this as yet another manifestation of the stringent measures which are being evolved as an older broadcast way of thinking meets the decentralised realities of digital technologies.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In the midst of this the idea of internet freedom needs to be revisited. The global Press Freedom Index 2011-12 report compiled by Reporters Without Borders, ranks India at 131, or as a “partly free” country, marking us as a country where the notion of internet freedom is not to be taken for granted, and possibly also one where the concept is not properly understood.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Citing various instances from the central government’s plans to censor the social web to the authoritarian crackdown on activists and cultural producers involved in online civic protests, from the traditional media industry’s stronghold over intellectual property regimes to the arrest of individuals for voicing their independent critiques online, the report shows that we not only have an infrastructure deficit (with only 10 per cent of the people in the country connected), but also a huge social and political deficit, which is being exposed by our actions and reactions to the Web.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Take the case of professor Ambikesh Mahapatra dean of the chemistry department of Jadavpur University, who was picked up by the police and lodged in the lock up for almost 40 hours for forwarding an e-mail that contained a cartoon of Trinamool Congress leaders Mamata Banerjee, Mukul Roy and Dinesh Trivedi. He and his housing society co-resident Subrata Sengupta were charged with defamation and outraging the modesty of a woman. While the proceedings are underway with the next date of hearing slated in February, 2013, the Jadavpur university professor says, “Section, 66A of the IT Act is being used for suppression of the freedom of speech. In my opinion, it is being misused by the state government, repeatedly. The section does not empower anyone to arrest those who voice their opinion and never meant to harm anybody’s image. Prompt action is needed to check the misuse of law.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Likewise, Ravi Srinivasan, a 46-year-old a businessman from Pondicherry, was arrested for tweeting against Karti Chidambaram, son of Union Finance Minister P Chidambaram. His arrest and consequent release has not blunted his spirit. He says, “At the time (of the arrest) I had not heard of Section 66(A). I still cannot fathom why and how a tweet sent out to just 12 people — half of them family and friends — caught the eye of the police. By evening, when I had come home from the police station, my Twitter following had gone up to 1,700. About 15,000 people re-tweeted the statement that got me arrested.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Given the series of incidents that have marked the last year and the whimsical nature of regulatory injunctions on internet freedom in the country, it might be a good idea for us to reflect on democracy and freedom.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">We need to examine the fundamental nature of freedom, and how these attempts at regulating the internet are only a symptom of the systemic failures of enshrining freedom of speech, information, identity and dignity in India. However, internet freedom is often a difficult concept to engage with, because it is one of those phrases that seem to be self-explanatory but without a straightforward explanation. There are three axes which might be useful to unpack the baggage that comes with internet freedom, both for our everyday practices, and our imagined future:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Freedom of: The freedom of the internet is something that is new and needs more attention. We have to stop thinking of the internet as merely a medium or a conduit of information. As the Web becomes inextricably linked with our everyday lives, the internet is no longer just an appendage or an externality. It becomes a reference point through which our social, political and economic practices are shaped. It becomes a defining point through which we draw our meanings of what it is to be a part of the society, to have rights, to be politically aware, to be culturally engaged — to be a human. The freedom of the Net is important because the crackdowns on the Net are an attack on our rights and freedoms. The silencing of a voice on Facebook, might soon gag the voices of people on the streets, creating conditions of silence in the face of violence perpetuated by the powerful.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Freedom to: Freedom to the internet is often confused with access to the internet. While, of course, access is important in our imagination of a just society where everybody is equally connected, freedom is also about creating open and fair societies. If the power of the internet is in creating alternative spaces of expression, deliberation and opinion-making, then the freedom to the internet is about being safe and responsible in these spaces. A society that controls these spaces of public discussion, under the guise of security and public safety, is a society that has given up its faith in freedom.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Freedom for: It is often not clear that when popular technologies of information and communication are regulated and censored, it is not merely the technology that is being controlled. What is being shaped and contained is the way people use them. The freedom for the internet is about the freedom for people. The possibility that Internet Service Providers are being coerced into revealing personal information of users to police states, that intermediaries are being equipped to remove content that they find offensive from the web, and that views expressed on the social media can lead to legal battles by those who have the power but not the acumen to exercise it, all have alarming consequences. There is a need to fight for freedom, not only for the defence of technology but also for the defence of the rights that we cherish that risk being eroded.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The case of these Facebook arrests is not new. It has happened before and it will continue happening as immature governments are unable to cope with the real voices of representational democracy. These cases sometimes get naturalised because they get repeated, and even without our knowledge, can start creating a life of fear, where we internalise the regulatory system, not voicing our opinions and ideas for fear of persecution. And so, whether you agree with their politics or not, whether you endorse the viewpoints of the people who are under arrest, whether you feel implicated or not in this case, we have to realise that even if we might not agree with somebody’s viewpoint, we must defend their right to have that particular viewpoint. Anything else, and tomorrow, when you want to say something against powers of oppression, you might find yourself alone, as your voice gets heard only by those who will find creative ways of silencing you.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">— With inputs from Gopu Mohan, Madhuparna Das and V Shoba</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/indian-express-dec-2-2012-nishant-shah-so-much-to-lose'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/indian-express-dec-2-2012-nishant-shah-so-much-to-lose</a>
</p>
No publishernishantSocial MediaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityInternet GovernanceCensorship2012-12-07T16:39:09ZBlog EntryGovt tweaks enforcement of IT Act after spate of arrests
http://editors.cis-india.org/news/livemint-politics-november-29-2012-surabhi-agarwal-govt-tweaks-enforcement-of-it-act-after-spate-of-arrests
<b>The government on Thursday tweaked the law to make it tougher for citizens to be arrested for online comments that are deemed offensive after recent arrests came in for heavy criticism by Internet activists, the media and other groups.</b>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Surabhi Agarwal's article was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.livemint.com/Politics/hJLTj0OG2oXS1W64jE20bL/Govt-tries-to-tighten-application-of-cyber-law.html">published in LiveMint</a> on November 29, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This took place just before the Supreme Court was to hear a public interest litigation seeking an amendment to the Information Technology (IT) Act.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Complaints under the controversial Section 66A of the IT Act, which criminalizes “causing annoyance or inconvenience” online or electronically, can be registered only with the permission of an officer of or above the rank of deputy commissioner of police, and inspector general in metro cities, said a senior government official.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The government, however, has not amended the terms in the section that are said to be vague and subject to interpretation.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The public interest litigation against Section 66A filed by student Shreya Singhal came up in chief justice <a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Altamas%20Kabir">Altamas Kabir</a>’s court on Thursday. The matter will be heard on Friday.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Two girls near Mumbai were arrested last week for criticizing on <a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Facebook">Facebook</a> the shutdown in the city for Shiv Sena chief <a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Bal%20Thackeray">Bal Thackeray</a>’s funeral. Earlier in November, a businessman in Puducherry was arrested for comments made on <a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Twitter">Twitter</a> against finance minister <a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/P.%20Chidambaram">P. Chidambaram</a>’s son <a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Karti%20Chidambaram">Karti Chidambaram</a>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">According to people present at the meeting of the cyber regulatory advisory committee on Thursday, the Union government will issue guidelines to states with respect to the compliance of the new enforcement rules soon. The people didn’t want to be named. An official said the move was not related to the case.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Pranesh%20Prakash">Pranesh Prakash</a>, policy director at the Centre for Internet and Society think tank, said that while the change in the law is a step in the right direction and will eliminate a lot of frivolous complaints, more needs to be done to make the legislation specific.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Chief justice Kabir said the apex court was considering taking suo motu cognisance of recent incidents.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Singhal contended in her plea that “the phraseology of section 66A of the IT Act, 2000, is so wide and vague and incapable of being judged on objective standards, that it is susceptible to wanton abuse and, hence, falls foul of Article 14, 19 (1)(a) and Article 21 of the Constitution.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">She submitted that “unless there is judicial sanction as a prerequisite to the setting into motion the criminal law with respect to freedom of speech and expression, the law as it stands is highly susceptible to abuse and for muzzling free speech in the country.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The PIL was argued by Mukul Rohatgi, who said in his opening remarks that Section 66A was vague. Terms such as “offensive” and “annoyance” should be clearly defined as the section is part of criminal law, he said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Senior advocate Harish Salve, who was also present during the hearing, said India guaranteed the right to “annoy” and there was no need to have a separate law.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Salve, who is in the process of filing an intervention on behalf of some technology companies, added that the section needed to be narrowed to specifically cater to private messages sent electronically and not social media communications.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">He said the existing law of defamation should suffice and could be extended to include electronic communications. According to a lawyer who is part of the team representing Singhal, the petition also demanded that the law be made non-cognisable so that the police can’t make an arrest without an order from a magistrate.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“There has been a lot of misuse and abuse of the law recently and we want it to be struck down absolutely and also the court to issue guidelines,” he said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Apart from the incident at Palghar in Thane district involving the two girls, Singhal’s PIL referred to an April incident in which a professor of chemistry from Jadavpur University in West Bengal, <a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Ambikesh%20Mahapatra">Ambikesh Mahapatra</a>, was arrested for posting a cartoon concerning chief minister <a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Mamata%20Banerjee">Mamata Banerjee</a> on a social networking site.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">She also referred to the Puducherry case as well as the May arrests of two <a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Air%20India">Air India</a> Ltd employees, <a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/V.%20Jaganatharao">V. Jaganatharao</a> and <a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Mayank%20Sharma">Mayank Sharma</a>, by the Mumbai Police under the IT Act for posting content on Facebook and <a href="http://www.livemint.com/Search/Link/Keyword/Orkut">Orkut</a> against a trade union leader and some politicians.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Singhal has sought guidelines from the apex court to “reconcile Section 41 and 156 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) with Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution” and that offences under the Indian Penal Code and any other legislation, if they involve the freedom of speech and expression, be treated as a non-cognizable offences for the purposes of Sections 41 and 156 (1).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Section 41 of CPC empowers the police to arrest any person without an order from a magistrate and without a warrant in the event that the offence involved is a cognizable offence. Section 156 (1) empowers the investigation by the police into a cognizable offence without an order from a magistrate.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The government official present at the cyber regulatory advisory committee said the expressions used in Section 66A had been taken from different statutes around the world, including the UK and the US.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“There has been a broad consensus that the parameters of the law concerned might be in order but from a procedural standpoint there might be difficulty,” the official said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Prakash said that while some of the terms in the section may be taken from legislation overseas, the penalty imposed under the Indian law is far more stringent at three years of imprisonment than, for instance, six months under the UK law. “Criminal offences can’t be put at the same level as something which causes insult.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The cyber regulatory advisory committee meeting was attended by minister for communications and information technolgy Kapil Sibal, and secretaries of the department of telecommunications and information technology, besides representatives of technology companies such as Google and Facebook, industry associations and civil society.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The official also said that the situation will be reviewed every three to four months based on “ground realities”.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A government official said on condition of anonymity that the decision to revive the cyber regulatory advisory committee had been taken at a meeting in August. Section 66A was put on the agenda since it was the subject of much debate, he said. The meeting, however, was not a pre-emptive measure ahead of the PIL that was taken up in the Supreme Court. The official also said that the government will spell out its position in court in favour of the legislation.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/news/livemint-politics-november-29-2012-surabhi-agarwal-govt-tweaks-enforcement-of-it-act-after-spate-of-arrests'>http://editors.cis-india.org/news/livemint-politics-november-29-2012-surabhi-agarwal-govt-tweaks-enforcement-of-it-act-after-spate-of-arrests</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaSocial MediaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityInternet GovernanceCensorshipInformation Technology2012-11-30T08:27:01ZNews ItemInterview with Pranesh Prakash
http://editors.cis-india.org/news/livemint-november-30-2012-video-interview-with-pranesh-prakash
<b>Pranesh Prakash of the Centre for Internet and Society talks to Mint’s Surabhi Agarwal about the controversial Section 66A of the IT Act and the government’s decision to tweak it. </b>
<hr />
<p>This video was <a class="external-link" href="http://origin-www.livemint.com/Multimedia/NXN6HB1L1UOLFyI8mwXUEJ/Video--Interview-with-Pranesh-Prakash.html">published in LiveMint </a>on November 30, 2012:</p>
<hr />
<p><iframe frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/TqDX3Y0jFhc" width="420"></iframe></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/news/livemint-november-30-2012-video-interview-with-pranesh-prakash'>http://editors.cis-india.org/news/livemint-november-30-2012-video-interview-with-pranesh-prakash</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaSocial MediaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceVideoCensorshipInformation Technology2012-11-30T06:58:39ZNews ItemThousands go online against 66A
http://editors.cis-india.org/news/dnaindia-nov-29-2012-apoorva-dutt-thousands-go-online-against-66a
<b>An online petition aimed at amending section 66A of the Information Technology (IT) Act and re-examining internet laws has garnered 3,000 signatures since it began on Tuesday — two days before Kapil Sibal, telecom and IT minister, chairs a meeting with the cyber regulation advisory committee.</b>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This article by Apoorva Dutt was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report_thousands-go-online-against-66a_1771070">published in DNA on November 29, 2012</a>. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">An online petition aimed at amending section 66A of the Information Technology (IT) Act and re-examining internet laws has garnered 3,000 signatures since it began on Tuesday — two days before Kapil Sibal, telecom and IT minister, chairs a meeting with the cyber regulation advisory committee.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The petition, anchored on Change.org, a platform for social initiatives, was started by Bangalore-based advocate Gautam John after two girls were arrested for their Facebook post on imposing a bandh in the city on the day Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeray was cremated. Following their arrests, Shaheen Dhada has deleted her Facebook account while her friend Rini Srinivasan who merely liked the post has opened a new account on the social networking site. However, she has vowed to refrain from making political statements.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">John is blunt about the legislative effect an online petition can have. l Turn to p8.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“Honestly, I don’t believe that a petition can change laws, but it gives concerned citizens a platform for documenting their concern in such troubling scenarios. To some extent, this sort of petition can represent a civil society’s point of view. No more can a government authority say ‘only NGOs care about an issue’. Now they know – thousands of ordinary people care,” John said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Centre For Internet and Society in Bangalore, points out the flaws in section 66A that have been exploited in cases like the Palghar incident. “Section 66A is very broadly-worded and the punishment (three years imprisonment) is excessive,” he said. “The law was borrowed – that too badly – from a British law. There are many a things greatly flawed in this unconstitutional provision, from the disproportionality of the punishment to the non-existence of the crime. The 2008 amendment to the IT Act was one of eight laws passed in 15 minutes without any debate in the winter session of Parliament.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The petition also aims to organise a meeting of the civil society stakeholders to look into these concerns. A similar meeting was scheduled to be held in August, but it did not take place.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Sudarshan Balachandran of Change.org is the lead campaigner and organiser of the petition. He hopes to hand over a copy of the petition to Sibal during the meeting on Thursday. “Sibal has gone on record to say that they will examine the law, and if they feel it doesn’t work, it will be junked. So I am hopeful,” said Balachandran.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/news/dnaindia-nov-29-2012-apoorva-dutt-thousands-go-online-against-66a'>http://editors.cis-india.org/news/dnaindia-nov-29-2012-apoorva-dutt-thousands-go-online-against-66a</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaSocial MediaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityInternet GovernanceCensorshipInformation Technology2012-11-30T06:40:38ZNews ItemDraft nonsense
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/times-crest-pranesh-prakash-november-24-2012-draft-nonsense
<b>Seriously flawed and dodgily drafted provisions in the IT Act provide the state a stick to beat its citizens with.</b>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Pranesh Prakash's <a class="external-link" href="http://www.timescrest.com/opinion/draft-nonsense-9274">op-ed was published in the Times of India</a> on November 24, 2012.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Section 66A of the Information Technology Act once again finds itself in the middle of a brewing storm. It has been used in cases ranging from the Mamata Banerjee cartoon case, the Aseem Trivedi case, the Karti Chidambaram case, the Chinmayi case, to the current Bal Thackeray-Facebook comments case. In all except the Karti Chidambaram case (which is actually a case of defamation where 's. 66A' is inapplicable), it was used in conjunction with another penal provision, showing that existing laws are more than adequate for regulation of online speech. That everything from online threats wishing sexual assault (the Chinmayi case) to harmless cartoons are sought to be covered under this should give one cause for concern. Importantly, this provision is cognisable (though bailable), meaning an arrest warrant isn't required. This makes it a favourite for those wishing to harass others into not speaking.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Section 66A prohibits the sending "by means of a computer resource or a communication device" certain kinds of messages. These messages are divided into three sub-parts : (a) anything that is "grossly offensive or has menacing character";(b) information known to be false for the purposes of "causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will" and is sent persistently;or (c) "for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages". This carries with it a punishment of up to three years in jail and a fine without an upper limit. As even non-lawyers can see, these are very broadly worded, with use of 'or' everywhere instead of 'and', and the punishment is excessive. The lawyers amongst the readers will note that while some of the words used are familiar from other laws (such as the Indian Penal Code), they are never used this loosely. And all should hopefully be able to conclude that large parts of section 66A are plainly unconstitutional.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">If that is so obvious, how did we end up getting this law? We copied (and badly at that) from the UK. The sad part is that the modifications that were introduced while copying are the bits that cause the most trouble. The most noteworthy of these changes are the increase in term of punishment to 3 years (in the UK it's 6 months); the late introduction (on December 16, 2008 by A Raja) of sub-section (c), meant as an anti-spam provision, but covering everything in the world except spam;and the mangling up of sub-section (b) to become a witches brew of all the evil intentions in this world.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Further, we must recognise that our Constitution is much stronger when it comes to issues like free speech than the UK's unwritten constitution, and our high courts and Supreme Court have the power to strike down laws for being unconstitutional, unlike in the UK where Parliament reigns supreme. The most the courts can do there is accommodate the European Convention on Human Rights by 'reading down' laws rather than striking them down.<br /><br />Lastly, even if we do decide to engage in policy-laundering, we need to do so intelligently. The way the government messed up section 66A should serve as a fine lesson on how not to do so. While one should fault the ministry of communications and IT for messing up the IT Act so badly, it is apparent that the law ministry deserves equal blame as well for being the sleeping partner in this deplorable joint venture. For instance, wrongfully accessing a computer to remove material which one believes can be used for defamation can be considered 'cyber-terrorism'. Where have all our fine legal drafters gone? In a meeting, former SEBI chairman M Damodaran noted how bad drafters make our policies seem far dumber than they are. We wouldn't be in this soup if we had good drafters who clearly understand the fundamental rights guaranteed by our constitution.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There are a great many things flawed in this unconstitutional provision, from the disproportionality of the punishment to the non-existence of the crime. The 2008 amendment to the IT Act was one of eight laws passed in 15 minutes without any debate in the 2008 winter session of Parliament. For far too long the Indian government has spoken about "multi-stakeholder" governance of the internet at international fora (meaning that civil society and industry must be seen as equal to governments when it comes to policymaking for the governance of the internet). It is about time we implemented multi-stakeholder internet governance domestically. The way to go forward in changing this would be to set up a multi-stakeholder body (including civil society and industry) which can remedy this and other ridiculously unconstitutional provisions of our IT Act.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/times-crest-pranesh-prakash-november-24-2012-draft-nonsense'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/times-crest-pranesh-prakash-november-24-2012-draft-nonsense</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshIT ActSocial MediaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionPublic AccountabilityInternet Governance2012-12-03T09:08:10ZBlog Entry