10 things we can we do when the government shuts down the internet
First, the government moved ahead and made rules to
shut our voice. Then, it went ahead and made rules to
shut down our access to independent voices and information.
The Economic Times reports that our enlightened government (read a few top bureaucrats and assorted politicians) has made some changes to the already troublesome IT Act 2008, giving some government servants the power over all ISPs,
blocking the internet for all practical purposes.
They have invoked the old '
National Security in Danger' scenario:
The shutdown can happen in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, its defense, security of its states, friendly relations with foreign states or for public order. Failure to comply will result in imprisonment of up to seven years.
Actually, most of these bureaucrats and politicians, who make such citizen-hating laws, are more dangerous to Indians, and to the idea of a India, than the fear-mongering reasons they cite for creating laws and bye-laws.
I would like to think that it is only pure coincidence that our current minster for Information and broadcasting, Ambika Soni,
worked alongside Sanjay Gandhi, who made his name during
emergency days in the 70s, when Indira Gandhi muzzled the press ( and did much more) in name of National security.
Consider our '
democratic' setup, if you will. Most of our lawmakers in the parliaments win by narrow margins. Only half the population votes (the average voting percentage is always around 50%). These elected representatives go on to
'rule' our country. And, you cannot recall them over any issue. Rules such as these (shutting the internet) call for immediate recall of our MPs. But we can't do that. I hear Switzerland has 1-year terms for its elected representatives.
It is even worse in case of our bureaucrats. Politicians can be recalled, or at least voted out of power. It is extremely hard to remove or punish a bureaucrat. They have created many rules just to save themselves from situations like these.
The proposed 'kill switch': Is it feasible?
The oft-quoted cyber law expert Pavan Duggal (Isn't it strange that we have so few cyber law experts?) says in the Economic Times story:
Although it may be technically possible to block the net in India, theoretically it may be very difficult given the dynamic nature of the constitution and the judiciary.
10 options do we have in case someone actually 'kills' the internet
1. Go to the courts (fight for your fundamental rights)
2. Use Right to Information (RTI)
3. Get some people and file a Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
4. Buy Ham Radio sets and learn to use them
5. Make international calls to foreign ISPs
6. Use expensive/unauthorized satellite internet
7. Establish rogue radio stations (
Radio Raghav, Community FM)
8. Start something like
Citizen Band (CB) radios in the United States (In India, it will be illegal to use these)
9. Make Voice Calls which get onto Twitter (Re: the Egypt Uprisings, where
Google launched Voice Call-to-Twitter service)
10. Copy all kinds of available information and distribute freely: Keep Manual Printing Press handy. Download the full Wikipedia and re-purpose it in various formats
11. Prepare: Throughout human history, a group of people has tried to rule by force on others, by all means necessary, including obscure laws created by pseudo-democratic set ups. Start by making friends with people who believe in liberty for all.
Also read
Labels: law, online rights
If your government shuts down blogging, shut down your government
The above graphic became popular during the uprisings in the Arab world, in Egypt and elsewhere. The image of Pharaoh is modified to look like the eponymous 'V' of the famous '
V for Vendetta' movie, which many see '
an allegory of oppression by government'. Others see as '
a statement against government intervention into the lives of the citizens'.
During the best of times, the concept of Free Speech in our country is a 'tolerated' idea rather than a fundamental right. The Government of India reportedly plans to bring in something called 'Blogger Control Act", which will enable the authorities to work with Internet Access providers, filtering the content and blocking your blog temporarily/permanently if they find it 'objectionable'.
How can a few people decide what we view online?
The blocking of a blogging website, even if only for a short period, raises the disturbing question of curbs imposed on free speech in India through executive fiat. There is a clear pattern of Internet censorship that is inconsistent with constitutional guarantees on freedom of expression. It is also at odds with citizen aspirations in the age of new media. [...]
In this mighty age of user-generated content, will they require the whole country to register themselves?
One positive thing I can think about this news is that Blogging is not dead. In fact, blogging has become so powerful that governments fear it. Take that, Twitter.
Essential Reading on the topic:
On This Blog:
Labels: blogging, online rights
A simpleguide to Internet and Cyber Laws in India
Make a law, and people will follow. As we all looked away, the
Information Technology Act's amendment bill 2006 was passed in the Parliament without much debate and scrutiny and is awaiting ascent of the President and formal notification.
The
new additions to the IT Act make it clear that the terrorists have succeeded - they have run circles around ignorant, afraid, lazy and (help! I am running out of adjectives here) clueless people who we have entrusted to look after this country of ours.
A list of things you cannot do online after this Act comes into effect:- Do not tell a joke or forward a joke.- Do not surf content that corrupts your mind (legal speak: any material which is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or if its effect is such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons)- Do not watch porn (earlier, only people dealing in pornography were targeted)- Do not steal or ‘misuse’ information. If found guilty, you can get up to three years in prison and a fine of up to Rs 1 lakh.A list of things the government can do if it thinks you are violating the law:- Even a local Police Inspector can investigate complaints against you. Earlier only an officer of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or higher could do that. - The government can intercept messages from your mobile phones, computers and other communication devices.– The government can block websites in the interest of national security.Meant to tackle cyber crime including fraud, phishing, cyber- terrorism, the IT ACT 2006 now sports around 45 amendments following recommendations made by the Parliamentary Standing Committee.
According to the National Crime Records Bureau,
429 persons were arrested in India in 2007 for Cyber-Crimes under the Indian Penal Code. 63 per cent of the offenders were in the age group 18–30 years (97 out of 154) and 29.9 per cent of the offenders were in the age group 30–45 years (46 out of 154). 99 cases, 46% of all cyber-crime cases, involved pornography.
Things actually good in the IT Act:- The government will set up Cyber Appellate Tribunals.- The government will be more serious about phishing and online frauds.- Under section 67 of the IT ACT, the new law does not extend to any book, pamphlet, paper, writing, drawing, painting, representation or figure in electronic form, provided it is in the interest of science, literature, art or learning or religion. Moreover, photos and videos are not considered art.Things that the IT Act does not cover:- As a founder of a
Citizen Journalism site, I am more concerned about “Safe Harbor’ provisions. In the United States, under the DMCA Act, sites are saved from liability arising from users who upload infringing content.
-
Who is liable in cases of transfer of copyrighted data(films, music etc.) using P2P (Bittorrent etc.) - the person downloading, uploading or both?
Un-encouraging Government History- In 2004, Avnish Bajaj, then CEO of Bazee.com, was
arrested because a MMS Video involving schoolkids from the Delhi Public School was put on sale on his website. He was later released on bail.
- In 2006, owing to government pressures, ISPs went ahead and
blocked access to all Blogspot blogs just because a blog had some ‘inflammatory’ material.
The Trend of Government Over-Activism around the worldThe amended IT Act is just another disturbing instance of ham handed legislation by governments around the world gaining sweeping new powers, sacrificing citizens' privacy in the process.
In the United States, they recently passed the US Real ID legislation without much debate. Australia is going to spend US$30.7 dollars to supposedly
filter the Internet.
Andy Burnham, a minister in the U.K. government is advocating for a
age-wise rating of internet websites, like the movies have.
The Chinese government has perfected the art of internet monitoring using an army of paid people and unpaid volunteers numbering in tens of thousands.
Countries in the Middle East Asia and others like Indonesia and Malaysia have worse laws dealing with the Internet. For example,
here.
Coming next: The National ID Card ProjectThe Government of India is soon going ahead with
The National Identity Card Project. As if, the driving license, the electoral voter identity card, the PAN card were not enough. After all, they are only too eager to give more business to the private IT firms. Trials runs are already on in several states across the country.
The United Kingdom government is also going ahead with an expensive (IT firms, rejoice)
National ID Card project amidst
protests from citizens. The government’s argument got a jolt after it was found out that there was just one person responsible for the safety of revenue department details and he had accidentally lost a CD containing personal information of 25 million people, including their bank records and addresses.
Here’s what an
IT Security expert says:
1. Police would end up relying on automated ID checks instead of using their own judgment and intelligence.
2. People with the same or a similar name to people on terrorist and security watch-lists have been put on 'no-fly' lists and had their ability to travel freely restricted.
And the clincher,
3. If we take a cursory glance at Israel you can't argue that an Israeli citizen is safer today than they were 30 years ago. When people are willing to die all the bets are off and no security measures will work.
So, are we indeed sleepwalking into
a Surveillance society?
1. Do we let a few people what we view or do online? I tried to find who the members of the Parliamentary Standing Committee but I have so far. I wanted to check the expertise of our M.P.s – for example, how many of them have an online presence? What is their online diet? There are so many I wanted answers for.
2. How indeed are laws made in my country? What influences do lobbyists have? Why isn’t there more information about legislatures online? Why don’t they set up referendums for important laws?
3. Do we let a Police State take over our lives? How do I know the sub-inspector who has come to my house indeed can tell what crime is and what it is not? Does he have the knowledge and training? According to the NCRB, the
strength of police personnel per unit area in the country i.e., per 100 Sq. Kms. in 2004 was 42.2.
The strength of police personnel per 1,000 population in the country was observed to be at 1.2.4. Are we making sure that important laws, such as the IT ACT are made clear to the Public in General? All we have at present is this web page about
Cyber laws about India maintained by a
‘Cyber law expert’.
5. Do we have to accept government failures on reforming the police? For how long will the police have to work
‘for’ politicians? In September 2006, the Supreme Court of India laid down
principles for Police reforms in the country. So far, few states have done anything about it.
6. One reason the government gives out for the National ID card project is the influx of migrants, especially from Bangladesh. But, our politicians have encouraged these migrants to settle in metropolitan cities, in exchange for guaranteed votes for quite some time now.
7. Will things come to a pass and even this writer will have to think twice about posting such ‘inflammatory’ article online? Will governments around the world succeed in muzzling voices of citizens using dumb-ass laws, monitoring panels and what not?I sure hope not. Voices are all we have.
And,
8. Where is the Lawrence Lessig of India? The world sure needs some Lawrence Lessigs in its Parliaments.
Related links:
The IT Act 2006 (PDF)Labels: Cyber Crime, IT Act, online rights, simpleguide
95% of CCTV cameras in UK may be illegal
In this post 9-11 world, citizens accept many security measures as natural course of things without giving thought to the fact that their activities may be recorded by their employers, the police without any legal backing.
According to Data Protections in UK, anyone who wants to put security cameras in their premises or outside must inform the information commissioner first and must also put prominent notices outside informing people that their activities are being recorded.
CCTV compliance consultancy DatPro found in a survey of buildings and other installations that over 90 per cent of the UK's 4.2 million CCTV systems were
not compliant with the Data Protection Act.
This raises some important things to consider:
1. Are there similar laws in effect in other countries? Let us start with the developed world.
2. How much do we know about the legality of CCTVs in our cities? Is there any register of CCTVs for every city?
3. Do people know of relevant applicable laws?
4. Can we challenge those who are recording our activities to prove they have the necessary permissions?
5. It would be worthwhile to put prominent notices displaying that people are entering an area of
“constant observation” at their own risk.
It goes without saying that CCTV awareness is a topic which demands greater coverage from citizen bloggers everwhere.
Labels: digital rights, online rights, privacy issues
Whose rights online 2.0?
When a user-generated Web 2.0 site such as Livejournal.com says that
users are responsible for content of their submitted links, many might say Livejournal is being hypocritical. Some blog owners should modify Livejournal’s /any web 2.0 site's ToS and put them on their own blogs.
The background of this story : Recently, Livejournal
deleted by mistake hundreds of users’ accounts as suspected pedophiles.
This
‘responsibility clause’ raises two important issues:
1. Livejournal is not the only web 2.0 site that has clause. You can find variations, if not exact copies on other web 2.0 sites as well. Here is
Digg’s ToS, for example.
2. While one might argue that web 2.0 sites are making handsome advertising profits from user-generated data, without bothering to share, we must not forget the underlying economic realities of any web 2.0 outfit.
Batting for the web 2.0 sites' cause, a commenter on Slashdot
explains it best:
This is not about "your rights online". LiveJournal is a private company, not a govenrment agency.
Their web site is private property, and it is not a monopoly.
To speak of 'rights' on their web site is sort of speaking about rights at K-Mart. You don't have any. If you don't like what K-Mart does, you leave and go to their competitor.
If LiveJournal does something that you find intolerably stupid, then quit and go post on their competition's web site.
Labels: controversey, ethics, online rights, web 2.0
BBC and Microsoft: Best buddies in town
To watch BBC's video programming online, you need to install iPlayer which needs Microsoft Windows installed on your computer. As
Defective by Design says, it is like dictating
'you must own a Sony TV set to watch BBC TV'.
There's more: you must also accept Microsoft-inspired Digital Rights Management (DRM) that the iPlayer imposes upon you.
I never knew watching news video online would require so much hassle. BBC's online media initiatives were supposed to be harbingers of things to come, setting up BBC as an innovation leader.
The BBC runs more than 500 excellent news sites. However, in this case, DefectivebyDesign argues that BBC's
'Microsoft-friendly' approach stems from the simple fact that
important persons within the BBCorganization and the British Government are pretty close to Microsoft. The BBC's Director of New Media and Technology was openly sharing platform with Microsoft and touting DRM. Moreover, the man who is in charge of BBC Future Media & Technology, Eric Huggers earlier held a variety of senior posts at Microsoft.
It is no coincidence that Bill Gates has an honorary knighthood. Just the other day, I watched a detailed Bill Gates interview on BBC's tech program "Click Online", where the billionaire talked eloquent about bringing computing to the poor - he did not mention $ 3 Windows, plans to finish the OLPC, among other things. Which was fine but I was surprised that the interviewer did not ask any hard question, reducing the program to a good PR exercise for Microsoft.
DefectivebyDesign is running a campaign to pressure BBC to stop using the current 'pro-Microsoft' iPlayer. You can sign up
here.The BBC has considerable global reach. We should hope that it remains as objective in its tools selection as it is with its news.
Platform Agnostism is the way to go.
Labels: BBC, Microsoft, news business, news channels, OLPC, online rights
Lawrence Lessig’s Plan B to save the world
Lawrence Lessig, who founded Creative Commons, who played a special role in the Microsoft anti-trust case and who also wrote “Code”, has
decided after 10 years of dogged activism, that the cause for
public domain, net neutrality and limited copyright terms can be served better when you strike at the roots of it all – namely,
government corruption – money from big corporations going to politicians just so that the lawmakers keep churning up insane, suffocating laws that hinder public good and creativity.
The DMCA, formulated during Bill Clinton’s president ship in 1998 is a shining example of such a law.
Recognizing that the fundamentals of modern government machinery are themselves rotten, appropriately, Mr. Lessig has decided to shift the focus of his activism towards corruption and how it influences legislation - big money, lobbying, buying people, election funding - go figure.
Not surprisingly, Google has decided to follow Microsoft’s example and is busy building a
lobbying engine in Washington. One obvious reason is the raising concern for privacy issues. The Search giant stores an astonishing amount of users’ data and no one is feeling any comfortable with this.
The
nexus between governments and big corporations promises to suffocate manifold in digital universe inhabited in most parts by libertarian people.
Who knows? The worst of laws have yet to come.
Labels: DMCA, online rights, privacy issues, trends
