AIFON

An interesting study conducted by IRIS Knowledge Foundation, in association with IAMAI suggests that in over 150 Loksabha constituencies, Face Book users are likely to have a significant influence on the voter’s choices in the election. This means that 28% of the seats are capable of being influenced by Netizens either because they are themselves the voters or that they can influence at least one other voter.

As can be expected, in Karnataka, the study has suggested that 12 of the 28 Loksabha constituencies can be influenced by the Netizens meaning that nearly 43% of the voters in the State can be significantly influenced by the Netizens.

Aifon.org.in has been suggesting that in a city like Bangalore the influence of Netizens could be decisive. The impact can be even more perceptible this time since the general population and the traditional voter base will be presented with a choice of 4 or 5 strong candidates in each of the constituencies. Hence even a 70% voter turn out is likely to see a split of votes to the extent that a support of 20% the polled votes can result in a victory for the candidates.

If out of these voters, 10% are the newly registered voters, then the results can be far more surprising than what the normal pollsters can predict.

This situation is very encouraging for a party like Loksatta which does not have the baggage of corruption or non Governance which all other parties need to counter.

Now that Mr Narendra Modi has opted to keep a distance, the BJP with the stated leadership of the current CM is unlikely to be able to successfully ward off the anti incumbency effect. We can therefore expect that its voter base which was about 34% in the last election may split right down the middle at 17%.

The situation is therefore very rosy for Congress which had a 35% vote share in the last year. Even if it dips down to 30%,  the possibility of the party gaining significantly is very high.

However in individual constituencies, some independents may buck this trend and come home on the basis of “There is No other worthy candidate”. Within this category, Loksatta with it’s “Independent-Organized” image may be able to win a few seats and make its presence felt.

In particular in Bangalore City, Loksatta has the advantage of a high reach of Netizens and  a large number of new voters and if their campaign is well managed the party should be able to taste surprising success.

The Loksabha constituencies that have been identified by the study as those in which Facebook users will have a significant impact are as follows:

Loksatta has candidates in Bangalore, Mysore and a a few other places. However in Bangalore and Mysore itself there are a good number of candidates who can take advantage of the Social Media in campaigning.

We need to however wait and see how this funds starved contingent would use the Social Media effectively to extract campaign success.

Naavi

To

All Candidates seeking election to Karnataka Assembly

A Memorandum from “Netizens of Karnataka” who are expected to be over 12% of the population in the State and over 20% in the Urban area.

Dear Sir/Madam

I understand that you are contesting the forthcoming Assembly elections in Karnataka. At the outset, I wish you all the best.

I am one of the voters of Karnataka from the Basavanagudi constituency. I am also a “Netizen” meaning, a citizen of the cyber space using Internet for various activities of mine both social and commercial. I have been a Netizen activist taking up the causes of Netizens in various fora from time to time. I am also the founder of www.naavi.org, founder secretary of Cyber Society of India, Founder Trustee of IIIT Law, Founder Trustee of Digital Society of India etc. I have also recently formed an “All India Forum of Netizens” on the web (www.aifon.org.in).

I believe that Internet has a great role to play in the welfare of the society . I consider that Internet can be used for various activities in Governance and can be a good tool in achieving “Prosperity of the Society through Netizens”.

If you/your party believe that “Transparency”, “Good Governance”, “Access to Citizens”, “Freedom” are important objectives you pursue, I believe that Internet is perhaps the tool that could achieve these objectives.

The “Voice of the Netizens” therefore needs to be heard and I am looking at how your party is looking at “Netizens” as a “Class of Voters” and how you are intending to address their needs.

I consider that “Welfare of Netizens” should also be part of the agenda of any candidate seeking the elections and on behalf of the Netizens in general, I am placing the following demands before you.

Charter of Demands from Netizens:

1. Digital ID for all (like Aadhar number)

2. Internet access for all at affordable cost

3.Cyber Security policy for the State

4. Adjudication facility to be made functional

5. Netizen Rights Commission for the State

6. E Consumer Protection

7. Centralized Cyber Teaching upto X standard

I have explained in detail why I am raising these demands in the website www.aifon.org.in but am briefly reiterating the benefits below.

1. Digital IDs:

In order to provide larger, meaningful participation of Netizens in the Governance of the society it is essential that they are able to interact with the administration in a legally acceptable manner establishing proper identity in communications. Indian law already provides legal recognition to “Digital Signatures” which can be used as a non repudiable authentication of any person in emails or other internet communications. Citizens who have a “Voter ID” can vote in physical space. If they have a “Digital ID” they can even vote electronically. There can also be frequent referendum on issues of importance to the public and we can break the current corrupt politician’s role in administration according to which they behave as if it is their right to consider that “Once elected, they are Kings for 5 years”.

I therefore consider that there should be free digital ID provided to all Netizens just as the free Aadhar ID for all Citizens. We can first start this with Bangalore city and use it in the Governance of Bangalore administration. It can enable better participation of citizens in the Governance, better transparency, better citizen-administrator interaction etc.etc.

2. Internet Access for All

This is already a concept which many countries have adopted. Internet access has been defined by some countries as a “Fundamental Human Right” such as air and water and the Governments are prepared to provide “Free Internet Access” to its citizens. This is a basic infrastructure like laying roads and other services can be delivered through the Internet to the public.

We can consider this in the first step as “Affordable Internet Access” and later as “Free Internet Access”. Many politicians promise Colour TV, Aakash Tablet etc to citizens. Providing free Internet access at least for citizen-government interaction (like toll free telephone) is not difficult or expensive. Kiosks can be set up for this purpose in public places which are connected only to Government websites and select facilities such as e-mail where the access is free.

3. Cyber Security

In order to support the internet infrastructure, it is also necessary to have adequate security and just as “Law and Order” is a responsibility of the Government, “Cyber Security” is a responsibility of the Net oriented Governance. I had managed a few years back to extract a promise from the then CM of the State to declare Bangalore as the “Cyber Security Capital” and undertake various activities to enhance the cyber security in Bangalore and Karnataka. I have also on my own worked on the mission of “Cyber Law Awareness in Karnataka”.

More initiatives need to be taken for making Karnataka the Safest Cyber State in India. This will enable more international investments in IT projects in the State and has economic implications.

4. Adjudication facility to be made functional

Karnataka is one state in India which does not have a proper Cyber Judiciary System. Cyber Crime victims of Karnataka seeking Civil remedies have been denied Adjudication facility by the executives. This has provided a free rein to the Cyber Criminals. The Adjudication office needs to be re-established.

5. Netizen Rights Commission for the State

In order to protect the rights of Netizens in the State, a separate “Netizen Rights Commission” would be helpful. This will supplement the activities of the Karnataka Human Rights Commission.

6. E Consumer Protection

Once we recognize the importance of Internet, E Commerce is bound to grow and this needs protection of E Consumers. Hence a proper policy and administration of E Consumer protection is required.

7. Cyber Education

Internet is a great medium of communication. Just to demonstrate its power I am including the “Cyber Vidyalaya” project which also had been presented to earlier Karnataka Governments as a suggestion. The idea is to create a statewide network where the best teachers contribute and create teaching material which is delivered through internet to all Government Schools which are reeling under shortage of teachers. Along with free internet access this will assist in the meeting of the Right to Education obligations. Initially this project can be extended upto X standard so that education upto X standard can be delivered to all citizens of the State at a nominal cost to the Government.

There could be additional projects of this type which are citizen friendly, economical and reach out to the real needs of the society.

By committing to the Netizen’s Charter, you would be able to express your commitment to growth through technology. Your party would get the image as “Progressive”.

I am aware that for the benefits of Internet to be reaped in full, we need penetration of Internet at levels close to 80% and we have a long way to go. But by using he mobile penetration and setting up Internet kiosks both in the Government sector and with participation of the public through “Cyber Cafes”, it is possible to achieve a quantum growth of Internet penetration within a short time. I have other detailed plans to achieve this. What we need now is to show case some projects which make people adopt the use of Internet for the betterment of the society rather than only for fun.

With this background, I request you individually to accept and adopt the Charter of Demands and incorporate it into your manifesto.

Check www.aifon.org.in for a more detailed explanation of the objectives that this memorandum represents.

Regards

Na.Vijayashankar as a Voter of Karnataka

P.S: I request all those who have access to the candidates to spread this message across.

The third point in the charter of demands placed before the prospective candidates seeking election in Bangalore/Karnataka is

3. Recognize the fact that Netizens have their own security needs and develop an effective Cyber Security policy for the State and implementation program towards making Karnataka a “Safe Cyber State”.

If “Internet access for all” has to have a desired positive impact on the society, it needs to be qualified as “Safe Internet for all”. Security is extremely important in the light of the global presence of cyber criminals who are looking for every opportunity to spread their tentacles. Hence “Cyber Security” is a very important concern of the society. Since “Law And Order” is considered part of the responsibilities of the Government, it is imperative that even in the Cyber Society, “Law and Order” needs to be given the due importance.

It is essential with or without “Internet access for All” as a policy, a separate “Cyber Security Policy for the State of Karnataka” under which all the requirements can be addressed. This includes “Cyber Security Education” in colleges, “Cyber Security Research”, “Mandatory Security implementation” etc.

If Karnataka becomes the most “Secure Cyber State” in India, that will alone attract investments from across the globe in new IT initiatives.

Several years back this idea was put up to the then CM, Mr Yeddyurappa to take steps towards making Bangalore the “Cyber Security Capital of the World”. Appropriate statements were made in the “Cyber Security Summit” but there was no follow up action.

In order to provide a further impetus to this thought, this has been added in the Charter of Demands.

Naavi

The second point indicated in the Charter of Demands of Netizens placed before the candidates seeking election from Bangalore and Karnataka is

2. Recognize and the fact that Netizens have their own Infrastructural needs and develop a “Netizen Welfare Policy” for the State which incorporates projects that move towards providing “High Bandwidth Internet Connection” at an affordable cost just like water and electricity.

Here is the reason why?….

At present the internet population of India is expected to be around 12% of its population. With most of the smart phone owners able to access Internet through their mobiles the access to Internet is spreading fast.

However with the Government moving over to mandatory delivery of service through Internet and the financial institutions such as Banks having already introduced e-banking as the preferred means of Banking, availability or otherwise of Internet access determines the “Digital Divide” in the country. It is as if persons who have access to Internet are more privileged and those who donot have access are less privileged.

In the future people who lack access to Internet are like “Digital Dalits” and need support from the community to be able to access various services that are available on the “Internet only” condition.

It is therefore considered that  “Internet  for all” is part of the policies that many Governments in the world are pursuing. Some countries consider that it is the duty of the Government to provide free internet access to all its citizens and are providing nation wide WiFi connections for this purpose with some bench mark level of bandwidth.

It is reported that  Finland  was the first nation to mandate universal broadband along with a minimum speed way back in 2009. All Finns were to have access to a 1-megabit per second broadband (Mbps) connection within 2 kilometers of their homes. It is planned that the speed of connection would further be increased  from 1Mbps to 100Mbps by the end of 2015.

In July 2012, United  Nations’ Human Rights Council unanimously resolved  that Internet Access is a “Human Right”. Several countries have already adopted the concept of “Internet as a Human Right” and are taking measures to provide access to all Citizens. The two issues connected with this are the bandwidth and price.

In India efforts are on to provide broadband connectivity across the country. Progress may be slower than required and perhaps the access is still not affordable to many.

Bangalore being the “Silicon City” it is imperative that it should take the first step towards “Internet for All” and also ensure a decent bandwidth and also an affordable pricing. If possible pricing of basic connection should be free.

The Government of Karnataka can therefore initiate steps in this direction. Initially we can work at “Free Internet” at all public places such as Railway stations, Bus Stands, Schools, Government buildings etc. Gradually the WiFi network should be extended across the entire State.

Availability of Internet access is a basic infrastructure like Roads, water and sewerage lines and will have many benefits that will follow. We often say that a new Road or Railway connection to a village will transform the economy of the village. Similarly  a new wave of economic growth for the entire State of Karnataka can ride on the availability of Internet freely.

It is in this context that we consider that “Internet For All” at affordable costs as the second of our demands in the Charter of demands by Netizens.

Naavi

In the Charter of Demand by Netizens of Bangalore proposed by the undersigned, several demands have been listed. I am trying to explain the demands further through a series of articles. This is the first of the series on Digital ID.

One of the demands put up is as follows:

1. Recognize the existence of Netizens as part of the voting Citizens by providing a “Digital ID” to every Netizen of India with which he can participate in e-Governance in a manner that the law of the land will recognize. For this purpose every Citizen who opts for Digital ID should be given a free Digital Signature Certificate as per the provisions of ITA 2008 of the class that enables him to digitally sign e-mails. Higher class of digital certificates if opted for should be subsidized by the Government.

This move will build the basic infrastructure for the Netizens to participate in activities through which they can assert their democratic rights.

The citizens of the country are today being given an ID in the name of Aadhar free of charge. What is proposed here is a similar digital ID which can be used by the Netizens for transacting in cyber space with a legally accepted form of authentication. This requires a digital signature certificate to be issued. The lowest class of digital certificate is “Class 1” which is usable for digitally signing and encrypting emails.

There was a time when E Mudhra was issuing class 1 certificates for Rs 100/-. Even now it is issued for trial certificate purpose by all Certifying Authorities free of charge.

However some time back, some Certifying authorities including E Mudhra stopped issuing Class 1 certificates and are now trying to sell only Class 2 and Class 3 certificates. These are expensive. E Mudhra today charges Rs 1000 for Class 2 (soft token) certificate with one year validity which is nothing different from the Class 1. Class 2 hard token may cost Rs 1650/- for one year validity. Class 3 may cost above rs 2000/- for one year validity.

Safescrypt also has removed Class 1 from its list of products. TCS is still selling Class 1 at around Rs 562/-.

Naavi.org has several times in the past argued that Digital Certificates should be provided to people at affordable costs and that would benefit the community with more of authenticated communications. Use of digital signatures will significantly improve the protection against spams and phishing and needs to be encouraged. But sadly, at the current prices digital signature certificates are not affordable by common people who want to use it for non commercial purposes. As a security product, digital certificates at current prices are as expensive as an “Anti Virus” software. This is unacceptable.

Part of the blame for this state of affairs rests with the Controller of Certifying Authorities.(CCA). The CCA instead of being “Consumer Oriented” has become an “Industry Body”. There is also a PKI forum which is also an industry body. Hence most decisions are based on increasing the profitability of the industry players rather than the needs of the Netizens.

Recently Naavi brought to the attention of the CCA that due to an adjudication decision of the Adjudicator of Karnataka, all the digital certificates issued by the current licensed certifying authorities could legally be declared void ab-initio and if corrective action is not taken, CCA would be a party to the cheating of the public. Unfortunately the officials in CCA did not understand the problem and did not consider it necessary to appreciate the point of view being made either out of ignorance or apathy or arrogance.

It is also a wrong interpretation of CCA in one of their circulars which has encouraged the Certifying Authorities to discontinue the issuance of Class I certificates as if it does not meet the requirements of ITA 2008 as a valid digital authentication tool.

At present the DeiTy is neither capable of nor inclined to address any such people oriented decisions as is evident by their apathy to the need for appointment of the Chairperson of Cyber Appellate Tribunal.

 Once the netizens have digital certificates, the online  banking transactions can be moved mandatorily to digital signature based instructions instead of the illegal and insecure system of password based authentication used by Indian Banks today.

Under these circumstances it has become necessary for Netizens to raise their voice in demand for a “Digital Identity at Affordable Cost”. Naavi therefore has proposed this as the first demand on behalf of Netizens.

The cost of managing such systems is not more than Rs 100/- per certificate per year and if an indigenous certifying system license developed by TCS is used, it should not be difficult to maintain the cost to less than Rs 100 as an one time fee.

For Governments which spend unnecessarily on laying and relaying pavements just to benefit contractors, or send MLAs on worthless foreign tours, it is not difficult to find money for one time issue of digital certificates to all the Citizens who anyway contribute to the Government exchequer through various taxes. Once a policy is in place we can ensure that value added services can be built on the possibility of authenticated e-communications and benefits can be reaped in several e-Governance projects to make the proposal feasible.

I want the Karnataka politicians to take up this cause and start a new trend in digital administration. Perhaps Bangalore is the right place to start this project and hence I propose this as a part of my Charter of Demands of Netizens for the Karnataka elections particularly for IT aware candidates.

Naavi

Netizens of Bangalore Demand…

Karnataka is going to polls shortly. Political parties are busy in finalizing their candidates. An action group called Bangalore Political Action Committee (BPAC) which consists of eminent personalities such as Kiran Mazumdar Shaw, Mohandas Pai and others have urged the politicians to commit themselves to make “Bangalore a better city”. (See this report).

While endorsing the views of the BPAC that Bangalore should be made a better city, I would like to point out that Bangalore being the IT Capital of India has a large population of “Netizens” and therefore the voters of Bangalore have a huge stake in the welfare of the Bangalore Cyber Space. What is good for Bangalore Cyber Space is also good for Karnataka Cyber Space and also the India Cyber Space or even the global Cyber Space.

I therefore would like to bring the following demands on behalf of the Netizens of India before the BPAC as well as other politicians aspiring to contest in the forthcoming elections.
The current charter of demand is as follows:

1. Recognize the existence of Netizens as part of the voting Citizens by providing a “Digital ID” to every Netizen of India with which he can participate in e-Governance in a manner that the law of the land will recognize. For this purpose every Citizen who opts for Digital ID should be given a free Digital Signature Certificate as per the provisions of ITA 2008 of the class that enables him to digitally sign e-mails. Higher class of digital certificates if opted for should be subsidized by the Government.

This move will build the basic infrastructure for the Netizens to participate in activities through which they can assert their democratic rights.

2. Recognize and the fact that Netizens have their own Infrastructural needs and develop a “Netizen Welfare Policy” for the State which incorporates projects that move towards providing “High Bandwidth Internet Connection” at an affordable cost just like water and electricity.

3. Recognize the fact that Netizens have their own security needs and develop an effective Cyber Security policy for the State and implementation program towards making Karnataka a “Safe Cyber State”.

During the regime of Mr Yeddyurappa as Chief Minister of the State a statement was made that measures will be taken to make the “Cyber Security Capital” of the world. Towards this cyber security projects of various kinds including education, research, software and hardware development etc were envisaged to be taken. The measures include making Cyber Crime Police more effective, reducing the adverse impact of cyber crimes on the society with better security, better prosecution and provision of Cyber crime insurance.

This promise remains unfulfilled and needs to be revived.

4. Recognize the fact that during the last two years, Cyber Judicial System in Karnataka has been closed with the IT Secretary who is also the Adjudicator of Karnataka and an exclusive judicial authority equivalent to a “Civil Judge”, effectively refusing to discharge his duties as an “Adjudicator”. This has made Karnataka the “Most Backward Cyber State of India”.

This needs to be corrected on a priority.

5. Recognize the fact that Netizens have a right similar to “Human Rights”. Protection of Netizen’s right to “Freedom of Expression” and “Privacy” are matters that require urgent attention. Measures are required to be taken at the local level to develop such policies that protect the rights of Netizens without adversely affecting the requirements of the security of the state or the possible misuse of the freedom of expression.

Towards this requirement, a “Netizen Rights Commission” has to be set up at the State level and policies of “Regulated Anonymity” and “Responsible Cyber Expression” to be implemented.

6. Recognize that Netizens are also “Consumers in Cyber Space”. In order to adequately recognize the “Consumer Rights of Netizens”, there is a need to expand and introduce effective implementation mechanism for protection of “E Consumer Protection” through a state legislation that covers consumers of mobile services, internet services, cyber cafes etc.

A large number of E Consumers are customers of E Banking, E Stock trading, E Commodity trading etc where the incidence of frauds is very high and the relative protection is low.

A separate institution should be set up for “E-Financial Consumer Protection” to provide assistance to victims of Cyber Frauds in the financial sector. This will be particularly useful to the Cooperative banking sector which functions under the State regulations more than under the RBI.

7. Recognize the power of “Cyber Education” and extend “Virtual Education” facility to all students upto X standard across the State by setting up “Centralized Cyber School” with a pool of state’s best teachers to contribute content which can be distributed through the internet to remote areas where there is acute shortage of qualified teachers.

In order to ensure implementation of the above suggestions, monitor and review the developments as also to suggest corrections and new activities, the State should set up a “Standing Committee” under the leadership and participation of voluntary organziations such as BPAC.

I am sending copies of this charter of demand to some prominent political parties and expect them to come up with their responses.

Na.Vijayashankar  (Naavi)

Netizen Activist and Founder www.naavi.org

The Chairman of Press Council of India, Justice Markandeya Katju, a former judge of the Supreme Court has completely abdicated his right to the quasi judicial position by repeatedly airing his political views on various issues of public interest.

His recent efforts to use his office and bring pressure on the constitutional functionaries to modify a decision of the Supreme Court of India is a clear indication that he has lost his sense of justice.

His repeated plea to grant pardon to Sanjay Dutt and the extension of the plea to Zaibunnisa is causing annoyance to all right thinking citizens of India who respect the rule of law and more particularly the families of all the Mumbai blast victims. Despite the denials, Mr Sanjay Dutt is linked to the Muaabi blasts which was a terrorist activity and the claim of Mr Katju that his offence is not a terrorist crime is a technical argument. Anyway by now extending the claim to Zaibunnisa, Mr Katju has extended his support even to a person convicted of the terrorist charges and hence his arguments can be seen as dishonest.

Under the circumstances Justice Mr Katju has abdicated his moral right to hold the office of the Chairman of Press Council and should resign immediately.

I urge the Government of India and the Chief Justice of India to take necessary action. I also urge the spirited citizens like Mr Subramanya Swamy to move the Supreme Court to remove Mr Katju from the post of the Chairman of Press Council of India.

I request Netizens of India to record their views on this matter by tweeting at :@naavi

AIFON has been pursuing with the Karnataka Government about the need to correct the great injustice done to the cyber crime victims of Karnataka by the previous IT Secretary of the State.

The matter relates to the adjudication order passed by  the adjudicator of Karnataka in December 2011 and January 2012 that Section 43 of ITA 2008 cannot be invoked by a Company nor against a Company.

The reason adduced is that the word “Person” used in the section applies only to an “Individual” and not a “Company”.

The justification provided was that there was another section called “Section 43A” which is applicable to “Body Corporates” and hence Section 43 is meant only for “Individuals”.

On the face of it this decision appears to be a result of ignorance on the part of the adjudicator about the history of ITA 2000 and why Section 43A was introduced as a means of providing “Data Protection”.

It also appear to betray his ignorance on the Karnataka General Clauses Act which clearly defines that the word “person” includes a Company.

It also appear to betray his ignorance on how this interpretation of his makes many of the other provisions of the ITA 2000/8 meaningless.

But on deeper analysis, a question also arises if this decision was actually out of ignorance or whether there was any other reason behind the decision.

The fact that one of the beneficiaries of the decision was  a contractor of the Government of Karnataka and more particularly of the e-Governance department which was also headed by the adjudicator and that the contractor benefited to the extent of nearly Rs 52 lakhs by virtue of the subject decision is a matter which needs to be taken note of.

When an executive of the Government  takes a decision which is grossly unfair and benefits a commercial organization to the extent of Rs 52 lakhs, there could be more than what meets the eye.

This matter has been brought to the attention of the Chief Minister of Karnataka as well as the current IT Secretary and the Chief Secretary. However so far no response has come from any of these persons.

Now that elections have been announced in Karnataka, the powers as well as the inclination to take any administrative decision at political level has declined.

But the executives of the Government such as the Chief Secretary and the current IT Secretary continue to have adequate powers to redress the grievances of the Cyber Crime victims of Karantaka. But they seem to consider the issue irrelevant.

AIFON therefore wishes to bring this information before the public so that the interests of the Netizens of Karnataka are not trampled under the ignorant or malicious or apathetic decisions of the executives of the Government of Karnataka.

If the executives remain adamant, it may be necessary for the public to either raise the issue in Lokayukta or the High Court or take it to the candidates aspiring to  govern the State after the current elections.

Related Letter

AIFON

Following is the copy of an email letter sent to  Chief Minister of Karnataka under copies to the Minister of Law and Parliamentary affairs and the Secretaries of IT and law departments as well as the Chief secretary of the state.

AIFON will continue to follow up on this matter in the interest of the citizens and Netizens of Karnataka.

One of the objectives of AIFON is to mobilize a consolidated response of the Netizen community during elections so that our voices will be heard.

Naavi

To
Sri Jagadish Shettar
Honourable Chief Minister of Karnataka
Bangalore

Dear Sir,

I take this opportunity to congratulate you on the two policy decisions announced yesterday during the budget introduction which has relevance to the Netizens of Karnataka, namely provision of Internet at Schools and setting up of Cyber Cafes in all villages.

These measures are likely to benefit the community in general by empowering them with tools of progress.

The move is also creating more Netizens in Karnataka and particularly creating Netizen population in rural areas.

I as the founder of www.naavi.org and the All India Forum of Netizens (www.aifon.org.in) has been a Netizen activist since 1998 and also involved in activities such as Police training on Cyber Crimes and some E Governance activities.

Incidentally, I was also part of Karnataka BJP’s IT forum and have also addressed party functionaries in Chennai in one of the regional meets on Cyber policy initiatives a few years back.

In fact I had several years back placed a “Cyber Vidya” project for schools of Karnataka and “E-Bridge Center” project for Cyber Cafes without much of positive response from the Government of Karnataka. However it is better late than never. I am happy with the current announcements.

However I need to also point out that close observers of the developments in Cyber Space administration in Karnataka are aware that Karnataka at present has the dubious reputation of being the one State in India which does not have any “Cyber Justice Administration” system and the situation has arisen because of a questionable action of the previous IT Secretary.

I have already brought this to your attention through my previous emails. I have also brought this to the attention of the current IT Secretary, Law Secretary, the Chief secretary, Mr Suresh Kumar the minister for law and parliamentary affairs as well as the previous Chief Justice of Karnataka. Unfortunately no action has come forth in this regard. In the light of this background your new announcements appear to be good intentions on paper unlikely to see the light of the day unless you take steps to address the peculiar situation created by your insensitive officials.

I would like to reiterate the issue briefly as a repetition.

The IT Secretary of the State is called the “Adjudicator” under Information Technology Act 2000 (ITA 2000) amended in 2008. He is the sole judicial authority for the State of Karnataka for conducting enquiries and awarding compensation to any victim of a contravention of the ITA 2000/8 upto a value of Rs 5 crores. No civil court has jurisdiction under such matters. The matters coming under his jurisdiction includes all cyber crimes such as Bank Frauds, ATM Frauds etc which touch the hearts of the population closely.

In one of the earlier cases Gujarat Petrosynthese Ltd Vs Axis Bank followed by two other cases of victims of Cyber Crimes against other Banks, the then adjudicator namely Mr M.N.Vidyashankar gave a judgment that no complaints will be accepted by him against any corporate authority or by any corporate authority under Section 43 of ITA 2000/8. As a result judicial remedy for all contraventions mentioned under Section 43 of ITA 2000/8 which is also linked to most of the Cyber Crimes punishable under Section 66 of the Act has been shut off for every corporate entity in Karnataka and for everybody against any corporate authority in Karnataka.

This is an absurd decision and raises serious doubts about the competence of the then IT Secretary. The fact that Axis Bank was the beneficiay and it is the Bank working as a business partner of the E Governance department of Karnataka makes the decision even more uncomfortable.

If this decision is not corrected at the earliest the incompetance of the earlier IT Secretary gets endorsed as the incompetance of the current IT Secretary and the Government of Karnataka.

I suppose neither you nor the current IT Secretary would like to go down in the history of Cyber Legislation in Karnataka as persons who failed to respond when required. My own repeated references to the authorities indicate that the lack of action cannot be attributed to lack of being brought to the notice of the Officials or the Ministers. At some point of time in future this matter will come for a discussion in a Court of Law and the reputation of the State of Karnataka as an IT Savvy state will come for ridicule.

The matter is of utmost importance to the welfare of the Netizens of the State who are also Citizens of the State.

I am personally pushing the need for Netizen oriented action from the State Government through the All India Forum of Netizens and intend to make this a serious issue for contention during the next general elections.

Though I am a friend of the Government this issue of Netizens of Karnataka is close to my heart and I am forced to address this strong communication to you. I have also placed several suggestions to the Karnataka Government on re branding Bangalore as “Cyber Security Capital”, improving the “Cyber Cafe Regulation”, developing a “Cyber Security policy for Karnataka”, ‘Cyber Vidya project for Government High Schools”, etc. I will continue to place suggestions in public domain for any administrator to implement if they consider it useful for the Citizens of Karnataka.

I suppose you would appreciate my concern and take necessary action. If possible you should develop a Cyber Space Policy for Karnataka as a part of BJP’s election strategy.

This letter will be documented through a publication on the web space so that we can revisit the issue if need be as a friendly suggestion to the Government of Karnataka which was either respected and acted upon or ignored.

Regards

Na.Vijayashankar
Founder www.naavi.org and All India Forum of Netizens
37, 20th Main, B S K Stage I
Bangalore 560050
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Vijayashankar Na <naavi9@gmail.com> wrote:
> To
>
> The Principal Secretary
> Department of Information Technology
> Government of Karnataka
> Bangalore
>
> Sub: Regarding Adjudication System under ITA 2008
>
> Dear Sir
>
> I refer to my short email of 30th November 2012 regarding the above. I
> have not received any response for the same from your end. Since the
> said e-mail was in Kannada I suppose your department has not been able
> to respond. Hence I am sending a more detailed e-mail now in English
> so that you can respond with your views on the issues raised there in
> which is of critical interest to the people of Karantaka and more so
> the IT industry in Karantaka.
>
> The problem highlighted by me relates to the administrative time of
> the previous IT Secretary. However you have the right to correct an
> aberration and uphold justice and reputation of Karnataka. Hence the
> matter is brought before you. Kindly excuse me if any of my comments
> hence forth is uncomfortable.
>
> As I have pointed out in detail below, the issue is one that hurts the
> image of Karnataka as a state which is an IT leader in the country and
> shames the status of Law and Justice situation in the State. It has
> already created a precedence which will enter all law text books in
> the country as part of “Cyber Crime Case Study” and in our opinion
> will project Karantaka as a state where the IT Secretary has failed
> to fulfill the judicial responsibilities which they were honoured with
> under Information Technology Act 2000/8.
>
> Since sooner or later this issue will go to the Courts and a question
> will be asked of us if the Government was given sufficient notice to
> correct its mistake, I am taking this effort to also keep the Chief
> Secretary and the Law Secretary informed of the issue.
>
> Since the matter relates to the ability of the State Government to
> maintain the “Law and Justice Sytem” in the State, it is likely to be
> an election issue in the coming days. Hence the The Law Minister and
> Chief Minister have also been kept in the loop during earlier
> correspondence and also this e-mail.
>
> The Essence of the Issue:
>
> 1.The IT Secretary of the State is the “Adjudicator” of the state
> under section 46 of ITA 2000/8 and is the sole judicial authroity in
> the state to adjudicate and provide justice to Cyber Crime victims
> upto a loss of Rs 5 crores. Both individuals as well as IT and Non IT
> Companies look forward to the IT Secretary as the primary civil
> judicial authority of the State.
>
> 2. In three of the adjduication cases which were brought before the
> Adjudicator during 2012, the adjudicator came to a conclusion to the
> effect that “Section 43 of ITA 2000/8 can be invoked only by an
> individual against an individual and a Company can neither be the
> complaintant nor the respondent”.
>
> 3.The above decision was considered incorrect in view of the
> provisions of the General Clauses Act and to person who know law, it
> appears as blatantly unfair and illogical.
>
> 4.The decision was given in a case which involved a benefit of over Rs
> 32 lakhs to Axis Bank. Axis Bank happenned to be a contractor to the
> Karnataka E Governance department at the time the case was heard and
> the IT Secretary who acted as the Adjudicator was also the Secretary
> at the time in charge of e-Governance. This gave raise to a serious
> conflict which places the fairness of the decision under a cloud. More
> importantly this would sooner or later come for debate in a Court of
> law to determine if “IT Secretary” by virtue of his other
> responsibilities is inherently incapable of holding the judicial
> responsibiltiy for Cyber Crimes. If that happens, Karnataka will have
> the dubious distinction of claiming to be an IT Super State but
> contributing to the withdrawal of the special status accorded to the
> office of “IT Secretary” as provided under ITA 2000 rules of 25th
> March 2003.
>
> 5. I had immediately after the release of the above decision submitted
> a review petition on behalf of the affected parties. A copy of the
> application submitted on behalf of Gujarat Petrosynthese Ltd is
> enclosed for your reference. This is already in your files. So far we
> have not received any response from the department for the above
> review petition and hence it is in the language of Governance
> considered as “Pending”.
>
> 6. In view of the fact that the office of Adjudication is a continuing
> office, the review petition can be taken up by you and disposed off
> either way. Holding it without decision is like administering a slow
> poison to the affected cyber crime victims and shows the gross
> insensitivity of the system. This is similar to the way Delhi
> administration handled the infamous rape cases and the rape victims.
>
> 7. You may be aware that though the decision is appealable with the
> Cyber Appellate Tribunal in New Delhi, at present the victims are
> unable to force a decision in the appeal since there no “Chair person”
> has been appointed to the Tribunal since June 2011. After some time,
> the matter will therefore be put before the Karnataka High Court and
> until then the decision of the adjudicator stands to the detriment of
> the interests of the people of Karnataka.
>
> 8. For persons like me who have taken pride in Karnataka working
> towards being the “Cyber Security Capital” and initiated private
> initiatives for statewide Cyber Law awareness through “Karnataka
> Cyber Law Awareness Movement”, 2012 has been a frustrating period of
> Governmental inaction causing immense damage to the right of a Netizen
> in Karnataka in pursuing what is recognized as a basic human right
> namely “to be able to seek judicial redress” to his grievances.
>
> Action Requested:
>
> I therefore request you to kindly take up the review petition and come
> to some form of a decision. If you are convinced that the review
> petition is to be rejected, please convey the same with reasons so
> that we can place the reasons before a higher judicial authroity for
> its opinion.
>
> I hope this Makara Sankranti-2013 will usher in a new era of hope to
> Netizens in Karantaka and Netizen activists like us who are striving
> to make Cyber Space secure and habitable.
>
> Regards
>
> Na.Vijayashankar
> Netizen Activist and Information Assurance Consultant
> No 37, Ujvala, 20th Main, BSK Stage I, Bangalore 560050
> M: 9343554943
> Web:www.naavi.org
>
>
> 2012/11/30 Vijayashankar Na <naavi9@gmail.com>:
>> ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಸರ್ಕಾರದ ಐ.ಟಿ ಸೆಕ್ರೆಟರಿರವರಲ್ಲಿ ವಿನಂತಿ.
>>
>> ತಾವು ಹೊಸದಾಗಿ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕದ ಐ.ಟಿ. ಸೆಕ್ರೆಟರಿಯಾಗಿ ಅಧಿಕಾರ ವಹಿಸಿಕೊಂಡಿರುವುದಕ್ಕೆ
>> ಅಭಿನಂದನೆಗಳು. ನನ್ನ ಹೆಸರು ನಾ.ವಿಜಯಶಂಕರ ಮತ್ತು ನಾನು ನಾವಿ.ಆರ್ಗ್ ಮತ್ತು
>> ನಾವಿಕ.ಇನ್ ವೆಬ್ ಸೈಟ್ ನಿರ್ವಾಹಕ.
>>
>> ತಾವು ಬರಿಯ ಐ.ಟಿ. ಸೆಕ್ರೆಟರಿಯಲ್ಲದೇ, ಇಡೀ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕಕ್ಕೆ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ತಂತ್ರಜ್ನಾನ
>> ಕಾಯಿದೆ (ಮಾತಂಕಾ)-೨೦೦೦ ದ ಪ್ರಕಾರ ಅಡ್ಜುಡಿಕೇಟರ್ ಆಗಿದ್ದು ಇಡೀ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕದ ಸೈಬರ್
>> ಪ್ರಸಂಗಗಳಿನ ಸಿವಿಲ್ ಪ್ರಸಂಗಗಳಿಗೆ ಏಕಮೇವ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಂಗ ಅಧಿಕಾರಿಗಳಾಗಿರುತ್ತೀರ.
>>
>> ಹೀಗಾಗಿ ಸ್ನೈಬರ್ ಕಾನೂನು ವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆ ಯಲ್ಲಿ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕದ ಶೋಚನೀಯ ಪರಿಸ್ಥಿತಿಯ ಬಗ್ಗೆ
>> ನಿಮಗೆ ತಿಳಿಸಬೇಕಾಗಿದೆ.
>>
>> ನಿಮ್ಮ ಹಿಂದಿನ ಅಡ್ಜುಡಿಕೇಟರ್ ರವರು ಒಂದು ಪ್ರಸಂಗದಲ್ಲಿ “ಸೆಕ್ಷನ್ ೪೩ ರಲ್ಲಿ
>> ಯಾವುದೇ ಪ್ರಸಂಗವನ್ನು ಕಂಪನಿಯಾಗಲೀ ಅಥವಾ ಕಂಪನಿಗಳ ಮೇಲೆಯಾಗಲೀ ಹೂಡುವ ಹಾಗಿಲ್ಲ”
>> ಎಂದು ತೀರ್ಪಿತ್ತನಂತರ ಮಾತಂಕಾ ದ ಸಿವಿಲ್ ಹಕ್ಕುಗಳಿಂದ ಇಡಿ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕದ ಜನ
>> ವಂಚಿತರಾಗಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ಭಾರತದಲ್ಲಿ ಬೇರೆಲ್ಲೂ ಈ ರೀತಿಯ ಪರಿಸ್ಥಿತಿ ಇಲ್ಲ.
>>
>> ಇದನ್ನು ತಾವು ಸರಿಪಡಿಸಬೇಕೆಂದು ನಾನು ಈ ಮೂಲಕ ಅರಿಕೆ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಳ್ಳುತ್ತಿದ್ದೇನೆ.
>> ಈಗಾಗಲೇ ಈ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಒಂದು ಪುನರ್ವಿಮರ್ಶನಾ ಅರ್ಜಿಯನ್ನು ತಮ್ಮ ಸಂಸ್ಥೆಗೆ
>> ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ. ಇದರ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಯಾವ ನಿರ್ಣಯವೂ ಆಗಿಲ್ಲ. ತಾವು ಈ ಅರ್ಜಿಯನ್ನು ಮತ್ತೆ
>> ಕೈಗೆತ್ತಿಕೊಂಡು ಆಗಿರುವ ತಪ್ಪನ್ನು ಸರಿಪಡಿಸಬೇಕೆಂದು ಕೇಳಿಕೊಳ್ಳುತ್ತಿದ್ದೇನೆ.
>>
>> ಇಂತೀ
>> ನಾ.ವಿಜಯಶಂಕರ
>> www.naavi.org
>> www.naavika.in.
>
>
>
> —
> Naavi
> http://www.naavi.org
> http://www.cyberlawcollege.com

—
Naavi
http://www.naavi.org
http://www.cyberlawcollege.com

Section 66A of ITA 2008 has been one of the most abused sections of the Act in recent days. There is also a discussion about the constitutional validity of this section on  whether this section infringes on the constitutional “Right to Freedom of Expression” as provided in Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution. The discussion has arisen due to the filing of criminal cases in recent days in the case of Ravi Srinivasan of Pondicherry over a tweet, and two ladies in Palghar over postings in Facebook,

Article 19(1)(a) of the constitution is subject to “Reasonable Restrictions” as mentioned in Article 19(2) which provides discretion for any Government to frame and implement laws  infringing on the freedom of expression under the following condition namely,

“in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence”

The question therefore is whether Section 66A of ITA 2008 is a legislation framed under the exceptions provided under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.

This discussion would be relevant only if there is an impact of this section 66A on the “Freedom of Expression” under Article 19(1) in the first place. The perception of the community is of course that section 66A does infringe on the “Freedom of Expression” as otherwise the police action in the case of Ravi Srinivasan and the Palghar ladies were unwarranted.

However when we analyze the situation we need to also consider  whether the action of the Police in the above two cases were in fact because the Police considered that Section 66A was an exception under Article 19(1) or simply because they misread the law.

If the Police had misread the law the remedy is not in removing the section but in punishing the Police for “Human Rights Violation” and providing such clarifications as would ensure that in future similar mistakes would not be done.

In this context it becomes necessary to discuss if Section 66A of ITA 2008 was indeed meant to address the situation where a Facebook post or a Twitter post could cause annoyance to another individual and that the person who had expressed the objectionable view could not be protected under Article 19(1).

Section 66A has three parts.

It is reproduced below for immediate reference.

Section 66A: Punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service, etc

Any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication device,-

a) any  information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character; or

b) any   information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred, or ill will, persistently  by making use of such computer resource or a communication device,

c) any electronic mail or electronic mail message for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages

shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine.

Explanation: For the purposes of this section, terms “Electronic mail” and “Electronic Mail Message” means a message or information created or transmitted or received on a computer, computer system, computer resource or communication device including attachments in text, image, audio, video and any other electronic record, which may be transmitted with the message

This section  applies to “Any Person” who “Sends” by means of a computer resource or a communication device, “any Information” or “Electronic Mail” or “Electronic Mail Message”.

It may be noted that this section is applicable to “Messages” and not for “Publishing” a content on a web platform. Under ITA 2008 offenses related to “Publishing” were covered under Sections 67, 67A and 67B and were restricted to content which was “Obscene”.

Then does it mean that ITA 2008 did not address situations where “Defamation” could occur through non obscene content being published on the web as in the case of the above cases?. The clear indication in the legislation is “Yes”. ITA 2008 did not try to address “Defamation” in electronic space except where the content was obscene.

The perception that Section 66A addressed defamation arose from the fact that it referred to “Information that is grossly offensive or menacing” under Section 66A(a)  as well as “information” that could cause “annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred, or ill will” under Section 66A(b) and “Causing annoyance” under Section 66A(c).

The first time the section was invoked to address defamation was in the Delhi High Court case of E2labs Vs Zone-H.org. In this case the remedy sought was shutting down of a website which allegedly hosted some defamatory content. Since the defendant in this case was a foreigner and chose not to respond to the notices of the Court for reasons of his own, the Court passed an interim order blocking the website which has remained in place permanently since the defendant will never contest the injunction.

The interim judgement has therefore created a perception that the Court agrees that “Defamation” was caused by the publication and hence the site was blocked. This perception provides a sort of legitimacy to the claim that “Section 66A can be invoked when defamatory content is published on the web platform and it does not get restricted by the constitutional rights of freedom of expression”.

It must however be noted that Section 66A was meant to address “Information” that can be “Sent” and not “Information which is static”. Information which is “Sent” is a “message” and is sent from one person to another. It is “Pushed” . On the other hand a content which is “Posted” is  not directed at any person. It is only “Pulled” by persons who have become part of a “Community” who have agreed to exchange information with other members of the community.

A “Facebook” post or a “Twitter Post” falls into this category of “Hosted content” and does not fall into the category of “messages”. They can be dealt with under the Section 499 of IPC and there is no need to invoke Section 66A.

The fact that Section 66A was meant for “messages” is also evident from the fact that Section 66A(b) used he word “Persistently”. This means that if a person is again and again sending a message (which he knows to be false and is sending it with the malicious intention of causing annoyance etc). In a website posting, the content is posted and not sent again and again to another person.

Section 66A(a) does not use the word “Persistently” but it applies only to such messages which can be considered as “Grossly offensive or Menacing”.

Section 66A(c) also does not use the word “Persistently” but it is specifically mentioned that it is addressed to an “Electronic Mail”.

Thus it can be inferred that Section 66A was meant only for “messages” and not for “Content”. This is justifiable since Section 499 may not be apt for “letters sent from one person to another” and also that the web presented the possibility of a higher level of annoyance than the physical equivalent of “Bulk letter mailing” since “Bulk email bombardment” is more likely.

Section 66A addressed the message because there were offences such as Cyber bullying and Cyber Stalking as well as “Spam” which could not be effectively dealt with under Section 499.

In view of the above we can conclude that Section 66A ITA 2008 was never meant to address “Defamation” and never meant to overlap Section 499 of IPC but was meant to address situations which in the cyber space were significant threats and were not addressed effectively by the physical world equivalent addressed by IPC.

If therefore we come to the conclusion that “No change is required in Section 66A” it will be because the section was never meant to address “Defamation” and  exclusions under Article 19(2) of the constitution and not because we endorse the view that Section 66 A is within the constitutional validity of Article 19(2).

Media needs to understand the issues involved and does not misinterpret the views that may be expressed by the Court in this regard.

Naavi