Dear Prasanth,
Thank you for the update - I learned a lot listening to you, as well as
Anya, speak about this about WCI. Is there anything we could do other
than as individuals - which is to say, is there anything that the
Wikimedia institutions can do? (the chapter, the Foundation, etc.) I
guess we would then have to ask each entity whether they are comfortable
with doing something here, but if there is, would there be a benefit in
having institutional support?
Cheers,
Achal
On Monday 21 November 2011 06:47 PM, Prasanth Sugathan wrote:
Dear Wikipedians,
This email is the result of the stimulating discussions that I have
had over three days with members of the Wikipedia community at the
Wiki Conference India 2011 in Mumbai. The kind of enthusiasm that was
visible across the spectrum of participants – and it indeed was a wide
spectrum from 10 year old editors to representatives from various
language communities to persons with disabilities - has prompted me to
write this letter to the community members appealing them to extend
their support to the campaign to ensure that the ecosystem for
Wikipedia – which is first and foremost a free/open Internet -
survives in India.
The threat to free/open Internet is REAL in India. The new Information
Technology (Intermediaries guidelines) Rules, 2011 threaten to curtail
our freedom on the Internet. As the demonstrations over the map issue
outside the venue during the conference showed, there could indeed be
threats to the way the community operates in India. These threats have
multiplied manifold by the notification of these rules.
*How do the rules operate ?*
The rules, at first look, seem innocuous, as it provides a set of
guidelines for intermediaries to operate in India. But, when you look
deeper, the rules are essentially a control on the users and a
coercion on the intermediaries to implement those controls. The rules
require the intermediary (Wikipedia will fall under the definition of
the intermediary) to enforce a set of terms and conditions on their
users. This includes asking the users not to post any content that
will beconsidered as g*rossly harmful*, harassing, *blasphemou**s*,
*defamatory*, *obscene*, pornographic, paedophilic, *libellous*,
invasive of another's privacy, *hateful*, or racially, ethnically
objectionable, *disparaging*, relating or encouraging money laundering
or gambling, *threatening friendly relations with foreign states*, or
otherwise unlawful in any manner whatever. Thus any editor who posts a
content on a historical event, a person or anything that could be
perceived to come under this wide list could be courting trouble.
The critical provision of the rules is that anyone who is not happy
with any content that is posted on the intermediary site, and this
could include a person who is upset with a map or a description of a
historical event or person, could write to the intermediary asking
them to remove the content. The intermediary on getting such a request
is mandated to comply with the request within a period of 36 hours.
The rules neither require the complainant to produce a court order,
nor does it give an opportunity for a content creator to reply to such
a demand. The intermediary who does not comply with such a request
loses the safe-harbour
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_harbor#Internet> protections that
it otherwise enjoys. Such a mechanism threatens the well-honed, time
tested procedure of content creation in the Wikipedia and exposes the
Wikipedia to legal actions.
*Questions of privacy*
The Wikipedia community includes a large number of users who use
pseudonyms and their information is protected as per the privacy
policy <http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy> of
Wikipedia. The rules could force Wikipedia, on getting a written
request from a Government agency authorised under the rules to divulge
information of the user, including facts like IP addresses from which
the user posted. As the rules do not mandate a court order for gaining
access to private information of users and only require a written
request, as against an elaborate procedure in the case of Internet
monitoring or telephone tapping, this threatens the right to privacy
of Wikipedia editors.
We, as a community of Internet users have to ensure that our freedom
on the internet- to use it as a platform for public discourse, as a
means of knowledge dissipation- is not curtailed in any manner by such
draconian rules. I request you to be a part of the campaign to get
these rules amended by signing this *online petition
<http://softwarefreedom.in/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=97&Itemid=83>*,
by writing to your MP and by spreading this message through Facebook,
Google Plus, Twitter, identi.ca <http://identi.ca> and in every
possible manner to Indian citizens ….
Warm regards,
Prasanth Sugathan
Legal Counsel,
Software Freedom Law Center
K-9 Second Floor, Birbal Road,
Jangpura Extension,
New Delhi-110014
Phone# +91-11-43587126 <tel:%2B91-11-43587126>
Cell: +91 9013585902 <tel:%2B91%209013585902>
www.sflc.in <http://www.sflc.in>
_______________________________________________
Wikimediaindia-l mailing list
Wikimediaindia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from the list / change mailing preferences visit
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l