Category: Social Media

In a democracy where the First Amendment protects freedom of the press, government accountability to the media is critical to the survival of democracy. It is generally accepted that an independent media acts as a watchdog that can investigate and report wrongdoings by the government.

Although virtually every state has a law protecting reporters from disclosing sensitive information about their reporting to law enforcement, including the identity of confidential sources, Congress and federal courts have refused to recognize such a privilege. So is freedom of the press just a mirage?

Journalists often rely on confidential sources to write reports dealing with issues of legitimate public importance.

State shield laws are legal protections that give journalists the privilege of not being compelled to disclose confidential or unpublished information. Some states have enacted shield laws to protect the source of a journalist’s report. The Press Clause of the First Amendment ensures that everyone is protected in their right to disseminate information to the public. By favoring corporate-structured news media, Washington’s law favors institutional media, over citizen-journalists.

Still in some cases, reporters have either gone to jail or been sentenced with substantial fines. In order to make ourselves aware that journalists are not above the law as we think these days, a current scary incident needs to be mentioned here.

Priscilla Villarreal, according to a report that appeared in the Houston Chronicle, was just a freelance blogger. Villarreal is a journalist whose main job is to share newsworthy information with the public. She published it on her Facebook page after she confirmed with a Laredo police officer, some public information about a border agent who had committed suicide.

For several years, Villarreal has been embroiled in a legal dispute that raises fundamental questions about the law protecting press freedom and whether journalists in Texas are protected by the First Amendment. Any law that could be used to arrest a journalist for informing the public, could become a shocking precedent.

Villarreal’s arrest has drawn national attention for the constitutional concerns it raises. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that the First Amendment protects the right to publish information obtained from government sources, even when the source of that information violates confidentiality.

The journalist was arrested and charged under Texas state law: Locking up a journalist for asking a question or threatening to “get out” is a misdemeanor. It would be good if citizen journalists knew that if the media workers are almost not protected, if they try to bring more courage and bring many things to light. If the government seizes the reporter and puts him in jail, there will be no legal loopholes to release, or strong media organizations to collectively respond. Freedom of the Press, if that makes any sense, it means freedom to criticize and oppose, that is the absolute  truth.

Be passionate about what you write and believe in your ability to convey timeless ideas. Governments that do not believe that freedom of speech belongs to every individual, governments that fear the writer’s words more than weapons, are suffocating and silencing journalists, and this will continue, while the media activists who have lost their responsiveness remain silent!

Indian Catholic Press Association (ICPA) will honour noted journalist, writer and human rights activist John Dayal conferring its prestigious annual Louis Careno Award for Excellence in Journalism for his bold, continuous and consistent writing against communalism and fundamentalism gaining ground globally.

The Award will be conferred on Mr Dayal during the 27th National Convention of Christian Journalists, organized by the ICPA, scheduled to be held in Chennai on Saturday, December 10, 2022.

Mr Dayal, a prophet of our times, is among India’s foremost voices against human rights violations, particularly on the persecution of religious minorities, having been a writer and activist for over four decades. He has been a member of several government bodies, including the National Integration Council, and holds senior roles in numerous non-government organisations and networks, including as co-founder and Secretary General of the All India Christian Council, 1999-2014, national president of the 1919-founded all India Catholic Union between 2004 and 2008, and a member of Justice and Peace Commission of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference.

He has had a long and distinguished career in the media and in academia. He has a long record of investigating and producing substantive and influential documents on communal violence in India, including Hindu-Muslim riots and violence against Sikhs, Muslims and Christians.

He is one of India’s leading experts on the situation in Odisha, following the communal violence in 2008. He has authored and contributed to several books, and regularly writes articles on human rights issues in India. Major books he has authored/co-authored or edited include For Reasons of State – Delhi Under the Emergency [1977], republished by Penguin in June 2018; Gujarat 2002 – Told and untold Stories [ 2002]; A Matter of Equity [2007]; Reconciliations — A journey Through Wounded India [with Harsh Mander and Natasha Badhwar, Amazon, 2018]. He has contributed to several books published in India and Europe.

He served as war correspondent and foreign correspondent in the Middle East, North Africa, South Asia and Europe. He became editor and CEO of the Delhi Mid Day, and treasurer of the Editors’ Guild of India.

In June 1998, Mr Dayal was one of the signatories of a statement by a group of journalists calling on India to return to the global nuclear disarmament agenda. He continues to provide commentary and analysis in print and on national TV and radio.

His incisive writings on political issues have led to soul-searching debates in the civil society and the secular world. He minces no words in raising his voice against irrational, biased and unfair policies and decisions of the governments of all times. He also writes on Church-related issues without fear or favour. His fierce attack on rising fascist tendencies in the country has hit where it really matters. John Dayal is a role model Communicator in terms of craft, conviction and commitment.

Conferred annually on individuals or institutions, Louis Careno Award for Excellence in Journalism is a joint venture of the Mumbai Province of the Salesians of Don Bosco and the Indian Catholic Press Association (ICPA), a Premier Organisation of Catholic journalists, Dailies and Periodicals in India founded in 1964 by Fr John Barrett, an American Jesuit belonging to the Patna Province.

(AP) — Elon Musk tweeted Sunday that Twitter will permanently suspend any account on the social media platform that impersonates another.

The platform’s new owner issued the warning after some celebrities changed their Twitter display names — not their account names — and tweeted as ‘Elon Musk’ in reaction to the billionaire’s decision to offer verified accounts to all comers for $8 month as he simultaneously laid off a big chunk of the workforce.

“Going forward, any Twitter handles engaging in impersonation without clearly specifying “parody” will be permanently suspended,” Musk wrote. While Twitter previously issued warnings before suspensions, now that it is rolling out “widespread verification, there will be no warning.”

In fact, “any name change at all” would compel the temporary loss of a verified checkmark, the world’s richest man said.

Comedian Kathy Griffin had her account suspended Sunday after she switched her screen name to Musk. She told a Bloomberg reporter that she had also used his profile photo.

“I guess not ALL the content moderators were let go? Lol,” Griffin joked afterward on Mastodon, an alternative social media platform where she set up an account last week.

Actor Valerie Bertinelli had similarly appropriated Musk’s screen name — posting a series of tweets in support of Democratic candidates on Saturday before switching back to her true name. “Okey-dokey. I’ve had fun and I think I made my point,” she tweeted afterwards.

Before the stunt, Bertinelli noted the original purpose of the blue verification checkmark. It was granted free of charge to people whose identity Twitter employees had confirmed; with journalists accounting for a big portion of recipients. “It simply meant your identity was verified. Scammers would have a harder time impersonating you,” Bertinelli noted. “That no longer applies. Good luck out there!” she added.

The $8 verified accounts are Musk’s way of democratizing the service, he claims. On Saturday, a Twitter update for iOS devices listed on Apple’s app store said users who “sign up now” for the new “Twitter Blue with verification” can get the blue check next to their names “just like the celebrities, companies and politicians you already follow.”

It said the service would first be available in the U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the U.K. However, it was not available Sunday and there was no indication when it would go live. A Twitter employ, Esther Crawford, told The Associated Press it is coming “soon but it hasn’t launched yet.”

Twitter did not respond on Sunday to an email seeking comment on the verified accounts issue and Griffin’s suspension.

Musk later tweeted, “Twitter needs to become by far the most accurate source of information about the world. That’s our mission.”

If the company were to strip current verified users of blue checks — something that hasn’t happened — that could exacerbate disinformation on the platform during Tuesday’s midterm elections.

Like Griffin, some Twitter users have already begun migrating from the platform — Counter Social is another popular alternative — following layoffs that began Friday that reportedly affected about half of Twitter’s 7,500-employee workforce. They fear a breakdown of moderation and verification could create a disinformation free-for-all on what has been the internet’s main conduit for reliable communications from public agencies and other institutions.

Twitter is delaying the rollout of account verifications for its paid Twitter Blue subscription plan until after the midterm elections, CNN reported this week The decision to push back the new feature comes one day after the platform launched an updated version of its iOS app that promises to allow users who pay a monthly subscription fee to get a blue checkmark on their profiles, a feature that CEO Elon Musk has proposed as a way to fight spam on the platform.

The app’s latest update was outlined on Apple’s App Store, stating that users will now have to pay $7.99 per month for the company’s Twitter Blue verification feature, “just like the celebrities, companies, and politicians you already follow.” The checkmark has long been used to confirm the authenticity of government officials, prominent figures and journalists.

Many companies have paused advertising on the platform out of concern it could become more unruly under Musk. Yoel Roth, Twitter’s head of safety and integrity, sought to assuage such concerns in a tweet Friday. He said the company’s front-line content moderation staff was the group least affected by the job cuts.

Musk tweeted late Friday that there was no choice but to cut jobs “when the company is losing over $4M/day.” He did not provide details on the daily losses at Twitter and said employees who lost their jobs were offered three months’ pay as severance.

Twitter is the ‘porn hub’ of social media, DisinfoLab said in a new report. Shockingly, despite Indian laws and Twitter’s own policies, even child porn and rape videos are freely available. Worse, Twitter’s lax policy has allowed a massive psy-war targeting communal harmony, the report said. Twitter has a full-fledged porn industry — from live web cam to other ‘off-line services’. Numerous NSFW content selling websites openly advertise themselves on Twitter, including those who show their registration in India, it added.These activities are not run in hiding but in broad day light, advertising with hashtags! Live porn is openly sold on Twitter using the IndianCamGirl hashtag involving a nexus of ‘service providers’, it said.

The fact that the hashtag started in 2017, involves several Influencers, and is used regularly is a testament to Twitter’s unwillingness to address these concerns. In the garb of such ‘services’, personal data of the users are being mined, to be used for criminal activities from ‘sextortion’ to rape, to sexual exploitation of minors, leading to grave consequences, including suicides. Anti-social/anti-India elements are taking advantage of this ‘free porn’ environment of Twitter, weaponising the content. An elaborate psy-war is being waged to damage India’s communal harmony, particularly between Hindus and Muslims, the report said. “Hundreds of fake handles are running coordinated campaigns, dehumanising the women of both religions. These handles pretend to be Hindus (#hstuds) when demeaning Muslim girls (#mslut); and Muslim (#mstud), while demeaning Hindu girls (#hslut),” it added.

The behavioral pattern of these handles – creation date, activity, location and hashtag – clearly establishes an organized campaign designed to harm social harmony. Surprisingly, despite obvious Coordinated Inauthentic Behavior (CIB), Twitter doesn’t seem to take any actions, the report said. Twitter, the US based for-profit company, seems obliged to follow only US laws, while showing complete dis-regard to India’s IT Rules, which prohibits adult content on social media. Twitter doesn’t even make any attempt to implement the laws, doable with basic location filter, the report said. Contrast it with other social media platforms which do far better content management, and continue to strive to keep social media space clean. Shockingly, Twitter seems blind to even most obscene contents, including child porn despite a ‘child sexual exploitation policy’.

Twitter claims to have a ‘zero tolerance’ policy towards child pornography – and yet seems to make zero efforts to counter this menace. It’s important to remember that this content is available to even under age users, as Twitter doesn’t filter ‘sensitive content’ to even young users, the report said. Equally shocking is freely available ‘rape videos’ on Twitter, which is prohibited even under Twitter’s policy of ‘gory content’. Even those video posts, which have words that could trigger filter mechanism are freely available, including the gang-rape video of a young girl, the report said. Twitter has also failed to filter obscene content for young users. Even a minor user on Twitter can access most obscene content if they wish to. Worth noting that Twitter could easily filter particular kind of content on age and location restriction, if it wished to, DisinfoLab said. “To access Twitter Hub, one need not even own a Twitter account. An open Google search could land anyone, even a minor, to most gory and vulgar contents available on Twitter with just a click on ‘view sensitive content’. Seems #Google also needs to take measures to control it,” the report added.

The DisinfoLab said in a report that adult content industry’s symbiotic relation with Twitter goes both ways: The presence of pornography lures and keeps engaged a number of users; and secondly, it also helps create an economic eco-system, which is more loyal as user, and hence increases Twitter’s number of ‘active users’. The report said several users/accounts openly sell porn on Twitter. The mechanism is simple: The seller accounts show porn clips, thereby ‘attracting’ customers and creating a ‘brand’. Then they send messages, asking money in exchange of large amount of porn. This conversation moves to DMs. In DMs they then share the links for the pornographic content. Not surpassingly, the links at times redirects to malicious websites.

Twitter doesn’t allow for ad promotion for pornographic content, but there are multiple ‘porn services’ websites that get promoted on Twitter. Interestingly, the report came across instances where same set of people/organizations running multiple websites/platforms on Twitter – without any filtering/restrictions. For example, two different websites (www.flitz.in and www.bindastimes.com) were asking for subscription money for giving access to their content. Only fans’ accounts promote their content on Twitter by sharing their website links. Interestingly, as some of the activities are illegal in India, they claim their location to be outside India, while proving contact details and address in India.

For example, a casual look at one of the websites revealed that these sites are registered in Kolkata, and their details have both address and contact numbers from Kolkata. It is therefore again surprising how Twitter doesn’t even scan the basic data of a website’s registration, the report said. It further said that some of the porn content accounts lure the users into filling forms, asking for personal details for a range of things – from ‘one-night stand’ to chats, video and calls etc. However, in order to access these services, the users have to fill forms, such as Google forms, which is not monitored by anyone, not even by Twitter.

Among the data collected through such means are mobile numbers and email ids; personal profile (age, marriage status), professional profile and payment details. The personal data so gathered could be exploited from blackmailing to phishing to selling to third parties. A number of such instances have also been reported in public, and there is a possibility that many more would be getting into traps but are not coming out openly due to public embarrassment, the report said. Other than the verified (Bluetick) services provided by Twitter to adult content handles/platforms, there is a full-fledged industry flourishing on Twitter which strives to provide authentication services to porn service providers. ‘Live webcam services’ are one of the most popular services on Twitter to sell porn. Thousands of users are offering these services openly on Twitter – selling links/means to access this service. However, every economic system needs trust, which is acquired through means of standardisation. The porn industry on Twitter too has developed its own systems of trust through standardisation, DisinfoLab said. Shockingly, despite Indian laws and Twitter’s own policies, even child porn and rape videos are freely available. Worse, Twitter’s lax policy has allowed a massive psy-war targeting communal harmony, the report said. (IANS)

The free and open internet is under attack around the world, Google CEO Sundar Pichai has warned, asserting that many countries are restricting the flow of information and the model is often taken for granted. In an in-depth interview with the BBC at the Google headquarters at Silicon Valley in California, the tech boss covered a wide range of topics, including the threat to free and open internet and also narrowed down on two developments that he feels will further revolutionise the world over the next quarter of a century as artificial intelligence (AI) and quantum computing.

Pichai, 49, who was born in Tamil Nadu and grew up in Chennai, has said India is deeply rooted in him and a big part of who he is.He didn’t refer to China directly but said: “None of our major products and services are available in China.” Pichai made it clear that the responsibility of steering the future of the internet should not be an onus of an individual “but rather a collective think tank that plots the course forward while taking into account the foundational pillars of the free internet”. He said that artificial intelligence is more profound than fire, electricity or the internet. “I view it as the most profound technology that humanity will ever develop and work on. You know, if you think about fire or electricity or the internet, it’s like that. But I think even more profound,” he was quoted as saying in the report.

In an executive order signed last week, US president Joe Biden called for the restoration of net neutrality regulations. “Big providers can use their power to discriminatorily block or slow down online services. The Obama-Biden Administration’s FCC adopted ‘Net Neutrality’ rules that required these companies to treat all internet services equally, but this was undone in 2017,” the order read. In the order, “the President encourages the FCC to restore Net Neutrality rules undone by the prior administration.”

Pichai, the chief executive of one of the most complex, warned the free and open internet is under attack in countries around, the report said, adding that he said many countries are restricting the flow of information, and the model is often taken for granted. When asked about whether the Chinese model of the internet based on surveillance is in the ascendant, Pichai said the free and open internet “is being attacked”. While he didn’t refer to China directly, he said: “None of our major products and services are available in China.” On the controversial issue of tax, he said: “We are one of the world’s largest taxpayers, if you look at on an average over the last decade, we have paid over 20 per cent in taxes.

“We do pay the majority of our share of taxes in the US, where we originate and where our products are developed. I think there are good conversations and we support the global OECD conversations figuring out what is the right way to allocate taxes, this is beyond a single company to solve,” he said. He was also asked about his own personal tech habits and encouraged everyone to adopt “two-factor authentication” when it comes to passwords to ensure multiple protections and admitted he is constantly changing his phone to test out new technology.Pichai is universally regarded as an exceptionally kind, thoughtful, and caring leader, the report said.

Experts at the United Nations Office of the Human Rights Commissioner have said in a report that it is concerned that India’s Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, in their current form, do not conform with international human rights norms. The observations were made in Mandates of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression; the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association and the Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy.

The report is authored by Irene Khan, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Clement NyaletsossiVoule, Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association and Joseph Cannataci, Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy. “As noted in previous communications sent to your Excellency’s Government, we are concerned that these new rules come at a time of a global pandemic and of large-scale farmer protests in the country, where the enjoyment of the freedom of opinion and expression, including the right to receive information, and the right to privacy, is particularly important for the realization of several other civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights,” the report said.

“We would like to recall that restrictions to freedom of expression must never be invoked as a justification for the muzzling of any advocacy of multiparty democracy, democratic tenets and human rights,” the report said. The report said as a global leader in technology innovation, India has the potential to develop legislation that can place it at the forefront of efforts to protect digital rights. However, the substantially broadened scope of the Rules is likely to do just the opposite. “We would therefore encourage the Government to take all necessary steps to carry out a detailed review of the Rules and to consult with all relevant stakeholders, including civil society dealing with human rights, freedom of expression, privacy rights and digital rights”, the report said.

“We understand the new rules were issued under the Information Technology Act of 2000 and therefore, were not subject to parliamentary review or opened for consultation with stakeholders. We believe such consultations with relevant stakeholders are essential in order to ensure the final text is compatible with India’s international legal obligations, in particular with Articles 17 and 19 of the ICCPR,” it added. This observation along with India’s comment will also subsequently be made available in the usual report to be presented to the Human Rights Council, it added. Meanwhile India vigorously defended the much-debated IT Rules following critical comments by the UN special rapporteurs that certain aspects of the newly introduced regulation fall afoul of international human rights.

India’s Permanent Mission to the UN said: “The concern that the rules may be misused deliberately to make a large number of complaints so as to overwhelm the grievance redressal mechanisms created by social media platforms is misplaced, exaggerated and disingenuous and shows lack of willingness to address grievances of the users of these media platforms while using their data to earn revenues.” “The concerns alleging potential implications for freedom of expression that the new IT rules will entail is highly misplaced. India’s democratic credentials are well recognized. The right to freedom of speech and expression is guaranteed under the Indian Constitution. The independent judiciary and a robust media are part of India’s democratic structure.”

The Special Rapporteurs of the United Nations, in a letter to the union government last week, had raised concerns on certain aspects of the Rules. “We are seriously concerned that Section 4 may compromise the right to privacy of every Internet user. We are notably concerned by the ability of executive authorities to issue orders to access to user data and restrict content, which seems to take place outside of any judicial oversight mechanism that would hold authorities accountable.” On Part 3 of the Rules on digital media: “We are seriously concerned that such broad powers given to the executive authorities, without judicial review, is likely to unduly restrict the free flow of information, which is protected by Article 19 (2) of the ICCPR [International Covenant on Civil and Political rights].”

US-based social media platforms have been frustrated by the relentless changing rules and regulations in India, the latest being India’s Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. Microblogging site Twitter has been facing the wrath of Indian authorities ever since it flagged a tweet by BJP spokesperson Sambit Patra on a ‘COVID Toolkit’, attributed to the Congress, on how to target the Centre over its handling of the COVID crisis. The row over the purported toolkit escalated after the Special Cell visited Twitter India offices on May 24 and served a notice, asking it to share information based on which Patra’s tweet had been tagged ‘manipulated media’.

The government had asked Twitter to remove the ‘manipulated media’ tag as the law enforcement agency was looking into the issue. Twitter India Managing Director Manish Maheshwari was questioned by the Delhi Police’s Special Cell on May 24 in connection with its probe into the case. He was questioned about the company’s policy on flagging tweets as ‘manipulated media’. Indian representatives of microblogging platform Twitter appeared before the parliamentary panel chaired by Congress’ Shashi Tharoor to discuss the issue of its guidelines and the misuse of its platform. During the deposition, Twitter India’s public policy manager Shagufta Kamran and legal counsel Ayushi Kapoor represented Twitter before the panel.

During the meeting, the panel asked the company, if it follows the law or the land, to which a representative responded saying, “We follow our own policies.” The members then told Twitter that law of the land is “supreme” and asked the company to abide by them. They also asked Twitter to explain why it should not be fined for ‘violating’ rule of land. On February 25, 2021, the Central Government enacted the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, which cast various obligations on internet intermediaries, especially on social media platforms. It was reported that social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram and Twitter were yet to comply with their obligations under the 2021 Rules. This gave rise to an apprehension among users of such websites that these websites could either stop operations or be banned in India for such non-compliance.

A user registered on Facebook can share information with his connections without the same being edited by Facebook in any manner. This passive role adopted by Facebook is what in essence enables it to be classified as an intermediary. Under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, intermediaries are granted protection from incurring any liability for third-party data available on their platform or hosted by them. This protection is essential as various intermediaries such as Facebook, Twitter or YouTube do not monitor the content posted by third-party users on their platforms. However, if any such content uploaded by a third-party user is in violation of any law, the intermediary does not incur any liability for such information.

Prior to the current 2021 rules, the 2011 Rules laid down the standards of due diligence required to be observed by intermediaries. The 2011 Rules required intermediaries to publish rules and regulations, privacy policy and user agreements which would enjoin each user not to post information which would contravene any law in force. These rules also required intermediaries to disable access or remove information which is unlawful upon receiving actual knowledge of the same. In Shreya Singhal versus Union of India, the Supreme Court read down the requirement of actual knowledge of an intermediary to mean knowledge of a court order directing it to disable access or remove such information.

The 2021 Rules supersede the 2011 Rules. In these rules, the requirement of publication of rules and regulations, privacy policy and user agreements which stipulate that no user shall post information which would contravene any law in force have been retained.  The 2021 Rules now permit the intermediaries to take down any unlawful information on a voluntary basis and such voluntary removal would not affect the protection afforded to them under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act. The 2021 Rules lay down additional due diligence requirements to be observed by “significant social media intermediaries”.

Any intermediary who primarily or solely enables online interaction between two or more users and allows them to create, upload, share, disseminate, modify or access information using its services and has more than 50 lakh registered users is classified as a significant social media intermediary. Thus, all popular social networking platforms such as Whatsapp, Facebook, Instagram and Twitter would be required to observe these additional due diligence requirements. They social media platforms were given a three-month timeline for ensuring compliance of these rules. So far, none of the major international social networking platforms have complied with these requirements. Facebook has released a statement that it aims to comply with the 2021 Rules and was in discussion with the government on certain issues.

Under Rule 7 of the 2021 Rules, if an intermediary fails to observe any of the rules laid down, it loses protection afforded to it by Section 79 of the Information Technology Act. Simply put, this would mean that an intermediary like Facebook or Twitter would be open for liability if a third-party user posts unlawful content on their platforms. On June 19, experts at United Nations Office of the Human Rights Commissioner have said in a report that it is concerned that India’s Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, in their current form, do not conform with international human rights norms.

The observations were made in Mandates of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression; the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association and the Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy. The report is authored by Irene Khan, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Clement NyaletsossiVoule, Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association and Joseph Cannataci, Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy.

“As noted in previous communications sent to your Excellency’s Government, we are concerned that these new rules come at a time of a global pandemic and of large-scale farmer protests in the country, where the enjoyment of the freedom of opinion and expression, including the right to receive information, and the right to privacy, is particularly important for the realisation of several other civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights,” the report said.”We would like to recall that restrictions to freedom of expression must never be invoked as a justification for the muzzling of any advocacy of multiparty democracy, democratic tenets and human rights,” the report said.

The report said as a global leader in technology innovation, India has the potential to develop a legislation that can place it at the forefront of efforts to protect digital rights. However, the substantially broadened scope of the Rules is likely to do just the opposite. “We would therefore encourage the Government to take all necessary steps to carry out a detailed review of the Rules and to consult with all relevant stakeholders, including civil society dealing with human rights, freedom of expression, privacy rights and digital rights”, the report said.

The question here is whether freedom of speech is paramount or not. The Narendra Modi regime has been chipping away at various pillars of democracy and it is no wonder that another opportunity for the general public to voice its woes is being muzzled. Media too have been generally silenced be it through force or coercion. Popular voices have been thus silenced time and again by authoritarian governments the world over.

Bail for Delhi Riot accused

The impositions of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) law against protestors have always been criticized by human rights activists and lawyers. A couple of days back, the Delhi High Court granted bail to DevanganaKalita and Natasha Narwal, and Asif Iqbal Tanha in the Delhi riot case.  Pinjra Tod activists DevanganaKalita and Natasha Narwal were arrested a year ago in the Delhi riots case. They were arrested in May 2020 for allegedly being part of a premeditated conspiracy behind the communal violence that broke out in northeast Delhi in February 2020 during protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA). The Delhi High Court granted interim bail to student activist Asif Iqbal Tanha, accused in a northeast Delhi riot case, so that he may appear for his three remaining backlog BA examinations papers.

However, the Delhi Police approached the Supreme Court after the Delhi High Court granted bail to DevanganaKalita and Natasha Narwal, and Asif Iqbal Tanha. While refusing to stay the Delhi High Court order, the Supreme Court observed that reading down of anti-terror law is an important issue and may have pan-India ramifications, and sought responses from three activists. It also said that the High Court judgement will “not to be treated as precedent by any court” to give similar reliefs, the Supreme Court said while hearing the Delhi Police’s appeal against the bail.

In its observation, the High Court said, “ We are constrained to say, that it appears, that in its anxiety to suppress dissent and in the morbid fear that matters may get out of hand, the state has blurred the line between the constitutionally guaranteed ‘right to protest’ and ‘terrorist activity’. If such blurring gains traction, democracy would be in peril.”  “Protests against governmental and parliamentary actions are legitimate; and though such protest are expected to be peaceful and non-violent, it is not uncommon for protestors to push the limits permissible in law,” the court had said. What the High Court observed is significant as the right to protest, just as freedom of speech, cannot be curtailed by imposing draconian laws by an all-powerful state. Let us wait for a further judgment by the Supreme Court of India in this case.

Sedition case against Aisha Sultana

Another interesting case that has come up in recent times is the one against Lakshadweep resident and activist Aisha Sultana, who has been charged with sedition for her “bioweapon” remark. The sedition case was registered against her on June 9 by the Kavaratti police following a complaint from BJP leader Abdul Khader Haji. The film director-cum-activist—a prominent face of Lakshadweep residents’ protest against a slew of draft proposals mooted by administrator Praful K Patel for the “development” of the island chain—had approached the High Court fearing arrest.

Kerala High Court had directed filmmaker Aisha Sultana to appear before the police in Lakshadweep for interrogation, but also granted her interim bail in case she is arrested. In an interim order, the court said Sultana should be released on interim bail for a week after executing a bond of Rs.50,000 in the event of arrest. She was told to appear before the Kavaratti police on June 20 for questioning. Sultana, during a debate on MediaOne TV on the proposed reforms and decisions of Patel, said the Centre has used a “bioweapon” on the island. Allegedly referring to the recent spurt in COVID-19 cases in Lakshadweep, Sultana said: “I can clearly say that Centre has used bioweapon in the island. There is already a calculation that China has used the coronavirus as a bioweapon…” she had said.

After the statement sparked controversy, Sultana clarified that she meant that the Centre was using administrator Patel as a “bioweapon” on the islands. The police had opposed her appeal saying that she had encouraged communalism.  The unpopular measures proposed by Praful Patel include drafts of the Lakshadweep Animal Preservation Regulation, Lakshadweep Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Regulation, Lakshadweep Development Authority Regulation and amendment to the Lakshadweep Panchayat Staff Rules.

Even in this case, there is an attempt to silence those who speak against a ruling authority such as the Administrator in the island who has become unpopular after a slew of measures that has run foul with the peaceful people of the Union Territory. Following the Kerala High Court’s direction in the case, the Lakshadweep Administration is trying to shift the islands’ cases to the Karnataka High Court as early as possible.

Recently, TikTok made a change to its U.S. privacy policy, allowing the company to “automatically” collect new types of biometric data, including what it describes as “faceprints” and “voiceprints.” TikTok’s unclear intent, the permanence of the biometric data and potential future uses for it have caused concern among experts who say users’ security and privacy could be at risk.

On June 2, TikTok updated the “Information we collect automatically” portion of its privacy policy to include a new section called “Image and Audio Information,” giving itself permission to gather certain physical and behavioral characteristics from its users’ content. The increasingly popular video sharing app may now collect biometric information such as “faceprints and voiceprints,” but the update doesn’t define these terms or what the company plans to do with the data.

“Generally speaking, these policy changes are very concerning,” Douglas Cuthbertson, a partner in LieffCabraser’s Privacy & Cybersecurity practice group, tells TIME. “The changes are vague in a lot of ways. TikTok does not explain what it will do with this biometric information, how and when it will seek consent before taking it, and what it means by ‘faceprints and voiceprints,’ which aren’t defined.”

To put TikTok’s popularity—and the amount of information it has access to—in perspective, it has 689 million global active users and ranks as the seventh most used social network in the world as of January 2021. In the U.S. alone, over 100 million Americans use TikTok every month while 50 million are on the app every day, according to figures shared by the company in August 2020. TikTok did not immediately respond to TIME’s request for comment.

Alessandro Acquisti, a professor of information technology and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University, notes that biometrics, and especially facial biometrics, are unique and permanent identifiers. He says that TikTok’s “faceprints” could potentially be used to re-identify an individual across a variety of scenarios. Since the information isn’t critical to the functioning of the app and the phrasing of the update is vague, Acquisti says it’s difficult to determine TikTok’s precise intent.

“Biometrics’ range of potential uses is vast: from benign, such as secure access to the app—think about how [Apple’s] iOS uses facial recognition for authentication—to chilling, such as mass re-identification and surveillance,” he says. The provisions for how TikTok can use the data collected under the privacy policy’s “Image and Audio Information” section are broad.

“We may collect information about the images and audio that are a part of your User Content, such as identifying the objects and scenery that appear, the existence and location within an image of face and body features and attributes, the nature of the audio, and the text of the words spoken in your User Content,” the new section reads. “We may collect this information to enable special video effects, for content moderation, for demographic classification, for content and ad recommendations, and for other non-personally-identifying operations.”It’s the last use on this list, “other non-personally-identifying operations,” that Cuthbertson says he takes particular issue with.

“It’s disingenuous to say these are ‘non personally-identifying’ operations,” he says, pointing out that a person’s unique ‘faceprint’ or ‘voiceprint’ could inherently be used to identify someone. “That’s not the way the mobile data ecosystem works anymore. You don’t need someone’s social security number to figure out who they are and how to monetize them.”

Users should also take note of the open-ended nature of the uses listed in this section, says Derek Riley, the director of the Milwaukee School of Engineering’s computer science program. “If you want to have funny face filters that engage users, gathering this kind of information is necessary. But there are a lot of other potentially alarming things that can be done with it too,” he tells TIME. “Capturing that information means TikTok could use it within their application, or they could turn and share it with another actor, government or company.”

While TikTok’s privacy policy states that it “does not sell personal information to third parties,” it also says it may share the information it collects for “business purposes.”“It’s one thing if TikTok can discreetly say, we’re taking this narrow band of information, here’s our description of the information so that you, as a user, really understand what we mean and here’s this very narrow way we’re going to use it,” Cuthbertson says. “Instead we have vague definitions of what the data even is and TikTok itself is vague about how and why they need to use it.”

The fact that TikTok is owned by the Chinese company Bytedance may also play a role in how people view this policy update, Riley says. While President Joe Biden signed an executive order on June 9 revoking former President Donald Trump’s attempts to ban TikTok in the U.S., some still view the app as a potential national security threat. TikTok has said it doesn’t share data with the Chinese government and wouldn’t do so if asked.

TikTok has also previously faced legal action over privacy-related issues. In February, the company agreed to pay $92 million to settle a class-action lawsuit alleging that it violated Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act, the federal Video Privacy Protection Act, and other consumer and privacy protection laws by collecting users’ personal data, including data harvested by facial recognition technology, without consent and sharing the data with third-parties, some of which were based in China.

Now, the updated policy states that TikTok will seek user permission for this type of data collection “where required by law,” but doesn’t specify whether it’s referring to state law, federal law or both.While there’s no federal U.S. law regulating the collection and use of biometric data, some states began passing their own laws more than a decade ago. Illinois led the way in 2008, with Texas, Washington, California, New York and Virginia all enacting their own biometric privacy protections in the years since. But it’s this legal gray area that demonstrates the need for more stringent standards, Cuthbertson says.

“Is it state law? Is it federal law? Even if it’s every applicable law, it’s still highly problematic,” he says. “That they will do what’s required by law as defined under the vague term ‘U.S. laws’ really highlights the need for more robust privacy laws and regulations that govern the collection of biometric information.”

Ultimately, maintaining awareness of what you’re consenting to by using the app is crucial, Riley says, especially when it comes to the app’s younger users. “It’s really important for individuals like teachers and parents to be able to inform younger individuals who see TikTok as a fun way to engage with their friends of the implications of this type of data collection,” he says. “It has a web of tangential outcomes that could turn out to be really problematic.”

In a blow to Trump, Facebook has extended Donald Trump’s suspension for two years and says it will only reinstate him “if the risk to public safety has receded.”

In a blow to Trump, Facebook has extended Donald Trump’s suspension for two years and says it will only reinstate him “if the risk to public safety has receded.” The decision comes after Facebook’s Oversight Board told the company it had been wrong to impose an indefinite ban on Trump after the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. Facebook says it is setting new rules for public figures in times of civil unrest and violence, “to be applied in exceptional cases such as this.” Trump has received the maximum penalty under those rules, “given the gravity of the circumstances” leading to his suspension. Because the company took his Facebook and Instagram accounts down on Jan. 7, the two-year suspension will last until at least Jan. 7, 2023.

At that point, Facebook will consult experts and “evaluate external factors, including instances of violence, restrictions on peaceful assembly and other markers of civil unrest,” said Nick Clegg, vice president of global affairs, in a statement.He was barred indefinitely from both sites in January in the wake of posts he made on the US Capitol riots, but last month Facebook’s Oversight Board criticized the open-ended penalty.Facebook said Trump’s actions were “a severe violation of our rules”. Trump said the move was “an insult” to the millions who voted for him in last year’s presidential election.

Facebook’s move comes as the social media giant is also ending a policy shielding politicians from some content moderation rules.It said that it would no longer give politicians immunity for deceptive or abusive content based on their comments being newsworthy.Trump’s ban was effective from the date of the initial suspension on 7 January, Facebook’s vice-president of global affairs Nick Clegg said in a post.”Given the gravity of the circumstances that led to Mr Trump’s suspension, we believe his actions constituted a severe violation of our rules which merit the highest penalty available,” it added.

“If we determine that there is still a serious risk to public safety, we will extend the restriction for a set period of time and continue to re-evaluate until that risk has receded.”  On his return, Trump will be held to “a strict set of rapidly escalating sanctions,” for any violations,  Clegg’s statement noted. In a statement issued from his Save America political action committee, Mr Trump said: “Facebook’s ruling is an insult to the record-setting 75m people, plus many others, who voted for us. They shouldn’t be allowed to get away with this censoring and silencing, and ultimately, we will win. Our country can’t take this abuse anymore!”

In a second statement on the two-year ban, Trump attacked Facebook’s founder.”Next time I’m in the White House there will be no more dinners, at his request, with Mark Zuckerberg and his wife,” the former president said. “It will be all business!”The move by Facebook allows Trump to return to the platform before the 2024 presidential election. It also comes as he prepares to again hold the large scale in-person rallies that were a signature of his campaigns and presidency. One of his first is planned for Dallas, Texas, in early July, according to local media.

Earlier this week, it emerged that the communications platform set up by Mr Trump in the wake of his social media bans – From the Desk of Donald J Trump – has been permanently shut down.In addition to Facebook, which has over two billion monthly users, Mr Trump has also been banned from Twitter, YouTube, Snapchat, Twitch and other social media platforms over the January riot.Last month, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, a Republican Trump ally, signed the first law in the US that punishes tech companies for de-platforming politicians.

Facebook’s dilemma on Trump was complex, involved trade-offs, and was guaranteed to upset millions of people. The fact is – whatever their decision – it was bound to be polarising.But just to be clear: today Facebook, the world’s biggest social network, has denied access to its megaphone to a man who 74 million people voted for. They didn’t just know him, or approve of him; they voted for him to be US president. That is a big call.

What is Facebook’s new policy?

Facebook says public figures who violate its rules by inciting unrest or violence will be suspended for a month or, in more serious cases, up to two years.It comes as part of an effort to undo a previous policy of allowing newsworthy political speech despite a potential that it may cause harm.Posts that are deemed worthy of an exception, despite possible violations, may still be allowed but will be given a warning label by Facebook. The company says it will no longer treat “content posted by politicians any differently”.

“Instead, we will simply apply our newsworthiness balancing test in the same way to all content, measuring whether the public interest value of the content outweighs the potential risk of harm by leaving it up.”The company’s Oversight Board found that Mr Trump’s initial ban was appropriate, but that there was no rationale for the ban to remain indefinitely.The independent board, which is funded by Facebook, has 20 members who are able to make binding decisions on content. Among the members are legal scholars, journalists, freedom of speech experts and a former prime minister of Denmark.The announcement comes on the same day that regulators in Europe and the UK begin formal anti-trust inquiries into whether Facebook misused customer data.Biden Announces a Donation of 19 Million COVID-19 Vaccines to COVAX, With More to Follow

The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, was notified in February, with all clauses of it coming into force on May 25.Social media company Twitter has told the ministry of electronics and information technology (Meity) that it is “committed to complying” with all clauses of the intermediary guidelines and asked for a week’s time, officials familiar with the matter said on Monday, days after the government issued an ultimatum to the company.

The government on Saturday said Twitter would have to face “unintended consequences” that can involve it losing its legal protection from criminal liability for user content if it does not comply with the new rules for digital content.“The company has highlighted that there have been some difficulties in making appointments for some key personnel and sought a week’s time to comply with most of the provisions, while saying that it will implement all provisions as soon as possible,” said a ministry official, who asked not to be named.

The official added that the platform has also informed the ministry that it is looking to set up an office in the country, as required under the new rules that seek a physical address for significant social media intermediaries, or companies running networks with more than 5 million registered users from India.The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, was notified in February, with all clauses of it coming into force on May 25. These guidelines require digital companies such as Twitter, WhatsApp, and Facebook to change how they regulate content, appoint nodal officers for compliance and grievance redressal, and adopt features such as traceability of messages and voluntary user verification.

Twitter said in a statement on Monday that the company is making every effort to comply with the new guidelines while continuing a constructive dialogue with the government. “Twitter has been and remains deeply committed to India, and serving the vital public conversation taking place on the service,” a Twitter spokesperson said, adding, “We have assured the government of India that Twitter is making every effort to comply with the new guidelines, and an overview on our progress has been duly shared.”There have been several instances of confrontation between the United States-based company and the government of India, particularly around government’s content takedown orders and Twitter’s actions against prominent people linked to the Bharatiya Janata Party for violation of its terms of use.

Against this backdrop, the new IT rules hardened the stand-off last month, with the microblogging website earlier asking for more time to comply, raising concerns over the “core elements” of the norms, and flagging potential threats to the safety of its employees after a visit by the Delhi Police the same month.“Our intent was always clear: the company is free to do business in India, but it has to comply with the law of the land,” the official mentioned above said. The ministry earlier echoed this sentiment when it had said, “Leave alone proactively creating such a mechanism, Twitter Inc is in the inglorious bracket of refusing to do so even when mandated by law.”

Hindustan Times reported on May 29 that other significant social media intermediaries that have 5 million users or more, such as WhatsApp, Facebook, and Google, have shared the details with the ministry.Under criticism over the past few months, the government has maintained that the new IT rules make companies more accountable for the online content posted on their websites and protects users from abuse. But the companies, several experts and Opposition parties believe that the norms may have a bearing on the right to free speech and privacy.WhatsApp has challenged the rules in the Delhi high court, calling it unconstitutional and a threat to Indians’ fundamental rights.

An IIT-M incubated startup, coordinating the largest online workshop the country has ever witnessed to form a Guinness world record. An estimated 10 Lakh people reportedly joined the online workshop through a series of 90-minutes slots beginning from April 24th, 6 PM to April 25th, 6 PM.

The event was open for anyone aged between 08-80 with a zeal for learning, be it a schoolkid, fresh graduate, or an experienced professional. The platform urges everyone to participate and become part of this great initiative. AI-FOR-INDIA aims to upskill 1 Billion Indians with the concept of Artificial Intelligence and to embark our country onto a path to become a global AI innovator.

In this one-day workshop, the participants were taught to build & deploy a face recognition application using Python Language from top industry experts. All the participants gained free access to GUVI‘s professionally curated course to know the basic intricacies of Python Programming. Python is an in-demand programming skill that has grown by 456% as compared to last year. The attendees learnt how to spin up Image-processing and will be able to create thumbnails, formats, filters, and apply various digital image processing techniques primarily for Face Recognition App. The event also featured free certificates of participation & additional access to GItHub’s resources worth $200.

The event collaborated with AICTE, national-level council for technical education, under the Department of Higher Education and co-sponsored by BUDDI.AI, the leading revenue and clinical automation platform based on deep learning. AI-For-India has primarily met with a positive reaction, and more than 1 Lakh people have already registered with the online event. To register, one has to go to GUVI’s official website and pick a slot of their convenience. This event is also going to be the Official Attempt of Guinness World Record for Most users to take an online computer programming lesson in 24 hours.

Highlighting the initiative’s objective, Mr. Arun Prakash, Chief Operating Officer of GUVI, quoted, “This initiative is in memory of GUVI‘s Co-founder Sridevi Arun Prakash, who firmly believed that the only way to advance a nation is through education. Through every age, the world experiences different revolutions. Currently, we are on the brink of the coding or AI revolution. You do not need to be a developer, but you need to understand what is happening.”

Ram Swaminathan, Co-Founder & CEO of Buddi.ai said “We are excited to collaborate with GUVI on this initiative as we firmly believe that the future prospects for the healthcare, or any industry is very bright when powered by AI. We urge everyone to learn AI technologies and skill themselves to have an exciting future. After the unprecedented breakthroughs in space and medicine, we are sure that our country can become a cradle for AI Zeitgeist, especially the youth who are fascinated by its capability.” Let’s welcome this initiative and join GUVI’s cause to impart AI in every nook and corner of India. Winning a Guinness World Record for the country is like a cherry on top!

In a significant development, the independent Oversight Board on Wednesday upheld Facebook’s decision on January 7 to suspend then US President Donald Trump from its main platform and Instagram.

The Board found that Trump’s posts severely violated Facebook’s rules, and his words of support for those involved in the attack on the US Capitol building legitimised violence in a situation where there was an immediate risk to people’s lives.

While the Board concluded that Trump should have been suspended from Facebook and Instagram, it also found that Facebook failed to impose a proper penalty. The decision came as the former US President launched a new so-called social media platform, which is actually a WordPress blog on his own website.

“President Trump’s actions on social media encouraged and legitimised violence and were a severe violation of Facebook’s rules,” said Thomas Hughes, Director of the Oversight Board Administration.

“By maintaining an unfounded narrative of electoral fraud and persistent calls to action, Mr Trump created an environment where a serious risk of violence was possible. Facebook’s decision to suspend the President on January 7 was the right one,” Hughes added.

However, it said that instead of applying one of its established account-level penalties for severe violations, Facebook devised an “indefinite” suspension which is not included in their content policies.

“This arbitrary penalty gave Facebook total discretion over whether to lift or maintain the suspension, with no criteria that can be scrutinised by users or external observers,” the Board observed.

“The Board rejects Facebook’s request for it to endorse indefinite suspension, which gives the company total discretion over when to lift or impose and isn’t supported by their content policies,” said Hughes. “Anyone concerned about the power of Facebook should be concerned with the company making decisions outside of its own rules.”

The Board stated that within six months of the decision, Facebook must reexamine this arbitrary penalty and impose one consistent with its own rules.

“In the future, if a head of state or high government official repeatedly posts messages that pose a risk of harm, Facebook should either suspend the account for a definitive period or delete the account,” it recommended.

Facebook’s rules should ensure that when it imposes a time-bound suspension on an influential user, the company should assess the risk of inciting harm before the suspension ends.

“Influential users who pose a risk of harm should not be reinstated. Facebook should publish a full report on its potential contribution to the narrative of electoral fraud and political tensions that led to the events of January 6,” as per the decision.

The board, constituted by Facebook with 20 members from across the world last year, last month said it was reviewing more than 9,000 responses before it delivers the verdict on Trump’s ban on the social media.

Banned on Facebook and Twitter, former President Donald Trump has launched a new so-called social media platform, which is actually just a WordPress blog on his own website.

His followers can sign up for posts alerts on the platforms via their email and phone numbers. The new platform is designed like a generic version of Twitter but is hosted as a running blog.

A Twitter spokesperson told The Verge on Tuesday that “Generally, sharing content from the website reference is permitted as long as the material does not otherwise the Twitter Rules”. Trump has posted content dating back to March 24 on the new ‘platform’.

The latest post is a video advertising his new platform, calling it “a place to speak freely and safely, straight from the desk of Donald J. Trump.” The platform appears to have been built by Campaign Nucleus, a digital services company founded by Trump’s former campaign manager Brad Parscale.

The Trump’s ‘platform’ went live just ahead of ruling by the independent Oversight Board on the ban concerning Trump, who was banned on Facebook following the Capitol attack on January 6.

On January 21, the Oversight Board accepted a case referral from Facebook to examine its decision to indefinitely suspend Trump’s access to post content on Facebook and Instagram, as well as provide policy recommendations on suspensions when the user is a political leader. Trump is still banned from using Facebook and its other platforms like Twitter.

(IPS) – Edmund Burke called the press the fourth estate, the fourth pillar of democracy, with an oversight role on the remaining three pillars – the legislature, executive and the judiciary. In an ideal world, this fourth estate would have unimpeded access to the other three pillars so that the citizenry could be kept informed at all times. This freedom was conceived to be so sacrosanct that many countries have included it as a fundamental right, e.g., the US Constitution enshrined it as the very first amendment.

While this is the ideal state of affairs, even under the best of circumstances press freedoms have faced considerable challenges. The traditional newspaper is threatened by shrinking readership and concentration of ownership and control which implies that profitable markets will be served first, viz. global or at best national audiences.. There has been a considerable void in news reporting, particularly on issues affecting local populations. Other forms of media are unable to fill the gap. Television combines news with entertainment – infotainment- and traditional radio has been swamped by satellite radios. Local issues areneglected and many local media outlets including newspapers and television and radio stations are facing dire conditions. There has been a steady rise in media concentration in the past few decades.

At the same time, the emergence and now overwhelming dominance of the social media and the Internet have given rise to a sharp proliferation of media outlets. Many of these are driven by the pure short-term profit motive and are difficult to regulate. All these forms of media are facilitated by the frictionless distribution enabled by the Internet and the disruptive effects of digital transformation. There is no dearth of people active on social and regular media, including some who should know better, who will, when forming an opinion about an issue, first come to their preferred conclusion and then work their way back to selectively choose evidence to support their conclusion. The world still awaits a business model that pays for accurate content at competitive rates. The overburdening with information makes it difficult for people to use discretion in the absorption of news so that the primary objective of press freedom, i.e., keeping the citizenry informed at all times, is belied. Nevertheless, in many countries with very distorted ownership patterns of traditional media social media outlets have provided a breath of fresh air and independence, especially when elements of the traditional media are themselves accused of improper conduct and reporting.

This point brings us to the issue of pressing challenges facing journalism and press freedoms. https://orca.cf.ac.uk/94201/1/DG_FoJ-Risks%20Threats%20and%20Opportunities_JJ.pdf

The first one is personalized news feeds. Facebook and Twitter have created cultures of maximal tribalism and infinite personalization. Users can silo themselves in self-made realities while taking part in collective expression of tribal outrage that often seem bewilder outsiders. The fact that such personalization can mould the opinions of large numbers of people is particularly worrisome. Second, the 24-hour news cycle forces reporters to publish articles without proper fact-checking. Even allegedly responsible media houses have had to retract stories because of the lack of proper checking. This leads to a deeper concern. Whereas the privilege of helping the citizenry to form opinions about key public issues lies with journalists, there is an implied responsibility that the information and analysis provided by the journalist is accurate and verifiable. This does not always seem to be the case. Indeed, some journalists have been accused of spreading “fake news” by pursuing their own agendas when pursuing their vocation. There have been well-known instances of both traditional and social media outlets pursuing political advocacy. The distinction between “news” and “views” has broken down in many cases and the citizenry is often ill equipped to discern the difference.

During the on-going pandemic another very serious issue has disrupted. Violence towards journalists is an old issue but the promulgation of long lockdowns has led to explosion of serious domestic violence and mental ill-health concerns. This has been described as a pandemic within a pandemic https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2024046

Under ordinary circumstances, the explosion of these domestic issues would be an important news story. However, lockdown orders have meant that many such instances all over the world get unreported. Clearly, women are the worst victims here. In particular, it has become increasingly difficult for women journalists to report on such issues. It is ironical that although women journalists are most suited to report on occurrences of domestic and sexual violence, they are the ones with minimal access to the victims of such abuse.

Even before the pandemic journalists- particularly women journalists – have been subjected to harassment and abuse.of several types: https://www.iwmf.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/IWMF-Global-Report.pdf

On World Press Freedom Day (May 3) there is need to ponder on these and many other issues relating to the role of the fourth estate. Freedom of the Press is invaluable in society. However, as with any other freedom, constant vigil and action are the price of this freedom. If we want a robust press this price will need to be paid.

Raghbendra Jha, Professor of Economics and Executive Director, Australia South Asia Research Centre, Australian National University.

A hard-hitting editorial published in medical journal The Lancet has said that Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government seemed more intent in removing criticism on Twitter than trying to control the Covid pandemic.

PM Modi’s actions in attempting to stifle criticism and open discussion during the crisis are “inexcusable”, it has said.

The editorial quoting The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation estimates that India will see a staggering 1 million deaths from COVID-19 by August 1. “If that outcome were to happen, Modi’s Government would be responsible for presiding over a self-inflicted national catastrophe.”

Despite warnings about the risks of superspreader events, the government allowed religious festivals to go ahead, drawing millions of people from around the country, along with huge political rallies — conspicuous for their lack of COVID-19 mitigation measures, the editorial has said.

Throwing light on the near-collapse of health infrastructure, it also criticises the government’s complacency in tackling the crisis.

“The scenes of suffering in India are hard to comprehend… hospitals are overwhelmed, and health workers are exhausted and becoming infected. Social media is full of desperate people (doctors and the public) seeking medical oxygen, hospital beds, and other necessities. Yet before the second wave of cases of COVID-19 began to mount in early March, Indian Minister of Health Harsh Vardhan declared that India was in the “endgame” of the epidemic.

“The impression from the government was that India had beaten COVID-19 after several months of low case counts, despite repeated warnings of the dangers of a second wave and the emergence of new strains. Modelling suggested falsely that India had reached herd immunity, encouraging complacency and insufficient preparation, but a serosurvey by the Indian Council of Medical Research in January suggested that only 21% of the population had antibodies against SARS-CoV.”

The editorial also said that India squandered its early successes in controlling COVID-19 and that until April, the government’s COVID-19 taskforce had not met in months.

India’s vaccination programme, too, has come under scathing criticism. The Lancet pointed out that the message that COVID-19 was essentially over also slowed the start of India’s COVID-19 vaccination campaign, which has vaccinated less than 2% of the population. At the federal level, India’s vaccination plan soon fell apart. The government abruptly shifted course without discussing the change in policy with states, expanding vaccination to everyone older than 18 years, draining supplies, and creating mass confusion and a market for vaccine doses in which states and hospital systems competed.

The crisis has not been equally distributed, with states such as Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra unprepared for the sudden spike in cases, quickly running out of medical oxygen, hospital space, and overwhelming the capacity of cremation sites. Others, such as Kerala and Odisha, were better prepared, and have been able to produce enough medical oxygen in this second wave to export it to other states.

The journal has said that India must now restructure its response while the crisis rages. The success of that effort will depend on the government owning up to its mistakes, providing responsible leadership and transparency, and implementing a public health response that has science at its heart.

The editorial has further suggested a two-pronged strategy — first, a botched vaccination campaign must be rationalised and implemented with all due speed. There are two immediate bottlenecks to overcome: increasing vaccine supply (some of which should come from abroad) and setting up a distribution campaign that can cover not just urban but also rural and poorer citizens, who constitute more than 65% of the population (over 800 million people) but face a desperate scarcity of public health and primary care facilities..

The government must work with local and primary health-care centres that know their communities and create an equitable distribution system for the vaccine. The government must publish accurate data in a timely manner, and forthrightly explain to the public what is happening and what is needed to bend the epidemic curve, including the possibility of a new federal lockdown, the editorial has said.

The Indian American Muslim Council (IAMC – www.iamc.com), an advocacy group dedicated to safeguarding India’s pluralist and tolerant ethos, today expressed dismay over the government of India’s continued obsession with managing the news coverage of the pandemic instead of the pandemic itself.

As the pandemic rages across India accounting for almost half of all new cases globally, the government ordered Twitter to block over 50 tweets that criticized its complete mismanagement of the pandemic. Among them was a tweet by Indian American Muslim Council, comparing the rabid Islamophobia targeting the Tablighi Jamaat and all Indian Muslims in the early days of the pandemic with the near silence over government support for the massive Kumbh Mela, that has endangered the lives of millions of Hindu devotees and their fellow citizens.

Today hundreds of thousands of Indians belonging to all faiths are literally gasping for breath, afflicted by a virus that makes no distinction on the basis of religion or caste. In this horrifying scenario, the government’s alacrity in pressuring Twitter to block tweets critical of its handling of the crisis shows the administration’s moral compass continues to point in a direction that is shamelessly self-serving.

“The catastrophic surge in Covid-19 cases across India and the collapse of the country’s healthcare system is a monumental albeit avoidable tragedy for which the responsibility lies squarely on the government’s misplaced priorities,” said Mr. Khalid Ansari, Vice-President of IAMC.  “Many precious lives lost to the pandemic might have been saved had the government not been obsessed with advancing the Hindutva agenda of subjugating minorities, and focused instead on governing for all Indians,” added Mr. Ansari.

Far from leading by example to overcome the crisis, the Modi administration promoted the spread of the virus by organizing countless super spreader events in the form of election rallies where masking was not enforced and where Mr. Modi as well as Home Minister Amit Shah addressed massive crowds.

IAMC has urged Indian Muslims, especially Muslim healthcare workers and relief organizations to rise to the occasion by serving their fellow citizens. Observance of civic duties, a commitment to defending the country and selfless service towards people of all faiths is the need of the hour.

Facebook was recently under fire for having access to a lot of user data than it really needs for basic functioning. There are a few ways to stop allowing Facebook to track your daily activities or data. You can turn off most of the permissions for Facebook that are not required for it to operate properly. For this, you just need to visit the settings section on your phone > Apps & notifications > Facebook > Permissions.

Users are also advised to disable ‘Off-Facebook activity’ if they don’t want the social media giant to track the apps or websites they are using. Though, Facebook will still be able to get some of your data as third-party apps or sites to share your data with Facebook as they use the company’s tools to track your usage. Facebook claims it will never ask third-parties to share the health or financial data of users.

The company itself says, “We receive activity from businesses and organisations who use our business tools so that can better understand how their website, app, or ads are performing. We use your activity to show you relevant ads and to suggest things you might be interested in.”

While Facebook has clearly stated its intention, you don’t really know if your data is safe. Last year, Facebook admitted sharing users’ data with third-party developers.

So, what data is Facebook collecting?

If you visit a site or an app, Facebook knows when you opened it or logged in, searched for an item, what item you added to a wishlist or cart, made a purchase or donation. So, if you are using an online banking app or the MakeMyTrip app to book flight tickets, Facebook can see all your activity and target ads to you accordingly. On Facebook, it knows your purchase history, contacts, search history, ads or products you interact with, precise location, physical address and more.

Android: How to stop Facebook from tracking your activities

Step 1: Open the Facebook app on your smartphone and tap on the hamburger icon, which is located on the top right corner of the screen.

Step 2: Scroll and tap on ‘Settings & Privacy.’

Step 3: Visit settings > scroll > tap on off-Facebook Activity

*Once you land on this page, it will show you which apps or sites you have visited and are sharing user data with Facebook. You can tap on each app to get additional information on what data is being shared, and what Facebook is doing with all of it. The app also lets you download all your activity details. For this, you need to tap on the three-dotted button located in the ‘Off-Facebook Activity option.’ Then, tap on ‘Download your Information’ of your off-Facebook activities.

Step 4: Tap on Clear History. This will make sure that you delete all the data that Facebook has collected. Once you clear the history, you will see all the apps disappearing from the top of the screen.

Step 5: Now to disable the option, you need to tap on ‘More options’ and then ‘Manage Future Activity.’

Step 6: Tap again on Manage Future Activity and tap on Future Off-Facebook Activity.

The iOS users can also follow the same steps. The only difference is you will find the hamburger menu at the bottom of the screen once you open the Facebook app on your device.

What will happen if you disable ‘Off-Facebook’ activity’?

Once you turn off the ‘Off-Facebook activity’ option, a Facebook user won’t get personalised advertisements based on their daily online activity. If you want your ads to be personalised, you basically have to pay for it with your data.

(From: The Indian Express; Picture: Reclaim The Net) 

Facebook-owned WhatsApp’s Privacy Policy updates have prompted unhappy users to look for alternative apps. Find out which of the three most popular messaging apps is more secure. Whatsapp currently is the largest messaging service in the world with over 2 billion monthly active users. Following that, Telegram accounts for 400 million and Signal stands at a ballpark of 10-20 million monthly active users. Simply looking at the raw numbers would suggest that WhatsApp is hugely popular and almost ubiquitous while Telegram is catching up and Signal seems to have just joined the million downloads race. However, numbers do not often tell you the entire story, hence here we do a comprehensive comparison of the three app’s security and features.

Whatsapp

WhatsApp offers almost every feature you might need. You get support for group chats with up to 256 members. You can also broadcast messages to multiple contacts at the same time. It also supports voice and video calls, both for individuals and groups. However, for group video calls, you are restricted to 8 users at any time. Further, WhatsApp also offers a Status feature (also called WhatsApp stories) similar to Instagram stories.

Whatsapp also allows you to share all sorts of files and documents, but there are file size limits to adhere to. For photos, videos, and audio files, the limit is 16 MB. However, documents can be up to 100 MB. You can also share live location with your contacts and I am sure many users find this feature helpful.

And since WhatsApp is meant for general users, it offers seamless backup and restore functionality through cloud services like Google Drive and iCloud. And the best part is that cloud backup is completely free.

Telegram

Telegram app offers so many features that it’s incredible. Similar to WhatsApp, you get the basics such as chats, group chats, and channels. However, unlike WhatsApp’s 256 member limit, Telegram brings support for groups with up to 200,000 members. It also offers multiple group-specific features such as bots, polls, quizzes, hashtags, and a lot more which can make group experiences a lot more fun.

The app also offers a unique feature, self-destructing messages (like Snapchat) which is great if you’re sending messages that you don’t want to remain on the recipient’s device for eternity. The size limit for sharing files on Telegram is a whopping 1.5 GB. The app now has both voice and video call on Android and iOS devices, which is great because video call support was a big omission from the app.

Signal

Signal offers its users secure messaging, voice, and video calls and all communications are end-to-end encrypted. Further, you can create groups, however, you don’t have the option to broadcast messages to multiple contacts at once. Plus, Signal has recently added support for group calling as well.

It has a feature similar to the self-destructing messages of Telegram. The best feature of Signal is “Note to Self”. Unlike WhatsApp, you don’t have to create a single-member group to send notes to yourself. On Signal, the feature is available natively and you can jot down your thoughts and ideas while messaging with your friends and family.

Apart from that, Signal allows you to relay voice calls to its servers so your identity remains concealed from your contacts. The feature is somewhat similar to what a VPN does. There are also emojis and some privacy stickers, but they are very limited in comparison to WhatsApp and Telegram.

Security:

Whatsapp

The end to end encryption (E2E) introduced in 2016 on WhatsApp is available on every single mode of communication that the app enables. So all your messages, video calls, voice calls, photos, and anything else you share are end-to-end encrypted. WhatsApp uses the E2E protocol developed by Open Whisper Systems, which is the name behind Signal messenger. That’s a good thing, because the Signal protocol is open source, widely peer-reviewed, and is generally considered one of the best protocols for implementing end-to-end encryption in messaging platforms.

However, WhatsApp does not encrypt backups (cloud or local). Also, it does not encrypt the metadata which is used to carry communication between two endpoints. This is one of the major criticisms of WhatsApp’s security model. While metadata does not allow anyone to read your messages, it lets authorities know whom and when you messaged someone, and for how long.

All in all, WhatsApp does a pretty decent job of ensuring security for its users. That being said, WhatsApp has suffered a couple of major privacy nightmares, especially the recent issue with group chats getting indexed on Google search. That issue has been fixed, however, it was not a good look for the messaging app.

Telegram

Telegram does offer some level of protection to its users. While Telegram supports E2E encryption, it’s not enabled by default. The only way to use E2E encryption on Telegram is to use its secret chats feature. However, Telegram states that it manages its message storage and decryption keys in a way that one would require court orders from multiple legal systems around the world to be able to access any of your data. The company says that it has shared 0 bytes of data with third-parties and governments to this date.

Telegram groups are not encrypted because Secret Chats are only supported for single-user communication. Moreover, Telegram’s desktop client doesn’t support E2E encryption on any platform other than macOS.

Signal

Signal is by far the best when it comes to security, be it on the back-end or the user-facing side of the service. Signal uses the open-source Signal Protocol to implement end-to-end encryption. And just like WhatsApp, the E2E encryption covers all forms of communication on Signal.

Signal goes one step further than others and encrypts your metadata too. To protect user privacy from all corners, Signal devised a new way to communicate between the sender and the recipient and it’s called Sealed Sender. Basically, with Sealed Sender, no one will be able to know not even Signal who is messaging whom, which ensures ultimate privacy. Signal by default encrypts all the local files with a 4-digit passphrase. And if you want to create an encrypted local backup then you can do that as well. The app now also supports encrypted group calls.

All in all, in terms of security and privacy protection, Signal stands head and shoulder above WhatsApp and Telegram and that makes it the most secure messaging app between the three.

What data does each app collect?

Following is the list of data that each of the three messaging apps collects from their users:

WhatsApp
Device ID
User ID
Advertising Data
Purchase History
Coarse Location
Phone Number
Email Address
Contacts
Product Interaction
Crash Data
Performance Data
Other Diagnostic Data
Payment Info
Customer Support
Product Interaction
Other User Content

Telegram
Contact Info
Contacts
User ID

Signal
None. (The only personal data Signal stores is your phone number)

(Story Courtesy: India Today; Picture Courtesy: Tech Life)

Twitter’s decision to ban President Trump mere days before the end of his term sparked a fierce political backlash among his most fervent allies on Saturday, sending some of his supporters — and the White House itself — scrambling to find another potent tool to communicate online.

Many prominent conservatives — including Brad Parscale, Trump’s former campaign manager, and Rush Limbaugh, the leading voice in right-wing radio — reacted to Trump’s suspension by blasting Twitter, quitting the site outright or encouraging the president’s loyal following to turn to alternative services. Trump himself signaled he is in negotiations to join other social networks, and he raised the possibility he could create a new online platform on his own.

For now, the White House is considering an early push as soon as Monday against Twitter and other tech giants, blasting it for having silenced the president’s ability to reach supporters while calling for fresh regulation against Silicon Valley, according to a person familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Trump, who is apoplectic about being banned, plans to spend the final days of his term in office railing against the industry, the person said.

Yet Trump’s threats also underscore his reliance on the very social media sites he has long disparaged for perceived political biases. On Twitter, the outgoing president frequently leveraged his more than 88 million followers to savage his rivals, boost allies, and sometimes spread falsehoods on a viral scale.

This vast online reach offered Trump an online megaphone that was unparalleled in American politics. But his rhetoric was also vitriolic — the consequences of which turned deadly after a mob of his supporters seized on his baseless tweets about the 2020 election and stormed the U.S. Capitol this week.

The president and his allies now face a daunting technical and logistical challenge in relocating to a new social network or setting up their own online hub, which is likely to be much smaller than the grand audiences Trump had enjoyed until recently. A shift away from mainstream platforms would mark a retreat to more insular conservative communities and threaten to exacerbate the partisan divisions in a country that Trump already had left on edge.

“For more casual supporters of the president, I think they will receive his messages less frequently,” said Emerson T. Brooking, a resident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council who studies issues including disinformation.

“Obviously, he will have millions of hardcore supporters tuned into broadcast sources still carrying his messages, or [they will] go into whatever online space he occupies … but that is going to be a smaller, more devoted group,” Brooking said, expressing fears they may become “extremely radicalized.”

Trump’s removal from Twitter came as part of a broader reckoning late Friday across much of the mainstream Web, as tech giants including Apple, Facebook and Google took unprecedented steps to discipline apps, users and accounts seen as instrumental in stoking the violence that left lawmakers under lockdown earlier in the week.

Before it banned Trump, Twitter removed a slew of users affiliated with QAnon, a prominent conspiracy theory. Google-owned YouTube suspended channels associated with Stephen K. Bannon, Trump’s former campaign manager. And Apple and Google both removed Parler, a pro-Trump app where users have threatened further violence, from their portals for smartphone software downloads. Apple announced its move late Saturday, saying the app is suspended until it improve its content-moderation practices. Amazon delivered the biggest blow Saturday, saying it would stop offering its web hosting services to Parler, a move that threatens to darken the conservative site indefinitely. (Amazon founder and CEO Jeff Bezos owns The Washington Post).

The actions reflect a new vigor on the part of Silicon Valley to punish those that have peddled harmful content — from election disinformation to hate speech and violent threats. Congressional lawmakers, digital researchers and human-rights groups praised the moves this week, even as they decried them as too little, too late, coming near the end of Trump’s term.

But the bans amounted to a digital massacre in the eyes of Trump’s conservative allies, many of whom decried them as censorship. One of Trump’s top allies, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), pledged he is “more determined than ever” to try to terminate legal protections for Facebook, Twitter and other social media sites, faulting them for censorship. Limbaugh deleted his Twitter account, and fellow talk-radio host Mark Levin also announced he would leave, encouraging users to do the same. The president’s son, Donald Trump Jr., posted a widely watched video on Facebook that warned supporters it is only a matter of time until social media companies “inevitably throw us all off the platforms they so heavily censor and regulate only one way.” He solicited Trump supporters to sign up for alerts on his website.

“I’ll let you know where I end up, my father ends up, where we can direct ourselves so we can keep this going,” Trump Jr. said. On Friday, Trump threatened to decamp to a new social networking serving almost immediately after Twitter banned him, vowing he would “not be SILENCED!!” — and promising a “big announcement soon.” More than any other social service, the loss of Twitter seemed to strike a personal note: Trump had been obsessed with the platform, and he loved to post a tweet and time how long it would take to command attention on television. He often would pull out his phone and say, “Watch this, bingbingbing,” recalled senior administration officials. And Trump regularly would tell senators, world leaders and others about his most popular posts, scrolling through his mentions for feedback and ideas. The White House on Saturday declined to comment on the president’s plans or timing.

Already, though, Trump’s team has been inundated with requests for him to join alternate social networks — and his emissaries have entertained conversations with other companies. But Trump has told allies he prefers to launch his own services, according to two aides, who cautioned it may be infeasible and expensive. He also plans to hammer lawmakers in the coming days for failing to repeal Section 230, a provision of federal law that spares tech giants from being held liable for the content posted by their users. Such a repeal could have backfired on Trump, some experts note, resulting in his removal from Twitter sooner.

Parscale, his former campaign manager, encouraged the president on Saturday to strike out on his own. “I believe the best avenue for POTUS is to use his own app to speak to his followers,” he said. If Apple or Google block the service, Parscale added, Trump has “a clear path to a victorious lawsuit against them.”

Even before the Capitol riot led to his suspension, Trump had weighed turning to other social media services. In the summer of 2019, aides to Trump at the White House and others on his reelection campaign discussed joining Parler, according to two people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private conversations. Trump even invited Parler’s top executive to the White House as part of a broader social media summit that summer where he blasted Silicon Valley over unproven allegations that they censor conservatives online.

A locked, private account with the name @realDonaldTrump — the same username the president once had on Twitter — appears to have sat dormant on the site since this June. The president’s campaign — under the account Team Trump — also has had an active account on Parler dating back to 2018. On Saturday, the Team Trump account blitzed their roughly 3 million followers with posts that faulted Twitter for having censored the president. Parler did not respond to a request for comment.

Another conservative hub online, Gab, took to Twitter to reveal it had a “big call with someone very special” scheduled on Saturday. The company did not mention Trump or anyone else by name, but later tweeted a story mentioning the president’s negotiations with potentially new social services, fueling speculation.

Like other pro-Trump online communities, Gab departs from much of Silicon Valley by eschewing aggressive enforcement against content that its critics see as harmful, dangerous and violent. Asked about Gab’s tweet, the company’s chief executive, Andrew Torba, responded with an insult and otherwise declined to comment. Gab later tweeted Saturday that “threats of violence have no place” on the site, noting it has “tens of thousands of volunteer users” who monitor it.

Several advisers said they believed Trump is unlikely to quickly join an outlet like Parler because he feels it doesn’t have the influence. Earlier this year, the president himself also told aides from the 2020 campaign, the White House and the Republican National Committee that he would have his own platform, but repeatedly declined to name it, saying only it would be coming “soon.”

But the president also would face a daunting task in standing up his own social network, which could be an expensive, time-consuming endeavor. Social media sites are attractive to users only insofar as they manage to capture a large number of them and their friends. Trump may struggle to incubate such an audience given the overtly political nature of his digital endeavor, some experts said.

“It’s very hard to build a new network,” said Yochai Benkler, the co-director of the Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University. “Maybe he’s so big and important he could get some millions of people to join a network. The economics will make it much more insular and internal. … Networks benefit from being an option for people to reach lots of different people.”

But Trump’s quest to rebuild his online reach — securing himself a prominent voice as he prepares to relinquish the presidency — marks only the latest effort on the part of Republicans to serve as their own information gatekeepers. The party and its allies dominated talk radio starting in the late 1980s, set their sights on cable news in the ’90s and in more recent years have stood up a wide array of websites that operate under the banner of conservative news. Social media, experts said, is simply the next frontier.

“The quote-unquote liberal bias of the media is not simply an assertion, it’s a taken-for-granted reality on the right,” said Lawrence Rosenthal, the chair of the Center for Right-Wing Studies at the University of California at Berkeley, adding that many conservatives now see the same bias in Silicon Valley. “It is the current incarnation of something that has been taken for granted on the right for decades and decades.”

(Story Courtesy: https://oltnews.com; Picture Courtesy: The Day)