The case of IT policy and civil society non-engagement

This musing is in response to an article on Internet censorship which I read today morning. ( The article is posted below ). The article talks about the fact that a man who was arrested for allegedly tainting the image of ‘Shivaji’ – a prominent Maratha(Hindu) ruler, over Orkut was finally released after 50 days… because they had got the wrong guy and he in fact was innocent…

What is disturbing is the fact that this person was behind bars for 50 days… I mean we know that there are probably hundreds of thousands of people in India and all over the world even who are behind bars for donkeys years without facing any kind of trail/not knowing why there are in there in the first place… however there are 2 aspects to this story which appalls me

1. One is this inherent disgust with the Indian citizenry which does not seem to care… and it is something which I keep talking about … and if this beautiful attitude continues to pervade us, not even the Almighty can help us… brings me to this very touching and moving poem???, which I came across a couple of years ago, and something which I thought was worth sharing… This was apparently written in a Nazi concentration camp (that’s what a lawyer friend of mine tells me)… So here it goes

They came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up

And I think this quite sums up the mental attitude of citizens who dont seem to care as long as it does not affect them

2. The second point which I want to raise and specific to this context is the fact that, in the case of shaping policy for the subject under consideration… what clearly seems to be happening is that policy is already getting enacted very discreetly by the government… just last week there was this report in a newspaper(Recipe for killing internet in India - http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Recipe_for_killing_Internet_in_India/articleshow/2464971.cms) , which says that a govt committee had recommended that the onus of filtering all ‘objectionable material’ on the Internet broadcast over Indian territory should fall on the ISP’s. Now, the newspaper itself said that the committee itself did not understand the nuances of the functioning of the Internet and therefore was making such wild suggestions. The truth however as we now know is that, with tremendously powerful technologies being available, it is relatively easy for governments and companies to regulate the content which is being broadcast over the Internet. As long as governments did not grasp the complete nature of the Internet, they let it develop on its own and did not interfere. However, with a deeper understanding of the Internet and the realization that the Internet in fact could make or break governments and so on, governments have started investing heavily into these technologies. In fact, for the first time this year, the government had a dedicated portion of the IT budget for procuring such powerful servers which when fitted to the backbone, could very easily differentiate content and block ‘unwanted content’. FYI… a court in Belgium has ruled that ISPs are responsible for filtering content entering that country.

So the point which I am making or trying to make is the fact that the engagement or lack of engagement by civil society in shaping policy in an area whose implications are still nebulous and where there is a real chance to do some good is damning . Amongst those few organisations in civil society itself working on this issue, there seems to be an amazing ambivalence … that ambivalence had got to do with the fact, whether one should have a policy at all ( since having a policy may in fact be detrimental to the Internet which is the last free space and so on )… and others who are fence sitters who are not too sure which way to go, but feel that not having a policy is not an option, the only question being whether to influence policy at the national or global level … since negotiating policy spaces at UN type summits could be more broader than national ones which are seen to be more restrictive. My position is that, there needs to be a policy and there can be no two ways about it. The moot question of course being, how, where and under what conditions does one being to negotiate a policy space on this front… As I said non engagement is not an option.

The article which I have referred to write this article is as follows

"Shivaji taint off techie", The Telegraph, October 25, 2007

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1071025/asp/nation/story_8471391.asp