10012 - On Maneka Gandhi saying that online trolling of women will be treated as violence - Medianama

Updated: On Maneka Gandhi saying that online trolling of women will be treated as violence

By Sneha Johari ( @thejunebug ) on May 19, 2016

Update, 19 May: The home ministry plans to release a portal named Cyber Crime Prevention against Women and Children (CCPWC) under the Nirbhaya Fund, developed jointly by the Home and Women & Child Development Ministry to let Indian women post complaints about online harassment, reports DNA. 

The report adds that Home Ministry’s cyber cell will monitor the portal and act on complaints. The CCPWC scheme will cost Rs 244.32 crore. Additionally, the Home Ministry has roped in NASSCOM and the Department of Electronics and Information Technology (DeitY) to formulate guidelines for online matrimonial sites.

Earlier, 18 May: Maneka Gandhi, the Union Cabinet Minister for Women & Child Development, has stated that online abuse and trolling of women in India should be treated as violence against them, reports NDTV. Gandhi gave an example of women in online matrimonial ads who were “targeted with dirty calls late at night, harassed and stalked.”

She said that companies running online matrimonial services “refused to cooperate” and she had to route this request through the Telecom Ministry to “protect women and reveal details of abusers.” Gandhi also added that she has suggested that the Home Ministry create a department to deal with online attacks against women.

Currently, there’s no further information on this and we’ll be tracking this issue to understand the government’s definitions of trolling (harassment notwithstanding) and the department.

Note that in November last year, the government had set up a five member panel from different ministries to draft guidelines which would set up norms for matrimonial websites. The norms would require users to submit a valid ID proof like passport or a voter identity card to sign up on such websites. The guidelines were yet to be finalised at that point of time and the government would notify the IT ministry and incorporate it under the IT Act.

Aadhaar for verification: In December 2014, the women and child ministry had suggested that Aadhaar should be used to authenticate profiles on matrimonial sites. At the time it was reported that the ministry was concerned of increasing instances of women being cheated while looking for grooms as users would create multiple profiles.

MediaNama’s Take

Nikhil’s view: We’ve heard that the government is considering bringing 66A back, and wonder if this is a ruse to essentially bring in a law that restricts speech online. Trolling is a word loosely used to include even irritating someone online. The Wikipedia definition:

In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, often for their own amusement.

This would bring it in conformity with the broad definition of what 66A used to be:

a) any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character; or
b) any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred, or ill will, persistently makes by making use of such computer resource or a communication device,
c) any electronic mail or electronic mail message for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine.

Note that in March last year, the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the IT Act, 2008, calling it unconstitutional, and when it did that, it explained the grounds on the basis of which restrictions on speech (including online) are applicable: specifically, that there are “three aspects of freedom of expression: discussion, advocacy and incitement. Only when discussion and advocacy reach the level of incitement, is Article 19 (2) (of the Constitution of India), which puts reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech, applicable.

Justice Nariman also said that Section 66A makes no distinction on whether the communication has any impact on public order. The clear and present danger test and the public disorder test ought to be a prerequisite. What may be offensive to one may not be to another, what may be annoying to one may not be to another. That is what renders 66a unconstitutional and vague. “Governments come and governments go, the law persists. And the law must be judged on its own merit. 66A is invalid and it cannot be saved even if the government says it wont abuse the law,” he added.

I doubt that trolling meets the 66A test, and perhaps the phrase that Ms Gandhi was looking for, is “abuse”, which is a whole different debate.

A female take (from Sneha): I’m not sure of the impact Gandhi is attempting to have on online trolling as such. I see two sides to it: A measure like setting up a team to block or report internet trolls in this case, in India, might have a counter-effect on the online population leading to even more online harassment, given the increasing penetration of smartphones and the internet. (Or we could talk about the ignorance shown by the government when it comes to matters of the internet, where also, hate speech is not defined.)

The other side is, and by and large I can already hear a resounding “No!” within, it might make Indian females on the internet feel slightly safer, given that they can’t feel physically safe in their own cities. It would be interesting to see what the ministry comes up with and I hope it asks for a public consultation as well before it formulates a specific order.

5974 - Manekaji shouldn’t fret about matrimonial sites - Economic Times

Manekaji shouldn’t fret about matrimonial sites

November 10, 2014, 1:57 AM IST Economic Times in ET 

By Rajyasree Sen

It’s a tough world for single people. Especially for those looking to get married. You can put your profile on various matrimonial sites, but women are just so picky. According to a 2013 Economic Times report (goo.gl/wnSHS8), there were 35-40 million online registered profiles on matrimonial sites. And 2.2 million online profiles were being uploaded every month. Of these, only 10% were ending up finding spouses online. What wretched odds.

The men seem to be having it especially bad. Today, more and more women are earning and are financially independent, thereby taking away one of the main reasons for opting for an arranged marriage. According to India’s best-selling author in English, Indian women don’t even want to marry men who can’t speak English properly.

On top of all this, there’s women and child development minister Maneka Gandhi who has suggested that men who don’t provide their Aadhaar card details to online matrimonial sites be barred from creating profiles on these sites. So is she a champion of Nandan Nilekani’s wise ways? No. 

Manekaji knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men. According to her, there’s been a rise in cases of men duping women through fake profiles and the Aadhaar card identification will ensure they don’t create fake profiles. “Our idea is to ensure that stalkers, serial daters and married men posing as single get filtered out,” said the honourable minister. Of course, women never indulge in any of these activities.

It’s a separate matter that the problem lies beyond creating a fake profile. Sanjeev Kumar, business head at SimplyMarry. com, says, “Posting incorrect information on age, religion or marital status are the most common problems in online marriage portals, as is lying about salary.” The Aadhaar card won’t stop the creativity of these men. On top of that, Aadhaar cards are known for getting information. Wrong.

Instead of their profile picture, people have found a picture of a tree, a chair and even a dog on their Aadhaar card. Also in March, the Supreme Court had ruled that the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) couldn’t share biometric or other personal information with anyone without the cardholder’s permission. Would you want a matrimonial site to have full access to all these details, simply because you want to find yourself a bride? Since your marital status isn’t mentioned on the card, the UIDAI would have to provide that detail to the sites. A slight invasion of privacy there.

But then, if you’re on a matrimonial site, maybe privacy isn’t top priority. Also, if you don’t want women to end up carrying the burden of the Indian man, maybe a PAN card should be mandatory. At least that will give us women the hope that the marriageable man might be earning a living and paying his taxes — always a good perk in a mail-order husband.

While Manekaji’s concern for the welfare of women looking for a groom online is endearing, maybe she should let the women who have access to the internet and are educated, focus on finding their husbands themselves. If you’re on a matrimonial site, the least you can do is some due diligence before saying ‘I do’. Is this what we want our minister for women and child development to spend her time doing?

She could do with focusing on slightly more helpless and hapless women like those being married off as children. 

According to a Unicef report, six states — Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Jharkhand and West Bengal — have the highest incidence of child marriage, ranging from 51.9% to 68.2%. “In these states, at least one in two currently married women in the age group 20-24 years happened to be a child bride,” states the report. Maybe she could focus on the introduction of new legislation on child marriage that would include provisions for compulsory registration of adult marriages, recording of child marriages and creation of ‘child marriage prevention officers’.

I’d say, let the able and educated women among us look out for ourselves. I think we are more than capable of doing so. And if not, we need to learn to be more capable. And really, do we want the government to interfere in this manner into our marital or romantic lives? Next, we’ll be told we have to have Aadhaar cards to sign in to Tinder. One more tension added to finding a good enough profile picture.

(For a counterview, read Yahoo’s ‘The ugly truth behind matrimony sites!’, at goo.gl/qA29Yu)

DISCLAIMER : Views expressed above are the author's own.

5957 - Marriage portals to firewall fake 'grooms' - Hindustan times

Marriage portals to firewall fake 'grooms'

Moushumi Das Gupta  New Delhi, November 06, 2014

First Published: 01:07 IST(6/11/2014) | Last Updated: 07:26 IST(6/11/2014)

Married men posing as single, serial daters looking to hook up and stalkers on the prowl, beware. Matrimonial websites may soon set up firewalls against men who put up fake profiles.

Increasing instances of women being cheated while looking for grooms online has prompted women and child development minister Maneka Gandhi to intervene. In a meeting this week with senior representatives of leading websites such as Bharat Matrimony and Jeevansathi.com, she advised beefing up security features and suggested making Aadhaar numbers mandatory to keep out or track down frauds.

“Making Aadhaar mandatory is one of the ideas I suggested to ensure the identity of a person is genuine. These websites need to recognize there is a problem and they need to come up with a solution,” Gandhi told HT.

Presently, a mobile number is the only requirement to put up one’s profile and the portal verifies the number. This is clearly not enough, said Gandhi.

“We have set the websites a deadline of a week to come up with an effective mechanism to track the online activity of men who put up profiles. Our idea is to ensure that stalkers, serial daters and married men posing as single get filtered out,” she added.

“The representatives conceded that there was a need to do more. “It’s an evolving system and our technology teams are constantly working on strengthening safety features to detect fraud,” said Rohan Mathur, national sales head, Jeevansathi.com.

However, they are skeptical about making Aadhaar mandatory. “We are open to the idea but can’t stop people from registering if they don’t have an Aadhaar number. Our internal checks are quite stringent. We also carry out physical verifications if there is a complaint or if our system comes across dubious profiles,” said Kaushik Tiwari, vice-president, Bharat Matrimony.

Marriage websites are hugely popular in India. Jeevansathi.com, for instance, reported 5.6 million profiles in its annual report for 2012-13.

2525 - The future of UID cards ID crisis: Does UID card face UK project's fate? - CIOL

The future of UID cards

ID crisis: Does UID card face UK project's fate?

The UIDAI claims to have enrolled about 20 crore people so far, but many questions remain unanswered on the issues clouding the ambitious project to give a number to every resident of the country, intended for equal social benefits

Chokkapan S

Thursday, April 19, 2012

That apart, there was also concern over whether the technology would work and in Whitley's own words, no scheme on that scale had been undertaken anywhere in the world. "The India project is, of course, even bigger. Smaller and less ambitious schemes had encountered substantial technological and operational problems, which may get amplified in a large-scale national system."


Is Aadhaar similar?
Referring to the U.K. instance, the Parliamentary Panel pointed that the UID project also involved high costs, was complex in nature, had unreliable technology and posed safety risks.


According to Prof. R. Ramakumar, associate professor at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai, who has been vocal in his stance on the UID issue, "Each conclusion in the report should be discussed threadbare in the public domain. Biometrics should be withdrawn from government projects as a proof of identity."


Alternative, and cheaper, measures to provide people with valid identity proofs should be explored, is his solution. "However, it would be a travesty of democratic principles, if the government disregards the Parliament's Standing Committee on Finance report and pushes the project in through the backdoor."


Boon or curse?
In the context of having a common denominator for all people, says Dr N. Seshagiri – who founded the National Informatics Centre and served as its director-general till 2000 – it is a good project for a developing country. But, he adds, the correlation should not be misused thereby amounting to privacy breach and security concerns.


"It can either be a boon or a curse, depending on how you implement and use it. You can't put a bind to technology, if it is implemented properly. Also, maintenance of the project in the long run is important. Those concerned with the project should have the foresight for the times to come and think right now about updation and other issues that might crop up in future."


What if the project gets eroded in about 10 years, as there is a strong possibility that those involved at present might not be around by then? questioned Seshagiri.


Like Maneka Gandhi, who went to get her UID number only to find to her dismay that someone else had signed on her behalf, many concerned people – but less affluent – are awaiting their cards, with a lot of hope that it might make a difference to their lives.


Will it or will it not? Is it facing a similar fate as the UK identity project? Only those entrusted with rolling out the project can ensure. Not through their words, but by deeds.

©CIOL Bureau