<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif">That being the case India has some of the more interesting contraventions of this policy - just google "arrested for facebook post" and India has the best hits on there. </div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif">Sure while giving ID proof while utilizing the internet may not be a legal requirement (as per local or international law) - its enforced by most service providers here. </div>
</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><font face="tahoma,sans-serif"><strong><font color="#3d85c6">Chaitanya Dhareshwar</font></strong></font></div><div><strong><font color="#3d85c6" face="Tahoma"></font></strong><font face="tahoma,sans-serif"><br>
<a href="http://in.linkedin.com/in/chaitanyabd" target="_blank"><font color="#3d85c6">Linkedin</font></a></font><font face="tahoma,sans-serif"> | </font><a href="http://cbd.vcio.in" target="_blank"><font color="#3d85c6">Blog</font></a><font> <font face="tahoma,sans-serif">| </font><font face="tahoma,sans-serif">Skype: <font color="#3d85c6">chaitanyabd</font></font></font></div>
<div><font face="Tahoma"><font>Mobile: <font color="#3d85c6">+91.9820760253</font></font></font></div></div></div>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Norbert Bollow <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:nb@bollow.ch" target="_blank">nb@bollow.ch</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="">On Sat, 9 Aug 2014 14:16:04 +0530<br>
Chaitanya Dhareshwar <<a href="mailto:chaitanyabd@gmail.com">chaitanyabd@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> I don't see why this would be a human rights violation<br>
<br>
</div>You need to look at the measure in its context. There is no way that<br>
the intention behind this measure and the human right to freedom of<br>
speech could possibly be reconciled. In this case, the goals clearly<br>
include an intention to reduce legitimate but critical political speech,<br>
and to gain information on critics.<br>
<br>
That said, it wouldn't hurt to think deeply and honestly about whether<br>
similar identification requirements are really acceptable in contexts<br>
where the objectives are legitimate law enforcement goals.<br>
<br>
As the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has recently<br>
noted:<br>
<br>
19. In a similar vein, it has been suggested that the interception or<br>
collection of data about a communication, as opposed to the content of<br>
the communication, does not on its own constitute an interference with<br>
privacy. From the perspective of the right to privacy, this<br>
distinction is not persuasive. The aggregation of information<br>
commonly referred to as “metadata” may give an insight into an<br>
individual’s behaviour, social relationships, private preferences and<br>
identity that go beyond even that conveyed by accessing the content<br>
of a private communication. As the European Union Court of Justice<br>
recently observed, communications metadata “taken as a whole may<br>
allow very precise conclusions to be drawn concerning the private<br>
lives of the persons whose data has been retained.” Recognition of<br>
this evolution has prompted initiatives to reform existing policies<br>
and practices to ensure stronger protection of privacy.<br>
<br>
20. It follows that any capture of communications data is potentially<br>
an interference with privacy and, further, that the collection and<br>
retention of communications data amounts to an interference with<br>
privacy whether or not those data are subsequently consulted or used.<br>
Even the mere possibility of communications information being<br>
captured creates an interference with privacy, with a potential<br>
chilling effect on rights, including those to free expression and<br>
association. The very existence of a mass surveillance programme thus<br>
creates an interference with privacy. The onus would be on the State<br>
to demonstrate that such interference is neither arbitrary nor<br>
unlawful.<br>
<br>
Source:<br>
<a href="http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/DigitalAge/Pages/DigitalAgeIndex.aspx" target="_blank">http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/DigitalAge/Pages/DigitalAgeIndex.aspx</a><br>
<br>
Note in particular the last sentence. It is true that many states<br>
have some kinds of ID requirements in relation to electronic<br>
communications, but they are currently not even attempting to fulfill<br>
this responsibility “to demonstrate that such interference is neither<br>
arbitrary nor unlawful.”<br>
<br>
Greetings,<br>
Norbert<br>
<div class=""><br>
<br>
On Sat, 9 Aug 2014 14:16:04 +0530<br>
Chaitanya Dhareshwar <<a href="mailto:chaitanyabd@gmail.com">chaitanyabd@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> I don't see why this would be a human rights violation (speaking from<br>
> India pov) given the fact that:<br>
><br>
> 1. You need to submit ID proof when you take an internet connection<br>
> at your residence/office<br>
> 2. You need to product ID proof while using a cyber cafe<br>
><br>
> So since this regulatory aspect is already put in place one would<br>
> naturally expect that if there's some form of public wifi the service<br>
> provider would ask for ID proof...?<br>
><br>
> Best,<br>
><br>
</div>> *Chaitanya Dhareshwar*<br>
><br>
> Linkedin <<a href="http://in.linkedin.com/in/chaitanyabd" target="_blank">http://in.linkedin.com/in/chaitanyabd</a>> | Blog<br>
> <<a href="http://cbd.vcio.in" target="_blank">http://cbd.vcio.in</a>> | Skype: chaitanyabd<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">> Mobile: +91.9820760253<br>
><br>
><br>
> On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Norbert Bollow <<a href="mailto:nb@bollow.ch">nb@bollow.ch</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> > Reuters:<br>
> ><br>
> > Russia demands Internet users show ID to access public Wifi<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/08/us-russia-internet-idUSKBN0G81RV20140808" target="_blank">http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/08/us-russia-internet-idUSKBN0G81RV20140808</a><br>
> ><br>
> > In my view this is a clear human rights violation and something<br>
> > that I would expect us all to be able to agree to condemn.<br>
> ><br>
> > May I request the IGC coordinators to coordinate some action in<br>
> > regard to this matter?<br>
> ><br>
> > Greetings,<br>
> > Norbert<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > ____________________________________________________________<br>
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
> > <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
> > To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
> > <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>
> ><br>
> > For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
> > <a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a><br>
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br>
> > <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
> ><br>
> > Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>