airtel – Techdirt (original) (raw)

Last week, an Indian blogger, Thejesh GN, discovered that mobile operator Airtel was injecting javascript into subscribers’ browsing sessions, which is both incredibly sketchy and a huge security concern (not to mention raising net neutrality issues on the side). He posted the proof to GitHub and tweeted about it:

He posted the evidence showing that javascript was being quietly inserted, and that it apparently tried to insert some sort of toolbar:

That’s all super sketchy. But that’s just the very beginning of this story. Because days later, Thejesh received the most ridiculous legal threat letter, coming from a lawyer named Ameet Mehta from the law firm Solicis Lex. It claims to be representing an Israeli company, Flash Network, which is apparently responsible for the code injection software… and it claims that by merely revealing to the public that Airtel was doing these injections, he had engaged in criminal copyright infringement under the Information Technology Act, 2000.

If that sounds familiar, that’s because we wrote about that ridiculous law last year, noting that it would technically allow people to be put in jail for merely thinking about infringing someone’s copyright.

And the Solicis Lex lawyers, to show they’re not messing around, cc’d the police on the letter they sent:

The crux of the “copyright” claim seems fairly ridiculous:

The said code is closed source software and our client is sole proprietor of the same. Therefore, no one can use the said code without obtaining license from our client against payment of fees and/or royalties and on commercial and legal terms acceptable to our client. Your aforementioned actions constitute a blatant violation of our client’s copyrights and other proprietary rights in the said code.

Remember: all Thejesh GN did was show the code that Airtel inserted into his browser. If Flash Network thinks that showing the code that it dumps into each of your browsing sessions is criminal copyright infringement, just about anyone who does a “view source” could be guilty. That’s a plainly ridiculous reading of the law.

On top of that, the lawyers sent a DMCA notice to GitHub, which caved in and took it down:

This is despite GitHub’s recent promise not to take things down without first alerting the users in question.

Absolutely everything about this is insane and bad. The initial injections by Airtel/Flash are bad and dangerous. Both companies should be called out for such javascript injections. But, Flash’s response to not only threaten a completely bogus copyright takedown/cease and desist claim, but also to allege criminal violations that could lead to jail time just adds an insane layer on top of all that. Even arguing that merely posting screenshots of the injected code is civil copyright infringement is crazy. And then issuing a DMCA takedown to GitHub (not to mention GitHub agreeing to take the screenshots down…). All of it is ridiculous and a clear abuse of copyright law to silence someone who revealed Airtel and Flash Network were up to questionable activities.

For those who argue that copyright is never used for censorship: explain this story.

Of course, it all seems to be backfiring in a big way. Flash may have wanted to hide what they were up to, but now it’s getting much, much, much more attention. Maybe, next time, rather than threatening whistleblowers of your bad practices with claims of criminal copyright infringement, Flash and Airtel will think more about their own crappy business practices that put users at risk.

Filed Under: cease and decist, copyright, criminal copyright, dmca takedown, free speech, india, injection, israel, javascript, javascript injection, thejesh gn
Companies: airtel, flash network, github, solicis lex

Facebook, Google's Supposed Love Of Net Neutrality Notably Absent In India

from the don't-be-evil dept

Thu, Apr 16th 2015 06:16am - Karl Bode

With it now relatively clear that nobody will tolerate outright throttling or blocking of services, we’ve noted repeatedly how ISPs have turned their gaze toward other, more subtle ways of abusing their gatekeeper mono/duopolies on the net neutrality front. The most notable being interconnection — or intentionally degrading service to extract new tolls from content companies, and zero rated apps — or letting some content bypass the cap if a content or service company is willing to pay ISPs a premium. Both battlefields obviously benefit the ISPs and content companies with the deepest pockets.

One of the major reasons Facebook and Google were so quiet during the latest round of the net neutrality fight is because they were happy with the original 2010 rules, given they didn’t cover wireless whatsoever. But they were also happy about the loopholes regarding zero rated apps, which play a starring role in the companies’ future global ambitions. Zero rating is particularly important to the companies overseas, where both offer free, walled-garden internet access where their services get preferential treatment from wireless carriers (see Facebook Zero or Google Free Zone).

With the neutrality debate taking root globally, both Facebook and Google are taking increased criticism for “supporting net neutrality in the US” (though, as we’ve noted, they really haven’t) while pushing for zero-rated models that trample neutrality overseas. In India for example, regulators are now being bombarded with comments from a public that’s realizing just how badly these models tilt the entire massive playing field toward the gaping maws of industry giants, whether that’s the regional wireless company, Facebook, or both:

“Reliance?s deal with Facebook, called Internet.org, effectively gives you one social network at no cost, while forcing you to pay for others like LinkedIn. It might seem like the company being generous, but it only works because Facebook and Reliance were able to strike a deal. A smaller social networking firm that doesn?t have Facebook?s resources or influence would find it harder to build an audience, because they?re competing with a free service….Pahwa pointed out that this strategy could result in dominance of major players in the market and crowding out of others who can?t afford to ?strike deals or pay up for getting access to the fast lane”.

Indian Internet users aren’t alone in realizing the problems inherent in zero rated apps. A growing chorus of Internet content companies have started backing away from zero rated efforts like Airtel Zero or Facebook’s Internet.org deal with Reliance. The Times Group, India Today, NDTV, IBNLive, NewsHunt, and BBC have all pulled out of the initiatives citing the bad precedent set in cherry picking which content gets a free ride. Flight, hotel and travel price tracking website Cleartrip also dropped out, posting to their blog that such exclusionary practices are against the company’s DNA:

“…the recent debate around #NetNeutrality gave us pause to rethink our approach to Internet.org and the idea of large corporations getting involved with picking and choosing who gets access to what and how fast. What started off with providing a simple search service has us now concerned with influencing customer decision-making by forcing options on them, something that is against our core DNA.”

While the neutrality debate in India may be fresher, the public and industry there are already more in tune to the threat posed by zero rated apps than many U.S. customers and companies are. And the U.S. and India are obviously seeing more conversation on this issue than, say, markets in Africa. There, in many markets, users are happy to get access no matter what it looks like, and Google and Facebook are aggressively jockeying for pole position over billions in new advertising eyeballs. These services in particular are a two-sided coin. On the one side, both companies are correct in noting that the services deliver limited web access (and all the great things that entails) to those who currently don’t have service. On the other hand, as Susan Crawford highlighted a few years ago, what these users are getting is a notable bastardization of the internet:

“For poorer people, Internet access will equal Facebook. That?s not the Internet?that?s being fodder for someone else?s ad-targeting business,” she says. “That?s entrenching and amplifying existing inequalities and contributing to poverty of imagination?a crucial limitation on human life.”

If you’re building internet access from the ground up dominated by a few ISPs and a few content gatekeepers, it certainly makes you wonder what kind of strange monstrosities these models evolve into. When the internet starts from a place of openness, companies have a steeper uphill climb. Here in the States, both AT&T and T-Mobile have struggled to convince the public that these models heavily benefit consumers. AT&T has been setting a horrible precedent by allowing deep pocketed companies to bypass usage caps, pitching the concept as “1-800” or “free shipping” for data. T-Mobile’s had better luck convincing users that exempting only the biggest music services is a consumer boon for the ages (it’s not, because it puts non-profits, independents and smaller companies in an immediate competitive hole).

While zero rated apps are now banned by net neutrality rules in a growing list of countries (Chile, Slovenia, The Netherlands and Canada), the FCC’s new rules appear to take a hands off approach to zero rating. That’s a decision you can be sure Facebook and Google — both still frequently praised in the media as champions of net neutrality — had notable input on.

Filed Under: favoritism, india, internet, net neutrality, picking favorites, zero rating
Companies: airtel, facebook, google, internet.org, reliance, wikipedia

Indian ISP Penalized For 'Overblocking' In Obeying Court Order To Try To Stop Infringement

from the damned-if-you-do... dept

We’ve written a couple of times about Indian ISPs overblocking websites in response to vague court orders to try to prevent copyright infringement of a particular film. The responses seemed like massive overkill, such as blocking complete access to certain sites — including sites like Vimeo — that have perfectly legitimate reasons for existing. It seems that this overkill may be coming back to haunt some ISPs. Airtel has now been penalized by a Consumer Forum in India for going too far with its blocks. Airtel was ordered to pay one of its customers 20,000 rupees (or about $360) for “deficiency in Internet service, thereby causing mental anguish to the complaintant.”

The order said that Airtel misinterpreted the original court order, and couldn’t justify its actions by hiding behind it.

“By misinterpreting the Madras High Court order, Airtel blocked entire websites. It is needless to say that the company’s actions amount to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice,” said the forum.

Of course, the article goes on to note that there has been some confusion over what was originally asked to be blocked. The anti-piracy company, Copyright Labs, who asked for the block order, claimed that it had only asked for specific infringing URLs to be blocked, but a freedom of information request revealed that it had actually asked for blocking of entire websites.

All in all, this highlights some of the many problems that occur when you give copyright holders the power to order outright censorship. It’s good to see some push-back. If other customers in India file similar complaints, perhaps ISPs will think twice before engaging in widespread censorship.

Filed Under: blocking, copyright, india, overblocking
Companies: airtel

Wrong IP Address Puts Man In Prison For 50 Days

from the sorry-about-that dept

As many companies would still like to believe that an IP address is all you need to identify a person using a computer, it’s worth remembering that not only does an IP address not definitively identify who was using a computer, but it can easily get mixed up. A year ago, we had the story of someone whose house got incorrectly raided (by Shaquille O’Neal, for some unexplained reason) for child porn after an ISP gave investigators the wrong IP address info. It sounds like something similar has happened in India, where a man spent 50 days in prison for posting insulting pictures to Orkut. The only problem was that the guy had nothing to do with it. His ISP handed over the wrong information. This was only discovered once police found and arrested the people who actually uploaded the image. We won’t even get into the question of why people are being arrested for uploading insulting photos, but this should serve as a warning to anyone who thinks that relying on an IP address as the sole piece of evidence is reasonable.

Filed Under: ip address
Companies: airtel, google