RTI activists fear move to dilute open e-governance Deepa Kurup, The Hindu
http://beta.thehindu.com/news/national/article19677.ece

A move by the Centre to bring in an intellectual property rights-based
regime in e-governance services comes under fire.

A move by the Department of Information Technology to bring in an
intellectual property rights-based regime in e-governance services is being
opposed by activists who fear the shift will dilute the Right to Information
Act.

Right to information (RTI) activists, under the aegis of the National
Campaign for People’s Rights to Information (NCPRI), have written to the DIT
opposing demands made by industry bodies to allow adoption of multiple and
royalty-based technological standards, which will determine access and
affordability of future public e-services.

The National Policy on Open Standards for e-governance, being finalised by
the DIT, has been stirring heated debate since its second draft version was
released in July. In the context of implementing RTI Act (2005), the NCPRI
working committee members Aruna Roy, Nikhil Dey, Shekhar Singh, Maja
Daruwalla and Venkatesh Nayak, had written that open and free standards are
“key to realising the letter and intent of the RTI Act”.

The NCPRI has opposed this demand terming it an “attempt to subvert the
intent of the policy.” Appreciating the “progressive” line taken by the
original draft policy made public in 2008, the letter states that any move
to dilute the open and free nature of these standards, would be antithetical
to the spirit of the RTI Act. According to the Act, citizens can have “free
and unhindered access to government information and data systems.”

The “industry demand” will only deny long-term accessibility to public
documents and information, the letter argues. This will only benefit the
licence/patent holders and also create (or retain) monopolies for software
products, the NCPRI maintains.

The RTI Act includes, in Section 2(i), the right to access information held
in digital form. It also mandates (in Section 4(1)(a) that all records be
“computerised within a reasonable time... and connected through a network
all over the country on different systems.”

Mr. Nayak told *The Hindu *that this would impact “pro-active disclosure and
free access” both of which lay at the core of the Act. “Today, the Internet
is a major vehicle of dissemination of information. Now, if the software
used by the government is proprietary then it is likely that access to these
services will later migrate to a pay-and-use model. Why should a perfectly
good policy be restricted and hindered to cater to the obvious financial
interests of corporations?”

*Multiple standards*

The NCPRI states that multiple standards defeat the objective of providing a
common basis for every user. It will also force the citizens to buy software
products from different companies to access government data or interact with
public service providers. Further, the letter argues, that royalty-based
standards are against the RTI Act, which stipulates that information be made
available at no cost other than that of photocopying.

In the context of obtaining public information through the Act, multiple and
royalty-free standards could be problematic on two counts. The citizen would
have to use multiple pieces of software to access government data.
Incorporating royalty-based standards would involve costs that might have to
be borne by the data user (in this case the RTI applicant).

Keywords: RTI Act <http://beta.thehindu.com/news/national/article19677.ece#>
, NCPRI <http://beta.thehindu.com/news/national/article19677.ece#>,
e-governance <http://beta.thehindu.com/news/national/article19677.ece#>

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Green Youth Movement" group.
 To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected]
 For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to