Re: [HumJanenge] AID obtains IB's list of RTI activists with suspected terrorist links

Why the disinformation is being spread in the public through this blog?  Some one has written that he has a list of 600 RTI suspected activists having links with terrorists.  When many members asked for the list, he is keeping mum for over many days.

 

Some other members said that the list cannot be disclosed as it is confidential. Once, the Public Authority provided some information under the RTI Act, that becomes public and there is no bar on its sharing.  When the PIO has not stated any condition that the information cannot be shared, why such speculations?  Even if a PIO put such a condition, that is not valid. 
Govt. never share confidential information with the public.  Once a public authority (MCD or Home Ministry, as I remember) put such condition on the information, it was highlighted in the media.

 

If some one has any doubt about this, he should take advise from any advocate or can file another RTI with the same public authority seeking clarification.  The reply of the PIO can be shared with me and I shall file the RTI seeking clarification.  

 

No misinformation campaign to demean the genuine RTI activists shld be undertaken with vested instered on this blog.  

 

Waiting for hearing from the member who informed about the reply that 600.activiists have suspected links with terrorists.  

 

One myth is also being spread about RTI martyrs Mr. Amit Jethwa.  When even alleged hard core terrorist Ajmal Kasab is being tried for alleged killings of innocent numorous citizens, how some one can claim that Jethwa was ............ without any such pronouncment by the Court after trial.  No politician has a right to take the law in his hand by allegedly his involvement in the assissination (I will not say murder  him. It was because Mr Jethwa was trying to expose some scam etc. 

 

If no reply is received in a reasonable period, the informatin should be construed as false and a decision should be taken that such a member should be allowed his mail on this blog.

 

 

 

 

On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 9:49 AM, sroy 1947 <sroy1947@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Mr Ravindran

I interpret the Law (ie. the composite body of laws of India read together in harmony) the way it is written, and not the way some silly little RTI activist whose head is filled with nonsense ("section 22 RTI Act overrides all law") does.

FYI, I do not have any inclination to be an IC (or the CIC).

Sarbajit

On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 8:40 PM, Ravindran P M <pmravindran@gmail.com> wrote:

Please see the highlighted portion. Has this guy also been appointed an IC? The way he is misinterpreting/trying to subvert the law gives such an impression!

 

ravi

On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 12:38 PM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:

To
The List Moderator/Humjannge@googlegroups

Whereas the present group regulations prohibit NGOs from publicising themselves or their programs, but they are silent on individuals who misuse RTI groups to promote themselves and their consultancies under the fig leaf of RTI / activism.

The present moderation scheme here seems to have greatly reduced the volume of spam /emails  emanating from this group. I opine that if some more steps are taken, achieving the  target of 300 emails per month is well within hand.

I would also like to caution the youngcyberindian that directly disclosing the information provided to him in RTI to others is an offence punishable under Official Secrets Act, Indian Penal Code, and Defence of India Rules etc. (A prudent person in these circumstances who is mindful of his civic duty would prefer to circulate chunk sized lists of eminent RTI personalities referring to those lists <smile>)

Sarbajit

On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 7:58 PM, Kris Dev <krisdev@gmail.com> wrote:

Sirs,

I am also interested in the details. Can you please share it with me. If you can send me a soft copy today or tomorrow, I would appreciate.

I am participating in the Battle of Ideas 2010 debate on 'A new technological democracy' on Nov 23 at Chennai, conducted by Institute of Ideas, London. The details of the programme are given below.

If anyone would like to support with ideas, you are most welcome. Please mail / contact.

Best,
Kris Dev, e-Gov Consultant

GopalaKrishnan Devanathan,

President & CEO,
Life Line to Business / Life Line to Citizen,
Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
email: krisdev@gmail.com
http://krisdev.wordpress.com/about/
URL: http://ll2b.blogspot.com
Ph: + 91 98 408 52132 / 1 (206) 274 1635
Twitter: @krisdev

- Winner of Innovations Award 2009 for IT Innovation;
- Manthan Awardee 2006 for Rural Grass-Root Initiative in Establishing Unique Biometric Identity for e-Inclusion & Livelihood Creation;
- Selected for World Bank Innovation Fair 2010.

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. … Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 

"A quick evaluation of the progress we have achieved in the last 20 years shows that in the area of poverty alleviation, we have not done enough.  History will judge us harshly, unless we seize the opportunity to do more." - Archbishop Njongo Ndungane, President and Founder, African Monitor.

"When the Power of Love overcomes the Love of Power the World will know peace." Jimi Hendrix.

"Be not afraid of life. Believe that life is worth living, and your belief will help create the fact." - William James

"There is nothing more sacred to a free people than the right to govern themselves and take matters into their own hands when their elected officials have failed them. When the very government which the people have created to secure their liberty and domestic tranquility imposes restraints on their freedom, the people have a duty to try to break the shackles themselves." - Ward Connerly, Chairman of the American Civil Rights Coalition.

"We are powerful before the powerless; and powerless before the powerful"; how sadly true! why not reverse it?! 

Practice is better than precept.

Battle of Ideas 2010 - a debate on A new technological democracy? on Tuesday 23^rd November at Landmark Books in Chennai.

India is not only the world's largest democracy, but also one of the most high-tech, having pioneered electronic voting machines. Technology has not only modernised the physical act of voting, however, but arguably transformed the practice of democracy more generally. Politics now pervades the internet, with politicians and activists taking advantage of everything from email to blogs, video-sharing and social networking sites. Laptops and mobile phones have become increasingly affordable and highly-effective political tools. People have the freedom to access public information like never before, and to publish their own opinions, challenging traditional sources of authority: 'citizen journalists' break stories and electoral candidates connect with their electorates via YouTube. But how revolutionary is new technology really? Does it really lead to a redistribution of political power? Or are political parties and multinational corporations simply using new technology for their own traditional ends?

 

New technology has certainly opened the door for the majority, rather than the minority, to create and have their say and engage in political activism. Chinese dissident activists can communicate beneath the radar of the authorities, while in democracies like India, individuals have the potential to communicate across great distances and regardless of social boundaries. But does the reality live up to the hype? Or do people prefer to use the new technology for more mundane purposes like entertainment and chatting to friends? Does the cost of technology unfairly exclude some of those who most need a political voice? As some fear with electronic voting machines, might technical flaws or 'gremlins' actually undermine democracy? And even when everything works perfectly, might the informality and anonymity of the web itself undermine democracy by encouraging incivility and offence, or allowing people to communicate only with others who share their own opinions? Can citizens and politicians alike harness the potential of the internet to develop new and more open forms of democratic engagement, or should politics come back down to Earth?

 

For a full description of the debate and some background readings on the issue, please see the website.

http://www.battleofideas.org.uk/index.php/2010/session_detail/4591/

 

Event title:         A new technological democracy?

Venue:                 Landmark, Apex Plaza, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai, India

Date:                     Tuesday 23^rd November 2010

Time:                    7.00pm – 8.30pm  

entry:             free

speakers:

 

Sarath Babu, founder and CEO, Foodking; independent candidate, Lok Sabha Elections 2009, Chennai

 

Kevin Toolis, director and co-founder, manyriversfilm; director, Emmy-nominated Cult of the Suicide Bomber; author, Rebel Hearts: journeys within the IRA's soul

 

Sanjay Pinto, executive editor, NDTV Hindu; host, Chennai Speaks Out; former National Debating Champion

 

Dolan Cummings, convenor, Battle for Politics; associate fellow, Institute of Ideas; editor, Culture Wars; editor, Debating Humanism

 

Kris Dev, e-government consultant and social activist, Life Line to Business (LL2B), Chennai

 

 
 
 

Angus Kennedy

Head of External Relations

Institute of Ideas

Signet House

49-51 Farringdon Road

London EC1M 3JP

Office: 020 7269 9234 (direct)

Mobile: 0797 1191 225

 

www.instituteofideas.com

www.battleofideas.org.uk

www.debatingmatters.com

www.culturewars.org.uk

Many thanks in advance.

Kris Dev
A4, Ashok Suparna,
27/12, 3rd main road, kasturiba nagar, adyar,
chennai-600020.

On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 6:15 PM, young cyber indians <cyberyouth@tightmail.com> wrote:

Dear Friends

After filing an RTI petition to Indian Consulate in US, AID was denied the confirmed list of RTI activists in India whose telephones and internet were being intercepted by IB. The information was denied to us on grounds that IB is exempted organisation in schedule of RTI Act  Also PIO of MEA did not transfer the RTI application to IB. AID was also informed that RTI activist is not a defined term and no such information exists.

In appeal, it was forcefully argued that information pertaining to human rights violation cannot be denied, and that right to privacy is a basic human right. The matter was referred to Central Information Commission which directed the MEA to transfer request to IB to provide the list. We have received the list about 115 days after the CIC order but do not intend to complain as legal opinion sought by IB thereafter was also provided to us to explain the delay. The list of almost 600 names is shocking and even includes name of late RTI martyr Amit Jetwa.

K Rajeshwar Rao