Access To Knowledge (A2K)

Surveillance and the Indian Constitution - Part 1: Foundations

pranesh — 2014-01-23T15:12:30Z

In this insightful seven-part series, Gautam Bhatia looks at surveillance and the right to privacy in India from a constitutional perspective, tracing its genealogy through Supreme Court case law and compares it with the law in the USA.

Note: This was originally posted on the Indian Constitutional Law and Philosophy blog.

On previous occasions, we have discussed the ongoing litigation in ACLU v. Clapper in the United States, a challenge to the constitutionality of the National Security Agency’s (NSA) bulk surveillance program. Recall that a short while after the initial Edward Snowden disclosures, The Hindu revealed the extent of domestic surveillance in India, under the aegis of the Central Monitoring System (CMS). The CMS (and what it does) is excellently summarized here. To put thing starkly and briefly:

“With the C.M.S., the government will get centralized access to all communications metadata and content traversing through all telecom networks in India. This means that the government can listen to all your calls, track a mobile phone and its user’s location, read all your text messages, personal e-mails and chat conversations. It can also see all your Google searches, Web site visits, usernames and passwords if your communications aren’t encrypted.”

The CMS is not sanctioned by parliamentary legislation. It also raises serious privacy concerns. In order to understand the constitutional implications, therefore, we need to investigate Indian privacy jurisprudence. In a series of posts, we plan to discuss that.

Privacy is not mentioned in the Constitution. It plays no part in the Constituent Assembly Debates. The place of the right – if it exists – must therefore be located within the structure of the Constitution, as fleshed out by judicial decisions. The first case to address the issue was M. P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra, in 1954. In that case, the Court upheld search and seizure in the following terms:

"A power of search and seizure is in any system of jurisprudence an overriding power of the State for the protection of social security and that power is necessarily regulated by law. When the Constitution makers have thought fit not to subject such regulation to Constitutional limitations by recognition of a fundamental right to privacy, analogous to the American Fourth Amendment, we have no justification to import it, into a totally different fundamental right. by some process of strained construction."

The right in question was 19(1)(f) – the right to property. Notice here that the Court did not reject a right to privacy altogether – it only rejected it in the context of searches and seizures for documents, the specific prohibition of the American Fourth Amendment (that has no analogue in India). This specific position, however, would not last too long, and was undermined by the very next case to consider this question, Kharak Singh.

In Kharak Singh v. State of UP, the UP Police Regulations conferred surveillance power upon certain “history sheeters” – that is, those charged (though not necessarily convicted) of a crime. These surveillance powers included secret picketing of the suspect’s house, domiciliary visits at night, enquiries into his habits and associations, and reporting and verifying his movements. These were challenged on Article 19(1)(d) (freedom of movement) and Article 21 (personal liberty) grounds. It is the second ground that particularly concerns us.

As a preliminary matter, we may observe that the Regulations in question were administrative – that is, they did not constitute a “law”, passed by the legislature. This automatically ruled out a 19(2) – 19(6) defence, and a 21 “procedure established by law” defence – which were only applicable when the State made a law. The reason for this is obvious: fundamental rights are extremely important. If one is to limit them, then that judgment must be made by a competent legislature, acting through the proper, deliberative channels of lawmaking – and not by mere administrative or executive action. Consequently – and this is quite apart from the question of administrative/executive competence - if the Police Regulations were found to violate Article 19 or Article 21, that made them ipso facto void, without the exceptions kicking in. (Paragraph 5)

It is also important to note one other thing: as a defence, it was expressly argued by the State that the police action was reasonable and in the interests of maintaining public order precisely because it was “directed only against those who were on proper grounds suspected to be of proved anti-social habits and tendencies and on whom it was necessary to impose some restraints for the protection of society.” The Court agreed, observing that this would have “an overwhelming and even decisive weight in establishing that the classification was rational and that the restrictions were reasonable and designed to preserve public order by suitable preventive action” – if there had been a law in the first place, which there wasn’t. Thus, this issue itself was hypothetical, but what is crucial to note is that the State argued – and the Court endorsed – the basic idea that what makes surveillance reasonable under Article 19 is the very fact that it is targeted – targeted at individuals who are specifically suspected of being a threat to society because of a history of criminality.

Let us now move to the merits. The Court upheld secret picketing on the ground that it could not affect the petitioner’s freedom of movement since it was, well secret – and what you don’t know, apparently, cannot hurt you. What the Court found fault with was the intrusion into the petitioner’s dwelling, and knocking at his door late at night to wake him up. The finding required the Court to interpret the meaning of the term “personal liberty” in Article 21. By contrasting the very specific rights listed in Article 21, the Court held that:

“Is then the word “personal liberty” to be construed as excluding from its purview an invasion on the part of the police of the sanctity of a man’s home and an intrusion into his personal security and his right to sleep which is the normal comfort and a dire necessity for human existence even as an animal? It might not be inappropriate to refer here to the words of the preamble to the Constitution that it is designed to “assure the dignity of the individual” and therefore of those cherished human value as the means of ensuring his full development and evolution. We are referring to these objectives of the framers merely to draw attention to the concepts underlying the constitution which would point to such vital words as “personal liberty” having to be construed in a reasonable manner and to be attributed that these which would promote and achieve those objectives and by no means to stretch the meaning of the phrase to square with any preconceived notions or doctrinaire constitutional theories.” (Paragraph 16)

A few important observations need to be made about this paragraph. The first is that it immediately follows the Court’s examination of the American Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, with their guarantees of “life, liberty and property…” and is, in turn, followed by the Court’s examination of the American Fourth Amendment, which guarantees the protection of a person’s houses, papers, effects etc from unreasonable searches and seizures. The Court’s engagement with the Fourth Amendment is ambiguous. It admits that “our Constitution contains no like guarantee…”, but holds that nonetheless “these extracts [from the 1949 case, Wolf v Colorado] would show that an unauthorised intrusion into a person’s home and the disturbance caused to him thereby, is as it were the violation of a common law right of a man – an ultimate essential of ordered liberty”, thus tying its own holding in some way to the American Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. But here’s the crucial thing: at this point, American Fourth Amendment jurisprudence was propertarian based – that is, the Fourth Amendment was understood to codify – with added protection – the common law of trespass, whereby a man’s property was held sacrosanct, and not open to be trespassed against. Four years later, in 1967, in Katz, the Supreme Court would shift its own jurisprudence, to holding that the Fourth Amendment protected zones where persons had a “reasonable expectation of privacy”, as opposed to simply protecting listed items of property (homes, papers, effects etc). Kharak Singh was handed down before Katz. Yet the quoted paragraph expressly shows that the Court anticipated Katz, and in expressly grounding the Article 21 personal liberty right within the meaning of dignity, utterly rejected the propertarian-tresspass foundations that it might have had. To use a phrase invoked by later Courts – in this proto-privacy case, the Court already set the tone by holding it to attach to persons, not places.

While effectively finding a right to privacy in the Constitution, the Court expressly declined to frame it that way. In examining police action which involved tracking a person’s location, association and movements, the Court upheld it, holding that “the right of privacy is not a guaranteed right under our Constitution and therefore the attempt to ascertain the movements of an individual which is merely a manner in which privacy is invaded is not an infringement of a fundamental right guaranteed by Part III.”

The “therefore” is crucial. Although not expressly, the Court virtually holds, in terms, that tracking location, association and movements does violate privacy, and only finds that constitutional because there is no guaranteed right to privacy within the Constitution. Yet.

In his partly concurring and partly dissenting opinion, Subba Rao J. went one further, by holding that the idea of privacy was, in fact, contained within the meaning of Article 21: “it is true our Constitution does not expressly declare a right to privacy as a fundamental right, but the said right is an essential ingredient of personal liberty.” Privacy he defined as the right to “be free from restrictions or encroachments on his person, whether those restrictions or encroachments are directly imposed or indirectly brought about by calculated measures.” On this ground, he held all the surveillance measures unconstitutional.

Justice Subba Rao’s opinion also explored a proto-version of the chilling effect. Placing specific attention upon the word “freely” contained within 19(1)(d)’s guarantee of free movment, Justice Subba Rao went specifically against the majority, and observed:

“The freedom of movement in clause (d) therefore must be a movement in a free country, i.e., in a country where he can do whatever he likes, speak to whomsoever he wants, meet people of his own choice without any apprehension, subject of course to the law of social control. The petitioner under the shadow of surveillance is certainly deprived of this freedom. He can move physically, but he cannot do so freely, for all his activities are watched and noted. The shroud of surveillance cast upon him perforce engender inhibitions in him and he cannot act freely as he would like to do. We would, therefore, hold that the entire Regulation 236 offends also Art. 19(1)(d) of the Constitution.”

This early case, therefore, has all the aspects that plague the CMS today. What to do with administrative action that does not have the sanction of law? What role does targeting play in reasonableness – assuming there is a law? What is the philosophical basis for the implicit right to privacy within the meaning of Article 21’s guarantee of personal liberty? And is the chilling effect a valid constitutional concern?

We shall continue with the development of the jurisprudence in the next post.

You can follow Gautam Bhatia on Twitter

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/surveillance-and-the-indian-consitution-part-1

Election panel rejects Google’s proposal for electoral services tie-up

praskrishna — 2014-01-31T08:58:01Z

EC had earlier signed a non-disclosure agreement with Google but had not shared or handed over any data to the Internet giant so far.

The article by Anuja and Moulishree Srivastava was published in Livemint on January 9, 2014. Lawrence Liang is quoted.

The Election Commission (EC) on Thursday rejected a proposal by Internet search engine operator Google Inc. to provide electoral information services to EC ahead of the general election due later this year. Google’s proposal, made earlier this week, was criticized by experts and political parties on the grounds of security.

Google, which deals with Internet-related services and products, had made a presentation at EC where it proposed to deliver voter facilitation services through a tie-up with the Commission.

“Google made a presentation to the Commission for electoral hook up services for citizens to help in efforts of the Commission for better electoral information services. However, after due consideration, the Commission has decided not to pursue the proposal any further,” EC said in a statement.

Its decision came at a meeting of senior EC officials on Thursday, called to discuss the proposal. Security was one of the main issues before it.

“Security and controlling the data were the main points which were considered. By ways of such a tie-up all the data would have been up for access. It was always a question of whether Indian laws would apply to it or not, so we decided against it,” a senior official from EC said.

PTI reported that the meeting was attended by the chief election commissioner V.S. Sampath and election commissioners H.S. Brahma and S. N. A. Zaidi.

The Times of India in a report on Sunday said there were concerns over the EC move to tie up with Google for voter registration.

EC had earlier signed a non-disclosure agreement with Google but it had not shared any data with it. The move was criticised by the ruling Congress party as well as the main opposition Bharatiya Janata Party. The legal cell of the Congress had written to EC raising concerns over national security and asking whether the tie-up would affect the electoral process. The BJP’s complaint was that stakeholders, including political parties, should have been consulted.

Experts say that in the event of such a tie-up, concerns about protection of privacy would have outweighed national security fears.

“The concern is not so much about national security as it is about privacy issues. This kind of database is too important and too powerful to be controlled by a private company. There have been too many instances of this kind of data being skewed and riots happening during the election process. Privately owned databases could lead to potential misuse of the data,” said Lawrence Liang, co-founder of Alternative Law Forum and chairman of the board at the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society.

“It is not a question of how and what service Google could have provided for elections, but how the state can bring itself to provide that kind of service,” he said.

In the US, when George W. Bush was re-elected president in 2004, the company that manufactured the voting machines was accused of rigging the polls, Liang added.

Google called the EC’s rejection “unfortunate”, pointing out that the company has already helped governments with such services in countries like the Philippines, Egypt, Mexico and Kenya.

“It is unfortunate that our discussions with the Election Commission of India to change the way users access their electoral information, that is publicly available, through an online voter look up tool, were not fruitful,” Google said in a statement.

“Google will continue to develop tools and resources to make civic information universally accessible and useful, help drive more informed citizen participation, and open up new avenues for engagement for politicians, citizens, and civic leaders,” it added.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/livemint-january-31-2014-anuja-moulishree-srivastava-election-panel-rejects-google-proposal-for-electoral-services-tie-up

Worldwide: International Privacy - 2013 Year in Review - Asia

praskrishna — 2014-01-31T08:44:20Z

Asian Data Privacy Updates

The article by Gonzalo S. Zeballos, James A. Sherer and Alan M. Pate was published in Mondaq's yearly review on January 8, 2014.

China

China's Personal Information Protection Law Proposal was submitted to the State Council in 2008, which was followed by the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology's non-binding Internet Information Services Market Order Provisions of 2011. However, little direct progress was made until the standing committee of the National People's Congress (NPC) introduced its Decision on Strengthening Internet Information Protection (the Decision) on December 28, 2012. Echoing Directive 95/46/EC in the EU by stipulating that the collection and use of information will be "legitimate, proper, and necessary," the Decision seeks to protect network information security; the lawful interest of citizens, legal persons, and other organizations; and safeguard China's security and social order through its Articles.

he Decision's first Article states that "[n]o organization or individual may steal or obtain in other illegal manners [ ] citizens' individual electronic information, sell or illegally provide citizens' individual electronic information to other persons." Instruction to Internet Service Providers (ISPs) continues, where providers must, among other activities:

Clearly indicate the purposes, methods, and scope of collection and use of citizens' data;
Obtain agreement from citizens before collecting their data;
Publicize rules for the collection and use of personal data;
Preserve the secrecy of collected data;
Not divulge, distort, or damage the data;
Refrain from selling or otherwise illegally providing the data to others; and
Adopt technical measures and other methods to ensure information security and prevent damage to or loss of the data.

Among the provisions of the Decision is Article Six, specifically directed at network service providers, whereby users of the services must "provide real identity information" prior to "website access," "fixed telephone, mobile telephone," "other surfing formalities," or "information publication services." In response to criticism that Article Six would be used to discourage whistleblowers and other Chinese dissention, the government-sponsored Xinhua News Agency argued that the Decision "will help, rather than harm, the country's netizens."

Japan

On May 24, 2013, the LDP-led ruling coalition directed the passage of the "Common Number" Bill through both Diet chambers. The Common Number Bill plans to assign every Japanese resident, including mid-to-long-stay foreigners and special permanent residents, a personal identification number beginning in January 2016. Additionally, a portal site through which people can check their social security records and other information via the Internet is planned for 2017. The numbering system was originally proposed in 2009, but remained quiescent until the LDP-New Komeito ruling coalition mustered sufficient support based, in part, on a philosophical foundation for fair social welfare and tax systems.

To oversee some aspects of the ID system, a third-party independent committee with independent authority will oversee allegations of data mishandling by public officials. Those who leak or illegally commercialize ID information will face up to four years in prison or a ¥2 million fine. While the use of a single number system has raised some concerns, including the potential for "forcible data-matching," the government push for support has focused on efficiencies in administration and easier detection of tax evasion and welfare fraud.

Malaysia

On November 15, 2013, the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) of 2010 was entered into force, introducing an omnibus privacy regime in Malaysia for the first time. This new regulation carries a host of requirements, including registration with the Personal Data Protection Department of Malaysia (PDPD) for a number of industries, including (among others) banking and financial institutions. The PDPA also includes the threat of severe consequences for non-compliance, including "fines for companies and/or fines and imprisonment for directors and officers of the company."

Khazaksthan

On November 26, 2013, Kazakhstani Law No. 94-V on Personal Data and its Protection came into force, defining such concepts as "personal data" among others, but left some ambiguity in how data might be transferred and/or stored internationally. It also contained a number of limitations: Law No. 94-V does not extend to the collection of personal data for personal and family needs; the use of information for the Kazakhstani National Archive; the collection, processing, and protection of personal data related to Kazakhstani state secrets; or the use of information related to intelligence, counter-intelligence, and criminal activities, within legal limits.

South Korea

Article 16 of South Korea's Personal Information Protection Act (effective September 30, 2011) was amended on August 6, 2013 to incorporate an affirmative obligation on the part of a personal information processor, requiring notification to data subjects that data subjects may deny consent for the collection of any personal information other than for any purposes under Article 15(1). This continues South Korea's stringent efforts to promote data privacy, and provides another instance of South Korea's articulation of a minimum data collection regime.

Singapore

Singapore's Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), passed in 2012, went into effect on January 2, 2013, the same day Singapore's Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) was established; some portion of PDPA does not come into full effect until July 2, 2014. The PDPC followed-up the implementation of the PDPA with a further guidance note on September 24, 2013 which, among other topics, gave direction to organizations regarding notification requirements for the collection, use, or disclosure of personal data as well as the anonymization of personal data. This guidance outlined the use of 'cookies' for internet user's online activity, distinguishing in part between active consent on one hand, and "the mere failure of an individual to actively manage his browser settings" on the other.

Hong Kong

Revisions to Hong Kong's Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance – Code of Practice on Consumer Credit Data – took effect on April 1, 2013. These revisions require consent prior to the use of personal data in the context of targeted, direct advertising, and instruct individuals that, while direct marketers must notify individuals of their opt-out right prior to using personal data for the first time, individuals may choose to opt out at any time at no cost to the individual opting out. The Ordinance also provides for the following penalties: if "the transfer of personal data to third parties [is] for gain, the maximum penalty is a fine of HK$1,000,000 and imprisonment for 5 years. For other direct marketing contraventions, the maximum penalty is a fine of HK$500,000 and imprisonment for 3 years."

India

While India currently adheres to the Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal Data or Information) Rules, 2011 (Rules) enacted in 2011, the Centre for Internet and Society presented a new Privacy (Protection) Bill, 2013 (Bill), on September 30, 2013. The Bill seeks to further refine provisions of the Rules, with a focus on protection of personal data through limitations on use and requirements for notice. The collection of personal data would be prohibited unless "necessary for the achievement of a purpose of the person seeking its collection," and, subject to sections 6 and 7 of the Bill, "no personal data may be collected under this Act prior to the data subject being given notice, in such form and manner as may be prescribed, of the collection." The Bill acknowledges the collection of data with and without consent; the regulation of personal data storage, processing, transfer, and security; and discusses the different types of disclosure.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/mondaq-january-8-2014-gonzalo-s-zeballos-james-a-sherer-alan-m-pate-worldwide-international-privacy-2013-year-in-review-asia

Letter requesting public consultation on position of GoI at WGEC

snehashish — 2014-01-08T18:36:09Z

Snehashish Ghosh on behalf of the Centre for Internet and Society sent a letter to the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, requesting for a public consultation on India's position at the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (WGEC).

January 3, 2014

Shri Kapil Sibal,
Honourable Minister for Communication and Information Technology
Ministry of Communication and Information Technology,
Government of India

Subject: Public consultation at the domestic level on the position of Government of India at WGEC

Dear Sir,

We at the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore (“CIS”) commend, Government of India’s participation at the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation (WGEC), working under the aegis of United Nations Commission on Science and Technology and Development (CSTD). The Working Group was set up in pursuance of General Assembly Resolution A/Res/67/195, to identify a shared understanding of enhanced cooperation on public policy issues pertaining to the internet. The WGEC after its first meeting circulated a questionnaire to collect the views and positions of the stakeholders on various aspects of enhanced cooperation. The Government of India responded to the questionnaire and also represented its position at the second meeting of WGEC held in Geneva from November 6-8, 2013. We would like the Government to take cognizance of representations from concerned stakeholders before finalizing its position.

In this regard, we would like to note, Government of India’s commitment towards multi-stakeholder approach in formulation of public policy pertaining to the internet. At the Internet Governance Forum, 2012 held in Baku, the Honourable Minister for Communications and Information Technology noted that the “issues of public policy related to the internet have to be dealt with, by adopting a multi-stakeholder, democratic and transparent approach”. Furthermore, the Government of India’s stand at the World Conference on International Telecommunications, 2012 in Dubai supported and recognized the multi-stakeholder nature of the internet.

However, it seems that the Government has digressed from its previous stand on internet governance whereas it fell short of having a multi-stakeholder public consultation on India’s position on enhanced cooperation at the WGEC. We earnestly urge you to hold domestic public consultation before the next WGEC meeting.

Thank you.
Sincerely,

Snehashish Ghosh,
Policy Associate,
Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore

Copied to: Dr. Ajay Kumar, Joint Secretary, DietY, MOCIT and Shri. J. Satyanarayana, Secretary, DietY, MOCIT

Download a copy of the letter here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/public-consultation-at-domestic-level-on-position-of-goi-at-wgec

Digital Citizens: Why Cyber Security and Online Privacy are Vital to the Success of Democracy and Freedom of Expression

praskrishna — 2014-01-08T04:59:10Z

Michael Oghia will give a presentation which will show why cyber security and online privacy are vital for democracy and freedom of expression.

In the time when Edward Snowden is fighting for both clemency and to be known as a brave whistle blower that exposed government wrongdoing, cyber security and online privacy have never been more important. As Jacob Applebaum discussed in May last year, and CIS’ Maria Xynou presented recently in December, surveillance throughout the world is increasing. With security apparatus’ likethe NSA and now India’s Central Monitoring System, coupled with corporate data centers around the world storing our e–mails, address books, preferences, and passwords, it is easy to see how our online privacy is increasingly being threatened and often, violated.

Indeed, online privacy is inextricably linked to freedom of expression, and freedom of expression is a fundamental civil liberty imperative to democracy. Moreover, online security and privacy are essential to good, transparent, and accountable democratic governance. This is largely because surveillance, censorship, and monitoring ultimately create environments where self-censorship is the norm, as is the fear of the government instead of spaces that allow for freedom of expression and democratic dialogue and dissent.

What I would like to accomplish my speaking at CIS is not to merely educate about the dangers posed to Internet security or to world democracy, but rather to:

Reiterate the importance of digital privacy and cyber security to the success of democracy and the continued protection of free expression.
Encourage citizens, technology specialists, Internet and privacy advocates, and others to see themselves as part of a larger system of democratic governance and civic participation. This means understanding how technical capabilities intersect with civil society, and then use them to advocate for a more open, accessible, and private cyberspace.
Reinforce that digital media literacy education is vital to ensuring a free, open, accessible, and democratic Internet.

Additionally, I want to present ideas and recommendations for what you can do to engage with these problems, and how we can collaborate together to address them.

About the Public Intelligence Project

The Public Intelligence Project is an independent, non-partisan, not-for-profit think tank conducting research, education, and advocacy on the importance of diversity, critical thinking, dialogue, and freedom of expression. We seek to promote more robust systems of participatory democracy, civic engagement, and conflict prevention in order to create a culture of democracy.

Michael Oghia

Michael is responsible for a new project at Meta-Culture called the Public Intelligence Project, which focuses on expanding participatory democracy, civic engagement, and conflict prevention by conducting research, education, and advocacy on the intersections between diversity, dialogue, critical thinking, and freedom of expression. While new to the conflict resolution field, as a poet, musician, editor, writer, blogger, and activist, he is well-versed in the importance of freedom of expression and participating in the democratic process. He was born in Kentucky to Lebanese-Syrian parents, and after graduating with a BS in sociology from the University of Louisville, he moved to Lebanon to pursue an MA in sociology from the American University of Beirut. There, he had the opportunity to witness the Arab Revolutions first-hand while research about topics such as Internet ownership in the Middle East, social movements, Arab media, globalization, Arab youth and family, and his thesis subject, romantic love in the Arab world. Michael enjoys engaging Twitter conversations, and has an unnatural affinity for crunchy peanut butter.

Date: Tuesday, January 14, 2014
Time: 6.30 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.
Talk by: Michael Oghia
Title: Research & Advocacy Consultant, and Project Manager
Organisation: Meta-Culture / Public Intelligence Project
Websites: www.meta-culture.in <http://www.meta-culture.in> & www.publicintelligenceproject.org <http://www.publicintelligenceproject.org>

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/events/why-cyber-security-and-online-privacy-are-vital-for-success-of-democracy-and-freedom-of-expression

Despite apex court order, IOC proceeds with Aadhaar-linked DBT

praskrishna — 2014-01-31T06:50:33Z

Once DBT starts, there is no other method to avail of subsidy: IOC official.

The article by Deepa Kurup was published in the Hindu on January 6, 2014. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

Despite an interim order by the Supreme Court disallowing the government from making the Aadhaar number mandatory for accessing State subsidies and benefits, Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) Ltd. continues to inform consumers that they will not get their LPG subsidy if they do not seed their Aadhaar-linked bank accounts to the IOC database.

SMSes and publicity material released by IOC in the past week indicate that the company is going ahead with the Union government’s deadlines for the Direct Benefit Transfer scheme for LPG. While the deadline for Udupi and Dharwad districts has been extended till January-end, the “grace period” for Bangalore Urban will expire on March 1.

Over the past week, LPG consumers have been receiving frequent SMSes requesting them to submit their Aadhaar number to their LPG distributor and their bank, with “no further delay”. Though the SMS does not state whether or not this is mandatory, frequent messages have been instilling a sense of urgency and panic among consumers. Further, several consumers told The Hindu that, upon enquiry, distributors had been telling them that they would have to forego their subsidy amount (for nine cylinders a year) if they failed to register their details with the IOC database. Once the DBT scheme is enforced, the IOC will migrate customers entirely to the new system — that is, consumers will have to pay the market price, and the subsidy amount will be credited to their bank accounts.

‘No other method’

Senior IOC officials said that while the oil manufacturing company was desisting from making statements on whether or not this was mandatory, in effect those whose details would not be seeded to the database would not be able to avail of the benefit. “Basically, once the DBT scheme starts there is no other method to receive or avail of the subsidy. As of now, there is no alternative method,” said R.K. Arora, executive director, Karnataka State office. He pointed out that in rural areas several other subsidies were already linked to Aadhaar, and the DBT scheme was at 100 per cent in Tumkur and Mysore districts.

As of January 1, an IOC official said, only 30 per cent of LPG consumers in the Bangalore Circle had ‘seeded’ their accounts to the IOC database, while in Udupi and Dharwad it was roughly around 50 per cent.

“We are not claiming it’s mandatory, and currently all companies have submitted an affidavit seeking the order be reconsidered. Meanwhile, we have just asked people to submit the details to the distributor as soon as they can,” the official said. He added that IOC was likely to keep extending the deadline to “be on the safe side”.

Meanwhile, there is confusion among consumers on the issue. Krishnan Pillai, a resident of R.T. Nagar here, said Aadhaar numbers were being delayed, and there was huge anxiety among people. “Last week, I saw an advertisement that implied that I will lose subsidy if I don’t submit my number. Is the Supreme Court verdict not applicable?” he said. Sumitra Gupta, a charted accountant from Majestic, said distributors were telling them to “ignore news report on the Supreme Court verdict”.

“This is arm twisting,” she said.

‘So-called voluntary’

Sunil Abraham of the Centre for Internet and Society, a Bangalore-based NGO that has been part of the anti-Aadhaar campaign, said IOC was “pushing the boundary”. “From the very beginning, people have been objecting to the so-called voluntary nature of the scheme. It’s unfortunate that the will of the Supreme Court in its interim order on such as a critical component of our citizenship is also being ignored,” he said.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/hindu-january-6-2014-deepa-kurup-despite-apex-court-order-ioc-proceeds-with-aadhar-linked-dbt

Big Brother is watching you

chinmayi — 2014-01-06T09:31:22Z

India has no requirements of transparency whether in the form of disclosing the quantum of interception or in the form of notification to people whose communication was intercepted.

The article by Chinmayi Arun was published in the Hindu on January 3, 2014.

The Gujarat telephone tapping controversy is just one of many kinds of abuse that surveillance systems enable. If a relatively primitive surveillance system can be misused so flagrantly despite safeguards that the government claims are adequate, imagine what is to come with the Central Monitoring System (CMS) and Netra in place.

News reports indicate Netra — a “NEtwork TRaffic Analysis system” — will intercept and examine communication over the Internet for keywords like “attack,” “bomb,” “blast” or “kill.” While phone tapping and the CMS monitor specific targets, Netra is vast and indiscriminate. It appears to be the Indian government’s first attempt at mass surveillance rather than surveillance of predetermined targets. It will scan tweets, status updates, emails, chat transcripts and even voice traffic over the Internet (including from platforms like Skype and Google Talk) in addition to scanning blogs and more public parts of the Internet. Whistle-blower Edward Snowden said of mass-surveillance dragnets that “they were never about terrorism: they’re about economic spying, social control, and diplomatic manipulation. They’re about power.”

So far, our jurisprudence has dealt with only targeted surveillance; and even that in a woefully inadequate manner. This article discusses the slow evolution of the right to privacy in India, highlighting the context and manner in which it is protected. It then discusses international jurisprudence to demonstrate how the right to privacy might be protected more effectively.

Privacy and the Constitution

A proposal to include the right to privacy in the Constitution was rejected by the Constituent Assembly with very little debate. Separately, a proposal to give citizens an explicit fundamental right against unreasonable governmental search and seizure was also put before the Constituent Assembly. This proposal was supported by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. If accepted, it would have included within our Constitution the principles from which the United States derives its protection against state surveillance. However, the proposed amendment was rejected by the Constituent Assembly.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court has gradually been reading the right to privacy into the fundamental rights explicitly listed in the Constitution. After its initial reluctance to affirm the right to privacy in the 1954 case of M.P. Sharma vs. Satish Chandra, the court came around to the view that other rights and liberties guaranteed in the Constitution would be seriously affected if the right to privacy was not protected. In Kharak Singh vs. The State of U.P., the court recognised “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects” and declared that their right against unreasonable searches and seizures was not to be violated. The right to privacy here was conceived around the home, and unauthorised intrusions into homes were seen as interference with the right to personal liberty.

If the Kharak Singh judgment was progressive in its recognition of the right to privacy, it was conservative about the circumstances in which the right applies. The majority of judges held that shadowing a person could not be seen to interfere with that person’s liberty. Dissenting with the majority, Justice Subba Rao maintained that broad surveillance powers put innocent citizens at risk, and that the right to privacy is an integral part of personal liberty. He recognised that when a person is shadowed, her movements will be constricted, and will certainly not be free movements. His dissenting judgment showed remarkable foresight and his reasoning is consistent with what is now a universally acknowledged principle that there is a “chilling effect” on expression and action when people think that they are being watched.

The right to privacy as defined by the Supreme Court now extends beyond government intrusion into private homes. After Govind vs. State of M.P., and Dist. Registrar and Collector of Hyderabad vs. Canara Bank, this right is seen to protect persons and not places. Any inroads into this right for surveillance of communication must be for permissible reasons and according to just, fair and reasonable procedure. State action in violation of this procedure is open to a constitutional challenge.

Our meagre procedural safeguards against phone tapping were introduced in PUCL vs. Union of India (1997) after the Supreme Court was confronted with extensive, undocumented phone tapping by the government. The apex court found itself compelled to lay down what it saw as bare minimum safeguards, consisting mostly of proper record-keeping and internal executive oversight by senior officers such as the home secretary, the cabinet secretary, the law secretary and the telecommunications secretary. These safeguards are of little use since they are opaque and rely solely on members of the executive to review surveillance requests.

Right and safeguards

There is a difference between targeted surveillance in which reasons have to be given for surveillance of particular people, and the mass-surveillance which Netra sets up. The question of mass surveillance and its attendant safeguards has been considered by the European Court of Human Rights in Liberty and Others vs. the United Kingdom. Drawing upon its own past jurisprudence, the European Court insisted on reasonable procedural safeguards. It stated quite clearly that there are significant risks of arbitrariness when executive power is exercised in secret and that the law should be sufficiently clear to give citizens an adequate indication of the circumstances in which interception might take place. Additionally, the extent of discretion conferred and the manner of its exercise must be clear enough to protect individuals from arbitrary interference. The principles laid down by the European Court in relation to phone-tapping also require that the nature of the offences which may give rise to an interception order, the procedure to be followed for examining, using and storing the data obtained, the precautions to be taken when communicating the data to other parties, and the circumstances in which recordings may or must be erased or the tapes destroyed be made clear.

Opaque and ineffective

Our safeguards apply only to targeted surveillance, and require written requests to be provided and reviewed before telephone tapping or Internet interception is carried out. CMS makes the process of tapping more prone to misuse by the state, by making it even more opaque: if the state can intercept communication directly, without making requests to a private telecommunication service provider, then it is one less layer of scrutiny through which the abuse of power can reach the public. There is no one to ask whether the requisite paperwork is in place or to notice a dramatic increase in interception requests.

India has no requirements of transparency whether in the form of disclosing the quantum of interception taking place each year, or in the form of subsequent notification to people whose communication was intercepted. It does not even have external oversight in the form of an independent regulatory body or the judiciary to ensure that no abuse of surveillance systems takes place. Given these structural flaws, the Amit Shah controversy is just the beginning of what is to come. Unfettered mass surveillance does not bode well for democracy.

(Chinmayi Arun is research director, Centre for Communication Governance, National Law University, Delhi, and fellow, Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore.)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-hindu-january-3-2014-chinmayi-arun-big-brother-is-watching-you

Biometrics or Bust? Implications of the UID for Participation and Inclusion

praskrishna — 2014-01-06T08:56:51Z

Malavika Jayaram will give a talk on biometrics and the implications of UID for participation and inclusion at the office of the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore on January 10, 2014 at 6.00 p.m.

Abstract

Privacy is often portrayed as a luxury, as the intellectual preoccupation of nerdy privileged liberals, and an issue of salience only to the elite. This ignores the reality of the most marginalized sections of a society being disproportionately impacted by privacy intrusive technologies. The collusion of public and private agendas towards implementing large welfare projects is generally seen as progressive and neutral, yet the consequences of even well-intentioned efforts that trade privacy for convenience, welfare, security or a host of other compelling goals is troubling. The use of biometric technologies further complicates matters: the assumption that bodies can be rendered into infallible verifiers, as repositories of unchanging truth, is not without its catalogue of failures. This talk will examine the notion of biometric representations as a kind of capital, the possibility that failures are endemic to their functioning, and the implications of systemic errors on equality, participation and democracy.

Malavika Jayaram

Malavika is a Fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University, focusing on privacy, identity and free expression. She is also a Fellow at the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, and the author of the India chapter for the Data Protection & Privacy volume in the Getting the Deal Done series.  Malavika is one of 10 Indian lawyers in The International Who's Who of Internet e-Commerce & Data Protection Lawyers directory. In August 2013, she was voted one of India’s leading lawyers and one of only 8 women to be featured in the “40 under 45” survey conducted by Law Business Research, London. In a different life, she spent 8 years in London, practicing law with global firm Allen & Overy in the Communications, Media & Technology group, and as VP and Technology Counsel at Citigroup. During 2012-2013, she was a Visiting Scholar at the Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania. She is working on completing her PhD at the National Law School.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/events/biometrics-or-bust-implications-of-uid-for-participation-and-inclusion

Seminar on "Hate Speech and Social Media"

praskrishna — 2014-02-13T06:22:41Z

NALSAR University of Law, in collaboration with the British Deputy High Commission organized a seminar on Hate Speech and Social Media in Hyderabad on January 4 and 5, 2014. Chinmayi Arun was one of the speakers at the seminar.

Richa Kaul Padte was a keynote speaker on the panel on ‘Marginalised Communities and the Experience of Social Media’, while Anja Kovacs was the keynote speaker on the panel on ‘Internet - A Democratic Space?’.

This seminar focused on emerging debates on free speech, marginalisation and radicalisation in the context of the internet. Long hailed as a great democratiser, the internet has been instrumental in granting a voice to millions of people, and yet, in permitting anonymity it raises important questions of liability and responsibility. Over the course of two days, the seminar explored issues through conversations between people who have worked on various aspects of this issue, including leading jurists, lawyers, bloggers and activists who have embraced new technologies. Some of the prominent speakers at the seminar included Hon’ble Justice Madan B Lokur, Hon’ble Dr. Justice S Muralidhar, Teesta Setalvad, Geeta Seshu, Chinmayi Arun, Anja Kovacs and Apar Gupta.

Click to read the details posted on Internet Democracy Project website.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/nalsar-seminar-hate-speech-social-media

Rise of the bot: all you need to know about the latest threat online

praskrishna — 2014-01-31T07:16:36Z

In the last week of December, 2013, former union railway minister Pawan Kumar Bansal lodged a police complaint in Chandigarh after witnessing “an unusual rise in his online fan following”. The former minister told the police that his Facebook page had received more than 10,000 likes, within a span of 24 hours. While his allegation that the ‘likes’ were “fabricated” may be true, information technology experts believe a bot was at work.

The article by Danish Raza was published in the Hindustan Times on January 5, 2014. Snehashish Ghosh is quoted.

A bot is a software that mimics human behaviour on the Internet. Bots can be used to create artificial accounts on social media, provide numerous likes on a particular page, send tweets or visit various websites. All this is done without any human involvement.

Bots already constitute a significant percentage of Non Human Traffic (NHT) online, which has, according to some estimates, eclipsed human traffic. Comscore, a US-based Internet technology company noted on its blog that NHT, also known as Artificial Traffic, increased from approximately 6% of the total web traffic in 2011, to 36% in 2012. Last month, a report from Incapsula, a cloud-based security service, which aids the security and performance of websites, stated that more than 60% of web traffic was non-human in 2013. The figure was based on data collected from the 20,000 sites on Incapsula’s network .

Other than bots, NHT on the web includes traffic generated by Internet routers and back end services used by websites to communicate with third parties.

India is not immune to the problem. According to the Symantec Internet Security Threat Report for 2012, there was a 280% increase in bot infections in India between 2011 and 2012. 17% of bot-infected computers, the highest in the world, are in India and 15% of global bot-net spam is generated here. The report also states that 69 Indian cities are prone to bot infections which includes Bhubaneswar, Surat, Cochin, Jaipur, Visakhapatnam, Indore, Kota, Ghaziabad and Mysore.

Bot spotting
How do you spot a bot? When a bot or its friend is at work, the browser directs you to sites other than the ones you intend to visit, you get full-page pop ups and pop unders, and when you quit the browser, it gets relaunched after a few minutes. Chances are your computer is part of a chain of online events which create NHT on the web, the purpose of which may be to attack a site or a server.

Why you should be wary
Malicious traffic, malware, hacking attempts, viruses slow down the Internet and delay legitimate traffic and services. Used to target systems or take down websites, NHT generates fake clicks on advertisements to increase website statistics.

One of the perils of ignoring artificial web traffic is that it gets counted for real impressions for which clients end up paying. For example, a website owner may hire the services of a digital marketing firm to publicise the site. In the guise of increasing page views, the marketing firm can produce a bill for fake impressions, supplementing actual human traffic to the page with bot usage.

“Unless there is a curb on this practice of malicious NHT, one stands at risk of being duped by marketers, agencies and even clients,” said Chiragh Cherian, director, online PR at Perfect Relations, a brand management firm. Recent studies have estimated bot traffic to be between 4 - 31% of total web traffic in the US, which translates to between $650 million and $4.7 billion in wasted marketing spend. According to Miaozhen Systems, a leading Chinese advertising technology company, NHT caused advertisers in China to lose approximately US$ 1.6 billion between July 2012 and June 2013.

How to combat Non-Human Traffic
Most servers have defence mechanisms to tackle spam and cyber attacks. Websites are also now developing mechanisms such as asking for human authentication which is difficult for a bot to execute. “But even personal computers should be equipped with strong Internet security applications such as anti-virus and anti-spyware to prevent hacking and phishing attempts and to prevent being used as slave machines for distributed cyber attacks,” said Chintu Cherian Abraham, a digital media professional. Figures show that we need to watch out where and how we go online. According to Norton Report, 2013, 61% Indians access their social network accounts from unsecured wi-fi connections, while 42% access bank accounts and 44% shop online using unsecured wi-fi connections.

Social media companies are gradually devising mechanisms to filter bots. “When a page and a fan connect on Facebook, we want to ensure that connection involves a real person interested in hearing from a specific page and engaging with that brand’s content. As such, we have recently increased our automated efforts to remove Likes on Pages that may have been gained by means that violate our terms,” mentions Facebook’s site integrity policy.

Agency-client intervention is necessary to ensure that artificial traffic is not presented as real. “It’s also important to make all agencies, advertisers and clients aware of their responsibility to keep the Internet free from malicious NHT,” said Chiragh Cherian.

Government involvement is also needed to control the problem of malicious bots. “A lot needs to be done from the government’s side to tackle bots which can be used to target the country’s critical infrastructure such as banking websites,” said Jiten Jain, a cyber security analyst, adding, “Last year, I highlighted the flaws in HDFC’s net banking website which have been rectified now. They could have been exploited to block the net-banking service.”

Until we have a robust mechanism to filter out bogus traffic from real, it will be difficult to say whether the social media followers of Bansal and other public figures are human or not.

Know your Bots
Not all bots are used with a negative intent. Some help in research and monitoring.

The Malicious
Bots can be effectively used to impersonate and to hack accounts leading to financial losses and intellectual property theft. “Theft of personal details, username and password to operate one’s bank account is a classic example of how bots can lead to financial losses. It is an organised cyber crime,” explained Commander (Retd) Mukesh Saini, former national information security coordinator, Government of India. In May 2013, cyber criminals broke into the Mumbai-based account of the RPG group and siphoned off `2.4 crore. Three people were arrested in the case.

“The rate at which NHT is increasing is alarming,” says Tinu Cherian Abraham. “Any computer connected to the Internet is vulnerable to such attacks. The user will not get to know about it unless he or she has installed an Internet security application.”

Besides bots, computers also generate other kinds of secondary activities, while the user is surfing the Internet. This activity remains in the background and is never seen by the user, unlike the bot-generated pop ups, observes Comscore. For example, your computer might be being used as a channel to reach a server with the intention of hacking it. And you will never know.

The Good
Not all NHT is bad, though. In fact, good bots such as scrapers can be effectively used to conduct research. “Wikipedia can be scraped to investigate the frequency of edits on a Wikipedia page and track the increase in the number of editors,” explained Snehashish Ghosh, policy associate at the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet & Society.

Good bots are also used by search engines to track content on websites and enhance their search results. Search bots and other good bots formed 31% of total bots, the Incapsula report noted.

The Social
Apart from malicious and good bots, there are social media bots too. “Extensive analysis is done on social media traffic for monitoring, business lead generation, as well as reputation management. This has amounted to a lot of automated or non-human traffic,” said Abraham.

According to Facebook’s filings published in a Forbes report in February 2012, around 83 million of its users are bogus. “It’s a violation of our policies to use a fake name or operate under a false identity, and we encourage people to report any user they suspect of doing this, either through the report links we provide on the site or through the contact forms in our help centre,” a Facebook spokesperson told HT.

Twitter bots have also made its presence felt on the platform. “Twitter has witnessed very interesting bots which have found appreciation from the community for being funny and creative. The microblogging site cracked down on some harmful bots, but still some of the advanced level bots slip through the net,” said Ghosh.

In August 2012, London-based firm Digital Evaluators, which evaluates social media presence of worldwide companies, released an analysis of Twitter followers of the US Presidential Election candidates Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. 21.9% of Barack Obama’s 17.82 million Twitter followers were found to be bogus.

The Big Brother
Ghosh said that the increase in NHT related to the Internet of things, the concept which enables communication between two or more devices, results in privacy issues. “Take a situation where your mobile device is constantly tracking your location for the purpose of switching on the air conditioner at your home before you reach. Such applications produce huge amounts of personal data and there is no clarity whether this data is being stored,” he said.

“As the new networks link data from products, company assets, or the operating environment, they will generate better information and analysis, which can enhance decision making significantly. Some organisations are starting to deploy these applications in targeted areas, while more radical and demanding uses are still in the conceptual or experimental stages,” noted a McKinsey & Company report on Internet of things.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/hindustan-times-january-5-2014-danish-raza-rise-of-the-bot

Inventions that will make a difference

praskrishna — 2014-02-12T11:07:02Z

In an increasingly tech-driven world, what does 2014 have to offer? Geeta Padmanabhan turns the spotlight on some life-changing gadgets.

Geeta Padmanabhan's article published in the Hindu on January 1, 2014 quotes Maria Xynou.

Digiterati, have you tried Snapchat, the service that makes messages/photos/captions you send disappear in a few seconds once opened? The app with its swelling popularity among the young demands a re-think about data: do you need it around forever? In a remarkable step forward, 2014 may see Forever Internet and Erasable Internet living side by side.

What else is in store? “Your mobile devices and PCs will get more intelligent and remember your different passwords,” said J. Prasanna, AVS labs. “Advanced biometrics will enable scanning (fingerprint/retina) without devices. Sharper attack simulation on the cyber-world will force corporates to improve defence. Industrial houses will opt for more mobile devices — computers like raspberry pi — for logistics/checking. “You may not see a workstation at all!” Maria Xynou, The Centre for Internet and Society, foresees surveillance technologies getting smarter with artificial intelligence software, and people fending them off with crypto-like privacy software. “This might trigger more intrusive technologies,” she said.

Big data will grow bigger. Many of the products we depend on — Google's spell-checker, translation service, traffic maps, search-suggestions; Amazon.com's AMZN +0.13% media; Facebook’s News Feed, “friend” facilities — have come out of a huge cache of user data. But Kaspersky Lab expects cybercriminals to use refined mobile-phishing, banking-Trojans and mobile-botnets to hack and modify private information. VPN (virtual private network) services and Tor-anonymisers will become popular, demand for local encryption tools will spurt, it predicts.

Folding phones?

Now that curved display (G-Flex) is here, 2014 may bring in “roll-up or fold” smartphones/tablets to fit into our wallets. Also, with smarter tracking-tools and voice-recognition technology smartphones will become so intuitive and efficient that they may reflexively cater to our needs. “It will become a context engine — aware of where it is, where you are going, what you need,” said futurist Paul Saffo. Apple will launch the anticipated big-screen iPhones and iPads (12.9-inch or 13.3-inch), reports Digitimes. Upcoming iPhone models will have a 20mm chipset, and a choice between 4.7-inch and 6-inch display panel. But don't throw away your MacBook Air or MacPro yet.

“Prepare for a life-changing gadget,” says BBC, referring to Oculus Rift, a “consumer-focused virtual-reality headset”, to be launched by Kickstarter. You wear it and you'll see yourself running along a beach, flying in a spaceship, riding a roller-coaster, it says. Impatient for the “real” one? There are no tech hurdles to having a vehicle that is part-car, part-plane, part-drone parked outside your home, says Missy Cummings, Aeronautics/Astronautics Professor, MIT. The fly-by-wire Airbus is a drone, anyway. Automated systems with micro-second reactions will make transportation network — ground and air — safer. Your regular car will gain advanced tech features, from in-built sat-navs, parking assistance to voice-activated/touchscreen DVD players and radios.

Educator Sugata Mitra hopes to launch an entire school in the cloud — the tech-cloud. Retired teachers in remote areas will teach through Skype, classrooms will be beamed from all parts of the planet — “deep in the jungle, or high on a mountain.” Kids can just gather at one home for lessons, he said.

Robots will take longer strides in 2014. Google's Japanese start-up robot won the Darpa rescue-challenge by carrying out all the eight rescue-themed tasks ahead of rivals. Its dexterous, independent “robot army” will carry packages, push strollers. LiveScience reports Knightscope's five-foot K5 robot-cop's on-board sensor that can see, hear, touch and smell its surroundings will combine its observations with public data and use the information to predict if, when and where a crime is likely to occur. Asutosh Saxena's team at Cornell University has created a robot (PR2) programmed to free shop-assistants from drudgery — it packs purchases at check-out counters. Forrester Research's Jeff Ernst believes ICANN’s gTLD (generic top-level domain) program is a game-changer. The introduction of .brand and .category will help you choose products with ease and marketers fight off cybersquatters.

The best gift

To me the best gift of 2014 is the Copenhagen wheel. With an attached computer/sensor-aided device, this bicycle wheel monitors pedalling and activates an on-board electric-motor when you need support. Connecting wirelessly to the biker's smartphone, the device tracks distance travelled and elevation gained, shares with friends the number of calories burned, locks the wheel remotely as you walk away from the bike. An electric-hybrid bicycle!

Mark Anderson, Strategic News Service anticipates Apple's Siri-like products to get an upgrade, visualisation tools to usher in “seeing data.” Software-defined networking and storage will cause a “stampede to virtualise everything.” Technical work to break down barriers between clouds will spawn software that can run anywhere. E-mapping will include MALT (Micromapping, Advertising, Location/ID, Transactions). Indoor maps and location information will place advertising targeted at you, leading to transaction in which “your phone will direct you to where things on your shopping-list are. You pick them up, the store knows who you are, how you pay, and you’ll just walk out.”

Track these

2014 will see computers that can learn from their own mistakes.
Spending on mobile, work-collaboration and video-conferencing apps will rise.
Demand for “big data” analysts will soar.
Small start-ups will raise money more through crowdfunding, less from venture capitalists.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/the-hindu-january-1-2014-geeta-padmanabhan-inventions-that-will-make-a-difference

India's Identity Crisis

malavika — 2014-01-09T07:56:08Z

Malavika Jayaram's article was published in 2013 Internet Monitor Annual Report: Reflections on the Digital World, published by Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet and Society.

India’s Unique Identity (UID) project is already the world’s largest biometrics identity program, and it is still growing. Almost 530 million people have been registered in the project database, which collects all ten fingerprints, iris scans of both eyes, a photograph, and demographic information for each registrant. Supporters of the project tout the UID as a societal game changer. The extensive biometric information collected, they argue, will establish the uniqueness of each individual, eliminate fraud, and provide the identity infrastructure needed to develop solutions for a range of problems. Despite these potential benefits, however, critical concerns remain about the UID’s legal and physical architecture as well as about unforeseen risks associated with the linking and analysis of personal data.

The most basic concerns regarding the UID project stem from the fact that biometric technologies have never been tested on such a large population. As a result, well-founded concerns exist around scalability, false acceptance and rejection rates, and the project’s core premise that biometrics can uniquely and unambiguously identify people in a foolproof manner. Some of these concerns are based on technical issues—collecting fingerprints and iris scans “in the field,” for instance, can be complicated when a registrant’s fingerprints are eroded by manual labor or her irises are affected by malnutrition and cataracts. Other concerns relate to the project’s federated implementation architecture, which, by outsourcing collection to a massive group of private and public registrars and operators, increases the chance for data breaches, error, and fraud.

Perhaps even more vexing are concerns regarding how the UID, which promises financial inclusion (by reducing the identification barriers to opening bank accounts, for example), might in fact lead to new types of exclusion for already marginalized groups. Members of the LGBT community, for instance, question whether the inclusion of the transgender category within the UID scheme is a laudable attempt at inclusion, or a new means of listing and targeting members of their community for exclusion. More fundamentally, as more and more services and benefits are linked to the UID, the project threatens to exclude all those who cannot or will not participate in the scheme due to logistical failures or philosophical objections.

It is worth noting that the UID is not the only large data project in India. A slew of “Big Brother” projects exist: the Centralised Monitoring System (CMS), the Telephone Call Interception System (TCIS), the National Population Register (NPR), the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network and Systems (CCTNS), and the National Intelligence Grid (NATGRID), which is working to aggregate up to 21 different databases relating to tax, rail and air travel, credit card transactions, immigration, and other domains. The UID is intended to serve as a common identifier across these databases, creating a massive surveillance state. It also facilitates an ecosystem where access to goods and services, from government subsidies to drivers’ licenses to mobile phones to cooking gas, increasingly requires biometric authentication.

The UID project was originally vaunted as voluntary, but the inexorable slippery slope toward compulsory participation has triggered a series of lawsuits challenging the legality of forced enrollment and the constitutionality of the entire project. Most recently, in September 2013, India’s federal Supreme Court affirmed by way of an interim decision that the UID was not mandatory, that not possessing a UID should not disadvantage anybody, and that citizenship should be ascertained as a criteria for registering in order to ensure that UIDs are not issued to illegal immigrants. This last stipulation is particularly thorny given that the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI, the body in charge of the UID project) has consistently distanced the UID from questions of citizenship under the justification that it is a matter beyond their remit (i.e., the UID is open to residents, and is not linked to citizenship). The government moved quickly to urge a modification of the order, but the Supreme Court declined to do so and will instead release its final decision after it reviews a batch of petitions from activists and others. The UIDAI approached the court, arguing that not making the UID mandatory has serious consequences for welfare schemes, but the court recently ordered the federal government, the Reserve Bank of India, and the Election Commission to delink the LPG cooking gas scheme from the UID. This is a considerable setback for the project, given that this was one of the most hyped linkages for the UID. It remains to be seen whether the court will similarly halt other attempts to make the UID mandatory.

In the meantime, the UID project is effectively being implemented in a legal vacuum without support from the Supreme Court or Parliament. The Cabinet is seeking to rectify this and has cleared a bill that would finally provide legal backing for the UID program—its previous attempt was rejected by the Standing Committee on Finance in 2010. This bill is scheduled to come up for debate during the winter session of Parliament. The bill’s progress, along with the final decision of the Supreme Court, will have far reaching consequences for the UID project’s implementation and longevity, as well as for the relationship between India’s citizens and the state.

If fully implemented, the UID system will fundamentally alter the way in which citizens interact with the government by creating a centrally controlled, technology-based standard that mediates access to social services and benefits, financial systems, telecommunications, and governance. It will undoubtedly also have implications for how citizens relate to private sector entities, on which the UID rests and which have their own vested interests in the data. The success or failure of the UID represents a critical moment for India. Whatever course the country takes, its decision to travel further toward or turn away from becoming a “database nation” will have implications for democracy, free speech, and economic justice within its own borders and also in the many neighboring countries that look to it as a technological standard bearer.

The Indian government seems to envision “big data” as a panacea for fraud, corruption, and abuse, but it has given little attention to understanding and addressing the fraud, corruption, and abuse that massive databases can themselves engender. The government’s actions have yet to demonstrate an appreciation for the fact that the matrix of identity and surveillance schemes it has implemented can create a privacy-invading technology layer that is not only a barrier to online activity but also to social participation writ large.

The lack of identification documents for a large portion of the Indian population does need to be addressed. Whether the UID project is the best means to do this—whether it has the right architecture and design, whether it can succeed without an overhaul of several other failures of governmental institutions, and whether fixing the identity piece alone causes more harm than good—should be the subject of intense debate and scrutiny. Only through rigorous threat modeling and analysis of the risks arising out of this burgeoning “data industrial complex” can steps be taken to stem the potential repercussions of the project not just for identity management, fraud, corruption, distributive justice, and welfare generally, but also for autonomy, openness, and democracy.

Click to download the article published in the annual report of Berkman's Center for Internet and Society (PDF 7223 Kb)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/internet-monitor-2013-malavika-jayaram-indias-identity-crisis

December 2013 Bulletin

praskrishna — 2014-02-25T13:51:47Z

Our newsletter for the month of December 2013 can be accessed below.

We at the Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) wish you all a great year ahead and welcome you to the twelfth issue of its newsletter (December) for the year 2013:

-------------------------------
Highlights
-------------------------------

The National Resource Kit team has published a draft chapter highlighting the state of laws, policies and programmes for persons with disabilities in the state of Gujarat.
Government of India has passed the National Electronic Accessibility Policy. CIS had worked with the Department of Electronics and Information Technology to formulate this policy. We bring you a brief analysis of the policy and provisions therein in a blog post.
Nehaa Chaudhari on behalf of CIS submitted comments on the Proposed WIPO Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations to the Ministry of Human Resource Development.
CIS-A2K team has published a report highlighting the key accomplishments about the work accomplished on Konkani Wikipedia from September to December 2013.
Vipul Kharbanda has provided an analysis of the laws and regulations that apply to Bitcoin in India concluding that government can regulate Bitcoin.
We released the first documentary film (DesiSec) on cyber security in India in Bangalore on December 11.
In the module on Global Histories of the Internet (part of the Knowledge Repository on Internet Access project) Nishant Shah analyses the understanding of the internet, cyberspace and everyday life and why do we need to know the history of the internet.
The second "Institute on Internet and Society" will be held in Yashada, Pune from February 11 to 17, 2014.
As part of the Making Change project, Denisse Albornoz provides an analysis of the benefits and limitations of increasing access to information to enable citizenship and political participation.

-----------------------------------------------
Jobs
-----------------------------------------------
CIS is seeking applications for the posts of Program Officer (Access to Knowledge) and Program Officer (Internet Governance): http://bit.ly/1aA57K6. There are two vacancies each for these posts and these are full-time based in Delhi. To apply, please send your resume to Sunil Abraham (sunil@cis-india.org) and Pranesh Prakash (pranesh@cis-india.org) with three writing samples of which at least one demonstrates your analytic skills, and one that shows your ability to simplify complex policy issues.

----------------------------------------------
Accessibility and Inclusion
----------------------------------------------
As part of our project (under a grant from the Hans Foundation) on creating a national resource kit of state-wise laws, policies and programmes on issues relating to persons with disabilities in India, we bring you draft chapters for the states of Madhya Pradesh and Arunachal Pradesh, and the union territory of Daman and Diu. With this we have completed compilation of draft chapters for 27 states and 5 union territories. Feedback and comments are invited from readers for the following chapter:

► National Resource Kit Chapter

The Gujarat Chapter (by Anandhi Viswanathan, December 31, 2013): http://bit.ly/Kxbg3b.

Note: All of the chapters published so far in this project are early drafts and will be reviewed and updated.

►Other

# Media Coverage

An “Advocacy” Saga and the Inspiring Legacy of Rahul Cherian (by Shamnad Basheer, Spicy IP, December 16, 2013): http://bit.ly/1a5B7sU.

# Blog Entry

National Policy on Universal Electronic Accessibility – An Analysis (by Anandhi Viswanathan, December 27, 2013): http://bit.ly/1dfCW3I.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Access to Knowledge
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Access to Knowledge programme addresses the harms caused to consumers and human rights, and critically examines Open Government Data, Open Access to Scholarly Literature, and Open Access to Law, Open Content, Open Standards, and Free/Libre/Open Source Software.

# Submission

Comments on Proposed WIPO Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations (by Nehaa Chaudhari, December 7, 2013). CIS submitted its comments to the Ministry of Human Resource Development: http://bit.ly/1hpWeuu.

# Events Participated In

3rd Global Congress on IP and the Public Interest & Open A.I.R. Conference on Innovation and IP in Africa (organized by University of Cape Town, December 9-13, 2013). Sunil Abraham participated as a speaker in the sessions on Bridging into the Global Congress: Global Issues, Local Answers?, User Rights Track: What Medicines Can Teach Tech: Exploring Patent Pooling and Compulsory Licensing in the Indian Mobile Device Market (http://bit.ly/1f74yir), User Rights Track: Reclaiming the World Trade Organisation: A Modest Proposal for a WTO Agreement on the Supply of Global Public Goods (http://bit.ly/1f74yir), and was a keynote speaker on The Freedom Continuum (http://bit.ly/1dH1WEM). Nehaa Chaudhari also participated in this event: http://bit.ly/1bJArFJ.
Twenty-Sixth Session of the Standing Committee on Copyrights and Related Rights (organized by WIPO, Geneva, December 16 – 20, 2013). CIS gave its statement on Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives (http://bit.ly/JWnjq7) and on Limitations and Exceptions for Education, Teaching and Research Institutions and Persons with Other Disabilities (http://bit.ly/JWnjq7). Nehaa Chaudhari participated as a speaker. India and the United States introduced 6 proposals on the WIPO Broadcast Treaty: http://bit.ly/1edqvr3.

The following has been done under grant from the Wikimedia Foundation (http://bit.ly/SPqFOl). As part this project (http://bit.ly/X80ELd), we held 3 workshops in the month of December, published a detailed report of key accomplishments of the work done in Konkani Wikipedia, a report on Train the Trainer Program held in the month of October and published an article in DNA.

►Wikipedia

# Article

Telugu Wikipedia completes 10 years (by Rahmanuddin Shaik, DNA, December 16, 2013): http://bit.ly/19OAvUV. The article was edited by Rohini Lakshané.

# Report

CIS-A2K: Work Accomplished on Konkani Wikipedia (by Nitika Tandon, December 31, 2013): http://bit.ly/1l6ttmp. The report throws some light on the work accomplished on Konkani Wikipedia from September to December 2013.

# Blog Entries

First ever Train-the-Trainer Program in India (by Nitika Tandon, December 5, 2013): http://bit.ly/1euwSXt.

The following are videos of participants from the Konkani Vishwakosh Digitization project (jointly organised by CIS-A2K and Goa University) speaking on their experiences with Wikimedia projects.

Priyadarshini Tadkodkar on Konkani language (by Subhashish Panigrahi, November 17, 2013): http://bit.ly/1hldNM8. We are featuring this here as we didn’t carry this in the last newsletter.
Varsha Kavlekar on Konkani Wikipedia Incubator (by Nitika Tandon, December 12, 2013): http://bit.ly/KmxyFo.
Darshan Kandolkar on Konkani Vishwakosh Digitization Process (by Nitika Tandon, December 13, 2013): http://bit.ly/1cqKyQ2.
Darshana Mandrekar speaks on Konkani Wikipedia (by Nitika Tandon, December 16, 2013): http://bit.ly/1keWyya.
Pooja Tople on Wikimedia Projects (by Nitika Tandon, December 17, 2013): http://bit.ly/1hlbubU.

# Events Organised

You Too Can Write on Wikipedia! — Training workshop (National Institute of Tourism and Hotel Management, Gachibowli, Hyderabad, December 5, 2013): http://bit.ly/1edmx1z.
Telugu Wikipedia Training Workshop (KBN College, Vijaywada, December 16, 2013): http://bit.ly/1i8ScnL.
Kannada Wikipedia Workshop at Alvas Vishva Nudisiri Virasat (Moodabidre, December 19 – 22, 2013). Dr. U.B. Pavanaja gave a presentation about Kannada Wikipedia and also conducted a workshop on Kannada Wikipedia as a parallel track. The event was covered by Prajavani (December 22), Hosadigantha (December 22), and Deccan Herald (December 22): http://bit.ly/1dGTBkw.

# Events Co-organised

Wikipedia Orientation Workshop (organised by CIS-A2K and Christ University, Bangalore, December 2, 2013): http://bit.ly/1lrkwEy.
Wikipedia Training Session @ Tiruvur (organised by CIS-A2K and Telugu Wikipedia community, Srivahini College, Tiruvur, December 19, 2013). T. Vishnu Vardhan and Rahmanuddin Shaik conducted the workshop: http://bit.ly/1e3oQX7. It was covered by Andhraprabha (http://bit.ly/1bU5VsQ), Eenadu (http://bit.ly/19fsttf), Sakshi (http://bit.ly/1e3pQdU), and Prajasakthi (http://bit.ly/JJs7ja) on December 19, 2013.

# Event Participated In

A Wikipedia Workshop at IISC (organised by the Assamese Wikipedia community, Bangalore, December 1, 2013). CIS-A2K team and Wikipedian Shiju Alex supported this event: http://bit.ly/1dSutY2.

# Media Coverage

CIS gave its inputs for the following media coverage:

A Feature on Telugu Wikipedia (Namaste Telengana Newspaper, December 8, 2013): http://bit.ly/19Yjwj6.
Odisha: Odia Wikipedia reaching 5000 article mark! (Odisha Diary Bureau, December 17, 2013): http://bit.ly/1dGU2vc.

-----------------------------------------------
Internet Governance
-----------------------------------------------
CIS is doing a project (under a grant from Privacy International and International Development Research Centre (IDRC)) on conducting research on surveillance and freedom of expression (SAFEGUARDS). So far we have organised seven privacy round-tables and drafted the Privacy (Protection) Bill. This month we bring you an analysis on whether Bitcoin can be banned by the government and a blog post on misuse of surveillance powers in India. As part of its project (funded by Citizen Lab, Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto and support from the IDRC) on mapping cyber security actors in South Asia and South East Asia a film DesiSec: Episode 1was screened. We also did an interview with Pranesh Prakash on cyber security. With this we have completed a total of 13 video interviews so far:

# Analysis

Can Bitcoin Be Banned by the Indian Government? (by Vipul Kharbanda, December 24, 2013): http://bit.ly/1lJrnGF.

# Blog Entries

Misuse of Surveillance Powers in India (Case 1) (by Pranesh Prakash, December 6, 2013): http://bit.ly/1donbaJ.
Brochures from Expos on Smart Cards, e-Security, RFID & Biometrics in India (by Maria Xynou, December 18, 2013): http://bit.ly/1f714fN.
India’s Identity Crisis (by Malavika Jayaram, December 31, 2013 Internet Monitor Annual Report: Reflections on the Digital World, published by Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet and Society): http://bit.ly/1lTRuuz.

# Upcoming Events

Digital Citizens: Why Cyber Security and Online Privacy are Vital to the Success of Democracy and Freedom of Expression (CIS, Bangalore, January 14, 2014): http://bit.ly/KucEU5. Michael Oghia will give a talk.
CPDP 2014 Reforming Data Protection: The Global Perspective (Brussels, January 22 – 24, 2014): http://bit.ly/KsgCws.
Nullcon Goa Feb 2014 — International Security Conference (organised by Nullcon, Bogmallo Beach Resort, Goa, February 12 – 15, 2014). CIS is one of the sponsors for this event: http://bit.ly/1lrBu5I.

# Events Organised

Big Democracy: Big Surveillance - A talk by Maria Xynou (CIS, Bangalore, December 3, 2013): http://bit.ly/19YnA31.
DesiSec: Episode 1 - Film Release and Screening (CIS, December 11, 2013): http://bit.ly/1lJt2fm.
Legal Issues pertaining to Cloud Computing (NLSIU Campus, Bangalore, December 14-15, 2013): http://bit.ly/1cvcmGq.
Biometrics or Bust? Implications of the UID for Participation and Inclusion (CIS, Bangalore, January 10, 2014). Malavika Jayaram will give a talk: http://bit.ly/1lJZhuK.

# Events Participated In

Convention on Crisis of Capitalism and brazen onslaught on Democracy (organized by INSAF, December 6, 2013). Snehashish Ghosh participated as a speaker: http://bit.ly/1gAxmNy.
International View of the State-of-the-Art of Cryptography and Security and its Use in Practice (IV) (jointly organized by Microsoft Research India, Indian Institute of Science, and Indian Institute of Technology Madras, December 6, 2013). Sunil Abraham was a panellist: http://bit.ly/1eAXl5t.
Technology in Government and Topics in Privacy (organized by Data Privacy Lab, CGIS Cafe, Cambridge Street, Harvard University Campus, December 9, 2013). Malavika Jayaram participated as a speaker on Biometrics in Beta – India's Identity Experiment: http://bit.ly/1bJDqht.
Cyberscholars Working Group at MIT (organized by the Berkman Center for Internet & Society, Harvard University, December 12, 2013): Malavika Jayaram made a presentation on Biometrics or Bust - India’s Identity Crisis: http://bit.ly/1eIpHef.
Seventh NLSIR Symposium on “Bridging the Security-Liberty Divide” (organised by National Law School, Bangalore, December 21-22). Chinmayi Arun and Bhairav Acharya were speakers at this event: http://bit.ly/1gjsxYe.

--------------------------------
News & Media Coverage
--------------------------------
CIS gave its inputs to the following media coverage:

MongoDB startup hired by Aadhaar got funds from CIA VC arm (by Lison Joseph, Economic Times, December 3, 2013): http://bit.ly/1f77bRg.
A Three-Way Race Draws Delhi’s Young, and Everyone Else, Out to Vote (by Betwa Sharma, New York Times, December 4, 2013): http://bit.ly/1gAxoFf.
India for UN body to resolve internet governance issues (by Kim Arora, The Times of India, December 5, 2013): http://bit.ly/JWESqe.
Card transactions with Aadhaar validation need more time: experts (by Kirti V. Rao and Moulishree Srivastava, Livemint, December 5, 2013): http://bit.ly/1hq35UL.
Indian government wakes up to risk of Hotmail, Gmail (originally published by AFP, December 7, 2013): http://bit.ly/19LrlOS. This was also mirrored in The Times of India (http://bit.ly/1hpYEJu), Reuters (http://bit.ly/1gaHhZk), Dawn (http://bit.ly/1azuV95), NDTV (http://bit.ly/19Ys7lS), Yahoo News (http://yhoo.it/JCSreE), The Malaysian Insider (http://bit.ly/1eAPAMW) and Asia One Digital (http://bit.ly/JWuw9R). A slightly modified version was published by Silicon India on December 11: http://bit.ly/1gAtzjd.

# Announcement

Pranesh Prakash has been elected as the Asia-Pacific representative to the executive committee of the NonCommercial Users Constituency (NCUC) (part of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group, which is in turn part of the Generic Names Supporting Organization, which is in turn part of ICANN): http://bit.ly/KuIVeC.

--------------------------------
Telecom
-------------------------------
Shyam Ponappa, a Distinguished Fellow at CIS is a regular columnist with the Business Standard. The articles published on his blog Organizing India Blogspot is mirrored on our website:

# Newspaper Column

For a Telecom Revival (by Shyam Ponappa, Business Standard, December 4, 2013 and Organizing India Blogspot, December 5, 2013): http://bit.ly/1avRDii.

--------------------------------
Digital Humanities
--------------------------------
CIS is building research clusters in the field of Digital Humanities. The Digital will be used as a way of unpacking the debates in humanities and social sciences and look at the new frameworks, concepts and ideas that emerge in our engagement with the digital. The clusters aim to produce and document new conversations and debates that shape the contours of Digital Humanities in Asia:

# Blog Entry

The Conflict of Konigsberg (by Anirudh Sridhar, December 17, 2013): http://bit.ly/1cEXhhU.

--------------------------------
Digital Natives
--------------------------------
CIS is doing a research project titled “Making Change”. The project will explore new ways of defining, locating, and understanding change in network societies. Having the thought piece 'Whose Change is it Anyway' as an entry point for discussion and reflection, the project will feature profiles, interviews and responses of change-makers to questions around current mechanisms and practices of change in South Asia and South East Asia:

►Making Change Project

# Blog Entries

Tactical Technology: Information is Power? (by Denisse Albornoz, December 26, 2013): http://bit.ly/1cEUrcY.
Tactical Technology: Designing Activism (by Denisse Albornoz, December 27, 2013): http://bit.ly/1a9IuzH.

►Other

# Newspaper Column

Digital Native (by Nishant Shah, Indian Express, December 22, 2013): http://bit.ly/1f7mU2P.

------------------------------------------------------------
Knowledge Repository on Internet Access
------------------------------------------------------------
CIS in partnership with the Ford Foundation is executing a project to create a knowledge repository on Internet and society. This repository will comprise content targeted primarily at civil society with a view to enabling their informed participation in the Indian Internet and ICT policy space. The repository is available at the Internet Institute website: http://bit.ly/1iQT2UB.

# Upcoming Event

Institute on Internet and Society (organised by Ford Foundation and CIS, Yashada, Pune, February 11-17, 2014): http://bit.ly/180mQi9. Registrations are closed for this event.

# Modules

History of the Internet: Building Conceptual Frameworks (by Nishant Shah, December 31, 2013): http://bit.ly/19WRHLb.
Internet Privacy in India (by Elonnai Hickok, December 31, 2013): http://bit.ly/19SNk6v.

-----------------------------------------------------
About CIS
-----------------------------------------------------
The Centre for Internet and Society is a non-profit research organization that works on policy issues relating to freedom of expression, privacy, accessibility for persons with disabilities, access to knowledge and IPR reform, and openness (including open government, FOSS, open standards, etc.), and engages in academic research on digital natives and digital humanities.

► Follow us elsewhere

Twitter:https://twitter.com/CISA2K
Facebook group: https://www.facebook.com/cisa2k
Visit us at:https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/India_Access_To_Knowledge
E-mail: a2k@cis-india.org

► Support Us

Please help us defend consumer / citizen rights on the Internet! Write a cheque in favour of ‘The Centre for Internet and Society’ and mail it to us at No. 194, 2nd ‘C’ Cross, Domlur, 2nd Stage, Bengaluru – 5600 71.

► Request for Collaboration:
We invite researchers, practitioners, and theoreticians, both organisationally and as individuals, to collaboratively engage with Internet and society and improve our understanding of this new field. To discuss the research collaborations, write to Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, at sunil@cis-india.org or Nishant Shah, Director – Research, at nishant@cis-india.org. To discuss collaborations on Indic language wikipedia, write to T. Vishnu Vardhan, Programme Director, A2K, at vishnu@cis-india.org.

CIS is grateful to its donors, Wikimedia Foundation, Ford Foundation, Privacy International, UK, Hans Foundation and the Kusuma Trust which was founded by Anurag Dikshit and Soma Pujari, philanthropists of Indian origin, for its core funding and support for most of its projects.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/about/newsletters/december-2013-bulletin

CIS Cybersecurity Series (Part 13) - Pranesh Prakash

purba — 2014-01-20T06:20:44Z

CIS interviews Pranesh Prakash, lawyer and policy director with Centre for Internet and Society, as part of the Cybersecurity Series.

"When it comes to things cyber we completely lose our sense of proportion. While killing someone by negligence only attracts two years of punishment, saying something that people can define "offensive" attracts even more under 66A of the Information Technology Act. Something that can be a nuisance, under the Criminal Laws, can attract up to six months punishment, whereas under the IT act, it is up to three years..." - Pranesh Prakash, lawyer and policy director, Centre for Internet and Society

Centre for Internet and Society presents its thirteenth installment of the CIS Cybersecurity Series.

The CIS Cybersecurity Series seeks to address hotly debated aspects of cybersecurity and hopes to encourage wider public discourse around the topic.

Pranesh is a Policy Director with the Centre, and is a graduate of the National Law School of India University, Bangalore, with a degree in Arts and Law.

This work was carried out as part of the Cyber Stewards Network with aid of a grant from the International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/cis-cybersecurity-series-part-13-pranesh-prakash

Pranesh Prakash elected as Asia-Pacific Representative to the Executive Committee of NonCommercial Users Constituency

praskrishna — 2014-01-06T02:50:52Z

Pranesh Prakash has been elected as the Asia-Pacific representative to the executive committee of the NonCommercial Users Constituency (NCUC) (part of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group, which is in turn part of the Generic Names Supporting Organization, which is in turn part of ICANN).

More information about the NCUC including how to join can be found at http://www.ncuc.org/

Background & Mission Statement:
The purpose of the NonCommercial Users Constituency (NCUC) is to represent, through its elected representatives and its interest groups, the interests and concerns of non-commercial registrants and non-commercial Internet users of generic Top-level Domains (gTLDs).

It provides a voice and representation in ICANN processes to: non-profit organizations that serve non-commercial interests; nonprofit services such as education, philanthropies, consumer protection, community organizing, promotion of the arts, public interest policy advocacy, children's welfare, religion, scientific research, and human rights; public interest software concerns; families or individuals who register domain names for noncommercial personal use; and Internet users who are primarily concerned with the noncommercial, public interest aspects of domain name policy.

Chair
William Drake, U. Zurich, Switzerland

Executive Committee (Europe)
Stefania Milan, Tilburg University, the Netherlands

Executive Committee (Africa)
Grace Githaiga, Kenya ICT Action Network

Executive Committee (Asia and the Pacific)
Pranesh Prakash, Centre for Internet and Society, India

Executive Committee (North America)
Roy Balleste, St. Thomas University, USA

Executive Committee (Latin America)
Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza, Rio de Janeiro Institute for Technology of Society

The election results were as under:

Total Ballots Cast (including duplicates): 146
Ballots Counted (excluding duplicates): 124
Voters Who Haven't Voted: 84

Chair
1: 155 votes: William Drake
2: 22 votes: Abstain

Executive Committee (Europe)
3: 152 votes: Stefania Milan
4: 21 votes: Abstain

Executive Committee (Africa)
5: 37 votes: Hago Dafalla
6: 106 votes: Grace Githaiga
7: 34 votes: Abstain

Executive Committee (Asia and the Pacific)
8: 43 votes: Peter Green (aka Zuan Zhang)
9: 17 votes: Imran Ahmed Shah
10: 38 votes: Walid Al-Saqaf
11: 62 votes: Pranesh Prakash
12: 33 votes: Abstain

Executive Committee (North America)
13: 145 votes: Roy Balleste
14: 32 votes: Abstain

Executive Committee (Latin America)
15:149 votes: Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza
16: 24 votes: Abstain

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/icann-december-24-2013-pranesh-prakash-elected-as-asia-pacific-representative-to-executive-committee-of-nuc