Access To Knowledge (A2K)

Global Partners Meeting @ London

praskrishna — 2013-03-20T06:37:48Z

Privacy International is organizing the Global Partners Meeting in London from March 22 to 25, 2013. The workshop will be held at the London School of Economics and Political Science. Sunil Abraham and Malavika Jayaram will be participating in this event.

Click to read the full details published by Privacy International here.

The meeting is an opportunity to connect global partners with each other and with researchers, human rights advocates, and privacy and technology experts from over 20 countries. This will provide an opportunity for discussion and debate, that will enrich global research and advocacy agenda for the next two years.

Workshop Overview

The purpose of the three day workshop is as follows:

To understand the privacy discourse and identify the challenges faced in advancing the right to privacy across the globe.
To consolidate our network and look for opportunities for collaboration and cross-pollination for research and advocacy initiatives.
To share experiences about research, dissemination and advocacy strategies that influence policy change.

We envisage this workshop as a launching pad for the work that Privacy International and our global partners will conduct over the next two years under the ambit of the Surveillance and Freedom: Global Understandings and Rights Development (SAFEGUARD) project, funded by the International Development

Research Centre. The focus of the SAFEGUARD project is to understand what are the threats, challenges and obstacles to, and opportunities for, the protection of privacy in developing countries.

Background to the SAFEGUARD project

Nowhere are the challenges to, and opportunities for, privacy protections as dynamic and complex as in the developing world. As these countries seek new measures to develop their economies, build social and technological infrastructures, sustain their social systems, and ensure security they need to consider what are the modern policy frameworks they require to ensure a just society. The windows around these policy frameworks are key opportunities for reflection about rights and democratic values, and in the case of this project, the protection of privacy.

The vast scope and relevance of the right to privacy in this age of technology gives rise to a myriad of challenges and issues, many of which have relevance across, as well as within, borders. This is particularly the case in the developing world, where South-South collaboration is gaining increasing currency in the development sector, and donor countries continue to contribute to and influence policy in recipient countries, particularly with respect to the adoption of new technologies. Many of the trends in developing countries – communications surveillance, biometrics and DNA databases, and identity cards – mirror those being adopted in the global North. Policy laundering and modelling, such as that witnessed with respect to counter-terrorism policies in the aftermath of 9/11 is taking hold in the context of communications surveillance laws and national ID databases. Such phenomena raise concerns not only as to the spread of practices that threaten to undermine privacy, but also with respect to the stifling of national policy discourses and legislative processes.

Conceptual framework

This projects sets out to isolate and understand the challenges to privacy in the developing world. In order to ensure that the research developed is sufficiently targeted to influence policy debates, we have identified a set of themes that cover the range of privacy-related issues and that together will give a comprehensive picture of the difficult relationship between privacy and technology. This set of themes has been developed in collaboration with our partners, who have identified those discussions around which there is perfect storm of advancing surveillance policies and technologies, poor legal and technical safeguards, and a scarcity of research and understanding. We have designed our conceptual framework accordingly.

Research questions

The legal and constitutional landscape: What laws and constitutional provisions exist to protect privacy, how are they implemented and monitored, and where are the legal and policy gaps?

Data protection: What is the state of data protection in partner countries, and what are the local and regional regulatory standards and good practices?

Communications surveillance: What communications surveillance regimes are in place, how are they designed in law and how do they operate in practice?

Adoption of surveillance technologies: Where are governments buying surveillance technologies, and how are they using them? What legal regimes are in place to establish safeguards over the use of advanced surveillance technologies? What is the state of the art in legal protections?

Political intelligence oversight: What is the nature and operation of local intelligence services, what oversight mechanisms are in place, and how can these mechanisms be implemented or enforced?

Politics, Identity, sexual and reproductive health and social sorting: To what the extent do governments misuse personal information to pursue social sorting practices?

Delivery of public services: What is the state of privacy protections in public service delivery, particularly those related to e-health systems and social protection programmes, and how can protections be improved?

ID, DNA and biometrics: What privacy risks are associated with the collection and use of personal information for ID and biometric systems?

Partners

Africa	Latin America	Asia
Zimbabwe Human Rights Forum, Zimbabwe Kenyan Ethical and Legal Issues Network, Kenya Media Institute of Southern Africa, Namibia Jonction, Senegal Centre for Social Sciences Research, University of Cape Town African Platform for Social Protection, Kenya	Dejusticia, Columbia Asociacion por los Derechos Civiles, Argentina Autonomous University of Mexico State, Mexico Centro de Tecnologia y Sociedad, Universidad San Andres, Argentina, in collaboration with the Centro de Tecnologica da Escola de Direito da Fundacao Getulio Vargas, Brasil Instituto NUPEF, Brazil Derechos Digitales, Chile	VOICE, Bangladesh University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Centre for Internet and Society, India Thai Netizen Network, Thailand Thai Media Policy Center, Thailand Bytes For All, Pakistan Centre for Cyber Law Studies, Indonesia Foundation for Media Alternatives, Philippines

Africa

Latin America

Asia

Zimbabwe Human Rights Forum, Zimbabwe

Kenyan Ethical and Legal Issues Network, Kenya

Media Institute of Southern Africa, Namibia

Jonction, Senegal

Centre for Social Sciences Research, University of Cape Town

African Platform for Social Protection, Kenya

Dejusticia, Columbia

Asociacion por los Derechos Civiles, Argentina

Autonomous University of Mexico State, Mexico

Centro de Tecnologia y Sociedad, Universidad San Andres, Argentina, in collaboration with the Centro de Tecnologica da Escola de Direito da Fundacao Getulio Vargas, Brasil

Instituto NUPEF, Brazil

Derechos Digitales, Chile

VOICE, Bangladesh
University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
Centre for Internet and Society, India
Thai Netizen Network, Thailand
Thai Media Policy Center, Thailand
Bytes For All, Pakistan
Centre for Cyber Law Studies, Indonesia
Foundation for Media Alternatives, Philippines

Participants

Ababacar Diop
Allan Maleche
Anna Fielder
Anthony Jackson
Arthit Suriyawongkul
Arthur Gwagwa
Ben Hayes
Ben Wagner
Benjamin Barretto
Carly Nyst
Carolin Moeller
Charles Dhewa
Claudio Ruiz
Clement Chen
Danilo Doneda
Eric King
Farjana Akter
Fieke Jansen
Graciela Sulamein
Gus Hosein
Helen Wallace
Juan Camilo Rivera
Karelle Dagon
Katitza Rodriguez
Kevin Donovan
Levinson Kabwato
Malavika Jayaram
Mathias Vermeulen
Michael Rispoli
Nelson Arteaga Botello
Pablo Palazzi
Pirongrong Ramasoota
Ramiro Alvarez Ugarte
Richie Tynan
Sam Smith
Sinta Dewi Rosadi
Shahzad Ahmed
Sinta Dewi Rosadi
Sunil Abraham
Stephanie Perrin
Tavengwa Nhongo
Vera Franz
Vicky Nida
Vivian Newman Pont

Agenda

Friday, March 22, 2013: Reception

Meet with Privacy International staff members and advisors, and workshop participants from more than 20 countries in Latin America, Asia, Africa, Europe and Central Asia. Food and drinks will be provided.

Time: 6.00 p.m.
Location: 2nd Floor, 46 Bedford Row, London WC1R 4LR
Contact: 0207 242 2836
Getting there: Our office is a short walk 10 minute from your hotel. See Map 1 below for directions.

Saturday, March 23, 2013: Day 1 (Objectives and Reviewing the Landscape)

10:00 a.m. - Welcome Breakfast: Setting The Scene
Location: Mercure London Bloomsbury restaurant

Welcome and introduction

Overview of PI’s work in developing countries

Participant introductions

Setting the agenda

12:30 p.m. - Session 1: Reviewing The Landscape
Location: Old Building, Room 3.21, London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE

Mapping privacy in constitutions

Masterclass 1: communications surveillance laws around the world

Break-out groups on assigned topics, and reporting back

2:30 p.m. - Afternoon tea

Privacy quiz

Masterclass 2: SIM card registration

Building a network: how can PI facilitate your work?

Masterclass 3: Oversight of intelligence agencies

6:00 p.m. - Drinks

7:00 p.m. - Dinner

Location: Tohbang, 164 Clerkenwell Road
http://www.tohbang.com/sub_eng/main.php

Sunday, March 24: Day 2 (Research Topics and Strategies)

Location: Old Building, Room 3.21, London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE

10:00 a.m. - Recap of day one

Masterclass 4 - The UN Universal Periodic Review

Open-space - research and policy priorities

1:00 p.m. - Lunch
Location: Ship Tavern, Holborn

2:30 p.m. - Reconvene

Open space - research, dissemination and communication strategies

Wrapping up and going forward

6:00 p.m. - Dinner
Location: Wahaca, Charlotte St, http://www.wahaca.co.uk/

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/global-partners-meeting-london

Global Networks, Individual Freedoms: A Peer Forum on Internet Freedom and Human Rights

praskrishna — 2012-06-28T09:12:28Z

In Connection with the 2012 Internet Freedom Fellows Program, the United States Mission to the United Nations in Geneva is pleased to invite Pranesh Prakash to a peer forum at the United States Mission to the United Nations on Thursday, June 21, 2012, from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m.

Join the Internet Freedom Fellows, diplomats, UN representatives, civil society, technologists and social media experts, Geneva media and other professionals engaged in the intersection of human rights, internet freedom and technology.

This peer forum is part of the Internet Freedom Fellows program, which brings human rights activists from across the globe to Geneva, Washington, and Silicon Valley to meet with fellow activists, U.S. and international government leaders, and members of civil society and the private sector engaged in technology and human rights.

This year’s Internet Freedom Fellows, all human rights activists and active practitioners of digital media, are from Syria, India, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Venezuela and Azerbaijan.

For additional information on the program, please visit Internet Freedom Fellows.

Program

9:00 a.m.	Welcome and introduction David Kennedy / John Horniblow
9:15 - 10:15	Freedom to Connect and Freedom from Fear: The problem of surveillance in a networked world. Rebecca MacKinnon – Co Founder Global Voices Online, Author “Consent of the Networked”, Boards of Directors of the Committee to Protect Journalists and the Global Network Initiative
10:15 - 10:45	Developing Networked Voices and Promoting the protection of Human Rights Andreas Harsono, blogger and human rights activist (Indonesia), and Rosebell Kagumire, multimedia journalist working on peace and conflict issues in the Eastern Africa region (Uganda) 2011 Internet Freedom Fellows and journalists (via Skype)
10:45 - 11:00	Coffee break
11:00 - 12:00	Moderated Panel Discussion – How Do we Protect Human Rights in a world of global networks? How do the needs of the grassroots, civil society and business inform the process of upholding the UDHR and IHL in networks and technologies? Dr. Robert Whelan (ICRC), Pranesh Prakash, Salil Trepathi (IHRB), Nicolas Seidler (ISOC), Emin Milli Moderated Panel Discussion followed by Q &A
12:00 - 13:00	Buffet Luncheon
13:00 - 13:30	The Open Internet - Empowering Digital Humanitarianism Paul Conneally - Head of Communications for ITU and a former Red Cross delegate (in various positions, locations and with IFRC plus ICRC and the Irish Red Cross).
13:40 - 14:10	Global Network Initiative and the multistakeholder approach ensuring an Open Internet David Sullivan -Policy and Communications Director Global Network Initiative
14.15 - 14.40	The Silicon Valley Standard and implications for technology companies in the protection of Human Rights and other freedoms Brett Solomon -Exec Director Access Now (via Skype)
15:00	Twiplomacy Matthias Luefkins Managing Director, Digital, EMEA– Burson Marstellar

Participation is limited. Please RSVP by noon on Friday, June 15 to iff@usmission.ch. When responding, please indicate whether you will also join us for the luncheon buffet.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/peer-forum-on-internet-freedom-and-human-rights

Global Governance Futures 2027 - Session 3, New Delhi

sumandro — 2017-01-15T11:46:27Z

The Global Governance Futures program (GGF) initiated by Global Public Policy Institute and supported by Robert Bosch Stiftung brings together young professionals to look ahead ten years and recommend ways to address global challenges. Sumandro Chattapadhyay will join Ankhi Das (Facebook) and Arun Mohan Sukumar (Observer Research Foundation) on Tuesday, January 17, to discuss the "data governance" scenarios developed by the GGF 2027 Fellows.

About the Programme: External Link.

GGF 2027 Fellows: External Link.

GGF 2027 Session 3, New Delhi - Agenda: Download (PDF).

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/global-governance-futures-2027-session-3-new-delhi

Global Commission on the Stability of Cyberspace (GCSC)

Admin — 2017-11-23T14:38:12Z

The Global Commission on the Stability of Cyberspace organized a meeting on November 21, 2017 in New Delhi. The meeting took place at Taj Diplomatic Enclave Hotel on the sidelines of the 5th Global Conference on Cyberspace. Pranesh Prakash participated in the event.

GSC commissioners engaged in discussions with leading experts on cyber diplomacy, cyber norms and counter-proliferation. See the Draft Agenda here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/global-commission-on-the-stability-of-cyberspace-gcsc

Global Challenges to Freedom of Expression

praskrishna — 2011-04-04T07:17:59Z

The Centre for Culture, Media & Governance, Jamia Millia Islamia, Delhi, Human Rights Law Network, Delhi and the Centre for Internet & Society, Bangalore are pleased to invite you to a public lecture by Mr. Frank La Rue, President of the Central American Institute for Studies of Social Democracy and UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression on March 4, 2011, 6 pm at the Constitutional Club in New Delhi.

Frank La Rue

Mr. La Rue is the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression for the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. He has worked on human rights for the past 25 years. He is the founder of the Centre for Legal Action for Human Rights (CALDH), both in Washington DC and Guatemala, which became the first Guatemalan NGO to bring cases of human rights violations to the Inter-American System. CALDH was also the first Guatemalan NGO to promote economic, social and cultural rights. Mr. La Rue also brought the first genocide case against the military dictatorship in Guatemala. As a human rights activist, his name was presented to the Nobel Peace Prize committee in 2004.

La Rue has previously served as a Presidential Commissioner for Human Rights in Guatemala, as a Human Rights Adviser to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Guatemala and as a consultant to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. He is President of Instituto Demos in Guatemala City. La Rue holds a BA in Legal and Social Sciences from the University of San Carlos, Guatemala and a postgraduate degree in U.S. foreign policy from Johns Hopkins University.

The entrance is free. Refreshments will be served from 5.30 pm onwards.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/events/global-freedom-expression

Global Censorship Conference

praskrishna — 2012-03-30T11:34:07Z

The Abrams Institute for Freedom of Expression at Yale Law School is holding a conference on global censorship from March 30 to April 1, 2012, at Yale Law School. The programme is sponsored by the Information Society Project at Yale Law School and Thomson Reuters.

"This conference is the first major event for the Abrams Institute for Freedom of Expression, and it brings together an exciting group of thinkers from law, political science, computer science, business and the non-profit sector to discuss the lessons of the past few years,” explained Yale Law Professor Jack Balkin, director of the Abrams Institute and the Information Society Project. “We think the study of free expression in the digital age should be international and interdisciplinary."[1]

Rishabh Dara, Google Policy Fellow who worked at CIS office in Bangalore on freedom of expression and internet-related policy issues is participating in the event as a speaker in the panel on Case Studies of Censorship. The panel will explore recent instances of censorship in the United States, Egypt, Syria, Brazil, and India and the common themes and important differences that emerged.

This conference will consider how censorship has changed in a networked world, exploring how networks have altered the practices of both governments and their citizens. Panels will include discussions of how governments can and do censor and how speakers can command technical and legal tools to preserve their ability to speak. The conference will conclude with a discussion of new controversies in censorship, including laws designed to prevent online bullying and intellectual property infringement.

Agenda

Friday March 30, 2012

2:00	Begin Registration
3:15 – 4:45	The Means of Change, Familiar and New (co-sponsored by Sponsored by the Orville H. Schell, Jr. Center for International Human Rights) In the popular story of the political upheavals in the Middle East and North Africa, information technology stands out as the new factor that was critical to rapid mass mobilization for demanding change. The media have been credited with making popular demands for change contagious. Enthusiasts for the potential of technology to foster progressive change have labeled these apparently sudden developments a Facebook revolution. Governments responded by seeking to curtail the use of mobile phones and the Internet. What role has technology played in igniting, sustaining and shaping recent political changes in the Arab world? Anupam Chander, Professor of Law, University of California, Davis and Director, California International Law Center Rebecca MacKinnon, Bernard L. Schwartz Senior Fellow, New America Foundation John Pollock, journalist
5:00– 6:30	Keynote Lecture (co-sponsored by Sponsored by the Orville H. Schell, Jr. Center for International Human Rights) Irwin Cotler, Canadian Parliament, former Attorney General of Canada
6:30– 9:00	Reception for Panelists of the Global Censorship Conference

Saturday March 31, 2012

9:00 – 10:00	Registration and Breakfast
10:00– 11:30	Panel One: Old and New Forms of Censorship Years ago, activists met in person to plan protests and quietly shared subversive texts. Now, events can be planned over social networking sites, and arguments for change are posted online. How have governments responded to these changes? How have activist practices and governments’ reactions changed the way we conceptualize censorship? Jack Balkin, Yale Law School Yochai Benkler, Harvard Law School Navid Hassanpour, Yale Political Science Deptartment Rebecca MacKinnon, Bernard L. Schwartz Senior Fellow, New America Foundation
11:45 – 1:15	Panel Two: Technical Architectures of Censorship There are a number of choke points across the Internet and a number of different censorship mechanisms that can be deployed at various points across the network. Censorship can be executed at the router level, the Internet Service Provider (ISP) level, the Internet Content Provider (ICP) level, or the device level. Additionally, countries can employ a number of different technologies at each level. This panel will explore the many technical options for censorship and the strategic value of different choices. Laura DeNardis, Associate Professor of Communication at American University, and Affiliated Fellow, Information Society Project at Yale Law School Nagla Rizk, American University in Cairo Hal Roberts, Fellow at Berkman Center for Internet & Technology Ashkan Soltani, Independent Researcher and Consultant on Privacy and Security
1:15 – 2:15	Lunch
2:15 – 3:45	Panel Three: Case Studies of Censorship In the wake of censorship both domestically and abroad, many questions emerged about how the censorship was executed, what effects it had, if and how activists were able to route around the it, and how, if it all, it was eventually stopped. This panel will explore recent instances of censorship in the United States, Egypt, Syria, Brazil, and India and the common themes and important differences that emerged. Sherwin Siy, Deputy Legal Director and the Kahle/Austin Promise Fellow at Public Knowledge Lina Attalah, Journalist, Managing Editor of Al-Masry Al-Youm Anas Qtiesh, Blogger, Editor of Global Voices Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza, Vice-Coordinator of the Center for Technology & Society (CTS) at the Fundação Getulio Vargas (FGV) Law School Rishabh Dara, Researcher at Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad
4:00 – 5:30	Panel Four: Technical Methods of Circumventing Censorship New technology may provide governments with new tools to censor, but it also creates opportunities for speakers and “hactivists” everywhere. How can individuals evade identification online and access blocked content? Can activists circumvent attempts to shut down the internet during periods of political unrest? What new methods are being developed to preserve free speech online? Roger Dingledine, The Tor Project Peter Fein, Telecomix Alex Halderman, University of Michigan, Dept. of Computer Science Sascha Meinrath, Open Technology Initiative Director, New America Foundation Wendy Seltzer, Senior Fellow, Information Society Project at Yale Law School
6:00 – 9:00	Dinner for Speakers

Sunday, April 1, 2012

9:00 – 9:30	Breakfast
9:30 – 11:00	Panel Five: Legal Solutions to Censorship Given the way censorship technologies have slowly crept into acceptable use because of concerns like piracy, child pornography, or national security, there is much debate about the role and capacity of law in combatting these new, digital forms of government censorship, domestically and internationally. This panel will discuss if and how legal solutions to censorship can be deployed most effectively. Derek Bambauer, Brooklyn Law School Jim Dempsey, Vice President of Public Policy at the Center for Democracy and Technology Molly Land, New York Law School Linda Lye, ACLU Northern California Jillian York, Director for International Freedom of Expression at the Electronic Frontier Foundation
11:15 – 12:45	Panel Six: New Controversies in Censorship Does new technology change the appropriate scope of free expression rights? Can policing intellectual property infringement burden free speech interests? Does surveillance ever have a censoring effect? This panel will wrestle with whether a variety of government activities constitutes inappropriate censorship or necessary actions to protect the public interest. Rebecca Bolin, Fellow at Information Society Project, Yale Law School Mark MacCarthy, Vice President for Public Policy, Software and Information Industry Association; Adjunct Professor, Communication, Culture and Technology Program, Georgetown University Preston Padden, Senior Fellow at the Silicon Flatirons Center and an Adjunct Professor at the University Of Colorado's Law School and Interdisciplinary Telecommunications Program David Post, Temple University, Beasley School of Law Christopher Soghoian, Graduate Fellow, Center for Applied Cybersecurity Research, Indiana University
12:45	Bagged Lunch Available

[1].Global Censorship Conference to be Held March 30-April 1 at Yale Law School | Yale Law School, last accessed on March 30, 2012, http://www.law.yale.edu/news/15140.htm

Read the original posted in Yale Law School website

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/global-censorship-conference

Glaring Errors in UIDAI's Rebuttal

pranesh — 2016-09-18T03:22:32Z

This response note by Pranesh Prakash questions Unique Identification Authority of India’s reply to Hans Verghese Mathews' article titled “Flaws in the UIDAI Process” (EPW, March 12, 2016), which found “serious mathematical errors” in the article.

The article was published in Economic & Political Weekly Vol. 51, Issue No. 36, September 3, 2016.

While I am not a statistician, I have followed the technical debate between Hans Verghese Mathews and the UIDAI closely, and see a number of glaring errors in the latter’s so-called rebuttal in EPW (March 12, 2016).

The UIDAI alleges Mathews to have ignored the evidence that the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) "flattens" with more factors. However, Mathews cannot be accused of ignorance if the flattening of the ROC is not relevant to his argument. To explain this in simple terms, the ROC curve is used to choose the appropriate "threshold distance" which determines false positives and false negatives, and belongs to a stage which precedes the estimation of the false positive identification rates (FPIR).

However, Mathews has used the FPIR estimates provided by the UIDAI (based on evidence from the enrolment of 84 million persons), and calculated how the FPIR changes when extrapolated for a population of 1.2 billion persons. In other words, he did not need to look at the ROC curve as that factor is not relevant to his argument, since he has used UIDAI data (which has presumably been estimated on the basis of all 12 factors : 10 fingerprints and 2 irises).

Further, UIDAI asks why Mathews has assumed a linear curve for his extrapolation. Mathews has done no such thing. In fact, in their paper "Role of Biometric Technology in Aadhaar Enrollment," the UIDAI states: "FPIR rate grows linearly with the database size" (nd, 19). Thus, this is an assumption formerly made by them (without providing rationale for it to be a linear curve as opposed to anything else). Mathews mathematically derives bounds for the FPIR in his paper, that is, the range within which the FPIR lies. One gets a linear curve only if they use the upper bound and not on the usage of anything else. So while Mathews does, as he explains, provide the results of the calculation based on the upper bound for the sake of simplicity, he nowhere asserts nor assumes a linear curve.

If, as the UIDAI claims, one cannot perform such an extrapolation and needs to depend on “empirical evidence” instead, the question arises as to how the UIDAI decided to scale up the programme to 1.3 billion people given the error rates. One could also ask if the machines being used to capture biometrics are good enough for the enlargement. Surely they would have performed some extrapolations to decide this.

In their paper they note that "although it [FPIR] is expected to grow as the database size increases, it is not expected to exceed manageable values even at full enrolment of 120 crores" (UIDAI nd, 13). They do not illustrate the extent to which the FPIR is expected to grow—neither in their initial paper, nor in their rebuttal to Mathews—whereas Mathews provides a method of estimating the increase of FPIR. Even if UIDAI is correct in its appraisal of FPIR and that it will not exceed "manageable values," they need to either exemplify their calculations or release the latest data. They have done neither, and that is quite unfortunate.

References

UIDAI (nd): “Role of Biometric Technology in Aadhaar Enrollment,” Unique Identification Authority of India, Government of India, New Delhi, viewed on 18 August 2016, https://uidai.gov.in/images/FrontPageUpdates/role_of_biometric_technology

Related Links

Flaws in the UIDAI Process http://www.epw.in/journal/2016/9/special-articles/flaws-uidai-process.html
Erring on Aadhaar http://www.epw.in/journal/2016/11/discussion/erring-aadhaar.html
Request for Specifics http://www.epw.in/journal/2016/36/documents/request-specifics-rebuttal-u...
Glaring Errors in UIDAI's Rebuttal http://www.epw.in/journal/2016/36/documents/glaring-errors-uidais-rebutt...
Overlooking the UIDAI Process http://www.epw.in/journal/2016/36/documents/response-hans-verghese-mathe...

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/glaring-errors-in-uidai-rebuttal-epw

Giving out your fingerprint for Aadhar payments is as bad as telling the seller your banking password

praskrishna — 2017-02-07T16:09:53Z

PRS India recently released a report card enlisting the status of all the major policy announcements made by the President on India in his address to the Parliament on 23 February 2016. The policies cover all the major sectors including economy and finance, industry and manufacturing, governance and legal reform, skill development, science and innovation among others.

The blog post by Nimish Sawant was published by First Post Tech 2 on February 3, 2017. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.

Ever since the current government has come into power, there has been a concerted effort to take India on the information highway with technology-backed initiatives. Projects such as Digital India, Smart City Project, Startup India to the latest policy announcements post the demonetisation on 8 November 2016, a lot of has been said about technology.

But there are still areas of improvement, for instance we are yet to have a privacy and data protection law, there is an alarming shortage of cybersecurity experts and we have seen our fair share of government as well as personal data being under jeopardy in the years gone by.

Pranesh Prakash, policy director of the Centre for Internet and Society, has his reservations against the speed at which we are moving towards the dream of a digitised India, without covering the core policies on security, legal frameworks and more. Here is what Prakash has to say.

“All in all, we in India are in a really precarious situation when it comes to Digital India, especially from a legal and regulatory perspective. While the push for digitisation is to be welcome, it should make this more convenient for citizens and that can’t be accomplished by forcing digitisation on people without giving them options.

The Planning Commission put together a group of experts chaired by Justice AP Shah, which came out with a report on privacy principles which were to inform a privacy and data protection law that the government was to introduce in Parliament. That report came out in 2012. In 2017, we are no closer to a privacy and data protection law. The data security practices at the levels of the government and of the private sector are very worrying.

For instance, the Narendra Modi app, which is operated by the BJP, for many months was leaking the personal details of more than 7 million users.

Another example: the government, as per press reports, is going ahead with using fingerprints for authentication of Aadhaar Enabled Payment Systems (AEPS) transactions. While the security architecture of AEPS might in itself be good, the idea of providing your fingerprints to merchants for financial transactions is a terrible idea since that is like asking you to give your bank password to a merchant, and the merchant can reuse that password, and you can’t ever change the password.

Last year Symantec revealed that for more than two years a cyberespionage project (that Symantec called “SuckFly“) had penetrated deep into Indian systems, including Indian government and banking systems. Yet, the government didn’t conduct an enquiry about this and reassure the public on actions being taken to mitigate this.

So while digitisation initiatives are great, there also needs to be a concerted effort to have a secure framework, and there has to be an ease in onboarding the non tech-savvy population as well.”

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/first-post-february-3-2017-nimish-sawant-giving-out-your-fingerprint-for-aadhar-payments-is-as-bad-as-telling-the-seller-your-banking-password

Girls' schools, women's PGs: The shocking results when you Google 'bitches near me'

Admin — 2018-11-28T01:34:50Z

Considering the monopoly and clout that Google enjoys, it must be held accountable for promoting such stereotypes and values, experts say.

The blog post by Geetika Mantri was published in News Minute on November 26, 2018. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.

If there’s a question you don’t know the answer to, more often than not, you’ll turn to Google. The search engine’s monopoly over the market, and data pool at hand, are almost unparalleled in public perception – which makes it all the more alarming when it tends to feed into dangerous and misogynistic values.

This is what seems to have happened, as pointed out by Twitter user @AHappyChipmunk, when someone opened Google Maps and typed “bitches near me.” The results show up addresses of girls’ schools, women’s and girls’ hostels and PGs, and women’s clothing shops. Not only is this shocking because ‘bitches’ is often used as a derogatory phrase for women, but also these Google search results of schools put minors at risk.

The tweet caused much outrage and alarm among people, who did the search themselves and posted screenshots of the real time results that they got.

Why would Google show these results?

Pranesh Prakash, a fellow at the Centre for Internet and Society, points out that this was telling of the fact that Google knows that ‘bitches’ can be a slang for women. “For many years now, Google has been trying to understand and search for what you meant, than what you may have typed,” he explains. “However, if you enclose this search phrase in quotes, you will not get the same results, because then it will look for the phrase.”

He also notes that if you were to look for “girls near me”, you would get similar search results on Google Maps, though more specific to women’s accommodations.

In contrast, it you were to Google, “bitch near me”, you would not get Google Map results. “I think that’s because Google understands that ‘bitches’ is more likely to mean women, than singular ‘bitch’,” Pranesh says.

Tech giants need to be held accountable

While Pranesh thinks that the search results are not ‘dangerous’ per se in the sense that a potential abuser was more likely to Google ‘girls schools’ than ‘bitches near me’, he agrees that these search results are telling of the misogynistic language in use online.

However, is it okay for tech giants to wash the responsibility off their hands because this is the language that their algorithm picked up? Nayantara R, who works with the Internet Democracy Project in Bengaluru, says, “This reminds me of the book Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism." The book challenges the idea that platforms like Google are level playing fields for different ideas and ideologies. Author Safiya Umoja Noble argues that due to data discrimination, private interests in promoting certain sites, as well as the monopoly of a few online search engines, results in biased search algorithms which discriminate against women of colour while painting favourable portraits of whiteness.

One such bias came to light in July last year where many people, including Congress MP Shashi Tharoor pointed out how a Google search for ‘south Indian masala’ led to a pictures of skimpily clad women, while ‘north Indian masala’ led to photos of spices and dishes. At the time, Google had maintained that this wasn’t its fault and that Google’s search worked by learning from the keywords people use and the results they click on to predict just what people are searching for.

However, Nayantara asserts that considering the monopoly and clout that Google enjoys, it must be held accountable for promoting such stereotypes and values. “The Google page ranking is one of the most protected patents. No one knows how or why certain pages come before the others. In this case, certain search results coming first does not mean that Google is misogynistic. But the algorithmic decision that is taken by someone at Google to rank certain pages which promote certain values before others does have a social impact. All technology is a result of how it is used. Accountability is required there,” she argues.

A conversation about what search results mean

Nayantara also points out that apart from accountability, there needs to be a conversation about what these search results mean. “Search results do embed political values. However, people need to understand that if they Google something and some pages are ranked before the others, it is not reflective of the truth or right or wrong, but reflection of an opinion,” she says.

“We need popular perception to wrap its head around what a search engine is, and that there are alternatives to Google. We also need more algorithmic diversity in search results,” she adds.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/girls-schools-womens-pgs-the-shocking-results-when-you-google-bitches-near-me

Girls just wanna have... a voice

praskrishna — 2014-04-01T11:21:47Z

Many Indian women have taken to Twitter, the micro-blogging site, to air their views. And some of them have become social media celebrities by virtue of their wise and witty tweets. Prasun Chaudhuri looks at the women who matter in India’s Twitterverse.

The article was published in the Telegraph on March 8, 2014. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

Everyone knows that movie stars like Priyanka Chopra and Deepika Padukone, media celebs like Barkha Dutt and Sagarika Ghose have hundreds of thousands of followers on social media who hang on to their every word. But Malini Agarwal, Priyanka Sachar? Vidyut Kale? You may not have heard of them otherwise, but these women are rockstars of India’s Twitterverse too — not because they are famous in their day jobs, but because their tweets have that special something that keeps the followers coming.

Take Malini Agarwal (@MissMalini), a former radio jockey and head of digital content for Channel V in India, who has over 2,00,000 followers on Twitter. In fact, she has a larger-than-life presence on virtually all social media platforms. Agarwal tweets about Bollywood, the fashion world and the Page 3 circuit. Her Twitter bio says: “She who controls the spice, controls the universe. Bollywood, Fashion & Lifestyle with a Desi Girl Twist.” This “desi girl” with the insider’s take on the glamour world is now an industry of sorts. She has her own website called missmalini.com in which she has employed nine enthusiastic young bloggers — “a happy mix of Bollywood Junkies, Fashionistas and Party Animals” representing “the young, modern (and pretty!) face of India”.

Far removed from the glamour circuit is Vidyut Kale (@Vidyut), a stay-at-home mom raising an infant with cerebral palsy. She has over 14,000 followers for her unusual takes on “issues of socio-political interest”. Says Kale, who describes herself as an “intellectual anarchist”, “Twitter is just amazing because I can actually comment on something and get instant replies. I think I get followed mainly because I say what many will tiptoe around, and that can feel like a big relief when an issue is bugging you badly.”

Her “firebrand” tweeting — on women’s issues, politics, and indeed, pretty much everything under the sun — has turned her into quite a celebrity and she often gets invited to speak at events. Even though she avoids most of these “real-life” gatherings, sometimes her fans force her to attend them. She says, “I have been paid travel expenses to attend an event when I said I couldn’t afford the travel. I have been interviewed, I have had people make an effort to understand a [social] cause if I bring it up.”

Clearly, a social media platform like Twitter has become a fantastic forum for women — a section of society that has traditionally been voiceless. Those who shine on it, says Sunil Abraham, Centre for Internet and Society (a Bangalore-based organisation that researches the impact of digital media), do so by virtue of their “authentic voice”. He adds, “Unlike in the traditional media, there’s no editor to moderate their views and they don’t have any guidelines to follow.” In other words, what their fans get to read or see are unfiltered views — something that’s often missing in mainstream media. Besides, their tweets are often edgy and politically incorrect. And men — and women — fed on the traditional image of women propagated by the mainstream media, find that refreshing and engaging.

Adds social media enthusiast and avid blogger Harsh Ajmera, “People appreciate the bold and politically incorrect approach of these Twitter stars, as opposed to the sugar-coated comments aired in news channels and various other media outlets.” Agrees Kale, “Unlike in lengthy blog posts or newspaper columns, it is easier to make comments on news or challenge views through Twitter. It also enables direct interaction with readers.”

Ask Chinmayi Sripada (@chinmayi), a Chennai-based singer whose bold and frank tweets have earned her more than 2,40,000 Twitter followers. And a fair number of trolls and abusive enemies too. When she spoke out in support of Tamil Nadu fishermen who were attacked by the Sri Lankan Navy, she was flooded with abusive tweets that were tantamount to sexual harassment. But she took on her abusers (one of them was a professor at a top fashion institute) head on. “I filed a case under Section 66A of the IT Act and they were in jail for about two weeks. That was when I saw the full extent of cyber bullying on the basis of caste and community.”

Of course, Sripada doesn’t owe her fame to Twitter alone. She is a popular playback singer in south India and got famous across India for her recent Bollywood hit in Chennai Express. “I haven’t become famous because of social media. I am recognised primarily as a singer.”

Actress and former Miss India Gul Panag (@GulPanag) is yet another Twitter star who was already a celebrity. But with a staggering 7,84,000 followers, and with tweets that are unfailingly sharp and intelligent, maybe her Twitter stardom outshines her Bollywood one. A recent survey by an agency named her as one of the most influential persons on the micro-blogging site. News anchor Barkha Dutt — one of the country’s top media celebrities — also boasts a whopping 12.3 lakh followers.

But Kaveri Ahuja (@ikaveri) is a regular wife and mom who has gone on to become a Twitter celeb. A cancer survivor, her takes on everyday life and the stories of her battle against colorectal cancer (“I love a good fight. How else would I have kicked the big C’s butt?”) attract over 25,000 followers. She even runs a separate Twitter handle for her fan club (@ikaverifc). “Being recognised on Twitter has expanded my offline social circle as well. I can count many online friends as my real-life friends now,” she says.

One of India’s earliest Twitter stars was Priyanka Sachar. If her real name doesn’t ring a bell, her Twitter handle, @TwilightFairy, might. This erstwhile IT professional and part-time wedding photographer left her day job riding on the fame earned by her 140-character tweets. Her quirky takes on a wide range of topics — ranging from everyday outrages (“Bought passionfruit cake for parents’ anniversary from jaypeehotels and got long human hair baked in it for free. Never again!”) to instant reaction to news (“Sahara boss gets ink on his face. Reminds me of school time ink pen wars!”) — are lapped up by her 21,000+ followers.

Thanks to her fame on Twitter, she is often recognised by strangers. “It is a strange experience and I really don’t know how to react, except to say ‘yes, that’s me, how did you know!’… Twitter has made sure that so many interesting (and seemingly inaccessible) people are accessible instantly.” Apart from these “life-altering changes”, she keeps getting invited to some activity or the other, organised by brands that regularly invite “influencers”. “The recognition on Twitter/social media has affected me in massive ways. I left my IT industry job in order to figure out if I can take up a different profession and be a freelancer. And the moment I left my job, an opportunity landed straight in my lap, simply because of my Twitter id! I got offered a job as a social media consultant at a digital media agency,” she says.
So have social media platforms such as Twitter really done wonders for women’s empowerment? Yes and no.

According to Sachar, Twitter did offer unprecedented freedom of speech in its early days. But now that a lot of politicians and political parties have come on board and the Indian IT laws are being tweaked, tweets can be misused by anyone in power. “Even though one can say what one wants, people do tread a tad more cautiously compared to, let’s say, two year back,” says Sachar.

Chinmayi agrees. “There is nothing called total freedom of speech. Even if one chooses that path, the trolls are waiting to see who can be cut to size. I am guarded about what I write on social media.”

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/telegraphindia-march-8-2014-girls-just-wanna-have-a-voice

Girls arrested for Facebook post on Thackeray get bail

praskrishna — 2012-11-30T05:18:30Z

Two girls who were arrested for making a Facebook comment protesting the closure of shops in the wake of Shiv Sena supremo Bal Thackeray‘s death, have been released on bail bonds of Rs 15,000 each.

This article was published in the FirstPost on November 19, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

The duo, one of whom had reportedly updated her Facebook status to read “People like Thackeray are born and die daily and one should not observe a bandh for that” and the other one who ‘liked’ it, were initially booked under section 295A (hurting the religious sentiment of others) and were reportedly remanded to judicial custody for 14 days, NDTV reported.

The two girls were arrested after a complaint made to the Palghar police station in neighbouring Thane district by a local Sena leader.

A group of Shiv Sainiks attacked and ransacked the girl’s uncle’s orthopaedic clinic at Palghar, even though she withdrew her comment and apologised.

In comments to Firstpost, Pranesh Prakash of the Centre for Internet and Society, said that the arrest was a gross misapplication of the Indian Penal Code, and said that this particular provision had been misused on multiple occasions by the state of Maharashtra.

“What makes this seem ironic, and almost a parodic news report, is the fact that Bal Thackeray probably violated this provision more times than most other politicians, but was only charged under it once or twice”, he said.

The arrest has predictably elicited outrage from across the spectrum. Many took to social media to express their disgust, while NDTV reported that Maharashtra police HQ in Mumbai was very upset with the action taken by the Palghar police.

Press Council of India Chairman Markandey Katju had also called for the immediate release of the girls and wrote to Maharashtra Chief Minister Prithviraj Chavan asking him to ensure it.

Pointing out that people were not living under a fascist dictatorship, he said that the act of arrest appeared to be a criminal act since it was a violation under sections of the Indian Penal Code to wrongfully arrest or confine anyone.

The PCI chief said that legal consequences would follow if the Chief Minister failed to take action.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/first-post-nov-19-2012-girls-arrested-for-facebook-post-on-thackeray-get-bail

Girl's arrest draws flak on social media

praskrishna — 2012-11-20T11:04:27Z

The arrest of a 21-year-old girl by Mumbai police for criticizing the shutting down of the city following the death of Bal Thackeray come under fire from netizens.

Arun Dev's article was published in the Times of India on November 20, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

Many tweets and Facebook posts popped up soon after the news of her arrest played on TV and social media networks, some even reposting what she first posted on her page.

Pranesh Prakash, programme manager, Centre for Internet and Society, told TOI this case was a clear case of misapplication of Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code. "This provision has been frivolously used numerous times in Maharashtra. Even the banning of James Laine's book, 'Shivaji: Hindu King in Islamic India', happened this section. The ban was subsequently deemed unlawful by both the Bombay high court and the Supreme Court. Indeed, Section 295A has not been applied in cases where it's more apparent," he said.

On the CIS blog, he commented, "Interestingly, the question arises of the law under which the friend who 'liked' the Facebook status update was arrested. It would take a highly clever lawyer and a highly credulous judge to make 'liking' of a Facebook status update an act capable of being charged with electronically sending ... any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character".

"It is absolutely ridiculous. Regardless of the fact she was given bail, she was sent to 14 days of judicial custody for a mere comment. We have allowed our social media to be free and open but we have laws which are ancient," said Lawrence Liang, a lawyer working on media laws with the Alternative Law Forum in Bangalore. "Such cases don't stand a chance in a court of law. We need procedural safeguards which will ensure cases which are not relevant are not be allowed to be filed," he added.

The open letter to the chief minister of the Maharashtra by Justice Katju, Chairman, Press Council of India, and former Judge, Supreme Court of India too was widely circulated on social media. Some posted this excerpt: "We are living in a democracy, not a fascist dictatorship. In fact this arrest itself appears to be a criminal act since under sections 341 and 342 it is a crime to wrongfully arrest or wrongfully confine someone who has committed no crime."

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/times-of-india-arun-dev-nov-20-2012-girl-arrest-draws-flak-on-social-media

GIGA International Conference Series - 1

praskrishna — 2012-04-03T06:18:28Z

The Institute of Global Internet Governance and Advocacy (GIGA) at NALSAR University will hold the first International Conference in association with Department of Electronics and Information Technology (DEIT) of Government of India on the theme "Revisiting Internet Governance - Lessons Learnt and Road Ahead" at NALSAR University of Law, Justice City Campus, Shameerpet on April 5 & 6 of 2012.

Lex Witness, India's first magazine on legal and corporate affairs is the media partner for the conference, Sunil Abraham will be speaking in this conference,

The first International Conference on Internet Governance of GIGA aims to:

To map the emergence of Internet Governance globally in the last two decades and to analyse its high points and low points in terms of its development, dynamism, diversity, divide and deficit.
To map the multiple definitions of Internet Governance and its rapid evolutionary trajectory of consolidating convergence and confronting challenges of divergence.
To critically evaluate the creative disruption of processes of accountability, empowerment and governance processes.
To levitate the legislative landscape for connecting the real life citizens and virtual life netizens.
To reshape the emergent issues of privacy vs. social responsibility, freedom of expression vs.social & cultural harmony, self conduct vs. legislative intervention, adolescence vs. adult behavior.
To reconcile the sovereign principles with Universal principles.

Conference Schedule

Day 1, April 5, 2012

S.No.	Time	Inaugural
	9.00-10.15	Welcome Address by	Prof. V. C. Vivekanandan Director, GIGA
		Address by	Prof. Faizan Mustafa Vice Chancellor, NALSAR
		Address by	Mr. N. Ravi Shanker Additional Secretary, DOT, Govt. of India
		Address by	Dr. Ajay Kumar Jt. Secretary DEIT, Govt. of India
		Key Note Address by	Mr. J. Satyanarayana Secretary, DEIT Govt. of India (to be confirmed)
		Vote of Thanks by	Prof. M. Sridhar Faculty, GIGA

	10.15-10.45	Coffee Confluence
		Theme	Chair / Speaker
1.		Internet-Comparative Perspective Opening Remarks from the Chair	Mr. Ajit Balakrishnan Chairman-Board of Governors, IIM Calcutta & CEO-Rediff.com
		A. Internet as key to development-an African perspective	Mr. Jean Jacques SUBRENAT ALAC Member, ICANN
		B. Adding a Billion-Challenges in Asia Pacific world	Dr. Katim Seringe Touray Former Board Member, ICANN
		C. Indian policy response to Internet Governance	Prof. Hong Xue Director- IIPL- Beijing
		Netizen speak	Dr. Govind Sr.Director, DEIT, CEO-NIXI
		Closing remarks of the Chair
		Theme	Chair / Speaker
2.		Internet Governance & Technology Opening Remarks from the Chair	Mr. Sanjay Jaju Secretary (IT) AP Govt. (to be confirmed)
		Key Note Address gTLDs- Managing the genie out of the bottle-Techno-Legal issues	Mr. N. Ravi Shanker Additional Secretary, DOT
		A. The business of gTLDS-Roses & Thorns	Prof.V.C.Vivekanandan Director, GIGA
		B. IDN Challenges – Unity in Diversity- Indian Response	Mr. Akshat Joshi GIST, CDAC-Pune
		Closing remarks of the Chair

		Lunch
		Theme	Chair / Speaker
3.		Internet Governance & Society Opening Remarks from the Chair	Prof. Ranbir Singh Vice Chancellor, NLU, Delhi
		Key Note Address Balancing the Privacy-Transparency Conundrum in Internet Governance	Mr. Carlton A. Samuels ALAC Member, ICANN
		A. Brahma-Vishnu-Shiva- Trinity as the State	Mr.U.Ramamohan SP, Cyber Crimes, A.P.
		B. Digital Natives Vs. Digital Naivety	Mr. Sunil Abraham Executive Director, CIS
		C. A development agenda for global Internet governance	Mr. Parminder Jeet Singh Executive Director, IT for Change
		Netizen Speak
		Closing remarks of the Chair

		Coffee Confluence
		Theme	Chair / Panelist
4.		Panel Panorama - Internet Governance - Crossroads or crossing the Road Opening Remarks from the Chair
		Panelists - 15 minutes each	Prof. Amita Dhanda Professor of Law, NALSAR Dr. Anindya Sircar AVP & Head IP , Infosys Prof. Srividhya Ragavan Professor of Law, University of Oklahoma College of Law Prof. S. Matilal RGSOIPL-IIT, Kharagpur
		Netizen Speak
		Closing Remarks of the Chair

Day 2, April 6, 2012

1.	9.00-9.05	Internet Governance & Law Opening Remarks from the Chair	Prof. R. Venkata Rao Vice Chancellor NLSIU, Bangalore
	9.05-9.25	Key Note Address Whose Privacy is it Anyway?	Prof. Graham Greenleaf Co-Director, Aust LII
	9.25-9.40	A. Netizen vs. Citizen-the Sumo Game	Prof.Izumi AIZU TAMA University,Japan
	9.40-9.55	B. Number or Name- Shift in Domain Names	Dr. V. K. Unni Associate Prof., IIM,Calcutta
	9.55-10.10	C. Dial M for Internet Governance	Mr. Pavan Duggal Advocate, Supreme Court of India
	10.10-10.25	D. Chartering rights in Unchartered waters	Mr.Na.Vijaya Shankar Cyber Law Consultant
	10.25-10.35	Netizen Speak
	10.35-10.45	Closing Remarks of the Chair

	10.45-11.15	Coffee Confluence
		Theme	Chair / Speaker
2.	11.15-11.20	Internet Governance & Media Opening Remarks from the Chair	Prof.V.Vijaya Kumar Vice Chancellor, TNDALU-Chennai
	11.20-11.40	Keynote Address Social Media- a New Wine in a New Bottle	Prof. Ang Peng Hwa NTU, Singapore
	11.40-11.55	A. The Republic of Facebook –The Bill of Frights	Prof.V.C.Vivekanandan Director, GIGA
	11.55-12.10	B. Objecting the Objectionable-the chronicles of criminology	Dr.K.V.K.Santhy Co-investigator, GIGA
	12.10-12.25	C. Street Talk vs. Social Talk-Loud Decibels	Prof. M. Sridhar Co-investigator, GIGA
	12.25-12.35	Netizen Speak
	12.35-12.45	Closing remarks from the Chair

	12.45 -2.00	Lunch
		Theme
3.	2.00-2.05	Wrap Up – Internet dreams & delusions – Setting the agenda for the new decade Opening remarks from the Chair	Prof. S. Sivakumar Director In-charge, Indian Law Institute
	2.05 – 3.20	Panelists -15 minutes each	Mr.G.R.Raghavender Registrar of Copyrights Copyright office Ms. Ankhi Das Head of Public Policy, Facebook India Ms. Tulika Pandey Addl.Director- DEIT Mr.R.Muralidharan Advocate- Bangalore Mr. Raman Jit Singh Chima Policy Analyst , Google India Pvt Ltd
	3.20 –3.30	Netizen Speak
	3.30 – 3.40	Closing remarks of the Chair
	3.40 – 4.00	Summing Up - The Hyderabad Declaration	Prof.V.C.Vivekanandan Director, GIGA

	4.00	Coffee Musings & Farewell

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/giga-conference

Getting the (Digital) Indo-Pacific Economic Framework Right

arindrajit — 2022-10-03T14:56:22Z

On the eve of the Tokyo Quad Summit in May 2022, President Biden unveiled the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF), visualising cooperation across the Indo-Pacific based on four pillars: trade; supply chains; clean energy, decarbonisation and infrastructure; and tax and anti-corruption. Galvanised by the US, the other 13 founding members of the IPEF are Australia, Brunei Darussalam, India, Indonesia, Japan, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. The first official in-person Ministerial meeting was held in Los Angeles on 9 September 2022.

The article was originally published in Directions on 16 September 2022.

It is still early days. Given the broad and noncommittal scope of the economic arrangement, it is unlikely that the IPEF will lead to a trade deal among members in the short run. Instead, experts believe that this new arrangement is designed to serve as a ‘framework or starting point’ for members to cooperate on geo-economic issues relevant to the Indo-Pacific, buoyed in no small part by the United States’ desire to make up lost ground and counter Chinese economic influence in the region.

United States Trade Representative (USTR) Katherine Tai has underscored the relevance of the Indo-Pacific digital economy to the US agenda with the IPEF. She has emphasized the importance of collaboratively addressing key connectivity and technology challenges, including standards on cross-border data flows, data localisation and online privacy, as well as the discriminatory and unethical use of artificial intelligence. This is an ambitious agenda given the divergence among members in terms of technological advancement, domestic policy preferences and international negotiating stances at digital trade forums. There is a significant risk that imposing external standards or values on this evolving and politically-contested digital economy landscape will not work, and may even undermine the core potential of the IPEF in the Indo-Pacific. This post evaluates the domestic policy preferences and strategic interests of the Framework’s member states, and how the IPEF can navigate key points of divergence in order to achieve meaningful outcomes.

State of domestic digital policy among IPEF members

Data localisation is a core point of divergence in global digital policymaking. It continues to dominate discourse and trigger dissent at all international trade forums, including the World Trade Organization. IPEF members have a range of domestic mandates restricting cross-border flows, which vary in scope, format and rigidity (see table below). Most countries only have a conditional data localisation requirement, meaning data can only be transferred to countries where it is accorded an equivalent level of protection – unless the individual whose data is being transferred consents to said transfer. Australia and the United States have sectoral localisation requirements for health and defence data respectively. India presently has multiple sectoral data localisation requirements. In particular, a 2018 Reserve Bank of India (RBI) directive imposed strict local storage requirements along with a 24-hour window for foreign processing of payments data generated in India. The RBI imposed a moratorium on the issuance of new cards by several US-based card companies until compliance issues with the data localisation directive were resolved. Furthermore, several iterations of India’s recently withdrawn Personal Data Protection Bill contained localisation requirements for some categories of personal data.

Indonesia and Vietnam have diluted the scopes of their data localisation mandates to apply, respectively, only to companies providing public services and to companies not complying with other local laws. These dilutions may have occurred in response to concerted pushback from foreign technology companies operating in these countries. In addition to sectoral restrictions on the transfer of geospatial data, South Korea retains several procedural checks on cross-border flows, including formalities regarding providing notice to individual users.

Moving onto another issue flagged by USTR Tai, while all IPEF members recognise the right to information privacy at an overarching or constitutional level, the legal and policy contours of data protection are at different stages of evolution in different countries. Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand have data protection frameworks in place. Data protection frameworks in India and Brunei are under consultation. Notably, the US does not have a comprehensive federal framework on data privacy, although there are patchworks of data privacy regulations at both the federal and state levels.

Regulation and strategic thinking on artificial intelligence (AI) are also at varying levels of development among IPEF members. India has produced a slew of policy papers on Responsible Artificial Intelligence. The most recent policy paper published by NITI AAYOG (the Indian government’s think tank) refers to constitutional values and endorses a risk-based approach to AI regulation, much like that adopted by the EU. The US National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence (NSCAI), chaired by Google CEO Eric Schmidt, expressed concerns about the US ceding AI leadership ground to China. The NSCAI’s final report emphasised the need for US leadership of a ‘coalition of democracies’ as an alternative to China’s autocratic and control-oriented model. Singapore has also made key strides on trusted AI, launching A.I. verify – the world’s first AI Governance Testing Framework for companies that wish to demonstrate their use of responsible AI through a minimum verifiable product.

IPEF and pipe dreams of digital trade

Some members of the IPEF are signatories to other regional trade agreements. With the exception of Fiji, India and the US, all the IPEF countries are members of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), which also includes China. Five IPEF member countries are also members of the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) that President Trump backed out of in 2017. Several IPEF members also have bilateral or trilateral trading agreements among themselves, an example being the Digital Economic Partnership Agreement (DEPA) between Singapore, New Zealand and Chile.

All these ‘mega-regional’ trading agreements contain provisions on data flows, including prohibitions on domestic legal provisions that mandate local computing facilities or restrict cross-border data transfers. Notably, these agreements also incorporate exceptions to these rules. The CPTPP includes within its ambit an exception on the grounds of ‘legitimate public policy objectives’ of the member, while the RCEP incorporates an additional exception for ‘essential security interests’.

IPEF members are also spearheading multilateral efforts related to the digital economy: Australia, Japan and Singapore are working as convenors of the plurilateral Joint Statement Initiative (JSI) at the World Trade Organization (WTO), which counts 86 WTO members as parties. India (along with South Africa) vehemently opposes this plurilateral push on the grounds that the WTO is a multilateral forum functioning on consensus and a plurilateral trade agreement should not be negotiated within the aegis of the WTO. They fear, rightly, that such gambits close out the domestic policy space, especially for evolving digital economy regimes where keen debate and contestation exist among domestic stakeholders. While wary of the implications of the JSI, other IPEF members, such as Indonesia, have cautiously joined the initiative to ensure that they have a voice at the table.

It is unlikely that the IPEF will lead to a digital trade arrangement in the short run. Policymaking on issues as complex as the digital economy that must respond to specific social, economic and (geo)political realities cannot be steamrolled through external trade agreements. For instance, after the Los Angeles Ministerial India opted out of the IPEF trade pillar citing both India’s evolving domestic legislative framework on data and privacy as well as a broader lack of consensus among IPEF members on several issues, including digital trade. Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal explained that India would wait for the “final contours” of the digital trade track to emerge before making any commitments.

Besides, brokering a trade agreement through the IPEF runs a risk of redundancy. Already, there exists a ‘spaghetti bowl’ of regional trading agreements that IPEF members can choose from, in addition to forming bilateral trade ties with each other.

This is why Washington has been clear about calling the IPEF an ‘economic arrangement’ and not a trade agreement. Membership does not imply any legal obligations. Rather than duplicating ongoing efforts or setting unrealistic targets, the IPEF is an opportunity for all players to shape conversations, share best practices and reach compromises, which could feed back into ongoing efforts to negotiate trade deals. For example, several members of RCEP have domestic data localisation mandates that do not violate trade deals because the agreement carves out exceptions that legitimise domestic policy decisions. Exchanges on how these exceptions work in future trade agreements could be a part of the IPEF arrangement and nudge states towards framing digital trade negotiations through other channels, including at the WTO. Furthermore, states like Singapore that have launched AI self-governance mechanisms could share best practices on how these mechanisms were developed as well as evaluations of how they have helped policy goals be met. And these exchanges shouldn’t be limited to existing IPEF members. If the forum works well, countries that share strategic interests in the region with IPEF members, including, most notably, the European Union, may also want to get involved and further develop partnerships in the region.

Countering China

Talking shop on digital trade should certainly not be the only objective of the IPEF. The US has made it clear that they want the message emanating from the IPEF ‘to be heard in Beijing’. Indeed, the IPEF offers an opportunity for the reassertion of US economic interests in a region where President Trump’s withdrawal from the CPTPP has left a vacuum for China to fill. Accordingly, it is no surprise that the IPEF has representation from several regions of the Indo-Pacific: South Asia, Southeast Asia and the Pacific.

This should be an urgent policy priority for all IPEF members. Since its initial announcement in 2015, the Digital Silk Road (DSR), the digital arm of China’s Belt and Road Initiative, has spearheaded massive investments by the Chinese private sector (allegedly under close control of the Chinese state) in e-commerce, fintech, smart cities, data centres, fibre optic cables and telecom networks. This expansion has also happened in the Indo-Pacific, unhampered by China’s aggressive geopolitical posturing in the region through maritime land grabs in the South China Sea. With the exception of Vietnam, which remains wary of China’s economic expansionism, countries in Southeast Asia welcome Chinese investments, extolling their developmental benefits. Several IPEF members – including Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore – have associations with Chinese private sector companies, predominantly Huawei and ZTE. A study evaluating Indonesia’s response to such investments indicates that while they are aware of the risks posed by Chinese infrastructure, their calculus remains unaltered: development and capacity building remain their primary focuses. Furthermore, on the specific question of surveillance, given evidence of other countries such as the US and Australia also using digital infrastructure for surveillance, the threat from China is not perceived as a unique risk.

Setting expectations and approaches

Still, the risks of excessive dependence on one country for the development of digital infrastructure are well known. While the IPEF cannot realistically expect to displace the DSR, it can be utilised to provide countries with alternatives. This can only be done by issuing carrots rather than sticks. A US narrative extolling ‘digital democracy’ is unlikely to gain traction in a region characterised by a diversity of political systems that is focused on economic and development needs. At the same time, an excessive focus on thorny domestic policy issues – such as data localisation and the pipe dream of yet another mega-regional trade deal – could risk derailing the geo-economic benefits of the IPEF.

Instead, the IPEF must focus on capacity building, training and private sector investment in infrastructure across the Indo-Pacific. The US must position itself as a geopolitically reliable ally, interested in the overall stability of the digital Indo-Pacific, beyond its own economic or policy preferences. This applies equally to other external actors, like the EU, who may be interested in engaging with or shaping the digital economic landscape in the Indo-Pacific.

Countering Chinese economic influence and complementing security agendas set through other fora – such as the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue – should be the primary objective of the IPEF. It is crucial that unrealistic ambitions seeking convergence on values or domestic policy do not undermine strategic interests and dilute the immense potential of the IPEF in catalysing a more competitive and secure digital Indo-Pacific.

Table: Domestic policy positions on data localisation and data protection

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/directions-cyber-digital-europe-arindrajit-basu-september-16-2022-getting-the-digital-indo-pacific-economic-framework-right

Getting Strategic about Openness and Privacy

praskrishna — 2014-11-09T09:19:23Z

This blog post by Tim Davies, Open Data Research Lead at Web Foundation was published in Open Up? on November 3, 2014.

Click to read the original post here. Sunil Abraham gave his inputs.

Information is powerful. And in a world where the amount of information generated, captured and stored has grown exponentially in recent decades, getting hold of the information you need, when you need it, relies upon having access to the data that describes it. That makes the control of data especially powerful.

Modern transparency initiatives, promoting the idea of open data, have been seeking to break the data-monopoly of privileged actors within the state — unlocking key datasets and making them available for public scrutiny and reducing the information inequalities that undermine open public discourse. Opening up government data is *one* way in which citizens can reclaim some power and reestablish the principle that “they work for us”. Open government data gives us power to know how the government is spending money, what companies are getting public sector contracts and licenses, who owns these companies, what profits they make and what royalties and taxes they pay. Yet, progress has been slow, and we have faced substantial challenges in securing reliable and standardised flows of public data that can be joined-up to give a true picture of how public resources are being used, and key decisions made. Although millions of public datasets have been placed online, the most politically salient are often lacking. The 2013 Open Data Barometer found fewer than 1 in 10 accountability datasets were truly open.

At the same time, advocates of building a more open government need to grapple with three other trends that are shaping discussions of data, power and the state:

Firstly, and most important, the revelations brought to our attention by whistleblower Edward Snowden have confirmed the extent of the secret state and the profound imbalance of power between citizens and their state created through mass surveillance. Whilst projects to disclose even basic data on the state like public spending are underfunded and ad hoc, billions of dollars are poured into tools and technologies that violate basic human rights and that threaten trust and security on the Web. Fundamentally the problem with secret mass surveillance is that it destroys the checks and balances that are meant to limit the power of the state over citizens.
Secondly, and in part due to the discussion spared by Snowden, public awareness of the data, and consequently power, held by corporations has grown. The Web has become increasingly centralised, and large companies now harvest large amounts of data on any individual technology user. In parallel, in some countries such as the UK, governments have sought to use open data agendas as cover for increased proprietary sharing of public data with private firms, seeking to go around established principles of consent to share publicly held health, tax or student records with profit-making firms. Such data-sharing is not inherently wrong if there are public benefits, but building citizen trust in the state’s stewardship of personal data, and ensuring safeguards are in place to warrant that trust, is a major challenge.
Thirdly, concerns have been raised that some of the data released through open data initiatives may also affect the privacy of citizens. Some aggregated and anonymised datasets can be combined with other data to reverse engineer identifiable information. Although early calls for “raw data now” were clear that they were not calling for open personal information, in practice the divide between personal and public can be a narrow one.

So, do these trends mean we should be more cautious about opening up? Should the balance swing back towards a focus on protecting privacy? Ultimately, a simple opposition of privacy and openness is a false dichotomy. The question is not should we focus on openness, or should we protect privacy: but is Who should be open? And how? And whose privacy should be protected, and how?

Sunil Abraham, of the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore, has offered a key solution in the idea that:

“Transparency should be proportional to power, privacy inversely so.”

It is on this basis that organisations working for a fairer future, with more vibrant public discourse, greater freedom, and better governments, can campaign for both privacy and openness together. Those who occupy public office, own companies, or tender for public contracts must accept that there is a legitimate public interest in information about their activities in these roles, whilst independent citizens must be afforded space to form views and live lives without constant state surveillance. Companies should not be considered to have a right to privacy: their interests are already protected by other laws and provisions.

To deliver effective openness through open data, the Web Foundation is working to understand how data gets used on the ground in different settings across the world, and, with Omidyar support, is working on the creation of inclusive open data standards for public contracting data. Standards like the Open Contracting Data Standard are part of building a new infrastructure of open governance, making it possible to join-up data from different places, helping tilt the balance of power towards citizens when it comes to scrutinising governments and corporations. Through the Open Data Barometer we keep track of the availability of key datasets that can be used for accountability, and we’re co-chairing the Open Government Partnership Open Data Working Group, seeking to set high standards for relevant and usable data disclosures by governments.

By focussing on the civic use of data, we can better identify those datasets that must be in the public domain. And by thinking about relative power when considering privacy we can address genuine privacy concerns, whilst not allowing corporations claiming privacy rights, or public figures trying to hide their financial interests, from diminishing the power of data to enable accountability.

At the same time, the Web Foundation leads the Web We Want campaign, challenging mass surveillance and seeking to secure a Web where individuals have the right to privacy, and the tools to secure it. And increasingly transparency of what the state and companies do with personal data can help increase the capacity of citizens to respond to threats to their autonomy, and can increase oversight and safeguards on state or corporate capacity.

Ultimately, our ongoing efforts to open up, and to protect individual freedoms, have to be strategic. And keeping an analysis of power, and Sunil’s maxim, in mind, provides a good starting point to guide the strategy.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/open-up-tim-davies-november-3-2014-getting-strategic-about-openness-and-privacy