Access To Knowledge (A2K)

Consilience – 2013

praskrishna — 2013-11-20T06:15:15Z

The Law and Technology Committee of National Law School of India University, Bangalore is organising ‘Consilience – 2013′, an annual conference on law and technology, to be held on May 25 and 26, 2013. The Centre for Internet and Society is a co-partner for this event.

Theme: Data Protection and Cyber Security in India. Click to read the report here.

Topics:
Frameworks for Data Protection in India: The J. A.P. Shah “Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy”

a. What is the scope of the principles/framework?

b. What could be the strengths and limitation of their application?

c. How does Report define privacy for India?

d. Would an alternative framework for privacy in India be better? If so, what would this framework look like?

India and the EU: The Privacy Debate

a. How does the Indian data protection regime differ from the EU regime?

b. Was the EU is justified in not accepting India as a data secure country? Reason for or against.

c. In what way does the Indian regime on data protection not meet the requirements of EU’s data protection directive?

d. What changes need to be made in the Indian regime to become EU compliant? Are these changes feasible? Should India make these changes?

Governmental Schemes, Data Protection, and Security

a. In India, do private public partnerships between government and the private sector adequately incorporate data protection standards?

b. What have been concerns related to data protection and security that have arisen from government schemes? (Please use two governmental schemes as case studies)

c. Are these concerns related to the policy associated with the project – the architecture of the project as well as the implementation?

d. Should the larger question of data protection for governmental schemes be incorporated into a privacy legislation? If yes, how so?

Contracts and Data Protection in India

a. How are contracts used to ensure data protection in India? What actors use contracts?

b. Are there weaknesses in using contracts to ensure data protection standards?

c. Do contracts address questions brought about from technology like the cloud?

Cyber security in India

a. What are the perceived challenges and threats to cyber security in India?

b. Are these currently being addressed through policy/projects? If yes, how so?

c. How does India’s cyber security regime compare to other countries?

Surveillance and Cyber Security

a. Does policy in India enable the Government of India to surveil individuals for reasons related to cyber security?

b. If so – through what policy, projects, legislation?

c. Do the relevant policies, projects, and legislation impact privacy? How so?

The Draft National Cyber Security Policy

a. What is the scope of the National Cyber Security Policy of India? Does the draft policy adequately address all of the concerns within the ambit of cyber security?

b. Would the Draft National Cyber Security Policy of India be effective in meeting the goal of enhancing cyber security levels in India?

c. How does the Draft National Cyber Security Policy compare to other countries cyber security policies?

Word Limit:

Abstract: 750-800 words

Paper: 2,500 words

Deadlines:

Abstract Submission: April 30, 2013

Paper Submission: May 15, 2013

Contact Details:

consilience2013[at]gmail[dot]com

Mohak Arora: +91-90359-21926

Shivam Singla: +91-99167-08701

Each participant is required to submit an abstract on any one of the seven topics above and can choose the specific issue within the selected topic to discuss.

For additional details, click here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/consilience-2013-law-technology-committee-nls-bangalore

Consilience

praskrishna — 2015-06-19T01:55:12Z

Pranesh Prakash was a speaker at this event organized by the National Law School of India University on May 9 and 10, 2015 in Bangalore. The theme for this conference was "Net Neutrality".

For those of you who came in late, Net Neutrality refers to the idea that all data on the internet should be treated equally. What this means is that you shouldn't be charged more for using one website or less for another. The internet is meant to be equal for all to access. To access YouTube one should not have to pay extra, just because Airtel is trying to grow.

However, to maintain this network that we love so much, telecom operators argue they have to spend thousands of crores of rupees on licences and cable infrastructure without getting much return. Therefore they want to be able to charge differently for using different websites. This makes it is a very contentious issue as it involves a tricky balancing of business interests v. freedoms of the digital age. For a little more insight on the topic, see the document attached which explains net neutrality in a very simple manner.

The conference was graced by a host of experts in the field, such as Rajan Mathews (Director-General, Cellular Operators Association of India), T.V. Ramachandran (Resident Director, Regulatory Affairs and Govt. Relations, Vodafone Essar Ltd.), the Policy Director for Centre for Internet and Society, Mr. Pranesh Prakash, and the general counsel of CISCO India, Mr. Joginder Yadav. Students and experts alike gave differing opinions and facilitated a great debate.

For more details visit here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/consilience-nls-2015

Connections 2018

praskrishna — 2018-12-10T15:32:06Z

Gurshabad Grover attended Connections 2018, a pre-IETF event organised by the India Internet Engineering Society (IIESoc) in Bangalore on October 31 and November 1, 2018.

IIESoC organized the event with an objective to:

Discuss the interests and issues important to the network deployment, operation and design of networks in India as they impact IETF standards.

Educate and prepare new members for IETF involvement. Facilitate member involvement in IETF areas.

Provide information, guidance and direction to assist Indian community in involvement in the IETF.

Work from different IETF working groups was discussed in four tracks: IoT Standardisation, SDN and Network Operations, IPv6, and Deployments.

Click to view the agenda

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/connections-2018

CONNECTing the Dots: Options for Future Action

praskrishna — 2015-04-01T15:31:45Z

Conference on UNESCO’s Internet Study: access, free expression, privacy and ethics.

Elonnai Hickok participated in the conference organized by UNESCO on 3 and 4 March 2015 in Paris. The programme focused on topics like:

Freedom of Expression
Access and Ethics
Privacy and Ethics
Access and Freedom of Expression
Access and Privacy
The Internet Ecosystem and UNESCO's role - which options for future action?

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/connecting-the-dots-options-for-future-action

Connecting People Apart - Events Series

praskrishna — 2012-06-15T11:32:44Z

Post-Media Lab is organising an event series at Lüneburg/Berlin from June 20 to June 23, 2012. Nishant Shah will be speaking at this event.

This was published in Mute on June 11, 2012

Events registration (free) and details here - Contact info@postmedialab.org

20 June

Opening presentation – ‘Talk to Me’ with Rasa Smite & Raitis Smits (RIXC) with a contribution by Nishant Shah (Center for Internet and Society, Bangalore). Reception and drinks.
Venue: Halle für Kunst, Lüneburg. 19:30-22:00
Event booking (free)

21 June

‘What Would the Community Say?’ – A public consultation on regional sustainability and participation projects with Nishant Shah (Center for Internet and Society, Bangalore) in cooperation with DialogN.
Venue: Freiraum, Lüneburg. 13:00-15:00
Event booking (free)

McKenzie Wark book launch and presentation, The Beach Beneath the Street: The Everyday Life and Glorious Times of the Situationist International.
Venue: b-books, Berlin. 21:00-23:00
Event booking (free)

22 June

The Community Complex, A Post-Media Lab conference
Participants: Johannes Paul Raether (Basso), McKenzie Wark (The New School, New York), Nishant Shah (Centre for Internet & Society, Bangalore), Marcell Mars (MaMa, Zagreb), Tatiana Bazzichelli (transmediale/reSource), Clemens Caspar Mierau (Spackeria/c-base), Pod (CiTiZEN KiNO/XLterrestrials, Berlin/San Francisco), Graswurzel TV, foebud e.v. (Bielefeld), Tactical Technology Collective (Berlin and Bangalore), Freifunk (Berlin).
Venue: Denkerei, Berlin. 13:00-20:00
Event booking (free)

After conference event: Performative screening - CiTiZEN KiNO (#16): Technotopia / Dystopia : A Social Garden-i-fication Is Elsewhere!
Venue: c-base, Berlin. 22:00
Event booking (free)

23 June

Live Stream/Media Lounge: ‘From Waste to Resource. Recovering Sustainable Attitudes’
Venue: Kulinarisches Kollektiv, Berlin. 17:00-20:00
Event booking (free)

The Post-Media Lab is part of the Lüneburg Innovation Incubator, a major EU project within Leuphana University of Lüneburg, financed by the European Regional Development Fund and co-funded by the German federal state of Lower Saxony.

Full programme details

Events booking (free) – http://pml.eventbrite.co.uk Contact info@postmedialab.org

Opening presentation - ‘Talk to Me’ with Rasa Smite & Raitis Smits (RIXC) with a contribution by Nishant Shah (Center for Internet and Society, Bangalore)

Wednesday, 20 June, 19:30-22:00
Venue: Halle für Kunst, Lüneburg
Reception and drinks

Everyone wants someone to talk to. Nowadays, scientists have performed various experiments in order to verify the old assumption that talking to plants makes them grow better. This is a prototype for an interface, which allows talking to plants remotely via the internet. We invite everyone to participate in a collaborative experiment by talking to growing plants using an online remote interface.

‘What Would the Community Say?’ - A public consultation on regional sustainability and participation projects with Nishant Shah (Center for Internet and Society, Bangalore) in cooperation with DialogN (Lüneburg)

Thursday, 21 June 13:00-15:00
Venue: Freiraum, Lüneburg

Nishant Shah will pass on and upon reflect experiences about the changing face of citizen action in a post-mediatized world. He will be presenting audio-visual material from studies in India and China – from a 'Global South' perspective – in order to look at the affective circuits of digital technologies and how our current models of development and change fail to address these conditions of being human - because mostly they are targeted at conditions of being a subject. This presentation will be embedded into the discursive context of 'citizen participation' and 'liquid feedback' projects destined for Lüneburg as part of a development region funded for by the EU and EFRE.

Book launch and presentation with McKenzie Wark. The Beach Beneath the Street: The Everyday Life and Glorious Times of the Situationist International

Thursday 21 June 21:00-23:00
Venue: b-books, 14 Lübbenerstr, 10997 Berlin

McKenzie Wark appears at b-books to talk about his book on the life and times of the Situationist International, The Beach Beneath the Street.
McKenzie Wark delves into the Situationists' unacknowledged diversity, revealing a world as rich in practice as it is in theory. Tracing the group's development from the bohemian Paris of the '50s to the explosive days of May '68, Wark's take on the Situationists is biographically and historically rich, presenting the group as an ensemble creation, rather than the brainchild and dominion of its most famous member, Guy Debord. Roaming through Europe and the lives of those who made up the movement – including Constant, Asger Jorn, Michèle Bernstein, Alex Trocchi and Jacqueline De Jong – Wark uncovers an international movement riven with conflicting passions.
Accessible to those who have only just discovered the Situationists and filled with new insights, The Beach Beneath the Street rereads the group's history in the light of our contemporary experience of communications, architecture, and everyday life. The Situationists tried to escape the world of twentieth-century spectacle and failed in the attempt. Wark argues that they may still help us to escape the twenty-first century, while we still can …

Organised by The Post Media Lab at Leuphana University, Lüneburg. In collaboration with Mute and b-books

The Community Complex - A Post-Media Lab conference

Friday, 22 June 2012, 13:00-20:00
Venue: Denkerei, Oranienplatz 2, 10999 Berlin

13:00-15:00 / Workshop I: Practice
15:00-15:30 / Pause
15:30-17:30 / Workshop II: Privacy
18:00-20:00 / Evening Panel

Whether you want to have something to do with the ‘community industry’ or not, it has something to do with you. Through its burgeoning expansion, our forms of relating, caring, communicating and collaborating, are being transformed, enclosed, templated and put to work. The most affective components of network culture are rapidly being engineered into ‘product’. Just as virtual space is augmented, real space becomes ever more virtualised, securitised and impoverished. The rise of the network-assembled community has coincided with a radical disinvestment of national and municipal communities in the age of austerity. As services are withdrawn, the ‘community’ itself is enjoined to step into the breach. ‘Community’, in the era of networked neoliberalism, has become both a target of governance as well as of business.
Beyond the commercial drive which is ‘connecting people apart’, communities of difference are also flourishing in the post-internet age. Reimagining community is not just the preserve of belligerent nationalisms and Web 2.0 but also a long-standing activity of alternative, artistic and political cultures’ responses to commercialisation and industrialisation, from the 17th century puritans and diggers, the artist communes of the 19th century, through to the political squatter scenes of post-68 generation, the hacklabs of the past years and new movements such as Anonymous. The Community Complex will ask how normative forms of sociality and identification are not only produced but also challenged in today’s mashup of the virtual and real, free and waged labour, computational and affectual, real-time and bio-time, as well as minor and molar imaginings of connection. To achieve this we bring together different perspectives and experiences of critically engaging with the new realities of mediatised ‘community’ and its reimagination.

Participants: Johannes Paul Raether (Basso), McKenzie Wark (The New School, New York), Nishant Shah (Centre for Internet & Society, Bangalore), Marcell Mars (MaMa, Zagreb), Tatiana Bazzichelli (transmediale/reSource), Clemens Caspar Mierau (Spackeria/c-base), Pod (CiTiZEN KiNO/XLterrestrials, Berlin/San Francisco), Graswurzel TV, foebud e.v. (Bielefeld), Tactical Technology Collective (Berlin and Bangalore).

After conference event: Performative screening - XLterrestrials and PML-present: CiTiZEN KiNO (#16): Technotopia / Dystopia : A Social Garden-i-fication Is Elsewhere!

22:00-late
Venue: c-base, Rungestrasse 20, 10179 Berlin

As much as society appears to be thoroughly seduced by all the technological empowerment in this crash course information + capture age, the flaws, the cracks and all the discontents are beginning to show. In spite of the tsunami of corporate-feeds, gadget trends and heavily wired agendas, a Social Garden-i-fication of on-the-ground communities is underway and determined to grow by any means or hack necessary!

Citizen Kino is an experimental hybrid of public cinema, theater, laboratory and media self-defense.

Live Stream/Media Lounge: 'From Waste to Resource. Recovering Sustainable Attitudes'

Saturday, 23 June 2012, 17:00–20:00
Venue: Kulinarisches Kollektiv, Lausitzer Str.13 (aka Schweizerei), 10999 Berlin-Kreuzberg

A virtual tour through Re-Use Centres from all over the world
Participating Centres are: SCRAP in Portland, Oregon (USA), ReCircle (Brussels / Belgium), Long Beach Depot For Creative ReUse in Long Beach (California / USA), Mini-Scrapbox (Reepham / UK), The Resource Exchange (Philadelphia /USA), Kunst-Stoffe (Berlin / Germany).

In cooperation with Kunst-Stoffe (Berlin), Drap Art (Barcelona) and Les Petites Gourmandises (Berlin)

Link to the original here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/connecting-people-apart

Connected Trouble

sunil — 2015-10-28T16:47:58Z

The internet of things phenomenon is based on a paradigm shift from thinking of the internet merely as a means to connect individuals, corporations and other institutions to an internet where all devices in (insulin pumps and pacemakers), on (wearable technology) and around (domestic appliances and vehicles) humans beings are connected.

The guest column was published in the Week, issue dated November 1, 2015.

Proponents of IoT are clear that the network effects, efficiency gains, and scientific and technological progress unlocked would be unprecedented, much like the internet itself.

Privacy and security are two sides of the same coin―you cannot have one without the other. The age of IoT is going to be less secure thanks to big data. Globally accepted privacy principles articulated in privacy and data protection laws across the world are in conflict with the big data ideology. As a consequence, the age of internet of things is going to be less stable, secure and resilient. Three privacy principles are violated by most IoT products and services.

Data minimisation

According to this privacy principle, the less the personal information about the data subject that is collected and stored by the data controller, the more the data subject's right to privacy is protected. But, big data by definition requires more volume, more variety and more velocity and IoT products usually collect a lot of data, thereby multiplying risk.

Purpose limitation

This privacy principle is a consequence of the data minimisation principle. If only the bare minimum of personal information is collected, then it can only be put to a limited number of uses. But, going beyond that would harm the data subject. IoT innovators and entrepreneurs are trying to rapidly increase features, efficiency gains and convenience. Therefore, they don't know what future purposes their technology will be put to tomorrow and, again by definition, resist the principle of purpose limitation.

Privacy by design

Data protection regulation required that products and services be secure and protect privacy by design and not as a superficial afterthought. IoT products are increasingly being built by startups that are disrupting markets and taking down large technology incumbents. The trouble, however, is that most of these startups do not have sufficient internal security expertise and in their tearing hurry to take products to the market, many IoT products may not be comprehensively tested or audited from a privacy perspective.

There are other cyber security principles and internet design principles that are disregarded by the IoT phenomenon, further compromising security and privacy of users.

Centralisation

Most of the network effects that IoT products contribute to require centralisation of data collected from users and their devices. For instance, if users of a wearable physical activity tracker would like to use gamification to keep each other motivated during exercise, the vendor of that device has to collect and store information about all its users. Since some users always wear them, they become highly granular stores of data that can also be used to inflict privacy harms.

Decentralisation was a key design principle when the internet was first built. The argument was that you can never take down a decentralised network by bombing any of the nodes. Unfortunately, because of the rise of internet monopolies like Google, the age of cloud computing, and the success of social media giants, the internet is increasingly becoming centralised and, therefore, is much more fragile than it used be. IoT is going to make this worse.

Complexity

The more complex a particular technology is, the more fragile and vulnerable it is. This is not necessarily true but is usually the case given that more complex technology needs more quality control, more testing and more fixes. IoT technology raises complexity exponentially because the devices that are being connected are complex themselves and were not originally engineered to be connected to the internet. The networks they constitute are nothing like the internet which till now consisted of clients, web servers, chat servers, file servers and database servers, usually quite removed from the physical world. Compromised IoT devices, on the other hand, could be used to inflict direct harm on life and property.

Death of the air gap

The things that will be connected to the internet were previously separated from the internet through the means of an air gap. This kept them secure but also less useful and usable. In other words, the very act of connecting devices that were previously unconnected will expose them to a range of attacks. Security and privacy related laws, standards, audits and enforcement measures are the best way to address these potential pitfalls. Governments, privacy commissioners and data protections authorities across the world need to act so that the privacy of people and the security of our information society are protected.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-week-november-1-2015-sunil-abraham-connected-trouble

Connaught Summer Institute on Monitoring Internet Openness and Rights

praskrishna — 2013-07-26T09:17:45Z

Malavika Jayaram is a speaker at this event being held at the Munk School of Global Affairs, Bloor Street West.

Click to read the original posted on Citizen Lab website

Monday, July 22, 2013

Location: Munk School of Global Affairs (Observatory Site), 315 Bloor Street West (map)

14:00 - 17:00	Meet and Greet at the Citizen Lab Participants are free to drop by the Lab between 2:00-5:00 pm to see the space and meet with Citizen Lab researchers. Participants should go to the reception desk on the first floor and have the receptionist call the Lab.

Tuesday, July 23, 2013

Location: Campbell Conference Room, South House, Munk School of Global Affairs (Trinity site), 1 Devonshire Place (map)

08:00 - 09:00	Breakfast
09:00 - 09:15	Opening Remarks
09:15 - 10:45	Tutorial "Welcome to Oz: Beyond a Black and White Debate on Internet Regulation (and Control)" – Jon Penney (Berkman Centre/Oxford Internet Institute/Citizen Lab) and Ryan Budish (Berkman Centre/Herdict)
10:45 - 11:00	Break
11:00 - 12:00	Commercialization of Information Controls "Regulators, Politicians, and Deep Packet Inspection: Who's Driving What and Why" – Chris Parsons (University of Victoria) "Fingerprinting Internet Filtering Products" – Jakub Dalek (Citizen Lab) "Cash Rules Everything Around Me: The Commercialization of Online Spying" – Bill Marczak (UC Berkeley)
12:00 - 13:45	Lunch
13:45 - 14:45	Circumvention / Attacks 1 "Collateral Freedom" – David Robinson (Robinson + Yu) "Remedy: Relays Monitoring and Deployment" – KheOps (Telecomix) "Fake Domain Attacks on Civil Society Groups" – Michael Carbone (Access)
14:45 - 15:45	Characterization / Measurement 1 "Iran through the Eyes of Big Data" – Collin Anderson (Independent Researcher) "Measurement, Detection, and Comparison of Surveillance Data" – Praveen Selvasekaran (Simple Tech Life) "Filbaan: What is Filtered Today?"
15:45 - 16:00	Break
16:00 - 16:45	Identity Systems and Monitoring "Desperately Seeking the Names: Examining the Historical Progression of Real Name Policies on the Chinese Internet" – Lianrui Jia (Carleton University) "India's Civil Liberties Crisis: Digital Free Will in Free Fall" – Malavika Jayaram (Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore)
17:00 - 18:30	Poster and Demo Session Light refreshments will be served "User-side Approach for Censorship Detection: Home-router and Client-based Platforms" – Giuseppe Aceto (University of Naples Federico II) "The Cyber Losers" – Aaron Brantly and Katrin Verclas (National Democratic Institute) "What is the Impact of Internet Censorship in China?" – Carlotta James (Psiphon Inc.) "Open Integrity Index" – Jun Matsushita "M-Lab: Exploring the Possibilities for Open, Global Censorship and Surveillance Detection" – Stephen Soltesz (Open Technology Institute) and Meredith Whittaker (Google Research) "Mapping Google: Global Business Infrastructure and Implications for Openness " – John Harris Stevenson (University of Toronto) "Chat Program Censorship and Surveillance in China: Tracking TOM-Skype and Sina UC" – Greg Wiseman (Citizen Lab) "The Growth and Spread of Cyberspace Controls" – Benjamin Zaiser (Free University of Berlin)

Wednesday, July 24, 2013

Location: Campbell Conference Room, South House, Munk School of Global Affairs (Trinity site), 1 Devonshire Place (map)

08:00 - 09:00	Breakfast
09:00 - 10:20	Characterization / Methodology 2 "Refining the Tor Censorship Detector" – Sam Burnett (Georgia Tech) "From Internet Security to Internet Freedom: The case of the RPKI" – Sharon Goldberg (Boston University) "Running Software in Albuquerque to Measure Censorship Anywhere" – Jeffrey Knockel (University of New Mexico) "Social Media as Labratory: What We Can Learn about Chinese Politics from Sina Weibo Censorship and Online Discussion" – Jason Q. Ng (Citizen Lab)
10:20 - 11:00	Break
11:00 - 12:00	Circumvention 2 "VPNthnography: Hacking the Great Firewall for Fun and Profit" "Economics of Web Proxy Networks" – Bennett Haselton (Peace Fire/Citizen Lab) "Censors Working Overtime" – Karl Kathuria (Psiphon Inc.)
12:00 - 14:00	Lunch
14:00 - 15:30	Tutorial "Network Censorship Techniques, Detection, and Localization" – Nick Weaver (ICSI)
15:30 - 16:00	Break
16:00 - 17:30	Panel: Bridging Activism and Research (5 minute talks + discussion) Ali Bangi (ASL19 / Citizen Lab) Stefania Milan (Tillburg University) Deji Olukotun (PEN) John Scott-Railton (Citizen Lab / UCLA) 'Gbenga Sesan (Paradigm Initiative Nigeria)

Thursday, July 25, 2013

Location: Campbell Conference Room, South House, Munk School of Global Affairs (Trinity site), 1 Devonshire Place (map)

08:00 - 09:00	Breakfast
09:00 - 10:20	Jurisdictions and Borders Online "Cyberconflict and the Legal-Territorial Paradox" – Cameran Ashraf (UCLA) "Beyond Borders: Legislative Challenges to the Management of Records in the Cloud" – Elaine Goh (University of British Columbia) "Civil Society 2.0: The Global Struggle to Govern the Democratic Impacts of ICTs" – Muzammil M. Hussain (University of Michigan) "The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement and the Networked Public Sphere: How to avoid a Convergent Crisis" – James Losey (Open Technology Institute)
10:20 - 10:40	Break
10:40 - 12:10	Tutorial "Ranking Companies on Digital Rights: Challenges and Synergies" – Rebecca MacKinnon (New America Foundation)
12:10 - 14:00	Lunch
14:00 - 15:30	Surveillance and Monitoring "Revisiting Webtapping: Learning From Five Years’ of U.S. Cyber and Intel Policy" – Chris Bronk (Rice University) "Who Watches the Watchmen?: Detecting Stealth and Unattributed Information Controls" – Herve Saint Louis (University of Toronto) "IX Maps" – Andrew Clement (University of Toronto) "Technologies of Control, ‘National Security’ and Systemic Abuse of Minorities in the East and Horn of Africa" – Clara Gutteridge (Equal Justice Forum)
15:30 - 15:45	Break
15:45 - 16:30	Closing Discussion on Interdisciplinary Research and Information Controls

Friday, July 26, 2013

Location: Rooms 108, 208 and Basement, North House, Munk School of Global Affairs (Trinity site), 1 Devonshire Place (map)

10:00 - 14:00

Breakout Sessions

Light refreshments will be served

The half day will be dedicated to giving participants the opportunity to break into small groups to further discuss, share, and hack on topics raised during the workshop.

Sponsor

The workshop is sponsored by University of Toronto's Connaught Fund. Since it was founded in 1972, the fund has invested more than $1 million in projects that span across the disciplines.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/citizenlab-summer-institute-on-monitoring-internet-openness-and-rights

Conmen seed fake phone numbers in Google to trap people looking for customer care details

Admin — 2019-02-01T15:22:27Z

Googling for anything might seem like a good idea, but searching for contacts of businesses and customer care numbers is landing people in the hands of conmen.

The article by Tushar Kaushik was published in Economic Times on January 30, 2019.

Many use Google or other search engines for specific contact numbers — the customer care numbers of a bank, for instance. The search results do not throw up bona fide numbers, but those of conmen waiting to lure a victim. The conmen, knowing what the caller is seeking, and on the pretext of helping, cunningly makes them part with information such as bank account, debit/credit card and even the OTP.

About 20-odd people have been duped in this manner in the past month in Bengaluru, according to the city’s cybercrime police. About 20-30 victims have fallen prey in Gurugram in the last one-and-a-half months. In Maharashtra and Hyderabad, the trend of fake numbers being seeded on Google Maps and being used to dupe people is being observed since October 2018. The frauds are helped by the fact that any user can edit contact information on Google Maps. The Maharashtra cyber police reportedly notified Google authorities regarding this.

Inspector and in-charge of cyber police station at Gurugram, Anand Kumar, said another variant of such cases was on the rise. People searching for contacts to help them return products they bought from e-commerce websites have been led to fake numbers. “In the past one-and-half months, about 20-30 such complaints have been received,” Kumar said.

Srinivas Kodali, a Hyderabad-based data security researcher, said similar incidents using fake numbers being uploaded on Google Maps had occurred in Hyderabad 2-3 months ago. He claimed Google had been informed of the incidents.

Illustrating another instance of the way Google searches are misused, dairy brand Amul issued a legal notice to Google, alleging that a series of fake B2B campaigns regarding Amul Parlours and Distributors have started through fake websites using Google search ads since September 2018.

Bengaluru-based app developer and co-founder of TBG Labs Harsha Halvi said it was fairly easy for any conman to seed his own number and masquerade as a contact number and make it appear in a Google search. He said all it takes is a very good understanding of search engine optimisation (SEO).

Gurshabad Grover, senior policy officer at The Centre for Internet and Society, Bengaluru, said, “The problem right now is Google is not making it clear whether something is verified information or is crowdsourced. On Google Maps, businesses can be claimed by legitimate owners. A suggestion is that Google verify the claimed entities,” Grover said. He added that people too should exercise vigilance while accessing information online.

Additional commissioner of police (crime) at Bengaluru Alok Kumar said Google could not be held responsible for such incidents as individuals seeded the fake numbers.

Reacting to the incidents, a spokesperson from Google India said, “Overall, allowing users to suggest edits provides comprehensive and up-to-date info, but we recognise there may be occasional inaccuracies or bad edits suggested by users.” The spokesperson said when such issues are reported to Google, the claims are investigated and action is taken in line with the findings.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/economic-times-tushar-kaushik-january-30-2019-conmen-seed-fake-phone-numbers-in-google-to-trap-people-looking-for-customer-care-details

Confidentiality of Communications and Privacy of Data in the Digital Age

praskrishna — 2018-10-28T06:02:07Z

On September 25, 2018, Elonnai Hickok participated in a side event Confidentiality of Communications and Privacy of Data in the Digital Age organized by INCLO and Privacy International at the Human Rights Council 39th ordinary session. Elonnai spoke on artificial intelligence and privacy.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/confidentiality-of-communications-and-privacy-of-data-in-the-digital-age

Conference: Internet at Liberty 2010

praskrishna — 2011-04-02T10:00:01Z

This conference is being held in Budapest from 20 to 22 September 2010. It is co-sponsored by Google and Central European University. Sunil Abraham and Anja Kovacs are attending the conference.

The conference Internet at Liberty 2010 will explore creative ways to address the boundaries of online free expression, the complex relationship among technology, economic growth and human rights, ways in which dissidents and governments are using the Internet, the role of Internet intermediaries, and pressing policy and legal issues such as privacy and cybersecurity. The event will bring together grassroots global activists alongside representatives of NGOs, academic centers, governments and corporations. The Centre for Media and Communication Studies is playing a core role in the organisation of the event.

Download the agenda

For further information, see CMCS website

Also see, Internet at Liberty 2010 website.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/internet-at-liberty-conference

Conference on the Digitalization of the Indian Legal System

Leilah Elmokadem — 2016-11-16T15:34:36Z

On Legal Services Day, November 9, 2016, LegalDesk.com collaborated with iSPIRT to host a conference on the “Digitalization of the Indian Legal System”. The event invited prominent speakers to present their organizations’ work and to participate in a panel discussion followed by a Q&A period for the audience.

The co-founder of DAKSH Society of India, Kishore Mandyam, opened the event with a thought-provoking presentation on the efficiency levels of the current legal system and the kinds of progress that can be brought about by technological reforms. Members of LegalDesk.com then presented their ideas and then introduced their newest white paper on Legal Digitalization, providing a brief overview of the study and summarizing the most relevant sections. The panel discussion then proceeded, moderated by Sanjay Khan Nagra, a policy expert at iSPIRT Foundation. He facilitated an insightful and conducive discussion around the advantages, disadvantages, risks and incentives of digitalizing the Indian legal system. On the discussion panel was Kishore Mandyam from DAKSH Society and Prabhuling K Navadgi, the Additional Solicitor General of India.

The objectives to the conference, as per its website, were to: (1) examine the current legal framework and the possibility of amendments in laws to facilitate digitalization of the system, (2) asses the potential of India Stack in digitalizing the legal system, (3) to identify statutes which require amendment, (4) identify the hurdles and roadblocks in the path towards digital reform of the legal ecosystem, and (5) suggest amendments to the act and potential areas of improvement. With those objectives in mind, this blog post intends to provide a brief overview of the main narratives shared in the conference and to identify some of the loopholes and unanswered questions that I was left with by the end.

Improved efficiency is the dominant narrative used to advocate for the digitalization of the Indian legal system. According to LegalDesk.com, the current Indian legal system relies mostly on paperwork, resulting in thousands of courts and over a million advocates accumulating lackhs of ongoing cases and an enormous pile of pending cases, mostly due to insufficient information. It is stated that the traditional methods of legal documentation, paperwork and court work must change through awareness, technology and pursuance by the government, as it needs to be implemented throughout the country. The key idea here is that digital transactions are faster and simplify the process of storing information. The ultimate desired outcome here, then, is increased efficiency and transparency.

One must question, however, if this narrative may be overly generous with the credit it gives to technology. IT systems, like many other manmade structures, are always bound to glitch and crash. It would be useful, then, to question whether the legal system is a department that can afford the complications that inevitably accompany a digital transformation. If portals or servers fail at critical times (i.e. when a person needs to confirm their trial date, submit a document before a deadline, or any other pressing procedures), the consequences may in fact outweigh the convenience brought about by overall digitalization. This is not to imply that the legal system cannot or should not undergo a digital transformation. Rather, it is to pose the question of whether the government will dedicate sufficient funds and expertise towards developing a resilient and reliable IT system for the courts. The conference was strongly centered on the concept that technology is always the way forward. This is a positive idea but one must pay special attention to the complications that may arise with the digitalization of a system that must function in a particularly time-sensitive manner – and to ensure that these complications can be managed efficiently and effectively should they arise. This then, requires more than a mere push for digitalization. Introducing new technological platforms is a positive step towards digitalization. However, there is a need for a detailed, government-authorized plan on how the judicial system will efficiently and smoothly undergo this digital transformation in a sustainable and resilient manner.

A presenter from LegalDesk.com mentioned Estonia’s model of complete digital governance as an example of successful digitalization: “If a small country like Estonia can do it, why can’t we?” While it is useful to draw examples and lessons from other countries, it is also crucial to recognize the contextual differences between countries. The presenter’s point was that Estonia is small in both size and population and has just recently gained independence in 1991—and has nonetheless been able to undergo technological reform and completely digitalize governance systems. India’s case is extremely different as one can logically argue that digital inclusion is more difficult to accomplish for large, spatially dispersed populations. Furthermore, the socioeconomic disparities in India, particularly in income and literacy, contribute to an immense digital divide that Estonia did not, to any comparable extent, face in order to digitalize governance over 1.3 million individuals. This is not to suggest that India cannot become a world leader in digital governance, or become comparable to Estonia. Rather, this is to highlight the importance of recognizing historical, political and sociocultural differences between countries when comparing governance models and digitalization processes. There is a need to indigenize digital reform strategies and platforms in India to cater to its unique context and vast diversity. This can be done by focusing on issues such as the language of digital governance, ensuring sufficient distribution of access to public digital platforms, and prioritizing the inclusion of all socioeconomic classes. I would argue that digitalization could come at a greater cost than benefit if it perpetuates the exclusion of the underprivileged members of society, especially from a system as critical as the judiciary. These topics were alarmingly overlooked in the conference.

The topic of privacy was also quite overlooked in the conference. As a step towards digital transformation, LegalDesk.com presented the new eNotary technology, which would be implemented by utilizing a combination of Adhaar based authentication, eSign, digilocker systems such as India Stack and video/audio recorded interviews. With the eNotary system, attestation, authentication and verification of legal instruments can be done remotely. This is expected to make paperwork easier, faster and more secure, as individuals would log into digital platforms using their Adhaar numbers to perform their judiciary procedures. A member of the audience asked about privacy concerns associated with digitalizing the legal records or property ownership information of individuals. Kishore Mandyam, from DAKSH, answered confidently with a statement that privacy is not a pressing issue here. He asserted that privacy concerns are a western construct that we have adopted in urban parts of India but that is not a concern for the majority of locals. It is clear, however, from examples such as the United States’ predictive policing practices, that accumulating data regarding the legal affiliations of individuals can result in discriminatory practices if this data does not remain strictly confidential to protect the privacy rights of citizens. This is not to mention the other forms of discrimination that can arise from the accumulation of such data, such as the targeting of certain demographics by corporate marketing and credit scoring practices that rely on trends in big data. To keep citizens’ legal records and affairs out of these databases, a digital legal system must be securely encrypted and protected by rigid privacy policies. India may have a varying context that leads to different privacy concerns with regards to a digital legal system. In any case, special attention must be given to privacy and security rights of individuals as their Adhaar numbers become attached to all their online personal data, including their legal records and judicial affairs.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/conference-on-the-digitalization-of-the-indian-legal-system

Conference on Safety Against Online Child Sexual Abuse

praskrishna — 2017-03-29T04:10:16Z

Japreet Grewal was a speaker at a conference on safety against online child sexual abuse which was jointly organized by CID, Telangana and the Department for Women Development and Child Welfare, Telangana on March 16 and 17, 2017 in Hyderabad.

Japreet spoke about the existing legal framework in India on online child sexual abuse and the challenges in implementing the preventive and response mechanisms to address this problem. Various stakeholders including media, police, school educators and child protection organisations attended this event.

Read the agenda here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/conference-on-safety-against-online-child-sexual-abuse

Conference on Data Protection

Admin — 2018-09-20T14:47:17Z

Sunil Abraham and Amber Sinha participated in a conference on data protection at NIPFP in New Delhi on September 4, 2018. The event was organized by National Institute of Public Finance and Policy.

Sunil Abraham and Amber Sinha were discussant in the session Disclosures in Privacy Policies: Does Consent Work?

Click to see the agenda

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/conference-on-data-protection

Concerns Regarding DNA Law

bhairav — 2013-10-29T10:09:26Z

Recently, a long government process to draft a law to permit the collection, processing, profiling, use and storage of human DNA is nearing conclusion. There are several concerns with this government effort. Below, we present broad-level issues to be kept in mind while dealing with DNA law.

Background

The Department of Biotechnology released, in 29 April 2012, a working draft of a proposed Human DNA Profiling Bill, 2012 ("DBT Bill") for public comments. The draft reveals an effort to (i) permit the collection of human blood, tissue and other samples for the purpose of creating DNA profiles, (ii) license private laboratories that create and store the profiles, (iii) store the DNA samples and profiles in various large databanks in a number of indices, and (iv) permit the use of the completed DNA profiles in scientific research and law enforcement. The regulation of human DNA profiling is of significant importance to the efficacy of law enforcement and the criminal justice system and correspondingly has a deep impact on the freedoms of ordinary citizens from profiling and monitoring. Below, we highlight five important concerns to bear in mind before drafting and implementing DNA legislation.

Primary Issues

Purpose of DNA Profiling

DNA profiling serves two broad purposes – (i) forensic – to establish unique identity of a person in the criminal justice system; and, (ii) research – to understand human genetics and its contribution to anthropology, biology and other sciences. These two purposes have very different approaches to DNA profiling and the issues and concerns attendant on them vary accordingly. Forensic DNA profiling is undertaken to afford either party in a criminal trial a better possibility of adducing corroborative evidence to prosecute, or to defend, an alleged offence. DNA, like fingerprints, is a biometric estimation of the individuality of a person. By itself, in the same manner that fingerprint evidence is only proof of the presence of a person at a particular place and not proof of the commission of a crime, DNA is merely corroborative evidence and cannot, on its own strength, result in a conviction or acquittal of an offence. Therefore, DNA and fingerprints, and the process by which they are collected and used as evidence, should be broadly similar.

Procedural Integrity

Forensic DNA profiling results from biological source material that is usually collected from crime scenes or forcibly from offenders and convicts. Biological source material found at a crime scene is very rarely non-contaminated and the procedure by which it is collected and its integrity ensured is of primary legislative importance. To avoid the danger of contaminated crime scene evidence being introduced in the criminal justice system to pervert the course of justice, it is crucial to ensure that DNA is collected only from intact human cells and not from compromised genetic material. Therefore, if the biological source material found at a crime scene does not contain at least one intact human cell, the whole of the biological source material should be destroyed to prevent the possibility of compromised genetic material being collected to yield inconclusive results. Adherence to this basic principle will obviate the possibility of partial matches of DNA profiles and the resulting controversy and confusion that ensues.

Conditions of Collection

In India, the taking of fingerprints is chiefly governed by the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 ("Prisoners Act") and section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ("Evidence Act"). The Prisoners Act permits the forcible taking of fingerprints from convicts and suspects in certain conditions. The Evidence Act, in addition, permits courts to require the taking of fingerprints for the forensic purpose of establishing unique identity in a criminal trial. No
provisions exist for consensual taking of fingerprints, presumably because of the danger of self-incrimination and general privacy concerns. Since, as discussed earlier, fingerprints and DNA are biometric measurements that should be treated equally to the extent possible, the conditions for the collection of DNA should be similar to those for the taking of fingerprints.Accordingly, there should be no legal provisions that enable other kinds of collection, including from volunteers and innocent people.

Retention of DNA

As a general rule applicable in India, the retention of biometric measurements must be supported by a clear purpose that is legitimate, judicially sanctioned and transparent. The Prisoners Act, which permits the forcible taking of fingerprints from convicts, also mandates the destruction of these fingerprints when the person is acquitted or discharged. The indefinite collection of biometric measurements of people is dangerous, susceptible to abuse and invasive of civil rights. Therefore, once lawfully collected from crime scenes and offenders, their DNA profiles must be retained in strictly controlled databases with highly restricted access for the forensic purpose of law enforcement only. DNA should not be held in databases that allow non-forensic use. Further, the indices within these databases should be watertight and exclusive of each other.

DNA Laboratories

The process by which DNA profiles are created from biological source material is of critical importance. Because of the evidentiary value of DNA profiles, the laboratories in which these profiles are created must be properly licensed, professionally managed and manned by competent and impartial personnel. Therefore, the process by which DNA laboratories are licensed and permitted to operate is significant.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/concerns-regarding-dna-law

Concerns over central snoop

praskrishna — 2013-07-01T09:33:27Z

Eyebrows have been raised at the Centre’s single-window system to intercept phone calls and internet exchanges — the desi version of the US’s surveillance programme, PRISM — that is expected to roll out this year-end.

The article by Aloke Tikku was published in the Hindustan Times on June 28, 2013. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

The Rs. 400-crore project — tentatively called the Central Monitoring System (CMS) — will not only allow the government to listen to a target’s phone conversation but also track down a caller’s precise location, match his voice against known suspects’ before the call is completed and see what people have been up to on the internet.

And then, it can also use analytics to discover possible links — between suspected terrorists, criminals or just about anybody — from the internet and phone data. All this will be done from one place without keeping the internet or phone service provider in the loop — something the telecom and home ministries insist will enhance citizens’ privacy.

Both ministries also insist that the CMS won’t change the rules of the game. “The process to seek authorisation for interception will not be diluted,” a home ministry official promised.

So is everything hunky dory?

Hardly. But technology — in this case, the CMS — is a smaller part of the problem.

The bigger chunk is the process of approving “lawful interception” orders and the lack of transparency around it.

It was in December 1996 that the Supreme Court held that the State could spy on its citizens in extraordinary circumstances but, as an interim measure, made it mandatory for the home secretary to approve each and every such request. Telecom minister Kapil Sibal, who appeared in this case in the mid-1990s, convinced the court that it didn’t have the powers to order that a judge decide each phone-tapping case. Instead, Sibal suggested that this power remain with the executive on lines of the law in the UK. A former home secretary, however, conceded that they hardly have the time to apply their mind before signing a wiretap order.

That isn’t surprising. The home secretary approves around 7,500-9,000 interception orders every month. That means he or she has to sign an average of 300 orders every day without a break.

If he were to spend just 30 seconds on each case, he would have to keep aside four-and-a-half hours just approving interception orders every day.

An official said the ministry was considering a suggestion to pick up a fixed number of cases at random for closer scrutiny before approval.

Many believe this might not be enough. It is argued that the government — which was trying to replicate surveillance technology from the west — needs to adopt their safeguards and transparency norms too.

Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society, said he didn’t have a problem with CMS as long as it didn’t go for blanket surveillance.

“But there is no reason why the executive — and not a judge — should have the powers to decide on phone-tapping requests,” he said. Or for that matter, why shouldn’t there be an independent audit of phone-tapping decisions, their implementation and outcome?

“The aggregated data should be put in the public domain,” Abraham said. The US has such provisions. So does Britain, which inspired Sibal to argue for retaining interception powers with the executive in the mid-1990s. It is time to follow-up on that model.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/hindustan-times-aloke-tikku-june-28-2013-concerns-over-central-snoop