Access To Knowledge (A2K)

The Centre for Internet & Society Joins the Global Network Initiative

praskrishna — 2012-04-25T09:13:50Z

The Global Network Initiative (GNI) is pleased to announce its newest member, the Centre for Internet & Society based in Bangalore, India. A technology policy research institute, CIS brings to GNI in-depth expertise on global Internet governance as well as online freedom of expression and privacy in India.

"We are delighted to add our first member based in India and welcome CIS’s engagement in support of transparency and accountability in technology," says GNI Executive Director Susan Morgan. "GNI's Principles for responsible company behavior apply globally, but require an appreciation of unique local contexts if they are to take hold. CIS will provide invaluable insight as we consider opportunities to work with India's burgeoning ICT industry."

"India’s ICT sector is one of the most dynamic worldwide, " says CIS Executive Director Sunil Abraham, "but rapid technological advances have raised anxieties around issues including hate speech, political criticism, and obscene content at a time when Indian institutions for the protection of free expression are under strain. We look forward to working with GNI's member organizations on these challenging issues."

CIS an independent, non-profit, research organization which is involved in research on the emerging field of the Internet and its relationship to the society, CIS brings together scholars, academics, students, programmers and scientists to engage in a large variety of Internet issues. CIS also runs different academic and research programs and is receptive to new ideas and collaborations, projects and campaigns for the public.

Leslie Harris, GNI Board Member and President and CEO of the Center for Democracy and Technology says: "The addition of CIS not only increases GNI’s global reach, it significantly enhances the initiative’s capacity around shared learning and policy engagement, not just in India, but on internet policy around the world."

Click to read the original published on the Global Network Initiative website.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/cis-joins-gni

The Central Monitoring System: Some Questions to be Raised in Parliament

bhairav — 2013-09-25T10:30:10Z

The following are some model questions to be raised in the Parliament regarding the lack of transparency in the central monitoring system.

Preliminary

The Central Monitoring System (CMS) is a Central Government project to intercept communications, both voice and data, that is transmitted via telephones and the internet to, from and within India. Owing to the vast nature of this enterprise, the CMS cannot be succinctly described and the many issues surrounding this project are diverse. This Issue Brief will outline preliminary constitutional, legal and technical concerns that are presented by the CMS.
At the outset, it must be clearly understood that no public documentation exists to explain the scope, functions and technical architecture of the CMS. This lack of transparency is the single-largest obstacle to understanding the Central Government’s motives in conceptualising and operationalizing the CMS. This lack of public documentation is also the chief reason for the brevity of this Issue Note. Without making public the policy, law and technical abilities of the CMS, there cannot be an informed national debate on the primary concerns posed by the CMS, i.e the extent of envisaged state surveillance upon Indian citizens and the safeguards, if any, to protect the individual right to privacy.

Surveillance and Privacy

Surveillance is necessary to secure political organisation. Modern nation-states, which are theoretically organised on the basis of shared national and societal characteristics, require surveillance to detect threats to these characteristics. In democratic societies, beyond the immediate requirements of national integrity and security, surveillance must be targeted at securing the safety and rights of individual citizens. This Issue Brief does not dispute the fact that democratic countries, such as India, should conduct surveillance to secure legitimate ends. Concerns, however, arise when surveillance is conducted in a manner unrestricted and unregulated by law; these concerns are compounded when a lack of law is accompanied by a lack of transparency.
Technological advancement leads to more intrusive surveillance. The evolution of surveillance in the United States resulted, in 1967, in the first judicial recognition of the right to privacy. In Katz v. United States the US Supreme Court ruled that the privacy of communications had to be balanced with the need to conduct surveillance; and, therefore, wiretaps had to be warranted, judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. Katz expanded the scope of the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution, which protected against unreasonable searches and seizures. Most subsequent US legal developments relating to the privacy of communications from surveillance originate in the Katz judgement. Other common law countries, such as the United Kingdom and Canada, have experienced similar judicial evolution to recognise that the right to privacy must be balanced with governance.

Right to Privacy in India

Unfortunately, India does not have a persuasive jurisprudence of privacy protection. In the Kharak Singh (1964) and Gobind (1975) cases, the Supreme Court of India considered the question of privacy from physical surveillance by the police in and around the homes of suspects. In the latter case, the Supreme Court found that some of the Fundamental Rights “could be described as contributing to the right to privacy” which was nevertheless subject to a compelling public interest. This insipid inference held the field until 1994 when, in the Rajagopal (“Auto Shankar”, 1994) case, the Supreme Court, for the first time, directly located privacy within the ambit of the right to personal liberty recognised by Article 21 of the Constitution. However, Rajagopal dealt specifically with the publication of an autobiography, it did not consider the privacy of communications. In 1997, the Supreme Court considered the question of wiretaps in the PUCL case. While finding that wiretaps invaded the privacy of communications, it continued to permit them subject to some procedural safeguards which continue to be routinely ignored. A more robust statement of the right to privacy was made recently by the Delhi High Court in the Naz Foundation case (2011) that de-criminalised consensual homosexual acts; however, this judgment has been appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues Pertaining to the CMS

While judicial protection from physical surveillance was cursorily dealt with in the Kharak Singh and Gobind cases, the Supreme Court of India directly considered the issue of wiretaps in the PUCL case. Wiretaps in India primarily occur on the strength of powers granted to certain authorities under section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The Court found that the Telegraph Act, and Rules made thereunder, did not prescribe adequate procedural safeguards to create a “just and fair” mechanism to conduct wiretaps. Therefore, it laid down the following procedure to conduct wiretaps:

(a) the order should be issued by the relevant Home Secretary (this power is delegable to a Joint Secretary),
(b) the interception must be carried out exactly in terms of the order and not in excess of it,
(c) a determination of whether the information could be reasonably secured by other means,
(d) the interception shall cease after sixty (60) days.

Therefore, prima facie, any voice interception conducted through the CMS will be in violation of this Supreme Court judgement. The CMS will enforce blanket surveillance upon the entire country without regard for reasonable cause or necessity. This movement away from targeted surveillance to blanket surveillance without cause, conducted without statutory sanction and without transparency, is worrying.
Accordingly, the following questions may be raised, in Parliament, to learn more about the CMS project:

Which statutes, Government Orders, notifications etc deal with the establishment and maintenance of the CMS?
Which is the nodal agency in charge of implementing the CMS?
What are the powers and functions of the nodal agency?
What guarantees exist to protect ordinary Indian citizens from intrusive surveillance without cause?
What are the technical parameters of the CMS?
What are the consequences for misuse or abuse of powers by any person working in the CMS project?
What recourse is available to Indian citizens against whom there is unnecessary surveillance or against whom there has been a misuse or abuse of power?

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/central-monitoring-system-questions-to-be-asked-in-parliament

The block heads

praskrishna — 2015-05-07T11:51:48Z

An entire government department is on the job, but can it really take down ‘offending’ online content?

The article by Sibi Arasu was published in the Hindu Businessline on April 3, 2015. Sunil Abraham gave his inputs.

The Department of Electronics and Information Technology’s (Deity) offices are as layered as its official website. From inside ‘Electronics Niketan’ at the Central Government Offices (CGO) complex in south Delhi, Deity’s army of director-generals, joint secretaries, department heads, scientists, clerks and staff of various grades and ranks keep an eye on how the country engages with the world wide web.

One set of cubicles is dedicated to the Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT), the nodal agency meant to combat hacking, phishing and generally fortify the internet in India. This includes the task of blocking and unblocking websites. A rather complicated job in a country where, according to one senior government official, “it’s technically infeasible to completely block content. If it’s at the gateway level, then we can filter it out. But for videos and other similar content, it is just not possible to completely block them.”

No bandwidth

Be it the AIB roasts that were taken down from YouTube or the controversial documentary India’s Daughter, which was blocked within eight hours of going online, the CERT and other allied departments have been kept busy over the past few months.

In a classic example of how blocking can go wrong, more than 36 websites were taken down in December last year to “prevent the spread of ISIS propaganda” only to be unblocked within weeks. Like elsewhere in the world, the attempt to “protect” citizens had unwittingly ended up hurting legitimate websites, including video sharing sites vimeo.com, dailymotion.com and the reference site archive.org. It was embarrassingly similar to the Chinese government’s actions in 2010 when it blocked all images of empty chairs, stools and tables as it attempted to staunch discussions about Liu Xiabo, the Nobel Peace Prize winner that year, who was missing from the awards ceremony as he was incarcerated in China.

Terming such government actions as dangerous and Orwellian, Apar Gupta, a cyber law specialist in Delhi who appeared for the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) in the PIL against Section 66A of the IT Act, says, “Any piece of content is contained within several file formats and obscured through technical devices like encryption, making its complete removal and eradication impossible.”

Internet freedom campaigners have maintained that Section 66A, which prescribed “punishment for sending offensive messages through a communication service”, was created solely to muzzle dissent and differences of opinion.

Although Section 66A was recently struck down, the law authorising blocking of content — namely, Section 69A — remains intact. The Central Government can block content it believes threatens the security of the State; the sovereignty, integrity or defence of India; friendly relations with foreign States; public order; or incites committing a cognisable offence related to any of the above. The government must, however, adhere to a set of procedures and safeguards, known as Blocking Rules.

“Larger, overbroad technical blocks can impede the functioning of the internet,” says internet policy analyst Raman Chima. “When a large website ‘blacklist’ and internet filter was proposed for Australia in 2009-10, research established that it would likely result in double-digit reductions in the internet’s speed and efficiency in that country.”

The ‘Streisand effect’, named after the Hollywood actress, is another common consequence of blocking. As Chima says, “Specific bans tend to be counterproductive and, more often than not, result in more awareness and interest in the banned content.”

Political manoeuvres

‘Ethical hacktivist’ and Hackers Hat founder Satish Ashwin sees banning and blocking as purely vote bank politics.

“Technically anything can be blocked or banned and it’s not a big deal, but the sheer volume of data uploaded makes it next to impossible to monitor and censor,” he says.

To those heralding the striking down of 66A as a victory for free speech, Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Bengaluru-based Centre for Internet and Society, points to the larger picture. “Nobody is really aware of the scale of censorship in India. Thousands of websites are blocked under Section 69A, mostly due to the maximalist enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR). While 66A is gone, there are many other provisions within the IT Act that still regulate speech online. It is important to have quality laws drafted through an open, participatory process, where all stakeholders are consulted and responded to before bills are introduced in Parliament."

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/hindu-businessline-april-3-2015-sibi-arasu-the-block-heads

The Big Eye: The tech is all ready for mass surveillance in India

Admin — 2018-08-13T14:54:14Z

Chennai’s T. Nagar, arguably India’s biggest shopping district by revenues and crowded on any given day, gets even more packed in festival seasons as thousands throng its saree and jewellery stores.

The blog post by Anand Murali was published in Factor Daily on August 13, 2018. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

Every year, Deepavali, less than three months away this year, presents the perfect hunting ground for pickpockets and other petty thieves — and a headache for the local police.

This time, however, the city police have reason to believe it has a handle on things. It has a technology that analyses CCTV footage to spot, in real time, people with a criminal history visiting the T. Nagar area. “We are matching real-time CCTV video footage with our criminal database using the FaceTagr system and if any criminals are identified in that area, we get an immediate alert and we can further investigate,” says P Aravindan, deputy commissioner of police. Last year, FaceTagr, a face recognition software developed by an eponymous Chennai company, was used in a few areas with results that convinced the police to spread it to all of the T Nagar area, he adds.

Aravindan’s counterparts in Punjab are as big fans of real-time surveillance as him. Amritsar Police used something the state’s police calls Punjab Artificial Intelligence System, or PAIS, developed by Gurugram AI company Staqu Technologies, to solve a murder case within 24 hours — again, using CCTV footage and facial recognition technology. The company has piloted a camera mounted on a pair of smart glasses to capture a real-time feed and analyse it for facial matches with a database.

Elsewhere, the Surat Police has a picture intelligence unit that relies on NEC’s proprietary NeoFace technology for facial recognition, as also vehicle number plate recognition, to track persons of interest. The result is alerts that the police can proactively act upon and faster turnaround in solving cases. Surat can claim to be a step ahead of Tokyo: NEC plans to use the latest version of its NeoFace technology at the 2020 Tokyo Olympics to track accredited persons – athletes, officials, media, and others – at multiple venues.

Welcome to the Big Eye helping law keepers and administrators in India to instantly recognise faces and use the information in multiple use cases.

Facial recognition and image cognition tech is nothing new, to be sure. We have seen them in movies for some time now – be it the Jason Bourne series in which the CIA uses complex surveillance tech to track the agent or the Mission Impossible movies where the protagonist use facial recognition to get access to secure areas. Or, the recent Steven Spielberg movie, Ready Player One, in which the villain uses camera drones. This kind of advanced – and even futuristic – image recognition-based surveillance all set to go mainstream in India with the rapid proliferation of cameras: from the public and private CCTVs to the ubiquitous mobile phone cameras.

Investigation on steroids

Chennai-based FaceTagr has been working with Indian Railways since last year to prevent human trafficking. “Finding missing children and the prevention of human trafficking was one of the first use cases that we developed. We work with the Indian Railways, state police departments, and CBI to prevent human trafficking,” says Vijay Gnanadesikan, CEO and co-founder, FaceTagr.

His moment of epiphany that led to the idea for developing FaceTagr was on a morning drive to work in Chennai traffic and watching children begging at his window. “I reached the office and discussed with my cofounder. We realised that there is an existing database of missing children with photographs and, with face recognition technology, we could develop a solution that could help solve the problem and in a way also prevent human trafficking,” says Gnanadesikan. Cut to today: the tool has been deployed at the India-Nepal and India-Bangladesh borders at nearly 24 checkpoints to monitor human trafficking.

FaceTagr is a face recognition technology that works on both static images and video footage. The same technology is being used in a solution for the Chennai police to identify criminals. “Earlier a suspect had to be taken to the police station, fingerprinted, and then his details were verified. Imagine a guy walking on the road at 2 am who is looking suspicious. A police patrol can take the suspect’s photograph with our app and, within a second, receive details about his crime history,” says Gnanadesikan.

The T. Nagar deployment runs on real-time CCTV footage. In the areas it was deployed last year, the system helped reduce the number of crimes “from three digits to a single digit” during last year’s Deepavali season, claims the FaceTagr CEO.

The system compares the real-time CCTV footage of the crowd with the police criminal database for facial matches. “Once someone from the database is identified among the crowd, the picture shows up, which is then re-verified by the police personnel monitoring the system for a reconfirmation,” says Gnanadesikan, adding that an ID match does not mean a crime is committed. “Someone might also be there for shopping and we and the police team are very mindful of that, but it will give the police a notification about the person’s whereabouts in the area.”

One of the clever outcomes of the deployment is that the system helps identify criminals from other cities or areas. According to DCP Aravindan, a police officer in Chennai city will likely not know of a criminal from, say, Tirunelveli, Kanyakumari or other far off places. This is where the face recognition system comes in handy, he says.

“Traditionally, we have data of all criminals station-wise and there is also a crime team which is familiar with the criminals and can recognise them. But, of late, with the improvement in connectivity and communication, people from far-off places come and commit a crime and this has made it challenging to identify them,” he says. The state’s crime database currently has over 60,000 photographs with more photographs being added daily. Every week, the department nabs two or three criminals with the help of the face recognition system, Aravindan adds.

Are there any privacy concerns? “To avoid misuse we have conducted multiple training programs for all the police personnel who are using this application and we have instructed them that unless they find a person suspicious, they should not take a photograph. We have designed an SOP (standard operating procedure) for using the system to avoid misuse,” adds the deputy commissioner.

Surveillance on smart glass

The face recognition system of Staqu, the Gurgaon AI startup, has been deployed in the states of Uttarakhand, Punjab and Rajasthan.

According to Atul Rai, Staqu’s CEO and co-founder, different law enforcement jurisdictions or agencies, even within a state, often have their own sets of data and it becomes difficult to sift through them and find links or patterns. Staqu’s answer to that problem was ABHED, short for Artificial Intelligence Based Human Efface Detection, which formed the base software for a mobile application and is connected to a backend database processing system. “This system accumulates images, speech and text, and using all this information, it develops intelligence for these agencies,” says Rai.

The company has also developed a real-time video surveillance-based face recognition technology that works via a camera mounted on a smart glass. The system was piloted with the Punjab Police and the company is now in the process of deploying with the Dubai Police, says Rai.

Most CCTVs today have a limited view and, in comparison, an officer wearing the smart glass and moving in a crowd will have a better field of view, says Rai. “In real time, the glass will stream the video footage to the server, which will then match the footage and give the report if any person from the database is detected,” he adds.

The Staqu-developed PAIS, or Punjab Artificial Intelligence System, can image match with an accuracy of 98% if the database has five images of the person, claims Rai.

Another use case for face recognition technology that has been coming up in India is in the corporate sector for attendance and security.

“In many of the enterprise use cases, the technology is used in controlled spaces – for example, conferences where most attendees pre-register or employees access systems in companies,” says Uday Chinta, managing director of American technology service company IPSoft, which has also developed and deployed an AI-based personal assistant called Amelia in the US. “Amelia is able to recognise a person using his facial features and able to assist them and give personalised service based on their identity,” says Chinta.

Software services company Tech Mahindra has launched a facial recognition system for employee attendance at its Noida office. According to one report, the system also comes with a “moodometer” that will track the mood and emotions of employees and give additional analytics to the company.

Beyond face analytics, image recognition technology is also being used to identify vehicles. The National Highways Authority of India has been using AI-based image recognition systems to tag and identify vehicles across its infrastructure in the country.

Underlying digital layer: databases

The scarier part to the tech is its dark side: mass surveillance covering all. Countries like China have already deployed mass surveillance on its citizens. Chinese citizens today have a scoring system assigned to them by the government based on various factors including data captured through the surveillance program which will give the preferential access to services like fast internet access.

In the case of India, to facilitate proper surveillance in a state, one of the first requirements is a digital database which already exists in many forms across central and state governments. With or without a double take, the answer is obvious: Aadhaar, India’s citizen ID database. With a population of 135 crore and Aadhaar covering over 90% of this population, it is India’s most extensive database.

Notwithstanding the use cases detailed earlier in this story and the huge interest among state police and law enforcement agencies in India, collecting data and using it – even it is to bust crime – falls into grey areas. In June this year, news reports had National Crime Records Bureau director Ish Kumar saying that investigators need to be given limited access to Aadhaar. Reacting to this, the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) issued a statement saying that access to Aadhaar biometric data for criminal investigation is not permissible under Section 29 of the Aadhaar Act, 2016 — which perhaps explains why the Punjab Police declined requests for interviews for this story.

Longtime Aadhaar critic Sunil Abraham, executive director of Bengaluru’s Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), calls Aadhaar “the perfect tool for surveillance”.

“The main database is the Aadhaar database. It’s got your iris and biometrics information already and they have said that they will strengthen the fingerprint authentication with facial recognition. So now, they have the have the full surveillance infrastructure that they need. The collection devices (CCTVs) are just there to collect the data but the actual recognition engine is Aadhaar only,” says Abraham, who is leaving CIS to join non-profit Mozilla Foundation as a vice president in January.

According to him, all three types of biometrics – fingerprint data, iris information data, and facial data – can be used in a remote and covert fashion and, therefore, in a non-consensual fashion. (Editor’s note: There is no public incident, to date, that proves such a use.)

Abraham is “100% sure” where we are headed. “The reason why I call Aadhaar a surveillance project is not that there is metadata stored, I call it a surveillance project because the biometrics are being stored. Metadata is one of the problems, that is the profiling risk but the surveillance risk primarily comes from the biometric data that they have,” he says. By metadata, he is referring to a citizen’s information such as phone number, age, sex, address, and other details.

There are also other databases in the works that could provide the basis for surveillance. Like: the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network & Systems (CCTNS) across police stations in India. According to the CCTNS website, as of May 2018, the CCTNS hardware and software deployment has covered nearly 94% of the police stations across India. There have been reports of the CCTNS system being used as a mass surveillance system in the guise of e-policing by authorities in Hyderabad.

Early in 2016, the Hyderabad of Police had launched a tender looking for companies to set up a citizen profiling and monitoring system. According to a report in Telangana Today, the Integrated People Information Hub (IPIH) gives the police access to personal informations of its citizens including names, family details, addresses and other related information by sourcing them from documents like police records, FIRs and other external sources like utility connections, tax payments, voter identification, passport etc.

During Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to India in January, Tel Aviv-based AI company Cortica had announced a partnership with India’s Best Group to develop solutions for combing through data captured daily by drones, surveillance cameras, and satellites. The aim is to develop an AI-based real-time identification of patterns, concepts and situational anomalies to identify potential problems, flag them and improve safety in the process. More details such as scale and scope of this partnership are not available at this point in time.

Mass surveillance: Easier said than done

Take a step back. India already has multiple digital surveillance – even if not mass, real-time facial recognition – programs in place to keep track of its citizens. E.g.: the Telecom Enforcement Resource and Monitoring (TERM) and NETRA (NEtwork TRaffic Analysis) surveillance software developed by the Centre for Artificial Intelligence and Robotics (CAIR). These are just some of the surveillance programs operated by the government.

But when it comes to mass surveillance in real time, even with the AI-based tech is available today, the currently installed infrastructure might not be ready for real-time mass surveillance. “Countries like China are good at setting up infrastructure which is very essential for mass surveillance systems to be in place,” says Kedar Kulkarni of Bengaluru-based deep learning startup Hyperverge, who also insists that all CCTVs out there today might not be fit to conduct facial recognition.

According to Kulkarni, for a mass surveillance system to be in place, you either need cameras that can capture and do computing for face recognition within its hardware or you need a robust network which can transmit live feeds from multiple cameras to processing centres, which is very bandwidth intensive.

Most public spaces in India including railway stations, bus depots, metro station, marketplaces are often under CCTV surveillance. New Delhi is all set to have one of the largest deployments in the country of CCTVs with the state government announcing plans to install 1.4 lakh CCTVs across Delhi. The India Railways is also setting aside Rs 3,000 crore in its 2018-19 budget to install CCTV systems across 11,000 trains and 8,500 stations, according to a news report.

In comparison, China is said to have 170 million CCTV cameras installed across the country currently and this number is estimated to go up by 400 million in the next three years, says a BBC news report.

Even the staunchest privacy activists acknowledge what surveillance can deliver if used carefully. “Overall, it is a very powerful technology. It should be used for law enforcement, it should be used for national security. That is the correct domain of application,” says Abraham. He hastens to add the caveats: “When we use it, we have to use it with lots of safeguards and it should be used only on a very small subset of the population. It shouldn’t be a technology that is broadly deployed in the population because it is not necessary, it is not proportionate, and the risks are very high.”

The flip and funny side of facial recognition-based surveillance is that the government does not need the technology to actually work. Just the threat of surveillance – that big brother is watching you – is enough to reduce crime. According to Gnanadesikan, the Chennai CEO of FaceTagr, one reason for the drop in crime rate in last year’s T. Nagar trials was that criminals knew that they were being watched.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/factor-daily-anand-murali-august-13-2018-the-big-eye

The Big Debit Card Breach: Three Things Card Holders Need To Understand

praskrishna — 2016-10-21T13:43:17Z

A total of 32 lakh debit cards across 19 banks could have been compromised on account of a purported fraud, the National Payment Corporation of India said in a statement.

The article by Alex Mathew was published by Bloomberg on October 20, 2016. Udbhav Tiwari was quoted.

The issue was brought to light when State Bank of India blocked the debit cards of 6 lakh customers on October 14. This was done after the bank was alerted to a possible fraud by the National Payment Corporation of India, MasterCard and Visa, said Managing Director Rajnish Kumar in a telephonic interview with BloombergQuint.

In a statement released on Thursday evening, the NPCI clarified that the problem was brought to their attention when they received complaints from a few banks that customers’ cards were used fraudulently, mainly in China and the U.S., while those cardholders were in India.

“The complaints of fraudulent withdrawal are limited to cards of 19 banks and 641 customers. The total amount involved is Rs 1.3 crore as reported by various affected banks to NPCI,” the payments corporation said.

SISA Security, a Bengaluru-based company is currently undertaking a forensic study to identify the extent of the problem and will submit a final report in November.

Based on the advisory issued by NPCI and other schemes, it is gathered that banks have advised their customers to change their debit card PIN. In situations where customers could not be contacted, the cards have been blocked and fresh cards are being issued by member banks.

NPCI statement

State Bank of India has blocked 6 lakh cards, while other banks have sent notifications to customers advising them to change their personal identification numbers.

How The Breach Could Have Occured

The breach that has apparently given hackers access to the PIN codes of several bank customers is likely to be on account of a malware attack. This attack is believed to have originated at an ATM.

The actual modus operandi of the hackers will only become clear once the forensic audit is released in November, but BloombergQuint spoke to cyber security expert Udbhav Tiwari to find out how the attack could have been orchestrated.

First, the hacker would have had to gain physical access to an ATM. The malware was then likely injected by connecting a laptop or another special device to a port on the cash disbursing machine, said Tiwari, a consultant at Centre For Internet & Society in Bengaluru.

Once the malware is injected, it automatically spreads across the network and infects other devices that are not protected against it. In this case, the malware could have infected a payment switch provider’s network.

A payment switch provider is an entity that facilitates a transaction either from an ATM or an online payment gateway. The service provider decides to whom the request for authorisation will be sent and then transmits the request back to the merchant or the ATM where the transaction originated.

In this case, one payment switch provider, Hitachi Payment Services, which manages close to 50,000 ATMs across the country, was asked by banks to investigate 30 of its ATMs on account of around 400 suspicious transactions that took place outside India, Managing Director Loney Antony told BloombergQuint in a telephonic interview.

The company had earlier said in a statement that an interim report by the audit agency does not suggest any breach or compromise in its systems.

The Scale Of The Breach

According to a study conducted by NPCI in collaboration with the banks, the number of debit cards that were infected by the malware has been set at 32 lakh. But Tiwari said this number could be higher.

The hypothetical limit to how much the malware can spread is dependent on the vulnerability of the systems, and if one of the payment switch provider’s systems was vulnerable and they still haven’t decided how many systems are vulnerable, it is quite possible that the malware is spreading at this point.

Udbhav Tiwari, Consultant, Centre For Internet & Society

What A Customer Should Do

The first, and most important step a customer should take is to immediately change their debit card PIN, Tiwari pointed out.

State Bank of India has said that its customers can opt to restrict the usage of their debit cards, for example whether it can be used both internationally and domestically or only domestically. Also, the daily limit of the debit card can be changed.

Once these steps have been taken, according to Tiwari, it is most important that customers stay vigilant and keep monitoring their bank statements. If an unauthorised transaction takes place, a customer should immediately contact their bank and block their card.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/bloomberg-alex-mathew-october-20-2016-the-big-debit-card-breach

The Benefits and Challenges of the “Free Flow” of Data

praskrishna — 2015-11-08T02:09:40Z

Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2015 will be held at Jao Pessoa in Brazil from November 10 to 13, 2015. The theme of IGF 2015 is Evolution of Internet Governance: Empowering Sustainable Development. Sunil Abraham is a panelist in this workshop organized by Public Knowledge on November 12, 2015.

The Internet was designed so that global data flows would be dictated by efficiency, rather than centralized control or oversight. This engineering principle has provided businesses and consumers with access to the best available technology, information, and services, wherever those resources may be located around the world. It has benefitted virtually all industry sectors, from manufacturing to financial services, education, health care, and beyond. The “free flow” of data is what has allowed the Internet flourish into what it is today.

Yet governments, corporations, and non-state actors around the world are increasingly employing a variety of technical, legal, and administrative tools to restrict data flows, limiting routing and data storage to particular jurisdictions and restricting the kinds of content and data types that are permitted online. Some of these restrictions have been put in place for legitimate purposes, designed to further privacy protections, network security, and fair commerce, and have been justified within the bounds of international law and norms. Others, however, are less defensible, and are intended to unfairly support preferred commercial interests or to quell domestic political dissent.

This panel will discuss the many benefits and challenges of the free flow of data. It will foster a discussion of the ways in which stakeholders can address the underlying reasons for data flow restrictions (such as the need for law enforcement access to data or the desire to nurture local ICT industry development, etc.) without subverting the Internet’s core potential for innovation, economic growth, and public welfare.

Name, stakeholder group, and organizational affiliation of workshop proposal co-organizer(s)
Carolina Rossini
Civil Society
Public Knowledge

Has the proposer, or any of the co-organizers, organized an IGF workshop before?

no

Subject matter #tags that describe the workshop

#innovation #barriers #policy #cross-boarder flow #privacy

Description of the plan to facilitate discussion amongst speakers, audience members and remote participants

Each panelist will be given approximately 3 minutes for opening remarks, followed by a moderated discussion, and then audience question and answer. Remote participants will be given the opportunity to ask questions over an online forum, such as Webx and Twitter.

Names and affiliations (stakeholder group, organization) of the participants in the proposed workshop

Name Carolina Rossini Stakeholder group: Civil Society Organization: Public Knowledge Describe why this speaker has been selected: She is a world-renowned expert on Internet policy and law, a Brazilian national. Have you contacted the speaker? Yes Name Vint Cerf Stakeholder group: Private Sector/Technical Community Organization: Google Describe why this speaker has been selected: He has been involved in Internet issues for many years and currently serving in influential vice president and “chief evangelist” role at Google. Have you contacted the speaker? Yes Name Lawrence Strickling Stakeholder group: Government Organization: U.S. Department of Commerce, NTIA Describe why this speaker has been selected: He is the head of one of the United States government’s principal Internet policy agencies. Have you contacted the speaker? Yes Name Richard Leaning Stakeholder group: Government Organization: European Cyber Crime Centre (EC3), Europol Describe why this speaker has been selected: He understands the needs of the law enforcement community from a European perspective, a British national. Have you contacted the speaker? Yes Name Marietje Schaake Stakeholder group: Government Organization: European Parliament Describe why this speaker has been selected: She is a prominent privacy advocate within the European Parliament, a Netherlands national. Have you contacted the speaker? Yes Name Nasser Kettani Stakeholder group: Private Sector Organization: Microsoft Describe why this speaker has been selected: He helps build and design data centers for Microsoft in Africa, a Moroccan national. Have you contacted the speaker? Yes Name Sunil Abraham Stakeholder group: Civil Society Organization: Centre for Internet and Society, India Describe why this speaker has been selected: He is the executive director of one of India’s most influential Internet policy think tanks and advocacy groups. Have you contacted the speaker? No, but know him well. Name Zahra Rose Stakeholder group: Civil Society Organization: Developing Countries' Centre for Cyber Crime Law Describe why this speaker has been selected: A lawyer, she understands the needs of the law enforcement community from a civil society perspective in Pakistan. Have you contacted the speaker? No
Name of in-person Moderator(s) Jonah Force Hill
Name of Remote Moderator(s) Winter Casey, U.S. Department of Commerce, NTIA
Name of Rapporteur(s) Seth Bouvier, U.S. Department of State
Description of the proposer's plans for remote participation We intend to utilize the IGF’s WebX system to include remote participants in the question and answer portion of the panel. The remote participants will be afforded equal/proportional representation in the discussion. The remote moderator will facilitate the Q&A with the moderator. We’ll need a screen in the room to display the remote comments.

For more info visit IGF website.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-benefits-and-challenges-of-the-201cfree-flow201d-of-data

The Bapsybanoo Marchioness of Winchester Lectures

praskrishna — 2013-06-09T03:35:38Z

Chinmayi Arun was a speaker at the Bapsybanoo Marchioness of Winchester Lectures on 'India's Politics of Free Expression' in the University of Oxford on May 31 2013, in the session on 'media and security'.

The Asian Studies Centre, Free Speech Debate, the Oxford India Society and Ideas for India Oxbridge Exchange were the co-sponsors for this event.

Theme: India's Politics of Free Expression
Date: May 31, 2013
Time: 10.00 a.m. to 6.15 p.m.
Venue: Nissan Lecture Theatre, St. Antony's College, Oxford

More details can be found here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/sant-ox-ac-uk-may-31-2013-bapsybanoo-marchioness-winchester-lectures

The Awesome Contracts Project (Geekup @ CIS)

praskrishna — 2012-05-11T12:17:09Z

Vivek Durai, co-founder at Awesome Contracts, a Singapore-India startup will give a public lecture on May 18, 2012 at the Centre for Internet & Society in Bangalore. Lawyer, musician, legal recruiter and entrepreneur, Amith Narayan will also participate through Skype!

The Awesome Contracts Project

Contracts are ubiquitous in our everyday life. They are also a nuisance. And they typically come attached with a bigger nuisance - lawyers! Interestingly though, contracts are a lot like code. Geek-lawyers, a very small, minuscule tribe on this planet, tend to notice a lot of similarities between the two. If this is true, it opens up a lot of possibilities, including changing the way we do business and in particular generate contracts, negotiate and seal deals.

We'll talk about some of the technology and some of the products we're working on that we think can provide power to a lot of folks.

Agenda

17:00 - 17:05	Welcome with Tea, Coffee, and Snacks
17:05 - 17:15	Lightning Talks
17:15 - 18:00	The Awesome Contracts Project
18:00 - 18:30	Q & A

Vivek Durai

Vivek Durai is a co-founder at Awesome Contracts, a Singapore-India startup that is working on interesting problems in the field of law and contracts. As with just about everyone else, he and co-founder Amith Narayan would like to change the world. Preferably, for the better. Vivek and Amith are both alumnus of the National Law School of India University.

Vivek is a lawyer by training, a geek by nature, and generally human. Most of the time. As far as ideologies go, Vivek is a Pythonista currently flirting with Node and other things. He is also incidentally a Partner at Atman Law Partners, a young three office boutique law firm.

Amith Narayan

Amith Narayan loves hats. He likes them so much in fact, he's been wearing all kinds. He has been a corporate lawyer, a musician, a record producer, a legal recruiter, and now an entrepreneur running this crazy little startup. Amith grew up in Calicut (Kozhikode) Kerala, trained in law at NLSIU, worked in the grand dame of the Indian legal world - Crawford Bayley - before moving to Singapore where he's been living for the past 10 years. Amith will join us over Skype during the talk.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/awesom-contracts-project

The Audacious ‘Right to Be Forgotten’

kovey — 2013-07-31T10:08:55Z

There has long been speculation over the permanency of our online presence. Posting about excessively-personal details, commenting in a way which is later embarrassing, being caught in unflattering public photos; to our chagrin, all of these unfortunate situations often persist on the web, and can continue to haunt us in future years.

Perhaps less dire, what if someone decides that she no longer wants the history of her internet action stored in online systems?

So far, there has been confusion over what should be done, and what realistically can be done about this type of permanent presence on a platform as complex and international in scope as the internet. But now, the idea of a right to be forgotten may be able to define the rights and responsibilities in dealing with unwanted data.

The right to be forgotten is an interesting and highly contentious concept currently being debated in the new European Union Data Protection Regulations.[1]

The Data Protection Regulation Bill was proposed in 2012 by EU Commissioner Viviane Reding and stands to replace the EU’s previous Data Protection law, which was enacted in 1995. Referred to as the “right to be forgotten” (RTBF), article 17 of the proposal would essentially allow an EU citizen to demand service providers to “take all reasonable steps” to remove his or her personal data from the internet, as long as there is no “legitimate” reason for the provider to retain it.[1] Despite the evident emphasis on personal privacy, the proposition is surrounded by controversy and facing resistance from many parties. Apparently, there are a range of concerns over the ramifications RTBF could bring.

Not only are major IT companies staunchly opposed to the daunting task of being responsible for the erasure of data floating around the web, but governments like the United States and even Great Britain are objecting the proposal as well.[2],[3]

From a commercial aspect, IT companies and US lobbying forces view the concept of RTBF as a burden and a waste of resources for service providers to implement. Largely due to the RTBF clause, the new EU Data Protection proposal as a whole has witnessed intense, “unprecedented” lobbying by the largest US tech companies and US lobby groups[4],[5]. From a different angle, there are those like Great Britain, whose grievances with the RTBF are in its overzealous aim and insatiable demands.[2] There are doubts as to whether a company will even be able to track down and erase all forms of the data in question. The British Ministry of Justice stated, "The UK does not support the right to be forgotten as proposed by the European commission. The title raises unrealistic and unfair expectations of the proposals."[2] Many experts share these feasibility concerns. The Council of European Professional Informatics Societies (CEPIS) wrote a short report on the ramifications of cloud computing practices in 2011, in which it conformed, “It is impossible to guarantee complete deletion of all copies of data. Therefore it is difficult to enforce mandatory deletion of data. Mandatory deletion of data should be included into any forthcoming regulation of Cloud Computing services, but still it should not be relied on too much: the age of a ‘Guaranteed complete deletion of data’, if it ever existed has passed."[6]

Feasibility aside, the most compelling issue in the debate over RTBF is the demanding challenge of balancing and prioritizing parallel rights. When it comes to forced data erasure, conflicts of right to be forgotten versus freedom of speech and expression easily arises. Which right takes precedence over the other?

Some RTBF opponents fear that RTBF will hinder freedom of speech. They have a valid point. What is the extent of personal data erasure? Abuse of RTBF could result in some strange, Orwellian cyberspace where the mistakes or blemishes of society are all erased or constantly amended, and only positivity fills the internet. There are reasonable fears that a chilling effect may come into play once providers face the hefty noncompliance fines of the Data Protection law, and begin to automatically opt for customer privacy over considerations for freedom of expression. Moreover, what safeguards may be in place to prevent politicians or other public figures from removing bits of unwanted coverage?

Although these examples are extreme, considerations like these need to be made in the development of this law. With the amount of backlash from various entities, it is clear that a concept like the right to be forgotten could not exist as a simple, generalized law. It needs refinement.

Still, the concept of a RTBF is not without its supporters. Viktor Mayer-Schönberger, professor of Internet Governance at Oxford Internet Institute, considers RTBF implementation feasible and necessary, saying that even if it is difficult to remove all traces of an item, "it might be in Google's back-up, but if 99% of the population don't have access to it you have effectively been deleted."[7] Additionally, he claims that the undermining of freedom of speech and expression is "a ridiculous misstatement."[7] To him, the right to be forgotten is tied intricately to the important and natural process of forgetting things of the past.

Moreover, the Data Protection Regulation does mention certain exceptions for the RTBF, including protection for "journalistic purposes or the purpose of artistic or literary expression." [1] The problem, however, is the seeming contradiction between the RTBF and its own exceptions. In practice, it will be difficult to reconcile the powers granted by the RTBF with the limitations claimed in other sections of the Data Protection Regulation.

Currently, the are a few clean and straight forward implementations of RTBF. One would be the removal of mined user data which has been accumulated by service providers. Here, invoking the right would be possible once a person has deleted accounts or canceled contracts with a service (thereby fulfilling the notion that the service no longer has "legitimate" reason to retain the data). Another may be in the case of personal data given by minors who later want their data removed, which is an important example mentioned in Reding’s original proposal.[4] These narrow cases are some of the only instances where RTBF may be used without fear of interference with other social rights. Broader implementations of the RTBF concept, under the current unrefined form, may cause too many conflicting areas with other freedoms, and especially freedom of expression.

Overall, the Right to Be Forgotten is a noble concept, born out of concern for the citizen being overpowered by the internet. As an early EU publication states, "The [RTBF] rules are about empowering people, not about erasing past events or restricting the freedom of the press."[8] But at this point, too many clear details seem to be lacking from the draft design of the RTBF. There is concern that without proper deliberation, the concept could lead to unforeseen and undesirable outcomes. Privacy is a fundamental right that deserves to be protected, but policy makers cannot blindly follow the ideals of one right to the point where it interferes with other aspects of society.

Fortunately, recent amendment proposals have attempted some refinement of the bill. Jeffrey Rosen writes in the Stanford Law Review about a certain key concept that could help legitimize the right, namely an amendment proposing that only personally contributed data may be rescinded.[9] This would help avoid interference with others’ rights to expression, and provide limitations on the extent of right to be forgotten claims. As Leslie Harris, president of the Center for Democracy and Technology wrote in the Huffington Post, amendments are needed which can specifically define personal data in the RTBF sense; thereby distinguishing which type of data is allowed to be removed.[10] In the upcoming months, the European Parliament will be considering such amendments to the proposal. This time will be crucial as it will determine if the development of the right to be forgotten will make it a viable option for the EU’s 500 million citizens.

But even after terms are defined and after safeguards are established, this underling philosophical question remains:

Should a person be able to reclaim the right to privacy after willingly giving it up in the first place?

The RTBF is obviously a contentious topic, one which may need to be gauged individually by nation states; it will soon be revealed if the EU becomes the first to adopt the right. If RTBF fails to pass in European parliament, I would hope that it at least serves to remind people of the permanence of the data which they add to the internet, further incentivizing careful consideration of what one yields to the web. Rights frequently evolve and expand to meet societal or technological advances. If we are to expand the concept of privacy, however, then we must do so with proper consideration, so that privacy may not gain disproportionate power over other rights, or vice versa.

[1]. http://bit.ly/WSZvHv

[2]. http://bit.ly/YxKaNJ

[3]. http://tcrn.ch/YdH82f

[4]. http://bit.ly/196E8qj

[5]. http://bit.ly/wJKWTZ

[6]. http://bit.ly/15aoknF

[7]. http://bit.ly/Z3JbRU

[8]. http://bit.ly/xfodhI

[9]. http://bit.ly/13uyda5

[10]. http://huff.to/16P2XIS

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-audacious-right-to-be-forgotten

The Asian Edge: 2012 Inter-Asia Cultural Studies Society Summer School

praskrishna — 2012-08-02T13:23:14Z

The 2nd Biannual Inter Asia Cultural Studies (IACS) Summer School will be hosted in Bangalore, India by the Centre for the Study of Culture and Society (CSCS) and the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) with the Inter Asia Cultural Studies Consortium. The event will be held in the first and second week of August 2012.

The IACS Summer School brings together South and East Asian experts from different disciplines as faculty for graduate and advanced research students to engage with key issues of larger social, cultural and political concerns in Cultural Studies in Asia. Any student registered in a post-graduate degree program is eligible for the IACS Summer School. There are limited seats and students will be selected based on their applications. Students registered at universities participating in the Consortium of Inter Asia Cultural Studies Institutions will be given first preference.

The Summer School 2012 proposes to integrate the teaching with core IACS faculty with the larger realities of change in South and East Asia. It proposes a 10 + 4 day structure.

Core Course: Methodologies for Cultural Studies in Asia: The Summer School offers a 10 day core course that works through seminars, taught classrooms, tutorials, open spaces, field trips and workshops. The core course shall address questions of Cultural Identity, Modernity, Nationalism, Gender, Class, Revolution and Asianism to frame an argument about relocating methods, concepts and ideas in contemporary Cultural Studies in Asia.

Day/Date	Time	Session	Instructors	Readings
Aug 02 (Thu)	09:30-10:00	Introduction to Course/Orientation
	10:00-1:00	Session 1: The Question of Knowledge	Instructors: Daniel PS Goh Nithin Manayath	The Epistemological Value of East Asian Perspective – Sun Ge Knowledge Production in the Era of Neo-Liberal Globalisation – Kuan-Hsing Chen Teaching versus Research? – Meaghan Morris
	3:00-5:00	Student Presentations	Choi, Ji Yeon Ajinkya Shenava Khetrimayum M Singh Vincent Chung Jaime Fang-Tze Hsu
Aug 03 (Fri)		Culture Industries workshop
		Workshop party
Aug 04 (Sat)	10:00-1:00	Session 2: The Question of Culture	Instructors: Asha Achuthan Ratheesh Radhakrishnan	Hind Swaraj – Chs IV, VI, XII, XIII – MK Gandhi Value Typology of Chinese Peasants and Its Transformation in Contemporary China – He Xuefeng An Elaborative Argumentation of a Nong-Country – Zhang Shi Zhao
	3:00-5:00	Student Presentations	Annisa Beta Ying-Tzu, Liu (Eva) Li, Yen-Chieh Sharib Aqleem Ali Li, Cho Kiu (Joseph)	Venue: 1 Shanti Road
	6:00-8:00	EVENING SALON	Tejaswini Niranjana and Kuan-Hsing Chen	Venue: 1 Shanti Road
Aug 05 (Sun)		HOLIDAY
Aug 06 (Mon)	10:00-1:00	Session 3: Nationalism and Modernity	Instructor: Milind Wakankar Student Presentations: Mai Thi Thu Baidurya Chakrabarti Zhang, Bing Musab Iqbal Meng Hsien Lu	On Nation – Zhang Tai Yan Nationalism in India – Rabindranath Tagore New Dominant Ideology and Changes of Urban Space in Today's Shanghai – Wang Xiaoming The Twilight of Certitudes: Secularism, Hindu Nationalism and Other Masks of Deculturation – Ashis Nandy A National Culture for Pakistan: the political economy of a debate – Saadia Toor
	3:00-5:00		Instructor: Madhuja M Student Presentations: Pan Yifan Zhang Zhihui Se Young Oh
		EVENING SALON	Stephen Chah and Ashish Rajadhyaksha	Venue: Centre for Internet and Society
Aug 07 (Tue)	10:00-1:00	Session 4: Culture and Economy	Instructors: Radhika P Raghu Tenkayala	In the Margin of the Capital: From ‘Tjerita Boedjang Bingoeng’ to ‘Si Doel anak sekolahan’ The Emergent Culture of Consumption – Chua Beng Huat ‘Bollywood’ 2004; When Was Bollywood – Ashish Rajadhyaksha Peasant Cultures of the 21st Century – Partha Chatterjee
	3:00-5:00	Student Presentations	Chan Ka Yi Kim Yoon Young Tanna Shilpa Shirishkumar Ruchi Jaggi Haesook Yong
Aug 08 (Wed)	10:00-1:00	Session 5: Gender and Culture	Instructors: Navaneetha Mokkil Nitya Vasudevan	Why Culture Matters – Tejaswini Niranjana Prostitutes Parasites and the house of state feminism – Naifei Ding Women and Freedom – Firdous Azim Letters to the Editor: The domestic violence act and conflict Spectralization of the Rural: Reinterpreting the labour mobility of rural young women in post-Mao China – Yan Hairong
	3:00-5:00	Student Presentations	Elmo I-Che Hsu Pang Ka Wei (Janet) Li-Fang Lai Kris Yu-Shiuan Chi Samia Vasa Shwetha D Ryu M-Rye Sabreena Ahmed
	6:00-8:00	EVENING SALON	Firdous Azim and Naifei Ding/Siddharth/Arvind in conversation	Venue: Alternative Law Forum
Aug 09 (Thurs)	10:00-1:00	FIELD TRIP	SURESH JAYARAM – Pettai Tour
Aug 10 (Fri)	10:00-1:00	Session 6: Understanding Popular Cultural Practice	Instructors: Namita Malhotra Nishant Shah	Hong Kong Action film in the Indian B Circuit – SV Srinivas Inter-Asia Comparative Framework: Postcolonial Film Historiography in Taiwan and South Korea Kim Soyoung Fan Bhakti and Subaltern Sovereignty – Madhava Prasad
	3:00-5:00	Student Presentations	Samhita Sunya Khatija Sana Khader Ayesha Maria Mualla Antoreep Sengupta
Aug 11 (Sat)		UNWORKSHOP DAY (Writing)	Evening: Final Party

Optional Courses: 2 Additional 4-days parallel Courses shall be offered to participants interested in specialised inquiries of their research practice.

Course A. The Digital Subject: Science, Technology and Society in Asia

Course Coordinator: Nishant Shah

Course Instructors: Nishant Shah, Lawrence Liang and Ashish Rajadhyaksha

Course B. Research Seminar on Technology, Culture & the Body

Course Coordinator: Nitya Vasudevan

Course Instructors: Tejaswini Niranjana, DING Naifei, Audrey Yue, Wing-Kwong Wong, Hsing-Wen Chang, Nitya Vasudevan

Nandy

A National Culture for Pakistan: the political economy of a debate – Saadia Toor

Nandy

A National Culture for Pakistan: the political economy of a debate – Saadia Toor

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/iacs-summer-school-2012

The Appropriate Use of Digital Identity

amber — 2019-08-08T10:24:40Z

As governments across the globe implement new, foundational, digital identification systems (“Digital ID”), or modernize existing ID programs, there is dire need for greater research and discussion about appropriate uses of Digital ID systems. This significant momentum for creating Digital ID in several parts of the world has been accompanied with concerns about the privacy and exclusion harms of a state issued Digital ID system, resulting in campaigns and litigations in countries such as UK, India, Kenya, and Jamaica. Given the very large range of considerations required to evaluate Digital ID projects, it is necessary to think of evaluation frameworks that can be used for this purpose.

At RightsCon 2019 in Tunis, we presented working drafts on appropriate use of Digital ID by the partner organisations of this three-region research alliance - ITS from Brazil, CIPIT from Kenya, and CIS from India.

In the draft by CIS, we propose a set of principles against which Digital ID may be evaluated. We hope that these draft principles can evolve into a set of best practices that can be used by policymakers when they create and implement Digital ID systems, provide guidance to civil society examinations of Digital ID and highlight questions for further research on the subject. We have drawn from approaches used in documents such as the necessary and proportionate principles, the OECD privacy guidelines and scholarship on harms based approach.

Read and comment on CIS’s Draft framework here.

Download Working drafts by CIPIT, CIS, and ITS here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-appropriate-use-of-digital-identity

The All India Privacy Symposium: Conference Report

natasha — 2012-04-30T05:16:41Z

Privacy India, the Centre for Internet and Society and Society in Action Group, with support from the International Development Research Centre, Privacy International and Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative had organised the All India Privacy Symposium at the India International Centre in New Delhi, on February 4, 2012. Natasha Vaz reports about the event.

The symposium was organized around five thematic panel discussions:
Panel 1: Privacy and Transparency
Panel 2: Privacy and E-Governance Initiatives
Panel 3: Privacy and National Security
Panel 4: Privacy and Banking
Panel 5: Privacy and Health

Introduction

Elonnai Hickok (Policy Advocate, Privacy India) introduced the objectives of Privacy India. The primary objectives were to raise national awareness about privacy, do an in-depth study of privacy in India and provide feedback on the proposed ‘Right to Privacy’ Bill. Privacy India has reviewed case laws, legislations, including the upcoming policy and conducted state-level privacy workshops and consultations across India in Kolkata, Bangalore, Ahmedabad, Guwahati, Chennai, and Mumbai. India like the rest of the world is answering some fundamental questions about the powers of the government and citizen’s rights and complications that arise from emerging technologies. Through our research we have come to understand that privacy varies across cultures and contexts, and there is no one concept of privacy but instead several distinct core notions that serve as complex duties, claims and obligations.

Privacy and Transparency

Panelists: Ponnurangam K, (Assistant Professor, IIIT New Delhi), ), Chitra Ahanthem (Journalist, Imphal), Nikhil Dey (Social & Political Activist), Deepak Maheshwari (Director, Corporate Affairs, Microsoft), Gus Hosein (Executive Director, Privacy International, UK), and Prashant Bhushan, (Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India).
Moderator: Sunil Abraham (Executive Director, Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore)
Poster: Srishti Goyal (Law Student, NUJS)

Srishti Goyal provided the general contours, privacy protections, limits to privacy and loopholes of policy relating to transparency and privacy, specifically analyzing the Right to Information Act, Public Interest Disclosures Act, and the Official Secrets Act.

Nikhil Dey commented on the interaction between the right to privacy and the right to information (RTI). He referred to Gopal Gandhi, the former Governor of West Bengal, “we must ensure that tools like the UID must help the citizen watch every move of government; not allow the government watch every move of the citizen.” Currently, the RTI and the UID stand on contrary sides of the information debate. A privacy law could allow for a backdoor to curb RTI. So, utmost care has to be taken while drafting legislation with respect to right to privacy.

Data and information has leaked furiously in India and it has leaked to the powerful. A person who is in a position of power can access private information irrespective of any laws in place to safeguard privacy. It is necessary to look at the power dynamics, which exists in the society before formulating legislation on right to privacy. According to Nikhil Dey, there should be different standards of privacy with respect to public servants. A citizen should be entitled to information related to funds, functions and functionaries. The main problem arises while defining the private space of a public servant or functionaries.

The RTI Act has failed to address the legal protection for the right to privacy. Perhaps, rules regarding privacy can be added to the Act. It can be defined by answering the questions: (i) what is ‘personal information’? (ii) what is it’s relation to public activity or public interest? (iii) what is the unwarranted invasion of the privacy of an individual? and (iv) what is the larger public good? Expanding on these four points can provide greater legal protection for the right to privacy.

Gus Hosein described the intersection and interaction of the right to information and the right to privacy. He referred to a petition filed by Privacy International requesting information on the expenses of members of parliament. Privacy and transparency of the government are compatible in the public interest. Gross abuse of the public funds by MPs was revealed by this particular petition such as pornography or cleaning of moats of MPs homes. Privacy advocates are supporters of RTI, however, it cannot be denied that there is no tension between transparency and privacy. In order chalk out the differences, there is a need of a legal framework. According to Gus Hosein, in many countries the government office that deals with right to information also deals with cases related to right to privacy.

Mumbai and New Delhi police have started using social media very aggressively, encouraging citizens to take photographs of traffic violations and upload them to Facebook or Twitter. In reference to this, Ponnurangam described the perceptions of privacy and if it agreed or conflicted with his research findings. Ponnurangam has empirically explored the awareness and perspective of privacy in India with respect to other countries. He conducted a privacy survey in Hyderabad, Chennai and Mumbai. People are very comfortable in posting pictures of others committing a traffic violation or running a red light. Ironically, many people have posted pictures of police officers committing a traffic violation such as not wearing a helmet or running a red light.

Chitra Ahanthem described the barriers and challenges of using RTI in Manipur. There are more than 40 armed militia groups, which are banned by the central and state government. The central government provides economic packages for the development of the north-east region. However, the state government officials and armed groups pocket the economic packages. These armed groups have imposed a ban on RTI. Furthermore, Manipur is a very small community. If people try and access information through RTI they risk getting threatened by the Panchayat members and being ostracized from the community or their clan.

People are apprehensive about filing RTI because they believe that these procedures are costly and the police and government may also get involved. Officials use the privacy plea to avoid giving out information. Since certain information are private and not in the public domain, government officials, use the defense of privacy to hide information. In addition, the police brutality prevalent in the area deters people to even have interactions with government officials.

According to Deepak Maheshwari, the open data initiative is a subset within the larger context of open information. There is an onus on the government to publish information, which is in the public domain. As a result, one does not necessarily have to go through the entire process of filing an RTI to get information, which is already there in the public domain. Moreover, if it is freely available in public domain, then one can anonymously access such information; this further strengthens the privacy aspects of requesting information and facilitating anonymity with respect to access to such information in the public domain. It has also to be noted that it is not sufficient to put data out in the public domain but it should also disclose the basis of the data for example, if there is representation of a data on a pie chart, the data which was used to arrive at the pie chart should also be available in the public domain. The main intention of releasing data to the public domain or having open data standards should not only be to provide access to such data but also should be in such a fashion so as to enable people to use the data for multiple purposes.

Prashant Bhushan noted that one of the grounds for withholding information in the RTI Act is privacy. An RTI officer can disclose personal information if he feels that larger public interest warrants the disclosure, even if it is personal information, which has no relationship to public activity or interest. This raises the important question, “what constitutes personal information?” He referred to the Radia Tapes controversy. Ratan Tata has filed a petition in the Supreme Court on the grounds that the Nira Radia tapes contained personal information and that the release of these tapes into the public domain violated his privacy. The Centre for Public Interest Litigation has filed a counter petition on the grounds that the nature of the conversations was not personal but in relation to public activity. They were between a lobbyist and bureaucrats, journalists and ministers. Prashant Bhushan stressed the importance of releasing these tapes into the public domain to show glimpses of all kinds of fixing, deal-making and show how the whole ruling establishment functions. It is absurd for Ratan Tata to claim that this is an invasion of privacy. Lastly, he felt when drafting a privacy law, clearly defining and distinguishing personal information and public is extremely important.

One of the interesting comments made during the panel was on the assumption that data is transparent. Transparency can be staged; questions have to be asked around whether the word is itself transparent.

Privacy and E-Governance Initiatives

Panelists: Anant Maringanti, (Independent Social Researcher), Usha Ramanathan, (Advocate & Social Activist), Gus Hosein, (Executive Director, Privacy International, UK), Apar Gupta, (Advocate, Supreme Court of India), and Elida Kristine Undrum Jacobsen (Doctoral Researcher, The Peace Research Institute Oslo).
Moderator: Sudhir Krishnaswamy (Centre for Law and Policy Research)
Poster: Adrija Das (Law Student, NUJS)

Adrija Das discussed the legal provision relating to identity projects and e-governance initiatives in India. The objective of any e-governance project is to increase efficiency and accessibility of public services. However, a major problem that arises is the linkage of the data results in the creation of a central database, accessible by every department of the government. Furthermore, implementing data protection and security standards are very expensive.

Sudhir Krishnaswamy highlighted the default assumptions surrounding e-governance initiatives: e-governance initiatives solve governance problems, increase efficiency, increase transparency and increase accountability. It is important to analyze the problems that arise from e-governance initiatives, such as privacy.

Usha Ramanathan described the increased number and vastness of e-governance initiatives such as UID, NPR, IT Rules and NATGRID. There are also many burdens on privacy that emanate from the introduction and existence of electronic data management systems. Electronic data management systems have allowed state to collect, store and use personal information of individual. Currently, the DNA Profiling Bill is pending before the Parliament. It is important to question the purpose and need for the government to collect such personal information. It is also to be noted that, there are certain laws such as Collection of Statistics Act, 2008 that penalize individuals if they do not comply with the information requests of the government.

Anant Maringanti discussed the limitations of data sharing that once existed. Currently, data can move across space in a very short time. He analyzed the state and market rationalities involved in e-governance initiatives, which raise the question “who can access data and at what price?”. Data may seem to be innocent or neutral, but data in the hands of wrong people becomes very crucial due to abuse and misuse. For example, Andhra Pradesh was praised as the model state for UID implementation. However, during the process of collecting data for UID a company bought personal information and sold the data to third parties.

Apar Gupta discussed the dilemmas of e-governance. Generally information in the form of an electronic record is presumed to be authentic. The data which government collects is most often inaccurate and wrong. So the digital identity of a person can be totally different from the real identity of that particular person. The process for correcting such information is also very inconvenient and sometimes impossible.
Under the evidence law any electronic evidence is presumed to be authentic and admissible as evidence. The Bombay High Court decided a case involving the authenticity of a telephone bill generated by a machine. The judgment said that since it is being generated by a machine, through and automated process, there is no need to challenge the authenticity of the document, it is presumed to true and authentic. The main danger in such case is that one does away with the process of law and attaches certain sanctity to the electronic record and evidence.

It should be also observed that how government maintains secrecy as to the ways in which it collects data. For example, the Election Commission has refused to disclose the functioning and design of electronic voting machines. The reason given for such secrecy is that if such information is put in the public domain then the electronic voting machines will be vulnerable and can be tampered with. But we, who use the voting machines, will never find out its vulnerabilities.

According to Gus Hosein, politicians generally have this wrong notion that technology can solve complex administrative problems. Furthermore, the industry is complicit; they indulge in anti-competitive market practice to sell these technologies as a solution to problems. However, such technology does not solve any problems rather it gives rise to problems.

Huge amount of government funds is associated with collection of personal data but such data is rendered useless or rather misused, because the government does not have clue as to how to use the data for development and security purposes. The UK National Health Records project estimated to cost around twelve to twenty billion pounds. However, a survey carried out by a professor in University College London showed that the hospital and other health institutions do not use the information collected by the National Health Records. Similarly, the UK Identity Card scheme was estimated to cost 1.3 billion pounds and finally it was estimated to cost five billion pounds. The identity cards are rendered obsolete, the sole department interested in the identity card was the Home Office Department, no other department intended on using it.

Technology should be built in such a manner that it empowers the individual. Technology should allow the individual to control his identity and as well as access all kinds of information available to the government and private bodies on that individual.

According to Elida Kristine Undrum Jacobsen, technology is regarded in this linear manner. It is increasingly being naturalized and as an all-encompassing solution. The use of biometric systems in the UID raises three areas of concern: power, value and social relationships.

With regards to power, there is a difference between providing documentation and information for identification. However, problems arise when the mode of identification becomes one’s body. It also leads to absolute reliance on technology, if the machine says that this is an individual’s identity then it is considered to be the absolute truth and it does not matter even if the individual is someone else. It becomes furthermore problematic with biometric system because it is generally used for forensic purposes.

The other component of UID or any national identification scheme is the question of consent and its relationship to privacy. In the case of UID project, people are totally unaware about how their information will be used and what purposes can it be used or misused for. Therefore, there is no informed consent when it comes to collection of biometric data under the UID project.

On the issue of social value it is to be noted that the value of efficiency becomes the most important value, which is valued. Many of the UIDAI documents state that the UID will provide a transactional identity. However, at the same time it takes away societal layers, which is inherently part of one’s identity. In addition, it makes it possible for the identity of a person to become a commodity to be sold. This also means that the personal information has economic value and players in the market such as insurance companies, banks can buy and sell the information.

When there is identification projects using biometrics it gives the State a lot of power; the power to determine and dictate one’s identity irrespective of the difference in real identity. Moreover, when such identifications projects are carried out at a national level it also gives rise to problem related to exclusion and inclusion of people or various purposes. The classification of the society based on various factors becomes easy and there is a huge risk involved with such classification.

The issues, which came out from the Q&A session, were:

The interplay between fairness and lawfulness in the context of privacy and data collection. There has to be a question asked as to why certain information is required by the State and how is it lawful.
In the neo-liberal era corporations are generally considered to be private. This has to be questioned and furthermore the difference between what is private and what is public. There are also concerns about corporations increasingly collaborating with the State. Can it be still considered as private?

Privacy and National Security

Panelists: PK Hormis Tharakan (Former Chief of Research and Analysis Wing, Government of India), Saikat Datta (Journalist), Menaka Guruswamy, (Advocate, Supreme Court, New Delhi), Prasanth Sugathan, (Legal Counsel, Software Freedom Law Center), and Oxblood Ruffin, (Cult of the Dead Cow Security and Publishing Collective).
Moderator: Danish Sheikh (Alternative Law Forum)
Poster: Suchitra Menon (Law Student, NUJS)

Suchitra Menon discussed the legal provisions for national security in relation to privacy. Specifically, she described the guidelines and procedural safeguards with respect to phone tapping and interception of communication decisional jurisprudence.

In the year 2000, the Information Technology Act (IT Act), 2000 was enacted, this Act had under section 69 allowed the State to monitor and intercept information through intermediaries. Prasanth Sugathan described how the government has been trying to bypass the procedural safeguard laid down by the Supreme Court in the PUCL case by using Section 28 of the IT Act, 2000. The provision deals with certifying authority for digital signatures. The certifying authority under the Act also has the authority to investigate offences under the Act. The provision mainly deals with digital signature but it is used by the government to intercept communication without implementing the procedural safeguards laid down for such interception. Furthermore, the IT Rules which was notified by the government in April, 2007 allows the government to intercept any communication with the help of the intermediaries. The 2008 amendment to the IT Act was an after effect of the 26/11 attacks in Mumbai. The legislation has become draconian since then and privacy has been sacrificed to meet the ends of national security.

Oxblood Ruffin read out his speech and the same is reproduced below.

“The online citizenry of any country is part of its national security infrastructure. And the extent to which individual privacy rights are protected will determine whether democracy continues to succeed, or inches towards tyranny. The challenge then is to balance the legitimate needs of the state to secure its sovereignty with protecting its most valuable asset: The citizen.

It has become trite to say that 9/11 changed everything. Yet it is as true for the West as it is for the global South. 9/11 kick started the downward spiral of individual privacy rights across the entire internet. It also ushered in a false dichotomy of choice, that in choosing between security and privacy, it was privacy that had adapted to the new realities, or so we’ve been told.

Let’s examine some of the fallacies of this argument.

The false equation which many argue is that we must give up privacy to ensure security. But no one argues the opposite. We needn’t balance the costs of surveillance over privacy, because rarely banning a security measure protects privacy. Rather, protecting privacy typically means that government surveillance must be subjected to judicial oversight and justification of the need to surveillance. In most cases privacy protection will not diminish the state’s effectiveness to secure itself.

The deference argument is that security advocates insist that the courts should defer to elected officials when evaluating security measures. But when the judiciary weighs privacy against surveillance, privacy almost always loses. Unless the security measures are explored for efficacy they will win every time, especially when the word terrorism is invoked. The courts must take on a more active role to balance the interests of the state and its citizens.

For the war time argument security proponents argue that the war on terror requires greater security and less privacy. But this argument is backwards. During times of crisis the temptation is to make unnecessary sacrifices in the name of security. In the United States, for example, we saw that Japanese-American internment and the McCarthy-era witch-hunt for communists was in vain. The greatest challenge for safeguarding privacy comes during times when we are least inclined to protect it. We must be willing to be coldly rational and not emotional during such times.

We are often told that if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. This is the most pervasive argument the average person hears. But isn’t privacy a little like being naked? We might not be ashamed of our bodies but we don’t walk around naked. Being online isn’t so different. Our virtual selves should be as covered as our real selves. It’s a form of personal sovereignty. Being seen should require our consent, just as in the real world. The state has no business taking up the role of Peeping Tom.

I firmly believe that the state has a right and a duty to secure itself. And I equally believe that its citizens are entitled to those same rights. Citizens are part of the national security infrastructure. They conduct business; they share information; they are the benefactors of democratic values. Privacy rights are what, amongst others, separate us from the rule of tyrants. To protect them is to protect and preserve democracy. It is a fight worth dying for, as so many have done before us.

PK Hormis Tharakan discussed the importance of interception communication in intelligence gathering. In the western liberal democracies, restrictions of privacy were introduced for the anti-terrorism campaigns and these measures are far restrictive than what the Indian legislations contemplate. Preventive intelligence is a major component in maintenance of national security and this intelligence is generated and can be procured through interception.

We do need laws to make sure that the power of interception is not excessive or out of proportion. But the graver issue is that the equipment used for interception of communication is freely available in the market at a cheap price. This allows private citizens also to snoop into others conversation. So, interception by civilians should be the main concern.

Menaka Guruswamy discussed the lack of regulation of Indian intelligence agencies that creates burdens on privacy. When there is a conflict between individual privacy and national security, the court will always rule in favour of the national security. Public interest always takes precedence over individual interest.

When there is a claim right to privacy vis-à-vis national security, generally these claims are characterized by dissent, chilling effects on freedom of expression and government accountability. In India, privacy is fragile and relatively a less justifiable right. Another challenge to privacy is that, when communication is intercepted, which part of the conversation can be considered to be private and which part cannot be considered so.

Saikat Datta described his experience of being under illegal surveillance by an unauthorized intelligence agency. When a person is under surveillance, he or she is already considered to be suspect. If the State commits any mistake as to surveillance, carrying surveillance, who is not at all a person of interest in such case upon discovery, there is no penalty for such discrepancy.
He warned of the dangers of excessive wiretapping, a practice that currently generates such a “mountain” of information that anything with real intelligence value tends to be ignored until it is too late, as happened with the Mumbai bombings in 2008. It is clear that the Indian government’s surveillance and interception programmes far exceed what is necessary for legitimate law enforcement.

The issues, which came during the Q&A session was:

In case of national security vis-à-vis privacy in heavily militarized zone, legislations such as Armed Forces Special Powers Act actually give authority to the army to search and seizure on mere suspicion? This amounts gross violation of privacy.

Privacy and Banking

Panelists: M R Umarji, (Chief Legal Advisor, Indian Banks Associations), N A Vijayashankar, (Cyber Law Expert), Malavika Jayaram, (Advocate, Bangalore)
Moderator: Prashant Iyengar (Associate Professor, Jindal Law University)
Poster: Malavika Chandu (Law Student, NUJS)

Prashant Iyengar highlighted how privacy has been a central feature in banking and finance. Even before the notion of privacy came into existence, banks had developed an evolved notion of secrecy and confidentiality, which was fairly robust. Every legislation dealing with banking and finance generally have a clause related to privacy and confidentiality. It might seem that it would be easy to implement privacy in banking and finance given the long relationship between banking and secrecy and confidentiality. However, this is not the case in the contemporary times. Specifically, with the growth in issues related to national security, transparency and technology, the highly regarded notion of privacy seems to be slowly depleting.

Malavika Chandu described the data protection standards that govern the banking industry. As part of the know-you-customer guidelines, banks are required to provide the Reserve Bank with customer profiles and other identification information. Lastly, she described case laws in relation to privacy with respect to financial records.

N A Vijayashankar noted that the confidentiality and secrecy practices in the banking sector emanate from the banker-customer relationship. In the present context, secrecy and privacy maintained by the banks should be analyzed from the perspective of the right of the customer to safeguard his or her information from any third party. Generally, banks and other financial institutions protect personal information as a fraud control measure and not as duty to protect the privacy of a customer.

There has been a paradigm shift in banking practices from traditional banking practices to more efficient but less secure banking practice. Some of the terms and conditions of internet banking are illegal and do not stand the test of law. In contemporary times, banking institutions use confidentiality to cover up problems and data breach rather than protecting the customer. But the banks are not ready to disclose data breach as it apprehends that it will result in public losing faith in the system. The Reserve Bank of India, has recently notified that protection which is provided to the customers in banking services should also be extended to e-banking services. However, the banks have not properly implemented this.

M R Umarji highlighted fourteen laws related to banking which carries confidentiality clauses. In India, public sector banks dominate the market. These banks are created under a statute and such statute governs them. Therefore, they are duty bound to maintain secrecy and confidentiality. Private banks and cooperative banks are not bound by any statute. They do not have any obligations to maintain secrecy, but they do strictly observe confidentiality as a form of banking practice.

Banks are not allowed to reveal any personal information of an individual unless it is sought by some authority that has a legitimate right to claim such information. There has been a constant erosion of confidentiality due to various laws which empowers authorities to seek confidential information from the banks. Recently, in the light of the growing national security concerns, banks also have an obligation to report suspicious transactions. These have caused heavy burdens on right to privacy of an individual.

Under the Right to Information Act, 2005 public sector banks are considered to be public authorities. By the virtue of the Statute, any person can access information from banks. For example, in a recent case an information officer directed Reserve Bank of India, to disclose Inspection Reports. These reports generally contain information regarding doubtful accounts, non-performing account, etc. There is a need that banks should be exempted from the Right to Information Act, 2005. Since they are not dealing with public funds there is no need to apply transparency law to the banks.

Malavika Jayaram described the major conflicts and tensions with respect to privacy vis-à-vis banking and financial systems and financial data. Other privacy and transparency issues include: the publication of online tax information and income data.

Surveillance is built in the design of banking system, so it is capable of tracking personal information and activity. There is a need to implement more privacy friendly and privacy by design systems in the banking sector. Customers are generally ignorant about privacy policies and this influences informed consent and furthermore marketing institution may influence customers to behave in a particular manner. In this context privacy by design becomes very important.

Data minimization principles should be applied; since the more data collected the more there is a risk of data breach and misuse. In case of data retention it is necessary that person giving such data should know how much proportion of the data is being retained and for how long it is stored and also what is the scope of the data and for what purpose will it be used.

Personal information and data, which was previously collected by the government, are gradually being outsourced to private bodies. On one hand it is a good thing that private sector get their technology and security measures right as compared to the government agencies but it comes with the risk that it can be sold out by private bodies as commodities in the market. Private bodies that are harvesting the data can also be forced by the government to disclose it under a particular law or statute without taking into consideration the consent of the individual whose personal information is sought for.

There is multiplicity of documentation for identification, which makes transactions less efficient. This has attracted customers to more convenient systems such as one-access point systems, but people tend to forget the issues related to privacy, in using such a system. What is portrayed as efficient for the consumer is a tool for social control and who has access and authority to use such information.

Often the reason given for collecting information is that it will help the service provider to combat fraud. However, studies have shown people more often fake situation rather than identity. The other concerns are that of sharing of information and lack of choice with respect to such sharing. There should be check as to sharing of personal information as the data belongs to the individual and not the bank or any other institution which requires furnishing personal information in lieu of services. This gives rise to a binary choice to the user; either the individual has to provide information to avail the service or else one cannot avail the services.

There is supposed to be market for privacy. The notion of personal information is subjective and varies from person to person. For example, one might be comfortable to share certain information. However, others might not be.

The issues that came out of the Q&A sessions are:

The default settings are generally put at the low protection settings. Unless the user is aware of the privacy protection setting, he or she is prone to breach of privacy. Should the default privacy setting be set to maximum security and option can be given to the user to change it according to his or her preference?
Is there any system in the banks, which allows the customers of bank to know about which all third parties the bank has shared his or her personal information with?

Health Privacy

Panelists: K. K. Abraham, (President, Indian Network for People with HIV), Dr. B. S. Bedi, (Advisor, CDAC & Media Lab Asia), and Raman Chawla, (Senior Advocacy Officer, Lawyers Collective).
Moderator: Ashok Row Kavi (Journalist and LGBT Activist)
Poster: Danish Sheikh (Researcher, Alternative Law Forum)

Danish Sheikh outlined the possible health privacy violations. These included the disclosure of personal health information to third parties without consent, inadequate notification to a patient of a data breach, the purpose of collecting data is not specified and improper security standards, storage and disposal. The disclosure of personal health information has the potential to be embarrassing, stigmatizing or discriminatory.

Subsequently, Danish Sheikh examined the status of sexual minorities’ vis-à-vis the privacy framework. Culling out some real life examples based on various studies, media reports and judgments from the Supreme Court and the High Courts of Delhi and Allahabad, he also described privacy violations committed by both individuals as well as state authorities.

Ashok Row Kavi recounted how privacy was very contextual when debating section 377 in the LGBT community. The paradigm upon which they were going to fight the anti-sodomy law was that it was consenting sex between two adults in private space. However, this paradigm was not well received by women, as women did not see private space as safe space, due to domestic violence. Perceptions of privacy are very subjective and it differs from person to person.

Raman Chawla recounted the history of the Draft HIV/AIDS Bill. In 2002, the need for law related to HIV/AIDS was realized in order to protect right to consent, right against discrimination and right to confidentiality of HIV patients. The bill was finalized in the year 2006. Alarmingly, it is yet to be tabled before the Parliament.

The privacy provisions in the HIV bill clearly state that no person can be tested, treated or researched for HIV without the consent of the patient. It also casts that in a fiduciary relationship the health care provider must maintain confidentiality, however if the patient provides written consent then their status may be disclosed. The HIV condition of the patient can also revealed by the doctor if there is a court order demanding such disclosure. The doctor may disclose the status of the patient to his or her partner but he has to follow a particular protocol. The doctor should have sufficient belief that his or her partner is at risk of contracting HIV. The person who is infected will be asked for his/her views and counseled before his/her partner is informed. However, there are doubts as to the implementation and enforcement of this protocol.

Conclusion

Natasha Vaz (Policy Advocate, Privacy India) brought the symposium to a close by thanking the partners, the panelists, the moderators and the participants for their sincere efforts in making the All India Privacy Symposium a grand success. In India, a public discussion regarding privacy has been long over due. The symposium provided a platform for dialogue and building greater awareness around privacy issues in health, banking, national security, transparency and e-governance. Using our research, expert opinions, personal experiences, questions and comments various facets of privacy were explored.

Press Coverage

The event was featured in the media as well:

India needs an independent privacy law, says NGO Privacy India, Economic Times, February 2, 2012
New Bill to decide on individual’s right to privacy, Tehelka, February 6, 2012
Lack of strong privacy law in healthcare a big worry, Daily News & Analysis, February 13, 2012
Privacy concerns grow in India, Washington Post, February 3, 2012

Click to download the Agenda and Profile of Speakers (PDF, 1642 Kb)

Download the PDF (555 Kb)
Follow the webcast of the event

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/all-india-privacy-delhi-report

The AI Task Force Report - The first steps towards India’s AI framework

Elonnai Hickok, Shweta Mohandas and Swaraj Paul Barooah — 2018-06-27T14:32:56Z

The Task Force on Artificial Intelligence was established by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry to leverage AI for economic benefits, and provide policy recommendations on the deployment of AI for India.

The blog post was edited by Swagam Dasgupta. Download PDF here

The Task Force’s Report, released on March 21st 2018, is a result of the combined expertise of members from different sectors and examines how AI will benefit India. It sheds light on the Task Force’s perception of AI, the sectors in which AI can be leveraged in India, the challenges endemic to India and certain ethical considerations. It concludes with a set of policy recommendations for the government to leverage AI for the next five years. While acknowledging AI as a social and economic problem solver, the Report attempts to answer three policy questions:

What are the areas where government should play a role?
How can AI improve quality of life and solve problems at scale for Indian citizens?
What are the sectors that can generate employment and growth by the use of AI technology?

This blog will look at how the Task Force answered these three policy questions. In doing so, it gives an overview of salient aspects and reflects on the strengths and weaknesses of the Report.

Sectors of Relevance and Challenges

In order to navigate the outlined questions, the Report looks at ten sectors that it refers to as ‘domains of relevance to India’. Furthermore, it examines the use of AI along with its major challenges, and possible solutions for each sector. These sectors include: Manufacturing, FinTech, Agriculture, Healthcare, Technology for the Differently-abled, National Security, Environment, Public Utility Services, Retail and Customer Relationship, and Education. While these ten domains are part of the 16 domains of focus listed in the AITF’s web page, it would have been useful to know the basis on which these sectors were identified. A particular strength of the identified sectors is the consideration of technology for the differently abled as well as the recognition to the development of AI systems in spoken and sign languages in the Indian context.

Some of the problems endemic to India that were recognized include infrastructural barriers, managing scale and innovation, and the collection, validation and distribution of data. The Task Force also noted the lack of consumer awareness, and inability of technology providers to explain benefits to end users as further challenges. The Task Force — by putting the onus on the individual — seems to hint that the impediment to the uptake of technology is the inability of individuals to understand the benefits of the technology, rather than aspects such as poor design, opacity, or misuse of data and insights. Furthermore, although the Report recognizes the challenges associated to data in India and highlights the importance of quality and quantity of data; it overlooks the importance of data curation in creatinge reliable AI systems.

Although the Report examines challenges to AI in each sector, it fails to include all challenges that require addressal. For example, the report fails to acknowledge challenges such as the lack of appropriate certification systems for AI driven health systems and technologies. In the manufacturing sector, the Report fails to highlight contextual challenges associated with the use of AI. This includes the deployment of autonomous vehicles compared to the use of industrial robots.

On the use of AI in retail, the Report while examining consumer data and its respective regulatory policies, identified the issues to be related to the definition, discrimination, data breaches, digital products and safety awareness and reporting standards. In this, the Report is limited in its understanding of what categories of data can lead to discrimination and restricts mechanisms for transparency and accountability to data breaches. The Report could have also been more forward looking in its position on security — including security by design and security by default. Furthermore, these issues were noted only in the context of the retail sector and ideally should have been discussed across all sectors.

The challenges for utilizing AI for national security could have been examined beyond cost and capacity to include associated ethical and legal challenges such as the need for legal backing. The use of AI in national security demands clear accountability and oversight as it is a ground for legitimate state interference with fundamental rights such as privacy and freedom of expression. As such, there is a need for human rights impact assessments, as well as a need for such uses to be aligned with international human rights norms. Government initiatives that allow country wide surveillance and AI decisions based on such data should ideally be implemented only after a comprehensive privacy law is in place and India’s surveillance regime has been revisited.

Recognizing the potential of AI for the benefit of the differently abled is one of the key takeaways from this section of the Report. Furthermore, it also brings in the need for AI inclusivity. AI in natural language generation and translation systems have the potential to help the large number of youth that are disabled or deprived. Therefore, AI could have a large positive impact through inclusive growth and empowerment.

Although the Report examines each of the ten domains in an attempt to provide an insight into the role the government can play, there seems to be a lack of clarity in terms of the role that each department will and is playing with respect to AI. Even the section which lays down the relevant ministries for each of the ten domains failed to include key ministries and departments. For example, the Report does not identify the Ministry of Education, nor does it list the Ministry of Law for national security. The Report could have also identified government departments which would be responsible for regulation and standardization. This could include the Medical Council of India (healthcare), CII (manufacture and retail), RBI (Fintech) etc. The Report also does not recognize other developments around AI emerging out the government. For example, the Draft National Digital Communications Policy (published on May 1, 2018) seeks to empower the Department of Telecommunication to provide a roadmap for AI and robotics. Along similar lines, the Department of Defence Production has also created a task force earlier this year to study the use of AI to accelerate military technology and economic growth. The government should look at building a cohesive AI government body, or clearly delineating the role of each ministry, in order to ensure harmonization going forward.

Areas in need of Government Intervention

The Report also lists out the grand challenges where government intervention is required. This includes data collection and management and the need for widespread expertise contributing to research, innovation, and response. However, while highlighting the need for AI experts from diverse backgrounds, it fails to include experts from law and policy into the discussion. While identifying manufacturing, agriculture, healthcare and public utility to be places where government intervention is needed, the Report failed to examine national security beyond an important domain to India and as a sector where government intervention is needed.

Participation in International Forums

Another relevant concern that the Report underscores is India’s scarce participation as researchers, AI developers and government engagement in global discussions around AI. The Report states that although efforts were being made by Indian universities to increase their presence in international AI conferences, they were lagging behind other nations. On the subject of participation by the government it recommends regular presence in International AI policy forums. Hence, emphasising the need for India’s active participation in global conversations around AI and international rulemaking.

Key Enablers to AI

The Report while analysing the key enablers for AI deployment in India states that positive societal attitudes will be the driving force behind the proliferation of AI. Although relying on positive social attitudes alone will not help in increasing the trust on AI, steps such as making algorithms that are used by public bodies public, enacting a data protection law etc. will be important in enabling trust beyond highlighting success stories.

Data and Data Marketplaces

While the Report identifies data as a challenge where government intervention is needed, it also points to the Aadhaar ecosystem as an enabler. It states that Aadhaar will help in the proliferation of AI in three ways: one as a creator of jobs as related to the collection and digitization of data, two as a collector of reliable data, and three as a repository of Indian data. However, since the very constitutionality of Aadhaar is yet to be determined by the Supreme Court, the task force should have used caution in identifying Aadhaar as a definitive solution. Especially while making statements that the Aadhaar along with the SC judgement has created adequate frameworks to protect consumer data. Additionally, the Task Force should have recognized the various concerns that have been voiced about Aadhaar, particularly in the context of the case before the Supreme Court.

This section also proposes the creation of a Digital Data Marketplace. A data marketplace needs to be framed carefully so as to not create a situation where privacy becomes a right available to only those who can afford it. It is concerning that the discussion on data protection and privacy in the Report is limited to policies and guidelines for businesses and not centered around the individual.

Innovation and Patents

The Report states that the Indian startups working in the field of AI must be encouraged, and industry collaborations and funding must be taken up as a policy measure. One of the ways in which this could be achieved is by encouraging innovations, and one of the ways to do so is by adding a commercial incentive to it, such as through IP rights. Although the Report calls for a stronger IP regime that protects and incentivises innovation, it remains ambiguous as to which aspect of IP rights — patents, trade secrets and copyrights — need significant changes. If the Report is specifically advocating for stronger patent rights in order to match those of China and US, then it shows that the the task force fails to understand the finer aspects of Indian patent law and the history behind India’s stance on patenting. This includes the fact that Indian patent law excludes algorithms from being patented. Indian patent law, by providing a higher threshold for patenting computer related inventions (CRIs), ensures that only truly innovative patents are granted. Given the controversies over CRIs that have dotted the Indian patent landscape, the task force would have done well to provide more clarity on the ‘how’ and ‘why’ of patenting in this sector, if that is their intent with this suggestion.

Ethical AI framework

Responsible AI

In terms of establishing an ethical AI framework, the Task Force suggests measures such as making AI explainable, transparent, and auditable for biases. The Report addresses the fact that currently with the increase in human and AI interaction there is a need to have new standards set for the deployment of AI as well as industrial standards for robots. However, the Report does not go into details of how AI could cause further bias based on various identifiers such as gender and caste, as well as the myriad concerns around privacy and security. This is especially a concern given that the Report envisions widespread use of AI in all major sectors. In this way, the Report looks at data as both a challenge and an enabler, but fails to dedicate time towards explaining the various ethical considerations behind the collection and use of data in the context of privacy, security and surveillance as well as account for unintended consequences. In laying out the ethical considerations associated with AI, the report does not make a distinction between the use of AI by the public sector and private sector. As the government is responsible for ensuring the rights of citizens and holds more power than the citizenry, the public sector needs to be more accountable in their use of AI. This is especially so in cases where AI is proposed to be used for sovereign functions such as national security.

Privacy and Data

The Report also recognises the significance of the implementation of the Aadhaar Act, the privacy judgement and the proposed data protection laws, on the development and use of AI for India. Yet, the Report does not seem to recognize the importance of a robust and multi-faceted privacy framework as it assumes that the Aadhaar Act and the Supreme Court Judgement on privacy and potential privacy law have already created a basis for safe and secure utilization and sharing of customer data. Although the Report has tried to be an expansive examination of various aspects of AI for India, it unfortunately has not looked in depth at the current issues and debates around AI privacy and ethics and makes policy recommendations without appearing to fully reflect on the implementation and potential impact of the same. Similar to the discussion paper by the Niti Aayog, this Report does not consider the emerging principles of data protection such as right to explanation and right to opt-out of automated processing, which directly relate to AI. Furthermore, there is a lack of discussion on issues such as data minimisation and purpose limitation which some big data and AI proponents argue against.

Liability

On the question of liability, the Report only states that specific liability mechanisms need to be worked out for certain categories of machines. The Report does not address the questions of liability that should be applicable to all AI systems, and on whom the duty of care lies, not only in case of robots but also in the case of automated decision making etc. Thus, there is a need for further thinking on mechanisms for determining liability and how these could apply to different types of AI (deep learning models and other machine learning models) and AI systems.

AI and Employment

On the topic of jobs and employment, the Report states that AI will create more jobs than it takes as a result of an increase in the number of companies and avenues created by AI technologies. Additionally, the Report provides examples of jobs where AI could replace the human (autonomous drivers, industrial robots etc,) but does not go as far as envisioning what jobs could be created directly from this replacement. Though the Report recognizes emerging forms of work such as crowdsourcing platforms like Mturk, it fails to examine the impact of such models of work on workers and traditional labour market structures and processes. Going forward, it will be important that the government and the private sector undertake the necessary steps to ensure that fair, protected, and fulfilling jobs are created simultaneously with the adoption of AI. This will include revisiting national and organizational skilling programmes, labor laws, social benefit schemes, relevant economic policies, and exploring best practices with respect to the adoption and integration of AI in work.

Education and Re-skilling

The task force emphasised the need for a change in the education curriculum as well as the need to reskill the labour force to ensure an AI ready future. This level of reskilling will be a massive effort, and a thorough review and audit of existing skilling programmes in India is needed before new skilling programmes are established and financed. The Report also clarifies that the statistics used were based on a study on the IT component of the industry, and that a similar study was required to analyse AI’s effect on the automation component. Going forward, there is the need for a comprehensive study of the labour intensive sectors and formal and informal sectors to develop evidence based policy responses.

Policy Recommendations

The Task Force_, in its policy recommendations, notes that the successful adoption of AI in India will depend on three factors: people, process and technology. However, it does not explain these three factors any further.

National Artificial Intelligence Mission

The most significant suggestion made in the Report is for the establishment of the National Artificial Intelligence Mission (N-AIM) — a centralised nodal agency for coordinating and facilitating research, collaboration and providing economic impetuous to AI startups. The mission with a budget allocation of Rs 1,200 crore over five years aims, among other things, to look at various ways to encourage AI research and deployment. Some of the suggestions include targeting and prototyping AI systems and setting up of a generic AI test bed. These suggestions seems to draw inspiration from other countries such as the US DARPA Challenge and Japan’s sandbox for self driving trucks. The establishment of N-AIM is a welcome step to encourage both AI research and development on a national scale. The availability of public funds will encourage more AI research and development.Additionally, government engagement in AI projects has thus far been fragmentedand a centralised body will presumably bring about better coordination and harmonization. Some of the initiatives such as Capture the flag competition that seeks to centre around the provision for real datasets to catalyze innovation will need to be implemented with appropriate safeguards in place.

Other recommendations

There are other suggestions that are problematic — particularly that of funding “an inter-disciplinary large data integration center in pilot mode to develop an autonomous AI Machine that can work on multiple data streams in real time and provide relevant information and predictions to public across all domains.” Before such a project is developed and implemented there are a number of factors where legal clarity is required; a few being: data collection and use, accuracy and quality of the AI system. There is also a need to ensure that bias and discrimination have been accounted for and fairness, responsibility and liability have been defined with consideration that this will be a government driven AI system. Additionally, such systems should be transparent by design and should include redress mechanisms for potential harms that may arise. This can be through the presence of a human in the loop, or the existence of a kill switch. These should be addressed through ethical principles, standards, and regulatory frameworks.

The recommendations propose establishing operation standards for data storage and privacy, communication standards for autonomous systems, and standards to allow for interoperability between AI based systems. A significant lacuna in this list is the development of safety, accuracy, and quality standards for AI algorithms and systems.

Similarly, although the proposed public private partnership model for research and startups is a good idea, this initiative should be undertaken only after questions such as the implications of liability, ownership of IP and data, and the exclusion of critical sectors are thought through.

Furthermore, the suggestion to ‘fund a national level survey on identification of cluster of clean annotated data necessary for building effective AI systems’ needs to recognize the existing initiatives around open data or use this as a starting place. The Report does not clarify if this survey would involve identifying data.

Conclusion

The inconspicuous release of the Report as well as the lack of a call for public comments results in the fact that the Report does not incorporate or reflect on the sentiments of the public or draw upon the expertise that exists in India on the topic or policies around emerging technologies, which will have a pervasive and wide effect on society. The need for multi stakeholder engagement and input cannot be understated. Nonetheless, the Report of the Task Force is a welcome step towards understanding the movement towards an definitive AI policy. The task force has attempted answering the three policy questions keeping people, process and technology in mind. However, it could have provided greater details about these indices. The Report, which is meant for a wider audience, would have done well to provide greater detail, while also providing clarity on technical terms. On a definitional plane, a list of technologies that the task force perceived as AI for this Report, could have also helped keep it grounded on possible and plausible 5 year recommendations.

Compared to the recent Niti Aayog Discussion Paper, this Report misses out on a detailed explanation on AI and ethics, however, it does spend some considerable amount of time on education and the use of AI for the differently abled. Additionally, the Report’s statement on the democratization of development and equal access as well as assigning ownership and framing transparent rules for usage of the infrastructure is a positive step towards making AI inclusive. Overall, the Report is a progressive step towards laying down India’s path forward in the field of Artificial Intelligence. The emphasis on India’s involvement in International rulemaking gives India an opportunity to be a leader of best practice in international forums by adopting forward looking and human rights respecting practices. Whether India will also become a strong contender in the AI race, with policies favouring the development of a socio-economically beneficial, and ethical-AI backed industries and services is yet to be seen.

The Task Force consists of 18 members in total. Of these, 11 members are from the field of AI technology both research and industry, three from the civil services, one from healthcare research, one with and Intellectual property law background, and two from a finance background. The specializations of the members are not limited to one area as the members have experience or education in various areas relevant to AI. https://www.aitf.org.in// There is a notable lack of members from Civil Society. It may also be noted that only 2 of the 18 members are women

The Report on the Artificial Intelligence Task Force, Pg. 1,http://dipp.nic.in/sites/default/files/Report_of_Task_Force_on_ArtificialIntelligence_20March2018_2.pdf

ibid.

The Artificial Intelligence Task Force https://www.aitf.org.in/

The Report on the Artificial Intelligence Task Force, Pg. 8

The Report on the Artificial Intelligence Task Force, Pg. 9,10.

The Report on the Artificial Intelligence Task Force, Pg. 9

ibid.

Artificial Intelligence in the Healthcare Industry in India https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/ai-and-healtchare-report

Artificial Intelligence in the Manufacturing and Services Sector https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/AIManufacturingandServices_Report _02.pdf

The Report on the Artificial Intelligence Task Force, Pg. 21.

Submission to the Committee of Experts on a Data Protection Framework for India, Centre for Internet and Society https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/data-protection-submission

The Report on the Artificial Intelligence Task Force, Pg. 22

Draft National Digital Communications Policy-2018, http://www.dot.gov.in/relatedlinks/draft-national-digital-communications-policy-2018

Task force set up to study AI application in military,https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/tech-news-technology/task-force-set-up-to-study-ai-application-in-military-5049568/

It is not just technical experts that are needed, ethical, technical, and legal experts as well as domain experts need to be part of the decision making process.

The Report on the Artificial Intelligence Task Force, Pg. 31

Constitutional validity of Aadhaar: the arguments in Supreme Court so far, http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/constitutional-validity-of-aadhaar-the-arguments-in-supreme-court-so-far/article22752084.ece

ibid.

CIS Submission to TRAI Consultation on Free Data http://trai.gov.in/Comments_FreeData/Companies_n_Organizations/Center_For_Internet_and_Society.pdf

The Report on the Artificial Intelligence Task Force, Pg. 30

Section 3(k) of the patent act describes that a mere mathematical or business method or a computer programme or algorithm cannot be patented.

Patent Office Reboots CRI Guidelines Yet Again: Removes “novel hardware” Requirement

https://spicyip.com/2017/07/patent-office-reboots-cri-guidelines-yet-again-removes-novel-hardware-requirement.html

The Report on the Artificial Intelligence Task Force, Pg. 37

The Report on the Artificial Intelligence Task Force, Pg. 7

ibid.

The Report on the Artificial Intelligence Task Force, Pg. 8

National Strategy for Artificial Intelligence: http://niti.gov.in/writereaddata/files/document_publication/NationalStrategy-for-AI-Discussion-Paper.pdf

Meaningful information and the right to explanation,Andrew D Selbst Julia Powles, International Data Privacy Law, Volume 7, Issue 4, 1 November 2017, Pages 233–242

The Principle of Purpose Limitation and Big Data, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319467399_The_Principle_of_Purpose_Limitation_and_Big_Data

M-Turk https://www.mturk.com/

For example a lesser threshold of minimum wages, no job secuirity etc, https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guilty-planet/httpblogsscientificamericancomguilty-planet20110707the-pros-cons-of-amazon-mechanical-turk-for-scientific-surveys/

The Report on the Artificial Intelligence Task Force, Pg. 41

Report of Artificial Intelligence Task Force Pg, 46, 47

ibid.

The DARPAChallenge https://www.darpa.mil/program/darpa-robotics-challenge

Japan may set regulatory sandboxes to test drones and self driving vehicles http://techwireasia.com/2017/10/japan-may-set-regulatory-sandboxes-test-drones-self-driving-vehicles/

Mariana Mazzucato in her 2013 book The Entrepreneurial State, argued that it was the government that drives technological innovation. In her book she stated that high-risk discovery and development were made possible by government spending, which the private enterprises capitalised once the difficult work was done.

https://tech.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/technology/govt-of-karnataka-launches-centre-of-excellence-for-data-science-and-artificial-intelligence/61689977,https://analyticsindiamag.com/amaravati-world-centre-for-ai-data/

The Report on the Artificial Intelligence Task Force, Pg. 47

Report of Artificial Intelligence Task Force Pg. 49

The Report on the Artificial Intelligence Task Force, Pg. 47

The AI task force website has a provision for public comments although it is only for the vision and mission and the domains mentioned in the website.

National Strategy for Artificial Intelligence: http://niti.gov.in/writereaddata/files/document_publication/NationalStrategy-for-AI-Discussion-Paper.pdf

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-ai-task-force-report-the-first-steps-towards-indias-ai-framework

The Age of Shame

nishant — 2014-04-04T04:05:31Z

The ability to capture private images is breeding a dangerous form of digital shaming. Within the online space, where wonderments often run rife, and conspiracy theories travel at the speed of light, there are many dark recesses where netizens half-jokingly, self-referentially, in a spirit of part-truth, part-exaggeration, often wonder on what the real reason is for the internet to exist.

Dr. Nishant Shah's column was published in the Indian Express on March 30, 2014.

Within the online space, where wonderments often run rife, and conspiracy theories travel at the speed of light, there are many dark recesses where netizens half-jokingly, self-referentially, in a spirit of part-truth, part-exaggeration, often wonder on what the real reason is for the internet to exist.

One suggestion, and probably the most persuasive one, drawing from the Broadway musical Avenue Q, is that the internet was made for porn. Positing a competing argument is a clowder of cat lovers, who insist that the internet was made for cats. Or, at least, it is definitely made of cats.

From the first internet memes like LOL Cats (and then subsequently Grumpy Cat, Ceiling Cat and Hipster Kitty), which had pictures of cats used for strong social, cultural and political commentary, to Caturday — a practice where users on the Web’s largest unmoderated discussion board, 4Chan, post pictures of cats every Saturday — cats are everywhere.

I want to add to this list and suggest that the internet was meant for “shame”. With the explosion of the interactive Web, more people getting access to mobile computing devices, and more websites inviting users to write reviews, leak pictures, expose videos and reveal more personal and private information online, there seems to be no doubt that we live in the age of digital shaming.

The aesthetic, also embedded in peer-to-peer platforms like chatroulete, or snapchat, where people often engage in sexting, is also becoming common in popular media. The ability to spy, to capture private images and videos, and expose the people who violate some imagined moral code has dangerous implications for the future of the Web and our own private lives. And as more of it goes unpunished and gets naturalised in our everyday digital practices, it is time to realise that the titillation it offers through scandal is far outweighed by the growing stress and grief it causes to victims. While there are some values to public shaming that ask for more transparency and accountability, we need to reflect on how it is creating societies of shame.

It sometimes emerges as an attempt to shame governments, private institutions, places of consumption, for compromise of the rights of the users.

Anything, from denial of service and corruption in government offices to bad food and substandard goods in restaurants and malls, is now reported in an attempt to shame the people responsible for it. This kind of “citizen journalism” allows for individual voices and experiences to be heard and documented, and the people in question are forced to be accountable for their jobs.

From fascinating websites like IPaidABribe.com to restaurant review sites like Zomato, we have seen an interesting phenomenon of “naming and shaming” that gives voice to individual discontent and anger. And so commonplace has this become, that most managers of different services and goods track, respond and mitigate the situation, often offering apologies and freebies to make up for that one bad experience.

Most big organisations have Twitter handles that function in a similar way, addressing grievances of users in real time, and helping to deliver better services and products. It is a new era of granular accountability that ensures that individual acts of discrimination, neglect or just disservice get reported and have direct impact on those responsible for it.

On the other end of the spectrum of this call for transparent and accountable structures, is the phenomenon of shaming and cyber bullying that is also increasing, especially with digital natives who spend more time online. On social networking sites, it has become almost passé, for personal and sensitive information to be leaked in order to shame and expose a person’s weaknesses and vulnerabilities. Especially for young teens who might be in a disadvantaged position — for reasons of sexual orientation, location, practices or interests — the shaming through exposing their private information often creates extremely traumatic conditions, even leading people to take their lives.
Shaming takes up particularly dire forms on websites and platforms that are designed to leak this kind of information. Hunter Moore, who has recently earned the title of being the most hated man on the internet, was the founder of a revenge-porn website, which invited male users to reveal sexual and embarrassing pictures of their former girlfriends and even spouses, to reveal them in compromising positions and shame them for being “sluts”.

Moore’s website has been shut down now and he is facing multiple charges of felony in the US, but that one site was just the tip of the iceberg. Slut shaming and trying to humiliate women has become a strong underground practice on the dark web. Hidden by anonymity and the security that the Web can sometimes offer, people betray the trust of their friends and lovers and expose them to be punished by voyeuristic audiences.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/indian-express-march-30-2014-nishant-shah-the-age-of-shame

The Aadhaar of all things

praskrishna — 2017-04-03T15:46:23Z

From a severely critical stand against Aadhaar in 2014, the Modi-led BJP in power has made a sharp U-turn to bulldoze its way into having every Indian scanned, tagged and labelled. A timeline of the country’s chequered date with the unique identification project.

The article by Shriya Mohan was published in the Hindu Businessline on March 31, 2017. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

You’ve probably read the WhatsApp joke about a post-Aadhaar scenario in 2020 India. A man orders pizza over phone. He is asked for his Aadhaar number first. He then orders a family-size seafood pizza, only to be reminded by the attendant about his high blood pressure and cholesterol levels (thanks to his Aadhaar history visible to everybody “on the system”) and is advised to order the low-fat Hokkien Mee pizza instead, based on his recent search history on Hokkien cuisine. As if this isn’t creepy enough, the pizza guy refuses a card payment, citing the man’s maxed-out credit cards, advises against ATM withdrawal owing to his massive overdraft and even decides to hold off the free cola offer given his dire health situation. When the man turns livid, he is told to mind his language, given that in 2007 he was already imprisoned for verbally abusing a policeman!

2020 is two and a half years away, and the WhatsApp scenario appears less incredulous by the day.

By the government’s latest estimate, 112,01,12,468 Aadhaar cards have been issued since January 2009, when the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) was set up under the Planning Commission. So if you are an adult Indian resident without an Aadhaar card, you are in a two per cent minority (98 per cent adults are covered).

Last week, Finance Minister Arun Jaitley said the 12-digit number would be the single monolith identity for all Indians in the coming years, replacing every other identity card. The government is serious because each week a new scheme is added to the three dozen schemes in which Aadhaar has been made mandatory. All the 84 schemes under the direct subsidy benefit transfer programme are expected to follow suit.

Here are just a few instances in which you should be ready to whip out your Aadhaar card — a free midday meal at a government school, access to Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan, LPG subsidy and foodgrains under the public distribution system, six scholarship schemes for students with disabilities, getting your EPF pensions, booking a train ticket online, getting a backward caste quota or benefit, and, according to the most recent directive in the Finance Bill, filing your tax returns.

Why did a dispensation so critical of Aadhaar in 2014 make a sharp U-turn to bulldoze its way into having every single Indian citizen scanned, tagged and labelled?

The earliest felt need for an identification project can be traced to the Kargil Review Committee, instituted by the Vajpayee Government in 1999, in the wake of the Indo-Pak war. The Krishnaswamy Subrahmanyam-led panel had recommended a citizenship database for the identification of legitimate Indian citizens living in border areas.

As outlined in a Scroll article, this quickly expanded to include all Indians under the Multipurpose National Identity Card project, which was pilot tested in a few villages. The Citizenship Act was also amended to give a legislative backing to the scheme, which built on the Bharatiya Janata Party’s general stance against illegal immigrants.

The search for identity

The Citizenship Act was amended in 2004 by the incumbent Congress government to make way for the National Population Register (NPR), a database of the identities of all Indian residents, maintained by the Registrar General and Census Commissioner of India.

Eventually, in 2009, Aadhaar, or UIDAI, surfaced as a 12-digit identification number that served as proof of identity and address — meaning, it applies to all residents whether they are citizens or not, unlike with the NPR. Aadhaar, which means ‘basis’ in Hindi, is intended to be an all-encompassing substratum of identities that can provide “instant access to services like banking, mobile phone connections and other government and non-government services”. The United Progressive Alliance government managed to link it to its Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) system for subsidies provided to targeted groups.

As the main Opposition party, the BJP had felt that the Aadhaar number ought to have been given only to Indian citizens, and not all residents, which, in its view, would include millions of illegal immigrants.

Nandan Nilekani, the former CEO of IT giant Infosys, was appointed UIDAI chairman in July 2009. The first Aadhaar number was issued in September 2010, and then the pace accelerated: 100 million by November 2011, 200 million by February 2012 and 500 million by end of 2013. “We felt speed was strategic. Doing and scaling things quickly was critical. If you move very quickly it doesn’t give opposition the time to consolidate,” Nilekani told Forbes India in a 2013 interview.

Here’s the part most of us forget: The largest opposition that Nilekani was referring to at that time was the BJP.

“The people who thought of themselves as having given birth to IT in this country refused to listen to a common man like me. Even the SC has demanded answers,” Narendra Modi, then Gujarat chief minister, had said and alleged that the Aadhaar programme was a bundle of lies to loot the country’s treasury.

As the BJP’s prime ministerial candidate for the 2014 Lok Sabha elections, days ahead of delivering the party’s biggest-ever victory, he had tweeted: “On Aadhaar, neither the Team that I met nor PM could answer my Qs on security threat it can pose. There is no vision, only political gimmick.” Recently, when Aadhaar enrolments had crossed the billion mark, this tweet was dug out prominently.

The U-turn

So, what changed? How did the Aadhaar’s primary opposition become it’s key crusader?

There were two meetings that supposedly changed the destiny of the Aadhaar project. In the first week of June 2014, as Nilekani was vacating his government-allotted Lutyen’s bungalow as UIDAI chief, he met Modi and Jaitley and persuaded the new regime to persist with Aadhaar. The more important meeting was with Vijay Madan, the UIDAI director general and mission director. According to a Governance Now article, when the UID team spoke of the potential savings from plugging subsidy leakages, and weeding out “ghost beneficiaries”, Modi asked them to give a precise estimate. The figure was “up to ₹50,000 crore a year” or a good 9.4 per cent of India’s ₹5,31,177-crore fiscal deficit.

Modi in his keenness to showcase the arrival of “acche din” immediately sought a 100-crore enrolment target at the ‘earliest’, putting paid to speculations that the new government would shelve the UIDAI project. A funding of ₹2,039.64 crore was formalised in the 2014-2015 Budget presented a week later, to create the infrastructure to enrol 30 crore people to add to the 70 crore already enrolled. The UIDAI targeted the 1-billion mark by the end of that fiscal.

Money bill to beat legal hurdles

It was in November 2012 that the SC admitted a PIL filed by retired Karnataka High Court judge KS Puttaswamy and advocate Parvesh Khanna, questioning the government’s decision to issue Aadhaar even as the National Identification Authority of India Bill 2010 was pending before the Rajya Sabha since December 3, 2010. They argued that there was no legislative backing for obtaining personal information. Also, the proposed law was rejected by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance.

The PIL argued that linking the Aadhaar number with food security, LPG subsidy, the Employees’ Provident Fund and other direct benefit transfers made the enrolment mandatory, thereby falsifying the government’s claim that it was voluntary. Several other PILs too voiced similar privacy concerns.

Currently, there are two legal strictures governing the validity of Aadhaar: the apex court order of October 15, 2015, limiting the card’s voluntary use to six schemes (PDS, MGNREGA, LPG, NEPS and social assistance programmes) and prohibiting the government from making it mandatory for receiving any benefits or services; and the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016, which is under challenge today. Both strictures have distinct operational status, but petitioners argue that recent government directives making Aadhaar mandatory are leading them to wonder whether the SC’s interim order is overshadowed by the Aadhaar Act or if the government is defying the court.

On March 3, 2016, in a surprise move, to put all dissent to rest, the Aadhaar Act was introduced as a Money Bill in Parliament to give it legislative backing. Things moved pretty fast thereon. On March 11, the Aadhaar Act 2016 was passed in the Lok Sabha. On March 26, the Act was notified. Accusing the BJP-led NDA government of showing “utter contempt” for the Rajya Sabha by taking the Money Bill route, senior Congress leader Jairam Ramesh challenged it in the Supreme Court in April. He likened the use of the Money Bill, which was passed overruling amendments moved in the Rajya Sabha, to “knocking a nail in the coffin of the Upper House”.

The government’s move took many, including Aadhaar advocates, by surprise. “We need to separate Aadhaar as identity from its specific functionality for which it’s used,” says Praveen Chakravarty, a senior fellow at the IDFC institute and a former member of Nilekani’s core team. He believes that just as a voter ID alone isn’t enough to vote, seeing the ownership of an Aadhaar card as key for any transaction is “fear-mongering”. Its use will still involve a process of checks and balances.

But can’t thumb prints be replicated with Fevicol?

“Sure, there could be failures, as there are with any system. But this is a far more foolproof method than any we’ve had before. Internationally also, biometric is to authenticate a higher level of security.”

The argument for privacy

“Aadhaar has the potential to improve welfare service delivery. But it has to be achieved in an inclusive manner befitting a truly liberal society and not through coercion,” says Chakravarty.

His only misgiving is with the use of the Money Bill to introduce the Aadhaar, without any right to privacy. “It should have gone through the process of debate in Parliament. Then it wouldn’t have been passed without a strong right to privacy safeguard,” he says, pointing that even a junior UIDAI officer can access the data of anybody he/she chooses.

“Aadhaar inverts the idea of transparency. It makes people transparent but the State opaque,” says legal expert Usha Ramanathan, a legal expert and anti-Aadhaar crusader.

The use of Aadhar as verification at every instance can help piece together very detailed information about citizens. These include banking transactions, online purchases, travel itineraries, mobile phone usage, location history and practically anything that can be electronically recorded and verified with an Aadhaar.

In February this year, the UIDAI filed a police case against Axis Bank and others for alleged unauthorised authentication and impersonation attempts by illegally storing Aadhaar biometrics.

The latest outcry over breached privacy involved a screenshot of cricketer Mahendra Singh Dhoni’s personal details that went viral on Twitter. The UIDAI blacklisted the agency that revealed Dhoni’s Aadhaar details after his wife complained to the IT Minister. A recent Scroll report shows the UIDAI received 1,390 similar complaints but took no action.

There are legitimate fears such an information database might eventually be misused, for instance in racial profiling or revealing voting preferences.

In January this year, Hyderabad-based ECIL developed a biometric-enabled mobile terminal for instant authentication of a voter “to prevent rigging of votes”. Till August 2015, the Election Commission was working on seeding Aadhaar data with that of voter ID card, in an attempt to weed out fake voters. However, the poll panel stopped this exercise after the SC ruled that Aadhaar be made compulsory only for PDS and LPG distribution.

Nilekani, in an interview to BLink, insisted that the Aadhaar has more privacy regulations than any other service in the world. He also pointed out that all election commission data is already online, and anyone can look up any voter’s name, date of birth, gender and address.

Additionally, social media profiles too are shared publicly of our own volition.

Concurring with this view, Chakravarty says, “It is surprising that we’re perfectly okay with giving all our life information to a 32-year-old named Mark Zuckerberg. However, this is voluntary. Whether we fully know consequences or not is another matter altogether.”

With the Finance Bill requiring all PAN cards to be linked to Aadhaar, there is added concern over privacy. Sunil Abraham, founder of the Centre for Internet and Society, says Aadhaar runs the risk of being used fraudulently. “If I want to get you in trouble, I can make a large purchase of gold against your Aadhaar number, which is linked to your PAN,” he explains.

He advocates for a system where different government departments don’t store Aadhaar numbers in their databases but instead use a token issued by UIADI kiosks. This would prevent proliferation of the number.

Technical glitches

In February this year, Modi claimed in the Lok Sabha that plugging leakages through Aadhaar had saved the government ₹14,000 crore. And that nearly four crore fake ration cards have been seized till date.

One method of establishing a fake ration card is if the owner has not availed himself of his ration. Ever since Aadhaar’s biometric identification has been linked to point-of-sale (POS) machines at ration shops, residents have had to queue up with a prayer on their lips. A lot could go wrong — the biometric might not recognise them or, worse, there could be a network failure, forcing everyone to return home empty-handed. In both instances, while ration shop owners should ideally mark such transactions under ‘Transactions with “N” response from Aadhaar’, they invariably mark them under “Household yet to take ration”, implying that the beneficiary has chosen not to take home her share.

The February 2017 data for 22 ration shops across Delhi, accessed on the Department of Food & Supplies website, shows that none have a single beneficiary marked under “N”. At a Delhi Cantonment outlet, of the 1,038 registered beneficiaries only 168 have been marked “Y”, or ‘Yes’, showing they have taken their rations. Another 871 have been marked “Household yet to take ration” and none have been marked ‘N’ to indicate glitches in the Aadhaar authentication.

As Amrita Johri of citizens’ action group Satark Nagrik Sangathan explains, “Aadhaar relies on internet and electricity. This might seem like a problem only of rural areas. But we don’t have to go far. In South Delhi’s East Mehraam Nagar, there is a ration shop with no mobile signal and no network. Officials said we have to show that Aadhaar is a success, so the shop’s POS machine was finally hung on a jamun tree to get it to work.”

She questions the government’s reluctance to acknowledge the many instances of failure in the project.

Frighteningly, three consecutive failed attempts could lead to the card being placed in an abeyance list and possibly invalidated.

Top performers and laggards

Delhi is rated one of the better performing States/union territories, while Rajasthan has one of the worst records with the maximum number of biometric and network failures.

According to the government’s 2017 monthly estimates, 27 per cent of the residents whose Aadhaar cards have been seeded to the PDS were denied rations owing to biometric or network failure. This figure would be higher if the unseeded cards are also taken into account.

Nikhil Dey, founder of Rajasthan’s Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) says his organisation is fighting with its back against a wall.

“Nearly 73 lakh households get their monthly rations in this State, where a little over a crore households are eligible to receive them. We’re not even talking about exclusions here,” says Dey. Besides network failure, there are many instances of the old and sick who are unable to visit the shop to physically verify themselves.

“Back-up options such as OTP (one-time password) or facial recognition only work in theory,” says Dey. He alleges that shop owners often fudge the OTP system by punching in their own numbers and stealing the quotas of genuine beneficiaries.

He too believes that several names have been struck off as dead to project that the Aadhaar has weeded out a high number of fake social security pension ers.

Nilekani applauds Andhra Pradesh for its progress in the Aadhaar project by investing in infrastructure to eliminate technical glitches. J Satyanarayana, the UIDAI’s part-time chairperson, told BLink in an email interview that Aadhaar has led to transparency and efficiency in nearly all government schemes in AP.

During March 2017, 42.29 lakh (93.02 per cent) pensioners received their payment through Aadhaar-based biometric authentication, he says, adding that real-time monitoring systems are in place.

“The entire PDS (rations) is linked to Aadhaar,” he says. As many as 1.21 crore (87.39 per cent) card holders collected their ration this month, and 95.94 lakh received wages (totalling ₹5,283 crore under MNREGA through Aadhaar-enabled systems, he informs.

Neighbouring Telangana too is known for its 99 per cent Aadhaar enrollment, leading to an impressive 80 per cent of its population accessing the PDS.

BP Acharya, special chief secretary in Telangana’s planning department says, “Aadhaar’s use can perhaps be most seen in Telangana’s speedy clearances, investment promotion, creating licences and clearances for shops and establishments.”

Telangana took the Aadhaar database project one step further through its Citizen 360 programme. In August 2014, months after the State was newly formed, it conducted one of the largest household surveys in a single day, covering one crore households. This data was integrated with the Aadhaar database and now links different benefits on the same platform. Now the Aadhaar identity is linked to other details such as the holder’s driving licence and even crime record.

The UIDAI holds out AP and Telangana as shining examples of Aadhaar’s efficiency when backed by the right network and infrastructure. But for the lakhs of biometric factory rejects who are denied their rights, Aadhaar can only mean a mass experiment gone horribly wrong.

Aadhaar Timeline

2006

The ministry of communications and information technology approves the ‘Unique ID for Below Poverty Line (BPL) families’ project under the chairmanship of Arvind Virmani, then principal advisor, Planning Commission

2008

Empowered group of ministers formed by former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh decides to collate two schemes — the National Population Register under the Citizenship Act, 1955 and the UID project — to conceive Aadhaar.

2009

Planning Commission issues a notification to constitute the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI).

Government appoints Infosys co-founder Nandan Nilekani as the first chairman of UIDAI, with the rank and status of a cabinet minister.

2012

Former Karnataka high court judge justice K Puttaswamy files a public interest litigation before the Supreme Court (SC) declaring that Aadhaar violates an individual’s right to privacy and that the scheme lacks legislative backing.

2014

In an interim order, the SC restrains the UIDAI from transferring biometric information with an Aadhaar number to any other agency without the individual’s consent in writing.

2015

Three-judge bench of the apex court rules the unique identity number is not mandatory to avail of benefits from government programmes, restricting the use of Aadhaar to beneficiaries of the public distribution system and subsidies on cooking gas and kerosene, and refers the question on privacy to a larger constitution bench.

Centre moves SC seeking a review and modification of the August 11 interim order. A five-judge constitution bench modifies the same and extends the use of Aadhaar to Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, Jan Dhan Yojana, pensions and the Employees’ Provident Fund scheme.

2016

Finance minister Arun Jaitley announces in the budget speech that the government will offer statutory backing for Aadhaar. The Lok Sabha passes the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Bill, 2016 as a Money Bill, rejecting Rajya Sabha recommendations.

2017

Aadhaar is made mandatory for three dozen schemes with 84 more expected under direct benefit transfers, including midday meal scheme and universal education.

SC again rules that Aadhaar cannot be made mandatory for welfare schemes.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/hindu-businessline-shriya-mohan-the-aadhaar-of-all-things