We are anonymous, we are legion

Millions of Indians move from cash to digital payments. But some ask whether it’s safe

praskrishna — 2017-01-16T02:52:33Z

Minutes after Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi began an ambitious new mobile-phone-payment application in December, several clones of the app popped up at Android smartphone stores.

The article by Rama Lakshmi was published by Washington Post on 14 January 2017, Sunil Abraham was quoted. Annie Gowen contributed to this report.

In the first few days, users were flooded with spam requests for money.

The Bhim app sponsored by the government was rushed out after Modi’s abrupt withdrawal of large currency bills two months ago. More than 10 million people downloaded it in just 10 days, but in a country where awareness and regulation of privacy, data protection and digital security are low, the number of cyberattacks is rising.

“We are rushing toward launching and using these plethora of financial tech apps without the exhaustive security testing and education that is needed,” said Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Center for Internet and Society. “We are operating in a bit of a regulatory vacuum.”

Modi’s ambitious move to swap old bills for new was intended to fight the hoarding of illicit cash reserves. But it was derailed by shoddy implementation, left citizens in Asia’s third-largest economy without cash for weeks, slowed manufacturing and sent workers home, and is now likely to significantly affect the country’s economic growth this year, economists say. It was acutely painful for a country where 80 percent of transactions were conducted with cash.

Modi quickly responded by turning the adversity into a call for Indians to kick their overwhelming dependence on cash and opt for digital payments overnight. The Bhim app is just one of many available. But in this leap, experts say, security concerns are being overlooked.

The new payment apps and e-wallet companies are governed by India’s outdated information technology law of 2008 and central bank guidelines.

“India urgently needs a new digital payment law that regulates all these mobile payment apps that have sprung up overnight,” said Pavan Duggal, a cyber-law expert. “We are right now in a completely uncharted and unsupervised territory legally. The norms for wallet companies are undefined. If I lose my money due to a fraud, I can go round and round in circles with no remedy.”

The central bank recently issued guidelines asking payment banks to carry out security audits, but Duggal said “there is no penalty or punishment for noncompliance.”

The problem is compounded by the fact that education about security risks online is abysmally sparse, especially in India’s small towns and villages. Indians are complacent about cyber risks in their online behavior, according to the Norton Cyber Security Insights Report. India does not have a privacy law.

India reported more than 39,000 incidents of cyberattacks in the first nine months of 2016, according to the government, including phishing, scanning and probing, website intrusions, defacements, virus and malicious code, and denial-of-service attacks.

“The Pentagon got hacked, right? You haven’t closed down the Pentagon as yet,” said Piyush Goyal, a minister. “These things will happen, and we have to be one step ahead of the hackers and the so-called security breaches and continuously improving and improvising as they do in America or other developed economies.”

In October, top banks had to fix the security codes of about 3.2 million debit cards in one of the biggest data breaches in India. Some users complained that their cards had been used in China.

Last month, hackers attacked Twitter and email accounts of prominent politicians and journalists and defaced the website of the National Security Guard, an elite commando force.

“The focus of global hackers has shifted to India. The cyber risk is a direct fallout of the growth in the number of digital users,” said Saket Modi, the chief executive of Lucideus Tech, the firm that conducted the security audit of the government’s Bhim app.

Since the cash crunch began, the largest private e-wallet company, Paytm, has experienced a 400 percent jump in new downloads.

But only 342 million people access the Internet on their mobile phones. The government has introduced dial-in service for those who have basic cellphones to make digital payments.

The government is airing radio jingles telling citizens not to share their personal identification numbers and has a toll-free helpline to teach people how to make online payments.

“Officials understand how security worries can be a big dampener in their campaign to get people to go digital,” said Vinayak Godse, senior director at the Data Security Council of India, an industry body that advises the government.

But in a trade-off between convenience and security, the central bank recently waived the mandatory two-factor authentication for transactions less than $30 online.

Some cybersecurity experts say that Indians are not ready for this step.

The police recently arrested a gang in the eastern state of Jharkhand; operators were calling people posing as bank executives and tricking them into sharing their card details. They used the cards to do online shopping and transferred money into their e-wallet accounts.

“People are gullible and can be threatened or lured to part with their bank details easily. We need as many safeguards as we can have,” said Surendra Kumar, a senior police officer in New Delhi who busted the gang.

But the biggest problem people face is that police in one state get very little cooperation from those in another state in digital-crime complaints, said Rakshit Tandon, a cybersecurity expert who trains police, military members and school students.

“Only in big-ticket frauds will police departments from different states coordinate their investigations,” Tandon said. “If a person loses a relatively smaller amount digitally, the case won’t go far. Even though that amount may mean a lot in that person’s life.”

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/washington-post-january-14-2017-rama-lakshmi-millions-of-indians-move-from-cash-to-digital-payments

Global Governance Futures 2027 - Session 3, New Delhi

sumandro — 2017-01-15T11:46:27Z

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

About the Programme: External Link.

GGF 2027 Fellows: External Link.

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

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

Social Media Monitoring

amber — 2017-01-16T14:23:13Z

We see a trend of social media and communication monitoring and surveillance initiatives in India which have the potential to create a chilling effect on free speech online and raises question about the privacy of individuals. In this paper, Amber Sinha looks at social media monitoring as a tool for surveillance, the current state of social media surveillance in India, and evaluate how the existing regulatory framework in India may deal with such practices in future.

Social Media Monitoring: Download (PDF)

Introduction

In 2014, the Government of India launched the much lauded and popular citizen outreach website called MyGov.in. A press release by the government announced that they had roped in global consulting firm PwC to assist in the data mining exercise to process and filter key points emerging from debates on Mygov.in. While this was a welcome move, the release also mentioned that the government intended to monitor social media sites in order to gauge popular opinion. Further, earlier this year, the government set up National Media Analytics Centre (NMAC) to monitor blogs, media channels, news outlets and social media platforms. The tracking software used by NMAC will generate tags to classify post and comments on social media into negative, positive and neutral categories, paying special attention to “belligerent” comments, and also look at the past patterns of posts. A project called NETRA has already been reported in the media a few years back which would intercept and analyse internet traffic using pre-defined filters. Alongside, we see other initiatives which intend to use social media data for predictive policing purposes such as CCTNS and Social Media Labs.

Thus, we see a trend of social media and communication monitoring and surveillance initiatives announced by the government which have the potential to create a chilling effect on free speech online and raises question about the privacy of individuals. Various commentators have raised concerns about the legal validity of such programmes and whether they were in violation of the fundamental rights to privacy and free expression, and the existing surveillance laws in India. The lack of legislation governing these programmes often translates into an absence of transparency and due procedure. Further, a lot of personal communication now exists in the public domain which renders traditional principles which govern interception and monitoring of personal communications futile. In the last few years, the blogosphere and social media websites in India have also changed and become platforms for more dissemination of political content, often also accompanied by significant vitriol, ‘trolling’ and abuse. Thus, we see greater policing of public or semi-public spaces online. In this paper, we look at social media monitoring as a tool for surveillance, the current state of social media surveillance in India and evaluate how the existing regulatory framework in India may deal with such practices in future.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/social-media-monitoring

Comments on the Proposed ICANN Community Anti-Harassment Policy

Padma Venkataraman, Rohini Lakshané, Sampada Nayak and Vidushi Marda — 2017-01-13T15:56:40Z

ICANN sought community input on the Proposed ICANN Community Anti-Harassment Policy on 7 November 2016. In response to this the Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) submitted its comments.

We at CIS are grateful for the opportunity to comment on the proposed ICANN Community Anti-Harassment Policy (“Policy”). We provide our specific comments to the Policy below, in three sections. The first section addresses the Terms of Participation, the second deals with the Reporting and Complaint Procedure, and the third places on record our observations on questions and issues for further consideration which have not been covered by the Policy.

Besides various other observations, CIS broadly submitted:

The attempt to provide an exhaustive definition of “Specified Characteristics” results in its meaning being unclear and exclusionary.
CIS strongly supports the phrase “including, but not limited to” that is followed by a bulleted list of inappropriate conduct.
The word “consent” is entirely missing from the draft policy even though the deciding factor in the “appropriateness” of an act or conduct is active and explicit consent to the act by both/ all individuals involved.
There is a need for clarity of communication platforms. The current Policy fails to specify instances of face-to-face and online communications.
The policy fails to account for a body of persons (as is provided for in the IETF policy) for the redressal of harassment complaints.
The provision for an informal resolution of a harassment issue is problematic as it could potentially lead to negative consequences for the complainant.
The Ombudsperson’s discretion in the determination of remedial action is detrimental to transparency and accountability.
The Policy in its current form lacks provisions for ensuring privacy and confidentiality of the complainant as well as interim relief while the Ombudsperson is looking into the complaint

Read the Complete Submission here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/comments-on-the-proposed-icann-community-anti-harassment-policy

Comments on the Report of the Committee on Digital Payments (December 2016)

Sumandro Chattapadhyay and Amber Sinha — 2017-01-12T12:32:22Z

The Committee on Digital Payments constituted by the Ministry of Finance and chaired by Ratan P. Watal, Principal Advisor, NITI Aayog, submitted its report on the "Medium Term Recommendations to Strengthen Digital Payments Ecosystem" on December 09, 2016. The report was made public on December 27, and comments were sought from the general public. Here are the comments submitted by the Centre for Internet and Society.

1. Preliminary

1.1. This submission presents comments by the Centre for Internet and Society (“CIS”) [1] in response to the report of the Committee on Digital Payments, chaired by Mr. Ratan P. Watal, Principal Advisor, NITI Aayog, and constituted by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India (“the report”) [2].

2. The Centre for Internet and Society

2.1. The Centre for Internet and Society, CIS, is a non-profit organisation that undertakes interdisciplinary research on internet and digital technologies from policy and academic perspectives. The areas of focus include digital accessibility for persons with diverse abilities, access to knowledge, intellectual property rights, openness (including open data, free and open source software, open standards, and open access), internet governance, telecommunication reform, digital privacy, and cyber-security.

2.2. CIS is not an expert organisation in the domain of banking in general and payments in particular. Our expertise is in matters of internet and communication governance, data privacy and security, and technology regulation. We deeply appreciate and are most inspired by the Ministry of Finance’s decision to invite entities from both the sectors of finance and information technology. This submission is consistent with CIS’ commitment to safeguarding general public interest, and the interests and rights of various stakeholders involved, especially the citizens and the users. CIS is thankful to the Ministry of Finance for this opportunity to provide a general response on the report.

3. Comments

3.1. CIS observes that the decision by the Government of India to withdraw the legal tender character of the old high denomination banknotes (that is, Rs. 500 Rs. 1,000 notes), declared on November 08, 2016 [3], have generated unprecedented data about the user base and transaction patterns of digital payments systems in India, when pushed to its extreme use due to the circumstances. The majority of this data is available with the National Payments Corporation of India and the Reserve Bank of India. CIS requests the authorities concerned to consider opening up this data for analysis and discussion by public at large and experts in particular, before any specific policy and regulatory decisions are taken towards advancing digital payments proliferation in India. This is a crucial opportunity for the Ministry of Finance to embrace (open) data-driven regulation and policy-making.

3.2. While the report makes a reference to the European General Data Protection Directive, it does not make a reference to any substantive provisions in the Directive which may be relevant to digital payments. Aside from the recommendation that privacy protections around the purpose limitation principle be relaxed to ensure that payment service providers be allowed to process data to improve fraud monitoring and anti-money laundering services, the report is silent on significant privacy and data protection concerns posed by digital payments services. CIS strongly warns that the existing data protection and security regulations under Information Technology (Reasonable security practices and procedures and sensitive personal data or information), Rules are woefully inadequate in their scope and application to effectively deal with potential privacy concerns posed by digital payments applications and services. Some key privacy issues that must be addressed either under a comprehensive data protection legislation or a sector specific financial regulation are listed below. The process of obtaining consent must be specific, informed and unambiguous and through a clear affirmative action by the data subject based upon a genuine choice provided along with an option to opt out at any stage. The data subjects should have clear and easily enforceable right to access and correct their data. Further, data subjects should have the right to restrict the usage of their data in circumstances such as inaccuracy of data, unlawful purpose and data no longer required in order to fulfill the original purpose.

3.3. The initial recommendation of the report is to “[m]ake regulation of payments independent from the function of central banking” (page 22). This involves a fundamental transformation of the payment and settlement system in India and its regulation. We submit that a decision regarding transformation of such scale and implications is taken after a more comprehensive policy discussion, especially involving a wider range of stakeholders. The report itself notes that “[d]igital payments also have the potential of becoming a gateway to other financial services such as credit facilities for small businesses and low-income households” (page 32). Thus, a clear functional, and hence regulatory, separation between the (digital) payments industry and the lending/borrowing industry may be either effective or desirable. Global experience tells us that digital transactions data, along with other alternative data, are fast becoming the basis of provision of financial and other services, by both banking and non-banking (payments) companies. We appeal to the Ministry of Finance to adopt a comprehensive and concerted approach to regulating, enabling competition, and upholding consumers’ rights in the banking sector at large.

3.4. The report recognises “banking as an activity is separate from payments, which is more of a technology business” (page 154). Contemporary banking and payment businesses are both are primarily technology businesses where information technology particularly is deployed intimately to extract, process, and drive asset management decisions using financial transaction data. Further, with payment businesses (such as, pre-paid instruments) offering return on deposited money via other means (such as, cashbacks), and potentially competing and/or collaborating with established banks to use financial transaction data to drive lending decisions, including but not limited to micro-loans, it appears unproductive to create a separation between banking as an activity and payments as an activity merely in terms of the respective technology intensity of these sectors. CIS firmly recommends that regulation of these financial services and activities be undertaken in a technology-agnostic manner, and similar regulatory regimes be deployed on those entities offering similar services irrespective of their technology intensity or choice.

3.5. The report highlights two major shortcomings of the current regulatory regime for payments. Firstly “the law does not impose any obligation on the regulator to promote competition and innovation in the payments market” (page 153). It appears to us that the regulator’s role should not be to promote market expansion and innovation but to ensure and oversee competition. We believe that the current regulator should focus on regulating the existing market, and the work of the expansion of the digital payments market in particular and the digital financial services market in general be carried out by another government agency, as it creates conflict of interest for the regulator otherwise. Secondly, the report mentions that Payment and Settlement Systems Act does not “focus the regulatory attention on the need for consumer protection in digital payments” and then it notes that a “provision was inserted to protect funds collected from customers” in 2015 (page 153). This indicates that the regulator already has the responsibility to ensure consumer protection in digital payments. The purview and modalities of how this function of course needs discussion and changes with the growth in digital payments.

3.6. The report identifies the high cost of cash as a key reason for the government’s policy push towards digital payments. Further, it mentions that a “sample survey conducted in 2014 across urban and rural neighbourhoods in Delhi and Meerut, shows that despite being keenly aware of the costs associated with transacting in cash, most consumers see three main benefits of cash, viz. freedom of negotiations, faster settlements, and ensuring exact payments” (page 30). It further notes that “[d]igital payments have significant dependencies upon power and telecommunications infrastructure. Therefore, the roll out of robust and user friendly digital payments solutions to unelectrified areas/areas without telecommunications network coverage, remains a challenge.” CIS much appreciates the discussion of the barriers to universal adoption and rollout of digital payments in the report, and appeals to the Ministry of Finance to undertake a more comprehensive study of the key investments required by the Government of India to ensure that digital payments become ubiquitously viable as well as satisfy the demands of a vast range of consumers that India has. The estimates about investment required to create a robust digital payment infrastructure, cited in the report, provide a great basis for undertaking studies such as these.

3.7. CIS is very encouraged to see the report highlighting that “[w]ith the rising number of users of digital payment services, it is absolutely necessary to develop consumer confidence on digital payments. Therefore, it is essential to have legislative safeguards to protect such consumers in-built into the primary law.” We second this recommendation and would like to add further that financial transaction data is governed under a common data protection and privacy regime, without making any differences between data collected by banking and non-banking entities.

3.8. We are, however, very discouraged to see the overtly incorrect use of the word “Open Access” in this report in the context of a payment system disallowing service when the client wants to transact money with a specific entity [4]. This is not an uncommon anti-competitive measure adopted by various platform players and services providers so as to disallow users from using competing products (such as, not allowing competing apps in the app store controlled by one software company). The term “Open Access” is not only the appropriate word to describe the negation of such anti-competitive behaviour, its usage in this context undermines its accepted meaning and creates confusion regarding the recommendation being proposed by the report. The closest analogy to the recommendation of the report would perhaps be with the principle of “network neutrality” that stands for the network provider not discriminating between data packets being processed by them, either in terms of price or speed.

3.9. A major recommendation by the report involves creation of “a fund from savings generated from cash-less transactions … by the Central Government,” which will use “the trinity of JAM (Jan Dhan, Adhaar, Mobile) [to] link financial inclusion with social protection, contributing to improved Social and Financial Security and Inclusion of vulnerable groups/ communities” (page 160-161). This amounts to making Aadhaar a mandatory ID for financial inclusion of citizens, especially the marginal and vulnerable ones, and is in direct contradiction to the government’s statements regarding the optional nature of the Aadhaar ID, as well as the orders by the Supreme Court on this topic.

3.10. The report recommends that “Aadhaar should be made the primary identification for KYC with the option of using other IDs for people who have not yet obtained Aadhaar” (page 163) and further that “Aadhaar eKYC and eSign should be a replacement for paper based, costly, and shared central KYC registries” (page 162). Not only these measures would imply making Aadhaar a mandatory ID for undertaking any legal activity in the country, they assume that the UIDAI has verified and audited the personal documents submitted by Aadhaar number holders during enrollment. A mandate for replacement of the paper-based central KYC agencies will only remove a much needed redundancy in the the identity verification infrastructure of the government.

3.11. The report suggests that “[t]ransactions which are permitted in cash without KYC should also be permitted on prepaid wallets without KYC” (page 164-165). This seems to negate the reality that physical verification of a person remains one of the most authoritative identity verification process for a natural person, apart from DNA testing perhaps. Thus, establishing full equivalency of procedure between a presence-less transaction and one involving a physically present person making the payment will only amount to removal of relatively greater security precautions for the former, and will lead to possibilities of fraud.

3.12. In continuation with the previous point, the report recommends promotion of “Aadhaar based KYC where PAN has not been obtained” and making of “quoting Aadhaar compulsory in income tax return for natural persons” (page 163). Both these measures imply a replacement of the PAN by Aadhaar in the long term, and a sharp reduction in growth of new PAN holders in the short term. We appeal for this recommendation to be reconsidered as integration of all functionally separate national critical information infrastructures (such as PAN and Aadhaar) into a single unified and centralised system (such as Aadhaar) engenders massive national and personal security threats.

3.13. The report suggest the establishment of “a ranking and reward framework” to recognise and encourage for the best performing state/district/agency in the proliferation of digital payments. It appears to us that creation of such a framework will only lead to making of an environment of competition among these entities concerned, which apart from its benefits may also have its costs. For example, the incentivisation of quick rollout of digital payment avenues by state government and various government agencies may lead to implementation without sufficient planning, coordination with stakeholders, and precautions regarding data security and privacy. The provision of central support for digital payments should be carried out in an environment of cooperation and not competition.

3.14. CIS welcomes the recommendation by the report to generate greater awareness about cost of cash, including by ensuring that “large merchants including government agencies should account and disclose the cost of cash collection and cash payments incurred by them periodically” (page 164). It, however, is not clear to whom such periodic disclosures should be made. We would like to add here that the awareness building must simultaneously focus on making public how different entities shoulder these costs. Further, for reasons of comparison and evidence-driven policy making, it is necessary that data for equivalent variables are also made open for digital payments - the total and disaggregate cost, and what proportion of these costs are shouldered by which entities.

3.15. The report acknowledges that “[t]oday, most merchants do not accept digital payments” and it goes on to recommend “that the Government should seize the initiative and require all government agencies and merchants where contracts are awarded by the government to provide at-least one suitable digital payment option to its consumers and vendors” (page 165). This requirement for offering digital payment option will only introduce an additional economic barrier for merchants bidding for government contracts. We appeal to the Ministry of Finance to reconsider this approach of raising the costs of non-digital payments to incentivise proliferation of digital payments, and instead lower the existing economic and other barriers to digital payments that keep the merchants away. The adoption of digital payments must not lead to increasing costs for merchants and end-users, but must decrease the same instead.

3.16. As the report was submitted on December 09, 2016, and was made public only on December 27, 2016, it would have been much appreciated if at least a month-long window was provided to study and comment on the report, instead of fifteen days. This is especially crucial as the recently implemented demonetisation and the subsequent banking and fiscal policy decisions taken by the government have rapidly transformed the state and dynamics of the payments system landscape in India in general, and digital payments in particular.

Endnotes

[1] See: http://cis-india.org/.

[2] See: http://finmin.nic.in/reports/Note-watal-report.pdf and http://finmin.nic.in/reports/watal_report271216.pdf.

[3] See: http://finmin.nic.in/cancellation_high_denomination_notes.pdf.

[4] Open Access refers to “free and unrestricted online availability” of scientific and non-scientific literature. See: http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/comments-on-the-report-of-the-committee-on-digital-payments-dec-2016

Myanmar Digital Rights Forum proposes a path away from 66(d)

praskrishna — 2017-01-10T15:09:21Z

More than 55 representatives from technology companies, government, media and civil society organizations gathered at the innovation lab Phandeeyar to participate in the Myanmar Digital Rights Forum this morning. The two-day event was organized to address critical digital rights challenges in Myanmar.

This was published by Coconuts Yangon on December 14, 2016. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

Nica Dumlao from the Philippine Internet Freedom Alliance speaks at the forum. Photo: Phandeeyar

Over the last two years, Myanmar has experienced a connectivity revolution; tens of millions of people have hopped onto the web all at once. However, recent events have highlighted how vulnerable people in Myanmar are when communicating and sharing information online.

Daw Ei Myat Noe Khin, a Phandeeyar associate and co-organizer of the event, explained: “Myanmar’s laws and regulations were changed to enable millions of people to get connected. However, not nearly enough has been done to protect the rights of these users. Urgent legislative action is needed to ensure that the rights and freedoms that the Myanmar people now enjoy offline are also protected when they are using the internet.”

Rights groups and media organizations have noted the threats to freedom of speech posed by the arrest under Article 66(d) of Myanmar’s Telecommunications Law of journalists and ordinary citizens for Facebook posts.

Nay Phone Latt, the former political prisoner and free speech activist who now serves in the Yangon Region parliament, called for changes to Myanmar’s laws, which are now being used to sue people for as actions as little as leaving a comment on social media.

“Even though I am now an MP, my opinion on free speech has not changed,” he said.

He also called on Union-level lawmakers to attend similar forums and ultimately improve the laws relating to digital rights.

However, Article 66(d) is only one of many issues that need to be addressed. According to speakers at the forum, other critical issues include information privacy, the right to information, online hate speech, cyberbullying, revenge porn and phishing scams.

Vicky Bowman, director of Myanmar Center for Responsible Business, recounted the story from a few years ago of an NGO leader who gave away $80,000 of his organization’s money when he was duped by a phishing scam online.

“Are Myanmar people aware of digital rights? I don’t think so. They’re excited about SIM cards and gadgets, but they’re probably not reading the terms and conditions.”

There is still a lot to worry about in the realm of digital rights in Myanmar, she said.

In this challenging environment, the forum’s attendees are working to develop specific policy recommendations, strategies and campaigns to ensure digital rights to the people of Myanmar.

“The benefits of connectivity won’t be realized if people are scared to use the internet. The objective of the Myanmar Digital Rights Forum is to raise awareness about the importance of these issues and to develop concrete plans to address them,” said Daw Htaike Htaike Aung, executive director of Myanmar ICT for Development Organization (MIDO).

Some speakers offered the experiences of other countries as models for what Myanmar might be able to do to protect internet users. Sunil Abraham, the executive director of the Bangalore-based Center for Internet and Society, urged against thinking of companies and governments as monoliths. There are people in government, he said, who do have the rights of citizens in mind. He also advised digital rights campaigners to pursue change on all sides of the political spectrum, just as free-software activists found support in India’s communist and nationalist parties.

Ms Cheekay Cinco, a program manager for Engage Media, said: “This is not a Myanmar problem. Hyper-connectivity in the region has led to greater criminalization of online activities. Over the years, spaces in Southeast Asia have been created to talk about these issues. We can only spark development and change when these spaces continue to flourish and have participation from different sectors.”

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/coconuts-yangon-december-14-2016-myanmar-digital-rights-forum-proposes-a-path-away-from-66d

New Media, personalisation and the role of algorithms

amber — 2017-01-16T07:20:52Z

In his much acclaimed book, The Filter Bubble, Eli Pariser explains how personalisation of services on the web works and laments that they are creating individual bubbles for each user, which run counter to the idea of the Internet as an inherently open place. While Pariser’s book looks at the practices of various large companies providing online services, he briefly touches upon the role of new media such as search engines and social media portals in new curation. Building upon Pariser’s unexplored argument, this article looks at the impact of algorithmic decision-making and Big Data in the context of news reporting and curation.

Everything which bars freedom and fullness of communication sets up barriers that divide human beings into sets and cliques, into antagonistic sects and factions, and thereby undermines the democratic way of life. —John Dewey

Eli Pariser, in his book, The Filter Bubble,[1] refers to the scholarship by Walter Lippmann and John Dewey as integral to the evolution of the understanding of the democratic and ethical duties of the Fourth Estate. Lippmann was disillusioned by the role of newspapers in propaganda for the First World War. He responded with three books in quick succession — Liberty and the News,[2] Public Opinion[3] and The Phantom Public.[4] Lippmann brought attention the fact that the process of news-reporting was conducted through privately determined and unexamined standards. The failure of the Fourth Estate to perform its democratic functions, was, in the opinion of Lippmann, one of the prime factors responsible for the public not being an informed and rational entity. John Dewey, while rejecting Lippmann’s arguments that matters of public policy can only be determined by inside experts with training and education, did acknowledge the his critique of the media.

Pariser points to the creation of a wall between editorial decisionmaking and advertiser interests, as the eventual result of the Lippmann and Dewey debate. While accepting that this division between the financial and reporting sides of media houses has not been always observed, Pariser emphasises that the fact that the standard exists is important.[5] Unlike traditional media, the new media which relies on algorithmic decision-making for personalisation is not subject to the same standards which try to mitigate the influence of commercial interests on editorial decisions while performing many of the same functions as the traditional media.[6]

How personalisation algorithms work

Kevin Slavin, at his famous talk in the TEDGLobal Conference, characterised algorithms as “maths that computers use to decide stuff” and that it was infiltrating every aspect of our lives.[7] According to Slavin’s view, algorithms can be seen as control technologies and shape our world constantly through media and information systems, dynamically modifying content and function through these programmed routines. Search engines and social media platforms perpetually rank user-generated content through algorithms.[8]

Personalisation technologies have various advantages. It translates into more relevant content, which for service providers means more clicks and revenue and for consumer, less time spent on finding the content.[9] However, it also leads to privacy compromise, lack of control and reduced individual capability.[10] Search engines like Google use the famous PageRank algorithm, which combined with geographical location and previous searches yields most relevant search results.[11] PageRank algorithm uses various real time variables dependent on both voluntary and involuntary user inputs. These variables include number of clicks, number of occurrences of the key terms and number of references by other credible pages etc. This data in turn determines the order of pages in search results and influences the way we perceive, understand and analyse information.[12] Maps showing real time traffic information retrieve data from laser and infrared sensors alongside the road and from information from devices of users. Once this real time data is combined with historical trends, these maps recommend rout to every user, hence influencing the traffic patterns.[13]

Even though this phenomenon of personalization may appears to be new, it has been prevalent in the society for ages.[14] The history of mass media culture clearly shows personalization has always been a method to increase market, market reach and customer satisfaction.[15] Newspapers have sections dedicated to special topics, radio and TV have channels dedicated to different interest groups, age groups and consumers.[16] These personalised sections in a newspaper and personalised channels on radio and television don’t just provide greater satisfaction to the readers or listeners or consumers, they also provide targeted advertisement space for the advertisers and content developers. However, digital footprints and mass collection of data have made this phenomenon much more granular and detailed. Geographical location of an individual can tell a lot about their community, their culture and other important traits local to a community.[17] This data further assists in personalisation. Current developments in technology not only help in better collection of data about personal preferences but also help in better personalisation.

Pariser mentions three ways in which the personalization technologies of this day are different from those of the past. First, for the very first time, individuals are alone in the filter bubble. While in traditional forms of personalisation, there were various individuals who shared the same frame of reference, now there is a separate sets of filters governing the dissemination of content to each individual.[18] Second, the personalisation technologies are entirely invisible now, and there is little that consumers can do to control or modify them.[19] Third, often the decision to be subject to these personalisation technologies is not an informed choice. A good example of this would be an individual’s geographical location.[20]

The neutrality of New Media?

More and more, we have noticed personalisation technologies having an impact on how we consume news on the Internet. Google News, Facebook’s News Feed which tries to put together a dynamic feed for both personal and global stories, and Twitter’s trending hashtag feature, have brought forward these services are key drivers of an emerging news ecosystem. Initially, this new media was hailed as a natural consequence of the Internet which would enable greater public participation, allow journalists to find more stories and engage with the readers directly. An illustration of the same could be seen in the way Internet based news media and social networking websites behaved in the aftermath of Israel’s attacks on a United Nations run school in Gaza strip. While much of the international Internet media covered the story, Israel’s home media did not cover the story. The only exception to this was the liberal Israeli news website Ha’aretz.[21] Network graph details of Twitter, for a few days immediately after the incident clearly show the social media manifestation of the event in the personalised cyberspace. It is clearly visible that when most of the word was re-tweeting news of this heinous act of Israel, Israeli’s hardly re-tweeted this news. In fact they were busty re-tweeting the news of rocket attacks on Israel.[22]

The use of social media in newsmaking was hailed by many scholars as symptomatic of the decentralisation characteristic of the Internet. It has been seen as movement towards greater grassroots participation by negating the ‘gatekeeping’ role traditionally played by editors. Thomas Poell and José van Dijck punch holes in theory of social media and other online technologies as mere facilitators of user participation and translators of user preferences through Big Data analytics.[23] They quote T. Gillespie’s work which talks of the narrative of these online services as platforms which are “open, neutral, egalitarian and progressive support for activity.”[24]

Pedro Domingos calls the overwhelming number of choices as the defining problem of the information age, and machine learning and data analytics as the largest part of this solution.[25] The primary function of algorithmic decision making in the context of consumption of content is to narrow down the choices. Domingos is more optimistic about the impact of these technologies, and he says “last step of the decision is usually still for humans to make, but learners intelligently reduce the choices to something a human can manage.”[26] On the other hand, Pariser is more circumspect about the coercive result of machine learning algorithms. Whichever way we lean, we have to accept that a large part of personalisation algorithms is to select and prioritize content by categorising it on the basis of relevance and popularity.

Poell and van Dijck call this a new knowledge logic which in effect replaces human judgement (as, earlier exercised by editors) to some kind of proxy decisionmaking based on data. Their main thesis is that there is little evidence to suggest that the latter is more democratic than former and creates new problems of its own. They go on to compare the practices of various services including Facebook’s new graph and Twitter’s trending topic, and conclude that they prioritise breaking news stories over other kinds of content.[27] For instance, the algorithm for the trending topics depends not on the volume but the velocity of the tweets with the hashtag or term. It could be argued that given this predilection, the algorithms will rarely prefer complex content. If we go by Lippmann and Dewey’s idea that the role of the Fourth Estate is to inform public debate and accountability of those in positions of power, this aspect of Big Data algorithms does not correspond with this role.

Quantified Audience

Another aspect of use of Big Data and algorithms in New Media that requires attention is that the networked infrastructure enables a quantified audience. C W Anderson who has studied newsroom practices in the US looked at role played by audience quantification and rationalization in shifting newswork practices. He concluded that more and more, journalists are less autonomous in their news decisions and increasingly reliant on audience metrics as a supplement to news judgment.[28] Poell and van Dijck review the the practices by some leading publications such a New York Times, L.A. Times and Huffington Post, and degree to which audience metrics dictates editorial decisions. While New York Times seems to prioritise content on their social media portals based on expectation of spike in user traffic, L.A. Times goes one step further by developing content specifically aimed towards promoting greater social participation. Neither of these practices though compare to the reliance on SEO and SMO strategies of web-born news providers like Huffington Post. They have traffic editors who trawl the Internet for trending topics and popular search terms, the feedback from them dictates the content creation.[29]

Conclusion

The above factors demonstrate that the idea of New Media leading to the Fourth Estate performing its democratic functions does not take into account the actual practices. This idea is based on the erroneous assumption that technology, in general and algorithms, in particular are neutral. While the emergence of New Media might have reduced the gatekeeping role played by the editors, its strong prioritisation of content that will be popular reduce the validity of arguments that it leads to more informed public discussion. As Pariser said, the traditional media scores over the New Media inasmuch as there is an existence of a standard of division between editorial decisionmaking and advertiser interest. While this standard is flouted by media houses all the time, it exists as a metric to aspire to and measure service providers against. The New Media performs many of the same functions and maybe it is time to evolve some principles and ethical standards that take into account the need for it to perform these democratic functions.

Endnotes

^{^[1]} Eli Pariser, The Filter Bubble: What the Internet is hiding from you (The Penguin Press, New York, 2011)

[2] Walter Lippmann, Liberty and News (Harcourt, Brace and Howe, New York 1920) available athttps://archive.org/details/libertyandnews01lippgoog

^{^[3]} Walter Lippmann, Public Opinion (Harcourt, Brace and Howe, New York 1920) available at http://xroads.virginia.edu/~Hyper2/CDFinal/Lippman/cover.html

^{^[4]} Walter Lippmann, The Phantom Public (Transaction Publishers, New York, 1925)

^{^[5]} Supra Note 1 at 35.

^{^[6]} Supra Note 1 at 36.

^{^[7]} https://www.ted.com/talks/kevin_slavin_how_algorithms_shape_our_world/transcript?language=en

^{^[8]} Fenwick McKelvey, “Algorithmic Media Need Democratic Methods: Why Publics Matter”, available at http://www.fenwickmckelvey.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/2746-9231-1-PB.pdf.

^{^[9]} http://mashable.com/2011/06/03/filters-eli-pariser/#9tIHrpa_9Eq1

^{^[10]} Helen Ashman, Tim Brailsford, Alexandra Cristea, Quan Z Sheng, Craig Stewart, Elaine Torns and Vincent Wade, “The ethical and social implications of personalization technologies for e-learning” available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378720614000524.

^{^[11]} Sergey Brin and Lawrence Page, “The Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine” available at http://infolab.stanford.edu/pub/papers/google.pdf.

^{^[12]} Ian Rogers, “The Google Pagerank Algorithm and How It Works” available at http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~chazelle/courses/BIB/pagerank.htm.

^{^[13]} Trygve Olson and Terry Nelson, “The Internet’s Impact on Political Parties and Campaigns”, available at http://www.kas.de/wf/doc/kas_19706-544-2-30.pdf?100526130942.

^{^[14]} Ian Witten, “Bias, privacy and and personalisation on the web”, available at http://www.cs.waikato.ac.nz/~ihw/papers/07-IHW-Bias,privacyonweb.pdf.

^{^[15]} Supra Note 1 at 10.

^{^[16]} https://www.americanpressinstitute.org/publications/reports/survey-research/social-demographic-differences-news-habits-attitudes/

^{^[17]} Charles Heatwole, “Culture: A Geographical Perspective” available at http://www.p12.nysed.gov/ciai/socst/grade3/geograph.html.

^{^[18]} Supra Note 1 at 10.

^{^[19]} Id.

^{^[20]} Supra Note 1 at 11.

^{^[21]} Paul Mason, “Why Israel is losing the social media war over Gaza?” available at http://blogs.channel4.com/paul-mason-blog/impact-social-media-israelgaza-conflict/1182.

^{^[22]} Gilad Lotan, Israel, Gaza, War & Data: Social Networks and the Art of Personalizing Propaganda available at www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/israel-gaza-war-social-networks-data_b_5658557.html

^{^[23]} Thomas Poell and José van Dijck, “Social Media and Journalistic Independence” in Media Independence: Working with Freedom or Working for Free?, edited by James Bennett & Niki Strange. (Routledge, London, 2015)

^{^[24]} T Gillespie, “The politics of ‘platforms,” in New Media & Society (Volume 12, Issue 3).

^{^[25]} Pedro Domingos, The Master Algorithm: How the quest for the ultimate learning machine will re-make the world (Basic Books, New York, 2015) at 38.

^{^[26]} Ibid at 40.

^{^[27]} Supra Note 23.

^{^[28]} C W Anderson, Between creative and quantified audiences: Web metrics and changing patterns of newswork in local US newsrooms, available at https://www.academia.edu/10937194/Between_Creative_And_Quantified_Audiences_Web_Metrics_and_Changing_Patterns_of_Newswork_in_Local_U.S._Newsrooms

^{^[29]} Supra Note 23.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/new-media-personalisation-and-the-role-of-algorithms

December 2016 Newsletter

praskrishna — 2017-01-28T12:02:23Z

Welcome to the December 2016 newsletter of the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS).

Dear readers,

Wishing you a happy and prosperous New Year. As the New Year unfolds we are glad to bring you developments from the last month of the year gone by for your reference. Thank you for reading the Centre for Internet and Society's (CIS) December 2016 newsletter.

Previous issues of the newsletters can be accessed here.

Highlights
Telugu Theatre scholar Pranay Raj Vangari created a record by completing a challenge that is famous worldwide in Wikimedia community - "100 Days-100 Articles". Rohini Lakshané attended the 25th session of the World Intellectual Property Organization Standing Committee on the Law of Patents held in Geneva from December 12 - 15, 2016 and made a statement on Future Work. She also submitted a statement on the Assessment of Inventive Step to Secretariat for the WIPO Standing Committee for the Law of Patents, Twenty Fifth Session. CIS submitted inputs to the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation on Public Policy Issues Pertaining to the Internet (WGEC) on 15 December 2016. The WGEC sought inputs on two questions that will guide the next meeting of the Working Group which is scheduled to take place on the 26-27 January 2017. Udbhav Tiwari wrote an article on the technical, legal and jurisdictional issues around the recent Twitter and email hacks claimed by the ‘Legion Crew’, and what can targeted entities do to better protect themselves. Amber Sinha wrote a blog entry that focuses on network management, in general, and deep packet inspection, in particular and how it impacts the privacy of users. CIS is pleased to bring you the second title of the CIS Papers series. This report by P.P. Sneha comes out of an extended research project supported by the Kusuma Trust. The study undertook a detailed mapping of digital practices in arts and humanities scholarship, both emerging and established, in India. Zeenab Aneez wrote a report that examines the digital transition underway at three leading newspapers in India, the Dainik Jagran in Hindi, English-language Hindustan Times, and Malayala Manorama in Malayalam. Our focus is on how they are changing their newsroom organisation and journalistic work to expand their digital presence and adapt to a changing media environment. CIS made a submission on the Consultation Note on Model for Nation-wide Interoperable and Scalable Public Wi-Fi Networks published by the TRAI on November 15, 2016. Our analysis of the solution proposed in the Note, in brief, is that there is no need of a solution for non-existing interoperability problem for authentication and payment services for accessing public Wi-Fi networks.

CIS in the news:

Lack of clarity about cashless and online transactions makes digital payments more worrisome (Neha Alawadhi; Economic Times; December 1, 2016).
Changing the typographic landscape of a country: one letter at a time (Pooja Saxena; Storyweaver; December 1, 2016).
No laws in India to protect customers if they lose money during digital transactions (Alnoor Peermohamed; Business Standard; December 2, 2016).
Fake Narendra Modi apps aplenty, but it’s up to users to protect themselves (Indian Express; December 2, 2016). Also see Nandini Yadav's blog post in BGR on December 3, 2016.
Your digital wallet can be a ‘pickpocket’ (The Hindu; December 5, 2016).
Most popular smartphone apps inaccessible to disabled: Study (ET Telecom; December 7, 2016).
English gottila,job illa (Regina Gurung; Indian Express; December 7, 2016).
Bumpy road ahead for RFID Tags in vehicles (Smriti Sharma Vasudeva; Statesman; December 7, 2016).
India's Tech Policy Entrepreneurs (Rohin Dharmakumar; The Ken; December 8, 2016).
Vijay Mallya cries foul after his Twitter and email accounts are hacked (Alnoor Peermohamed; Business Standard; December 10, 2016).
విజ్ఞాన నిధి వికీపీడియా.. (Namaste Telangana; December 11, 2016).
వికీపీడియాతో విజ్ఞాన విప్లవం (Andhra Bhoomi; December 11, 2016).
Wikipedia is a Newspaper (Namaste Telangana; December 11, 2016).
Wikipedian Pavan Santhosh says Telugu Wikipedians are creating Knowledge revolution (in Telugu) (Andhra Jyoti; December 12, 2016).
Wikipedia Event in Mangalore (Vijaya Karnataka; December 18, 2016).
With power, phone and internet services affected, Chennai is still recovering from Cyclone Vardah (Vinita Govindarajan and Sruthisagar Yamunan; Scroll.in; December 20, 2016).

पीजी जूलॉजी विभाग में एक दिवसीय समागम का आयोजन (Hindustan, December 20, 2016).

How private companies are using Aadhaar to try to deliver better services (but there's a catch) (M. Rajshekhar; Scroll.in; December 22, 2016).
‘IT hub’ K’taka ranks No 12 in e-deals (Christin Philip Mathew; New Indian Express; December 27, 2016).
India’s ruling party takes online abuse to a professional level (Samanth Subramanian; December 31, 2016).

CIS members published the following articles:

Digital native: The View from My Bubble (Nishant Shah; Indian Express; December 4, 2016).
Indian Newspapers' Digital Transition (Zeenab Azeez; Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism; December 9, 2016).
The Digital Protection of Traditional Knowledge: Questions Raised by the Traditional Knowledge Digital Library in India (Sunil Abraham and Vidushi Marda; GIS Watch; December 9, 2016)
The Curious Case of Poor Security in the Indian Twitterverse (Udbhav Tiwari; The Wire; December 17, 2016).
Pranay Raj record in 100 days-100 articles (Pavan Santhosh; Andhra Jyoti; December 17, 2016).
Digital Native: People Like Us (Nishant Shah; Indian Express; December 18, 2016).
వంద రోజులు.. వంద వ్యాసాలు - తెలుగు వికీపీడియాలో మోత్కూరు యువకుని రికార్డు (100 Days...100 Articles: Wikipedian from Motkur created record in Telugu Wikipedia) (Pavan Santhosh; Andhra Jyoti; December 18, 2016).

Jobs

CIS is seeking applications for:

-------------------------------------
Accessibility & Inclusion
-------------------------------------
India has an estimated 70 million persons with disabilities who don't have access to read printed materials due to some form of physical, sensory, cognitive or other disability. As part of our endeavour to make available accessible content for persons with disabilities, we are developing a text-to-speech software in 15 languages with support from the Hans Foundation. The progress made so far in the project can be accessed here.

Event Co-organized

International Accessibility Summit of Shaastra 2017 (Organized by CIS and IIT, Madaras; December 31 - January 3, 2017). Nirmita Narasimhan was a panel moderator.

Participation in Event

Best Practices in Digital Accessibility (Organized by IIM, Bangalore; December 19, 2016). Nirmita Narasimhan was a panelist.

-----------------------------------
Access to Knowledge
-----------------------------------
Our Access to Knowledge programme currently consists of two projects. The Pervasive Technologies project, conducted under a grant from the International Development Research Centre (IDRC), aims to conduct research on the complex interplay between low-cost pervasive technologies and intellectual property, in order to encourage the proliferation and development of such technologies as a social good. The Wikipedia project, which is under a grant from the Wikimedia Foundation, is for the growth of Indic language communities and projects by designing community collaborations and partnerships that recruit and cultivate new editors and explore innovative approaches to building projects.

►Copyright and Patent

Statements

25th Session of the WIPO SCP: Statement on Assessment of Inventive Step (Rohini Lakshané; December 15, 2016).
25th Session of the WIPO SCP: Statement on Future work (Rohini Lakshané; December 16, 2016).

Participation in Event

7th Emerging Markets Finance Conference (Organized by Finance Research Group in association with Vanderbilt Law School; Mumbai; December 15, 2016). Anubha Sinha was a panelist.

►Wikipedia

As part of the project grant from the Wikimedia Foundation we have reached out to more than 3500 people across India by organizing more than 100 outreach events and catalysed the release of encyclopaedic and other content under the Creative Commons (CC-BY-3.0) license in four Indian languages (21 books in Telugu, 13 in Odia, 4 volumes of encyclopaedia in Konkani and 6 volumes in Kannada, and 1 book on Odia language history in English).

Blog Entries

Freedom in Feb — an awareness increasing campaign (Tito Dutta; December 8, 2016).
A Shortcut to Freedom (Tito Dutta; December 14, 2016).
Marathi Wikipedia Edit-a-thon in Kolhapur (Subodh Kulkarni; December 16, 2016).
Ongoing Proof-reading Effort by ALC Student Wikimedians in Telugu Wikisource (Pavan Santosh and Ting-Yi Chang; December 30, 2016).

►Openness

Our work in the Openness programme focuses on open data, especially open government data, open access, open education resources, open knowledge in Indic languages, open media, and open technologies and standards - hardware and software. We approach openness as a cross-cutting principle for knowledge production and distribution, and not as a thing-in-itself.

Submission

Comments on the Draft National Policy on Software Products (Anubha Sinha, Rohini Lakshané, and Udbhav Tiwari; December 11, 2016).

-----------------------------------
Internet Governance
-----------------------------------

As part of its research on privacy and free speech, CIS is engaged with two different projects. The first one (under a grant from Privacy International and IDRC) is on surveillance and freedom of expression (SAFEGUARDS). The second one (under a grant from MacArthur Foundation) is on restrictions that the Indian government has placed on freedom of expression online.

►Privacy

Blog Entries

Privacy and Security Implications of Public Wi-Fi - A Case Study (Vanya Rakesh; December 9, 2016).
Habeas Data in India (Vipul Kharbanda and edited by Elonnai Hickok; December 10, 2016).
Workshop Report - UIDAI and Welfare Services: Exclusion and Countermeasures (Vanya Rakesh; December 14, 2016).
Enlarging the Small Print: A Study on Designing Effective Privacy Notices for Mobile Applications (Meera Manoj; December 14, 2016).
Protection of Privacy in Mobile Phone Apps (Hitabhilash Mohanty and Edited by Leilah Elmokadem; December 15, 2016).
ISO/IEC JTC 1 SC 27 Working Group Meetings - A Summary (Vanya Rakesh; December 16, 2016).
Deep Packet Inspection: How it Works and its Impact on Privacy (Amber Sinha; December 16, 2016).

Participation in Events

Industry Consultation Panel on Data Retention - DSCI (Organized by Data Security Council of India; New Delhi; November 23, 2016). This was mirrored on the website on December 6, 2016. Udbhav Tiwari was a panelist.
11th DSCI-NASSCOM Annual Information Security Summit 2016 (Organized by DSCI and NASSCOM; December 14, 2016). Udbhav Tiwari was a panelist.
Workshop on Center for IT and Society (Organized by IIT, Delhi; December 20, 2016). Amber Sinha attended the event.

►Free Speech & Expression

Blog Entries

ISIS and Recruitment using Social Media – Roundtable Report (Vidushi Marda, Aditya Tejus, Megha Nambiar and Japreet Grewal; December 15, 2016).
Inputs to the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation on Public Policy Issues Pertaining to the Internet (WGEC) (Sunil Abraham and Vidushi Marda, with inputs from Pranesh Prakash; December 17, 2016).

Participation in Event

Myanmar Digital Rights Forum (Organized by Phandeeyar, You Can Do IT, Engage Media and Myanmar Centre for Responsible Business with support from the Embassy of Sweden; December 14 - 15, 2016). Sunil Abraham was a speaker.

►Big Data

Participation in Events

"Decoding the Digital" (Organized by Centre for IT and Public Policy at IIIT; Bangalore; December 12 - 14, 2016). Vanya Rakesh attended the event.
The EU and Free Flows of Data - Data Protection, Trade and Law Enforcement (Organized by the Department of European Studies; Bangalore; December 14, 2016). Ameila Andersdotter gave a talk.

Blog Entry

The Technology behind Big Data (Geethanjali Jujjavarapu and Udbhav Tiwari; December 1, 2016).

►Cyber Security

Blog Entries

Developer team fixed vulnerabilities in Honorable PM's app and API (Bhavyanshu Parasher; December 4, 2016).
Incident Response Requirements in Indian Law (Vipul Kharbanda; December 28, 2016).
Mapping of India’s Cyber Security-Related Bilateral Agreements (Leilah Elmokadem and Saumyaa Naidu; December 29, 2016).
Mapping of Sections in India’s MLAT Agreements (Leilah Elmokadem and Saumyaa Naidu; December 31, 2016).

Event Organized

Multistakeholder Consultation on Encryption (Organized by CIS with ORF and Takshashila Institution; TERI, Bangalore; December 17, 2016).

-----------------------------------
Telecom
-----------------------------------
CIS is involved in promoting access and accessibility to telecommunications services and resources, and has provided inputs to ongoing policy discussions and consultation papers published by TRAI. It has prepared reports on unlicensed spectrum and accessibility of mobile phones for persons with disabilities and also works with the USOF to include funding projects for persons with disabilities in its mandate:

Submission

CIS Submission to TRAI Consultation Note on Model for Nation-wide Interoperable and Scalable Public Wi-Fi Networks (Japreet Grewal, Pranesh Prakash, Sharath Chandra, Sumandro Chattapadhyay, Sunil Abraham, and Udbhav Tiwari, with expert comments from Amelia Andersdotter; December 12, 2016).

-----------------------------------
Researchers at Work
-----------------------------------
The Researchers at Work (RAW) programme is an interdisciplinary research initiative driven by an emerging need to understand the reconfigurations of social practices and structures through the Internet and digital media technologies, and vice versa. It aims to produce local and contextual accounts of interactions, negotiations, and resolutions between the Internet, and socio-material and geo-political processes:

Research Paper

Mapping Digital Humanities in India (P.P. Sneha; December 30, 2016).

-----------------------------------
About CIS
-----------------------------------
The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) is a non-profit organisation that undertakes interdisciplinary research on internet and digital technologies from policy and academic perspectives. The areas of focus include digital accessibility for persons with disabilities, access to knowledge, intellectual property rights, openness (including open data, free and open source software, open standards, open access, open educational resources, and open video), internet governance, telecommunication reform, digital privacy, and cyber-security. The academic research at CIS seeks to understand the reconfigurations of social and cultural processes and structures as mediated through the internet and digital media technologies.

► Follow us elsewhere

Twitter: http://twitter.com/cis_india
Twitter - Access to Knowledge: https://twitter.com/CISA2K
Twitter - Information Policy: https://twitter.com/CIS_InfoPolicy
Facebook - Access to Knowledge: https://www.facebook.com/cisa2k
E-Mail - Access to Knowledge: a2k@cis-india.org
E-Mail - Researchers at Work: raw@cis-india.org
List - Researchers at Work: https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/researchers

► Support Us

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

► Request for Collaboration

We invite researchers, practitioners, artists, and theoreticians, both organisationally and as individuals, to engage with us on topics related internet and society, and improve our collective understanding of this field. To discuss such possibilities, please write to Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, at sunil@cis-india.org (for policy research), or Sumandro Chattapadhyay, Research Director, at sumandro@cis-india.org (for academic research), with an indication of the form and the content of the collaboration you might be interested in. To discuss collaborations on Indic language Wikipedia projects, write to Tanveer Hasan, Programme Officer, at tanveer@cis-india.org.

CIS is grateful to its primary donor the Kusuma Trust founded by Anurag Dikshit and Soma Pujari, philanthropists of Indian origin for its core funding and support for most of its projects. CIS is also grateful to its other donors, Wikimedia Foundation, Ford Foundation, Privacy International, UK, Hans Foundation, MacArthur Foundation, and IDRC for funding its various projects.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/about/newsletters/december-2016-newsletter

Mapping of Sections in India’s MLAT Agreements

Leilah Elmokadem and Saumyaa Naidu — 2016-12-31T06:52:46Z

This set of infographics by Leilah Elmokadem and Saumyaa Naidu maps out and compares the various sections that exist in the 39 MLATs (mutual legal assistance treaty) between India and other countries. An MLAT is an agreement between two or more countries, drafted for the purpose of gathering and exchanging information in an effort to enforce public or criminal laws.

Download: Infographic (PDF) and data (XLSX)

We have found that India’s 39 MLAT documents are worded, formatted and sectioned differently. At the same time, many of the same sections exist across several MLATs. This diagram lists the sections found in the MLAT documents and indicates the treaties in which they were included or not included. To keep the list of sections concise and to more easily pinpoint the key differences between the agreements, we have merged sections that are synonymous in meaning but were worded slightly differently. For example: we would combine “Entry into force and termination” with “Ratification and termination” or “Expenses” with “Costs”.

At the same time, some sections that seemed quite similar and possible to merge were kept separate due to potential key differences that could be overlooked as a result. For example: “Limitation on use” vs. “Limitation on compliance” or “Serving of documents” vs. “Provision of (publicly available) documents/records/objects” remained separate for further analysis and comparison.

These differences in sectioning can be analysed to facilitate a thorough comparison between the effectiveness, efficiency, applicability and enforceability of the various provisions across the MLATs. The purpose of this initial mapping is to provide an overall picture of which sections exist in which MLAT documents. There will be further analysis of these sections to produce a more holistic content-based comparison of the MLATs.

Aggregated Analysis of Sections of MLAT Agreements

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/india-mlat-agreements-sections-map-dec-2016

India’s ruling party takes online abuse to a professional level

praskrishna — 2016-12-31T02:19:14Z

Indian prime minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) employs an army of trolls to harass and intimidate critics through social media, a new book claims.

The article by Samanth Subramanian was published in the National on December 31, 2016. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.

I Am a Troll: Inside the Secret World of the BJP’s Digital Army, by the journalist Swati Chaturvedi, alleges that the party’s social media warriors carry out organised harassment, threatening critics of the BJP with assault, sexual violence and even murder.

Although other parties also have social media units, the BJP’s is particularly well organised and vociferous, Chaturvedi wrote.

The BJP social media cell is active on Twitter and Facebook, as well as in the comments sections of articles on news websites, Chaturvedi found. Some of the abusive PRO-BJP Twitter handles are still followed by Mr Modi’s official Twitter account.

I Am a Troll is based largely upon the account of Sadhavi Khosla, now an activist but formerly a volunteer for two years in the BJP’s social media cell, which went into top gear during the parliamentary elections in 2014 when Mr Modi beat the incumbent Congress party led by Sonia Gandhi and her son Rahul.

Mr Modi campaigned on a platform of fervent nationalism, drawing upon the BJP’s Hindu chauvinist credentials to attract votes. His party’s social media cell responded accordingly.

"It was a never-ending drip feed of hate and bigotry against the minorities, the Gandhi family, journalists on the hit list, liberals, anyone perceived as anti-Modi," Ms Khosla told Chaturvedi.

The BJP has responded to the claims made in the book by accusing Ms Khosla of political bias, saying she "supports the Congress [and] has all reasons to publish unsubstantiated claims". -In fact, she has never revealed her own political leanings, or even whether she has any.

Arvind Gupta, the head of the BJP’s information technology cell, denies the party encouraged trolling or that Ms Khosla had been a member of any BJP unit.

By way of evidence, Ms Khosla shared with Chaturvedi screenshots of instructions that were purportedly sent by Mr Gupta to the operators of the social media cell. "If there was even an unfavourable mention of [Modi] anywhere, Gupta’s digital tracking tools would pick it up and the pack of hyena-like trolls would descend," Ms Khosla said.

One specific campaign cited in I Am a Troll took place in November last year, after the actor Aamir Khan, speaking as the chief guest at a journalism awards ceremony, remarked upon the growing intolerance in India. "There is a growing sense of disquiet and despondency," he said.

Ms Khosla said the BJP’s social media cell was instructed to launch an all-out attack on Khan. She and her colleagues were also asked to spread a petition calling upon SnapDeal, a shopping website, to drop Khan as its brand ambassador.

"I realised that my hero had become a ‘Muslim’," Ms Khosla said in the book. "For me he had just been an Indian actor. I felt like my country was changing."

SnapDeal cut its ties with Khan in February. Ms Khosla, who said she had been growing increasingly uncomfortable with the social media cell’s tactics, quit not long after.

"I simply could not follow directions anymore when I saw rape threats made against female journalists," she said. "Every day some new person was a target and they would attack like a swarm of bees with vile sexual innuendoes, slander, rape and death threats."

Chaturvedi’s book calls for social media companies and police agencies to take such threats more seriously.

"In the United States, which is a beacon for free speech laws, thousands are arrested each year — and the courts uphold these allegations as ‘actionable’ — based on complaints from people who have received violent threats on social media," she wrote.

"Hate speech, targeted harassment, threats of rape with graphic details of assault, incitement to violence — all this is ‘actionable’ too but our police does not act."

Pranesh Prakash, the policy director at the Centre for internet and Society, a Bengaluru-based non-profit organisation, noted that although there are no Indian laws specifically against abusive online behaviour, the general laws that deal with verbal assault cover online cases as well.

"But I’m not sure how much these cases can be taken forward, given jurisdictional problems," Mr Prakash told The National.

When a person complains to police about online abuse, "the first step would be to establish against whom the case is being made, and doing that is difficult", he said.

Since most social media companies are based in the US, police agencies would have to approach India’s foreign ministry which could then invoke a bilateral treaty to gain this information.

"This can take several months if not longer," Mr Prakash said. "And most police stations are not equipped to handle such treaty-based cases."

"Even if the police takes such complaints seriously — and it’s not always clear that they do — there’s no easy way to proceed."

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-national-december-31-2016-samanth-subramanian-indias-ruling-party-takes-online-abuse-to-a-professional-level

Mapping of India’s Cyber Security-Related Bilateral Agreements

Leilah Elmokadem and Saumyaa Naidu — 2017-04-27T15:14:55Z

With the rapid spread of cloud computing and the growth of cyber spaces, large masses of information are now easily transmittable transnationally, necessitating the ratification of new agreements and cooperation efforts amongst states in order to secure cyber spaces and regulate exchanges of information. In an attempt to understand the nature and extent of current international collaborative efforts in cyber security, we have compiled the following data regarding India’s cyber security-related bilateral agreements. The intention of this exercise is to offer a dynamic visualization that demonstrates which countries India has collaborated with on cyber security efforts and initiatives. This is an ongoing map that we will be updating as our research continues.

Download: Infographic (PDF) and data (XLSX)

The data used for the info-graphic consists of India’s MLATs, cyber security-related MoUs and Joint Statements, and Cyber Frameworks. An MLAT is an agreement between two or more countries, drafted for the purpose of gathering and exchanging information in an effort to enforce public or criminal laws. A MoU (Memorandum of Understanding) is a nonbinding agreement between two or more states outlining the terms and details of an understanding, including each party’s requirements and responsibility; it is often the first stage in the formation of a formal contract. For the purpose of this research, we have grouped Joint Statements with MoUs, as they both generally entail the informal agreement between two states to strengthen cooperation on certain issues. Lastly, a Cyber Framework consists of standards, guidelines and practices to promote protection of critical infrastructure. The data accounts for agreements centered on cyber security as well as any agreements mentioning cooperation efforts in Cyber Security, information security or cybercrime.

The Mapping of India’s Cybersecurity-related bilateral agreement has been updated on April 12, 2017 with the following changes:

A new MoU was signed between Australia and India in April 2017, focusing on combating terrorism and civil aviation security. Cybersecurity cooperation is mentioned in the MoU[1].
A new MoU was signed between Bangladesh and India in April 2017. The Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In), Indian Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and the ICT Division of Bangladesh are the signing parties of the MoU. The agreement focuses on Cooperation in the area of Cyber Security[2].
A preexisting MoU between France and India was added to the mapping, signed in January of 2016. Officials of both countries agreed to intensify cooperation between the Indian and French security forces in the fields of homeland security, cyber security, Special Forces and intelligence sharing to fight against criminal networks and tackle the common threat of terrorism[3].
A new MoU was signed between Indonesia and India in March 2017. It focuses on enhancing cooperation in cyber security and intelligence sharing[4].
A new MoU was signed between Kenya and India in January 2017, with “cyber security” mentioned as one of the key areas of cooperation[5].
A preexisting MoU between Malaysia and India was added to the mapping, signed in November of 2015. Both sides agreed to promote cooperation and the exchange of information regarding cyber security incident management, technology cooperation and cyber attacks, prevalent policies and best practices and mutual response to cyber security incidents[6].
A preexisting MoU between Mauritius and India, signed July 2016, was added to the mapping. This is a non-governmental MoU. Leading bourse BSE signed an agreement with Stock Exchange of Mauritius (SEM) for collaboration in areas including cyber security[7].
A new joint statement between India and Portugal was signed in March 2017. The two countries agreed to set up an institutional mechanism to collaborate in the areas of electronic manufacturing, ITeS, startups, cyber security and e-governance.[8]
A preexisting MoU, signed between Qatar and India in December of 2016, was added to the mapping. The agreement was regarding a protocol on technical cooperation in cyberspace and combatting cybercrime[9].
A new MoU was signed between Serbia and India in January 2017, focusing on cooperation in the field of IT, Electronics. The MoU itself does not explicitly mention cybersecurity. However, the MoU calls for cooperation and exchanges in capacity building institutions, which should entail cyber security strengthening[10].
A preexisting MoU between Singapore and India was added to the mapping. The MoU was signed in January 2016, focusing on the establishment of a formal framework for professional dialogue, CERT-CERT related cooperation for operational readiness and response, collaboration on cyber security technology and research related to smart technologies, exchange of best practices, and professional exchanges of human resource development[11].
A new joint statement was signed between UAE and India in January 2017, following up on their previous Technical Cooperation MoU signed in February 2016. To further deepen cooperation in this area, they agreed to set up joint Research & Development Centres of Excellence[12].
A preexisting MoU has been included in the mapping, signed in May of 2016. CERT-In agreed with the UK Ministry of Cabinet Office to promote close cooperation between both countries in the exchange in knowledge and experience in detection, resolution and prevention of security related incidents[13].
A new MoU between India and the US was signed in March 2017. CERT-In and CERT-US signed a MoU agreeing to promote closer co-operation and exchange of information pertaining to cyber security in accordance with relevant laws, rules and regulations and on the basis of equality, reciprocity and mutual benefit[14].
A new MoU was signed between Vietnam and India in January 2017, agreeing to promote closer cooperation for exchange of knowledge and experience in detection, resolution and prevention of cyber security incidents between both countries[15].

NOTE: Some preexisting MoUs were added as we were initially only including the most recent agreements in the mapping. Upon adding newly signed MoUs, we decided to also keep the preexisting ones and revisit the other entries to include any preexisting MoUs that were initially excluded due to not being the most-recent. In this respect, the visualization will be adjusted to indicate the number of MoUs per country.

[1]http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-india-australia-sign-mous-on-combating-terrorism-civil-aviation-security-2393843

[2]http://www.theindependentbd.com/arcprint/details/89237/2017-04-09

[3]http://www.thehindu.com/news/resources/Full-text-of-Joint-Statement-issued-by-India-France/article14019524.ece

[4]http://indianexpress.com/article/india/indianhome-ministry-indonesian-ministry-of-security-and-coordination/

[5]https://telanganatoday.news/india-kenya-focus-defence-security-cooperation-pm

[6]http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/foreign-trade/india-and-malaysia-sign-3-mous-including-cyber-security/articleshow/49891897.cms

[7]http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/bse-mauritius-stock-exchange-tie-up-to-promote-financial-mkts/1/723635.html

[8]http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/business/india-portugal-to-collaborate-in-ites-cyber-security/373666.html

[9]http://naradanews.com/2016/12/india-qatar-sign-agreements-on-visa-cybersecurity-investments/

[10]http://ehub.newsforce.in/cabinet-approves-mou-india-serbia-cooperation-field-electronics/

[11]http://www.businesstimes.com.sg/government-economy/singapore-and-india-strengthen-cooperation-on-cyber-security

[12]http://mea.gov.in/bilateral-documents.htm?dtl/27969/India++UAE+Joint+Statement+during+State+visit+of+Crown+Prince+of+Abu+Dhabi+to+India+January+2426+2017

[13]http://www.bestcurrentaffairs.com/india-uk-mou-cyber-security/

[14]http://www.dqindia.com/india-cert-signs-an-mou-with-us-cert/

[15]http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=157458

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/india-cyber-security-bilateral-agreements-map-dec-2016

Rankathon on Digital Rights (Delhi, January 08)

amber — 2016-12-29T07:10:09Z

Please join us on Sunday, January 08, at the CIS office in Hauz Khas, Delhi, for a rankathon to visualise, and contribute to the findings of the Ranking Digital Rights study, and critique the underlying methodology. The event will begin at 10:00 in the morning and participants can focus on one or more of three kinds of tasks: 1) visualising the CIS and Ranking Digital Rights data, 2) evaluating additional companies using the RDR methodology, and 3) evaluating the RDR methodology and its suitability for independent use.

Download: Invitation (PDF)

The Ranking Digital Rights Corporate Responsibility Index is a project hosted by the Open Technology Institute at New America Foundation that aims to rank Information and Communications Technology (ICTs) companies with respect to their Governance, Freedom of Expression, and Privacy practices. The inaugural Corporate Accountability Index, released in November 2015, evaluated 16 companies based on the project’s methodology that included 31 indicators in total.

visualising the CIS and Ranking Digital Rights data,
evaluating additional companies using the RDR methodology, and
evaluating the RDR methodology and its suitability for independent use.

The event is open to all but the venue has limited space. The participants are requested to RSVP by sending an email to nisha@cis-india.org. The final date for registering for the event is January 04.

All visualisations and other outputs produced at the event will be published under open licenses. All participants are expected to bring their own laptop or any other items needed for their work. CIS will offer data, help with understanding how the Ranking Digital Rights methodology work, refreshments, and any other support as needed.

We are also organising a discussion event on Saturday, January 07, at the India Islamic Cultural Centre, Delhi, to present our findings on digital rights practices of 8 Indian ICT companies, followed by an open structured discussion on the methodology of the Ranking Digital Rights study. Please find more details about this here.

We look forward to your participation and contribution to the discussion. Please support us by sharing this invitation with your colleagues and networks.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/rankathon-on-digital-rights-delhi-jan-08-2017

Discussion on Ranking Digital Rights in India (Delhi, January 07)

amber — 2016-12-29T07:07:34Z

Towards developing an understanding of how Indian ICT companies are recognising and upholding digital rights of their users, and to raise public awareness about the same, the Center for Internet and Society (CIS), with the support of Privacy International, has studied 8 Indian ICT companies, using the same methodology as the 2015 Corporate Accountability Index, to gain greater insight into company practices and initiate public dialogues. Please join us on Saturday, January 07, at the India Islamic Cultural Centre, New Delhi, for a presentation of our findings followed by an open structured discussion on the methodology and implications of the study.

Download: Invitation and agenda (PDF)

Please join us on Saturday, January 07, at the India Islamic Cultural Centre, New Delhi, for a presentation of our findings followed by an open structured discussion on the methodology and implications of the Ranking Digital Rights study. We will begin at 10:30 am with a round of tea and coffee.

The event is open to all but the venue has limited space. The participants are requested to RSVP by sending an email to nisha@cis-india.org.

To further encourage programmers, researchers, journalists, students, and users in general to use and contribute to the findings of the Ranking Digital Rights study, and critique the underlying methodology, we are also organising a “rankathon” on Sunday, January 08, at the CIS office in Delhi. More details can be found here.

We look forward to your participation and contribution to the discussion. Please support us by sharing this invitation with your colleagues and networks.

Agenda

10:30-11:00	Coffee and Tea
11:00-11:15	Introduction
11:15-13:00	Presentation of the Findings and Discussion Divij Joshi and Aditya Singh Chawla
13:00-14:00	Lunch
14:00-15:00	Open Discussion #1: Parameters of Evaluation The RDR methodology was based upon evaluating commitments to uphold human rights through their services – in particular towards their commitment to users’ freedom of expression and privacy. Are there other parameters that may be considered in the Indian context?
15:00-16:00	Open Discussion #2: Towards Protecting Digital Rights What steps can be taken by the government, civil society, and industry in India to create an environment that recognizes and protects users digital rights? What are the relevant legal, political, and economic factors to take into consideration towards this? What are steps that other, multinational ICT companies have taken? Would these be realistic for Indian companies to implement?
16:00-16:30	Conclusion
16:30-17:00	Coffee and Tea

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/discussion-on-ranking-digital-rights-in-india-delhi-jan-07-2017

‘IT hub’ K’taka ranks No 12 in e-deals

praskrishna — 2016-12-28T01:54:33Z

Karnataka may be dubbed the ‘IT hub’ of the country but when it comes to e-governance transactions, the state clearly has a long way to go. Statistics from Union government web portal Electronic Transaction Aggregation and Analysis Layer (etaal), which manages e-transactions undertaken by e-governance projects, suggests that Karnataka ranks 12th in the country with just 5.66 crore e-transactions this year as of Monday.

The article by Christin Mathew Philip was published in the New Indian Express on December 27, 2016. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

Among the states with maximum number of e-transactions this year so far are Andhra Pradesh, topping the list with 101 crore e-transactions followed by Telangana (80.35 crore e- transactions) and Kerala (75.30 crore e-transactions).

Karnataka’s poor standing on the e-governance transactions front can largely be attributed to a low number of e-services - 86 - in sharp contrast to Andhra Pradesh’s 250. The e-services include registration of births and deaths, land record registration, utility, bill payments and other government related services.

This clearly underlines the fact that Karnataka needs to include more government services online and also create more awareness among the people about the existing e-governance projects to achieve ‘digital India’ and cashless payment system.

When contacted, Karnataka’s IT minister Priyank Kharge said: “Karnataka is a pioneer in e-governance projects, which includes Bhoomi, Khajane and Mobile-One. Mobile-One is offering nearly 4,500 services, both government and private services at the finger tip. All these initiatives have become the model for other states.”

Statistics from Union government web portal Electronic Transaction Aggregation and Analysis Layer (etaal), which manages e-transactions undertaken by e-governance projects, suggests that Karnataka ranks 12th in the country.

Commenting on this, IT Minister Priyank Kharge said, “The Centre has also recently ranked Karnataka at No.13 in ease of doing business in the country. I don’t know how they are coming up with such rankings without considering the merit.”

Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Centre for Internet Society, a Bengaluru based-research organisation, said: “The government should make e-services friendly to the citizens and also make it more transparent.” He said implementation of proposed Electronic Service Delivery Bill, which will make it mandatory for every government organisation to deliver public services online at a stipulated period, will bring more accountability and attract more people to use government e-services.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/new-indian-express-december-27-2016-christin-philip-mathew-it-hub-karnataka-ranks-12-in-e-deals

Incident Response Requirements in Indian Law

vipul — 2016-12-28T01:19:28Z

Cyber incidents have serious consequences for societies, nations, and those who are victimised by them. The theft, exploitation, exposure or otherwise damage of private, financial, or other sensitive personal or commercial data and cyber attacks that damage computer systems are capable of causing lasting harm.

A recent example of such an attack that we have seen from India is the recent data breach involving an alleged 3.2 million debit cards in India.^[1] In the case of this hack the payment processing networks such as National Payments Corporation of India, Visa and Mastercard, informed the banks regarding the leaks, based on which the banks started the process of blocking and then reissuing the compromised cards. It has also been reported that the banks failed to report this incident to the Computer Emergency Response Team of India (CERT-In) even though they are required by law to do so.^[2] Such risks are increasingly faced by consumers, businesses, and governments. A person who is a victim of a cyber incident usually looks to receive assistance from the service provider and government agencies, which are prepared to investigate the incident, mitigate its consequences, and help prevent future incidents. It is essential for an effective response to cyber incidents that authorities have as much knowledge regarding the incident as possible and have that knowledge as soon as possible. It is also critical that this information is communicated to the public. This underlines the importance of reporting cyber incidents as a tool in making the internet and digital infrastructure secure.. Like any other crime, an Internet-based crime should be reported to those law enforcement authorities assigned to tackle it at a local, state, national, or international level, depending on the nature and scope of the criminal act. This is the first in a series of blog posts highlighting the importance of incident reporting in the Indian regulatory context with a view to highlight the Indian regulations dealing with incident reporting and the ultimate objective of having a more robust incident reporting environment in India.

Incident Reporting under CERT Rules

In India, section 70-B of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (the “IT Act”) gives the Central Government the power to appoint an agency of the government to be called the Indian Computer Emergency Response Team. In pursuance of the said provision the Central Government issued the Information Technology (The Indian Computer Emergency Response Team and Manner of Performing Functions and Duties) Rules, 2013 (the “CERT Rules”) which provide the location and manner of functioning of the Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In). Rule 12 of the CERT Rules gives every person, company or organisation the option to report cyber security incidents to the CERT-In. It also places an obligation on them to mandatorily report the following kinds of incidents as early as possible:

Targeted scanning/probing of critical networks/systems;
Compromise of critical systems/information;
Unauthorized access of IT systems/data;
Defacement of website or intrusion into a website and unauthorized changes such as inserting malicious code, links to external websites, etc.;
Malicious code attacks such as spreading of virus/worm/Trojan/botnets/spyware;
Attacks on servers such as database, mail, and DNS and network devices such as routers;
Identity theft, spoofing and phishing attacks;
Denial of Service (DoS) and Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks;
Attacks on critical infrastructure, SCADA systems and wireless networks;
Attacks on applications such as e-governance, e-commerce, etc.

The CERT Rules also impose an obligation on service providers, intermediaries, data centres and body corporates to report cyber incidents within a reasonable time so that CERT-In may have scope for timely action. This mandatory obligation of reporting incidents casts a fairly wide net in terms of private sector entities, however it is notable that prima facie the provision does not impose any obligation on government entities to report cyber incidents unless they come under any of the expressions “service providers”, “data centres”, “intermediaries” or “body corporate”. This would mean that if the data kept with the Registrar General & Census Commissioner of India is hacked in a cyber incident, then there is no statutory obligation under the CERT Rules on it to report the incident. It is pertinent to mention here that although there is no obligation on a government department under law to report such an incident, such an obligation may be contained in its internal rules and guidelines, etc. which are not readily available.

It is pertinent to note that although the CERT Rules provide for a mandatory obligation to report the cyber incidents listed therein, the Rules themselves do not provide for any penalty for non compliance. However this does not mean that there are no consequences for non compliance, it just means that we have to look to the parent legislation i.e. the IT Act for the appropriate penalties for non compliance. Section 70B(6) gives the CERT-In the power to call for information and give directions for the purpose of carrying out its functions. Section 70B(7) provides that any service provider, intermediary, data center, body corporate or person who fails to provide the information called for or comply with the direction under sub-section (6), shall be liable to imprisonment for a period up to 1 (one) year or fine of up to 1 (one) lakh or both.

It is possible to argue here that sub-section (6) only talks about calls for information by CERT-In and the obligation under Rule 12 of the CERT Rules is an obligation placed by the central government and not CERT-In. It can also be argued that sub-section (6) is only meant for specific requests made by CERT-In for information and sub-section (7) only penalises those who do not respond to these specific requests. However, even if these arguments were to be accepted and we were to conclude that a violation of the obligation imposed under Rule 12 would not attract the penalty stipulated under sub-section (7) of section 70B, that does not mean that Rule 12 would be left toothless. Section 44(b) of the IT Act provides that where any person is required under any of the Rules or Regulations under the IT Act to furnish any information within a particular time and such person fails to do so, s/he may be liable to pay a penalty of upto Rs. 5,000/- for every day such failure continues. Further section 45 provides for a further penalty of Rs.25,000/- for any contravention of any of the rules or regulations under the Act for which no other penalty has been provided.

Incident Reporting under Intermediary Guidelines

Section 2(1)(w) of the IT Act defined the term “intermediary” in the following manner;

“intermediary” with respect to any particular electronic record, means any person who on behalf of another person receives, stores or transmits that record or provides any service with respect to that record and includes telecom service providers, network service providers, internet service providers, web hosting service providers, search engines, online payment sites, online-auction sites, online market places and cyber cafes.

Rule 3(9) of the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011 (the “Intermediary Guidelines”) also imposes an obligation on any intermediary to report any cyber incident and share information related to cyber security incidents with the CERT-In. Since neither the Intermediary Guidelines not the IT Act specifically provide for any penalty for non conformity with Rule 3(9) therefore any enforcement action against an intermediary failing to report a cyber security incident would have to be taken under section 45 of the IT Act containing a penalty of Rs. 25,000/-.

Incident Reporting under the Unified License

Clause 39.10(i) of the Unified License Agreement obliges the telecom company to create facilities for the monitoring of all intrusions, attacks and frauds on its technical facilities and provide reports on the same to the Department of Telecom (DoT). Further clause 39.11(ii) provides that for any breach or inadequate compliance with the terms of the license, the telecom company shall be liable to pay a penalty amount of Rs. 50 crores (Rs. 50,00,00,000) per breach.

Conclusion

It is clear from the above discussion that there is a legal obligation service providers to report cyber incidents to the CERT-In. Presently, the penalty prescribed under Indian law may not be enough to incentivise companies to adopt comprehensive and consistent incident response programmes. , except in cases of telecom companies under the Unified License Agreement. A fine of Rs. 25,000/- appears to be inconsequential when compared to the possible dangers and damages that may be caused due to a security breach of data containing, for example, credit card details.. Further, it is also imperative that apart from the obligation to report the cyber incident to the appropriate authorities (CERT-In) there should also be a legal obligation to report it to the data subjects whose data is stolen or is put at risk due to the said breach. A provision requiring notice to the data subjects could go a long way in ensuring that service providers, intermediaries, data centres and body corporates implement the best data security practices since a breach would then be known by general consumers leading to a flurry of bad publicity which could negatively impact the business of the data controller, and for a business entity an economic stimulus may be an effective way to ensure compliance.

As we continue to research incident response, the questions and areas we are exploring include the ecosystem of incidence response including what is reported, how, and when, appropriate incentives to companies and governments to report incidents, various forms of penalties, the role of cross border sharing of information and jurisdiction and best practices for incident reporting and citizen awareness.

Published under Creative Commons License CC BY-SA. Anyone can distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon this document, even for commercial purposes, as long as they credit the creator of this document and license their new creations under the terms identical to the license governing this document

^[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.in/2016/10/21/atm-card-hack-what-banks-are-saying-about-india-s-biggest-data/

^[2] http://tech.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/internet/cert-in-had-warned-banks-on-oct-7-about-expected-targeted-attacks-from-pakistan/54991025

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/incident-response-requirements-in-indian-law