We are anonymous, we are legion

Zuckerberg's Plan Spurned as India Backs Full Net Neutrality

praskrishna — 2016-02-15T02:18:54Z

Facebook Inc.’s plans for expansion in India have suffered a major setback.

The article by Adi Narayan and Bhuma Srivastava was published in Bloomberg on February 8, 2016. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.

Telecom regulator bans differential Internet data plans
Facebook had lobbied India to approve its Free Basics plan

After the company spent months lobbying the country to accept its Free Basics service -- a way of delivering a limited Internet that included Facebook, plus some other tools, for no cost -- India’s telecom regulator ruled against any plans from cellular operators that charge different rates to different parts of the Web.

Telecom operators can’t offer discriminatory tariffs for data services based on content, and aren’t allowed to enter into agreements with Internet companies to subsidize access to some websites, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India said in a statement Monday. Companies violating the rules will be fined, it said.

“This is the most extensive and stringent regulation on differential pricing anywhere in the world,” Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Centre for Internet and Society, said via phone. “Those who suggested regulation in place of complete ban have clearly lost.”

With this decision, India joins countries such as the U.S., Brazil and the Netherlands in passing laws that restrict telecom operators from discriminating Internet traffic based on content. It is a big blow to Facebook’s Internet sampler plan known as Free Basics, which is currently offered in about three dozen countries including Kenya and Zambia, none of which come close to the scale or reach that could’ve been achieved in India.

With 130 million Facebook users, 375 million people online, and an additional 800 million-plus who aren’t, India is the biggest growth market for the social network, which remains blocked in China.

Facebook said in a statement that it’s “disappointed with the outcome.”

Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg said the decision won’t cause Facebook to give up on connecting people to the Internet in India, “because more than a billion people in India don’t have access to the Internet.” The company will continue to focus on its other initiatives, like extending networks using satellites, drones and lasers.

Freebies Curtailed

The rule will put an end to prepaid plans that offered free access to services such as Google searches, the WhatsApp messaging application and Facebook. These packages were popular with low-income users by giving them an incentive to get online, said Rajan Mathews, director general of the lobby group Cellular Operators Association of India.

“These types of plans were being used by operators to meet the policy goals of connecting one billion people,” Matthews said. “With these gone, the government needs to tell us what alternatives are there.”

The regulator’s decision comes after months of public lobbying by Facebook for India to approve Free Basics, which allows customers to access the social network and other services such as education, health care, and employment listings from their phones without a data plan.

Free Basics was criticized by activists who said it threatened net neutrality, the principle that all Internet websites should be equally accessible, and could change pricing in India for access to different websites.

The regulator, which had sought stakeholders’ views, said it was seeking to ensure data tariffs remain content agnostic. Operators will have six months to wind down existing differential pricing services.

Google Unaffected

“Anything on the Internet can’t be priced based on content, applications, source and destination,” R.S. Sharma, the regulator’s chairman, told reporters in New Delhi. Some Internet companies’ plans to offer free WiFi at public venues, like Google Inc.’s project with Indian Railways, are not affected by this ruling, he said.

For Free Basics, one or two carriers in a given country offer the package for free at slow speeds, betting that it will help attract new customers who’ll later upgrade to pricier data plans. In India, Facebook had tied up with Reliance Communications Ltd., though the service was suspended in December as the government solicited comments from proponents and opponents.

Since the government’s telecommunications regulator announced the suspension, Facebook bought daily full-page ads in major newspapers and plastered billboards with pictures of happy farmers and schoolchildren it says would benefit from Free Basics. Zuckerberg has frequently made the case himself via phone or newspaper op-eds, asking that Indians petition the government to approve his service.

Entrepreneurs, business people and activists took to Twitter to share their views after the decision came out on Monday.

“Great to see TRAI backing #NetNeutrality,” Kunal Bahl, founder of Snapdeal.com, one of India’s biggest e-commerce sites, said. “Let’s keep the Internet free and independent.”

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/bloomberg-adi-narayan-bhuma-srivastava-february-8-2016-zuckerberg-plan-spurned-as-india-backs-full-net-neutrality

Trai upholds Net Neutrality in setback to Facebook’s Free Basics

praskrishna — 2016-02-15T02:01:37Z

Trai says Internet service providers will not be allowed to discriminate on pricing of data access for different web services.

The article by Moulishree Srivastava and Shauvik Ghosh was published in Livemint on February 9, 2016. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

India’s telecom regulator has barred Internet service providers from offering customers preferential tariffs to access certain content over concerns that it will violate Net neutrality norms, dealing a blow to Facebook Inc.’s free data service plan.

Internet service providers, including telecom operators, are prohibited from offering discriminatory tariffs for data services based on content, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) said on Monday. Service providers that violate these rules will be fined Rs.50,000 per day to a maximum of Rs.50 lakh. Trai said it may review the rules after two years.

The decision ends a long battle between Facebook and the country’s telecom operators, including Bharti Airtel Ltd, on one side and Net neutrality activists on the other. Facebook had launched an intense lobbying effort that included full-page advertisements in newspapers and an Internet campaign to assure people that its Free Basics plan, which allows access to its social network and some other websites without a data plan, would benefit millions of poor Indians.

“BJP wholeheartedly welcomes the Trai decision on differential pricing. The decision is a clear expression of popular will,” said telecom minister Ravi Shankar Prasad on Monday. “The government made sure proper processes were followed at all levels which eventually led to the victory of an open and equal Internet... It is gladdening to see that the NDA government ensured unparalleled transparency in the entire issue of net neutrality,” he added.

Net neutrality requires Internet service providers not to discriminate on online data by user, content, site, platform, application, mode of communication or price.

“The net neutrality activists... have got exactly what they wanted—the complete prohibition of the differential pricing,” said Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Bengaluru-based research organization Centre for Internet and Society. “Before Facebook started with its aggressive and outrageous campaign to promote Free Basics, the Net neutrality debate was a peaceful discussion. The way it has behaved must have led the regulator to lose trust that big companies can self-regulate.”

It, however, remains to be seen whether telcos challenge the regulation in court, he added.

“This has been a litigious issue and a lot of money is at stake so quite likely, I think, they will go to court,” said Apar Gupta, a lawyer and part of Save The Internet campaign.

The basic rationale behind the regulation is that the network that carries the data should be agnostic to data packets, R.S. Sharma, chairman of Trai, told reporters.

“Anything on the Internet cannot be priced discriminately based on source, destination, content and applications,” he said.

A spokesperson for Facebook said the company will carefully study what the regulator has said and comment accordingly.

Bharti Airtel and Reliance Communications Ltd (Facebook partnered with R-Com in India) declined to comment.

Differential pricing based on the network speed, Sharma said, is a larger issue and so is Net neutrality.

“We have used the term discriminatory pricing in place of differential pricing, because differential pricing in the consultation paper had a particular context. Differential word was quite contextual in the regulation, but it was misunderstood in a very larger context. Therefore, to differentiate, we are calling it discriminatory,” he said.

However, Sharma said that the Net neutrality debate is not over.

“Net neutrality is a larger question, and we have not gone into that question, though, I must admit, differential pricing is looking at Net neutrality from a tariff perspective. Net neutrality has a number of other components which is fast lane, throttling and differentially treating the packet in terms of speed etc. So this is not a part of this regulation,” Sharma said.

Amresh Nandan, research director at Gartner in India, said the Trai order favouring Net neutrality is in line with rules in the US. “The European Union has also ruled in favour of treating all Internet traffic equally,” Nandan said.

Nandan said the proponents of Net neutrality all over the world have been highlighting the importance of democratic values of the Internet and even a marginal attempt to curb it can possibly trigger all kinds of differentiation.

All the major telcos in India have, however, been lobbying the regulator to allow differential-pricing plans for data services. The telcos said such tariffs will increase Internet penetration in the country, benefiting consumers in the long run. They further argued that the existing legal framework is sufficient for regulating and monitoring differential pricing measures provided by the service providers and that Trai can deal with any issue regarding anti-competitive practices on a case-by-case basis as and when they arise.

Activists say such a practice will undermine competition and create monopolies. Differential pricing, they said, will allow big companies to buy favoured treatment from carriers.

Telecom operators said they were disappointed with the ruling. “Differential pricing could be useful in connecting the unconnected in India. This is an upfront disbarment,” said Rajan Mathews, director general of the Cellular Operators Association of India, the lobby group that represent some of the major telcos. “We believe that it was an appropriate tool to allow consumers who have never been on the Internet, to enjoy getting accustomed to it without getting sticker shock.”

Hemant Joshi, a partner at Deloitte Haskins and Sells Llp, said differential pricing was a well-accepted principle across industries.

“The concept inherently recognizes the economic principle of paying differently for different levels of service and experience. In telecom, there are virtual highways that need to follow the same principle. More awareness and education is needed around the economics of differential pricing and its long-term implications on the Industry and the consumer,” he added.

Trai, which put up the consultation paper on differential pricing on 9 December, asked four specific questions, broadly on whether telecom operators should be allowed to offer different services at different price points and models that can be implemented to achieve this.

Trai extended the deadline for comments and counter-comments on its consultation paper to 7 January and 14 January from 31 December and 7 January, respectively. For the consultation process, Trai said that majority of the individual comments received did not address the specific questions that were raised in the consultation paper.

P.R. Sanjai and Ashish K. Mishra in Mumbai contributed to this story.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/livemint-february-9-2016-shauvik-ghosh-moulishree-srivastava-trai-upholds-net-neutrality-in-setback-to-facebooks-free-basics

Linking Facebook use to free top-up data

praskrishna — 2016-02-14T12:33:17Z

Just before the Trai notification, the Ambani brothers signed a spectrum sharing pact and they have been sharing optic fibre since 2013.

The article was published in the Deccan Chronicle on February 14, 2016. Pranesh Prakash gave inputs.

Some people argue that Trai should have stayed off the issue since the Competition Commission of India (CCI) is sufficient to tackle Net Neutrality harms. However it is unclear if predatory pricing by Reliance, which has only nine per cent market share, will cross the competition law threshold for market dominance? Interestingly, just before the Trai notification, the Ambani brothers signed a spectrum sharing pact and they have been sharing optic fibre since 2013.

Will a content sharing pact follow these carriage pacts? As media diversity researcher, Alam Srinivas, notes: “If their plans succeed, their media empires will span across genres such as print, broadcasting, radio and digital. They will own the distribution chains such as cable, direct-to-home (DTH), optic fibre (terrestrial and undersea), telecom towers and multiplexes.”

What does this convergence vision of the Ambani brothers mean for media diversity in India? In the absence of net neutrality regulation could they use their dominance in broadcast media to reduce choice on the Internet? Could they use a non-neutral provisioning of the Internet to increase their dominance in broadcast media? When a single wire or the very same radio spectrum delivers radio, TV, games and Internet to your home — what under competition law will be considered a substitutable product? What would be the relevant market?

At the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), we argue that competition law principles with lower threshold should be applied to networked infrastructure through infrastructure specific non-discrimination regulations like the one that Trai just notified to protect digital media diversity.

Was an absolute prohibition the best response for Trai? With only two possible exemptions — i.e. closed communication network and emergencies — the regulation is very clear and brief. However, as our colleague Pranesh Prakash has said, Trai has over-regulated and used a sledgehammer where a scalpel would have sufficed. In CIS’ official submission, we had recommended a series of tests in order to determine whether a particular type of zero rating should be allowed or forbidden. That test may be legally sophisticated; but as Trai argues it is clear and simple rules that result in regulatory equity. A possible alternative to a complicated multi-part legal test is the leaky walled garden proposal. Remember, it is only in the case of very dangerous technologies where the harms are large scale and irreversible and an absolute prohibition based on the precautionary principle is merited.

However, as far as network neutrality harms go, it may be sufficient to insist that for every MB that is consumed within Free Basics, Reliance be mandated to provide a data top up of 3MB.

This would have three advantages. One, it would be easy to articulate in a brief regulation and therefore reduce the possibility of litigation. Two, it is easy for the consumer who is harmed to monitor the mitigation measure and last, based on empirical data, the regulator could increase or decrease the proportion of the mitigation measure.

This is an example of what Prof Christopher T. Marsden calls positive, forward-looking network neutrality regulation. Positive in the sense that instead of prohibitions and punitive measures, the emphasis is on obligations and forward-looking in the sense that no new technology and business model should be prohibited.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/deccan-chronicle-february-14-2016-linking-facebook-use-to-free-top-up-data

A Case for Greater Privacy Paternalism?

Amber Sinha — 2016-02-20T07:28:43Z

This is the second part of a series of three articles exploring the issues with the privacy self management framework and potential alternatives.

The first part of the series can be accessed here.

Background

The current data privacy protection framework across most jurisdictions is built around a rights based approach which entrusts the individual with having the wherewithal to make informed decisions about her interests and well-being.^{^[1]} In his book, The Phantom Public, published in 1925, Walter Lippmann argues that the rights based approach is based on the idea of a sovereign and omnicompetent citizens, who can direct public affairs, however, this idea is a mere phantom or an abstraction. ^{^[2]} Jonathan Obar, Assistant Professor of Communication and Digital Media Studies in the Faculty of Social Science and Humanities at University of Ontario Institute of Technology, states that Lippmann's thesis remains equally relevant in the context of current models of self-management, particularly for privacy.^{^[3]} In the previous post, Scott Mason and I had looked at the limitations of a 'notice and consent' regime for privacy governance. Having established the deficiencies of the existing framework for data protection, I will now look at some of the alternatives proposed that may serve to address these issues.

In this article, I will look at paternalistic solutions posed as alternatives to the privacy self-management regime. I will look at theories of paternalism and libertarianism in the context of privacy and with reference to the works of some of the leading philosophers on jurisprudence and political science. The paper will attempt to clarify the main concepts and the arguments put forward by both the proponents and opponents of privacy paternalism. The first alternative solution draws on Anita Allen's thesis in her book, Unpopular Privacy,^{^[4]} which deals with the questions whether individuals have a moral obligation to protect their own privacy. Allen expands the idea of rights to protect one's own self interests and duties towards others to the notion that we may have certain duties not only towards others but also towards ourselves because of their overall impact on the society. In the next section, we will look at the idea of 'libertarian paternalism' as put forth by Cass Sunstein and Richard Thaler^{^[5]} and what its impact could be on privacy governance.

Paternalism

Gerald Dworkin, Professor Emeritus at University of California, Davis, defines paternalism as "interference of a state or an individual with another person, against their will, and defended or motivated by a claim that the person interfered with will be better off or protected from harm." ^{^[6]} Any act of paternalism will involve some limitation on the autonomy of the subject of the regulation usually without the consent of the subject, and premised on the belief that such act shall either improve the welfare of the subject or prevent it from diminishing.^{^[7]} Seana Shiffrin, Professor of Philosophy and Pete Kameron Professor of Law and Social Justice at UCLA, takes a broader view of paternalism and includes within its scope not only matters which are aimed at improving the subject's welfare, but also the replacement of the subject's judgement about matters which may otherwise have lied legitimately within the subject's control.^{^[8]} In that sense, Shiffrin's view is interesting for it dispenses with both the requirement for active interference, and such act being premised on the subject's well-being.

The central premise of John Stuart Mill's On Liberty is that the only justifiable purpose to exert power over the will of an individual is to prevent harm to others. "His own good, either physical or moral," according to Mill, "is not a sufficient warrant." However, various scholars over the years have found Mill's absolute prohibition problematic and support some degree of paternalism. John Rawls' Principle of Fairness, for instance has been argued to be inherently paternalistic. If one has to put it in a nutshell, the aspect about paternalism that makes it controversial is that it involves coercion or interference, which in any theory of normative ethics or political science needs to be justified based on certain identified criteria. Staunch opponents of paternalism believe that this justification can never be met. Most scholars however, do not argue that all forms of paternalism are untenable and the bulk of scholarship on paternalism is devoted to formulating the conditions under which this justification is satisfied.

Paternalism interferes with self-autonomy in two ways according to Peter de Marneffe, the Professor of Philosophy at the School of Historical, Philosophical and Religious Studies, Arizona State University.^{^[9]} The first is the prohibition principle, under which a person's autonomy is violated by being prohibited from making a choice. The second is the opportunity principle which undermines the autonomy of a person by reducing his opportunities to make a choice. Both the cases should be predicated upon a finding that the paternalistic act will lead to welfare or greater autonomy. According to de Marneffe, there are three conditions under which such acts of paternalism are justified - the benefits of welfare should be substantial, evident and must outweigh the benefits of self-autonomy.^{^[10]}

There are two main strands of arguments made against paternalism.^{^[11]} The first argues that interference with the choices of informed adults will always be an inferior option to letting them decide for themselves, as each person is the 'best judge' of his or her interests. The second strand does not engage with the question about whether paternalism can make better decisions about individuals, but states that any benefit derived from the paternalist act is outweighed by the harm of violation of self-autonomy. Most proponents of soft-paternalism build on this premise by trying to demonstrate that not all paternalistic acts violate self-autonomy. There are various forms of paternalism that we do not question despite them interfering with our autonomy - seat belt laws and restriction of tobacco advertising being a few of them. If we try to locate arguments for self-autonomy in the Kantian framework, it refers not just to the ability to do what one chooses, but to rational self-governance.^{^[12]} This theory automatically "opens the door for justifiable paternalism."^{^[13]} In this paper, I assume that certain forms of paternalism are justified. In the remaining two section, I will look at two different theories advocating greater paternalism in the context of privacy governance and try to examine the merits and issues with such measures.

A moral obligation to protect one's privacy

Modest Paternalism

In her book, Unpopular Privacy,^{^[14]} Anita Allen states that enough emphasis is not placed by people on the value of privacy. The right of individuals to exercise their free will and under the 'notice and consent' regime, give up their rights to privacy as they deem fit is, according to her, problematic. The data protection law in most jurisdictions, is designed to be largely value-neutral in that it does not sit on judgement on what is the nature of information that is being revealed and how the collector uses it. Its primary emphasis is on providing the data subject with information about the above and allowing him to make informed decisions. In my previous post, Scott Mason and I had discussed that with online connectivity becomes increasingly important to participation in modern life, the choice to withdraw completely is becoming less and less of a genuine option.^{^[15]} Lamenting that people put little emphasis on privacy and often give away information which, upon retrospection and due consideration, they would feel, they ought not have disclosed, Allen proposes what she calls 'modest paternalism' in which regulations mandate that individuals do not waive their privacy is certain limited circumstances.

Allen acknowledges the tension between her arguments in favor of paternalism and her avowed support for the liberal ideals of autonomy and that government interference should be limited, to the extent possible. However, she tries to make a case for greater paternalism in the context of privacy. She begins by categorizing privacy as a "primary good" essential for "self respect, trusting relationships, positions of responsibility and other forms of flourishing." In another article, Allen states that this "technophilic generation appears to have made disclosure the default rule of everyday life."^{^[16]} Relying on various anecdotes and examples of individuals' disregard for privacy, she argues that privacy is so "neglected in contemporary life that democratic states, though liberal and feminist, could be justified in undertaking a rescue mission that includes enacting paternalistic privacy laws for the benefit of un-eager beneficiaries." She does state that in most cases it may be more advantageous to educate and incentivise individuals towards making choices that favor greater privacy protection. However, in exceptional cases, paternalism would be justified as a tool to ensure greater privacy.

A duty towards oneself

In an article for the Harvard Symposium on Privacy in 2013, Allen states that laws generally provide a framework built around rights of individuals that enable self-protection and duties towards others. G A Cohen describes Robert Nozick's views which represents this libertarian philosophy as follows: "The thought is that each person is the morally rightful owner of himself. He possesses over himself, as a matter of moral right, all those rights that a slaveholder has over a chattel slave as a matter of legal right, and he is entitled, morally speaking, to dispose over himself in the way such a slaveholder is entitled, legally speaking, to dispose over his slave."^{^[17]} As per the libertarian philosophy espoused by Nozick, everyone is licensed to abuse themselves in the same manner slaveholders abused their slaves.

Allen asks the question whether there is a duty towards oneself and if such a duty exists, should it be reflected in policy or law. She accepts that a range of philosophers consider the idea of duties to oneself as illogical or untenable. ^{^[18]} Allen, however relies on the works of scholars such as Lara Denis, Paul Eisenberg and Daniel Kading who have located such a duty. She develops a schematic of two kinds of duties - first order duties that requires we protect ourselves for the sake of others, and second order, derivative duties that we protect ourself. Through the essay, she relies on the Kantian framework of categorical imperative to build the moral thrust of her arguments. Kantian view of paternalism would justify those acts which interfere with an individual's autonomy in order to prevent her from exercising her autonomy irrationally, and draw her towards rational end that agree with her conception of good.^{^[19]} However, Allen goes one step further and she locates the genesis for duties to both others (perfect duties) and oneself (imperfect duties) in the categorical imperative . Her main thesis is that there are certain situations where we have a moral duty to protect our own privacy where failure to do so would have an impact on either specific others or the society, at large.

Issues

Having built this interesting and somewhat controversial premise, Allen does not sufficiently expand upon it to present a nuanced solution. She provides a number of anecdotes but does not formulate any criteria for when privacy duties could be self-regarding. Her test for what kinds of paternalistic acts are justified is also extremely broad. She argues for paternalism where is protects privacy rights that "enhance liberty, liberal ways of life, well-being and expanded opportunity." She does not clearly define the threshold for when policy should move from incentives to regulatory mandate nor does she elaborate upon what forms paternalism would both serve the purpose of protecting privacy as well as ensuring that there is no unnecessary interference with the rights of individual.^{^[20]}

Nudge and libertarian paternalism

What is nudge?

In 2006, Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein published their book Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness. ^{^[21]} The central thesis of the book is that in order to make most of decisions, we rely on a menu of options made available to us and the order and structure of choices is characterised by Thaler and Sunstein as "choice architecture." According to them, the choice architecture has a significant impact on the choices that we make. The book looks at examples from a food cafeteria, the position of restrooms and how whether the choice is to opt-in or opt-out influences the retirement plans that were chosen. This choice architecture influences our behavior without coercion or a set of incentives, as conventional public policy theory would have us expect. The book draws on work done by cognitive scientists such as Daniel Kahneman^{^[22]} and Amos Tversky^{^[23]} as well as Thaler's own research in behavioral economics. ^{^[24]} The key takeaway from cognitive science and behavioral economics used in this book is that choice architecture influences our actions in anticipated ways and leads to predictably irrational behavior. Thaler and Sunstein believe that this presents a great potential for policy makers. They can tweak the choice architecture in their specific domains to influence the decisions made by its subjects and nudge them towards behavior that is beneficial to them and/or the society.

The great attraction of the argument made by Thaler and Sunstein is that it offers a compromise between forbearance and mandatory regulation. If we identify the two ends of the policy spectrum as - a) paternalists who believe in maximum interference through legal regulations that coerce behavior to meet the stated goals of the policy, and b) libertarians who believe in the free market theory that relies on the individuals making decisions in their best interests, 'nudging' falls somewhere in the middle, leading to the oxymoronic yet strangely apt phrase, "libertarian paternalism." The idea is to design choices in such as way that they influence decision-making so as to increase individual and societal welfare. In his book, The Laws of Fear, Cass Sunstein argues that the anti-paternalistic position is incoherent as "there is no way to avoid effects on behavior and choices."

The proponents of libertarian paternalism refute the commonly posed question about who decides the optimal and desirable results of choice architecture, by stating that this form of paternalism does not promote a perfectionist standard of welfare but an individualistic and subjective standard. According to them, choices are not prohibited, cordoned off or made to carry significant barriers. However, it is often difficult to conclude what it is that is better for the welfare of people, even from their own point of view. The claim that nudges lead to choices that make them better off by their own standards seems more and more untenable. What nudges do is lead people towards certain broad welfare which the choice-architects believe make the lives of people better in the longer term.^{^[25]}

How nudges could apply to privacy?

Our previous post echoes the assertion made by Thaler and Sunstein that the traditional rational choice theory that assumes that individuals will make rationally optimal choices in their self interest when provided with a set of incentives and disincentives, is largely a fiction. We have argued that this assertion holds true in the context of privacy protection principles of notice and informed consent. Daniel Solove has argued that insights from cognitive science, particularly using the theory of nudge would be an acceptable compromise between the inefficacy of privacy self-management and the dangers of paternalism.^{^[26]} His rationale is that while nudges influence choice, they are not overly paternalistic in that they still give the individual the option of making choices contrary to those sought by the choice architecture. This is an important distinction and it demonstrates that 'nudging' is less coercive than how we generally understand paternalistic policies.

One of the nudging techniques which makes a lot of sense in the context of the data protection policies is the use of defaults. It relies on the oft-mentioned status quo bias.^{^[27]} This is mentioned by Thaler and Sunstein with respect to encouraging retirement savings plans and organ donation, but would apply equally to privacy. A number of data collectors have maximum disclosure as their default settings and effort in understanding and changing these settings is rarely employed by users. A rule which mandates that data collectors set optimal defaults that ensure that the most sensitive information is subjected to least degree of disclosure unless otherwise chosen by the user, will ensure greater privacy protection.

Ryan Calo and Dr. Victoria Groom explored an alternative to the traditional notice and consent regime at the Centre of Internet and Society, Stanford University.^{^[28]} They conducted a two-phase experimental study. In the first phase, a standard privacy notice was compared with a control condition and a simplified notice to see if improving the readability impacted the response of users. In the second phase, the notice was compared with five notices strategies, out of which four were intended to enhance privacy protective behavior and one was intended to lower it. Shara Monteleone and her team used a similar approach but with a much larger sample size.^{^[29]} One of the primary behavioral insights used was that when we do repetitive activities including accepting online terms and conditions or privacy notices, we tend to use our automatic or fast thinking instead to reflective or slow thinking.^{^[30]} Changing them requires leveraging the automatic behavior of the individuals.

Alessandro Acquisti, Professor of Information Technology and Public Policy at the Heinz College, Carnegie Mellon University, has studied the application of methodologies from behavioral economics to investigate privacy decision-making.^{^[31]} He highlights a variety of factors that distort decision-making such as - "inconsistent preferences and frames of judgment; opposing or contradictory needs (such as the need for publicity combined with the need for privacy); incomplete information about risks, consequences, or solutions inherent to provisioning (or protecting) personal information; bounded cognitive abilities that limit our ability to consider or reflect on the consequences of privacy-relevant actions; and various systematic (and therefore predictable) deviations from the abstractly rational decision process." Acquisti looks at three kinds of policy solutions taking the example of social networking sites collecting sensitive information- a) hard paternalistic approach which ban making visible certain kind of information on the site, b) a usability approach that entails designing the system in way that is most intuitive and easy for users to decide whether to provide the information, c) a soft paternalistic approach which seeks to aid the decision-making by providing other information such as how many people would have access to the information, if provided, and set defaults such that the information is not visible to others unless explicitly set by the user. The last two approaches are typically cited as examples of nudging approaches to privacy.

Another method is to use tools that lead to decreased disclosure of information. For example, tools like Social Media Sobriety Test^{^[32]} or Mail Goggles^{^[33]} serve to block the sites during certain hours set by user during which one expects to be at their most vulnerable, and the online services are blocked unless the user can pass a dexterity examination.^{^[34]} Rebecca Belabako and her team are building privacy enhanced tools for Facebook and Twitter that will provide greater nudges in restricting who they share their location on Facebook and restricting their tweets to smaller group of people.^{^[35]} Ritu Gulia and Dr. Sapna Gambhir have suggested nudges for social networking websites that randomly select pictures of people who will have access to the information to emphasise the public or private setting of a post.^{^[36]} These approaches try to address the myopia bias where we choose immediate access to service over long term privacy harms.

The use of nudges as envisioned in the examples above is in some ways an extension of already existing research which advocates a design standard that makes the privacy notices more easily intelligible.^{^[37]} However, studies show only an insignificant improvement by using these methods. Nudging, in that sense goes one step ahead. Instead of trying to make notices more readable and enable informed consent, the design standard will be intended to simply lead to choices that the architects deem optimal.

Issues with nudging

One of the primary justifications that Thaler and Sunstein put forward for nudging is that the choice architecture is ubiquitous. The manner in which option are presented to us impact how we make decision whether it was intended to do so or not, and that there is no such thing a neutral architecture. This inevitability, according to them, makes a strong case for nudging people towards choices that will lead to their well-being. However, this assessment does not support the arguments made by them that libertarian paternalism nudges people towards choices from their own point of view. It is my contention that various examples of libertarian paternalism, as put forth by Thaler and Sunstein, do in fact interfere with our self-autonomy as the choice architecture leads us not to options that we choose for ourselves in a fictional neutral environments, but to those options that the architects believe are good for us. This substitution of judgment would satisfy the definition by Seana Shiffron. Second, the fact that there is no such things as a neutral architecture, is by itself, not justification enough for nudging. If we view the issue only from the point of view of normative ethics, assuming that coercion and interference are undesirable, intentional interference is much worse than unintentional interference.

However, there are certain nudges that rely primarily on providing information, dispensing advice and rational persuasion.^{^[38]} The freedom of choice is preserved in these circumstances. Libertarians may argue that even these circumstances the shaping of choice is problematic. This issue, J S Blumenthal-Barby argues, is adequately addressed by the publicity condition, a concept borrowed by Thaler and Sunstein from John Rawls.^{^[39]} The principle states that officials should never use a technique they would be uncomfortable defending to the public; nudging is no exception. However, this seems like a simplistic solution to a complex problem. Nudges are meant to rely on inherent psychological tendencies, leveraging the theories about automatic and subconscious thinking as described by Daniel Kahneman in his book, "Thinking Fast, Thinking Slow."^{^[40]} In that sense, while transparency is desirable it may not be very effective.

Other commentators also note that while behavioral economics can show why people make certain decisions, it may not be able to reliably predict how people will behave in different circumstances. The burden of extrapolating the observations into meaningful nudges may prove to be too heavy.^{^[41]} However, the most oft-quoted criticism of nudging is that it will rely on officials to formulate the desired goals towards which the choice architecture will lead us.^{^[42]} The judgments of these officials could be flawed and subject to influence by large corporations.^{^[43]} These concerns echo the best judge argument made against all forms of paternalism, mentioned earlier in this essay. J S Blumenthal-Barby, Assistant Professor at the Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Baylor College of Medicine, also examines the claim that the choice architects will be susceptible to the same biases while designing the choice environment.^{^[44]} His first argument in response to this is that experts who extensively study decision-making may be less prone to these errors. Second, he argues that even with errors and biases, a choice architecture which attempts to the rights the wrongs of a random and unstructured choice environment is a preferable option.^{^[45]}

Conclusion

Most libertarians will find the notion that individuals are prevented from sharing some information about themselves problematic. Anita Allen's idea about self-regarding duties is at odds how we understand rights and duties in most jurisdictions. Her attempt to locate an ethical duty to protect one's privacy, while interesting, is not backed by a formulation of how such a duty would work. While she relies largely on an Kantian framework, her definition of paternalism, as can be drawn from her writing is broader than that articulated by Kant himself. On the other hand, Thaler and Sunstein's book Nudge and related writings by them do attempt to build a framework of how nudging would work and answer some questions they anticipate would be raised against the idea of libertarian paternalism.

By and large, I feel that, Thaler and Sunstein's idea of libertarian paternalism could be justified in the context of privacy and data protection governance. It would be fair to say the first two conditions of de Marneffe under which such acts of paternalism are justified ^{^[46]} are largely satisfied by nudges that ensures greater privacy protection. If nudges can ensure greater privacy protection, its benefits are both substantial and evident. However, the larger question is whether these purported benefits outweigh the costs of loss of self-autonomy. Given the numerous ways in which the 'notice and consent' framework is ineffective and leads to very little informed consent, it can be argued that there is little exercise of autonomy, to begin with, and hence, the loss of self-autonomy is not substantial. Some of the conceptual issues which doubt the ability of nudges to solve complex problems remain unanswered and we will have to wait for more analysis by both cognitive scientists and policy-makers. However, given the growing inefficacy of the existing privacy protection framework, it would be a good idea of begin using some insights from cognitive science and behavioral economics to ensure greater privacy protection.

The current value-neutrality of data protection law with respect of the kind of data collected and its use, and its complete reliance on the data subject to make an informed choice is, in my opinion, an idea that has run its course. Rather than focussing solely on the controls at the stage of data collection, I believe we need a more robust theory of how to govern the subsequent uses of data. This will is the focus of the next part of this series in which I will look at the greater use of risk-based approach to privacy protection.

^{^[1]} With invaluable inputs from Scott Mason.

^{^[2]} Walter Lippmann, The Phantom Public, Transaction Publishers, 1925.

^{^[3]} Jonathan Obar, Big Data and the Phantom Public: Walter Lippmann and the fallacy of data privacy self management, Big Data and Society, 2015, available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2239188

^{^[4]} Anita Allen, Unpopular Privacy: What we must hide?, Oxford University Press USA, 2011.

^{^[5]} Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein, Nudge, Improving decisions about health, wealth and happinessYale University Press, 2008.

^{^[6]} http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paternalism/

^{^[7]} Christian Coons and Michael Weber, ed., Paternalism: Theory and Practice; Cambridge University Press, 2013. at 29.

^{^[8]} Seana Shiffrin, Paternalism, Unconscionability Doctrine, and Accommodation, available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2682745

^{^[9]} Peter de Marneffe, Self Sovereignty and Paternalism, from Christian Coons and Michael Weber, ed., Paternalism: Theory and Practice; Cambridge University Press, 2013. at 58.

^{^[10]} Id .

^{^[11]} Christian Coons and Michael Weber, ed., Paternalism: Theory and Practice; Cambridge University Press, 2013. at 74.

^{^[12]} Christian Coons and Michael Weber, ed., Paternalism: Theory and Practice; Cambridge University Press, 2013. at 115.

^{^[13]} Ibid at 116.

^{^[14]} Anita Allen, Unpopular Privacy: What we must hide?, Oxford University Press USA, 2011.

^{^[15]} Janet Vertasi, My Experiment Opting Out of Big Data Made Me Look Like a Criminal, 2014, available at http://time.com/83200/privacy-internet-big-data-opt-out/

^{^[16]} Anita Allen, Privacy Law: Positive Theory and Normative Practice, available at http://harvardlawreview.org/2013/06/privacy-law-positive-theory-and-normative-practice/ .

^{^[17]} G A Cohen, Self ownership, world ownership and equality, available at http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=3093280

^{^[18]} Marcus G. Singer, On Duties to Oneself, available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/2379349?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents; Kurt Baier, The moral point of view: A rational basis of ethics, available at https://www.uta.edu/philosophy/faculty/burgess-jackson/Baier,%20The%20Moral%20Point%20of%20View%20%281958%29%20%28Excerpt%20on%20Ethical%20Egoism%29.pdf .

^{^[19]} Michael Cholbi, Kantian Paternalism and suicide intervention, from Christian Coons and Michael Weber, ed., Paternalism: Theory and Practice; Cambridge University Press, 2013.

^{^[20]} Eric Posner, Liberalism and Concealment, available at https://newrepublic.com/article/94037/unpopular-privacy-anita-allen

^{^[21]} Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein, Nudge, Improving decisions about health, wealth and happinessYale University Press, 2008.

^{^[22]} Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, fast and slow, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011.

^{^[23]} Daniel Kahneman, Paul Slovic and Amos Tversky, Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases, Cambridge University Press, 1982; Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, Choices, Values and Frames, Cambridge University Press, 2000.

^{^[24]} Richard Thaler, Advances in behavioral finance, Russell Sage Foundation, 1993.

^{^[25]} Thaler, Sunstein and Balz, Choice Architecture, available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1583509.

^{^[26]} Daniel Solove, Privacy self-management and consent dilemma, 2013 available at http://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2093&context=faculty_publications

^{^[27]} Frederik Borgesius, Behavioral sciences and the regulation of privacy on the Internet, available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2513771.

^{^[28]} Ryan Calo and Dr. Victoria Groom, Reversing the Privacy Paradox: An experimental study, available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1993125

^{^[29]} Shara Monteleon et al, Nudges to Privacy Behavior: Exploring an alternative approahc to privacy notices, available at http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC96695/jrc96695.pdf

^{^[30]} Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, fast and slow, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011.

^{^[31]} Alessandro Acquisti, Nudging Privacy, available at http://www.heinz.cmu.edu/~acquisti/papers/acquisti-privacy-nudging.pdf

^{^[32]} http://www.webroot.com/En_US/sites/sobrietytest/test.php?url=0

^{^[33]} http://google.about.com/od/m/g/mail_goggles.htm

^{^[34]} Rebecca Balebako et al, Nudging Users towards privacy on mobile devices, available at https://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/pgl/paper6.pdf.

^{^[35]} Id .

^{^[36]} Ritu Gulia and Dr. Sapna Gambhir, Privacy and Privacy Nudges for OSNs: A Review, available at http://www.ijircce.com/upload/2014/march/14L_Privacy.pdf

^{^[37]} Annie I. Anton et al., Financial Privacy Policies and the Need for Standardization, 2004 available at https://ssl.lu.usi.ch/entityws/Allegati/pdf_pub1430.pdf; Florian Schaub, R. Balebako et al, "A Design Space for effective privacy notices" available at https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/soups2015/soups15-paper-schaub.pdf

^{^[38]} Daniel Hausman and Bryan Welch argue that these cases are mistakenly characterized as nudges. They believe that nudges do not try to inform the automatic system, but manipulate the inherent cognitive biases. Daniel Hausman and Bryan Welch, Debate: To Nudge or Not to Nudge, Journal of Political Philosophy 18(1).

^{^[39]} Ryan Calo, Code, Nudge or Notice, available at

^{^[40]} Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, fast and slow, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011.

^{^[41]} Evan Selinger and Kyle Powys Whyte, Nudging cannot solve complex policy problems.

^{^[42]} Mario J. Rizzo & Douglas Glen Whitman, The Knowledge Problem of New Paternalism, available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1310732; Pierre Schlag, Nudge, Choice Architecture, and Libertarian Paternalism, available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1585362.

^{^[43]} Edward L. Glaeser, Paternalism and Psychology, available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=917383.

^{^[44]} J S BLumenthal-Barby, Choice Architecture: A mechanism for improving decisions

while preserving liberty?, from Christian Coons and Michael Weber, ed., Paternalism: Theory and Practice; Cambridge University Press, 2013.

^{^[45]} Id .

^{^[46]} According to de Marneffe, there are three conditions under which such acts of paternalism are justified - the benefits of welfare should be substantial, evident and must outweigh the benefits of self-autonomy. Peter de Marneffe, Self Sovereignty and Paternalism, from Christian Coons and Michael Weber, ed., Paternalism: Theory and Practice; Cambridge University Press, 2013. at 58.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/a-case-for-greater-privacy-paternalism

There is No Such Thing as Free Basics

subha — 2016-02-14T11:37:50Z

India would not see the rain of Free Basics advertisements on billboards with images of farmers and common people explaining how much they could benefit from this Firefox project. Because the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) has taken a historical step by banning the differential pricing without discriminating services.

The article was published in Bangalore Mirror on February 9, 2016.

In their notes, TRAI has explained, "In India, given that a majority of the population are yet to be connected to the Internet, allowing service providers to define the nature of access would be equivalent of letting TSPs shape the users' Internet experience." Not just that, violation of this ban would cost Rs 50,000 every day.

Facebook's earlier plan was to launch Free Basics in India by making a few websites—that are mostly partners with Facebook—available for free. The company not just advertised heavily on billboards and commercials across the nation, it also embedded a campaign inside Facebook asking users to vote in support of Free Basics.

TRAI criticised Facebook's attempt for such a manipulative public provocation. However, Facebook was heavily criticised by many policy and Internet advocates, including non-profits groups like Free Software Movement of India and Savetheinternet.in campaign.

The latter two collectives were strongly discouraging Free Basics by bringing public opinion wherein Savetheinternet.org was used to send over 10 lakh emails to TRAI to disallow Free Basics.

Furthermore 500 start ups including major ones like Cleartrip, Zomato, Practo, Paytm and Cleartax also wrote to prime minister Narendra Modi requesting continued support for Net Neutrality — a concept that advocates equal treating of websites — on the Republic Day.

Stand-up comedy groups like AIB and East India Comedy had created humorous but informative videos explaining the regulatory debate and supporting net neutrality which went viral.

Technology critic and Quartz writer Alice Truong reacted saying: "Zuckerberg almost portrays net neutrality as a first-world problem that doesn't apply to India because having some service is better than no service."

In the light of differential pricing, news portal Medianama's founder Nikhil Pawa, in his opinion piece in Times of India, emphasised the way Aircel in India, Grameenphone in Bangladesh and Orange in Africa were providing free access to Internet with a sole motif of access to Internet, and criticised the walled Internet of Facebook that confines users inside Facebook only.

Had the differential pricing been allowed, it would have affected start ups and content-based smaller companies adversely, as they could never have managed to pay the high price to a partner service provider to make their service available for free.

On the other hand, tech-giants like Facebook could have easily managed to capture the entire market. Since the inception of the Facebook-run non-profit Internet.org has run into a lot of controversies because of the hidden motive behind the claimed support for social cause.

The decision by the government has been welcomed largely in the country and outside.

In support of the move, Web We Want programme manager at the World Wide Web Foundation, Renata Avila, has shared saying,

"As the country with the second largest number of Internet users worldwide, this decision will resonate around the world.

"It follows a precedent set by Chile, the United States, and others which have adopted similar net neutrality safeguards. The message is clear: We can't create a two-tier Internet — one for the haves, and one for the have-nots. We must connect everyone to the full potential of the open Web."

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/bangalore-mirror-subhashish-panigrahi-february-9-2016-there-is-no-such-thing-as-free-basics

Net neutrality advocates hail Trai verdict

praskrishna — 2016-02-14T11:16:45Z

Facebook 'disappointed' with the ruling on differential pricing.

The article by Alnoor Peermohamed appeared in the Business Standard on February 9, 2016. Pranesh Prakash gave inputs.

India has demonstrated what a forward looking and pro-net neutrality policy looks like, experts and net neutrality advocates said after the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) turned down a proposal to allow differential pricing services to function in the country.

“This ruling has happened in the face of enormous lobbying on the one side by very large companies and a ragtag bunch of people on the other. In spite of that, to see the right thing has prevailed, which is in the national interest and not what was masqueraded as national interest is very gratifying. This has not often taken place in policy making in India,” says Sharad Sharma, convenor, iSPIRT, a lobby group for indigenous software product firms.

Net neutrality activists across the world have lauded Trai’s decision not to allow large firms such as Facebook and Airtel to divide the Internet and offer selected services for free to consumers. The one year-long fight that began when Airtel proposed to offer internet companies the chance to offer customers their services for free, ended in Trai stipulating fines of Rs 50,000 a day for companies offering differential pricing services, which is capped at Rs 50 lakh.

“This has resulted now in the most expensive and stringent regulation on differential pricing that exists anywhere in the world. Activists around the world would be looking to India and will definitely be using this landmark order to fight against zero rating elsewhere,” said Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), a think tank.

Facebook, which was one of the biggest stakeholders in the drive to allow differential pricing services in the country, said it was disappointed with the ruling. The firm has been accused of supporting net neutrality in the US, but standing in its way in India to get permissions to provide its Free Basics platform in India.

“Our goal with Free Basics is to bring more people online with an open, non-exclusive and free platform. While disappointed with the outcome, we’ll continue our efforts to eliminate barriers and give the unconnected an easier path to the internet and the opportunities it brings,” Facebook said in a statement.

Nikhil Pahwa, founder of Medianama, who ran a campaign called Savetheinternet against Facebook’s Free Basics called this a victory to the youth of India, saying “this outcome indicates what happens when young people actually participate in a governance process”.

According to Pahwa, there’s far too much cynicism about governments not doing the right thing. “We hope this is the beginning of something new: of people believing that they can make a difference, and persevering towards helping form policies that ensure equity and freedom for everyone.”

He added: “There are many internet-related issues that have still to be looked at, especially internet shutdowns, censorship and the encryption policy. These impact all of us, and we should be ready to voice our point of view, and the government looks like it is listening.”

India’s software sector lobby group Nasscom, which had stood against Facebook’s Free Basics platform and for net neutrality in general congratulated Trai for its ruling to disallow zero-rating and differential pricing services in the country.

“Our submission highlighted the importance of net neutrality principles, non-discriminatory access and transparent business models aligned to the goal of enhancing internet penetration in the country. The Trai announcement resounds with the submission made by Nasscom and we would like to congratulate Trai for enshrining the principles of net neutrality,” R Chandrashekhar, president of Nasscom, said in a statement.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/business-standard-february-9-2016-alnoor-peermohamed-net-neutrality-advocates-hail-trai-verdict

UNICEF & Nasscom Foundation Workshop on Child Online Protection

praskrishna — 2016-02-14T11:01:15Z

Jyoti Panday attended UNICEF & Nasscom Foundation Workshop on Child Online Protection (COP) held on 8 February 2016 at Hotel Claridges in New Delhi.

The workshop was organized to raise awareness of the Child Online Protection and the UNICEF -International Telecom Union COP Guidelines for Industry. The COP Guidelines offer general recommendations for industry on protecting children's safety when using ICT technologies. The guidelines also provide a sector specific checklist that recommend actions to respect and support children's rights. Recommendations are provided for mobile operators, ISPs,content providers, online retailers and app developers,UGC interactive and social media service providers, national and public service broadcasters, hardware manufacturers, OS developers and app stores.

At the workshop the preliminary findings of the Rapid Assessment on Child Online Protection in India, carried out by UNICEF was shared. The discussions were structured as the beginning of a dialogue on Children and Internet with the private sector and other stakeholders and to discuss the incorporation of children’s rights dimensions into key ICT industry initiatives on COP. I participated in the panel discussions on the current scenario on child online protection in India and the role of the industry. I raised the issue of lack of transparency in blocking and taking down content online that deemed is harmful for children.

See the Concept Note
Click for the Agenda

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/unicef-nasscom-foundation-workshop-on-child-online-protection

Database on Big Data and Smart Cities International Standards

vanya — 2016-02-11T15:49:45Z

The Centre for Internet and Society is in the process of mapping international standards specifically around Big Data, IoT and Smart Cities. Here is a living document containing a database of some of these key globally accepted standards.

1. International Organisation for Standardization: ISO/IEC JTC 1 Working group on Big Data (WG 9 )

● Background

- The International Organization for Standardization /International Electrotechnical Commission (ISO/IEC) Joint Technical Committee (JTC) 1, Information Technology announced the creation of a Working Group (WG) focused on standardization in connection with big data.

- JTC 1 is the standards development environment where experts come together to develop worldwide standards on Information and Communication Technology (ICT) for integrating diverse and complex ICT technologies.^{^[1]}

- The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) holds the secretariat to JTC 1 and the ANSI-accredited U.S. Technical Advisory Group (TAG) Administrator to JTC 1 is theInterNational Committee for Information Technology Standards (INCITS) ^{^[2]}, an ANSI member and accredited standards developer (ASD). InterNational Committee for Information Technology standards (INCITS) is a technical committee on Big Data to serve as the US Technical Advisory Group (TAG) to JTC 1/WG 9 on Big Data/ pending approval of a New Work Item Proposal (NWIP). The INCITS/Big Data will address standardization in the areas assigned to JTC 1/WG 9. ^{^[3]}

- Under U.S. leadership, WG 9 on Big Data will serve as the focus of JTC 1's big data standardization program.

● Objective

- To identify standardization gaps.

- Develop foundational standards for Big Data.

- Develop and maintain liaisons with all relevant JTC 1 entities

- Grow the awareness of and encourage engagement in JTC 1 Big Data standardization efforts within JTC 1. ^{^[4]}

● Status

- JTC 1 appoints Mr. Wo Chang to serve as Convenor of the JTC 1 Working Group on Big Data.

- The WG has set up a Study Group on Big Data.

2. International Organisation for Standardization: ISO/IEC JTC 1 Study group on Big Data

● Background

- The ISO/IEC JTC1 Study Group on Big Data (JTC1 SGBD) was created by Resolution 27 at the November, 2013 JTC1 Plenary at the request of the USA and other national bodies for consideration of Big Data activities across all of JTC 1.

- A Study Group (SG) is an ISO mechanism by which the convener of a Working Group (WG) under a sub-committee appoints a smaller group of experts to do focused work in a specific area to identify a clear group to focus attention on a major area and expand the manpower of the committee.

- The goal of an SG is to create a proposal suitable for consideration by the whole WG, and it is the WG that will then decide whether and how to progress the work.^{^[5]}

● Objective

JTC 1 establishes a Study Group on Big Data for consideration of Big Data

activities across all of JTC 1 with the following objectives:

- Mapping the existing landscape: Map existing ICT landscape for key technologies and relevant standards /models/studies /use cases and scenarios for Big Data from JTC 1, ISO, IEC and other standards setting organizations,

- Identify key terms : Identify key terms and definitions commonly used in the area of Big Data,

- Assess status of big data standardization : Assess the current status of Big Data standardization market requirements, identify standards gaps, and propose standardization priorities to serve as a basis for future JTC 1 work, and

- Provide a report with recommendations and other potential deliverables to the 2014 JTC 1 Plenary. ^{^[6]}

● Current Status

- The study group released a preliminary report in the year 2014, which can be accessed here : http://www.iso.org/iso/big_data_report-jtc1.pdf.

3. The National Institute of Standards and Technology Big Data Interoperability Framework :

● Background

- NIST is leading the development of a Big Data Technology Roadmap which aims to define and prioritize requirements for interoperability, portability, reusability, and extensibility for big data analytic techniques and technology infrastructure to support secure and effective adoption of Big Data.

- To help develop the ideas in the Big Data Technology Roadmap, NIST is creating the Public Working Group for Big Data which Released Seven Volumes of Big Data Interoperability Framework on September 16, 2015.^{^[7]}

● Objective

- To advance progress in Big Data, the NIST Big Data Public Working Group (NBD-PWG) is working to develop consensus on important, fundamental concepts related to Big Data.

● Status

- The results are reported in the NIST Big Data Interoperability Framework series of volumes. Under the framework, seven volumes have been released by NIST, available here:

http://bigdatawg.nist.gov/V1_output_docs.php

4. IEEE Standards Association

● Background:

- The IEEE Standards Association introduced a number of standards

related to big-data applications.

● Status:

The following standard is under development:

- IEEE P2413

"IEEE Standard for an Architectural Framework for the Internet of Things (IoT)" defines the relationships among devices used in industries, including transportation and health care. It also provides a blueprint for data privacy, protection, safety, and security, as well as a means to document and mitigate architecture divergence.^{^[8]}

5. ITU

● Background:

- The International Telecommunications Union (ITU) has announced its first standards for big data services, entitled 'Recommendation ITU-T Y.3600 "Big data - cloud computing based requirements and capabilities"', recognizing the need for strong technical standards considering the growth of big data to ensure that processing tools are able to achieve powerful results in the areas of collection, analysis, visualization, and more.^{^[9]}

● Objective:

- Recommendation Y.3600 provides requirements, capabilities and use cases of

cloud computing based big data as well as its system context. Cloud computing

based big data provides the capabilities to collect, store, analyze, visualize and

manage varieties of large volume datasets, which cannot be rapidly transferred

and analysed using traditional technologies.^{^[10]}

- It also outlines how cloud computing systems can be leveraged to provide big-data services.

● Status:

- The standard was relseased in the year 2015 and is avaiabe here: http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-Y.3600-201511-I .

Smart cities

1. ISO Standards on Smart Cities

● Background:

- ISO, the International Organization for Standardization, established a strategic advisory group in 2014 for smart cities, comprised of a wide range of international experts to advise ISO on how to coordinate current and future Smart City standardization activities, in cooperation with other international standards organizations, to benefit the market.^{^[11]}

- Seven countries, China, Germany, UK, France, Japan, Korea and USA, are currently involved in the research.

● Objective:

- The main aims of which are to formulate a definition of a Smart City

- Identify current and future ISO standards projects relating to Smart Cities

- Examine involvement of potential stakeholders, city requirements, potential interface problems. ^{^[12]}

● Status:

- ISO/TC 268, which is focused on sustainable development in communities, has one working group developing city indicators and other developing metrics for smart community infrastructures. In early 2016 this committee will be joined by another - IEC - systems committee. The first standard produced by ISO/TC 268 is ISO/TR 37150:2014.

- ISO/TR 37150:2014 Smart community infrastructures -- Review of existing activities relevant to metrics: this standard provides a review of existing activities relevant to metrics for smart community infrastructures. The concept of smartness is addressed in terms of performance relevant to technologically implementable solutions, in accordance with sustainable development and resilience of communities, as defined in ISO/TC 268. ISO/TR 37150:2014 addresses community infrastructures such as energy, water, transportation, waste and information and communications technology (ICT). It focuses on the technical aspects of existing activities which have been published, implemented or discussed. Economic, political or societal aspects are not analyzed in ISO/TR 37150:2014.^{^[13]}

- ISO 37120:2014 provides city leaders and citizens a set of clearly defined city performance indicators and a standard approach for measuring each. Though some indicators will be more helpful for cities than others, cities can now consistently apply these indicators and accurately benchmark their city services and quality of life against other cities.^{^[14]} This new international standard was developed using the framework of the Global City Indicators Facility (GCIF) that has been extensively tested by more than 255 cities worldwide. This is a demand-led standard, driven and created by cities, for cities. ISO 37120 defines and establishes definitions and methodologies for a set of indicators to steer and measure the performance of city services and quality of life. The standard includes a comprehensive set of 100 indicators - of which 46 are core - that measures a city's social, economic, and environmental performance. ^{^[15]}

The GCIF global network, supports the newly constituted World Council on City Data - a sister organization of the GCI/GCIF - which allows for independent, third party verification of ISO 37120 data.^{^[16]}

- ISO/TS 37151 and ISO/TR 37152 Smart community infrastructures -- Common framework for development & operation: outlines 14 categories of basic community needs (from the perspective of residents, city managers and the environment) to measure the performance of smart community infrastructures. These are typical community infrastructures like energy, water, transportation, waste and information and communication technology systems, which have been optimized with sustainable development and resilience in mind. ^{^[17]} The committee responsible for this document is ISO/TC 268, Sustainable development in communities, Subcommittee SC 1, Smart community infrastructures. The objective is to develop international consensus on a harmonised metrics to evaluate the smartness of key urban infrastructure.^{^[18]}

- ISO 37101 Sustainable development of communities -- Management systems -- Requirements with guidance for resilience and smartness : By setting out requirements and guidance to attain sustainability with the support of methods and tools including smartness and resilience, it can help communities improve in a number of areas such as: Developing holistic and integrated approaches instead of working in silos (which can hinder sustainability), Fostering social and environmental changes, Improving health and wellbeing, Encouraging responsible resource use and Achieving better governance. ^{^[19]} The objective is to develop a Management System Requirements Standard reflecting consensus on an integrated, cross-sector approach drawing on existing standards and best practices.

- ISO 37102 Sustainable development & resilience of communities - Vocabulary . The objective is to establish a common set of terms and definitions for standardization in sustainable development, resilience and smartness in communities, cities and territories since there is pressing need for harmonization and clarification. This would provide a common language for all interested parties and stakeholders at the national, regional and international levels and would lead to improved ability to conduct benchmarks and to share experiences and best practices.

- ISO/TR 37121 Inventory & review of existing indicators on sustainable development & resilience in cities : A common set of indicators useable by every city in the world and covering most issues related to sustainability, resilience and quality of life in cities. ^{^[20]}

- ISO/TR 12859:2009 gives general guidelines to developers of intelligent transport systems (ITS) standards and systems on data privacy aspects and associated legislative requirements for the development and revision of ITS standards and systems. ^{^[21]}

2. International Organisation for Standardization: ISO/IEC JTC 1 Working group on Smart Cities (WG 11 )

● Background:

- Serve as the focus of and proponent for JTC 1's Smart Cities standardization program and works for development of foundational standards for the use of ICT in Smart Cities - including the Smart City ICT Reference Framework and an Upper Level Ontology for Smart Cities - for guiding Smart Cities efforts throughout JTC 1 upon which other standards can be developed.^{^[22]}

● Objective:

- To develop a set of ICT related indicators for Smart Cities in collaboration with ISO/TC 268.

- Identify JTC 1 (and other organization) subgroups developing standards and related material that contribute to Smart Cities.

- Grow the awareness of, and encourage engagement in, JTC 1 Smart Cities standardization efforts within JTC 1.

● Status

- Ms Yuan Yuan is the Convenor of this Working group.

- The purpose was to provide a report with recommendations to the JTC 1 Plenary in the year 2014, to which a preliminary report was submitted. ^{^[23]}

3. International Organisation for Standardization: ISO/IEC JTC 1 Study Group (SG1) on Smart Cities

● Background:

- The Study Group (SG) - Smart Cities was established in 2013^{^[24]} SG 1 will explicitly consider the work going on in the following committees: ISO/TMB/AG on Smart Cities, IEC/SEG 1, ITU-T/FG SSC and ISO/TC 268. ^{^[25]}

● Objective :

- To examine the needs and potentials for standardization in this area.

● Status:

- SG 1 is paying particular attention to monitoring cloud computing activities, which it sees as the key element of the Smart Cities infrastructure. DIN's Information Technology and Selected IT Applications Standards Committee (NIA (www.nia.din.de)) is formally responsible for ISO/IEC JTC1 /SG 1, but an autonomous national mirror committee on Smart Cities does not yet exist and the work is being overseen by DIN's Smart Grid steering body. ^{^[26]}

- A preliminary report has been released in the 2014, available here- http://www.iso.org/iso/smart_cities_report-jtc1.pdf

4. ITU

● Background:

- ITU members have established an ITU-T Study Group titled "ITU-T Study Group 20: IoT and its applications, including smart cities and communities" ^{^[27]}

- ITU-T has also established a Focus Group on Smart Sustainable Cities (FG-SSC).

● Objective:

- The study group will address the standardization requirements of Internet of Things (IoT) technologies, with an initial focus on IoT applications in smart cities.

- The focus group shall assess the standardization requirements of cities aiming to boost their social, economic and environmental sustainability through the integration of information and communication technologies (ICTs) in their infrastructures and operations.

- The Focus Group will act as an open platform for smart-city stakeholders - such as municipalities; academic and research institutes; non-governmental organizations (NGOs); and ICT organizations, industry forums and consortia - to exchange knowledge in the interests of identifying the standardized frameworks needed to support the integration of ICT services in smart cities.^{^[28]}

● Status:

- The study group will develop standards that leverage IoT technologies to address urban-development challenges.

- The FG-SSC concluded its work in May 2015 by approving 21 Technical Specifications and Reports. ^{^[29]}

- So far, ITU-T SG 5 FG-SSC has issued the following reports- Technical report "An overview of smart sustainable cities and the role of information and communication technologies", Technical report "Smart sustainable cities: an analysis of definitions", Technical report "Electromagnetic field (EMF) considerations in smart sustainable cities", Technical specifications "Overview of key performance indicators in smart sustainable cities", Technical report "Smart water management in cities".^{^[30]}

5. PRIPARE Project :

● Background:

- The 7001 - PRIPARE Smart City Strategy is to to ensure that ICT solutions integrated in EIP smart cities will be compliant with future privacy regulation.

- PRIPARE aims to develop a privacy and security-by-design software and systems engineering methodology, using the combined expertise of the research community and taking into account multiple viewpoints (advocacy, legal, engineering, business).

● Objective:

- The mission of PRIPARE is to facilitate the application of a privacy and security-by-design methodology that will contribute to the advent of unhindered usage of Internet against disruptions, censorship and surveillance, support its practice by the ICT research community to prepare for industry practice and foster risk management culture through educational material targeted to a diversity of stakeholders.

● Status:

- Liaison is currently on-going so that it becomes a standard (OASIS and ISO).^{^[31]}

6. BSI-UK

● Background:

- In the UK, the British Standards Institution (BSI) has been commissioned by the UK Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) to conceive a Smart Cities Standards Strategy to identify vectors of smart city development where standards are needed.

- The standards would be developed through a consensus-driven process under the BSI to ensure good practise is shared between all the actors. ^{^[32]}

● Objective:

The BIS launched the City's Standards Institute to bring together cities and key

industry leaders and innovators :

- To work together in identifying the challenges facing cities,

- Providing solutions to common problems, and

- Defining the future of smart city standards.^{^[33]}

● Status:

The following standards and publications help address various issues for a city to

become a smart city:

- The development of a standard on Smart city terminology (PAS 180)

- The development of a Smart city framework standard (PAS 181)

- The development of a Data concept model for smart cities (PAS 182)

- A Smart city overview document (PD 8100)

- A Smart city planning guidelines document (PD 8101)

- BS 8904 Guidance for community sustainable development provides a decision-making framework that will help setting objectives in response to the needs and aspirations of city stakeholders

- BS 11000 Collaborative relationship management

- BSI BIP 2228:2013 Inclusive urban design - A guide to creating accessible public spaces.

7. Spain

● Background:

- AENOR, the Spanish standards developing organization (SDO), has issued two new standards on smart cities: the UNE 178303 and UNE-ISO 37120. These standards joined the already published UNE 178301.

● Objective:

- The texts, prepared by the Technical Committee of Standardization of AENOR on Smart Cities (AEN / CTN 178) and sponsored by the SETSI (Secretary of State for Telecommunications and Information Society of the Ministry of Industry, Energy and Tourism), aim to encourage the development of a new model of urban services management based on efficiency and sustainability.

● Status:

Some of the standards that have been developed are:

- UNE 178301 on Open Data evaluates the maturity of open data created or held by the public sector so that its reuse is provided in the field of Smart Cities.

- UNE 178303 establishes the requirements for proper management of municipal assets.

- UNE-ISO 37120 which collects the international urban sustainability indicators.

- Following the publication of these standards, 12 other draft standards on Smart Cities have just been made public, most of them corresponding to public services such as water, electricity and telecommunications, and multiservice city networks. ^{^[34]}

8. China

● Background:

Several national standardization committees and consortia have started

standardization work on Smart Cities, including:

- China National IT Standardization TC (NITS),

- China National CT Standardization TC,

- China National Intelligent Transportation System Standardization TC,

- China National TC on Digital Technique of Intelligent Building and Residence Community of Standardization Administration, China Strategic Alliance of Smart City Industrial Technology Innovation^{^[35]}

● Objective:

- In the year 2014, all the ministries involved in building smart cities in China joined with the Standardization Administration of China to create working groups whose job is to manage and standardize smart city development, though their activities have not been publicized. ^{^[36]}

● Status:

- China will continue to promote international standards in building smart cities and improve the competitiveness of its related industries in global market.

- Also, China's Standardization Administration has joined hands with National Development and Reform Commission, Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development and Ministry of Industry and Information Technology in establishing and implementing standards for smart cities.

- When building smart cities, the country will adhere to the ISO 37120 and by the year 2020, China will establish 50 national standards on smart cities. ^{^[37]}

9. Germany

● Background :

- Member of European Innovation Partnership (EIP) for Smart Cities and Communities DKE (German Commission for Electrical, Electronic & Information Technologies) and DIN (GermanInstitute for Standardization) have developed a joint roadmap and Smart Cities recommendations for action in Germany.

● Objective:

- Its purpose is to highlight the need for standards and to serve as a strategic template for national and international standardization work in the field of smart city technology.

- The Standardization Roadmap highlights the main activities required to create smart cities. ^{^[38]}

● Status:

- An updated version of the standardization roadmap was released in the year 2015. ^{^[39]}

10. Poland

● Background:

- A coordination group on Smart and Sustainable Cities and Communities (SSCC) was set up in the beginning of 2014 to monitor any national standardization activities.

● Objective:

- It was decided to put forward a proposal to form a group at the Polish Committee for Standardization (PKN) providing recommendations for smart sustainable city standardization in Poland.

● Status:

It has two thematic groups:

- GT 1-2 on terminology and Technical Bodies in PKN Its scope covers a collection of English terms and their Polish equivalents related to smart and sustainable development of cities and communities to allow better communication among various smart city stakeholders. This includes the preparation of the list of Technical Bodies (OT) in PKN involved in standardization activities related to specific aspects of smart and sustainable local development and making proposals concerning the allocation of standardization works to the relevant OT in PKN.

- GT 3 for gathering information and the development and implementation of a work programme Its scope includes identifying stakeholders in Poland, and gathering information on any national "smart city" initiatives having an impact on environment-friendly development, sustainability, and liveability of a city. The group is also tasked with developing a work programme for GZ 1 based on identified priorities for Poland. Finally, its aim is to conduct communication and dissemination of activities to make the results of GZ 1 visible. ^{^[40]}

11. Europe

● Background:

- In 2012, the European standardization organizations CEN and CENELEC founded the Smart and Sustainable Cities and Communities Coordination Group (SSCC-CG), which is a Coordination Group established to coordinate standardization activities and foster collaboration around standardization work. ^{^[41]}

● Objective:

- The aim of the CEN-CENELEC-ETSI (SSCC-CG) is to coordinate and promote European standardization activities relating to Smart Cities and to advise the CEN and CENELEC (Technical) and ETSI Boards on standardization activities in the field of Smart and Sustainable Cities and Communities.

- The scope of the SSCC-CG is to advise on European interests and needs relating to standardization on Smart and Sustainable cities and communities.

● Status:

- Originally conceived to be completed by the end of 2014, SSCC-CG's mandate has been extended by the European standards organizations CEN, CENELEC and ETSI by a further two years and will run until the end of 2016.^{^[42]}

- The SSCC-CG does not develop standards, but reports directly to the management boards of the standardization organizations and plays an advisory role. Current members of the SSCC.CG include representatives of the relevant technical committees, the CEN/CENELEC secretariat, the European Commission, the European associations and the national standardization organizations.^{^[43]}

- CEN/CENELEC/ETSI Joint Working Group on Standards for Smart Grids: The aim of this document is to provide a strategic report which outlines the standardization requirements for implementing the European vision of smart grids, especially taking into account the initiatives by the Smart Grids Task Force of the European Commission. It provides an overview of standards, current activities, fields of action, international cooperation and strategic recommendations^{^[44]}

12. Singapore

● Background:

- In the year 2015, SPRING Singapore, the Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore (IDA) and the Information Technology Standards Committee (ITSC), under the purview of the Singapore Standards Council (SSC), have laid out an Internet of Things (IoT) Standards Outline in support of Singapore's Smart Nation initiative.

● Objective:

- Realising importance of standards in laying the foundation for the nation empowered by big data, analytics technology and sensor networks in light of Singapore's vision of becoming a Smart Nation.

● Status:

Three types of standards - sensor network standards, IoT foundational standards and domain-specific standards - have been identified under the IoT Standards Outline. Singapore actively participates in the ISO Technical Committee (TC) working on smart city standards.^{^[45]}

^{^[1]} ISO/IEC JTC 1, Information Technology, http://www.iso.org/iso/jtc1_home.html

^{^[2]} The InterNational Committee for Information Technology Standards, JTC 1 Working Group on Big Data, http://www.incits.org/committees/big-data

^{^[3]} ISO/IEC JTC 1 Forms Two Working Groups on Big Data and Internet of Things, 27th January 2015, https://www.ansi.org/news_publications/news_story.aspx?menuid=7&articleid=5b101d27-47b5-4540-bca3-657314402591

^{^[4]} JTC 1 November 2014 Resolution 28 - Establishment of a Working Group on Big Data, and Call for Participation, 20th January 2015, http://jtc1sc32.org/doc/N2601-2650/32N2625-J1N12445_JTC1_Big_Data-call_for_participation.pdf

^{^[5]} SD-3: Study Group Organizational Information, https://isocpp.org/std/standing-documents/sd-3-study-group-organizational-information

^{^[6]} ISO/IEC JTC 1 Study Group on Big Data (BD-SG), http://jtc1bigdatasg.nist.gov/home.php

^{^[7]} NIST Released V1.0 Seven Volumes of Big Data Interoperability Framework (September 16, 2015),http://bigdatawg.nist.gov/home.php

^{^[8]} Standards That Support Big Data, Monica Rozenfeld, 8th September 2014, http://theinstitute.ieee.org/benefits/standards/standards-that-support-big-data

^{^[9]} ITU releases first ever big data standards, Madolyn Smith, 21st December 2015, http://datadrivenjournalism.net/news_and_analysis/itu_releases_first_ever_big_data_standards#sthash.m3FBt63D.dpuf

^{^[10]} ITU-T Y.3600 (11/2015) Big data - Cloud computing based requirements and capabilities, http://www.itu.int/itu-t/recommendations/rec.aspx?rec=12584

^{^[11]} ISO Strategic Advisory Group on Smart Cities - Demand-side survey, March 2015, http://www.platform31.nl/uploads/media_item/media_item/41/62/Toelichting_ISO_Smart_cities_Survey-1429540845.pdf

^{^[12]} The German Standardization Roadmap Smart City Version 1.1, May 2015, https://www.vde.com/en/dke/std/documents/nr_smartcity_en_v1.1.pdf

^{^[13]} ISO/TR 37150:2014 Smart community infrastructures -- Review of existing activities relevant to metrics, http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=62564

^{^[14]} Dissecting ISO 37120: Why this new smart city standard is good news for cities, 30th July 2014, http://smartcitiescouncil.com/article/dissecting-iso-37120-why-new-smart-city-standard-good-news-cities

^{^[15]} World Council for City Data, http://www.dataforcities.org/wccd/

^{^[16]} Global City Indicators Facility, http://www.cityindicators.org/

^{^[17]} How to measure the performance of smart cities, Maria Lazarte, 5th October 2015

http://www.iso.org/iso/home/news_index/news_archive/news.htm?refid=Ref2001

^{^[18]} http://iet.jrc.ec.europa.eu/energyefficiency/sites/energyefficiency/files/files/documents/events/slideslairoctober2014.pdf

^{^[19]} A standard for improving communities reaches final stage, Clare Naden, 12th February 2015,

http://www.iso.org/iso/news.htm?refid=Ref1932

^{^[20]} http://iet.jrc.ec.europa.eu/energyefficiency/sites/energyefficiency/files/files/documents/events/slideslairoctober2014.pdf

^{^[21]} ISO/TR 12859:2009 Intelligent transport systems -- System architecture -- Privacy aspects in ITS standards and systems, http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=52052

^{^[22]} ISO/IEC JTC 1 Information technology, WG 11 Smart Cities, http://www.iec.ch/dyn/www/f?p=103:14:0::::FSP_ORG_ID,FSP_LANG_ID:12973,25

^{^[23]} Work of ISO/IEC JTC1 Smart Ci4es Study group , https://interact.innovateuk.org/documents/3158891/17680585/2+JTC1+Smart+Cities+Group/e639c7f6-4354-4184-99bf-31abc87b5760

^{^[24]} JTC1 SAC - Meeting 13 , February 2015, http://www.finance.gov.au/blog/2015/08/05/jtc1-sac-meeting-13-february-2015/

^{^[25]} The German Standardization Roadmap Smart City Version 1.1, May 2015, https://www.vde.com/en/dke/std/documents/nr_smartcity_en_v1.1.pdf

^{^[26]} The German Standardization Roadmap Smart City Version 1.1, May 2015, https://www.vde.com/en/dke/std/documents/nr_smartcity_en_v1.1.pdf

^{^[27]} ITU standards to integrate Internet of Things in Smart Cities, 10th June 2015, https://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2015/22.aspx

^{^[28]} ITU-T Focus Group Smart Sustainable Cities, https://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-t/oth/0b/04/T0B0400004F2C01PDFE.pdf

^{^[29]} Focus Group on Smart Sustainable Cities, http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/focusgroups/ssc/Pages/default.aspx

^{^[30]} The German Standardization Roadmap Smart City Version 1.1, May 2015, https://www.vde.com/en/dke/std/documents/nr_smartcity_en_v1.1.pdf

^{^[31]} 7001 - PRIPARE Smart City Strategy, https://eu-smartcities.eu/commitment/7001

^{^[32]} Financing Tomorrow's Cities: How Standards Can Support the Development of Smart Cities, http://www.longfinance.net/groups7/viewdiscussion/72-financing-financing-tomorrow-s-cities-how-standards-can-support-the-development-of-smart-cities.html?groupid=3

^{^[33]} BSI-Smart Cities, http://www.bsigroup.com/en-GB/smart-cities/

^{^[34]} New Set of Smart Cities Standards in Spain, https://eu-smartcities.eu/content/new-set-smart-cities-standards-spain

^{^[35]} Technical Report, M2M & ICT Enablement in Smart Cities, Telecommunication Engineering Centre, Department of Telecommunications, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, Government of India, November 2015, http://tec.gov.in/pdf/M2M/ICT%20deployment%20and%20strategies%20for%20%20Smart%20Cities.pdf

^{^[36]} Smart City Development in China, Don Johnson, 17th June 2014, http://www.chinabusinessreview.com/smart-city-development-in-china/

^{^[37]} China to continue develop standards on smart cities, 17th December 2015, http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2015wic/2015-12/17/content_22732897.htm

^{^[38]} The German Standardization Roadmap Smart City, April 2014, https://www.dke.de/de/std/documents/nr_smart%20city_en_version%201.0.pdf

^{^[39]} This version of the Smart City Standardization Roadmap, Version 1.1, is an incremental revision of Version 1.0. In Version 1.1, a special focus is placed on giving an overview of current standardization activities and interim results, thus illustrating German ambitions in this area.

^{^[40]} SSCC-CG Final report Smart and Sustainable Cities and Communities Coordination Group, January 2015, https://www.etsi.org/images/files/SSCC-CG_Final_Report-recommendations_Jan_2015.pdf

^{^[41]} Orchestrating infrastructure for sustainable Smart Cities , http://www.iec.ch/whitepaper/pdf/iecWP-smartcities-LR-en.pdf

^{^[42]} Urbanization- Why do we need standardization?, http://www.din.de/en/innovation-and-research/smart-cities-en

^{^[43]} CEN-CENELEC-ETSI Coordination Group 'Smart and Sustainable Cities and Communities' (SSCC-CG), http://www.cencenelec.eu/standards/Sectors/SmartLiving/smartcities/Pages/SSCC-CG.aspx

^{^[44]} Final report of the CEN/CENELEC/ETSI Joint Working Group on Standards for Smart Grids, https://www.etsi.org/WebSite/document/Report_CENCLCETSI_Standards_Smart%20Grids.pdf

^{^[45]} SPRING Singapore Supported Close to 600 Companies in Standards Adoption, and Service Excellence Projects , 12th August 2015, http://www.spring.gov.sg/NewsEvents/PR/Pages/Internet-of-Things-(IoT)-Standards-Outline-to-Support-Smart-Nation-Initiative-Unveiled-20150812.aspx

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/database-on-big-data-and-smart-cities-international-standards

India Sets Strict New Net Neutrality Rules

praskrishna — 2016-02-11T01:53:19Z

In India, advocates of net neutrality have welcomed new rules by the telecom regulator that have blocked efforts by Facebook to offer free but limited access to the web in the country’s fast growing Internet market.

The article by Anjana Pasricha was published in Voice of America on February 9, 2016. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

In a widely awaited ruling, the Telecom Regulator Authority of India (TRAI) said on Monday that “no service provider shall charge differential pricing on the basis of application, platforms or websites or sources." It will impose penalties of $735 a day if the regulations are broken.

Kiran Jonnalagadda, who was among a group of 10 that launched an impassioned campaign called Save the Internet, says they have won a “fabulous” victory against large corporations to ensure equal web access for millions.

“We were up against the most powerful companies in the world, we had no chance of fighting Airtel last year, we had no chance of fighting Facebook. I think the only reason it worked is that we were on the side of facts, the opposition was not,” says Jonnalagadda.

Debate on Airtel

The campaign on net neutrality snowballed into a nationwide public debate after an Indian telecom company, Airtel, launched a marketing platform last April on which it planned to offer customers access with no data charges to certain Internet services and sites.

In recent weeks, the focus turned to “Free Basics”, a service being offered by Facebook on mobile phones to a handful of sites in areas such as communication, healthcare, and education.

Saying it wanted to vastly expand Internet access in poor, rural areas, Facebook had launched a massive advertising campaign in support of the platform. Only about 300 million in the country of 1.2 billion people have access to the net, many just through mobile devices.

But campaigners slammed Free Basics as “poor Internet for poor people” and said it would create a “walled garden” in which Facebook would control the content it offered users. Leading Indian technology entrepreneurs and university professors also called on the government to guard against attempts by Internet giants to turn the country into a “digital colony.”

Many of them have applauded the regulator’s move to strengthen net neutrality.

Ban on differential pricing

However, some are raising questions about the the complete ban on differential pricing announced by the regulator. That includes the Bangalore-based Center for Internet and Society research group, which says India has put in place the most stringent net neutrality regulations across the world. Its executive director, Sunil Abraham, says TRAI cited the examples of the Netherlands and Chile, but the ban on differential pricing in those countries is not as absolute as the one notified in India.

“We think that if proper technological safeguards and other market safeguards are put in place, it would be possible to have both — to have rapid growth in Internet access and reduced harm that emerge[s] from network neutrality violations,” says Abraham.

Indeed, the last word may not have been said on net neutrality in India as big telecom operators are expected to mount legal challenges to the regulator’s ruling in the coming months.

Expressing disappointment with India’s ruling, the Cellular Operators Association of India has called the ban on differential pricing a “welfare reducing measure” that could block an avenue for “less advantaged citizens to move to increased economic growth and prosperity by harnessing the power of the Internet.”

In a statement, Facebook has said “we will continue our efforts to eliminate barriers and give the unconnected an easier path to the Internet.”

But after having tasted victory, the volunteers at Save the Internet, who have grown from about 10 to 100 in the last year, have already set their sights on another aspect of net neutrality besides differential pricing.

“The campaign is not going to retire because this is not the end of it. There is also discrimination on the basis of speed, which the regulator has not taken up yet,” says Jonnalagadda.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/voice-of-america-anjana-pasricha-february-9-2016-india-sets-strict-new-net-neutrality-rules

Facebook's Fall from Grace: Arab Spring to Indian Winter

sunil — 2016-02-11T15:51:34Z

Facebook’s Free Basics has been permanently banned in India! The Indian telecom regulator, TRAI has issued the world’s most stringent net neutrality regulation! To be more accurate, there is more to come from TRAI in terms of net neutrality regulations especially for throttling and blocking but if the discriminatory tariff regulation is anything to go by we can expect quite a tough regulatory stance against other net neutrality violations as well.

The article was published in First Post on February 9, 2016. It can be read here.

Even the regulations it cites in the Explanatory Memorandum don’t go as far as it does. The Dutch regulation will have to be reformulated in light of the new EU regulations and the Chilean regulator has opened the discussion on an additional non-profit exception by allowing Wikipedia to zero-rate its content in partnership with telecom operators.

Bravo to Nikhil Pahwa, Apar Gupta, Raman Chima, Kiran Jonnalagadda and the thousands of volunteers at Save The Internet and associated NGOs, movements, entrepreneurs and activists who mobilized millions of Indians to stand up and petition TRAI to preserve some of the foundational underpinnings of the Internet. And finally bravo to Facebook for having completely undermined any claim to responsible stewardship of our information society through their relentless, shrill and manipulative campaign filled with the staggeringly preposterous lies. Having completely lost the trust of the Indian public and policy-makers, Facebook only has itself to blame for polarizing what was quite a nuanced debate in India through its hyperbole and setting the stage for this firm action by TRAI.

And most importantly bravo to RS Sharma and his team at TRAI for several reasons for the notification of “Prohibition of Discriminatory Tariffs for Data Services Regulations, 2016” aka differential pricing regulations. The regulation exemplifies six regulatory best practices that I briefly explore below.

Transparency and Agility: Two months from start to finish, what an amazing turn around! TRAI was faced with unprecedented public outcry and also comments and counter-comments. Despite visible and invisible pressures, from the initial temporary ban on Free Basics to RS Sharma’s calm, collected and clear interactions with different stakeholders resulted in him regaining the credibility which was lost during the publication of the earlier consultation paper on Regulatory Framework for Over-the-top (OTTs) services. Despite being completely snowed over electronically by what Rohin Dharmakumar dubbed as Facebook’s DDOS attack, he gave Facebook one last opportunity to do the right thing which they of course spectacularly blew.

Brevity and Clarity: The regulation fits onto three A4-sized pages and is a joy to read. Clarity is often a result of brevity but is not necessarily always the case. At the core of this regulation is a single sentence which prohibits discriminatory tariffs on the basis of content unless it is a “data service over closed electronic communications network”. And unlike many other laws and regulations, this regulation has only one exemption for offering or charging of discriminatory tariffs and that is for “emergency services” or during “grave public emergency”. Even the best lawyers will find it difficult to drive trucks through that one. Even if imaginative engineers architect a technical circumvention, TRAI says “if such a closed network is used for the purpose of evading these regulations, the prohibition will nonetheless apply”. Again clear signal that the spirit is more important than the letter of the regulation when it comes to enforcement.

Certainty and Equity: Referencing the noted scholar Barbara Van Schewick, TRAI explains that a case-by-case approach based on principles [standards] or rules would “fail to provide much needed certainty to industry participants…..service providers may refrain from deploying network technology” and perversely “lead to further uncertainty as service providers undergoing [the] investigation would logically try to differentiate their case from earlier precedents”. Our submission from the Centre for Internet and Society had called for more exemptions but TRAI went with a much cleaner solution as it did not want to provide “a relative advantage to well-financed actors and will tilt the playing field against those who do not have the resources to pursue regulatory or legal actions”.

What next? Hopefully the telecom operators and Facebook will have the grace to abide with the regulation without launching a legal challenge. And hopefully TRAI will issue equally clear regulations on throttling and blocking to conclude the “Regulatory Framework for Over-the-top Services” consultation process. Critically, TRAI must forbear from introducing any additional regulatory burdens on OTTs, a.k.a Internet companies based on unfounded allegations of regulatory arbitrage. There are some legitimate concerns around issues like taxation and liability but that has to be addressed by other arms of the government. To address the digital divide, there are other issues outside net neutrality such as shared spectrum, unlicensed spectrum and shared backhaul infrastructure that TRAI must also prioritize for regulation and deregulation.

Without doubt other regulators from the global south will be inspired by India’s example and will hopefully take firm steps to prevent the rise of additional and unnecessary gatekeepers and gatekeeping practices on the Internet. The democratic potential of the Internet must be preserved through enlightened and appropriate regulation informed by principles and evidence.

The writer is Executive Director, Centre for Internet and Society, Bengaluru. He says CIS receives about $200,000 a year from WMF, the organisation behind Wikipedia, a site featured in Free Basics and zero-rated by many access providers across the world).

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/first-post-february-9-2016-sunil-abraham-facebook-fall-from-grace-arab-spring-to-indian-winter

India bans Facebook’s ‘free’ Internet for the poor

praskrishna — 2016-02-10T02:53:49Z

India’s telecom regulator said Monday that service providers cannot charge discriminatory prices for Internet services, a blow to Facebook’s global effort to provide low-cost Internet to developing countries.

The article by Annie Gowen was published in Washington Post on February 8, 2016. Sunil Abraham gave inputs. The article was also mirrored by NDTV.

Facebook’s “Free Basics” program provides a pared-down version of Facebook and weather and job listings to some 15 million mobile-phone users in 37 countries around the world.

When it debuted in India in April, however, Free Basics immediately ran afoul of Internet activists who said it violated the principle of “net neutrality,” which holds that consumers should be able to access the entire Internet unfettered by price or speed.

On Monday, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India agreed, prohibiting data service providers from offering or charging different prices for data — even if it’s free. The Free Basics program has run into trouble elsewhere in the world recently — with Egypt banning it and Google clarifying that it pulled out of the application during a testing phase in Zambia.

In a statement, Facebook said that while the company was “disappointed with the outcome, we will continue our efforts to eliminate barriers and give the unconnected an easier path to the Internet.”

In an interview before the ruling, Chris Daniels, Facebook’s vice president for Internet.org — the umbrella organization of the global effort — said India’s negative reaction has been “unique versus other markets we’ve seen. We’ve been welcomed with open arms in many countries.”

Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg launched the program to great fanfare in 2013, partnering with other international tech firms on a mission to connect the 4 billion people in the world without Internet access — which he says is a basic human right.

India has 300 million mobile Internet users but still has close to 1 billion people without proper Internet access. But it is second only to the United States in number of Facebook users, with 130 million, with vast expansion potential as Facebook works to increase its user base beyond the developed world.

Yet the Free Basics program was controversial from the start in India, where critics accused Facebook of creating a “walled garden” for poor users that allowed them access to only a portion of the web that Facebook controlled.

Dozens of well-known tech entrepreneurs, university professors and tech industry groups spoke out against it, saying that the curated app, with its handpicked weather, job and other listings, put India’s scrappy start-ups and software developers at a disadvantage.

On Monday, Vijay Shekhar Sharma, the founder and creator of India’s payment application PayTM, applauded the regulator’s move.

He had been among the program’s fiercest critics, dubbing Free Basics “poor Internet for poor people” and comparing Facebook’s actions to that of British colonialists and their East India Co.

“India, Do u buy into this baby internet?” Sharma tweeted in December. “The East India company came with similar ‘charity’ to Indians a few years back!”

“In a country like India that’s just taking off, it’s important that there is an equal playground for every app developer,” he said in an interview.

In December, India’s regulator put out a position paper on differential pricing and asked for public comment on whether such programs were fair.

In response, Facebook launched a public relations blitz, with television and newspaper advertisements, billboards and an opinion piece by Zuckerberg in the Times of India in which he argued against criticism that the social-media giant was providing the service simply to expand its user base.

Facebook also engineered a prompt to users that sent “robo” letters of support for Free Basics to India’s telecommunications regulator. The regulator, flooded with form letters, was not amused.

Facebook’s behavior may not have helped its cause, some analysts said.

“Facebook went overboard with its propaganda [and] convinced ‘the powers that be’ that it cannot be trusted with mature stewardship of our information society,” said Sunil Abraham of the Center for Internet and Society in Bangalore.

Yet David Kirkpatrick, the author of “The Facebook Effect,” says that Zuckerberg is determined to see the program succeed.

“Facebook is relentless,” he said. “Zuckerberg has said from the beginning his goal is to make the world more open and connected. And that’s a phrase he continues to repeat 10 years later.”

The regulator had asked Facebook, and its local telecom partner, Reliance Communications, to suspend Free Basics’ operations during the public comment period. But the social-media giant and its partner appeared to flout the suspension order, with the program continuing to be operational on Reliance SIM cards.

A spokesman for Reliance earlier said that the applications was in “testing mode” and that it was not commercially promoting the product.

The regulatory body said Monday that anybody violating the order in the future will be subject to a fine of about $735 a day. It will return to review the policy in two years to see if it is effective.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/washington-post-annie-gowen-february-8-2016-india-bans-facebooks-free-internet-for-the-poor

A Megacorp’s Basic Instinct

praskrishna — 2016-02-04T13:53:05Z

Bolstered by academia and civil society, TRAI stands its ground against FB’s Free Basics publicity blitz.

The article by Arindam Mukherjee was published in Outlook on February 8, 2016. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

Hours before the January 31 deadline for telecom regulator TRAI to give its opinion on Facebook’s controversial and expensive Free Basics pitch—which seeks to give India’s poor “free” access to certain partner websites—the consensus seems to be building up against the social media giant. “If there is cannibalising of the internet through services like Free Basics, the internet will be split; it will parcel out and slice the internet. Its future is at stake,” says a senior government official on condition of anonymity.

In a climate where the tech-savvy Modi government is seen to be close to the online trinity of Facebook, Google and Twitter, TRAI’s defiant stance in favour of net neutrality stands out. There’s a lot at stake. India’s position becomes crucial as few countries in the world have clearly defined laws on net neutrality or have taken a stand on it. For Facebook, there’s a lot more at stake. India is its second-largest user base after the US (it is banned in China), so it is leaving no stone unturned. The massive Rs 300-crore electronic and print media campaign is an indication of that.

TRAI sources say they are ready for any adverse onslaught and they are under no pressure from the PMO. The view gaining ground in government is that FB is trying to create a walled garden where it controls what people see and surf and what they can access online. While this will be offered to consumers for free—the technical term is differential pricing—the websites part of Free Basics will have to pay for being on the platform. Outlook’s queries to FB remained unanswered at the time of going to press.

At an ‘open house’ meeting to discuss TRAI’s consultation paper on differential pricing last week, regulator Ram Sevak Sharma stood firm against the barrage of pro-Free Basics opinions that flowed from FB, telecom operators and some members of the public. TRAI’s message was clear: FB’s tactics of moulding public opinion by stealth will not be acceptable in India. In the past few weeks, there have been bitter exchanges between TRAI and FB over the latter’s responses to a consultation paper on differential pricing.

TRAI’s defiant stand draws from an unprecedented show of strength by civil society against Free Basics and FB’s intentions. Says former Aadhar man Nandan Nilekani, “Free Basics is certainly against net neutrality. How can a solution be neutral, if it disproportionately benefits a particular website or business on the internet? Today, 400 million Indians are online. They came online because of the inherent value the internet offers. How can a walled garden of 100-odd websites provide the same value?”

What does Free Basics mean for PM Modi’s Digital India campaign? Being a walled garden, thousands of start-ups without adequate budgets to pay for such dedicated service will be forced to stay out of it. Similar questions are being raised about government services that are increasingly coming online. The concern is that all government traffic will have to pass through FB servers. The senior government official quoted above agrees, “In such a scenario, the government will have to approach FB to make its websites accessible on the free service which is neither desirable nor safe.”

The other fear is what happens to public data if it goes through a service like Free Basics. There is fear that a lot of government and public data will be put through Free Basics once government services start coming online. If Free Basics is for the poor who are also beneficiaries of government services, FB too can access this data. Says Prabir Purkayastha, chairman, Knowledge Commons, “FB says public service will be available through Free Basics but can public service be given through a private initiative? Public data is valuable and can’t be handed over to a private company.”

Few again are convinced by FB’s claim that Free Basics aims to make the internet accessible to the poor, with the many services offered through it. “The claim that the poor will get access to the internet is false,” warns Sunil Abraham, executive director, Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore. “Free Basics gives access to less than 100 of the one billion plus websites on the world wide web. Those in the walled garden will be treated quite differently.”

What gives TRAI a shot in the arm is that, for the first time, academia has put its weight behind Free Basics opponents. In a signed statement, several IIT and IISc Bangalore professors have said that Free Basics won’t serve the purpose FB is proposing and is not good for the country. “The problem is the internet being provided (via Free Basics) is a shrunken and sanitised version of the real thing. Free Basics is not a good proposal for the long-term development of a healthy and democratic internet setup in India,” says Amitabha Bagchi, IIT Delhi professor and one of the signatories to the memo.

Of course, many of the experts Outlook spoke to say that the government, and not FB, should be responsible for providing free internet to the people. Says Parminder Jeet Singh, executive director, IT for Change, “The government is sitting on Rs 40,000 crore of USO funds. It can surely utilise that to provide a free basic data package to people in India. Basic government services and emergency services should essentially be free.” Nilekani is also in favour of the government providing free internet to people. “The internet is a powerful poverty alleviation tool.... Government can do a direct benefit transfer for data, a more market-neutral way of achieving the goal of getting everyone on the internet,” he told Outlook.

Legally, though, there may be issues in stopping FB from introducing its Free Basics platform in India. Says Singh, “Technically, the Indian government may not be able to stop FB from introducing Free Basics in India as it is just a platform. What the government has to do is to stop telcos from collaborating with it for free internet because Indian telcos, not FB, mediate access to the internet.”

The demand for the government and TRAI to come clean on net neutrality has reached fever pitch. Experts like Nilekani feel that net neutrality, which does not allow zero rating and differential pricing based on telcos looking at the contents of the subscriber’s data packets, should be enshrined in law through an act of Parliament, the way countries like the US have done. TRAI has also proposed two models where the internet is provided free initially and charged at a later stage and another where content providers and websites reimburse the cost of browsing directly to consumers. Both these proposals have not found favour with experts who say that these are unworkable and only the government should disburse free internet.

In any case, all this is a matter of detail—important, no doubt. The key question is, what happens to Free Basics if TRAI rules in favour of net neutrality and goes against FB? “This is going to be a long-drawn-out battle as FB will certainly challenge this in court,” says the government official. After spending Rs 300 crore on publicity, there is no way it will roll over and die.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/outlook-february-8-2016-arindam-mukherjee-a-megacorps-basic-instinct

India, Egypt say no thanks to free Internet from Facebook

praskrishna — 2016-02-03T01:49:25Z

ALWAR, India — Connecting people to the Internet is not easy in this impoverished farming district of wheat and millet fields, where working camels can be glimpsed along roads that curve through the low-slung Aravalli Hills.

The article by Annie Gowen was published in Washington Post on January 28, 2016. Sunil Abraham gave inputs.

So when Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg helicoptered in about a year ago to visit a small computer lab and tout Internet for all, Osama Manzar, director of India’s Digital Empowerment Foundation, was thrilled.

But when Manzar tried Facebook’s limited free Internet service, he was bitterly disappointed. The app, called Free Basics, is a pared-down version of Facebook with other services such as weather reports and job listings.

“I feel betrayed — not only betrayed but upset and angry,” Manzar said. “He said we’re going to solve the problem with access and bandwidth. But Facebook is not the Internet.”

Zuckerberg launched his sweeping Internet.org initiative in 2013 as a way to provide 4 billion people in the developing world with Web access, which he says he sees as a basic human right.

But the initiative has hit a major snag in India, where in recent months Free Basics has been embroiled in controversy — with critics saying that the app, which provides limited access to the Web, does a disservice to the poor and violates the principles of “net neutrality,” which holds that equal access to the Internet should be unfettered to all.

Activist groups such as Save the Internet, professors from leading universities and tech titans such as Nandan Nilekani, the co-founder of Infosys, have spoken out against it. Another well-known Indian entrepreneur dubbed it “poor Internet for poor people.”

The debate escalated in recent weeks after India’s telecommunications regulator suspended Free Basics as it weighs whether such plans are fair, with new rules expected by the end of the month.

A week later, Free Basics was banned in Egypt with little explanation, prompting concern that the backlash could spread to other markets. More recently, Google pulled out of the app in Zambia after a trial period. An estimated 15 million people are using Free Basics in 37 countries, including 1 million in India.

[India’s Modi wants to woo Silicon Valley, but privacy fears grow at home]

“It’s a very important test case for what will be India’s network neutrality regime,” said Sunil Abraham of the Center for Internet and Society in Bangalore.

India’s debate could affect the way other countries address the question of whether it is fair for Internet service providers to price websites differently. The U.S. Federal Communications Commission’s rules on net neutrality went into effect only in June.

Officials at Facebook launched an advertising blitz to counteract the negative publicity. “Who could possibly be against this?” Zuckerberg wondered in a Times of India editorial on Dec. 28.

“I think we’ve been a bit surprised by the strong reaction,” said Chris Daniels, Facebook’s vice president for Internet.org. “Fundamentally, the reason for the surprise is that the program is doing good. It’s bringing people online who are moving onto the broader Internet.”

India, a country of 1.2 billion, has the second-highest number of Internet users in the world, but an estimated 80 percent of the population does not have Internet access.

India’s tech-savvy prime minister, Narendra Modi, is trying to combat this with an ambitious “Digital India” plan to link 250,000 village centers with fiber-optic cable and extend mobile coverage. He has turned to the Indian tech community as well as Silicon Valley for help, securing an agreement with Google to provide free WiFi in railway stations.

India has 130 million Facebook users, second only to the United States, and is a key market as the social-media giant looks to expand beyond the developed world, where its growth has slowed.

“If Facebook manages to get another half a billion users in India, that’s a valuable set of eyeballs to sell to a political party or corporation,” Abraham said.

[Is India the next frontier for Facebook?]

Facebook has long said that its program is about altruism, not eyeballs.

But it does reap new customers. Those who buy a SIM card from Facebook’s local mobile partner, Reliance Communications, are then prompted to pay for additional data. About 40 percent who sign up for Free Basics buy a data plan to move to the wider Web after 30 days, Daniels said.

The service is still running despite the India suspension. A Reliance spokesman said it is in “testing mode” and is not being promoted.

“The thing people forget about Free Basics is that it’s intended to be a temporary transition for people to give them a taste of the Internet and sign up. It’s a marketing program for the carrier in some sense,” said David Kirkpatrick, author of “The Facebook Effect.” But he added: “The idea that it’s some kind of alternative Internet that’s a discriminatory gesture to the poor is the prevailing view among the Indian intelligentsia. It’s fundamentally misunderstood.”

Facebook has pledged to open up to new scrutiny the selection process for companies with new applications, Daniels said. That is a response to concerns by many in India’s tech community that Facebook’s process put India’s fledgling start-ups at a disadvantage.

The project’s proponents say that India’s needs are so great it cannot afford to suspend one program that could help.

Mahesh Uppal, a telecommunications consultant, notes that more than 10 percent of the country does not have mobile phone coverage and that India’s progress in extending fiber-optic cable to village centers is proceeding at a glacial pace. Modi had set a goal of linking all 250,000 by 2016, but only 27,000 have cable so far and it is ready for use in only 3,200, according to a government report.

In comparison, some 80 percent of China’s villages are linked by broadband.

[Inside the Indian temple that draws America’s tech titans]

In Alwar district in the northern state of Rajasthan, many remember when Zuckerberg came to visit but fewer know about Free Basics.

“I’ve heard it’s free and by Facebook and you don’t have to pay for it,” said Umer Farukh, 43, a folk musician. “But I don’t think Facebook should control it. The Internet should be for everybody.”

Farukh has only been computer literate for two years, but he’s already emailing and using YouTube to post videos and promote his band.

He’s become such a proponent that he has donated space for one of Manzar’s computer centers — part of a government initiative to build cyber-hubs in minority communities — and encouraged the female members of his family to take classes, which is rare in his conservative community.

Farukh says that challenges to connecting India go far beyond data plans and fiber-optic cable or the government broadband that often sputters out. Wages are low, and hours are long. Only about half of the women in his state are literate, and about a quarter of the young women in his neighborhood are kept at home and not educated.

“This place is very backward,” he said. “India as a society is lagging far behind in terms of Internet.”

In the small nearby community of Roja Ka Baas, ringed by fields of blooming mustard greens, residents are still awaiting the opening of their planned WiFi center. They are struggling along on cheap mobile phones with slow 2G spectrum until then, they said.

Sakir Khan, 14, said that once the Internet finally arrived in this village, the first thing he would do would be to sign up for Facebook.

Farheen Fatima and Subuhi Parvez contributed to this report.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/washington-post-annie-gowen-january-28-2016-india-egypt-say-no-thanks-to-free-internet-from-facebook

Facebook’s Fight to Be Free

praskrishna — 2016-01-31T09:11:52Z

In India, Mark Zuckerberg can’t give Internet access away.

The article by Adi Narayan and Bhuma Shrivastava was published in Bloomberg Businessweek on January 15, 2016. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.

Thanks mostly to its mobile-ad profits, Facebook has had a great couple of years. According to its most recent earnings report, in November, the company’s quarterly ad revenue rose 45 percent, to $4.3 billion, from the same period in 2014. It has more than 1.5 billion monthly users, just over half of all the people online anywhere. Keeping up its rate of user growth—more than 100 million people each year—will only get tougher.

A big part of the problem is that a lot of potential new eyeballs are in places where Internet access is patchy at best. Some of Facebook’s grander projects anticipated that issue: It has satellites and giant solar-powered planes that beam Wi-Fi down to areas that don’t have it. And then there’s Free Basics, the two-year-old project Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg has called an online 911. In about three dozen countries so far, Free Basics—also known as Internet.org—includes a stripped-down version of Facebook and a handful of sites that provide news, weather, nearby health-care options, and other info. One or two carriers in a given country offer the package for free at slow speeds, betting that it will help attract new customers who’ll later upgrade to pricier data plans.

Facebook says Free Basics is meant to make the world more open and connected, not to boost the company’s growth. Either way, online access is an especially big deal in India, where there are 130 million people using Facebook, 375 million people online, and an additional 800 million-plus who aren’t. (The social network remains blocked in China.) That may help explain why Zuckerberg spent part of the first few weeks of his paternity leave appealing personally to Indians to lobby for Free Basics. On Dec. 21 the Indian government suspended the program, offered in the country by carrier Reliance Communications, while it weighs public comments and arguments from Internet freedom advocates who say preferential treatment for Facebook’s services threatens to stifle competition.

“An emerging country like India needs to provide the consumer with incentives to get onto the Internet.” —Neha Dharia, an analyst at consulting firm Ovum

Since the government’s telecommunications regulator announced the suspension, Facebook has bought daily full-page ads in major newspapers and plastered billboards with pictures of happy farmers and schoolchildren it says would benefit from Free Basics. Zuckerberg has frequently made the case himself via phone or newspaper op-ed, asking that Indians petition the government to approve his service. “If we accept that everyone deserves access to the Internet, then we must surely support free basic Internet services,” the CEO wrote in a column published in the Times of India, the nation’s largest daily paper, shortly before the new year. “Who could possibly be against this?”

Opponents, including some journalists and businesspeople, say Free Basics is dangerous because it fundamentally changes the online economy. If companies are allowed to buy preferential treatment from carriers, the Internet is no longer a level playing field, says Vijay Shekhar Sharma, founder of Indian mobile-payment company Paytm. A spokesman for Sharma confirmed that Zuckerberg called to discuss the matter but declined to comment further.

India’s Internet base will grow with or without Facebook’s help, says Nikhil Pahwa, a tech blogger and co-founder of the Save the Internet coalition, which opposes Free Basics. “We don’t see Free Basics as philanthropy. We see it as a land grab,” says Pahwa. When dealing with the famously protectionist Indian government, that’s a pretty good argument. An April attempt by India’s top mobile carrier to underwrite data costs for certain apps drew heavy criticism, and the carrier, Bharti Airtel, has put the program on hold.

None of that means Facebook can’t help get more Indians online, says Neha Dharia, an analyst at consulting firm Ovum. “An emerging country like India needs to provide the consumer with incentives to get onto the Internet,” she says. “What Facebook Free Basics is doing is a bit extreme, but what you do need is a bit of a middle path.”

Internet sampler packages such as Free Basics can also help carriers like Reliance, the fourth-largest in India, upgrade their often-struggling networks, Dharia says. That’s a symbiotic process, because customers may quickly grow frustrated with the bare-bones service and demand more. Free Basics doesn’t have Gmail, YouTube, Vimeo, Twitter, or Bollywood music streaming. (Video will account for 64 percent of India’s data traffic by March 2017, consulting firm Deloitte estimates.) It’s meant to be a steppingstone. Facebook says about 40 percent of Free Basics users start paying for data plans within a month.

But again, if Free Basics catches on in India, people may just keep paying for data to use more Facebook and forget about some of those other services, says Dharia. “Facebook is the Internet” to a lot of people in India, she says. Google, whose services are most conspicuously absent from the Free Basics roster, declined to comment.

India’s telecommunications regulator says Facebook’s advocates and opponents have until Jan. 14 to file public comments; it’s received about 2.4 million responses so far, most of them form letters supporting Free Basics. The government’s decision could also ripple beyond India, says Pranesh Prakash, a Free Basics opponent and the policy director at the nonprofit Centre for Internet & Society in Bengaluru. In the weeks since India suspended Free Basics, Egypt, which had done the same back in October, once again shut down the Facebook plan, though the government wouldn’t say why. The India fight “will be a reputational challenge for Facebook,” says Prakash. “It will set the tone for Free Basics debate in other countries.”

The bottom line: Facebook’s free data plan in India faces strong opposition from local businesses and Internet freedom advocates.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/bloomberg-businessweek-adi-narayan-bhuma-shrivastava

Facebook is no charity, and the ‘free’ in Free Basics comes at a price

praskrishna — 2016-01-30T11:32:47Z

Who could possibly be against free internet access? This is the question that Mark Zuckerberg asks in a piece for the Times of India in which he claims Facebook’s Free Basics service “protects net neutrality”.

Free Basics is the rebranded Internet.org, a Facebook operation where by partnering with local telecoms firms in the developing world the firm offers free internet access – limited only to Facebook, Facebook-owned WhatsApp, and a few other carefully selected sites and services.

Zuckerberg was responding to the strong backlash that Free Basics has faced in India, where the country’s Telecom Regulatory Authority recently pulled the plug on the operation while it debates whether telecoms operators should be allowed to offer different services with variable pricing, or whether a principle of network neutrality should be enforced.

Not content to await the regulator’s verdict, Facebook has come out swinging. It has paid for billboards, full-page newspaper ads and television ad campaigns to try to enforce the point that Free Basics is good for India’s poor. In his Times piece, Zuckerberg goes one step further – implying that those opposing Free Basics are actually hurting the poor.

He argued that “for every ten people connected to the internet, roughly one is lifted out of poverty”. Without reference to supporting research, he instead offers an anecdote about a farmer called Ganesh from Maharashtra state. Ganesh apparently used Free Basics to double his crop yields and get a better deal for his crops.

Zuckerberg stressed that “critics of free basic internet services should remember that everything we’re doing is about serving people like Ganesh. This isn’t about Facebook’s commercial interests”.

Zuckerberg’s indignation illustrates either how little he understands about the internet, or that he’s willing to say anything to anyone listening.

This is not a charity

First, despite his claims to the contrary Free Basics clearly runs against the idea of net neutrality by offering access to some sites and not others. While the service is claimed to be open to any app, site or service, in practice the submission guidelines forbid JavaScript, video, large images, and Flash, and effectively rule out secure connections using HTTPS. This means that Free Basics is able to read all data passing through the platform. The same rules don’t apply to Facebook itself, ensuring that it can be the only social network, and (Facebook-owned) WhatsApp the only messaging service, provided.

Yes, Free Basics is free. But how appealing is a taxi company that will only take you to certain destinations, or an electricity provider that will only power certain home electrical devices? There are alternative models: in Bangladesh, Grameenphone gives users free data after they watch an advert. In some African countries, users get free data after buying a handset.

Second, there is no convincing body of peer-reviewed evidence to suggest internet access lifts the world’s poor out of poverty. Should we really base telecommunications policy on an anecdote and a self-serving industry report sponsored by the firm that stands to benefit? India has a literacy rate of 74%, of which a much smaller proportion speak English well enough to read it. Literate English speakers and readers tend not to be India’s poorest citizens, yet it’s English that is the predominant language on the web. This suggests Free Basics isn’t suited for India’s poorest, who’d be better served by more voice and video services.

Third, the claim that Free Basics isn’t in Facebook’s commercial interest is the most outrageous. In much the same way that Nestlé offered free baby formula in the 1970s as development assistance to low-income countries – leaving nursing mothers unable to produce sufficient milk themselves – Free Basics is likely to impede commercial alternatives.

By offering free access Free Basics disrupts the market, allowing Facebook to gain a monopoly that can benefit from the network effects of a growing user base. Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Centre for Internet and Society, in India, has aptly noted that expanding audience and consumer bases have long been as important as revenues for internet firms. Against Facebook’s immensely deep pockets and established user-base, homegrown competitors are thwarted before they even begin.

Poverty consists of more than just no internet

India will not always have low levels of internet access, this is not the issue – in fact Indian internet penetration growth rates are relatively high. Instead the company sees Free Basics as a means to establish a bridgehead into the country, establishing a monopoly before other firms move in.

There is decades of research about how best to help farmers like Ganesh: access to good quality education, healthcare, and water all could go a long way. But even if we see internet access as one of the key needs to be met, why would we then offer a restricted version?

In presenting Free Basics as an act of altruism Zuckerberg tries to silence criticism. “Who could possibly be against this?”, he asks:

What reason is there for denying people free access to vital services for communication, education, healthcare, employment, farming and women’s rights?

That is the right question, but Free Basics is the wrong answer. Let’s call a spade a spade and see Free Basics as an important part of the business strategy of one of the world’s largest internet corporations, rather than as a selfless act of charity.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-conversation-january-11-2016-facebook-is-no-charity

We are anonymous, we are legion

Zuckerberg's Plan Spurned as India Backs Full Net Neutrality

Freebies Curtailed

Google Unaffected

Trai upholds Net Neutrality in setback to Facebook’s Free Basics

Linking Facebook use to free top-up data

A Case for Greater Privacy Paternalism?

The first part of the series can be accessed here.

Background

There is No Such Thing as Free Basics

Net neutrality advocates hail Trai verdict

UNICEF & Nasscom Foundation Workshop on Child Online Protection

Database on Big Data and Smart Cities International Standards

[45] SPRING Singapore Supported Close to 600 Companies in Standards Adoption, and Service Excellence Projects , 12th August 2015, http://www.spring.gov.sg/NewsEvents/PR/Pages/Internet-of-Things-(IoT)-Standards-Outline-to-Support-Smart-Nation-Initiative-Unveiled-20150812.aspx

India Sets Strict New Net Neutrality Rules

Facebook's Fall from Grace: Arab Spring to Indian Winter

India bans Facebook’s ‘free’ Internet for the poor

A Megacorp’s Basic Instinct

India, Egypt say no thanks to free Internet from Facebook

Facebook’s Fight to Be Free

Facebook is no charity, and the ‘free’ in Free Basics comes at a price

This is not a charity

Poverty consists of more than just no internet

^{^[45]} SPRING Singapore Supported Close to 600 Companies in Standards Adoption, and Service Excellence Projects , 12th August 2015, http://www.spring.gov.sg/NewsEvents/PR/Pages/Internet-of-Things-(IoT)-Standards-Outline-to-Support-Smart-Nation-Initiative-Unveiled-20150812.aspx