We are anonymous, we are legion

India facial recognition: How effective will it be?

Admin — 2019-11-15T00:42:35Z

India is trying to build what could be the world's largest facial recognition system.

New Delhi says the system could help fight crime and find missing children.

The technology has already been launched at a few Indian airports.

Police in New Delhi says it has identified nearly 3,000 missing children during a trial period last year.

But not everyone is convinced.

Internet freedom advocates say there is little information about where and what the system will be used for and how data will be stored.

The use of facial recognition software is already common in places like China.

But there are questions about how effective it is, with one British study revealing that the technology could be highly inaccurate.

Pranesh Prakash joins Al Jazeera from Bengaluru in India. He is a fellow at the Centre for Internet and Society but is talking to us in a personal capacity

Video

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/al-jazeera-video-november-8-2019-india-facial-recognition

Should online political advertising be regulated?

P.J. George — 2019-11-13T15:12:46Z

Micro-targeting could have potentially damaging results in the context of political advertising.

The article by P.J. George was published in the Hindu on November 8, 2019. Pranesh Prakash was interviewed.

On October 31, Twitter announced that it will no longer carry political advertisements as the power of Internet advertising “brings significant risks to politics, where it can be used to influence votes”. On the other hand, Facebook has said it will not fact-check political advertisements as it does not want to stifle free speech. In a conversation moderated by P.J. George, Pranesh Prakash (board member, The Centre for Internet and Society) and Kiran Chandra (General Secretary, Free Software Movement of India) discuss how platforms and constitutional authorities can deal with the challenges posed by online political advertising to democracies. Edited excerpts:

We have always had political advertising. What is it that makes online political advertisements different or maybe even problematic?

Pranesh Prakash: There are two things that make online political advertising different. One is targeting. Online advertising allows, especially on social networks, for a kind of targeting that wasn’t possible at the same level before. Earlier, if you wanted to target a particular segment of people for your political messaging, you could find out what kind of magazines they subscribe to and put fliers in those magazines. But you couldn’t engage in personalised targeting based on multiple attributes that is possible through platforms like Facebook and Twitter. The second is the invisibility of this kind of advertising. If there’s a billboard in the real world, everyone gets to see it. However, if there’s targeted advertising on a social media platform, not everyone gets to know of it.

Kiran Chandra: App-based organisations have designed advertisement models to specifically allow targeting. Facebook, for instance, allowed you to choose a person from a particular caste and also from a particular class in the same caste. If somebody wants to look at an advertisement for an Audi, they can go to one class of newspapers or look at billboards in some localities; the very existence of the product is not opaque to society. But targeted advertising makes it possible for two people connected to the Internet from the same source, using the same equipment, studying in the same school or college, working in the same workplace, and living in the same habitat to get two different advertisements. And micro-targeting has got potentially damaging results in the context of political advertising, particularly for elections. These platforms make it possible to go from manufacturing consent to manipulating consent. A person is continuously fed with information to vote for a particular party.

Twitter said it will no longer carry political advertisements, considering the repercussions seen in the U.S. in the past elections. On the contrary, Facebook says political advertisements are necessary and that people should see if their politicians are lying. How culpable is a platform in the case of a problematic online political advertisement?

KC: Platforms, particularly Facebook, have been washing their hands of the issue saying they are only intermediaries providing space; that the content is being generated by the people to be consumed by the people, and they have no role to play. But this is false. If you look at the complete business model of Facebook, Google, or any of the platforms, they clearly provide micro-targeting, or allow people to be manipulated for a particular purpose. So, these platforms can’t just wash their hands of the issue. In the Maharashtra election, you saw a lot of advertisements coming out which are untraceable. How can this happen without the platform itself allowing for such a possibility? The Election Commission (EC) needs to step in on all these issues. These corporations need to be very transparent in the context of elections. They need to bring out all the ways in which advertisements are displayed and also the money associated with it.

When somebody publishes it [an ad] on a Facebook wall, it is as good as publishing it in a newspaper. So, all the legislation that apply now for reasonable restrictions and freedom of speech and the freedom of press also apply to these platforms. These platforms are culpable when the very intent of their business model allows such subversion of the democratic process. They need to be brought in line to ensure that Indian democracy is safe.

PP: I completely disagree with Kiran on a number of points. For instance, those who are running a platform shouldn’t automatically be liable for what people are seeing on those platforms. The people who are actually saying things should be liable, not necessarily those who are carrying it without knowing what they’re carrying most of the time. Kiran also mentioned manipulation. The job of all advertising is to manipulate. The job of newspapers is to manipulate public opinion. And there’s always money associated with this. Newspapers carry advertisements as well. You don’t necessarily know who has paid for each ad in the newspaper. What online platforms are able to provide is actually greater transparency in this regard, at least based on what Facebook is attempting to do with its ad library. Calling this manipulation doesn’t quite work. Because then you have to specify why certain categories of things you think of as manipulating, while other categories you think of as influencing.

Second, as far as I know, Facebook does not ask for your caste. Nor does it actually allow advertisers to use caste as a category for advertising. To address the larger question of whether to carry political advertisements or not, I don’t think there are simple answers. For instance, in different jurisdictions there are different rules as to whether different kinds of media are allowed to carry political advertisements or not. In the U.S., all broadcasters are required by law not to censor on the basis of the content of political advertising. Which means that broadcasters in the U.S. cannot say to a candidate, ‘this advertisement that you’ve sent to us contains a lie and we’re not going to associate ourselves with the lie and we’re not going to carry it’. Now, when a platform like Facebook says that it will voluntarily adopt a similar standard as applies to broadcast organisations by law, all hell breaks loose. And again, there might be good reasons for it. But to say that political advertising should not contain lies, and hence should be censored, is not a viable opinion across the board.

KC: I would like to clarify one thing here. There is a clear distinction between Facebook asking your caste and Facebook allowing you to micro-target people based on their caste and class. In 2016, I created an advertisement with a tag called Brahmin bags and it allowed inclusion and exclusion based on caste and economic status. And now, after this had been made an issue for the last three years, Facebook says that advertisers can select topics that are specific to a particular caste. For instance, Dalit topics, Iyengar topics, etc. So Facebook, in its design, allows such kind of sensitivities to be used for micro-targeting. And one should not confuse general advertising with political advertising. If the advertisement is just about manipulating for buying a particular product, that has something to do with the business houses; even if one agrees with it or not. But when you speak about political advertising, when people come to participate and engage in a democratic process, the EC and The Representation of the People Act (RPA) mandate that people should be allowed to take a very clear stand, to look at what has happened in the last five years, and decide how to vote, freely and fairly. That is why the RPA clearly lists a certain set of things for free and fair elections, where even the use of money and manipulation should not be allowed to happen. Yes, the U.S. has a different context. American democracy is different from Indian democracy. We have got our own statute. This methodology in which these platforms have got their business models and are engaging deeply in subverting the Indian democratic process is a serious cause of concern. The EC should come up with new methodologies, if the existing ones are not sufficient.

Can you elaborate on how the EC can play a role in this?

KC: We brought these issues to the notice of the EC prior to the 2019 general election. The EC said it does not have enough manpower to deal with this situation for now. The EC does not have power over the police or the administration; but once the elections are on, it has the capability to take in different departments and ensure that such subversion of the democratic process does not happen. A fundamental problem with the EC’s method is that it said it was in discussion with the digital platforms to make more people vote in the election. And that itself is problematic. How is it going to be done? The EC should make public the way in which this advertising is being conducted, the money associated with it, and the people who are being reached with it. For instance, if we look at TV channels for ads during primetime, there is a mechanism, like TRP ratings, which allows them to understand and evaluate the target sections. If you look at the Maharashtra election, the advertiser itself is not known. Have people been sent communal messages? Have people been targeted based on caste, which can disqualify the contestant? The EC should reach out to the Government of India and look at the departments that are capable of handling this. If they don’t exist, it should start creating infrastructure that will be able to look into all these aspects. Also, concrete guidelines should be given to these digital platforms. And whatever comes in contradiction, or comes in the way of implementing the RPA, the EC should stop the platforms from doing it.

PP: For me, it’s not clear to what extent I would draw a distinction between advertising and other things which the EC has not been able to curtail, such as paid news and political ownership of media, which allow for very skewed viewpoints to be expressed. But insofar as what can be done about online platforms — and again, only online platforms which deal in advertising — the biggest source of online political messaging in India is WhatsApp. So, excluding the elephant in the room from this discussion, what the EC could do is bring the largest platforms together to get transparency commitments from them. Then this information needs to be made publicly available, so that the invisibility which happens with targeting gets countered. The second thing... Given that elections are geographical in nature in India, if you want to engage in advertising, you have to do it on the basis of geography, not on the basis of specific kinds of attributes of a person. And let’s also be aware that most of these attributes or guesses about people that these platforms are making are based on what people post on social media platforms, what they click. So, the one thing that can be done on a global level is transparency and restrictions on various targeting but anything else such as limitations on, say, lying in political advertising, I don't think that can or should be sold on a global level. It’s dependent far too much on each country and their models and how they interpret freedom of expression.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/hindu-pj-george-november-8-2019-should-online-political-advertising-be-regulated

Cultivating India’s Cyber Defense Strategy

Admin — 2019-11-13T14:39:19Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/cultivating-india2019s-cyber-defense-strategy

Open Workshop on 'Digital Empire(s): Perspectives from Asia and Africa

Admin — 2019-11-13T14:36:03Z

Monish will be a part of a collaborative network which is organising an open workshop on 'Digital Empire(s): Perspectives from Asia and Africa', on December 4, 2019 at Centre de Sciences Humaines (CSH) Delhi.

Click to view the agenda.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/open-workshop-on-digital-empire-s-perspectives-from-asia-and-africa

Advancing Cyberstability Final Report

Admin — 2019-11-13T14:25:59Z

Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) was acknowledged in the final report of the Global Commission on Stability of Cyberspace

CIS had engaged with the Commission throughout the process. An issue brief authored by Elonnai Hickok and Arindrajit Basu was published by them last year. A submission made by Gurshabad Grover, Elonnai Hickok, Karan Saini and Arindrajit Basu was also acknowledged. See the list of acknowledgements here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/advancing-cyberstability-final-report

India’s Role in Global Cyber Policy Formulation

basu — 2019-11-13T14:13:33Z

The past year has seen vigorous activity on the domestic cyber policy front in India. On key issues—including intermediary liability, data localization and e-commerce—the government has rolled out a patchwork of regulatory policies, resulting in battle lines being drawn by governments, industry and civil society actors both in India and across the globe.

The article by Arindrajit Basu was published in Lawfare on November 7, 2019. The article was reviewed and edited by Elonnai Hickok and Justin Sherman.

The onslaught of recent developments demonstrates how India can shape cyber policy debates. Among emerging economies, India is uniquely positioned to exercise leverage over multinational tech companies due to its sheer population size, combined with a rapid surge in users coming online and the country’s large gross domestic product. India occupies a key seat at the data governance table alongside other players like the EU, China, Russia and the United States — a position the country should use to promote its interests and those of other similarly placed emerging economies.

For many years, the Indian population has served as an economic resource for foreign, largely U.S.-based tech giants. Now, however, India is moving toward a regulatory strategy that reduces the autonomy of these companies in order to pivot away from a system that recently has been termed “data colonialism”—in which Western technologies use data-driven revenue bolstered by information extracted from consumers in the Global South to consolidate their global market power. The policy thinking underpinning India’s new grand vision still has some gaps, however.

Data Localization

Starting with a circular from the Reserve Bank of India in April 2018, the Indian government has introduced a range of policy instruments mandating “data localization”—that is, requiring that certain kinds of data must be stored in servers located physically within India. A snapshot of these policies is summarized in the table below.

(Source here. Design credit: Saumyaa Naidu)

While there are a number of reasons for this maneuver, two in particular are in line with India’s broader vision of data sovereignty—broadly defined as the sovereign right of nations to govern data within their territory and/or jurisdiction in order to support their national interest for the welfare of their citizens. First, there is an incentive to keep data within India’s jurisdiction because of the cumbersome process through which Indian law enforcement agencies must go during criminal investigations in order to access data stored in the U.S. Second, data localization undercuts the extractive economic models used by U.S. companies operating in India by which the data generated by Indian citizens is collected in India, stored in data centers located largely in the U.S., and processed and analyzed to derive commercially valuable insights.

Both foreign players and smaller Indian private-sector actors were against this move. A study on the issue that I co-authored earlier this year with Elonnai Hickok and Aditya Chawla found that one of the reasons for this resistance involved the high costs of setting up the data centers that are needed to comply with the requirement. President Trump echoed this sentiment when he explicitly opposed data localization during a meeting with Prime Minister Narendra Modi on the sidelines of the G-20 in June 2019.

At the same time, large Indian players such as Reliance and Paytm and Chinese companies like AliBaba and Xilink were in favor of localization—possibly because these companies could absorb the costs of setting up storage facilities while benefiting from the fixed costs imposed on foreign competition. In fact, some companies, such as AliBaba, have already set up storage facilities in India.

As my co-authors and I noted, data localization comes with various risks, both diplomatically and politically. So far, the issue has caused friction in U.S.-India trade relations. For example, before Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's trip to New Delhi in June, the Trump administration reportedly contemplated limiting H-1B visas for any country that implements a localization requirement. Further, on his trips to New Delhi, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross has regularly argued that data localization restrictions are a barrier to U.S. companies and stressed the need to eliminate such barriers. Further, data localization poses several technical challenges as well as security risks. Mirroring data across multiple locations, as India’s Draft Personal Data Protection Bill mandates, increases the number of physical data centers that need to be protected and thereby the number of vulnerable points that malicious actors can attack.

Recently, the Indian media have reported disagreements between policymakers over data localization, along with speculation that the data storage requirement in the Draft Personal Data Protection Bill could be limited only to critical data—a term not defined in the bill itself—or be left to sectoral regulators, officials from individual government departments.

Our paper recommended a dual approach. In our view, data localization policy should include mandatory localization for critical sectors such as defense or payments data, while also adopting “conditional” localization for all other data. Under conditional localization, data should only be transferred to countries that (a) agree to share the personal data of Indian citizens with law enforcement authorities based on Indian criminal procedure laws (examples of such a mechanism may be an executive data-sharing agreement under the CLOUD Act) and (b) have equivalent privacy and security safeguards. This approach would be in line with India’s overarching vision of data sovereignty and the goal of standing up to the hegemony of big tech and of U.S. internet regulations, while avoiding undue collateral damage to India’s global alliances.

Intermediary Liability

In line with the goal of ensuring that big tech is answerable to the rule of law, the Indian government has also sought to regulate the adverse social impacts of some speech hosted by platforms. Rule 3(9) of the Draft of the Information Technology Intermediaries Guidelines (Amendment) Rules, 2018, released by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology in December 2019, takes up the interventionist mission of laws like the NetzDg in Germany. The regulation would mandate that platforms use “automated tools or appropriate mechanisms, with appropriate controls, for proactively identifying and removing or disabling public access to unlawful information or content.” These regulations have prompted concerns from both the private sector and civil society groups that claim the proposal fails to address constitutional concerns about algorithmic discrimination, excessive censorship and inappropriate delegation of legislative powers under Indian law. Further, some observers object that the guidelines adopt a “one-size-fits-all” approach to classifying intermediaries that does not differentiate between platforms that thrive on end-to-end encryption like WhatsApp and public platforms like Facebook.

In many ways, these guidelines—likely to be notified (as an amendment to the Information Technology Act) as early as January 2020—put the cart before the horse. Before devising regulatory models appropriate for India’s geographic scale and population, it is first necessary to conduct empirical research about the vectors through which misinformation spreads in India and how misinformation impacts different social, economic and linguistic communities, along with pilot programs for potential solutions to the misinformation problem. And it is imperative that these measures be brought in line with constitutional requirements.

Community Data and “Data as a Public Good”

Another important question involves the precise meaning of “data” itself—an issue on which various policy documents have failed to deliver a consistent stance.

The first conceptualization of “community data” appears in both the Srikrishna Committee Report that accompanied the Draft Personal Data Protection Bill in 2018 and the draft e-commerce policy. However, neither policy provides clarity on the concept of data.

When defining community data, the Srikrishna Report endorses a collective protection of privacy as protecting an identifiable community that has contributed to community data. According to the Srikrishna Report, receiving collective protection requires the fulfillment of three key aspects. First, the data belong to an identifiable community. Second, the individuals in the community consent to being a part of the community. And third, the community as a whole consents to its data being treated as community data.

The draft e-commerce policy reconceptualizes the notion of community data as “societal commons” or a “national resource,” where the undefined ‘community” has rights to access data but the government has overriding control to utilize the data for welfare purposes. Unlike the Srikrishna Report, the draft e-commerce policy does not outline the key aspects of community data. This approach fails to demarcate a clear line between personal and nonpersonal data or to specify any practical guidelines or restrictions on how the government can use community data. For this reason, implementation of this policy could pose a threat to the right to privacy that the Indian Supreme Court recognized as a fundamental right in 2017.

The second idea is that of “data as a public good.” This is described in Chapter 4 of the 2019 Economic Survey Report—a document published by the Ministry of Finance along with the Annual Financial Budget. The report explicitly states that any data governance framework needs to be deferential to privacy norms and the soon-to-be-enacted privacy law. The report further states that “personal data” of an individual in the custody of a government is a “public good” once the datasets are anonymized.

However, the report’s recommendation of setting up a government database that links several individual databases together leads to the “triangulation” problem, in which individuals can be identified by matching different datasets together. The report further suggests that the same data can be sold to private firms (though it is unclear whether this includes foreign or domestic firms). This directly contradicts the characterization of a “public good”—which, by definition, must be n onexcludable and nonrivalrous—and is also at odds with the government’s vision of reining in big tech. The government has set up an expert committee to look into the scope of nonpersonal data, and the results of the committee’s deliberations are likely to influence the shape that India’s data governance framework takes across multiple policy instruments.

There is obviously a need to reassess and reevaluate the range of governance efforts and gambits that have emerged in the past year. With domestic cyber policy formulation pivots reaching a crescendo, we must consider how domestic cyber policy efforts can influence India’s approach to global debates in this space.

India’s Contribution to Global Cyber Policy Debates

As the largest democracy in the world, India is undoubtedly a key “digital decider” in shaping the future of the internet. Multilateral cyber policy formulation efforts remain polarized. The U.S. and its European allies continue to advocate for a free, rules-based conception of cyberspace with limited governmental interference. China and Russia, along with their Shanghai Cooperation Organisation allies, are pushing for a tightly regulated internet in which each state has the right to manage and define its “network frontiers” through domestic regulation free from external interference. To some degree, India is already influencing debate over the internet through its various domestic cyber policy movements. However, its participation in international debates has been lacking the vigor or coherence needed to clearly articulate India’s national interests and take up a global leadership role.

In shaping its contributions to global cyber policy formulation, India should focus its efforts on three key places: (a) internet governance forums that deliberate the governance of the technical architecture of the internet such as domain names, (b) cyber norms formulation processes that seek to establish norms to foster responsible behavior in cyberspace by states and nonstate actors in cyberspace, and (3) global debates on trade and cross-border data flows that seek to conceptualize the future of global digital trade relationships. As I discuss below, there are key divisions in Indian policy in each of these forums. To realize its grand vision in the digital sphere, India needs to do much more to make its presence felt.

Internet Governance Forums

India’s stance on a variety of issues at internet governance forums has been inconsistent, switching repeatedly between multilateral and multistakeholder visions for internet governance. A core reason for this uncertainty is the participation of multiple Indian government ministries, which often disagree with each other. At global internet governance forums, India has been represented either by the Department of Electronics and Information Technology (now renamed to Ministry of Electronics and Information Technoloft or the Department of Telecommunications (under the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology) or by the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA).

As my colleagues have documented in a detailed paper, India has been vocal in global internet governance debates at forums including the International Telecommunications Union, the Internet Governance Forum and the U.N. General Assembly. However, the Indian stance on multistakeholderism has been complex, with the MEA advocating for a multilateral stance while the other departments switched between multistakeholderism and “nuanced multilateralism”—which calls for multistakeholder participation in policy formulation but multilateral implementation. The paper also argues that there has been a decline recently in the vigor of Indian participation at forums such as the 2018 meeting of the Working Group on Enhanced Co-operation (WGEC 2.0), due to key personnel changes. For example, B.N. Reddy, who was a skilled and experienced negotiator for the MEA in previous forums, was transferred to another position before WGEC 2.0, and the delegation that attended the meeting did not make its presence felt as strongly or skillfully.

Cyber Norms for Responsible State Behavior in Cyberspace

With the exception of two broad and unoriginal statements at the 70th and 71st sessions of the U.N. General Assembly, India has yet to make public its position on the multilateral debate on the proliferation of norms for responsible state behavior in cyberspace. During the substantive session of the Open-Ended Working Group held in September, India largely reaffirmed points made by other states, rather than carving out a new or original approach. The silence and ambiguity is surprising, as India has been represented on four of the five Groups of Governmental Experts (GGEs) set up thus far and has also been inducted into the 2019-2021 GGE that is set to revamp the global cyber norms process. (Due to the GGE’s rotational membership policy, India was not a member of the fourth GGE that submitted its report in 2015.)

However, before becoming an evangelist of any particular norms, India has some homework to do domestically. It has yet to advance a clear, coherent and detailed public stance outlining its views on the application of international law to cyberspace. This public stance is necessary for two reasons. First, a well-reasoned statement that explains India’s stance on core security issues—such as the applicability of self-defense, countermeasures and international humanitarian law—would show India’s appetite for offensive and defensive strategies for external adversaries and allies alike. This would serve as the edifice of a potentially credible cyber deterrence strategy. Second, developing a public stance would help India to take advantage of the economic, demographic and political leverage that it holds and to assume a leadership role in discussions. The U.K., France, Germany, Estonia, Cuba (backed by China and Russia) and the U.S. have all made their positions publicly known with varying degrees of detail.

Data Transfers

Unlike in other forums, Indian policy has been clearer in the cross-border data transfer debate. This is a foreign policy extension of India’s emphasis on localization and data sovereignty in domestic policy instruments. At the G-20 Summit in Osaka, India and the rest of the BRICS group (Brazil, Russia, China and South Africa) stressed the role that data play in economic development for emerging economies and reemphasized the need for data sovereignty. India did not sign the Osaka Declaration on the Digital Economy that kickstarted the “Osaka Track”—a process whereby the 78 signatories agreed to participate in global policy discussions on international rule-making for e-commerce at the World Trade Organization (WTO). This was a continuation of India’s sustained efforts opposing the e-commerce moratorium at the WTO.

The importance of cross-border data flows in spurring the global economy found its way into the Final G-20 Leaders Declaration—which India signed. Foreign Secretary Vijay Gokhale argued that international rule-making on data transfers should not take place in plurilateral forums outside the WTO. Gokhale claimed that limiting the debate to the WTO would ensure that emerging economies have a say in the framing of the rules. The clarity expressed by the Indian delegation at the G-20 should be a model for more confident Indian leadership in this global cyber policy development space.

Looking Forward

India is no newcomer to the idea of normative leadership. To overcome material shortcomings in the nation’s early years, Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Indian prime minister, engineered a normative pivot in world affairs by championing the sovereignty of countries that had gained independence from colonial rule. In the years immediately after independence, the Indian foreign policy establishment sought to break the hegemony of the United States and the Soviet Union by advancing a foreign policy rooted in what came to be known as “nonalignment.”

Making sound contributions to foreign policy in cyberspace requires a variety of experts—international lawyers, computer scientists, geopolitical strategists and human rights advocates. Indian civil society and academia are brimming with tech policy enthusiasts from a variety of backgrounds who could add in-depth substance to the government’s cyber vision. Such engagement has begun to some extent at the domestic level: Most government policies are now opened up to consultation with stakeholders Yet there is still room for greater transparency in this process.

India's cyber vision is worth fighting for. The continued monetization of data dividends by foreign big tech at the expense of India’s socioeconomic development needs to be countered. This can be accomplished by predictable and coherent policymaking that balances economic growth and innovation with the fundamental rights and values enshrined in the Indian Constitution, including the right to equality, freedom of speech and expression, and the right to life. But inherent contradictions in the conceptualization of personal data, delays in tabling the Personal Data Protection Bill, and uncertain or rushed approaches in several other regulatory policies are all fettering the realization of this vision. On core geopolitical issues, there exists an opportunity to set the rule-shaping agenda to favor India’s sovereign interests. With global cyber policy formulation in a state of flux, India has the economic, demographic and intellectual leverage to have a substantial impact on the debate and recraft the narrative in favor of the rapidly emerging Global South.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/lawfare-arindrajit-basu-november-7-2019-indias-role-in-global-cyber-policy-formulation

UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Privacy Consultation on 'Privacy and Gender'

Admin — 2019-11-02T06:39:25Z

Ambika Tandon was a speaker at the Consultation on Privacy and Gender organised by the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy held at New York University, New York on October 30 - 31, 2019.

The consultation was held to receive feedback on the report on privacy and gender towards which Pallavi, Aayush, Pranav and Ambika sent comments. Ambika was a speaker in the session 'The Body: as Data, as Identity, as Money Maker', chaired by Eva Blum-Dumontet from Privacy International, with co-panelists Anja Kovacs, Director, Internet Democracy Project, and Joana Varon, Director, Coding Rights.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/un-special-rapporteur-on-the-right-to-privacy-consultation-on-privacy-and-gender

October 2019 Newsletter

praskrishna — 2019-12-06T04:53:41Z

CIS newsletter for October 2019:

Highlights for October 2019
Gurshabad Grover has been nominated through the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) to be a member of the Advisory Group on Open Source Software for ISO/IEC JTC 1. In the wake of the Christchurch terror attacks, the Prime Minister of New Zealand, Jacinda Ardern, and the President of France, Emmanuel Macron co-chaired the Christchurch Call to Action in May 2018 to “bring together countries and tech companies in an attempt to bring to an end the ability to use social media to organise and promote terrorism and violent extremism.” CIS sent its comments to the Call. Over the past decade, a few private online intermediaries, by rapid innovation and integration, have turned into regulators of a substantial amount of online speech. Such concentrated power calls for a high level of responsibility on them to ensure that the rights of the users online, including their rights to free speech and privacy, are maintained. CIS has analyzed the companies' transparency reports for government requests for user data and content removal. The Department of Labour convened an interaction program of sorts at Vikas Soudha in Bangalore on 21st October, 2019 to hear the issues plaguing the emergent gig economy. Bharath Gururagavendran has thrown more light on this in a blog post. CIS presented a response to the ‘Gender issues arising in the digital era and their impacts on women, men and individuals of diverse sexual orientations gender identities, gender expressions and sex characteristics. CIS made a submission to the draft Code on Social Security, 2019 prepared by the Government of India’s Ministry of Labour and Employment. On October 17, 2019, the UN Special Rapporteur (UNSR) on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights, Philip Alston, released his thematic report on digital technology, social protection and human rights. Understanding the impact of technology on the provision of social protection – and, by extent, its impact on people in vulnerable situations – has been part of the work CIS has been doing. A case study titled Farming the Future: Deployment of Artificial Intelligence in the agricultural sector in India was published as a chapter in the joint UNESCAP-Google publication titled Artificial Intelligence in Public Service Delivery. In response to our call for contributions and reflections on ‘Decolonising the Internet’s Languages’ in August, we are delighted to announce that we received 50 submissions, in over 38 languages! From all these extraordinary offerings, we have selected nine that we will invite and support the contributors to expand further. In a case study undertaken as part of the Big Data for Development (BD4D) network, Ambika Tandon evaluates the Mother and Child Tracking System (MCTS) as data-driven initiative in reproductive health at the national level in India.

CIS and the News

The following articles and research papers were authored by CIS secretariat during the month:

Setting International Norms of Cyber Conflict is Hard, But that Doesn't Mean that We Should Stop Trying (Arindrajit Basu and Karan Saini; Modern War Institute; September 30, 2019).
Digital mediation of domestic and care work in India: Project Announcement (Ambika Tandon and Aayush Rathi; Feminist Internet Research Network, APC; October 1, 2019).
Doing Standpoint Theory (Ambika Tandon and Aayush Rathi; Gender IT; October 10, 2019).
We need a better AI vision (Arindrajit Basu; Fountainink; October 12, 2019).
Farming the Future: Deployment of Artificial Intelligence in the agricultural sector in India (Elonnai Hickok, Arindrajit Basu, Siddharth Sonkar and Pranav M B; UNESCAP-Google publication titled Artificial Intelligence in Public Service Delivery; October 16, 2019).
The Mother and Child Tracking System - understanding data trail in the Indian healthcare systems (Ambika Tandon; Privacy International; October 17, 2019).
Facial recognition at airports promises convenience in exchange for surveillance (Nishant Shah; Indian Express; October 20, 2019).
“Politics by other means”: Fostering positive contestation and charting ‘red lines’ through global governance in cyberspace (Arindrajit Basu; Global Policy and ORF; October 21, 2019).

CIS in the News

CIS secretariat was consulted for the following articles published during the month in various publications:

Why conviction rate for cyber crime cases in Karnataka is abysmally low (Theja Ram; News Minute; October 1, 2019).
Will FASTag raise privacy concerns? (Shreya Nandi and Prathma Sharma; Livemint; October 15, 2019).
India's HIV-positive trans people find 'new strength' in technology (Annie Banerji; Reuters; October 17, 2019). Also mirrored in Jakarta Post and ETHealthworld.com.
Dystopia vs development: The Kashmir paradox (Asmita Bakshi; Livemint; October 19, 2019).
Trending Hate Against Muslims: Is Twitter Complicit? (Puja Bhattacharjee; News Central; October 21, 2019).

Access to Knowledge

Access to Knowledge is a campaign to promote the fundamental principles of justice, freedom, and economic development. It deals with issues like copyrights, patents and trademarks, which are an important part of the digital landscape.

Wikipedia

Under a grant from Wikimedia Foundation we are doing a project for the growth of Indic language communities and projects by designing community collaborations and partnerships that recruit and cultivate new editors and explore innovative approaches to building projects.

Blog Entry

Analysis on the strategies of Mozilla and Wiki communities on gender gap aspects (Bhuvana Meenakshi; October 3, 2019).

Internet Governance

The Tunis Agenda of the second World Summit on the Information Society has defined internet governance as the development and application by governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles of shared principles, norms, rules, decision making procedures and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet. As part of internet governance work we work on policy issues relating to freedom of expression primarily focusing on the Information Technology Act and issues of liability of intermediaries for unlawful speech and simultaneously ensuring that the right to privacy is safeguarded as well.

Freedom of Speech & Expression

Under a grant from the MacArthur Foundation, CIS is doing research on the restrictions placed on freedom of expression online by the Indian government and contribute studies, reports and policy briefs to feed into the ongoing debates at the national as well as international level. As part of the project we bring you the following outputs:

Research Paper

Designing a Human Rights Impact Assessment for ICANN’s Policy Development Processes (Collin Kure, Akriti Bopanna and Austin Ruckstuhl; October 3, 2019).

Submissions / Analysis

Through the looking glass: Analysing transparency reports (Torsha Sarkar, Suhan S and Gurshabad Grover; October 30, 2019).
CIS’ Comments to the Christchurch Call (Tanaya Rajwade, Elonnai Hickok, and Raouf Kundil Peedikayil; October 31, 2019).

Blog Entry

Department of Labour Interaction Program: Online Business Platforms (Bharath Gururagavendran; edited by Ambika Tandon; October 29, 2019).

Participation in Events

Roundtable Discussion on Intermediary Liability (Organized by SFLC and the Dialogue; New Delhi; October 17, 2019). Tanaya Rajwade participated in a roundtable discussion on intermediary liability.

Gender

Participation in Event

Due Diligence Project FGD by UN Women (Organized by UN; UN House, New Delhi; October 11, 2019). Radhika Radhakrishnan attended a focussed group discussion.

Privacy

Under a grant from Privacy International and IDRC we are doing a project on surveillance. CIS is researching the history of privacy in India and how it shapes the contemporary debates around technology mediated identity projects like Aadhar. As part of our ongoing research, we bring you the following outputs:

Submissions

Comments to the United Nations Human Rights Commission Report on Gender and Privacy (Aayush Rathi, Ambika Tandon and Pallavi Bedi; October 24, 2019).
Comments to the Code on Social Security, 2019 (Aayush Rathi , Amruta Mahuli and Ambika Tandon; October 27, 2019).

Participation in Events

BSides Delhi 2019 Security Conference (Organized by Bsides Delhi; New Delhi; October 11, 2019).
ISO/IEC JTC 1 SC 27 meetings (Organized by ISO/IEC JTC; Paris; October 14 - 18, 2019). Gurshabad Grover participated in the meetings.
UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Privacy Consultation on 'Privacy and Gender' (Organized by UN Special Rapporteur; New York University, New York; October 30 - 31, 2019).

Artificial Intelligence / Digital Technology

With origins dating back to the 1950s Artificial Intelligence (AI) is not necessarily new. However, interest in AI has been rekindled over the recent years due to advancements of technology and its applications to real-world scenarios. We conduct research on the existing legal and regulatory parameters:

Blog Entry

AI for Good (Shweta Mohandas and Saumyaa Naidu; edited by Elonnai Hickok; October 9, 2019).

Participation in Events

NIPFP Seminar on Exploring Policy Issues in the Digital Technology Arena (Organized by Indian Institute of Advanced Study; Shimla; October 10 - 11, 2019). Anubha Sinha participated in this seminar as a discussant.
AI Opera- AI as a total work of art (Organized by Goethe; Bangalore; October 11, 2019). Shweta Mohandas and Mira were panelists.
Launch of Google-UNESCAP AI Report (Organized by Google; United Nations Convention Centre; Bangkok; October 16, 2019). Arindrajit Basu was a speaker.
Discussion at CyFy on Technology, Policy and National Security: Building 21st Century Curricula in India’s Law Schools (Organized by Centre for Communication Governance, National Law University, Delhi and Observer Research Foundation; Villa Medici, Taja Mahal Hotel, Man Singh Road, New Delhi; October 20, 2019).

Researchers@Work

The researchers@work programme at CIS produces and supports pioneering and sustained trans-disciplinary research on key thematics at the intersections of internet and society; organise and incubate networks of and fora for researchers and practitioners studying and making internet in India; and contribute to development of critical digital pedagogy, research methodology, and creative practice.

Announcement

State of the Internet's Languages 2020: Announcing selected contributions! (P.P. Sneha; November 1, 2019).

Case Study

Big Data and Reproductive Health in India: A Case Study of the Mother and Child Tracking System (Ambika Tandon; October 17, 2019).

Participation in Event

Decolonizing the Internet’s Languages 2019 - From Conversations to Actions (Organized by Whose Knowledge; London; October 23 - 24, 2019). P.P. Sneha participated in this meeting.

Blog Entries

Mobilizing Online Consensus: Net Neutrality and the India Subreddit (Sujeet George; October 1, 2019).
How Green is the Internet? The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (Aishwarya Panicker; October 11, 2019).

About CIS

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

Follow CIS on:

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

Support CIS:

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

Collaborate with CIS:

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

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

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/about/newsletters/october-2019-newsletter

CIS’ Comments to the Christchurch Call

Tanaya Rajwade, Elonnai Hickok, and Raouf Kundil Peedikayil — 2019-11-04T14:13:13Z

In the wake of the Christchurch terror attacks, the Prime Minister of New Zealand, Jacinda Ardern, and the President of France, Emmanuel Macron co-chaired the Christchurch Call to Action in May 2018 to “bring together countries and tech companies in an attempt to bring to an end the ability to use social media to organise and promote terrorism and violent extremism.”

Fifty one supporters, including India, and eight tech companies have jointly agreed to a set of non-binding commitments and ongoing collaboration to eliminate violent and extremist content online. Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter, Google, and Amazon are all among the online service provider signatories that released a joint statement welcoming the call and committing to a nine-point action plan.

The Call has been hailed by many as a step in the right direction, as it represents the first collaboration between governments and the private sector companies to combat the problem of extremist content online at this scale. However, the vagueness of the commitments outlined in the Call and some of the proposed mechanisms have raised concerns about the potential abuse of human rights by both governments and tech companies.

This response is divided into two parts - Part One examines the call through the lens of human rights, and Part Two thinks through the ways in which India can adhere to the commitments in the Call, and compares the current legal framework in India with the commitments outlined in the Call.

Click to read the comments here. The comments were prepared by Tanaya Rajwade, Elonnai Hickok, and Raouf Kundil Peedikayil and edited by Gurshabad Grover and Amber Sinha.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/tanaya-rajwade-elonnai-hickok-and-raouf-kundil-peedikayil-october-31-2019-comments-to-christchurch-call

Through the looking glass: Analysing transparency reports

Torsha Sarkar, Suhan S and Gurshabad Grover — 2019-11-02T05:48:59Z

An analysis of companies' transparency reports for government requests for user data and content removal

Over the past decade, a few private online intermediaries, by rapid innovation and integration, have turned into regulators of a substantial amount of online speech. Such concentrated power calls for a high level of responsibility on them to ensure that the rights of the users online, including their rights to free speech and privacy, are maintained. Such responsibility may include appealing or refusing to entertain government requests that are technically or legally flawed, or resisting gag orders on requests. For the purposes of measuring a company’s practices regarding refusing flawed requests and standing up for user rights, transparency reporting becomes useful and relevant.Making information regarding the same public also ensures that researchers can build upon such data and recommend ways to improve accountability and enables the user to understand information about when and how governments are restricting their rights.

For some time in the last decade, Google and Twitter were the only major online platforms that published half-yearly transparency reports documenting the number of content take down and user information requests they received from law enforcement agencies. In 2013 however, that changed, when the Snowden leaks revealed, amongst other things, that these companies were often excessively compliant with requests from US’ intelligence operations, and allowed them backdoor surveillance access to user information. Subsequently, all the major Silicon Valley internet companies have been attempting to publish a variance or other of transparency reports, in hopes of re-building their damaged goodwill, and displaying a measure of accountability to its users.

The number of government requests for user data and content removal has also seen a steady rise. In 2014, for instance Google noted that in the US alone, they observed a 19% rise for the second half of the year, and an overall 250% jump in numbers since Google began providing this information. As per a study done by Comparitech, India sent the maximum number of government requests for content removal and user data in the period of 2009 - 2018.8 This highlights the increasing importance of accessible transparency reporting.

Initiatives analysing the transparency reporting practices of online platforms, like The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)’s Who Has Your Back? reports, for instance, have developed a considerable body of work tracing these reporting practices, but have largely focused at them in the context of the United States (US). In our research, we found that the existing methodology and metrics to assess the transparency reports of online platforms developed by organisations like the EFF are not adequate in the Indian context. We identify two reasons for developing a new methodology:

Online platforms make available vastly different information for US and India. For instance, Facebook breaks up the legal requests it receives for US into eight different classes (search warrants, subpoenas, etc.). Such a classification is not present for India. These differences are summarised in Annexure
The legal regimes and procedural safeguards under which states can compel platforms to share information or take content down also differ. For instance, in India, an order for content takedown can be issued either under section 79 and its allied rules or under section 69A and its rules, each having their own procedures and relevant authorities. A summary of such provisions for Indian agencies is given in Annexure 3.

These differences may merit differences in the methodology for research into understanding the reporting practices of these platforms, depending on each jurisdiction’s legal context.

In this report, we would be analyzing the transparency reports of online platforms with a large Indian user-base, specifically focusing on data they publish about user information and takedown requests received from Indian governments’ and courts.

First, we detail our methodology for this report, including how we selected platforms whose transparency reports we analyse, and then specific metrics relating to information available in those reports. For the latter, we collate relevant metrics from existing frameworks, and propose a standard that can be applicable for our research.

In the second part, we present company-specific reports. We identify general trends in the data published by the company, and then compare the available data to the best practices of transparency reporting that we proposed.

Download the full report. The report was edited by Elonnai Hickok. Research assistance by Keying Geng and Anjanaa Aravindan.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/torsha-sarkar-suhan-s-and-gurshabad-grover-october-30-2019-through-the-looking-glass

Department of Labour Interaction Program: Online Business Platforms

Bharath Gururagavendran — 2019-10-29T06:05:56Z

The Department of Labour convened an interaction program of sorts at Vikas Soudha in Bangalore on 21st October, 2019 to hear the issues plaguing the emergent gig economy.

The blog post was edited by Ambika Tandon.

The meeting was called to hear and address the grievances of gig workers, (employed by online business platforms) in the presence of their employers. The meeting was presided by the esteemed Labour Minister, Shri. Suresh Kumar, and the Secretary to the Labour Department, Shri Manivannan. The Minister began by disclosing that union members and delivery partners employed by online delivery companies (Swiggy, Zomato, Ola, Flipkart, etc.) had approached his office, with several complaints pertaining to the legal treatment or lack thereof, of gig workers across the nation. They also further identified the day-to-day concerns that they had to face (i.e. health & pay-related issues) as a consequence of their non-recognition under the labour law frameworks in the country.

"The majority of the delivery boys that aggregators (e.g. Swiggy, Ola, Uber, etc.) employ are full-time workers who depend solely on these companies for their income." That was the refrain of most of the spokespeople supporting the cause of gig workers. These were some of the representatives who spoke on behalf of the gig workers employed by online aggregators:

Mr. G. S. Kumar (Food Delivery Partners Association)
Mr. Tanveer Pasha (Ola driver)
Mr. M. Manjunath (Auto Chalaka Okkuta)
Mr. Amit Gupta (Brand Strategist)
Ms. Kaveri (Researcher)
Mr. Basavaraj (Food Delivery Association)

"The delivery partners employed by online aggregators should be treated as full-time employees"

Mr. G.S Kumar, an office-bearer at the Food Delivery Partners Samithi set the context for the conversation, by identifying at the very outset that the term "delivery partners" is a misnomer and that they are largely full-time employees. They are further straddled with family commitments, health concerns, and dwindling pay structures. As such, he proclaimed that they are deserving of the protections statutorily available to employees (in the traditional sense of the term) under the extant labour legislations. It was also specifically highlighted by Mr. K.S. Kumar, that in status quo, delivery boys cannot avail of ESI, or PF benefits.

Furthermore, the protections the companies make available are also quite abysmal, for instance a Rs. 2 lakh accidental cover that's rarely ever paid. The practical exigencies of their itinerant lifestyles inhibit them from maintaining strict compliance with the protocols that are unfortunately condition precedents to obtaining the benefits they so desperately require. The language of these policies in the fine print often contains conditions that are quite hard to satisfy, and as such, the benefits remain inaccessible to the vast majority of drivers employed by these online business platforms. Adding value to this criticism of Mr. K.S. Kumar, Mr. Basavaraj later clarified that conditions such as requiring 24 hours of admittance for the processing of insurance claims, makes it nigh impossible for drivers plying the roads to ever materially avail of health or accidental insurance.

"Ola/Uber drivers face serious health risks, as they ply the roads of Bangalore, and require functional insurance"

Tanveer Pasha, a member of the Ola/Uber Drivers Association, discussed the lived experiences of these delivery boys who ply the road, travelling nearly fifteen to twenty kilometres for each trip in peak Bangalore traffic. He narrated stories of trauma and violence faced by drivers, such as instances of heart attacks and accidents, which made the conversation a little heated. The minister then deftly interjected, by requesting them to be solution-centric, while discussing their grievances, as this aids the government's ability to balance the competing interests of both the aggregators and the gig workers.

"A Government ombudsman is required to address the grievances of gig workers"

To that effect, M. Manjunath from the Auto and Taxi Association asserted that insurance is a basic right that should be provided to the employees. Amit Gupta, Brand Strategist, spoke on behalf of his sister, previously employed at Swiggy, and stated that an ombudsman empowered to take complaints, even from gig workers, should be created. He believed this was imperative given that aggregators are de facto free to violate the terms and conditions prescribed in the employment order, as they have the resources to see the case through in court, whereas employees don't have much recourse, outside of trade unions. He concluded that for these delivery partners devoid of the right to collectivize, it becomes crucially important to maintain at the very least, a Government ombudsman.

"Aggregators should not profit off of the positive network effects gained through delivery partners, and simultaneously deny their right to protest unfair business practices"

Ms. Kaveri, a researcher on the conditions of gig workers, brought to light some of the more egregious problems that are faced by these workers. For instance, they are removed from employment, at a moment's notice if they attempt to protest, and to that effect, she stated that Zomato had fired an employee that very day because he was supposed to participate in the meeting and make his case. She further specified that it was patently unfair to allow these aggregators to profit off of the positive network effects gained solely because of the delivery partners, and subsequently engage in cost-cutting practices like reducing the incentives that they receive.

In response to these claims, the Labour Minister invited representatives of online platforms to shed some clarity on the concerns raised by the gig workers they employ.

These were some of the representatives who spoke on behalf of the online aggregators:

Mr. Manjunath (Flipkart)
Mr. Panduranga (Legal Team, Swiggy)
Mr. Ashok Kumar (Zomato)

"Flipkart does provide significant benefits to its fixed-term contractors"

Mr. Manjunath clarified his position on these issues, with regards to Flipkart, by stating that there is a tripartite classification amongst people who work there:

a) Full-time employees

b) Fixed Term Contractors (e.g. 8 or 10-month contract)

c) Interns

He further affirmed that even for fixed term contractors, Flipkart offers ESI, and PF benefits. He also specified that they don't hire more employees or fixed-term contractors during peak season, but rather hire only interns to meet demand, as it offers the inexperienced interns a chance to gain industry exposure as well.

"Swiggy empowers the agency of its delivery partners, and provides necessary benefits"

Mr. Panduranga, from the legal department at Swiggy, in direct response to the concerns about Swiggy, stated that the gig economy is emergent and that Swiggy and other such aggregators are merely technology platforms, facilitating end-to-end services (between different stakeholders, e.g. customer-driver-restaurant). In that sense, he clarified that the delivery partners they employ have the right to accept or deny deliveries and that there is no compulsion to commit to the work. Moreover, he specified that merely logging off the app frees up a delivery partner of his or her time. He opined that they have the freedom to work for multiple companies, and the process of joining and leaving is highly flexible. In that sense, he stated that a large number of students and after-office hours employees are the ones employing these apps as a means to generating quick cash flows (and as such, should not be treated as full-time employees). He also mentioned that there is up to 1 lakh for medical expenses, (which are currently being disbursed), and Rs. 5 lakhs for accidental death coverage as well. Mr. Ashok Kumar from Zomato also reaffirmed the statements of Mr. Panduranga.

"Incentive and disincentive structures coercively compel gig workers to work hours akin to full-time employees"

Mr. Basavaraj from the Food delivery Association/Samithi, along with all the other representatives clarified that it is extremely unlikely that the majority of gig workers are part-time and only in it for generating quick money. Instead, the majority of gig workers work 9-12-hour workdays, and in that sense, are really no different from traditional employees. Basavaraj stated that an examination of the travel logs of delivery partners will make it clear whether the majority of workers are part-time or full time. He also pointed out that incentive and disincentive structures coercively compel drivers to work long hours with poor working conditions. For example, drivers who don't operate during peak hours do not receive the incentives they are promised. Further, the manner of advertisement of these jobs is itself insidious, as the salary offering is inclusive of the money one would receive if they also met their incentive-targets. Basavaraj specified that the deceptive advertising of these companies is what leads to massive hordes of gig workers working, in essence, full-time jobs, and as such, they must require the protection of their rights enshrined under labour legislations.

There was also collective agreement from the spokespeople making a case on behalf of the gig workers, that the benefits provided on paper (health insurance for accident cases) are rarely ever provided, and that the process of acquiring the same is rife with hassles. However, this was met with fervent opposition from the spokespeople representing the online aggregators, who contended that these insurance payments were being sanctioned freely without inconvenience.

Concluding Observations of the Labour Minister

The Labour Minister, Shri. Suresh Kumar, identified that this is an emergent issue; one that requires serious consideration, as the gig economy is here to stay. He reaffirmed the social responsibility of the Government to inspect this matter and set up a legal framework, as it concerns the deprivation of agency for lakhs of people working as gig workers in the state, and across the country. He also affirmed that he is cognizant of the business interests at play. To that effect, he declared that the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Shri. Balakrishnan would examine the relevant data at hand, hold necessary meetings with both parties, and submit a report on the creation of a prospective framework to regulate gig economies within one month. He stated that the Government will set up a framework with governing rules and regulations, based on the report submitted. He concluded by emphasizing the necessity for both parties to be trusting of one another and not render the working dynamic adversarial, however oppositional their competing interests maybe, as trust is a constitutive component of conflict resolution.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/department-of-labour-interaction-program-online-business-platforms

Comments to the Code on Social Security, 2019

Aayush Rathi , Amruta Mahuli and Ambika Tandon — 2019-10-27T03:57:15Z

This submission presents a response by researchers at the Centre for Internet & Society, India (CIS) to the draft Code on Social Security, 2019 (hereinafter “ Draft Code ”) prepared by the Government of India’s Ministry of Labour and Employment.

CIS is an 11-year old non-profit organisation that undertakes interdisciplinary research oninternet and digital technologies from policy and academic perspectives. Through itsdiverse initiatives, CIS explores, intervenes in, and advances contemporary discourse andregulatory practices around internet, technology, and society in India, and elsewhere.Current focus areas include cybersecurity, privacy, freedom of speech and artificialintelligence. CIS is also producing research at the intersection of labour, gender andtechnology.

CIS is grateful for the opportunity to put forth its views and comments. Our comments are captured in the prescribed format in the table, click here to view the full comments.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/aayush-rathi-ambika-tandon-amruta-mahuli-october-25-2019-comments-to-code-on-social-security

Comments to the United Nations Human Rights Commission Report on Gender and Privacy

Aayush Rathi, Ambika Tandon and Pallavi Bedi — 2019-12-30T17:40:20Z

This submission to UNHRC presents a response by researchers at the CIS to ‘gender issues arising in the digital era and their impacts on women, men and individuals of diverse sexual orientations gender identities, gender expressions and sex characteristics’. It was prepared by Aayush Rathi, Ambika Tandon, and Pallavi Bedi in response to a report of consultation by a thematic taskforce established by the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Privacy on ‘Privacy and Personality’ (hereafter, HRC Gender Report).

HRC Gender Report - Consultation version: Read (PDF)

Submitted comments: Read (PDF)

The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), India, is an 11-year old non-profit organisation that undertakes interdisciplinary research on internet and digital technologies from policy and academic perspectives. Through its diverse initiatives, CIS explores, intervenes in, and advances contemporary discourse and regulatory practices around internet, technology, and society in India,and elsewhere. Current focus areas include cybersecurity, privacy, freedom of speech, labour and artificial intelligence. CIS has been taking efforts to mainstream gender across its programmes, as well as develop specifically gender-focused research using a feminist approach.

CIS appreciates the efforts of Dr. Elizabeth Coombs, Chair, Thematic Action Stream Taskforce on “A better understanding of privacy”, and those of Professor Joseph Cannataci, Special Rapporteur on the Right to Privacy. We are also grateful for the opportunity to put forth our views and comment on the HRC Gender Report.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/comments-to-the-unhrc-report-on-gender-and-privacy

Trending Hate Against Muslims: Is Twitter Complicit?

Puja Bhattacharjee — 2019-10-23T00:54:41Z

Twitter claimed that it had ‘prevented’ the Hashtag while it had not.

The blog post by Puja Bhattacharjee was published in News Central on October 21, 2019. Pranesh Prakash was quoted in it.

In 2009, Twitter took down a trending hashtag. The hashtag in question started in South Africa and had the word “darkie” in it. That word is not a slur in South Africa, but it was used as a slur against the African Americans community in the USA. On receiving complaints, Twitter immediately removed that from trending topics though it was a clash of meanings between two different places.

On Sunday evening, a hashtag of more insidious nature was trending in India. The hashtag #मुस्लिमो_का_संपूर्ण_बहिष्कार, translated literally means “Total boycott of Muslims”. The incident is ominous given rising apprehension across the world that India is now in the grip of a violent form of Hindu Nationalism. The tweets in support of the hashtags were mostly from right-wing accounts, some of which not only called for the boycott of Muslims but also celebrated the persecution of Uighurs in China.

Speaking to NewsCentral24x7.com, a Twitter spokesperson claimed that it had ‘prevented’ the hashtag from trending: “There are Rules for trends and we have prevented this hashtag from trending as it is in violation of the Twitter Rules”. (Full statement at the end of the story)

However this was patently false since many users pointed out that the hashtag continued to trend even after Twitter’s statement. In Delhi, the hashtag continues to trend at number one. More disturbingly, as reported by The Wire some of the accounts tweeting in support of the hashtags are followed by the Prime Minister and several cabinet ministers.

Also Read: Need To Change Name To Save Myself From Sword Of Hate: Muslim Bureaucrat From M.P. On The Atmosphere Of Hate In Modi II

Pranesh Prakash, co-founder of Centre for Internet and Society, says that Twitter usually does not ban a hashtag. “They can remove it from trending and if people use it offensively, then they can ban that person or that tweet…. Twitter should put out a statement apologizing for and condemning this given they condemn white nationalists in the US.” he says.

The hashtag was started ostensibly in retaliation of the murder Kamlesh Tiwari, 45, the president of the Hindu Samaj Party. Over the weekend, the police arrested five people in connection to the murder.

However, Kamlesh Tiwari in his last Facebook Live video before his murder protested the removal of his security by the Yogi Adityanath government and trying to hatch a conspiracy to kill him. His mother echoed his sentiments and has come out to say that there is no communal angle to his murder.

The matter once again raises questions about the responsibility Big-Tech platforms like Twitter need to discharge in monitoring and combating hate speech. Many organizations in the USA, UK and Australia such as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the Women, Action and the Media (WAM!), Online Hate Prevention Institute and Sentinel Groups for Genocide Prevention have become increasingly invested in combating hate speech online by targeting Internet intermediaries and asking them to take greater responsibility in moderating content, in addition to raising awareness among users.

An interactive map showing the trends of the hashtag from October 20 evening till October 21 morning in the sub-continent.

However, in India, the government’s proposed changes to Section 79 of the IT Act for restricting hate speech has led to fears of widespread censorship. The Internet Freedom Foundation published a comprehensive blog on why such an amendment is undesirable.

In a report released in 2017, the Law Commission of India recommended broadening the existing provisions of hate speech to include other criteria that are based on their gender and sexuality.

“It does not look at underlying reforms. Like understanding the link to violence and whether it should only be a provision which should apply to members of a minority community -linguistic, caste, religion,” says Apar Gupta, executive director, Internet Freedom Foundation

He says if lawmakers are unwilling to substantively tinker with definitions in a very real and substantial way, they should come up with procedural safeguards instead.

Twitter or any social media company has two levels of obligation – its own obligations towards its users which is under the terms of service contract under which it can proactively take down a speech if there is a violation of those standards. “They have a degree of discretion to do it as well. This is where most of the content takedowns happen which also results in a certain amount of criticism because they lack the consistency desired by people,” says Gupta.

The second level of compliance is when a legal notice is sent by a judicial or executive authority. If they do not comply, their online immunity from liability for the content posted by the user can be removed and they can be prosecuted as an accessory or abettor to the content published on their platform. “Twitter can block the hashtag but what we are looking for is a much more credible law enforcement response based on the content of each tweet,” Gupta adds.

In her book, HATE: Why We Should Resist it With Free Speech, Not Censorship by Nadine Strossen, the author argues that that censorial measures are ineffective and do not promote equality. Instead, Strossen, recommends forceful counter-speech and activism.

“In 2016, a report was issued about counterspeech on Twitter, coauthored by a group of scholars from the United States and Canada. The report, which included the first review of the “small body” of existing research about online counterspeech, concluded that hateful and other “extremist” speech was most effectively “undermined” by counterspeech rather than by removing it,” she writes.

Editors Note: The hashtag discussed above is absolutely horrifying and historically widespread calls for ‘boycott’ have preceded genocide. While on one hand we cannot allow hate speech to become an excuse for governments to curb non-harmful, legal speech, the censor or counter debate cannot be allowed to become a veil for big-tech to wash its hands off the matter. There is now significant reportage which shows that hate speech essentially benefits social media platforms and therefore they are unwilling to curb it. In this specific case the double standards twitter has displayed in being prompt in one country while unresponsive in other is also a very disturbing aspect.

Full statement by Twitter:

“At Twitter our singular goal is to improve the health of the public conversation, including ensuring the safety of people who use our service. As outlined in our Hateful Conduct Policy, we do not tolerate the abuse or harassment of people on the basis of religion. As per our Help Center, there are Rules for trends and we have prevented this hashtag from trending as it is in violation of the Twitter Rules. If people on Twitter see something that violates the Twitter Rules, the most important thing they can do is report it, by clicking the drop down arrow at the top of the Tweet and selecting “Report Tweet.”

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/news-central-october-21-2019-puja-bhattacharjee-trending-hate-against-muslims

NIPFP Seminar on Exploring Policy Issues in the Digital Technology Arena

Admin — 2019-10-20T07:40:16Z

Anubha Sinha participated in this seminar as a discussant on the "Regulating emerging technologies" panel. The event was held at Indian Institute of Advanced Study, Shimla on October 10 - 11, 2019.

Click to view the agenda here. The session briefs can be seen here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/nipfp-seminar-on-exploring-policy-issues-in-the-digital-technology-arena