We are anonymous, we are legion

Removing Barriers to Connectivity: Connecting the Unconnected

praskrishna — 2013-11-09T03:14:43Z

The workshop was organised by Internet Society and ETNO on October 23, 2013. Pranesh Prakash was a panelist.

Click to read the details on IGF website here

In the spirit of Paragraph 50 of the Tunis Agenda, our panel aims to highlight best practices that will help in “turning the digital divide into digital opportunity”, and will look at what can be done to promote broadband penetration and access to infrastructure. By forging better Internet governance environments through dialogue and interaction, stakeholders can work together to build better local infrastructure and more efficient deployment of infrastructure. Internet technical community experts, policy-makers, and development experts know well the challenges that exist in promoting deployment of Internet infrastructure. From public-works challenges to human capacity development, each country may have their own unique challenges. Provisions and policies must be put in place to ensure that broadband connections are developed, maintained and improved to sustain the rise in Internet traffic and particularly to accommodate the fast growth of video traffic. Against this backdrop, this workshop proposes to assemble a group of experts and practitioners to discuss observations from the field (practical examples and information) about how to help encourage connectivity and to “lift” barriers to connectivity. We also will identify barriers for investment faced by the private sector and tries to define ways to improve the policy landscape and identify a sustainable economic model to foster private investment. We plan to do this by identifying connectivity challenges and by identifying best practices for working with all stakeholders to manage those challenges. The developing country perspective will be reflected, and the workshop will specifically address what is needed in practical terms to connect the unconnected – eg low-cost devices, open systems and public / private partnerships. Workshop participants will engage the audience to encourage a dialogue that seeks feed-back from participants. An output of the workshop would be a collaborative “living” list of best practices and observations identified during the workshop that can serve as a baseline to be added to given national and local dynamics.

Panelists

Raj Singh, Internet Society, Male, Technical Community, SINGAPORE, Asia-Pacific Group
Martin Levy, Hurricane Electric, Male, Private Sector, UNITED STATES, Western Europe and Others Group - WEOG
Christoph Steck, Telefonica, S.A., Male, Private Sector, SPAIN, Western Europe and Others Group - WEOG
Jennifer Haroon, Google, Female, Private Sector, UNITED STATES, Western Europe and Others Group - WEOG
Simon Milner, Facebook, Male, Private Sector, UNITED KINGDOM, Western Europe and Others Group - WEOG
Pranesh Prakash, Centre for Internet & Society India, Male, Civil Society, INDIA, Asia-Pacific Group

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/igf-2013-removing-barriers-to-connectivity

Privacy: from regional regulations to global connections ?

praskrishna — 2013-10-21T08:18:56Z

This workshop is being organised by Internet Society at Bali on October 24. Sunil Abraham is one of the panelists for this.

The Internet Governance Forum 2013 is being held at Bali from October 22 to 25. The overarching theme for the 2013 IGF meeting is: "Building Bridges"- Enhancing Multistakeholder Cooperation for Growth and Sustainable Development".

Read the original published on the IGF website.

Theme: Internet Governance Principles

The Internet dissolves geographical boundaries on a greater scale than any prior invention. It allows data, personal and otherwise, to flow across borders, supporting social and economic interactions. However, there is a complex mix of factors at play: multiple policy objectives that are sometimes in conflict; individuals’ rights; the interests of the communities; “monetization” of personal data for short-term and long-term commercial gain; different historical cultural and regulatory approaches to privacy; etc.

Across a diverse, global Internet, how can we best deal with the tensions that naturally result from differences in personal privacy expectations, economic aspirations, and regulatory regimes, particularly when it comes to online data protection?

This workshop will explore what core principles and strategies are needed to achieve a balanced and fair approach to data protection that is effective internationally and regionally. In the process, we will examine the possible paths to a global solution, together with impediments, and explore how successful local and regional approaches could be leveraged at the international level.

We will also strive to articulate lessons learned from recent initiatives such as the modernisation of the Council of Europe Convention 108, the revision of the OECD Privacy Guidelines, the APEC Cross Border Privacy Rules System, and the proposed revisions to the EU data protection framework, etc. in tackling these challenging issues.

Has the proponent organised a workshop with a similar subject during past IGF meetings?
Yes

Indication of how the workshop will build on but go beyond the outcomes previously reached

The submitter has not previously organised a workshop at the IGF. However, his colleague has co-organised the following workshops on related issues: 2012: ICC BASIS and ISOC - Solutions for enabling cross-border data flows – http://wsms1.intgovforum.org/sites/default/files/IGF%202012%20ws86%20report_10%2012%2012%20final.doc 2012: CoE and ISOC – Who is following me: tracking the trackers – http://wsms1.intgovforum.org/content/no181-who-following-me-tracking-trackers#report 2010: ISOC and EFF – The Future of Privacy – http://www.internetsociety.org/sites/default/files/future-privacy%2020100914.pdf Background papers: Report from a WSIS Forum 2012 thematic workshop entitled: “Data Privacy on a global scale: keeping pace with an evolving environment” – http://www.internetsociety.org/sites/default/files/Data%20Privacy%20on%20a%20global%20scale_0.pdf Report from a IGF2012 workshop entitled “Solutions for enabling cross-border data flows - https://www.internetsociety.org/sites/default/files/IGF%202012%20cross-border%20data%20flows.pdf

Background Paper

Download background paper

Co-organisers

Ms. Sophie Kwasny, Head of the Data Protection Unit, Council of Europe , Intergovernmental Organizations, FRANCE, Western Europe and Others Group - WEOG
Mr. Frederic Donck, Internet Society, Technical Community, BELGIUM, Western Europe and Others Group - WEOG

Have the Proponent or any of the co-organisers organised an IGF workshop before?
Yes

The link(s) to the workshop report(s)

Panelists

Please click on Biography to view the biography of panelist

Sophie Kwasny, Head of the Data Protection Unit, Council of Europe , Female, Intergovernmental Organizations, FRANCE, Western Europe and Others Group – WEOG
Nigel Waters, Public Officer, Australian Privacy Foundation , Male, Civil Society, Australia, Asia-Pacific Group
Wendy Seltzer, Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) , Female, Technical Community, United States, Western Europe and Others Group – WEOG
Biography
Joseph Alhadeff, Vice President for Global Public Policy, Chief Privacy Officer, Oracle Corporation, Male, Private Sector, United States, Western Europe and Others Group – WEOG
Biography
Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), Bangalore, Male, Civil Society, India, Asia-Pacific Group
Biography

Moderator

Frederic Donck, Internet Society, Director European Regional Bureau

Remote Moderator

Luca Belli, CERSA,Université Panthéon-Assas Sorbonne University

Agenda

Moderator will briefly introduce the session as well as the different panellists. Each panellist will have 2 minutes (maximum) to introduce his/her own perspective on the general issues addressed by the moderator.

No powerpoints allowed. Very dynamic session with regular interventions from remote participants and audience, as well as between panellists is sought.

Moderator will work out questions (including through a coordinated approach before the session with panellists) and will organise the session in a way that allows a balanced conversation between all stakeholders (on-site/remotely).

Inclusiveness of the Session

Suitability for Remote Participation

Dynamic interaction with remote participants (ISOC community and chapters, technical community, Businesses, etc.) will be ensured through social medias, jabber, webex, and twitter (hashtag will be provided) etc.

Coordinated approach with remote moderator will be ensured as well as the necessary communication and information to remote participants in advance of and during the session.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/igf-2013-workshop-335-privacy-from-regional-regulations-to-global-connections

Charting the Charter: Internet Rights and Principles Online

praskrishna — 2013-10-21T07:03:53Z

This workshop is being organised by IRP Coalition on October 22 in Bali Nusa Dua Convention Centre. Pranesh Prakash is participating as a panelist.

Read the original published on the IGF website

Theme: Human Rights / Freedom of Expression on the Internet

Since the Charter of Internet Rights and Principles was developed dialogue about diverse internet related human rights issues have emerged in various UN human rights mechanisms e.g. racism/racial discrimination, human rights defenders, women's human rights, freedom of association, business and human rights, protection of cultural heritage. The workshop will map the issues under discussion in the UNHRC against those in the Charter of Human Rights and Principles for the Internet (‘IRP Charter’) and explore multistakeholder perspectives and best practice examples of adherence to the Charter and human rights standards from diverse regions.

The focus is on progress, opportunities and challenges to monitor and advocate for the IRP Charter provisions particularly for marginalised groups e.g. rural and indigenous peoples, disabled people, urban poor as the second part of the two workshops put forward by the IRP Coalition and partners. Wider questions that the workshop looks to cover include: How are understandings about the interrelationship of internet governance and human rights standards developing at the Human Rights Council? Aside from freedom of expression and the right to Privacy, what other human rights are important in relation to the internet? How can the Charter be used to broaden the engagement of the Human Rights Council in internet governance issues? How does the work of the HRC inform the Charter, and other internet policy documents and mechanisms?

Since the 2009 IGF, the Internet Rights and Principles Coalition has organised a range of workshops and Coalition meetings looking at the application of human rights standards (primarily those espoused in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights) to the Internet. In 2010 the previous draft of the IRP Charter (http://internetrightsandprinciples.org/site/charter/) was launched with a rigorous discussion about what correct interpretation of existing standards is and the role of different stakeholders in relation to these.

In 2011 the IRP Charter was distilled down to 10 key advocacy points, the Ten Internet Rights and Principles (http://internetrightsandprinciples.org/site/campaign/). These were debated as the Coalition undertook a closer analysis of the issue of copyright protection and how it interrelated with human rights on the internet. In 2012 the Coalition looked at how the Charter was feeding in to a derivative initiative at the Council of Europe to create a user-friendly Compendium of rights of internet users. The Coalition made a close analysis of the issue of anonymity online. This year we want to focus on human rights which, while contained in the Charter, have not received high levels of attention. We also want to loop in the work of Coalition members working on human rights, women’s rights, social, cultural and economic rights as well as the recent work of the Human Rights Council (which is the most authoritative global body applying human rights to the Internet) to incorporating human rights as an integral part of the internet governance field.

Has the proponent organised a workshop with a similar subject during past IGF meetings?
Yes

Indication of how the workshop will build on but go beyond the outcomes previously reached
The IRP Coalition launched the IRP Charter and Ten Principles in 2010/2011 (www.internetrightsandprinciples.org). These launches started a vigorous and productive chain of discussions and outreach initiatives in and around IGF Meetings. These were followed up in 2011 and 2012 with IGF workshops that focused in specific issues such as copyright, access as a right, and existing rights of internet users. This year we focus on human rights which, while contained in the Charter, have not received high levels of attention. We also want to loop in the work of Coalition members working on human rights, women’s rights, social, cultural and economic rights as well as the recent work of the Human Rights Council (which is the most authoritative global body applying human rights to the Internet) to incorporating human rights as an integral part of the internet governance field. Recent events underscore that the moment has come to ground human rights principles in internet governance practice as this affects everyday life, work, and government.

Background Paper

Download Background Paper

Session Type: Roundtable

Co-organisers

Ms. Dixie Hawtin, Global Partners and Associates, Private Sector, Western Europe and Others Group - WEOG
Ms. Joy Liddicoat, Association for Progressive Communications, Civil Society, New Zealand, Asia-Pacific Group
Ms. Marianne Franklin, Goldsmiths (University of London, UK)/ IRP Coalition), Civil Society, United Kingdom, Western Europe and Others Group - WEOG

Have the Proponent or any of the co-organisers organised an IGF workshop before?
Yes

The link(s) to the workshop report(s)

Panelists

Please click on the biography to view the profile of the panelists:

Joy Liddicoat, Association for Progressive Communications, Female, Civil Society, New Zealand, Western Europe and Others Group – WEOG
Biography
Frank La Rue, United Nations, Male, Civil Society, Guatemala, Latin American and Caribbean Group - Grulac
Asif Kabani, Ministry of Finance, Male, Government, Pakistan, Asia-Pacific Group
Biography
Carl Fredrik Wettermark, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Male, Government, Sweden, Western Europe and Others Group – WEOG
Biography
Marianne Franklin, (IRP Coalition/Goldsmiths (University of London, UK), Female, Civil Society, New Zealand, Asia-Pacific Group
Biography
Pranesh Prakash, Centre for Internet and Society, Male, Civil Society, India, Asia-Pacific Group
Biography
Cornelia Kutterer, Microsoft, Female, Private Sector, BELGIUM, Western Europe and Others Group – WEOG
Biography
Michael Rotert, eco-German Internet Industry, Male, Technical Community, Germany, Western Europe and Others Group – WEOG
Biography

Moderator

Dixie Hawtin, Global Partners and Associates

Remote Moderator

Rebecca Zausmer, Global Partners and Associates

Agenda

This round table session explores the opportunities and challenges for upholding human rights standards on the internet using the IRP Charter of Human Rights and Principles for the Internet (http://internetrightsandprinciples.org/site/charter/). In tandem with the session on Disabilities and Indigenous rights this session aims to:

Address a number of human rights – moving beyond freedom of expression and privacy - to consider the IRP Charter provisions for socio-economic rights, education, women’s rights and rights of the visually impaired in the online environment.
Provide an assessment of the implementation of human rights standards on the internet o date.
Feed recommendations in to the IRP Coalition initiative to create a final version of the IRP Charter (in terms of substance, process, and uses of the document in practice)

The session will start by focusing on a selection of concrete examples (such as, the PRISM revelations, the Marrakesh Treaty on exceptions and limitations to copyright for the blind, racial discrimination, education rights online) before opening to a wider discussion. It brings together diverse perspectives on the relationship between human rights and internet policy, where the human rights movement needs to engage more or more effectively, and how the IRP Charter should be developed to assist this process. The outcomes of the workshop will feed into the IRP Coalition Meeting, ‘Towards the IRP Charter 2.0’.

Inclusiveness of the Session

Panellists will make short initial statements of up to 3 minutes, each will be tasked with a particular perspective to bring and enable several rounds of the table. It will also allow ample time for audience questions and comments. The audience will be invited to ask questions, and to answer questions which the moderators will pose to the floor.

Suitability for Remote Participation

Both the IRP and the APC have a good track record of marketing their workshops across a range of email lists, websites and social media to ensure that potential remote participants know about the workshop and can participate. Remote participants will be engaged by the remote moderator who will pose questions to them and facilitate an active remote conversation alongside the conversation in situ– making links between the two wherever possible.

Questions or Comments

Please note that Mr Frank La Rue has been invited. As his office needs some time to respond we have included his name as an unconfirmed participant for the time being.

Also a note on the number of participants:
As this is a roundtable, open discussion format there are more than five speakers in order to generate the range and depth needed for this sort of interactive and dynamic discussion. The IRP Coalition has taken the lead in instigating these sorts of discussion formats in multistakeholder meetings such as the UNESCO WSIS+10 event and the Lisbon EuroDIG. The session moderator is experienced for this format and the participants aware that long speeches are not required.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/igf-2013-workshop-99-charting-the-charter-internet-rights-and-principles-online

Fair process frameworks for cross-border online spaces

praskrishna — 2013-10-21T09:02:02Z

This workshop is being organised by the Internet & Jurisdiction Project, Civil Society of France, Western Europe and Others Group and Internet & Jurisdiction Project, Civil Society of Germany, Western Europe and Others Group. Sunil Abraham is one of the panelists for this workshop.

Read the original published on IGF website. Also read it on Internet & Jurisdiction website.

Theme: Legal Frameworks and Cyber-crime (Spam, Cyber-security, etc.)

This workshop is organized by the Internet & Jurisdiction Project, a global multi-stakeholder dialogue process launched in January 2012, which engages key actors from states, international organizations, companies, civil society, academia and the technical community from all around the world to address the tension between the cross-border Internet and national jurisdictions.

Over 2,5 billion Internet users interact in shared cross-border online spaces where they can post content potentially accessible worldwide. On the one hand platforms’ Terms of Service try to set transnational rules on acceptable postings, but on the other hand content that is legal in one jurisdiction can be illegal or sensitive in other territories. No clear frameworks exist yet to handle the tensions between these competing normative orders or values and enable peaceful cohabitation in cross-border cyberspaces. This challenge constitutes a rare issue of common concern for all stakeholder groups.

Building upon the intersessional work conducted by the Internet & Jurisdiction Project since the 2012 IGF, the roundtable will address the following topics:

Can commonly agreed interoperability procedures ensure fair process in interactions between platforms, public authorities, technical operators and users regarding seizures, content takedowns and access to user data? regarding seizures, content takedowns and LEA access to user data? - See more at: http://www.internetjurisdiction.net/igf2013-workshop/#sthash.q6PQ3uMn.dpuf

How could appropriate multi-stakeholder frameworks be developed?

Note: This roundtable is listed above under the “legal frameworks and cybercrime” track. However it equally touches upon other thematic areas: Human Rights/ Freedom of Expression on the Internet (addressing takedown procedures); Internet Governance Principles (eg. fair process and accountability) and Principles of Multi-Stakeholder Cooperation (the development of mutual frameworks).

Has the proponent organised a workshop with a similar subject during past IGF meetings?

Yes

Indication of how the workshop will build on but go beyond the outcomes previously reached

At the IGF 2012, after a year of interaction with different stakeholders, the Internet & Jurisdiction Project organized two workshops titled: “What is the Geography of Cyberspace?” and “What frameworks for cross-border online communities and services?” These sessions explored the roots of the tension between the Internet and the patchwork of national jurisdictions and examined how to address this common concern. Both these two workshops and the ongoing dialogue facilitated by the I&JProject in 2013 (including several preparatory meetings around the world) confirmed the need to explore how to develop appropriate frameworks to handle the tension in a multi-stakeholder setting. Therefore, the I&J Project will gather involved stakeholders at the 2013 workshop “Fair process frameworks for cross-border online spaces” to discuss the way forward: How could appropriate frameworks be developed and what commonly agreed interoperability procedures could ensure fair process?

Background Paper: No background paper provided

Session Type: Roundtable

Mr. Bertrand De La Chapelle, Internet & Jurisdiction Project, Civil Society, France, Western Europe and Others Group - WEOG

Mr. Paul Fehlinger, Internet & Jurisdiction Project, Civil Society, Germany, Western Europe and Others Group - WEOG

Have the Proponent or any of the co-organisers organised an IGF workshop before?

Yes

The link(s) to the workshop report(s):

Panelists

Please click on biography to view the biography of the panelist:

Fiona Alexander, Department of Commerce, NTIA, Female, Government, United States, Western Europe and Others Group – WEOG
Biography
Anne Carblanc, OECD, Female, Intergovernmental Organizations, France, Western Europe and Others Group – WEOG
Biography
Elvana Thaci, Council of Europe, Female, Intergovernmental Organizations, France, Western Europe and Others Group – WEOG
Biography
Sunil Abraham, Centre for Internet & Society, Male, Civil Society, India, Asia-Pacific Group
Biography
Anriette Esterhuysen, Association for Progressive Communications, Female, Civil Society, South Africa, African Group
Biography
Carlos Affonso Pereira Da Souza, Fundacao Getulio Vargas, Male, Technical Community, BRAZIL, Latin American and Caribbean Group – GRULAC
Biography
Ross Lajeunesse, Google, Male, Private Sector, United States, Western Europe and Others Group – WEOG Biography
Ebele Okobi, Yahoo, Female, Private Sector, United States, Western Europe and Others Group – WEOG
Biography
Linda Corugedo Steneberg, European Commission, Belgium, Western Europe and Others Group – WEOG
Biography

Agenda

Can commonly agreed interoperability procedures ensure fair process in interactions between platforms, public authorities, technical operators and users regarding seizures, content takedowns and access to user data?
How could appropriate multi-stakeholder frameworks be developed?

Inclusiveness of the Session

The format of the workshop is going to be an open roundtable discussion between a diverse group of stakeholders on the basis of a structured agenda, without formal presentations. Taking stock of the preparatory process with meetings around the world, the participants will be able to discuss the outcomes of the multi-stakeholder dialogue process, explore the components of possible frameworks and how to move forward. The objective is to produce a structured but fluid and dynamic discussion that includes the audience in the debate.

Suitability for Remote Participation

In addition to the remote participation tools provided by the IGF, the session will be covered live on Twitter with a dedicated hashtag and questions can also be submitted through tweets to open the discussion and engage new stakeholders. Moreover, participants of the Internet & Jurisdiction dialogue process around the world will be encouraged to participate remotely in the discussion.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/igf-2013-workshop-42-fair-process-frameworks-for-cross-border-online-spaces

Tweets with "IGF13"

pranesh — 2013-10-28T06:29:42Z

Tweets with "IGF13".

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/20131021T090102_igf13

Interview with the Tactical Technology Collective on Privacy and Surveillance

maria — 2013-10-18T09:56:16Z

The Centre for Internet and Society recently interviewed Anne Roth from the Tactical Technology Collective in Berlin. View this interview and gain an insight on why we should all "have something to hide"!

For all those of you who haven't heard of the Tactical Technology Collective, it's a Berlin and Bangalore-based non-profit organisation which aims to advance the skills, tools and techniques of rights advocates, empowering them to use information and communications to help marginalised communities understand and effect progressive social, environmental and political change.

Tactical Tech's Privacy & Expression programme builds the digital security awareness and capacity of human rights defenders, independent journalists, anti-corruption advocates and activists. The programme's activities range from awareness-raising comic films aimed at audiences new to digital security issues, to direct training and materials for high-risk defenders working in some of the world's most repressive environments.

Anne Roth works with Tactical Tech on the Privacy & Expression programme as a researcher and editor. Anne holds a degree in political science from the Free University of Berlin. She cofounded one of the first interactive media activist websites, Indymedia, in Germany in 2001 and has been involved with media activism and various forms of activist online media ever since. She has worked as a web editor and translator in the past. Since 2007 she has written a blog that covers privacy, surveillance, media, net politics and feminist issues.

The Centre for Internet and Society interviewed Anne Roth on the following questions:

How do you define privacy?
Can privacy and freedom of expression co-exist? Why/ Why not?
What is the balance between Internet freedom and surveillance?
According to research, most people worldwide care about their online privacy – yet they give up most of it through the use of social networking sites and other online services. Why, in your opinion, does this occur and what are the potential implications?
Should people have the right to give up their right to privacy? Why/ Why not?
What implications on human rights can mass surveillance potentially have?
“I'm not a terrorist and I have nothing to hide...and thus surveillance can't affect me personally”. Please comment.
Do we have Internet freedom?

VIDEO

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/interview-with-the-tactical-technology-collective

Interview with Bruce Schneier - Internationally Renowned Security Technologist

maria — 2013-10-17T08:54:32Z

Maria Xynou recently interviewed Bruce Schneier on privacy and surveillance. View this interview and gain an insight on why we should all "have something to hide"!

Bruce Schneier is an internationally renowned security technologist, called a "security guru" by The Economist.

He is the author of 12 books -- including Liars and Outliers: Enabling the Trust Society Needs to Survive -- as well as hundreds of articles, essays, and academic papers. His influential newsletter "Crypto-Gram" and his blog "Schneier on Security" are read by over 250,000 people. He has testified before Congress, is a frequent guest on television and radio, has served on several government committees, and is regularly quoted in the press.

Schneier is a fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School, a program fellow at the New America Foundation's Open Technology Institute, a board member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an Advisory Board Member of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, and the Security Futurologist for BT -- formerly British Telecom.

The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) interviewed Bruce Schneier on the following questions:

Do you think India needs privacy legislation? Why/ Why not?
The majoity of India's population lives below the line of poverty and barely has any Internet access. Is surveillance an elitist issue or should it concern the entire population in the country? Why/ Why not?
“I'm not a terrorist and I have nothing to hide...and thus surveillance can't affect me personally.” Please comment.
Can free speech and privacy co-exist? What is the balance between privacy and freedom of expression?
Should people have the right to give up their right to privacy? Why/ Why not?
Should surveillance technologies be treated as traditional arms/weapons? Why/ Why not?
How can individuals protect their data (and themselves) from spyware, such as FinFisher?
How would you advise young people working in the surveillance industry?

VIDEO

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/interview-with-bruce-schneier

Internet, Mobile & Digital Economy Conference (IMDEC) 2013

praskrishna — 2013-10-25T06:18:25Z

FICCI, in association with the Ministry of Communications & IT, Government of India is organizing Internet, Mobile & Digital Economy Conference (IMDEC) 2013 on 17th October 2013 at Federation House, FICCI, New Delhi. The theme for this year’s conference is “Internet to Equinet: Empowering a Billion Online”. Sunil Abraham is a speaker in the session on "The Internet We Want: A Multistakeholder Approach".

This was published by FICCI on their website on October 16, 2013. Download the agenda here.

Shri Kapil Sibal, Hon’ble Minister for Communications & Information Technology has kindly consented to inaugurate the conference and will deliver the keynote address during the inaugural session. Shri Nehchal Sandhu, Deputy National Security Advisor; Shri M F Farooqui, Secretary, DoT; and Mr. Fadi Chehadé, CEO, ICANN have also agreed to address the participants during the inaugural session of the conference.

The conference will deliberate on the empowerment of Indian citizens and growth of the digital economy, using internet and mobile technologies. The first conference will specifically debate on thematic and business issues as below:

Inaugural Session: Internet to Equinet: Empowering a Billion Online

Session I: The Internet We Want: A Multistakeholder View

Session II:M2M: The Internet of 50 Billion Devices

Session III: Mobile Internet is the Future: What Stands in the Way?

The conference which will include CEOs and senior government, industry and academia participants, will explore the challenges in connecting the unconnected and making them part of the global information society on one hand, while discussing the implementation and impact of new emerging technologies such as M2M. It will provide an opportunity to hear the views of various stakeholders and thought leaders in the internet, mobile and digital economy space. IMDEC 2013 is open to business leaders, economists, researchers, analysts and decision-makers from government entities, industry, academia, and international organizations.

Bhairav Acharya, Elonnai Hickok and Purba Sarkar also participated in the event.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/ficci-october-17-2013-internet-mobile-digital-economy-conference-2013

CIS Cybersecurity Series (Part 11) - Anja Kovacs

purba — 2013-10-15T15:25:07Z

CIS interviews Anja Kovacs, researcher and activist, and director of the Internet Democracy, Project as part of the Cybersecurity Series.

"Having the cyber security debate become more and more important was a real challenge for civil society. I think in part because many of us who were focused on human rights aren't necessarily techies. And so, when you have a conversation with a government bureaucrat, and ask questions about the kind of decisions they decided to take, very often they will come up with a technical answer in response. And then, if you don't have that expertise, it is difficult to react. In the meantime though, I think it has become clear that this is one of the biggest issues in the internet field at the moment. It is also one of the big issues that is driving the desires of governments to have a bigger role to play in internet governance. So it is an area that is unavoidable for activists. What has happened slowly is that we have come to realize that the first thing, as in most other areas, is not the technical details, but principles, and those principles are fairly similar to how they are in many other fields." - Anja Kovacs, Internet Democracy Project

Centre for Internet and Society presents its eleventh installment of the CIS Cybersecurity Series.

The CIS Cybersecurity Series seeks to address hotly debated aspects of cybersecurity and hopes to encourage wider public discourse around the topic.

In this installment, CIS speaks to Anja Kovacs, director of the Internet Democracy Project. Her work focuses on a wide range of questions regarding freedom of expression, cybersecurity and the architecture of Internet governance as they relate to the Internet and democracy. Anja is currently also a member of the of the Investment Committee of the Digital Defenders Partnership and of the interim Steering Group of Best Bits, a global network of civil society members.

(Bio from internetdemocracy.in)

Internet Democracy Project homepage: http://internetdemocracy.in/

This work was carried out as part of the Cyber Stewards Network with aid of a grant from the International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-cybersecurity-series-part-11-anja-kovacs

Interview with Big Brother Watch on Privacy and Surveillance

maria — 2013-10-15T14:24:27Z

Maria Xynou interviewed Emma Carr, the Deputy Director of Big Brother Watch, on privacy and surveillance. View this interview and gain an insight on why we should all "have something to hide"!

For all those of you who haven't heard of Big Brother Watch, it's a London-based campaign group which was founded in 2009 to protect individual privacy and defend civil liberties.

Big Brother Watch was set up to challenge policies that threaten our privacy, our freedoms and our civil liberties, and to expose the true scale of the surveillance state. The campaign group has produced unique research exposing the erosion of civil liberties in the UK, looking at the dramatic expansion of surveillance powers, the growth of the database state and the misuse of personal information. Big Brother Watch campaigns to give individuals more control over their personal data, and hold to account those who fail to respect our privacy, whether private companies, government departments or local authorities.

Emma Carr joined Big Brother Watch as Deputy Director in February 2012 and has since been regularly quoted in the UK press. The Centre for Internet and Society interviewed Emma Carr on the following questions:

How do you define privacy?
Can privacy and freedom of expression co-exist? Why/Why not?
What is the balance between Internet freedom and surveillance?
According to your research, most people worldwide care about their online privacy – yet they give up most of it through the use of social networking sites and other online services. Why, in your opinion, does this occur and what are the potential implications?
Should people have the right to give up their right to privacy? Why/Why not?
What implications on human rights can mass surveillance potentially have?
“I'm not a terrorist and I have nothing to hide...and thus surveillance can't affect me personally.” Please comment.
Do we have Internet freedom?

VIDEO

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/interview-with-big-brother-watch-on-privacy-and-surveillance

The quest for genuine clout on the internet

praskrishna — 2013-10-29T07:08:40Z

There is a lot of interest and speculation on the impact of social media on politics because of its amplification effects.

The article by Karthik Subramanian was published in the Hindu on October 13, 2013. T. Vishnu Vardhan is quoted.

There is no denying that it has overtaken the traditional media in certain facets of news - most notably when it comes to breaking news and that it provides grounds for expressing one's ideas unbounded.

But the marketing and the advertising world are only just coming to grips with the medium. (Twitter is set to launch its IPO soon and Facebook is going to increasingly face the need to monetize its services. The Web has a history of complaints where users have found it tough to different between user-generated content and 'promoted' content.)

In effect, the question of the “influence” that social media and its star patrons wield is still being assessed, especially in the loaded context of whether its proactive use would translate to votes in the upcoming Lok Sabha elections. Not only are the number of active social media users negligible in the Indian context, there are doubts on whether a 'cause and effect' scenario is possible.

There are two predominant points of view, while talking about the influence of social media campaigns on politics: One that closely reads the Facebook ‘likes’ and Twitter trends as an important measure of public pulse; and the other which dismisses any sort of influence that social media has on real and grass root level politics.

T. Vishnu Vardhan, a researcher at Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society, prefers the middle ground. “It is important to not ignore the growing popularity of social media in India with [telecom] service providers providing Facebook access at Rs. 1 for an entire day. However, I would refrain from seeing a direct correlation between a person's participation on social media to real-time events in society including politics.”

Propaganda fallacy

“In India and especially in Tamil Nadu it has been proved that the Propaganda Model is a fallacy. There is no simple formula, whether it be cinema of 1970s or the Social Media of the 2010s. There are too many factors and layers that influence real-time events.”

Companies around the world are trying to make sense of this 'Big Data' that people's digital lives are generating. And whilst individuals and even some clever campaigns make snap pronouncements based on superficial data and analysis, there are a few companies that are looking at it through the prism of complex algorithms and technology-enabled web crawling.

One such company Kochi-based startup Riafy Technologies is attempting to make sense of the digital noise in a broad sweeping sense looking at three domains: relational intelligence, predictive analysis and big data.

One of the their applications 'Movie Tarot' predicts the outcome of Friday releases at the movie box office, based on the digital traffic on the days preceding the release. Not every instance of praise or every denouncement is treated equally. Instead, they have an intelligent algorithm that they apply to predict the box office collections and the ultimate verdict. (They claim to have a fairly accurate track record thus far.)

The company's CEO John Mathew says there is a correlation between a person's online presence and behaviour in the real world. “This influence is significant in age groups of 18-34,” he says. “As for Lok Sabha elections, the 'social media influenced' voter turnout would be marginal when we look at the country as a whole, but this number would be substantial in the 'swing constituencies'.”

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/the-hindu-october-13-2013-karthik-subramanian-the-quest-for-genuine-clout-on-the-internet

Fragmentation in a Democracy : The Role of Social Movements and the Media

praskrishna — 2013-10-29T07:45:31Z

The Observer Research Foundation, Delhi, together with the Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung, Berlin, will be convening a Round-table on Fragmentation in a Democracy : The Role of Social Movements and the Media on October 16, 2013 at the Observer Research Foundation in New Delhi. Sunil Abraham is a speaker in the session on Impact of Media, Social Media & Technology on Democracy / Governance.

The round-table will examine the changing role of civil society as a political actor and also how this is being impacted by the Media and Social Media.

This round-table is being designed as a brainstorming session and therefore there will not be any formal written papers. Ideally, we will aim to have one or two prepared comments in each session to lay out the issues and a general discussion thereafter.

Agenda

10.00 10.05	Opening Remarks by Roundtable Chairperson:
10.05 11.45	Session 1: The Changing Role of Civil Society in a Democracy/Democratic Governance Trilochan Sastry, Founder and trustee, Association for Democratic Reform, Bangalore Chakshu Rai,/PRS Legislative Research Institute for Policy Research Studies, Delhi Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, Independent Journalist, Delhi Anand Kumar, Professor, JNU, Delhi
11.45 12.00	Tea/Coffee Break
	Session 2: The Impact of Media, Social Media & Technology on Democracy / Governance Sunil Abraham, CIS Bangalore Aditya Kalra, Thomson Rueters, Delhi R. Swaminathan, ORF, Mumbai Niranjan Sahoo, ORF, Delhi
13.45	Lunch

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/fragmentation-in-a-democracy

Concerns Regarding DNA Law

bhairav — 2013-10-29T10:09:26Z

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

Background

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

Primary Issues

Purpose of DNA Profiling

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

Procedural Integrity

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

Conditions of Collection

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

Retention of DNA

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

DNA Laboratories

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

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

The India Privacy Monitor Map

maria — 2013-10-09T16:26:14Z

The Centre for Internet and Society has started the first Privacy Watch in India! Check out our map which includes data on the UID, NPR and CCTNS schemes, as well as on the installation of CCTV cameras and the use of drones throughout the country.

In a country of twenty-eight diverse states and seven union territories, it remained unclear to what extent surveillance, biometric and other privacy-intrusive schemes are being implemented. We are trying to make up for this by mapping out data in every single state in India on the UID, CCTNS and NPR schemes, as well as on the installation of CCTV cameras and the use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), otherwise known as drones.

In particular, the map in its current format includes data on the following:

UID: The Unique Identification Number (UID), also known as AADHAAR, is a 12-digit unique identification number which the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) is currently issuing for all residents in India (on a voluntary basis). Each UID is stored in a centralised database and linked to the basic demographic and biometric information of each individual. The UIDAI and AADHAAR currently lack legal backing.

NPR: Under the National Population Register (NPR), the demographic data of all residents in India is collected on a mandatory basis. The Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) supplements the NPR with the collection of biometric data and the issue of the AADHAAR number.

CCTV: Closed-circuit television cameras which can produce images or recordings for surveillance purposes.

UAV: Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), otherwise known as drones, are aircrafts without a human pilot on board. The flight of a UAV is controlled either autonomously by computers in the vehicle or under the remote control of a pilot on the ground or in another vehicle. UAVs are used for surveillance purposes.

CCTNS: The Crime and Criminal Tracking Networks and Systems (CCTNS) is a nationwide networking infrastructure for enhancing efficiency and effectiveness of policing and sharing data among 14,000 police stations across India.

Our India Privacy Monitor Map can be viewed through the following link: http://cis-india.org/cisprivacymonitor

This map is part of on-going research and will hopefully expand to include other schemes and projects which are potentially privacy-intrusive. We encourage all feedback and additional data!

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/india-privacy-monitor-map

Re: The Human DNA Profiling Bill, 2012

bhairav — 2013-10-29T10:00:47Z

This short note speaks to legal issues arising from the proposed Human DNA Profiling Bill, 2012 ("DBT Bill") that was circulated drafted under the aegis of the Department of Biotechnology of the Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India, which seeks to collect human DNA samples, profile them and store them. These comments are made clause-by-clause against the DBT Bill.

Note: Clause-by-clause comments on the Working Draft version of April 29, 2012 from the Centre for Internet and Society

This short note speaks to legal issues arising from the proposed Human DNA Profiling Bill, 2012 ("DBT Bill") that was circulated within the Experts Committee constituted under the aegis of the Department of Biotechnology of the Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India.
This note must be read against the relevant provisions of the DBT Bill and, where indicated, together with the proposed Forensic DNA Profiling (Regulation) Bill, 2013 that was drafted by the Centre for Internet & Society, Bangalore ("CIS Bill"). These comments must also be read alongside the two-page submission titled “A Brief Note on the Forensic DNA Profiling (Regulation) Bill, 2013” ("CIS Note"). Whereas the aforesaid CIS Note raised issues that informed the drafting of the CIS Bill, this present note seeks to provide legal comments on the DBT Bill.
Preamble
The DBT Bill, in its current working form, lacks a preamble. No doubt, a preamble will be added later once the text of the DBT Bill is finalised. Instead, the DBT Bill contains an introduction. It must be borne in mind that the purpose of the legislation should be spelt out in the preamble since preambular clauses have interpretative value. [See, A. Thangal Kunju Musaliar AIR 1956 SC 246; Burrakur Coal Co. Ltd. AIR 1961 SC 954; and Arnit Das (2000) 5 SCC 488]. Hence, a preamble that states the intent of Parliament to create permissible conditions for DNA source material collection, profiling, retention and forensic use in criminal trials is necessary.
Objects Clause
An ‘objects clause,’ detailing the intention of the legislature and containing principles to inform the application of a statute, in the main body of the statute is an enforceable mechanism to give directions to a statute and can be a formidable primary aid in statutory interpretation. [See, for example, section 83 of the Patents Act, 1970 that directly informed the Order of the Controller of Patents, Mumbai, in the matter of NATCO Pharma and Bayer Corporation in Compulsory Licence Application No. 1 of 2011.] Therefore, the DBT Bill should incorporate an objects clause that makes clear that (i) the principles of notice, confidentiality, collection limitation, personal autonomy, purpose limitation and data minimisation must be adhered to at all times; (ii) DNA profiles merely estimate the identity of persons, they do not conclusively establish unique identity; (iii) all individuals have a right to privacy that must be continuously weighed against efforts to collect and retain DNA; (iv) centralised databases are inherently dangerous because of the volume of information that is at risk; (v) forensic DNA profiling is intended to have probative value; therefore, if there is any doubt regarding a DNA profile, it should not be received in evidence by a court; (vi) once adduced, the evidence created by a DNA profile is only corroborative and must be treated on par with other biometric evidence such as fingerprint measurements.
Definitions
The definition of “analytical procedure” in clause 2(1)(a) of the DBT Bill is practically redundant and should be removed. It is used only twice – in clauses 24 and 66(2)(p) which give the DNA Profiling Board the power to frame procedural regulations. In the absence of specifying the content of any analytical procedure, the definition serves no purpose.
The definition of “audit” in clause 2(1)(b) is relevant for measuring the training programmes and laboratory conditions specified in clauses 12(f) and 27. However, the term “audit” is subsequently used in an entirely different manner in Chapter IX which relates to financial information and transparency. This is a conflicting definition. The term “audit” has a well-established use for financial information that does not require a definition. Hence, this definition should be removed.
The definition of “calibration” in clause 2(1)(d) is redundant and should be removed since the term is not meaningfully used in the DBT Bill.
The definition of “DNA Data Bank” in clause 2(1)(h) is unnecessary. The DBT Bill seeks to establish a National DNA Data Bank, State DNA Data Banks and Regional DNA Data Banks vide clause 32. These national, state and regional databases must be defined individually with reference to their establishment clauses. Defining a “DNA Data Bank”, exclusive of the national, state and regional databases, creates the assumption that any private individual can start and maintain a database. This is a drafting error.
The definition of “DNA Data Bank Manager” in clause 2(1)(i) is misleading since, in the text of the DBT Bill, it is only used in relation to the proposed National DNA Data Bank and never in relation to the State and Regional Data Banks. If it is the intention of DBT Bill that only the national database should have a manager, the definition should be renamed to ‘National DNA Data Bank Manager’ and the clause should specifically identify the National DNA Data Bank. This is a drafting error.
The definition of “DNA laboratory” in clause 2(1)(j) should refer to the specific clauses that empower the Central Government and State Governments to license and recognise DNA laboratories. This is a drafting error.
The definition of “DNA profile” in clause 2(1)(l) is too vague. Merely the results of an analysis of a DNA sample may not be sufficient to create an actual DNA profile. Further, the results of the analysis may yield DNA information that, because of incompleteness or lack of information, is inconclusive. These incomplete bits of information should not be recognised as DNA profiles. This definition should be amended to clearly specify the contents of a complete and valid DNA profile that contains, at least, numerical representations of 17 or more loci of short tandem repeats that are sufficient to estimate biometric individuality of a person.
The definition of “forensic material” in clause 2(1)(o) needs to be amended to remove the references to intimate and non-intimate body samples. If the references are retained, then evidence collected from a crime scene, where an intimate or non-intimate collection procedure was obviously not followed, will not fall within the scope of “forensic material”.
The terms “intimate body sample” and “non-intimate body sample” that are defined in clauses 2(1)(q) and 2(1)(v) respectively are not used anywhere outside the definitions clause except for an inconsequential reference to non-intimate body samples only in the rule-making provision of clause 66(2)(zg). “Intimate body sample” is not used anywhere outside the definitions clause. Both these definitions are redundant and should be removed.
The terms “intimate forensic procedure” and “non-intimate forensic procedure”, that are defined in clauses 2(1)(r) and 2(1)(w) respectively, are not used anywhere except for an inconsequential reference of non-intimate forensic procedure in the rule-making provision of clause 66(2)(zg). “Intimate forensic procedure” is not used anywhere outside the definitions clause. Both these definitions are redundant and should be removed.
The term “known samples” that is defined in clause 2(1)(s) is not used anywhere outside the definitions clause and should be removed for redundancy.
The definition of “offender” in clause 2(1)(y) if vague because it does not specify the offences for which an “offender” need be convicted. It is also linked to an unclear definition of the term “undertrial”, which does not specify the nature of pending criminal proceedings and, therefore, could be used to describe simple offences such as, for example, failure to pay an electricity bill, which also attracts criminal penalties.
The term “proficiency testing” that is defined in clause 2(1)(zb) is not used anywhere in the text of the DBT Bill and should be removed.
The definitions of “quality assurance”, “quality manual” and “quality system” serve no enforceable purpose since they are used only in relation to the DNA Profiling Board’s rule-making powers under clauses 18 and 66. Their inclusion in the definitions clause is redundant. Accordingly, these definitions should be removed.
The term “suspect” defined in clause 2(1)(zi) is vague and imprecise. The standard by which suspicion is to be measured, and by whom suspicion may be entertained – whether police or others, has not been specified. The term “suspect” is not defined in either the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("CrPC") or the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC").
The DNA Profiling Board
Clause 3 of the DBT Bill, which provides for the establishment of the DNA Profiling Board, contains a sub-clause (2) which vests the Board with corporate identity. This vesting of legal personality in the DNA Profiling Board – when other boards and authorities, even ministries and independent departments, and even the armed forces do not enjoy this function – is ill-advised and made without sufficient thought. Bodies corporate may be corporations sole – such the President of India, or corporations aggregate – such as companies. The intent of corporate identity is to create a fictional legal personality where none previously existed in order for the fictional legal personality to exist apart from its members, enjoy perpetual succession and to sue in its own legal name. Article 300 of the Constitution of India vests the Central Government with legal personality in the legal name of the Union of India and the State Governments with legal personality in the legal names of their respective states. Apart from this constitutional dispensation, some regulatory authorities, such as the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India ("TRAI") and the Securities and Exchange Board of India ("SEBI") have been individually vested with legal personalities as bodies corporate to enable their autonomous governance and independent functioning to secure their ability to free, fairly and impartially regulate the market free from governmental or private collusion. Similarly, some overarching national commissions, such as the Election Commission of India and the National Human Rights Commission ("NHRC") have been vested with the power to sue and be sued in their own names. In comparison, the DNA Profiling Board is neither an independent market regulator nor an overarching national commission with judicial powers. There is no legal reason for it to be vested with a legal personality on par with the Central Government or a company. Therefore, clause 3(2) should be removed.
The size and composition of the Board that is staffed under clause 4 is extremely large. Creating unwieldy and top-heavy bureaucratic authorities and investing them with regulatory powers, including the powers of licensing, is avoidable. The DBT Bill proposes to create a Board of 16 members, most of them from a scientific background and including a few policemen and one legal administrator. In its present form, the Board is larger than many High Courts but does not have a single legal member able to conduct licensing. Drawing from the experiences of other administrative and regulatory bodies in India, the size of the Board should be drastically reduced to no more than five members, at least half of whom should be lawyers or ex-judges. The change in the legal composition of the Board is necessary because the DBT Bill contemplates that it will perform the legal function of licensing that must obey basic tenets of administrative law. The current membership may be viable only if the Board is divested of its administrative and regulatory powers and left with only scientific advice functions. Moreover, stacking the Board with scientists and policemen appears to ignore the perils that DNA collection and retention pose to the privacy of ordinary citizens and their criminal law rights. The Board should have adequate representation from the human rights community – both institutional (e.g NHRC and the State Human Rights Commissions) and non-institutional (well-regarded and experienced human rights activists). The Board should also have privacy advocates.
Clauses 5(2) and 5(3) establish an unequal hierarchy within the Board by privileging some members with longer terms than others. There is no good reason for why the Vice-Chancellor of a National Law University, the Director General of Police of a State, the Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory and the Director of a State Forensic Science Laboratory should serve membership terms on the Board that are longer than those of molecular biologists, population geneticists and other scientists. Such artificial hierarchies should be removed at the outset. The Board should have one pre-eminent chairperson and other equal members with equal terms.
The Chairperson of the Board, who is first mentioned in clause 5(1), has not been duly and properly appointed. Clause 4 should be modified to mention the appointment of the Chairperson and other Members.
Clause 7 deals with the issue of conflict of interest in narrow cases. The clause requires members to react on a case-by-case basis to the business of the Board by recusing themselves from deliberations and voting where necessary. Instead, it may be more appropriate to require members to make a full and public disclosures of their real and potential conflicts of interest, and then granting the Chairperson the power to prevent such members from voting on interested matters. Failure to follow these anti-collusion and anti-corruption safeguards should attract criminal penalties.
Clause 10 anticipates the appointment of a Chief Executive Officer of the Board who shall be a serving Joint Secretary to the Central Government. Clause 10(3) further requires this officer to be scientist. This may not be possible because the administrative hierarchy of the Central Government may not contain a genetic scientist.
The functions of the Board specified in clause 12 are overbroad. Advising ministries, facilitating governments, recommending the size of funds and so on – these are administrative and governance functions best left to the executive. Once the Board is modified to have sufficient legal and human rights representation, then the functions of the Board can non-controversially include licensing, developing standards and norms, safeguarding privacy and other rights, ensuring public transparency, promoting information and debate and a few other limited functions necessary for a regulatory authority.
DNA Laboratories
The provisions of Chapters V and VI may be simplified and merged.
DNA Data Banks
The creation of multiple indices in clause 32(4) cannot be justified and must be removed. The collection of biological source material is an invasion of privacy that must be conducted only in strict conditions when the potential harm to individuals is outweighed by the public good. This balance may only be struck when dealing with the collection and profiling of samples from certain categories of offenders. The implications of collecting and profiling DNA samples from corpses, suspects, missing persons and others are vast and have either not been properly understood or deliberately ignored. At this moment, the forcible collection of biological source material should be restricted to the categories of offenders mentioned in the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 ("Prisoners Act") with a suitable addition for persons arrested in connection with certain specified terrorism-related offences. Therefore, databases should contain only an offenders’ index and a crime scene index.
Clause 32(6), which requires the names of individuals to be connected to their profiles, and hence accessible to persons connected with the database, should be removed. DNA profiles, once developed, should be anonymised and retained separate from the names of their owners.
Clause 36, which allows international disclosures of DNA profiles of Indians, should be removed immediately. Whereas an Indian may have legal remedies against the National DNA Data Bank, he/she certainly will not be able to enforce any rights against a foreign government or entity. This provision will be misused to rendition DNA profiles abroad for activities not permitted in India. Similarly, as in data protection regimes around the world, DNA profiles should remain within jurisdictions with high privacy and other legal standards.
Use
The only legitimate purpose for which DNA profiles may be used is for establishing the identity of individuals in criminal trials and confirming their presence or absence from a certain location. Accordingly, clauses 39 and 40 should be re-drafted to specify this sole forensic purpose and also specify the manner in which DNA profiles may be received in evidence. For more information on this point, see the relevant provisions of the CIS Note and the CIS Bill.
The disclosure of DNA profiles should only take place to a law enforcement agency conducting a valid investigation into certain offences and to courts currently trying the individuals to whom the DNA profiles pertains. All other disclosures of DNA profiles should be made illegal. Non-consensual disclosure of DNA profiles for the study of population genetics is specifically illegal. The DBT Bill does not prescribe stringent criminal penalties and other mechanisms to affix individual liability on individual scientists and research institutions for improper use of DNA profiles; it is therefore open to the criticism that it seeks to sacrifice individual rights of persons, including the fundamental right to privacy, without parallel remedies and penalties. Clause 40 should be removed in entirety.
Clause 43 should be removed in entirety. This note does not contemplate the retention of DNA profiles of suspects and victims, except as derived from a crime scene.
Clause 45 sets out a post-conviction right related to criminal procedure and evidence. This would fundamentally alter the nature of India’s criminal justice system, which currently does not contain specific provisions for post-conviction testing rights. However, courts may re-try cases in certain narrow cases when fresh evidence is brought forth that has a nexus to the evidence upon which the person was convicted and if it can be proved that the fresh evidence was not earlier adduced due to bias. Any other fresh evidence that may be uncovered cannot prompt a new trial. Clause 45 is implicated by Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India and by section 300 of the CrPC. The principle of autrefois acquit that informs section 300 of the CrPC specifically deals with exceptions to the rule against double jeopardy that permit re-trials. [See, for instance, Sangeeta Mahendrabhai Patel (2012) 7 SCC 721].

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/re-the-human-dna-profiling-bill-2012