We are anonymous, we are legion

Analyzing the Draft Human DNA Profiling Bill 2012

praskrishna — 2013-02-25T09:56:19Z

The Centre for Internet & Society invites you to a workshop on analyzing the Draft Human DNA Profiling Bill on March 1, 2013 in its Bangalore office, from 2.00 p.m. to 5.00 p.m.

The Draft Human DNA Profiling Bill seeks to establish DNA databases at the state, regional, and national level for the purposes of establishing identity in criminal and civil proceedings. The Draft Human DNA Profiling Bill has been critiqued by the committee chaired by Justice AP Shah in the “Report of Group of Experts on Privacy” for a lack of adequate privacy safeguards.

In Fall 2012 the Centre for Internet and Society held a series of public meetings to raise awareness about the Bill and submitted feedback to the Department of Biotechnology. This workshop is in response to an April 2012 draft of the Bill and seeks to analyze the text of the Bill, look at technical aspects of the Bill and DNA profiling, and compare the current draft of the Bill with previous drafts.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/analyzing-draft-human-dna-profiling-bill

BigDog is Watching You! The Sci-fi Future of Animal and Insect Drones

maria — 2013-07-12T15:38:33Z

Do you think robotic aeroplanes monitoring us are scary enough? Wait until you read about DARPA´s new innovative and subtle way to keep us all under the microscope! This blog post presents a new reality of drones which is depicted in none other than animal and insect-like robots, equipped with cameras and other surveillance technologies.

This research was undertaken as part of the 'SAFEGUARDS' project that CIS is undertaking with Privacy International and IDRC.

Just when we thought we had seen it all, the US Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) funded another controversial surveillance project which makes even the most bizarre sci-fi movie seem like a pleasant fairy-tale in comparison to what we are facing: animal and insect drones.

Up until recently, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), otherwise called drones, depicted the scary reality of surveillance, as robotic pilot-less planes have been swarming the skies, while monitoring large amounts of data without people´s knowledge or consent. Today, DARPA has come up with more subtle forms of surveillance: animal and insect drones. Clearly animal and insect-like drones have a much better camouflage than aeroplanes, especially since they are able to go to places and obtain data that mainstream UAVs can not.

India´s ´DARPA´, the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), has been creating UAVs over the last ten years, while the Indian Army first acquired UAVs from Israel in the late 1990s. Yet the use of all UAVs in India is still poorly regulated! Drones in the U.S. are regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), whilst the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) regulates drones in the European Union. In India, the Ministry of Civil Aviation regulates drones, whilst the government is moving ahead with plans to replace the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) with a Civil Aviation Authority. However, current Indian aviation laws are vague in regards to data acquired, shared and retained, thus not only posing a threat to individual´s right to privacy and other human rights, but also enabling the creation of a secret surveillance state.

The DRDO appears to be following DARPA´s footsteps in terms of surveillance technologies and the questions which arise are: will animal and insect drones be employed in India in the future? If so, how will they be regulated?

BigDog/LS3

Apparently having UAVs flying above us and monitoring territories and populations without our knowledge or consent was not enough. DARPA is currently funding the BigDog project, which is none other than a drone dog, a four-legged robot equipped with a camera and capable of surveillance in disguise. DARPA and Boston Dynamics are working on the latest version of BigDog, called the Legged Squad Support System (LS3), which can carry 400 pounds of gear for more than 20 miles without refuelling. Not only can the LS3 walk and run on all types of surfaces, including ice and snow, but it also has ´vision sensors´ which enable it to autonomously maneuver around obstacles and follow soldiers in the battle field. The LS3 is expected to respond to soldiers' voice commands, such as 'come', 'stop' and 'sit', as well as serve as a battery charger for electronic devices.

BigDog/LS3 is undoubtedly an impressive technological advancement in terms of aiding squads with surveillance, strategic management and a mobile auxiliary power source, as well as by carrying gear. Over the last century most technological developments have manifested through the military and have later been integrated in societies. Many questions arise around the BigDog/LS3 and its potential future use by governments for non-military purposes. Although UAVs were initially used for strictly military purposes, they are currently also being used by governments on an international level for civil purposes, such as to monitor climate change and extinct animals, as well as to surveille populations. Is it a matter of time before BigDog is used by governments for ´civil purposes´ too? Will robotic dogs swarm cities in the future to provide ´security´?

Like any other surveillance technology, the LS3 should be legally regulated and current lack of regulation could create a potential for abuse. Is authorisation required to use a LS3? If so, who has the legal right to authorise its use? Under what conditions can authorisation be granted and for how long? What kind of data can legally be obtained and under what conditions? Who has the legal authority to access such data? Can data be retained and if so, for how long and under what conditions? Do individuals have the right to be informed about the data withheld about them? Just because it´s a ´dog´ should not imply its non-regulation. This four-legged robot has extremely intrusive surveillance capabilities which may breach the right to privacy and other human rights when left unregulated.

Humming Bird Drone


Source: HighTech Edge

TIME magazine recognised DARPA for its Hummingbird nano air vehicle (NAV) and named the drone bird one of the 50 best inventions of 2011. True, it is rather impressive to create a robot which looks like a bird, behaves like a bird, but serves as a secret spy.

During the presentation of the humming bird drone, Regina Dugan, former Director of DARPA, stated:

"Since we took to the sky, we have wanted to fly faster and farther. And to do so, we've had to believe in impossible things and we've had to refuse to fear failure."

Although believing in 'impossible things' is usually a prerequisite to innovation, the potential implications on human rights of every innovation and their probability of occurring should be examined. Given the fact that drones already exist and that they are used for both military and non-military purposes, the probability is that the hummingbird drone will be used for civil purposes in the future. The value of data in contemporary information societies, as well as government's obsession with surveillance for ´national security´ purposes back up the probability that drone birds will not be restricted to battlefields.

So should innovation be encouraged for innovation’s sake, regardless of potential infringement of human rights? This question could open up a never-ending debate with supporters arguing that it´s not technology itself which is harmful, but its use or misuse. However the current reality of drones is this: UAVs and NAVs are poorly regulated (if regulated at all in many countries) and their potential for abuse is enormous, given that ´what happens to our data happens to ourselves....who controls our data controls our lives.´ If UAVs are used to surveille populations, why would drone birds not be used for the same purpose? In fact, they have an awesome camouflage and are potentially capable of acquiring much more data than any UAV! Given the surveillance benefits, governments would appear irrational not to use them.

MeshWorms and Remote-Controlled Insects


Source: NY Daily News

Think insects are creepy? Now we can have a real reason to be afraid of them. Clearly robotic planes, dogs and birds are not enough.

DARPA´s MeshWorm project entails the creation of earthworm-like robots that crawl along surfaces by contracting segments of their bodies. The MeshWorm can squeeze through tight spaces and mold its shape to rough terrain, as well as absorb heavy blows. This robotic worm will be used for military purposes, while future use for ´civil purposes´ remains a probability.

Robots, however, are not only the case. Actual insects are being wirelessly controlled, such as beetles with implanted electrodes and a radio receiver on their back. The giant flower beetle´s size enables it to carry a small camera and a heat sensor, which constitutes it as a reliable mean for surveillance.

Other drone insects look and fly like ladybugs and dragonflies. Researchers at the Wright State University in Dayton, Ohio, have been working on a butterfly drone since 2008. Former software engineer Alan Lovejoy has argued that the US is developing mosquito drones. Such a device could potentially be equipped with a camera and a microphone, it could use its needle to abstract a DNA sample with the pain of a mosquito bite and it could also inject a micro RFID tracking device under peoples´ skin. All such micro-drones could potentially be used for both military and civil purposes and could violate individuals´ right to privacy and other civil liberties.

Security vs. Privacy: The wrong debate

09/11 was not only a pioneering date for the U.S., but also for India and most countries in the world. The War on Terror unleashed a global wave of surveillance to supposedly enable the detection and prevention of crime and terrorism. Governments on an international level have been arguing over the last decade that the use of surveillance technologies is a prerequisite to safety. However, security expert, Bruce Schneier, argues that the trade-off of privacy for security is a false dichotomy.

Everyone can potentially be a suspect within a surveillance state. Analyses of Big Data can not only profile individuals and populations, but also identify ‘branches of communication’ around every individual. In short, if you know someone who may be considered a suspect by intelligence agencies, you may also be a suspect. The mainstream argument “I have nothing to hide, I am not a terrorist’ is none other than a psychological coping mechanism when dealing with surveillance. The reality of security indicates that when an individual’s data is being intercepted, the probability is that those who control that data can also control that individual’s life. Schneier has argued that privacy and security are not on the opposite side of a seesaw, but on the contrary, the one is a prerequisite of the other. Governments should not expect us to give up our privacy in exchange for security, as loss of privacy indicates loss of individuality and essentially, loss of freedom. We can not be safe when we trade-off our personal data, because privacy is what protects us from abuse from those in power. Thus the entire War on Terror appears to waged through a type of phishing, as the promise of ´security´ may be bait to acquire our personal data.

Since the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks, India has had more reasons to produce, buy and use surveillance technologies, including drones. Last New Year´s Eve, the Mumbai police used UAVs to monitor hotspots, supposedly to help track down revellers who sexually harass women. The Chennai police recently procured three UAVs from Anna University to assist them in keeping an eye on the city´s vehicle flow. Raj Thackeray´s rally marked the biggest surveillance exercise ever launched for a single event, which included UAVs. The Chandigarh police are the first Indian police force to use the ´Golden Hawk´ - a UAV which will keep a ´bird´s eye on criminal activities´. This new type of drone was manufactured by the Aeronautical Development Establishment (one of DRDO's premier laboratories based in Bangalore) and as of 2011 is being used by Indian law enforcement agencies.

Although there is no evidence that India currently has any animal or insect drones, it could be a probability in the forthcoming years. Since India is currently using many UAVs either way, why would animal and/or insect drones be excluded? What would prevent India from potentially using such drones in the future for ´civil purposes´? More importantly, how are ´civil purposes´ defined? Who defines ´civil purposes´and under what criteria? Would the term change and if so, under what circumstances? The term ´civil purposes´ varies from country to country and is defined by many political, social, economic and cultural factors, thus potentially enabling extensive surveillance and abuse of human rights.

Drones can potentially be as intrusive as other communications surveillance technologies, depending on the type of technology they´re equipped with, their location and the purpose of their use. As they can potentially violate individuals´ right to privacy, freedom of expression, freedom of movement and many other human rights, they should be strictly regulated. In Europe UAVs are regulated based upon their weight, as unmanned aircraft with an operating mass of less than 150kg are exempt by the EASA Regulation and its Implementation Rules. This should not be the case in India, as drones lighter than 150kg can potentially be more intrusive than other heavier drones, especially in the case of bird and insect drones.

Laws which explicitly regulate the use of all types of drones (UAVs, NAVs and micro-drones) and which legally define the term ´civil purposes´ in regards to human rights should be enacted in India. Some thoughts on the authorisation of drones include the following: A Special Committee on the Use of All Drones (SCUAD) could be established, which would be comprised of members of the jury, as well as by other legal and security experts of India. Such a committee would be the sole legal entity responsible for issuing authorisation for the use of drones, and every authorisation would have to comply with the constitutional and statutory provisions of human rights. Another committee, the Supervisory Committee on the Authorisation of the Use of Drones (lets call this ´SCAUD´), could also be established, which would also be comprised by (other) members of the jury, as well as by (other) legal and security experts of India. This second committee would supervise the first and it would ensure that SCUAD provides authorisations in compliance with the laws, once the necessity and utility of the use of drones has been adequately proven.

It´s not about ´privacy vs. security´. Nor is it about ´privacy or security´. In every democratic state, it should be about ´privacy and security´, since the one cannot exist without the other. Although the creation of animal and insect drones is undoubtedly technologically impressive, do we really want to live in a world where even animal-like robots can be used to spy on us? Should we be spied on at all? How much privacy do we give up and how much security do we gain in return through drones? If drones provided the ´promised security´, then India and all other countries equipped with these technologies should be extremely safe and crime-free; however, that is not the case.

In order to ensure that the use of drones does not infringe upon the right to privacy and other human rights, strict regulations are a minimal prerequisite. As long as people do not require that the use of these spying technologies are strictly regulated, very little can be done to prevent a scary sci-fi future. That´s why this blog has been written.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/big-dog-is-watching-you

Unique Identity Number (UID), National Population Register (NPR), and Governance

praskrishna — 2013-03-01T04:32:06Z

The Centre for Internet and Society and the Say No to UID campaign invite you to a workshop to discuss and learn about the present state of the UID and the NPR schemes. The event will be held on Saturday, March 2, 2013, at TERI, Bangalore, from 10.30 a.m. to 2.00 p.m.

Among other questions, the workshop will address:

What is the UID and NPR?
How do the UID and NPR impact citizenship?
Will NPR and UID schemes transform governance?
Why and how is national security linked with UID / NPR?
What is the relationship between UID and Big Data?

Speakers:

Usha Ramanathan, Independent Law Researcher and Human Rights Activist
Anant Maringanti, Hyderabad Urban Labs & Right to the City Foundation
Kaveri R, Researcher, CES, IISc

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/uid-and-npr

Stop Press Carousel

praskrishna — 2013-03-06T04:27:15Z

The silent blocking of URLs by the DoT assaults freedom of expression.

Arindam Mukherjee's article was published in the Outlook on February 22, 2013. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

Five Questions

On what grounds did the DoT ask for a ban on the 55 Facebook URLs pertaining to Afzal Guru?
Why did the Gwalior court rush into blocking of 73 URLs related to IIPM even though the content was very old and clearly some of it was even prima facie non-defamatory?
Why is the Gwalior court order not being made public?
Why doesn’t DoT keep the whole process transparent by putting up all its block orders on its website, giving reasons in each case?
How many URLs in all has the DoT asked for a ban on so far?

***

It’s the perfect recipe for a potboiler—a sudden, mysterious and arbitrary blocking of web pages, sparked off by an irate ‘educationist’; several upset publications (Outlook included); a government department with a blocked web page; a ministry trying to figure out how to react to a court order that is at the root of all the action, but which no one has been able to see.

As the cliche goes, truth is often stranger than fiction—as the affected parties discovered on February 15. That’s when it became known that the government had sought to block 78 web pages, reportedly following an order from a court in Gwalior. Around 73 of these articles sought to be blocked are on the controversial Indian Institute of Planning and Management (IIPM), promoted by self-styled management guru Arindam Chaudhuri.

What has taken everyone by surprise is how the blocks were executed—in a clandestine manner, without informing the affected parties, without serving them a notice or a copy of the order, or giving them a chance to react or defend themselves. The enormity of the ban is evident from the list of websites targeted, which include The Economic Times, The Indian Express, The Wall Street Journal, FirstPost, Careers360, Rediff.com and Caravan. When it came to Outlook, there was a clear case of overreach, as not just the web pages, but the entire blogs area was blocked for more than eight hours (see Jump Cut).

What is even more surprising is the smokescreen that is being maintained over the Gwalior court order that has caused this consternation on the Internet. At the time of going to print, no one—the affected websites, authors, lawyers or activists—had access to the order or had seen it, and the government was evading media queries on details of the order and the case. Despite repeated requests, the head of the Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT), Gulshan Rai, did not speak to Outlook.

So, in the absence of the order, no one even knows who the complainant is. Significantly, IIPM’s Chaudhuri has said that one of his ‘channel partners’ approached the court, though he clearly is the chief beneficiary of the episode. What this entire episode serves up is a blatant use of the law to muzzle press criticism while the government and official machinery have been willy-nilly forced to become mute players.

This surreal, Kafkaesque scenario continues apace at Outlook’s website, where on protesting the block on its blogs, the ISP said, “As only some of the URLs are mentioned in the DoT letter, we have reactivated the website and requested you to delete the mentioned contents,” adding that they had “attached the DoT instructions alongwith”. What they had attached was not one but two DoT orders, both dated February 14. One was, of course, the order about the 78 URLs. The other order came as news: an order on 55 Facebook URLs on Afzal Guru that the DoT wanted blocked.

As expected, internet activists and advocates of freedom of speech are livid. Shivam Vij, founder of kafila.org, one of the blogs that was blocked in the IIPM matter, says, “We were never given a chance to defend or explain. If only the DoT had put up the notice on their website, there would have been a healthier debate on regulation or censorship. But this was done in an opaque and arbitrary manner. If a book is banned, everyone gets to know. Why was there so much secrecy here?”

The arbitrariness of the twin government action also stems from the new IT Act which authorises the government or a competent authority to block or take down content considered “harmful”. And, according to the law, there is no obligation on the authorities’ part to inform the defendants. Cyber law expert Apar Gupta says, “Under the blocking rules, there is nothing that says that a copy of the court order has to be given to the affected parties. The rules also do not talk about the authors being given a chance to explain. It permits ad interim injunction to block content.”

Says Nikhil Pahwa, internet activist and editor of Medianama, which first reported about the IIPM blocks, “It is not clear why the DoT has taken this cloak-and-dagger approach. These are legitimate issues being raised by people regarding IIPM and its students. This is an infringement on the freedom of speech and expression. The DoT should have executed the blocks in a transparent manner by sending the affected parties a copy of the court order and making it public.”

That’s important, because legal experts feel that full facts may not have been considered in the IIPM case. “For this kind of a blocking order, the content should have come to the notice of the plaintiff recently. In this case, most of the content was much older. But sometimes plaintiffs also do not provide full details in a case,” says Gupta. Lawyers also feel that the Gwalior court may not be equipped to deal with litigation on new technologies.

There are other issues. In the IIPM case, the issue is primarily of defamation. But it is not clear whether defamation was established in all the articles that were sought to be taken down, especially a University Grants Commission (UGC) notice. Thus, the evidence that was presented to the court is important. Once again, till the court order becomes public, no one will know who the complainant was or what evidence was presented. The temporary ban on UGC’s web page is particularly surprising—and this has been noted by Shashi Tharoor—considering it is an independent regulator. “The regulatory body’s job is to regulate and nobody considers its notice as defamatory,” says Parminder Jeet Singh of IT for Change, an organisation dealing with internet issues.

The real purpose of such exercises, say experts, is to create a scare and embroil people in the legal process so that the process itself becomes a punishment and acts as a deterrent to others to engage in such writing. And that is why such cases are filed in remote and unusual destinations like Gwalior, Silchar, Dehradun and Guwahati. “There is a concept of forum shopping and forum shifting where cases are filed at remote destinations and by asking for huge damages, an attempt is made to scare people away from free speech. There are also many bullies who use defamation to create a scare effect. IIPM seems to have pioneered forum shopping in India,” says Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society (CIS).

The problem, everyone agrees, stems from the faulty nature of the Information Technology Act, which is open to interpretation and misuse. Says Singh, “The law tries to cover everything under a single head. It does not look specifically at the nuances of new media and give an appropriate response. So it is misused.” It is time that DoT became transparent and stopped its arbitrary, covert war against freedom of expression.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/outlook-feb-22-2013-arindam-mukherjee-stop-press-counsel

Surveillance Camp IV: Disproportionate State Surveillance - A Violation of Privacy

elonnai — 2013-02-19T12:37:09Z

This is the fourth in a series of posts mapping global surveillance challenges discussed at EFF's State Surveillance and Human Rights Camp in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. This article has been co-written with Elonnai Hickok — Centre for Internet and Society India, and a speaker at EFF's Camp.

This article by Katitza Rodriguez and Elonnai Hickok was originally published by the Electronic Frontier Foundation on February 13, 2013.

States around the world are faced daily with the challenge of protecting their populations from potential and real threats. To detect and respond to them, many governments surveil communication networks, physical movements, and transactional records. Though surveillance by its nature compromises individual privacy, there are exceptional situations where state surveillance is justified. Yet, if state surveillance is unnecessary or overreaching, with weak legal safeguards and a failure to follow due process, it can become disproportionate to the threat—infringing on people's privacy rights.

Internationally, regulations concerning government surveillance of communications vary in approach and effectiveness, often with very weak or nonexistent legal safeguards. Some countries have strong regulations for the surveillance of communications, yet these regulations may be largely ineffective or unenforceable in practice. Other countries have no legal safeguards or legal standards differing vastly according to the type of communication data targeted. This is why, EFF organized at the end of last year a State Surveillance and Human Rights Camp in Brazil to build upon this discussion and focused on how states are facilitating unnecessary and disproportionate surveillance of communications in ways that lead to privacy violations.

State-Mandated Identity Verification

In 2012 the Constitutional Court in South Korea declared that country's "real-name identification system" unconstitutional. The system had mandated that any online portal with more than 100,000 daily users had to verify the identity of their users.[1]This meant that the individual has to provide their real name before posting comments online. The legal challenge to this system was raised by People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy (PSPD)'s Public Law Center and Korean Progressive Network—Jinbonet among others.

Korea University professor Kyung-shin Park, Chair of PSPD's Law Center told EFF that portals and phone companies would disclose identifying information about six million users annually—in a country of only 50 million people. The South Korean Government was using perceived online abuses as a convenient excuse to discourage political criticism, professor Park told EFF:

The user information shared with the police most commonly has been used by the government to monitor the anti-governmental sentiments of ordinary people. All this has gone on because the government, the legislature, and civil society have not clearly understood the privacy implications of turning over identifying information of individuals.

The decision by the South Korean Constitutional Court to declare the "real identification system" unconstitutional was a win for user privacy and anonymity because it clearly showed that blanket mandates for the disclosure of identifying information, and the subsequent sharing of that data without judicial authorization, are a disproportionate measure that violates the rights of individuals.[2]

States Restrict Encryption and Demand Backdoors

Some States are seeking to block, ban, or discourage the use of strong encryption and other privacy enhancing tools by requiring assistance in decrypting information. In India service providers are required to ensure that bulk encryption is not deployed. Additionally, no individual or entity can employ encryption with a key longer than 40 bits. If the encryption equipments is higher than this limit, the individual or entity will need prior written permission from the Department of Telecommunications and must deposit the decryption keys with the Department.[3]The limitation on encryption in India means that technically any encrypted material over 40 bits would be accessible by the State. Ironically, the Reserve Bank of India issued security recommendations that banks should use strong encryption as higher as 128-bit for securing browser.[4]In the United States, under the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, telecommunication carriers are required to provide decryption assistance only if they already possess the keys (and in many communications system designs, there's no reason carriers should need to possess the keys at all). In 2011, the US Government proposed a bill that would place new restrictions on domestic development or use of cryptography, privacy software, and encryption features on devices. The bill has not been adopted.

Allowing only low levels of encryption and requiring service providers to assist in the decryption of communications, facilitates surveillance by enabling States easier access to data and preventing individuals from using crypto tools to protect their personal communications.

States Establish Blanket Interception Facilities

In Colombia, telecommunications network and service providers carrying out business within the national territory must implement and ensure that interception facilities are available at all times to state agencies as prescribed by law. This is to enable authorized state agencies to intercept communications at any point of time. In addition to providing interception facilities, service providers must also retain subscriber data for a period of five years, and provide information such as subscriber identity, invoicing address, type of connection on request, and geographic location of terminals when requested.

Though Colombia has put in place regulations for the surveillance of communications, these regulations allow for broad surveillance and do not afford the individual clear rights in challenging the same.

Conclusion

The examples above demonstrate that, although state surveillance of communications can be justified in exceptional instances, it leads to the violation of individual privacy when implemented without adequate legal safeguards. Clearly there is a need for international principles articulating critical and necessary components of due process for the surveillance of communications. Those strong legal safeguards are necessary not only in countries that don't have laws in place, but also in countries where laws are lacking and fail to adequately protect privacy. Last year, EFF organized the State Surveillance and Human Rights Camp to discuss a set of International Principles on State Surveillance of Communications, a global effort led by EFF and Privacy International, to define, articulate, and promote legal standards to protect individual privacy when the state carries out surveillance of communications.

[1].Constitutional Court's Decision 2010 Hunma 47, 252 (consolidated) announced August 28, 2012.

[2].The illegality of this practice was proved by a High Court decision handed down 2 months after the Constitutional Court's decision in August 2012. Seoul Appellate Court 2011 Na 19012, Judgment Announced October 18, 2012. This case was prepared and followed singularly by PSPD Public Interest Law Center.

[3].License Agreement for Provision of Internet Services Section 2.2 (vii)

[4].Reserve Bank of India. Internet Banking Guidelines. Section (f (2)).

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/eff-feb-13-2013-katitza-rodriguez-and-elonnai-hickok-surveillance-camp-iv-disproportionate-state-surveillance-a-violation-of-privacy

Why was the Gwalior court in such a hurry to block IIPM URLs?

praskrishna — 2013-02-19T11:51:43Z

Is it really that easy to get courts to block online content as it appears from the latest case of the blocking of 73 URLs related to IIPM? Legally speaking, yes.

The article by Danish Raza was published in FirstPost on February 19, 2013. Snehashish Ghosh's analysis on blocked sites is quoted.

In cases of defamation, violations of copyright and trademark law and threats to national security, courts can direct the government agency (CERT-in or Computer Emergency Response Team- India) to take down the offending content. And these can be ex-parte orders. Meaning the person or organisation posting the content online is not intimated every time the material is blocked.

Legality aside however, advocates of free speech say that such court orders should be exceptions and not the rule. There is a perception that the process in its current form – right from the filing of court case to the content being taken offline- is opaque.

Traditionally the Internet has been viewed as a more liberal, open and democratic platform as compared to traditional media. Through such orders, says Delhi based advocate and expert on cyber law Apar Gupta, courts seem to give out a warning that online content is not outside the purview of the law.

The problem in this case however, is not the ‘warning’ itself. It is the way that the warning is being given that is setting the wrong precedent.

The blocks on IIPM related URLs is based on an interim order passed by a Gwalior court. The head of the institute, Arindam Chaudhuri in an exclusive interview with Firstpost, said that the case was filed last year by one his ‘channel partners’. He added that the court had made him a party in the case only in January and he would soon respond to court orders.

Three of the affected parties (Careers 360, Caravan and Kafila), however, said that they were never informed about the blocks, reported Mint.

After the block orders, Shivam Vij, founder of the blog, Kafila, told Firstpost, “This is against the principle of natural justice. The court blocked the URL of my blog without giving me a chance to defend myself.

While there are occasions warranting the urgent removal of content, experts say similar exigency need not be shown in cases of defamatory content.

In his analysis of blocked URLs related to IIPM, Snehashish Ghosh from the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), a Bangalore based organisation, notes that according to the Bonnard Rule, in a defamation case, interim injunction should not be awarded unless a defence of justification by the defendant was certain to fail at trial level. “Therefore, it appears that the (Gwalior) Court order has moved away from the settled principles of law while awarding an interim injunction for blocking of content related to IIPM”, says the report.

Commenting on court ordered blocks, Parminder Jeet Singh, executive director of IT for change, a Bangalore based organisation which works on internet governance issues, says, “When there is clear imminent danger or threat to the society, as in case of possible rioting, immediate removal of content without notifying and hearing the other party is understandable. But defamatory content does not fall in this category. Decisions on such largely civil matter should be taken with due deep consideration, after listening to all parties. And by far the considerations of free speech should have overwhelming weight in making decisions.”

Singh adds that “Even if it is considered necessary to remove any content, a fully transparent process has to be followed.”

The most common reason cited for not sending notices before removing the content is the tiresome process of zeroing in on the one person or authority responsible for posting the content, says Prabir Purkayastha of Knowledge Commons, an organisation which promotes open source information. “If you approach intermediaries such as Google or Yahoo, they will rightly say that they can provide details only if they are allowed to do as per international treaties,” says Purkayastha. But when there is clarity on who put the content online, like in the IIPM case, he says, “DoT cannot absolve itself from the responsibility of writing at least an email to these entities.”

In the case of Tata Sons Ltd. vs Green Peace International, cited by Ghosh of CIS, the Delhi High Court addressed the question whether posting or publishing of libelous material on the Internet calls for a different standard. Ghosh writes, “The court decided that there cannot be a separate standard for the Internet while awarding temporary injunction in defamation cases. The wider viewership or accessibility compared to other medium does not alter the fact that it is a medium.”

Purkayastha agrees. “Freedom of speech and expression and the restraints on it, as enshrined in the constitution, should not depend on the medium of expression. But due to the haste shown by courts in blocking online content, it appears that courts seem be applying two sets of standards with respect to Internet and traditional media,” he says.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/first-post-feb-19-2013-danish-raza-why-was-the-gwalior-court-in-such-a-hurry-to-block-iipm-urls

The Omnishambles of UID, shrouded in its RTI opacity

elonnai — 2013-02-19T11:04:30Z

The Centre for Internet & Society sponsored Colonel Mathew Thomas to hold a workshop at the fourth National Right to Information (RTI) organized by the National Campaign for People's Right to Information, held in Hyderabad from February 15 to 18, 2013.

Click below to see Colonel Mathew Thomas's presentation

Omnishambles of UID Shrouded in its Opacity

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/omnishambles-of-uid-shrouded-in-its-rti-opacity

Freedom of Expression Gagged

chinmayi — 2013-02-18T08:55:36Z

The use of law to bully people into silence, called ‘heckler’s veto’, is not unique to India, writes Chinmayi Arun in this op-ed published in Business Line on February 15, 2013.

Click to read the original published in the Business Line.

Freedom of expression in India is under threat. This year we have the Tamil Nadu government’s ban on Vishwaroopam, the Ashis Nandy FIR, the smothering of Kashmir’s first all girls rock band’s music, and the removal of semi-nude paintings of Hindu deities from an art gallery upon the police’s ‘suggestion’. Another Rushdie-banning controversy is upon us, and yet another Facebook user’s arrest has made the news.

Clearly, our right to freedom of expression is under an ongoing siege. The onslaught comes in varied forms: bullying by members of society, informal government action with the overhanging threat of the law, and direct use of the law (and of a variety of legislations within it). Each form is encouraged, exacerbated even, by our problematic interpretation of freedom of expression principles. Our law allows a group of intolerant people to silence a speaker by creating a threat to public order or by threatening the speaker directly, and our state is proving utterly ineffectual in protecting speech from intolerance.

Instruments Deployed

India’s first Kashmiri all-girls band is tragic proof of horizontal attacks on speech – their music was silenced by the grandmufti’s declaring it ‘un-Islamic’, and the attendant social pressure that tends to follow. They were not protected from this horizontal attack. The Palghar incident also had echoes of horizontal pressure, which was used to directly bully Shaheen Dhada, via friends advising her to apologise and strangers slapping her, before the instrument of the law was used to bully her further.

The instrument of the law can be used in invisible, informal ways, as Bangalore’s Chitrakala Parishath incident illustrates. Here, the pressure of police ‘suggestion’, carrying the implied threat of the force of the law, was used to ensure that semi-nude paintings of Hindu deities were removed from an exhibition. It appears that this police ‘suggestion’ was motivated by the fear that those paintings could trigger law and order problems.

Vishwaroopam was banned using the law, specifically section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which empowers the government to issue orders “in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger”. However, orders issued under section 144 would still need to observe the boundaries drawn for it in Article 19(2) of the Constitution.

Freedom and Public Order

Some may argue that controversial or offensive speech can legitimately be restricted since “public order” is one of the grounds for which our Constitution permits the restriction of the freedom of expression. However the original text of the Constitution did not include “public order” among its permissible grounds for restriction. This was inserted in the First Amendment of the Constitution, but was fortunately accompanied by the word ‘reasonable’ before restriction, thus ensuring that the freedom of expression can only be reasonably restricted under the exceptional circumstances listed in the Constitution.

This insertion of ‘public order’ came after the Supreme Court’s invalidation of government pre-censorship of speech on public order grounds in Romesh Thapar v. State of Madras (1950), declaring that the Constitution required that “nothing less than endangering the foundations of the State or threatening its overthrow could justify curtailment of the rights to freedom of speech and expression”. Therefore, Parliament amended the Constitution to expand the grounds on which the state could restrict speech, and included ‘public order’ among the expanded grounds. The trouble with this is that the intolerant are now able to create a public order problem to silence speakers.

The Supreme Court of India, in Babulal Parate vs State Of Maharashtra (1961) found that public order must be “maintained in advance in order to ensure it”, and ruled that restriction of Article 19 freedoms of expression and assembly in the interests of public order is permissible. However, all such restrictions must continue to satisfy the reasonability test laid down in the Constitution, providing our judiciary with the opportunity to ensure that intolerance does not continue to oppress speech.

The Heckler's Veto

The use of law to bully people into silence is not unique to India. Harry Kalven termed this ‘the hecklers’ veto’: if police action silences speakers for fear that the offended listeners might create a law and order problem, this effectively allows the listeners to veto what the speaker can say. There was a time when the heckler’s veto held sway in the United States and the United Kingdom. However, both countries’ legal principles have evolved to stop pandering to the intolerant, and it is time that India does the same.

Justice Hugo Black of the US Supreme Court, in his Feiner v. New York (1951) dissent, argued that the police must make all reasonable efforts to protect the speaker’s constitutional right to speak before interfering with this right. This dissenting opinion was later hailed as visionary. The US Supreme Court subsequently gradually recognised the evils of the heckler’s veto, which privileges and encourages intolerance. The United Kingdom also progressively narrowed its reading of the Public Order Act to ensure that speech is not restricted unless immediate violence is feared, and is now decriminalising insults which are not directed at a clearly identifiable victim.

The Indian Supreme Court’s judgment in the Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram (1989) echoes Justice Black’s denouncement of the heckler’s veto. It declares, “freedom of expression cannot be suppressed on account of threat of demonstration and processions or threats of violence. That would tantamount to …surrender to blackmail and intimidation. It is the duty of the State to protect the freedom of expression since it is a liberty guaranteed against the State. The State cannot plead its inability to handle the hostile audience problem”. However other judgments have shied away from confronting the fact that speech-related public order problems created by intolerance, not by speech.

Our legal system needs to take a firm, consistent stand against the heckler’s veto. We need to stop mirroring the evils of outdated law in fresh legislations like the Information Technology Act, and work instead to remove law and practices that institutionalise intolerance.

(The author teaches at National Law University, Delhi and is Fellow, Centre for Internet and Society.)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-hindubusinessline-feb-15-2013-chinmayi-arun-freedom-of-expression-gagged

Analyzing the Latest List of Blocked URLs by Department of Telecommunications (IIPM Edition)

snehashish — 2013-02-17T07:35:25Z

The Department of Telecommunications (DoT) in its order dated February 14, 2013 has issued directions to the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to block seventy eight URLs. The block order has been issued as a result of a court order. Snehashish Ghosh does a preliminary analysis of the list of websites blocked as per the DoT order.

Medianama has published the DoT order, dated February 14, 2013, on its website.

What has been blocked?

The block order contains seventy eight URLs. Seventy three URLs are related to the Indian Institute of Planning and Management (IIPM). The other five URLs contain the term “highcourt”. The order also contains links from reputed news websites and news blogs including The Indian Express, Firstpost, Outlook, Times of India, Economic Times, Kafila and Caravan Magazine, and satire news websites Faking News and Unreal Times. The order also directs blocking of a public notice issued by the University Grants Commission (UGC).

The block order does not contain links to any social media website. However, some content related to IIPM has been removed but it finds no mention in the block order. Pursuant to which order or direction such content has been removed remains unclear. For example, Google has removed search results for the terms <Fake IIPM> pursuant to Court orders and it carries the following notice:

"In response to a legal request submitted to Google, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read more about the request at ChillingEffects.org."

Are there any mistakes in the order?

The direction issued by the DoT is once again inaccurate and mired with errors. In effect, the DoT has blocked sixty one unique URLs and the block order contains numerous repetitions. By its order the DoT has directed the ISPs to block an entire blog [http://iipmexposed.blogspot.in] along with URLs to various posts in the same blog.

Reasons for Blocking Websites

According to news reports, the main reason for blocking of websites by the DoT is a Court order issued by a Court in Gwalior. The reason for issuing such a block order might have been a court proceeding with respect to defamation and removal of defamatory content thereof. However, the reasons for blocking of domain names containing the term ‘high court’, which is not at all related to the IIPM Court case is unclear. The DoT by its order has also blocked a link in the website of a internet domain registrar which carried advertisement for the domain name [www.highcourt.com].

Are the blocks legitimate?

The block order may have been issued by the DoT under Rule 10 of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009.

The Court order seems to be an interim injunction in a defamation suit. Generally, Courts exercise utmost caution while granting interim injunction in defamation cases. According to the Bonnard Rule (Bonnard v. Perryman, [1891] 2 Ch 269) in a defamation case, “interim injunction should not be awarded unless a defence of justification by the defendant was certain to fail at trial level.” Moreover, in the case of Woodward and Frasier, Lord Denning noted “that it would be unjust to fetter the freedom of expression, when actually a full trial had not taken place, and that if during trial it is proved that the defendant had defamed the plaintiff, then should they be liable to pay the damages.” The Delhi High Court in Tata Sons Ltd. v. Green Peace International followed the Bonnard Rule and the Lord Denning’s judgements and ruled against the award of interim injunction for removal of defamatory content and stated:

“The Court notes that the rule in Bonnard is as applicable in regulating grant of injunctions in claims against defamation, as it was when the judgment was rendered more than a century ago. This is because the Courts, the world over, have set a great value to free speech and its salutary catalyzing effect on public debate and discussion on issues that concern people at large. The issue, which the defendant’s game seeks to address, is also one of public concern. The Court cannot also sit in value judgment over the medium (of expression) chosen by the defendant since in a democracy, speech can include forms such as caricature, lampoon, mime parody and other manifestations of wit.”

Therefore, it appears that the Court order has moved away from the settled principles of law while awarding an interim injunction for blocking of content related to IIPM. It is also interesting to note that in Green Peace International, the Court also answered the question as to whether there should be different standard for posting or publication of defamatory content on the internet. It was observed by the Court that publication is a comprehensive term, ‘embracing all forms and medium – including the Internet’.

Blocking a Public Notice issued by a Statutory Body of Government of India

The block order mentions a URL which contains a public notice issued by University Grants Commission (UGC) related to the derecognition of IIPM as a University. The blocking of a public notice issued by the statutory body of the Government of India is unprecedented. A public notice issued by a statutory body is a function of the State. It can only be blocked or removed by a writ order issued by the High Court or the Supreme Court and only if it offends the Constitution. However, so far, ISPs such as BSNL have not enforced the blocking of this URL.

Implementation of the order by the ISPs

As pointed out in my previous blog post on blocking of websites, the ISPs have again failed to notify their consumers the reasons for the blocking of the URLs. This lack of transparency in the implementation of the block order has a chilling effect on freedom of speech.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/analyzing-latest-list-of-blocked-urls-by-dot

Hate speech: ban or ignore?

praskrishna — 2013-02-13T09:40:37Z

The Social Network discusses the hate speeches: whether they should be banned or ignored. Why does the state take action against some and not against some others. This on a day when Togadia and Owaisi were simultaneously trending on the social media.

This discussion was aired on NDTV on February 5, 2013

Pranesh Prakash, Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society, and Shivam Vij of Kafila.com joined NDTV in the studio while actor and standup comic Sanjay Rajoura joined via webcam.

Pranesh said that the talk of banning these videos is foolish. He added, I don't think that is a solution. But the issue is one of criminal prosecution – whether that should happen or not, and with regard to the interesting dichotomy that Shivam pointed out some people are calling for somethings to be banned but not others. I think that kind of hypocrisy should be pointed out. I am happy that these small incidents of hate mongering are actually being blown out of proportion on social media because it actually gets people to react...to say wait a second...that is not right I might have a certain leanings towards Hindutva but that kind of speech is not what I support, or I might have a certain leanings towards what is called "pseudo-secularism" but that kind of speech is not what I support. So getting out that discussion out is important.

If we were on one hand a society where we had communal peace and then social media were focusing on these small kinds of incidents and blowing it out of proportion then that would be a problem.

Watch the full discussion aired on NDTV

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/ndtv-video-the-social-network-feb-5-2013-hate-speech-ban-or-ignore

Anonymous joins protests against Internet shutdown in Kashmir

praskrishna — 2013-03-01T04:46:06Z

Hacktivist group Anonymous joined thousands of others to protest the shutdown of internet services in Kashmir for the fourth consecutive day by authorities after the hanging of Afzal Guru, a key accused in the Parliament attack case.

Indu Nandakumar's article was published in the Economic Times on February 12, 2013. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

Anonymous, which shot to fame in India after it brought down the websites of the Supreme Court and Congress Party last year, on Tuesday expressed its support to the people of Kashmir until the ban on internet and media services are lifted.

"We stand with # Kashmiras it comes to the end of its 3rd day under curfew. The comms blockade will fall. We are with you. # KashmirNow," a message posted on one of the Twitter accounts of Anonymous read.

Another Twitter account of the same group said, "#OpKashmir - Lift the media and internet blackout in #Kashmir".

Mobile internet services were suspended across Kashmir Valley on Saturday after the hanging of Afzal Guru in New Delhi. Online protests gathered steam by evening and thousands took to Twitter to express their anger censorships and blockades.

A senior official from the Department of Telecom, which had last year ordered the blocking of several Twitter accounts and websites, said internet services were blocked to avoid any further escalation of violence in Kashmir. But internet experts said a ban of communication services do not result in peace, instead it curtails the basic right of citizens to exchange messages.

"Government can ban certain class of messages and certain class of users, but definitely not a blanket ban of all services," said Sunil Abraham, executive director of Bangalore-based research organisation, the Centre for Internet and Society.

Essential commodities such as medicines, newspapers etc too are in short supply in Kashmir, where three people died and over 50 were injured in clashes since Saturday.

Anonymous has also been posting photographs from the region. One of the Twitter accounts of the group, @ anon_warlockon Tuesday tweeted, "A gag has been put on everything, information at best is trickling down".

Last year, Anonymous, known for its use of Guy Fawkes masks, had organised rallies across Indian cities to protest internet censorship after India's Department of Telecom blocked over 250 websites and 30 Twitter accounts for posting communal images and videos that led to people from Northeast exit Bangalore and a few other Indian cities.

"Internet service providers in the Valley were asked by officials in the Ministry of Home Affairs to switch off connectivity on Saturday morning. There has been no further communication from the Ministry until now and we don't expect any withdrawal in the next few days," a senior industry executive with direct knowledge of the matter told ET. He added that any decision on withdrawal of the ban will be taken only after the MHA and intelligence officials take stock of the situation.

Centre of Internet's Abraham said he was not sure if messages on social media were being taken seriously by the government. "Research shows that during the times of public disruption, ban of communication services will only make things worse. Enlightened governments should know this and act accordingly."

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/economic-times-feb-12-2013-indu-nandakumar-anonymous-joins-protests-against-internet-shutdown-in-kashmir

Indian net service providers too play censorship tricks

praskrishna — 2013-02-13T04:20:53Z

The study by a Canadian university has found that some major Indian ISPs have deployed web-censorship and filtering technology.

The article by T Ramachandran was published in the Hindu on February 9, 2013. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

Your internet service provider (ISP) could be blocking some content. A study conducted by a Canadian university has found that some major Indian ISPs have deployed web-censorship and filtering technology widely used in China and some West Asian countries.

The findings, published on January 15, were the result of a search for censorship software and hardware on public networks like those operated by ISPs.

A research team at Citizen Lab, an interdisciplinary laboratory based at the Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto, found a software-hardware combo package called PacketShaper being used in many parts of the world, including India.

The study identified the presence of four PacketShaper installations on the networks of three major ISPs in India during the period of study in late 2012. These ISPs had been earlier “implicated in filtering to some degree,” the report said.

The deployment of such traffic management technologies by ISPs could threaten privacy, freedom of expression and competition, said Sunil Abraham, Executive Director of the Bangalore-based NGO, Centre for Internet and Society.

He said tools like PacketShaper could be used by ISPs for two types of censorship —“to block entire websites or choke traffic on certain services or destinations in a highly granular fashion.”

The U.S.-based producers of the technology, Blue Coat Systems, are quite open about the product features on the company’s website. They say it could be used to control and weed out undesirable content. It could also be used to slow down or speed up the operation of programmes and content flow to achieve the goals set by the operators of the networks.

Transparency is the key

Technology experts said such products could be used to exercise legitimate control over the internet traffic and prioritise the use of bandwidth and resources, if used ethically.

“If done in a transparent manner that does not discriminate against different actors within a class it does benefit the collective interest of the ISP’s clients. However, it could also be used to engage in hidden censorship against legitimate speech and also for anti-competitive behaviour,” said Mr. Abraham.

The study focussed on countries where concerns exist over “compliance with international human rights law, legal due process, freedom of speech, surveillance, and censorship.”

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/the-hindu-feb-9-2013-t-ramachandran-indian-net-service-providers-too-play-censorship-tricks

2012: Privacy Highlights in India

elonnai — 2013-02-12T12:39:05Z

In this blog post, Elonnai Hickok summarizes the top privacy moments of 2012 in India. In doing so she lists out the major ones like the Report of Group of Experts on Privacy, the RIM Standoff, the Nira Radia controversy, the Centralized Monitoring System, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, NATGRID, CCTNS, the growth of CCTVs, the leaked DNA Profiling Bill, and the UID project.

The Report of Group of Experts on Privacy: In October 2012 the "Report of Group of Experts on Privacy" was published by a governmental committee chaired by Justice A.P. Shah. The report contains recommendations for comprehensive privacy legislation, including defining nine privacy principles, establishing a regulatory framework consisting of privacy commissioners at the regional and central level, and self regulatory organizations, and analyzing the present challenges to privacy in India.[1]

Before the report was published, two draft privacy bills had been leaked to the public, and a concept paper drafted in 2010. The report received mixed reviews from the media, including questions about the relationship between the Right to Information and the Right to Privacy. Before the publishing of the Report, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh recognized that disclosures under the RTI Act could, in some instances, violate individual privacy. In a statement to the public, the Prime Minister stated "citizens’ right to know should definitely be circumscribed if disclosure of information encroaches upon someone's personal privacy. But where to draw the line is a complicated question".[2]

Three months before the report was published, the EU had publicly stated that current data protection provisions in India are not sufficient enough, and that India is not considered to be 'data secure'.[3] If the recommendations in the report are turned into legislation, among other things, individuals in India will have a right to privacy and a right to redress for violations of privacy.

Governmental Interception: In early 2013 it was revealed that the Ministry of Home Affairs ordered interception of 10,000 phones and 1300 email ids during October 2012 to December 2012.[4] Continuing its efforts to access all communications, in May 2012, the Government of India gave service providers a month to develop a method for intercepting calls using VoIP services.[5] In February 2012 the Telecom Department proposed a new set of security guidelines that would allow for real time interception of communications and the tracking of the location of users. Among other things, the proposal establishes telecom security assurance and testing labs for the purpose of testing and certifying telecom equipment.[6] Additionally, in October of 2012, Bharti Airtel refused to wiretap telephones for RAW. The Department of Telecommunications eventually ordered Bharti Airtel to comply with the order, which they did.[7] The events around interception in 2012 show that the Indian government is still trying to gain access to as much information as possible. The constant push for real time access by the government is concerning, as many safeguards are missing from the Indian interception regime such as, penalty to security agencies for unauthorized interception and avenues of redress for the individual.

The RIM Standoff: Since 2008, the Indian government has been negotiating with RIM access to BlackBerry communications. Over the years, a number of solutions have been proposed by RIM and the GoI, yet a final agreement was never reached. Continuing the negotiations, In October 2012, RIM agreed to set up a server in Mumbai, which would allow security agencies to access Blackberry Messenger services.[8] Blackberry also provided a solution that would allow access to Blackberry Internet Services.[9] Following this, the Government of India mandated that Telecom Service Providers must incorporate the Blackberry interception solution, or risk being forced to shut their service by December 31, 2012. In compliance with this order, many service providers have set time frames for incorporation of the interception solution including and installed the necessary software.[10] It is important to note that the lawful access solutions provided do not extend to the Blackberry Enterprise Server.[11] Though it seems that the BlackBerry controversy might be resolved, the solution does not appear to be a long term solution, as BES communications are still not accessible, and the solution is not universal for all international providers. Thus, the Indian government will have to negotiate individually with each provider and service that they currently cannot access communications of.

The Nira Radia Controversy: Continuing the Nira Radia controversy, which began in 2008-2009, in September 2012 the Supreme Court ordered the Income Tax Department to transcribe the 5,831 recorded conversations that were originally intercepted by the department. In January this year, the Supreme Court of India ordered that a "random check" be run through the Radia Tapes to check for instances of possible criminality.[12] This case has become an important moment for privacy in India, as it intersects the dilemma between the right to privacy and public interest. Since 2010, Ratan Tata has been claiming that his right to privacy was violated by the publishing of the leaked tapes.[13] The Supreme Court’s final decision will be important for drawing another contour of how the right to privacy is shaped in India.

The Centralized Monitoring System: In 2012 the Telecom Ministry set aside Rs. 400 crore for the Central Monitoring System, which is projected to be finished by August 2014.[14] The project, which first began in 2007, is envisioned to allow security agencies to bypass service providers and intercept communications on their own. The system is designed to have regional databases and a central database which will be accessible to law enforcement and security agencies. Privacy concerns related to the project include how the system will incorporate current legal regulations for interception in India, as a system that bypasses service providers essentially means that every communication can be read by law enforcement. Furthermore, it is not clear exactly who, and on what conditions will officials be allowed and authorized to access and use the system. The exact capabilities of the system have also not been identified. For example, will the CMS be able to intercept VoIP calls, will it be able to decrypt messages, and will it employ techniques such as Deep Packet Inspection.

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs): Since the late 90’s the Defense Research Development Organisation (DRDO) has been developing UAV’s for military purposes, and before this, India was acquiring UAV’s from Israel.[15] Since that time there has been an increase in domestic companies and institutes developing UAVs, and an increase in the procurement of the technology by state police for generic reasons purposes as crowd control, traffic management, and security. For example, in August of 2012 the city of Mumbai used the UAV "Netra", as part of their security protocol during the Raj Thackeray rally to capture and send real time images back to the police. Netra is manufactured by the company Idea Forge.[16] The Mumbai police also used the Netra in September 2012 after the Azad Maidan riots, and again on New Year’s Eve to monitor and track crime such as sexual harassment.[17] Similarly, Chennai city police are looking to procure from Anna University a UAV developed by the Madras Institute of Technology. The UAV will be used to assist in traffic monitoring and control.[18] The increased procurement and use of UAV’s by state police is concerning as there is no clear legal regulation over the deployment of the vehicles. Thus, they have shifted from being used as a tool by the military, and are being used for monitoring traffic, crowd monitoring, etc. Furthermore, the process for authorization for use of the vehicles is not clear, and it is not clear how the captured information is protected and handled. Though UAV’s are clearly a useful tool for the military, for military purposes, the permitted use of them by other actors should be defined and regulated. The use of UAV’s for generic purposes could place individual privacy at risk, because of the amount of information and the level of detail that the vehicles are able to capture without the knowledge of the individual.

The National Intelligence Grid (NATGRID): Plans for the NATGRID project, which was first piloted after the Mumbai attacks, has been continuing forward through 2012 and is envisioned to be operational sometime in 2013. During 2012, a detailed project report was submitted for the project, and in June the government approved Rs. 1,100 crore for purchase of technological equipment.[19] NATGRID is a project that envisions networking 21 databases for purposes of crime investigation including tax, health, and travel information. The information will be accessible to 11 security agencies and law enforcement agencies. Though it has been clarified that NATGRID will ensure that privacy is protected, the design of NATGRID is one that could create potential risks – as it brings together large amounts of personal data for easy access by security agencies. In doing so it could potentially eliminate the steps security agencies must take currently to access information – such as submitting a request and obtaining permission for access. Furthermore, it is unclear how current legal protections such as secrecy clauses in banking legislation will be incorporated and upheld by the NATGRID system. Other questions that the project raises include – though currently there are only eleven agencies listed that will have access to NATGRID – will this list expand? Without a policy in place how will this standard and other standards be enforced?

The Crime and Criminal Tracking Network & System (CCTNS): Though the CCTNS project has been in the works since 2009, a call for companies to develop the technology for the system was taken in early 2012, and pilot projects were launched later that year. The CCTNS is being headed by the National Crime Records Bureau, and will allow for the sharing of crime related information on a national level, in real time. In 2012, the system was allocated 2,000 crores by the government, and currently 2,000 police stations and other offices have been connected under the system.[20]

For example, police in Chhattisgarh,[21] Uttarakhand[22] and Odisha have all been connected to the CCTNS system.[23] Though it will be beneficial for the police to have access to a networked system, it has not been made clear yet what type of security system the project will adopt to ensure that the information is not compromised or accessed without authorization. It has also not been clarified what information will be placed on the database, and will all records be accessible to any individual accessing the system. Because the project is still in pilot stages it is hard to tell if it could put individual privacy at risk. Hopefully, before the project is realized in its full, many of the details will be clarified.

The Growth of CCTVs: Throughout 2012 the use of CCTV’s has continued to grow across India. For example, the Maharashtra government has undertaken a "CCTV surveillance project" in which it is in the process of taking bids for.[24] The state of Karnataka is also planning on installing CCTV cameras in Bangalore and other major cities to help detect incidents of crime.[25] While the Delhi Transport Department is contemplating installing CCTVs in buses,[26] and the Indian Rail Authorities have also decided to install CCTVs throughout stations to increase security.[27] There still does not exist regulation of the use of CCTV cameras, thus it is unclear who can operate a CCTV camera, which departments of the government can mandate for the installation of CCTVs, if public notice must be given that a CCTV camera is in use, and who can access the footage from a CCTV.

Study on Privacy Perceptions: In a study that came out in December 2012 by Ponnurangam K, among other things, it was found that 75 per cent of participants never read the privacy policy on a website – including social networking sites, participants also thought that there was a privacy legislation in place in India, and that individuals in India are most concerned about financial privacy.[28]

The National Counter Terrorism Centre (NCTC): The NCTC was originally created in response to the Mumbai terror attacks, under the Unlawful Prevention Act, 1967. The NCTC was meant to be realized in 2012, but in March, plans for the Centre were put on hold, because of the controversial nature of the project.[29] The Centre was meant to bring Indian intelligence agencies under one umbrella, and analyze and store information related to terrorism. The proposed body has been highly controversial, as states object to the powers given to the Centre and see it as intruding on their powers and jurisdiction. If passed, the NCTC will have the powers of arrest, search and seizure, and the ability to access information from other intelligence agencies.[30]

The Leaked DNA Profiling Bill: In 2012, a version of the DNA Profiling Bill, originally drafted in 2007, was leaked to the public. The Bill is being piloted by the department of biotechnology, and seeks to establish DNA databases at the regional and central level for forensic purposes, yet the Bill does not establish strong protections for the privacy of DNA samples taken and important technical standards for ensuring that DNA samples are not misused or tampered with.[31] What will happen to the Bill in 2013 is yet to be seen, but hopefully it will not be passed without the appropriate safeguards incorporated into its provisions.

The Unique Identification Project and the National Population Registrar: Throughout 2012, the UID has continued to carry out enrollments across the country, and sign MoU's with private sector companies for the adoption of the UID platform. Parallel to the UID project, the NPR project is also being implemented. The NPR seeks to provide every citizen of India with an identity that will be stored in an identity database maintained by the Registrar General and Census Commissioner of India.[32] According to the NPR scheme, individuals who had already enrolled with the UID and given their biometrics would not need to re-submit their biometrics with the NPR. Yet, this has not been the case, and instead individuals are now being required to provide their biometrics for enrollment with the UID and the NPR.[33]

Privacy has been raised as a concern of the UID since the start of the project. For both the UID and the NPR now the transaction record will be stored by agencies, and whether it will be possible to track individuals across databases using their NPR or UID identity?

[1]. The Report of Group of Experts on Privacy. See http://bit.ly/VqzKtr

[2]. Tikku, A., "RTI doesn’t trample upon privacy, says expert panel", Hindustan Times, October 29, 2012, available at http://bit.ly/TNAzRF, last accessed on January 8, 2013.

[3]. Sen, A. India protests European Union study of data laws. Economic Times. July 9, 2012, available at http://bit.ly/Y9ahHs, last accessed on January 8, 2013.

[4]. Harismran, J., Thomas, J. "Home Ministry ordered 10k wire taps in last 90 days, order tapping of 1300 email Ids", The Economic Times, January 3, 2013, available at http://bit.ly/TKk7yN, last accessed on January 7th 2013.

[5].The Economic Times, "Provide solution to intercept VoIP within a month: Govt", May 6, 2012, available at http://bit.ly/VQDQ4k, last accessed on January 7, 2013.

[6]. The Economic Times, "New policy for real time interception to security agencies", February 1, 2012, available at http://bit.ly/11DrlvB, last accessed on January 7, 2013.

[7]. The Economic Times, "RAW irked as Airtel keeps its request for phone tapping on hold", October 21, 2012, available at http://bit.ly/12IujhF, last accessed on January 7, 2013.

[8]. Reyes, D., "RIM installs BlackBerry server in Mumbai", CrackBerry, February 23, 2012, available at http://bit.ly/yBQsSo

[9]. Economic Times, "DoT makes telecom operators fall in line on Blackberry issue", December 30, 2012, available at http://bit.ly/1169ufn

[10]. Economic Times, "MTNL, BSNL fail to give dates for Blackberry interception", October 29, 2012, available at http://bit.ly/1169ufp, last accessed on January 7, 2012.

[11]. The Economic Times, "Telecom companies agreed to provide real-time intercept facilities for BlackBerry smartphones", December 31, 2012, available at http://bit.ly/Y9gjYt, last accessed on January 7, 2012.

[12]. Mahapatra, D., "SC to examine Radia tapes for criminality", Times of India, January 9, 2013, available at http://bit.ly/VD7eWX

[13]. Times of India, "Ratan Tata softens stand on Radia tapes", August 23, 2012, available at http://bit.ly/158CZxl, last accessed on January 7, 2013.

[14]. The Economic Times, "Govt. to place phone tapping system worth Rs. 400 cr by 2014", March 21, 2012, available at http://bit.ly/V2P9q6, last accessed on January 7, 2013.

[15]. Monsonis, G., "UAVs gaining currency with Indian Armed Forces", Indian Defence Review, October 30, 2012, available at http://bit.ly/KVYyIr, last accessed on January 7, 2013.

[16]. Mumbai Mirror, "Raj Thackeray’s mega rally: Unmanned Aerial Vehicle kept an eye on Azed Maidan", Economic Times, August 22, 2012, available at http://bit.ly/PYTGAG, last accessed on January 7, 2013.

[17].Ali, A. & Narayan. V., "Netra cameras to keep a close watch , over New Year’s Eve hotspots", Times of India, December 31, 2012, available at http://bit.ly/Z7orxt, last accessed on January 7, 2013.

[18]. Venugopal, V., "It flies, it swoops, it records and monitors", The Hindu, December 20, 2012, available at http://bit.ly/V89sLo, last accessed January 7, 2013.

[19]. The Economic Times, "Cabinet Committee on Security approves Rs. 1,100 crore for NATGRID", June 14, 2012.

[20]. Mohan, V., "Centre launches pilot project to track criminals", The Times of India, January 5, 2013, available at http://bit.ly/UPk2fh

[21]. The Pioneer, "Civil Lines Police Station gets connected with CCTNS", January 2012, available at http://bit.ly/VRXKGJ

[22]. CIOL Bureau, "CCTNS to be made public through internet: Dehradun DGP", January 4, 2012, available at http://bit.ly/X4JISx, last accessed on January 7, 2013.

[23]. The Hindu, "Odisha to launch CCTNS on January 12", January 7, 2013, available at http://bit.ly/Vd9Ay1, last accessed on January 7, 2013.

[24]. Padmakshan, M., "Maharashtra plans to invite new bids for CCTV surveillance project", September 18, 2012, available at http://bit.ly/VRYrQm, last accessed on January 7, 2013.

[25]. Ashoka, R., "Karnataka to install CCTV cameras in Bangalore, major cities", Economic Times. July 26, 2012, available at http://bit.ly/11Dxt6Z, last accessed on January 7, 2013.

[26]. Economic Times, "Buses to come with CCTV cameras for safety of women: Delhi government", December 17, 2012, available at http://bit.ly/158Gtjo, last accessed on January 7, 2013.

[27]. Economic Times, "Railways to step by security apparatus at stations", February 15, 2012, available at http://bit.ly/11DxSX8, last accessed on January 7, 2013.

[28]. Times of India, "Most Indians ignorant about privacy issues on Facebook, Twitter: Study", December 10, 2012, available at http://bit.ly/X4KVt1, last accessed on January 7, 2013.

[29]. Kumar, H., "Does India Need a National Counter Terrorism Center?", The New York Times, India Ink, February 28, 2012, available at http://nyti.ms/A5VU5P

[30]. Times of India. CM to attend National Counter- Terrorism Centre Meet in Delhi. May 4, 2012, available at http://bit.ly/12IDoH9, last accessed on January 8, 2012.

[31]. Hickok, E., "Rethinking DNA Profiling in India", Economic Political Weekly, October 27, 2012, available at http://bit.ly/TUrH7j, last accessed on January 7, 2013.

[32]. Department of Information Technology, "National Population Register", available at http://bit.ly/12rzyOh

[33]. Pandit, A., "NPR must even if you have Aadhar number", Times of India, October 31, 2012, available at http://bit.ly/Y9oXGq, last accessed on January 8, 2013.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/privacy-highlights-in-india

Online Abuse of Teen Girls in Kashmir Leads to Arrests

praskrishna — 2013-03-06T03:51:20Z

Online abuse and a fatwa aimed at a rock band of Muslim teenage girls in Kashmir have led to arrests and a threat of a lawsuit.

This article by Betwa Sharma was published in the New York Times on February 8, 2013. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

Three men were arrested this week for posting threatening messages on the Facebook page of Praagaash, an amateur rock band in Indian-occupied Kashmir made of up Muslim girls. “The investigation is ongoing,” said Manoj Pandita, spokesman for the Jammu and Kashmir police, indicating that more arrests may follow.

The three men were charged under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which applies to “offensive” messages being sent through communication services, and Section 506 of the Ranbir Penal Code, which applies to criminal intimidation. Mr. Pandita said that it had been easy to track the I.P. addresses of the Facebook users.

A prominent human rights lawyer, Parvez Imroz of the Jammu and Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society, is planning to sue the top religious leader in Kashmir, who called for the fatwa, for “demonizing Kashmir before the international community” and for “running a parallel judicial system in the valley.”

Mr. Imroz told India Ink that human rights organizations like his needed support from the international community to highlight their concerns, and such fatwas reflected badly on the Kashmiri society. “He is diverting attention away from real issues of human rights to nonissues like music and purdah,” Mr. Imroz said.

The fatwa against the band was issued by the Grand Mufti Bashiruddin Ahmad.

In his fatwa, Mr. Ahmad advised women to only sing inside the house to other female members of the family, and wear a veil whenever they left the house. “They must stay within limits,” he said.

Following the band’s first live performance in December, Aneeqa Khalid, Noma Nazir and Farah Deeba, 10th-grade students who are 15 and 16 years old, became the target of abuse and threats on Facebook by people who accused them of being un-Islamic because they had performed in public, especially before men. Some commenters called them “sluts” and “prostitutes;” others suggested that they should be raped.

The band Praagaash, which means “darkness into light,” disbanded following a national controversy surrounding these threatening messages. The threats were condemned by many, including the state’s chief minister.

To many Kashmiris, both the fatwa and the arrests by the government are unnecessary. Some say that the controversy erupted after the state’s chief minister, Omar Abdullah, got involved by expressing his support for the band on Twitter and then calling for investigation against those writing the threatening messages.

“Nobody here had a problem with the rock band,” said Aala Fazili, a doctorate student at Kashmir University, pointing out that the band’s performance in December had not led to any protests or physical threats against them.

Mr. Fazili, 32, added that people shouldn’t be arrested for writing abusive posts on Facebook. “You cannot call an abuse a threat,” he said.

Mr. Pandita, the Kashmir police spokesman, said the investigators were making a distinction between a threat and abuse on the basis of “gravity.”

Pranesh Prakash, from the Center for Internet and Society in Bangalore, asked whether people who hold protests calling for the death of the author Salman Rushdie should also be arrested for making threats.

“I would hold that no expression of violent thoughts, online or offline, should be made criminal, even if it is repugnantly misogynistic, unless it takes the form of a credible threat that causes harm, or is harassment that constitutes harm,” he said.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/ny-times-feb-8-2013-betwa-sharma-online-abuse-of-teen-girls-in-kashmir-leads-to-arrests

Censorship and sensibility in India

praskrishna — 2013-03-06T04:09:02Z

The past few weeks in India have seen films, an all-girl rock band, a fashion show, a Booker prize-winning novelist and a reputed academic become targets of harassment, legal action or threats of violence.

This article by Samanth Subramanian was published in the National on February 6, 2013. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

The most prominent case involved Vishwaroopam, a Tamil film that will be released in Tamil Nadu on Friday after a two-week delay. The film was blocked by the state government after some Muslim groups protested that it depicted Muslims in poor light. The director, Kamal Haasan, had to agree to cut seven scenes.

"The culture of taking offence has acquired an epidemic proportion, and we are moving in a direction where nothing, it seems, is a safe topic," said Salil Tripathi, who wrote the 2009 book Offence: The Hindu Case, on how Hindu fundamentalists have succeeded in censoring and banning many cultural works and teachings.

"If India doesn't step back from this abyss, it will begin to resemble the dictatorships where people speak in coded language, where real thoughts go underground," Mr Tripathi added.

On Sunday, a fashion show in the southern city of Visakhapatnam was cancelled after the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), a right-wing Hindu group, protested against women modelling dresses bearing images of Hindu deities.

In Delhi, an art gallery had to temporarily shut down on Monday after the VHP called for a ban on a retrospective of the modern nude because the exhibit included "indecent pictures". The VHP's women's wing, the Durga Vahini, harrassed women who were smoking and drinking in a restaurant in Mangalore last week.

Meanwhile, on Sunday, a Muslim cleric in Kashmir a fatwa against Pragaash, an all-girl high school rock band that was deemed "un-Islamic". The band has dissolved, although Omar Abdullah, the chief minister of Jammu and Kashmir, defended them last weekend on Twitter, saying: "I hope these talented young girls will not let a handful of morons silence them."

Last week, the author Salman Rushdie cancelled a visit to a literary festival in Kolkata, citing security concerns after protests by Muslim groups. The fair's organisers subsequently denied having invited him. Yesterday, the Indian Christian Republican Party complained to the police that Kadal, a new movie set in a Tamil Catholic fishing community, shows a framed picture of Jesus Christ being thrown to the floor.

These instances have sparked widespread criticism of what an editorial last week in The Hindu newspaper called India's "flourishing outrage industry". In the International Herald Tribune, the columnist Manu Joseph called modern India "a paradise for those who take offence".

The Indian constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression, but it is not without caveat. The constitution allows for "reasonable restrictions" on this right, in the interests of "public order, decency or morality".

Further, the Indian Penal Code contains two laws that have been invoked repeatedly to cramp free speech.

Section 295A punishes those who "outrage [the] religious feelings of any class" by spoken, written or visual means, with a fine or a prison term of up to three years.

Section 505(2) promises a similar punishment to those who make "statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes" on grounds of religion, caste, language or race.

Nikhil Mehra, a lawyer who practises in the Supreme Court, said both laws are antiquated holdovers from colonial India.

"The problem is that these laws are so broadly worded that cases can be impossible to quash, because it is difficult for a judge to take the view that some piece of speech does not promote enmity between groups," Mr Mehra said.

"I'd say there's no chance that these laws will be struck off the books," he said. "Politically, nobody will do it, because we have such a huge vacuum of leadership that nobody has the guts to step up and suggest such changes."

Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society, has extensively analysed cases where these laws are applied in conjunction with India's information technology act, which governs online speech.

"Given India's history of communal violence, it would be extraordinary for courts to directly criticise such laws," Mr Prakash said. But these laws are two among many "patently unconstitutional laws" in India's statute books, he pointed out.

"How could it be constitutional to prevent the free broadcast of news over radio, for instance, or to prohibit speech online that causes 'annoyance'?" Mr Prakash said. "Not only are antiquated and speech-restricting laws not being struck off, more such laws are being added to the statute books all the time."

An example, he said, was section 66a of the information technology act, which aims to curtail "offensive messages" online but is often used to target dissidents and even posts on social media.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/the-national-feb-6-2013-samanth-subramanian-censorship-and-sensibility-in-india