We are anonymous, we are legion

Technology Foresight Group Tandem Research's AI policy lab on the theme AI and Environment

Admin — 2018-10-31T01:10:34Z

Shweta Mohandas attended a roundtable discussion on artificial intelligence and environment held at Tandem Research's office in Goa on October 5, 2018. She also made the framing intervention for the first session by addressing the question - What are the likely ethical conundrums, and plausible unintended consequences of the use of AI for sustainability?

Conversations at the lab clustered around four main themes:

AI in the Anthropocene
What are the most critical sustainability challenges in India – and can AI be useful in addressing them? What are the likely ethical conundrums, and plausible unintended consequences of the use of AI for sustainability?

Conservation after nature
What AI interventions are possible to foster better conservation and can AI driven citizen science initiatives improve people’s relationship with the natural world? Can AI help imagine a more dynamic and proximate co-existence with other species, after nature?

Water ecosystems
Can AI help us imagine new paradigm of water control and infrastructure that are more dynamic and ‘mirror’ the complexity of natural water systems? Will AI lead to decentralization and empowerment of water users or will it result in centralized models and loss of power and agency of water users?

Future Cities
Can AI systems be used to foster sustainability practices around mobility, energy, waste, and help better plan development zones and create early warning systems? What systems can be built to encourage citizen participation for solving sustainability problems and increase transparency and accountability of municipal governments?

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/technology-foresight-group-tandem-researchs-ai-policy-lab-on-the-theme-ai-and-environment

Smart City Standardization - ICT Perspective

Admin — 2018-12-10T16:00:28Z

An event on Smart City standardization – ICT Perspective was organized by the Bureau of Indian Standards in Bangalore on October 30, 2018. Gurshabad Grover attended the event.

Different efforts and challenges in the space of smart city standardisation were discussed by the speakers and panelists. See the agenda.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/smart-city-standardization-ict-perspective

Reliance-Jio Users Complain Of Porn Websites Being Blocked; Company Yet To Issue Official Statement

Admin — 2018-10-29T02:35:43Z

Going by a lot of Jio network users, it seems that Mukesh Ambani’s Jio has banned hundreds of porn sites, in compliance with the order of the Department of Telecommunications.

The blog post was published by Logical Indian on October 27, 2018. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.

The order came after the Uttarakhand High Court on September 28, 2018, had directed the Centre to block over 850 pornographic websites. Many Jio users have taken to social media to show their protests. On Twitter, several users have threatened even to change their network if Jio doesn’t lift the ban.

However, the telecom operator has not issued an official statement confirming the ban or on the development so far. The complaints have come to notice after many users pointed out on social media platforms like Reddit and Twitter that several porn websites are no longer available on Jio network, as reported by the Financial Times.

The High Court’s Order

According to The Indian Express, the Uttarakhand High court’s order came after the alleged gang rape of a 16-year old girl by four students at her boarding school in Dehradun. It is alleged that the accused were “instigated by watching pornography” on their mobile phones before committing the crime.

In the order, the division bench of acting chief, justice Rajiv Sharma and justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari said, “There shall be a direction to all the Internet Service License Holders to punctually obey the notification dated 31st July 2015 and to block the publication or transmission of obscene material in any electronic form.” It further added that material containing sexually explicit act or conduct and also publishing or transmitting of material depicting children in sexually explicit acts should also be blocked.

Same crackdown in 2015

In 2015, the Department of Telecommunications had issued an order to block 857 porn websites. They had asked all the internet service providers to take compliance with the order and block the websites. A lot of people protested against this crackdown by the government. However, after receiving a huge criticism from the people, the government partially lifted the ban. But, following the rule, nothing had happened, and the porn sites were functioning as before, reported The Guardian.

An Indian think tank, Centre for Internet and Society member Pranesh Prakash said “It is illegitimate because it is not as though the government has found these websites unlawful … This is a blanket ban, and the government has not thought through the consequences,” reported by The Guardian.

The Logical Indian Take

Watching or not watching porn is a person’s liberty. India is a democratic nation, and according to our constitution, we are conferred with the freedom of expression and the right to personal liberty. So, this non-confirmed porn ban by Reliance Jio would be getting into the freedom of an individual.

After China, India has the second-largest number of internet users in the world. And, Reliance-Jio is just the third user base in India. The ban would not affect the population much but is definitely a threat to the user rights.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-logical-indian-october-27-2018-reliance-jio-users-complain-of-porn-websites-being-blocked

Rural Indians don’t trust messages on WhatsApp blindly: Survey

Admin — 2018-10-28T06:21:34Z

Only 8% of the respondents marked 10 as their trust score on a scale of 1-10, where 1 stands for complete distrust and 10 for complete trust, in information received on WhatsApp, found a survey.

The article by Vidhi Choudhary was published in the Hindustan Times on October 19, 2018. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

WhatsApp users in rural India do not blindly trust messages they receive on the messaging service, according to a limited survey across 14 states, a finding that must provide some cheer to law enforcement officials and policymakers trying to combat fake news and rumours, and to the messaging service itself.

Only 8% of the respondents marked 10 as their trust score on a scale of 1-10, where 1 stands for complete distrust and 10 for complete trust, in information received on WhatsApp, found a survey conducted by Digital Empowerment Foundation (DEF), a New Delhi-based non-profit organisation that seeks to find solutions to bridge the digital divide.

To be sure, the Digital Empowerment Foundation survey titled “What’s up Rural India?” recorded responses from only 1018 rural users in 14 states including districts like Bettiah in Bihar, Barabanki in Uttar Pradesh, Chamba, Narendra Nagar and Pratapnagar in Uttarakhand, Betul and Guna in Madhya Pradesh, Musiri in Tamil Nadu, Memboobnagar, Vikarabad and Warangal in Telangana and Alwar and Barmer in Rajasthan among others, and only a larger survey can authoritatively weigh in on the trust people have in the messaging service.

Since May, at least 30 people have been lynched by mobs with rumours on the messaging platform being responsible for some of the incidents. Fake videos and rumours of child-lifting circulated via WhatsApp have triggered lynchings in at least eight states. The Indian government wrote to WhatsApp about the incidents and the platform, owned by Facebook Inc made some changes, including a clear labelling of forwarded messages as well as limiting the number of forwards to tackle the spread of rumours and Fake News.

WhatsApp has over 200 million users in India, its largest market, and India’s chief election commissioner OP Rawat said in a recent interview with Hindustan Times that attempts to influence poll outcomes using technology was the biggest challenge before his organization, which is responsible for the conduct of polls in India.

According to the DEF survey, almost 70% of the respondents rated their trust score between 1-5. “This composition of trust is unlike what I’d imagined. Users in rural India have exercised restraint in believing the information they get from WhatsApp. They still prefer to check with peers and local communities about what is right and wrong,” said Osama Manzar, founder and director at DEF.

What’s up, rural India?

Survey on WhatsApp by Digital Empowerment Foundation:

It is heartening to know people in rural India are sceptical about messages shared on WhatsApp, said Sunil Abraham co-founder at think-tank Centre for Internet and Society. “It’s a societal learning curve. Most of these users have been exposed to WhatsApp over the last one year. Previous incidents where trust has been misused is perhaps a reason for their apprehension. Their scepticism will grow in the light of all the disappointments that have happened. Ask them this question in 2019 and the numbers are likely to rise further,” added Abraham. Statistics in terms of overall usage of WhatsApp shows that about 66% rural users interviewed in the survey spend 1-4 hours on the messaging app daily, 46% receive between 11-60 messages in a day, 38% are active on upto five WhatsApp groups with a majority being in groups with friends, followed by work colleagues, and family. Experts said the usage of WhatsApp in rural India is surprisingly high. The high usage can be attributed to the rise of smartphone penetration in these areas.

A majority of 88% users also knew what a WhatsApp forward is and 45% said they receive between 6-20 forwarded messages in a day. In July, WhatsApp launched a label to identify forwarded messages in a bid to combat fake news and the spread of misinformation globally, including India. It later set a limit to the use of forwarded messages to 5 chats in India.

In response to an email query, WhatsApp said it has made product changes that make it clear when users have received forwarded messages and also provided greater controls for group administrators to help reduce the spread of unwanted messages in private chats.

“WhatsApp is a private messaging service for communicating with friends and family... We are working together with a number organisations to step up our education efforts so that people know how to spot fake news and hoaxes circulating online. It is heartening to note that these efforts are making a difference and keeping our users safe,” said a WhatsApp spokesperson.

Among other findings, about 40% of respondents said they were part of WhatsApp groups created by members or representatives of political parties.

“This reflects the level of campaigning and penetration of political parties. Villages are always politically sensitive and also interested in politics,” said Manzar.

Interestingly, the survey noted that 63% of the respondents were not on the service in 2014. WhatsApp will play a key role in the campaigns for 2019 as this will be the first election with a host of rural India users actively part of the service.

Data shows that the share of active WhatsApp users in rural India has doubled since 2017, according to a survey done by the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies. Abraham added this means political parties have a “direct channel” of communication with a “huge percentage of the voter base”.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/hindustan-times-october-19-2018-vidhi-choudhary-rural-indians-don-t-trust-messages-on-whatsapp-blindly-survey

Factcheck: No, phones of users who provided only Aadhaar as proof of identity won’t be disconnected

Admin — 2018-10-28T06:13:12Z

Ever since the Supreme Court’s judgment on Aadhaar, which prohibited the use of the 12-digit biometrics-linked unique identity number by private entities as well as its linking with phone numbers and bank accounts, telecom companies and their customers in particular are wondering what this means for them.

The blog post by Kanishk Karan was published in Scroll.in on October 18, 2018. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.

On Thursday, the Times of India reported that crores of mobile phone connections face the “prospect of disconnection” if their SIM cards are not backed up by identity documents other than Aadhaar. The report also appeared on TimesNowHindi. The reports prompted the Union government to issue a statement insisting that the disconnection concerns are “completely untrue and imaginary”. But questions still remain about what comes next.

Joint statement

The news reports said that 50 crore mobile phone customers – who had used only Aadhaar to verify their identity as part of the Know Your Customer verification process, which became mandatory for all phone numbers last year – will need to re-verify their identity using alternative documents or face disconnection. This is because the Supreme Court verdict had concluded that linking Aadhaar to mobile connections, even voluntarily, is illegal.

In a joint press statement on Thursday, the Department of Telecommunication and Unique Identification Authority of India, the body that oversees Aadhaar, refuted this claim. The statement said that a “few news reports” have tried to create “unnecessary panic” by claiming that phone numbers may be at risk of disconnection. It insisted that those customers who used only Aadhaar for their verification process could use other documents to re-verify their identities, without being worried about their phones being disconnected. “In any case her/his mobile no. will not be disconnected,” the statement said. “What Supreme Court has done is that it has prohibited issue of new SIM cards via Aadhaar eKYC process due to lack of a law. There is no direction to deactivate the old mobile phones.”

The statement made it clear that telecom companies cannot ask for Aadhaar as proof of identity when issuing new SIMs. The authorities also used the statement to clarify a few other questions that have come up following the September 26 Aadhaar verdict.

Aadhaar data

One of the big sources of confusion that the verdict created was the Aadhaar data that telecom companies had already collected while carrying out Know Your Customer verification for phone numbers over the last year. The verdict seemed to suggest that all such data needs to be deleted within a certain time frame.

But the joint statement insists that this direction only applies to UIDAI and not to telecom companies. “The Court has also not asked to delete all the eKYC data of telecom customers after six months,” it said. The statement claims that the verdict only orders the UIDAI to delete the authentication data it holds, and, in fact, says that telecom companies are mandated to keep that data and that “there is no need” for them to delete it.

But not everyone agrees with this interpretation of the judgment.

Prasanna S, one of the lawyers who appeared on behalf of those petitioning against Aadhaar in the Supreme Court, said that the statement’s claim that telecoms do not need to delete Aadhaar data is wrong.

The Aadhaar ruling was a 4:1 majority judgment with Justice DY Chandrachud the sole dissident.

“The government and Telecom Regulatory Authority of India [should have issued] direction on the directive given by the Supreme Court to delete data within two weeks,” he said, referring to the portion of Chandrachud’s dissenting opinion in the verdict. Chandrachud had disagreed with the majority on a number of issues. But all five judges on the bench had agreed that linking Aadhaar to phone numbers was unconstitutional and posed a grave threat to privacy, liberty and autonomy of individuals. In his order, Chandrachud issued directions for Aadhaar data to be deleted within two weeks, which some lawyers believe should be binding even though it was in the dissenting opinion.

New authentication app

Since telecom companies can no longer use Aadhaar-based verification to authenticate new customers, the statement also said that the Department of Telecom and UIDAI are working on a mobile application that will perform the gask instead. According to the statement, when carrying out the authentication of a new SIM, the application will capture a “live photograph”, including location coordinates and a time stamp. Along with the live photograph, the application will require other government-issued identification documents such as voter ID or passport.

While that may solve the problem of having a simple authentication process instead of Aadhaar, questions have been raised about whether this procedure is vulnerable to fraud.

Pranesh Prakash, a fellow at the Centre for Internet and Society, said as of now it is unclear how the government would find a way to prevent “a single live photo being used multiple times”. If the same photo is used for issuing three SIM cards by the agent, would the government be any wiser, he wondered. Prakash said that, rather than the technology infrastructure, the important area to focus here is the security loopholes in the identity verification process.

Earlier this year, UIDAI had introduced a number of new provisions, including the virtual ID and face authentication, saying it will make fraud and data leaks less likely, as well as make it easier for those who are facing trouble with biometric authentication. Later, the directive was put on hold by the Department of Telecom. Thursday’s statement suggests a similar application, using live photos, but does not say when this technology will be rolled out.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/scroll-kanishk-karan-october-18-2018-factcheck-no-phones-of-users-who-provided-only-aadhaar-as-proof-of-identity-wont-be-disconnected

Brazil’s experience a red flag for WhatsApp in Indian polls, say experts

Admin — 2018-10-28T06:06:19Z

Data shows that the share of active WhatsApp users in rural India has doubled since 2017, according to a survey by the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies.

The article by Vidhi Choudhary was published in Hindustan Times on October 21, 2018. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

Instant messaging service WhatsApp will have to put more safeguards in place to avoid its misuse in the 2019 Lok Sabha elections,experts say. Some point to the experience in the recent elections in Brazil,where the Facebook-owned platform battled allegations on its use to influence the popular vote, with mass-WhatsApp messages pushing anti-leftist propaganda.

“There is no easy way to say this but the likelihood of a WhatsApp scandal in the run-up to the 2019 elections in India is imminent. I won’t be surprised if there is already something similar taking place in India. That’s because there is no way to control the message that is being shared on the platform. The only way to stop this is by revoking the end-to-end encryption which will impair the privacy WhatsApp users enjoy,” said lawyer Rahul Matthan, partner at the law firm Trilegal and author of Privacy 2.0, which traces the historic origin and current debates on privacy.

WhatsApp has over 200 million users in India, its largest market. The absence of a data protection law in India (one is in the works but is unlikely to be passed before the elections) only adds to this problem, although this transcends WhatsApp.

“The large scale sale of phone numbers, and subsequent bombardment of messages, without seeking consent is also a reminder that we urgently need rules to limit the use of personal data for political campaigns. Europe’s law, the GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation), for example, puts strict limits on direct marketing, including by political parties and campaigners. Yet India is approaching its own elections without any effective data protection rules in place,” said Amba Kak, public policy adviser at web browser Mozilla.

The election commission is aware of the challenge. In an interview to Hindustan Times, chief election commissioner OP Rawat said the biggest challenge for the ECI right now is posed by technology firms that have wherewithal to influence voters.

According to a survey conducted by the Digital Empowerment Foundation (DEF) and reported by the HT earlier this week, 40% of rural users of the messaging platform were part of WhatsApp groups created by members or representatives of political parties. A third of the users spend between one hour and four hours on the app daily, the survey found. “This reflects the level of campaigning and penetration of political parties. Villages are always politically sensitive and also interested in politics,” the HT report said, quoting DEF’s Osama Manzar.

The survey noted that 63% of the respondents were not on the service in 2014. The share of active WhatsApp users in rural India has doubled since 2017, according to the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies.

A possible solution is to make sure voters are consistently informed about the issue of misinformation and fake news in India, added Matthan. “WhatsApp should continue to build a concerted marketing campaign against fake news to make voters aware, so that they exercise restraint while sending and sharing messages received from other users. The only trouble is if the message is received from a trusted ally, then one is likely to believe it. That’s why there is no absolute way to ensure shadow campaigns are not circulated on WhatsApp,” he explained.

The Facebook-owned platform has said in an earlier statements that it believes this is a challenge that requires government, civil society and technology companies to work together. “Our strategy has been twofold. First, to give people the controls and information they need to stay safe; and second, to work proactively to prevent misuse on WhatsApp,” WhatsApp said in the statement in July.

In July, WhatsApp launched a label to identify forwarded messages in a bid to combat fake news and the spread of misinformation globally, including India. It later set a limit to the use of forwarded messages to five chats in India. After that WhatsApp took out full-page advertisements in Indian newspapers offering “easy tips” to distinguish between fact and fiction as it battles rising pressure to curb the spread of misinformation in India after the lynching of at least 30 people in the country since May, with at least some being caused by rumours forwarded over phones.

Sunil Abraham, director at the think tank Centre for Internet and Society said WhatsApp could employ a network of fact checkers and explore “in application education”.

Local authorities in various parts of the country have resorted to Internet shutdowns to counter incidents of violence triggered by rumours on WhatsApp. Law firm Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC), based in New Delhi, has tracked down 116 Internet shutdowns across India in 2018 alone. In 2017, India reported 79 shutdowns; in 2016, the number was 31 and in 2012 it was just three. The rise from three shutdowns in 2012 to more than 100 this year marks a 3,766% surge. “State and central government and local authorities might consider this a solution. But a shutdown is completely against freedom of speech and that’s our view,” said an SFLC spokesperson. WhatsApp users in rural India do not blindly trust messages they receive on the messaging service, according to the DEF survey.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/hindustan-times-vidhi-choudhary-october-21-2018-brazil-s-experience-a-red-flag-for-whatsapp-in-indian-polls-say-experts

Confidentiality of Communications and Privacy of Data in the Digital Age

praskrishna — 2018-10-28T06:02:07Z

On September 25, 2018, Elonnai Hickok participated in a side event Confidentiality of Communications and Privacy of Data in the Digital Age organized by INCLO and Privacy International at the Human Rights Council 39th ordinary session. Elonnai spoke on artificial intelligence and privacy.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/confidentiality-of-communications-and-privacy-of-data-in-the-digital-age

Conceptualizing an International Security Regime for Cyberspace

Elonnai Hickok and Arindrajit Basu — 2018-10-26T15:09:23Z

This paper was published as part of the Briefings from the Research and Advisory Group (RAG) of the Global Commission on the Stability of Cyberspace (GCSC) for the Full Commission Meeting held at Bratislava in 2018.

Policy-makers often use past analogous situations to reshape questions and resolve dilemmas in current issues. However, without sufficient analysis of the present situation and the historical precedent being considered, the effectiveness of the analogy is limited.This applies across contexts, including cyber space. For example, there exists a body of literature, including The Tallinn Manual, which applies key aspects (structure, process, and techniques) of various international legal regimes regulating the global commons (air, sea, space and the environment) towards developing global norms for the governance of cyberspace.

Given the recent deadlock at the Group of Governmental Experts (GGE), owing to a clear ideological split among participating states, it is clear that consensus on the applicability of traditional international law norms drawn from other regimes, will not emerge if talks continue without a major overhaul of the present format of negotiations. The Achilles Heel of the GGE thus far has been a deracinated approach to the norms formulation process. There has been excessive focus on the content and the language of the applicable norm rather than the procedure underscoring its evolution, limited state and non state participation, and a lack of consideration for social, cultural, economic and strategic contexts through which norms emerge at the global level. Even if the GGE process became more inclusive and included all United Nations members, strategies preceding the negotiation process must be designed in a manner to facilitate consensus.

There exists to date, no scholarship that traces the negotiation processes that lead to the forging of successful analogous universal regimes or an investigation into the nature of normative contestation that enabled the evolution of the core norms that shaped these regimes. To develop an effective global regime governing cyberspace, we must consider if and how existing international law or norms for other global commons might also apply to ‘cyberspace’, but also transcend this frame into more nuanced thinking around techniques and frameworks that have been successful in consensus building. This paper focuses on the latter and embarks on an assessment of how regimes universally maximized functional utility through global interactions and shaped legal and normative frameworks that resulted, for some time, at least, in broad consensus.

Click to read more

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/conceptualizing-an-international-security-regime-for-cyberspace

Discrimination in the Age of Artificial Intelligence

Arindrajit Basu — 2018-10-26T14:47:57Z

The dawn of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has been celebrated by both government and industry across the globe. AI offers the potential to augment many existing bureaucratic processes and improve human capacity, if implemented in accordance with principles of the rule of law and international human rights norms. Unfortunately, AI-powered solutions have often been implemented in ways that have resulted in the automation, rather than mitigation, of existing societal inequalities.

This was originally published by Oxford Human Rights Hub on October 23, 2018

Image Credit: Sarla Catt via Flickr, used under a Creative Commons license available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/

In the international human rights law context, AI solutions pose a threat to norms which prohibit discrimination. International Human Rights Law recognizes that discrimination may take place in two possible ways, directly or indirectly. Direct discrimination occurs when an individual is treated less favourably than someone else similarly situated on one of the grounds prohibited in international law, which, as per the Human Rights Committee, includes race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Indirect discrimination occurs when a policy, rule or requirement is ‘outwardly neutral’ but has a disproportionate impact on certain groups that are meant to be protected by one of the prohibited grounds of discrimination. A clear example of indirect discrimination recognized by the European Court of Human Rights arose in the case of DH&Ors v Czech Republic. The ECtHR struck down an apparently neutral set of statutory rules, which implemented a set of tests designed to evaluate the intellectual capability of children but which resulted in an excessively high proportion of minority Roma children scoring poorly and consequently being sent to special schools, possibly because the tests were blind to cultural and linguistic differences. This case acts as a useful analogy for the potential disparate impacts of AI and should serve as useful precedent for future litigation against AI-driven solutions.

Indirect discrimination by AI may occur at two stages. First is the usage of incomplete or inaccurate training data that results in the algorithm processing data that may not accurately reflect reality. Cathy O’Neil explains this using a simple example. There are two types of crimes-those that are ‘reported’ and others that are only ‘found’ if a policeman is patrolling the area. The first category includes serious crimes such as murder or rape while the second includes petty crimes such as vandalism or possession of illicit drugs in small quantities. Increased police surveillance in areas in US cities where Black or Hispanic people reside lead to more crimes being ‘found’ there. Thus, data is likely to suggest that these communities commit a higher proportion of crimes than they actually do – indirect discrimination that has been empirically been shown through research published by Pro Publica.

Discrimination may also occur at the stage of data processing, which is done through a metaphorical ‘black-box’ that accepts inputs and generates outputs without revealing to the human developer how the data was processed. This conundrum is compounded by the fact that the algorithms are often utilised to solve an amorphous problem-which attempts to break down a complex question into a simple answer. An example is the development of ‘risk profiles’ of individuals for the determination of insurance premiums. Data might show that an accident is more likely to take place in inner cities due to more densely packed populations in these areas. Racial and ethnic minorities tend to reside more in these areas, which means that algorithms could learn that minorities are more likely to get into accidents, thereby generating an outcome (‘risk profile’) that indirectly discriminates on grounds of race or ethnicity.

It would be wrong to ignore discrimination, both direct and indirect, that occurs as a result of human prejudice. The key difference between that and discrimination by AI lies in the ability of other individuals to compel the decision-maker to explain the factors that lead to the outcome in question and testing its validity against principles of human rights. The increasing amounts of discretion and, consequently, power being delegated to autonomous systems mean that principles of accountability which audit and check indirect discrimination need to be built into the design of these systems. In the absence of these principles, we risk surrendering core tenets of human rights law to the whims of an algorithmically crafted reality.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/oxford-human-rights-hub-arindrajit-basu-october-23-2018-discrimination-in-the-age-of-artificial-intelligence

Debating Ethics: Dignity and Respect in Data Driven Life

Admin — 2018-11-07T03:03:25Z

Elonnai Hickok was a speaker in the panel "Move Slower and Fix Things" which was part of the 40th International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners. The event was organized by International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners (ICDPPC) from October 22 - 26, 2018 in Brussels. Elonnai participated in the event on October 24 and 25, 2018.

Click to read about the Programme here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/debating-ethics-dignity-and-respect-in-data-driven-life

Not Surprised by Indian govt's data localisation directives: Michael Dell

Admin — 2018-10-18T01:37:17Z

The Indian government's attempts to ensure that companies adhere to data localisation norms will spawn similar requests from other countries, Michael Dell, the founder and chief executive of Dell Technologies, said.

The blog post by Anand J. was published in VCCircle on October 17, 2018.

However, he acknowledged that the country's concerns are genuine given the privacy and security implications of data. "If you don’t know where your data is or it has gotten into the wrong hands, it can be a very, very dangerous problem," Dell told The Economic Times. He added, "I would not be surprised if pretty much every country in the world creates something like this."

Dell's comments come in the backdrop of India's draft Personal Data Protection Bill, data localisation efforts and data mirroring requirements for payment firms as required under the diktat by the Reserve Bank of India.

Under the RBI direction, even the multinationals like Visa and MasterCard have to ensure that Indian customer data is stored locally. Though the last date for these companies to comply with the directive expired on Monday, the central bank will not penalise them as of now.

In the interview, Dell also acknowledged that information is more valuable than applications and problems will arise when data gets leaked or compromised. "Every business at the end of the day is based on some kind of trust or assurance," he told ET.

However, industry lobby Nasscom and internet watchdog Centre for Internet and Society had told TechCircle that some of the data localisation norms are rather strict and will prevent internet businesses from being truly open and free.

"Data localisation mandates should be narrowly tailored. Ideally, data should be localised based on the sector. For instance, military, intelligence and law enforcement might need strict localisation rules. There is no policy objective that will be served by localising social media data," CIS director Sunil Abraham had told TechCircle in an interview some months ago.

Nasscom's policy director Ashish Aggarwal told TechCircle that the industry lobby did not see the recommendations as a balanced approach in terms of localisation. "If imposed, this will cause a disproportionate cost to the industry," he had said.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/vccircle-october-17-2018-anand-j-not-surprised-by-indian-govt-data-localisation-directives

Spending too much time on social media? Tech abuse may lead to mental health issues

Admin — 2018-10-18T00:55:46Z

Technology is a boon, no doubt. But where can we, in ourdigital lives, draw the line between convenience and addiction? ET’s Divya J Shekhar finds out how the IT city is dealing with internet addiction and how collective social effort might help find the sweet spot.

The article by Divya Shekhar was published in Economic Times on October 13, 2018. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

Fifty-odd residents in Hebbal switched off all their digital devices between 7 and 9 pm two days ago on World Mental Health Day. This Saturday, they will join other members in their 1,200-strong group to plug out once again. They plan to make this a weekly ritual.

At the centre of this initiative, which is called 'Time Out from Plugins', is a mother who started researching on technology addiction after observing her 16-year-old son play online games for long hours. Tejaswi Uthappa, a freelance writer, said that her otherwise wellbehaved son becoming irritable and snappy after being glued to the gaming console for hours got her thinking about the ill-effects of letting technology take over our lives.

Types of Technology Addiction

“As parents, we might casually complain about our children spending most of their time on television, digital games or laptops. But this is actually far more serious because it impacts their brain, and eventually, their behaviour,” said Uthappa, who now wants to reach out to schools and colleges to help create awareness about technology-addiction among youngsters.

An increasing number of Bengalureans are getting addicted to technology. Just last week, a 26-year-old checked in to the National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (Nimhans) to seek treatment as he had watched Netflix for over seven hours a day for the past six months in order to escape the reality of his unemployment. From excessive PUBG (online game) and social media overdose to need for virtual validation and incessant online shopping, psychiatrists are treating a gamut of technology addictions.

How Much is Too Much?

According to experts at Nimhans, eight out of 10 technology addiction cases are related to online gaming. This is in line with a 2013 survey conducted by the Indian Council for Medical Research in Bengaluru, which revealed that 4.1% people in the IT city between 18 and 60 years of age were addicted to their mobile phones, while 1.3% were internet addicts. This number might have increased with the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) stating that as on March 2018, there were 1.18 billion wireless subscribers and 493 million internet or broadband subscribers in the country.

Manoj Kumar Sharma, a clinical psychologist at the Service for Healthy Use of Technology (SHUT) Clinic at Nimhans, said that he caters to almost six-seven patients every week, up from two-three people who checked into the clinic when it launched in 2014. “It goes to show that people are conscious and are actively taking action to correct their addictive tendencies,” he said. Most people between ages 16 and 20 are addicted to social media, Sharma explained, tend to develop body image issues if their online activity or post does not garner enough attention or ‘likes’. This need for validation from virtual friends to make up for their lonely reality is also directly proportional to the number of cosmetic surgeries.

IT City's Tech Addiction

For those between 24 and 28 years of age, the addiction is usually in the form of pornography or online streaming platforms like Netflix. Experts have also coined the term ‘online infidelity’ to describe a condition where adults satisfy themselves using online platforms rather than through physical intimacy with their respective partners.

“There is a bidirectional relationship between depression and use of technology. The latter can be used as a coping mechanism for stress and anxiety. Conversely, technology abuse can also intensify depression,” said Sharma.

Medical professionals state that ideally, an individual’s daily social media consumption should be broken down to brief 20 minute sessions. “When a digital screen is the last thing you look at before going to sleep, it messes with your hormones. For instance, the heart and pulse rate increase, blood pressure for those with hypertension tends to increase and the body’s response to diabetes medication will vary,” said consulting physician and cardiologist Dr B Ramana Rao.

Increased exposure to technology, he explained, affects eyesight, causes mood alterations, and makes individuals angry and irritable. There are four main criteria, experts said, through which addiction can be determined: if use of technology affects your sleep, productivity, interpersonal relationships and makes you isolate yourself from social activities.

Open Communication

Parents, counsellors, schools and colleges are recognising the need to work together to find solutions and disconnect those vulnerable to internet overuse. Mansoor Ali Khan, member, board of management, Delhi Public School, said that while schools are often considered “uncool” if they do not use technology in classrooms, it is necessary to understand that sometimes, simple, conventional learning works best.

“Children who have been handed iPads and smartphones when they are as young as three years old, have lower concentration levels and learning capability. Moreover, the conversations they have with friends also restricted to TV shows and games,” he said.

Do you have Nomophobia?

The school plans to increase cyber literacy and make the discourse around technology addiction more transparent. Sharma of SHUT Clinic, who launched a Digital Detox app earlier this year, is now developing an intervention module that he wants to take to schools and colleges. This, he said, will help academicians study how to control use of technology as a coping mechanism for peer pressure, boredom and stress. It would also help, he
added, if parents and elders are less judgmental about those needing help.

Sunil Abraham, executive director, The Centre for Internet and Society, told ET that parents must understand the concept of introducing incremental screen time to avoid addiction. This means, children between ages 1 and 3 must have zero screen time, those between 3 and 9 must have one hour of screen time every day, while adolescents between 9 and 15 years of age can access internet only for two hours daily.

“Parents todayccessed by children need to be kept in common areas like the living room,” said Abraham, stressing that parents should never use gadgets to distract children or keep them busy.

Tejaswi Uthappa agrees. According to her, open lines of communication about internet usage and cyberspace helps people seek help. “Our initiative, for instance, started with just me. But now, there are over a thousand adults — parents, working professionals or homemakers - who come on-board the moment they hear that we combat internet addiction. Only our intent and not our method, matters to them,” she said. “So it is a question of stakeholders acknowledging that this as a problem and coming together to find ways to solve it.”

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/economic-times-divya-shekhar-october-13-2018-spending-too-much-time-on-social-media

377 Bites the Dust: Unpacking the long and winding road to the judicial decriminalization of homosexuality in India

Agnidipto Tarafder and Arindrajit Basu — 2018-10-18T00:39:34Z

An informal case comment tracing the journey and assessing the societal implications the recent 377 (Navtej Johar v Union of India).

The article was published in Socio-Legal Review, a magazine published by National Law School of India University on October 11, 2018.

Introduction

After a prolonged illness due to AIDS-related complications, the gregarious Queen front-man Farrokh Bulsara (known to the world as Freddie Mercury) breathed his last in his home in Kensington, London in 1991. Despite being the symbol of gay masculinity for over a decade, Mercury never explicitly confirmed his sexual orientation-for reasons that remain unknown but could stem from prevailing social stigma. Occluded from public discourse and shrouded in irrational fears, the legitimate problems of the LGBT+ community, including the serial killer of HIV/AIDS was still relegated to avoidable debauchery as opposed to genuine illness. Concerted activism throughout the 90’s-depicted on the big screen through masterpieces such as Philadelphia, alerted the Western public of this debacle, which lead to a hard-fought array of rights and a reduction of social ostracization at the turn of the century for the LGBT+ community across western countries. This includes over two dozen countries that have allowed same-sex marriages and a host of others that recognize civil union between same-sex partners in some form.^[1]

On 6^th September, 2018, Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code – a colonial era law that criminalized “carnal intercourse against the order of nature” bit the dust in New Delhi, at the hands of five judges of the Supreme Court of India (Navtej Johar v Union of India).^[2] Large parts of the country celebrated the restoration of the ideals of the Indian Constitution. It was freedom, not just for a community long suppressed, but for the ethos of our foundation that for a century suffered this incessant incongruity. The celebrations were tempered, perhaps by a recognition of how long this fight had taken, the unnecessary hurdles – both judicial and otherwise – that were erected along the way, and a realization of the continued suffering this community might have to tolerate till they truly earn the acceptance they deserve. While the judgment will serve as a document that signifies the sanctity of our constitutional ethos, in the grander scheme of things it is still but a small step, with the potential to catalyze a giant leap forward. For our common future, it is imperative that the LGBT+ community does not undertake this leap alone but is accompanied by the rest of the nation- a nation that recognizes the travails of this long march to freedom.

Long March to Freedom

Modelled on the 1533 Buggery Act in the UK, Section 377 was introduced into the Indian Penal Code by Thomas Macaulay, a representative of the British Raj. While our colonial masters progressed in 1967, the hangover enmeshed in our penal laws lingered on. Public discourse on this legal incongruity emerged initially with the publication of a report titled Less than Gay: A Citizens Report on the Status of Homosexuality in India, spearheaded by activist Siddhartha Gautam, on behalf of the AIDS Bhedbav Virodhi Andolan (ABVA) that sought to fight to decriminalise homosexuality and thereby move towards removing its associated stigma.^[3] The ABVA went on to file a petition for this decriminalisation in 1994. The judicial skirmish continued in 2001 with the Naz Foundation, a Delhi-based NGO that works on HIV/AIDS and sexual health, filing a petition by way of Public Interest Litigation asking for a reading down of the Section. The Delhi High Court initially dismissed this petition – stating that the foundation had no locus standi.[4] Naz Foundation appealed against this before the Supreme Court, which overturned the dismissal on technical grounds and ordered the High Court to decide the case on merits.

The two-judge bench of the Delhi High Court held that Section 377 violated privacy, autonomy and liberty, ideals which were grafted into the ecosystem of fundamental rights guaranteed by Part-III of the Indian Constitution.^[5] It stated that the Constitution was built around the core tenet of inclusiveness, which was denigrated by the sustained suppression of the LGBT+ community. It was an impressive judgment, not only because of the bold and progressive claim it made in a bid to reverse a century and a half of oppression, but also because of the quality of the judgment itself. It tied in principles of international law, along with both Indian and Foreign judgments in addition to citing literature on sexuality as a form of identity. For a brief while, faith in the ‘system’ seemed justified.

Hope, however, is a fickle friend. Four years from the day, an astrologer by the name of Suresh Kumar Koushal challenged the Delhi High Court’s verdict.[6] Some of the reasons behind this challenge would defy any standard sense of rationality. These included national security concerns – as soldiers who stay away from their families^[7] may enter into consensual relationships with each other – leading to distractions that might end up in military defeats. Confoundingly, the Supreme Court’s verdict lent judicial legitimacy to Koushal’s thought process, as they overturned the Naz Foundation judgment and affirmed the constitutional validity of Section 377 on some truly bizarre grounds.^[8] Indian constitutional tradition permits discrimination by the state only if classification is based on an intelligible differential between the group being discriminated against from the rest of the populace; having a rational nexus with a constitutionally valid objective. To satisfy this threshold, the Supreme Court stated, without any evidence, that there are two classes of people-those who engage in sexual intercourse in the ‘ordinary course’ and those who do not- thereby satisfying the intelligible differential threshold.^[9] As pointed out by constitutional law scholar Gautam Bhatia, this differential makes little sense – an extrapolation of this idea could indicate that intercourse with a blue-eyed person was potentially not ‘ordinary’, since the probability of this occurring is rare.^[10] The second justification was based on numbers. The Court argued that statistics pointed to the fact that only 200 people had been arrested under this law, which suggested that it was largely dormant and hence, discrimination doesn’t get established per se.[11] In other words, a plain reading of the judgement might lead one to conclude that the random arrests of a small number of citizens would be constitutionally protected, so long it does not overshoot an arbitrarily determined de minimis threshold! The judgment seemed to drag Indian society ceaselessly into the past. This backward shift internally was accompanied by international posturing by India that opposed the recent wave of UN resolutions which sought to advocate LGBT+ rights.^[12]

Thankfully, there remained a way to correct such Supreme Court induced travesties, through what is known as a curative petition, a concept introduced by the Court itself through one of its earlier judgements.[13] Needless to mention, such a petition was duly filed before the Court.[14] While this curative petition was under consideration, last August, a 9-judge bench of the Court spun some magic through a landmark judgment in Just. (Retd.) K S Puttuswamy v Union of India^[15] which stated that the ‘right to privacy’ was a recognised fundamental right as per the Indian Constitution. The judgment in Koushal was singled out and criticised by Justice Chandrachud who asserted the fact that an entire community could not be deprived of the dignity of privacy in their sexual relations.

Strategically, this was a master-class. While the right to privacy cannot alone serve as the justification for allowing individuals to choose their sexual orientation, in several common law nations including the UK^[16] and the USA^[17], privacy has served as the initial spark for legitimizing same-sex relations. A year before the privacy judgment was delivered, a group of individuals had filed a separate petition arguing that Section 377 violated their constitutional rights. The nature of this petition was intrinsically different^[18] from the Naz Foundation’s, since the Foundation had filed a ‘public interest litigation’ in a representative capacity whereas this petition affected individuals in their personal capacity, implying that the nature of the claim in each case was different.

The cold case file of this petition that crystallised into the iconic judgment delivered last week, was brought to the fore and listed for hearing in January 2018.[19] Justice Chandrachud’s judgement in Puttaswamy, that tore apart the Koushal verdict, had no small role to play in the unfolding of this saga.^[20]

And so the hearings began. The government chose to not oppose the petition and allowed the court to decide the fate of Article 377.[21] This was another convenient manoeuvre by the legislature, effectively shifting the ball into the judiciary’s court, shielding itself from potential pushbacks from its conservative voter-base. However, as public support for decriminalisation started pouring in from various quarters, leaders of religious groups were quick to make their opposition known, leaving the five judges on the bench to decide the fate of a community long suppressed through the clutches of an illegitimate law.

“I am what I am”: The judgement, redemption and beyond

“The mis-application of this provision denied them the Fundamental Right to equality guaranteed by Article 14. It infringed the Fundamental Right to non-discrimination under Article 15, and the Fundamental Right to live a life of dignity and privacy guaranteed by Article 21. The LGBT persons deserve to live a life unshackled from the shadow of being ‘unapprehended felons.”^[22]

Justice Indu Malhotra summed up her short judgement with this momentous pronouncement, adding that ‘history owes an apology’^[23] to the members of the LGBT+ community, for the injustices faced during these centuries of hatred and apathy. It seems fair to suggest that this idea of ‘righting the wrongs of the past’ became the underlying theme of the Supreme Court’s landmark verdict on the constitutionality of Section 377. Five judges, through four concurring but separate opinions, extracted the essence of the claim against this law – protecting the virtue of personal liberty and dignity. In doing so, it exculpated itself from the travesty of Suresh Kaushal, emancipating the ‘miniscule minority’ from their bondage before the law and took yet another step towards restoring faith in the ‘system’ of which the judiciary is currently positioning itself as the sole conscientious wing. Perhaps the only set of people shamed through this verdict were our parliamentarians, who on two separate occasions in the recent past had thwarted any chance of change when they opposed, insulted and ridiculed Dr. Shashi Tharoor while he attempted to introduce a Bill decriminalizing homosexuality on the floor of the House.^[24]

Earlier in the day, the Chief Justice, authoring the lead opinion for himself and Justice Khanwilkar, began with the ominous pronouncement that ‘denying self-expression (to the individual) was an invitation to death’,^[25] emphasizing through his long judgement the importance of promoting individuality in all its varied facets- in matters of choice, privacy, speech and expression.^[26] Arguing strongly in support of the ‘progressive realization of rights’,^[27] which he identified as the soul of constitutional morality, the Chief Justice outlawed the ‘artificial distinction’ drawn between heterosexual and homosexual through the application of the ‘equality’ doctrine embedded in Articles 14 and 15.^[28] Noting that the recent criminal law amendment recognizes the absence of consent as the basis for sexual offences, he pointed out the lack of a similar consent-based framework in the context of non peno-vaginal sex, effectively de-criminalizing ‘voluntary sexual acts by consenting adults’ as envisaged within the impugned law.^[29] The Chief Justice went on to elaborate that the right to equality, liberty and privacy are inherent in all individuals, and no discrimination on grounds of sex would survive the scrutiny of the law.^[30]

Justice Nariman in his separate opinion charted out the legislative history behind the adoption of the Indian Penal Code. In his inimitable manner, he travelled effortlessly across time and space to source historical material and legislations, judicial decisions and literary critique from various jurisdictions to bolster the claim that the discrimination faced by homosexuals had no basis in law or fact.^[31] For instance, referring to the Wolfenden Committee Report in the UK regarding decriminalisation of homosexuality which urged legislators to distinguish between ‘sin and crime’, the judge went on to lament the lives lost to mere social perception, including that of Oscar Wilde and Alan Turing.^[32] Repelling the popular myth of homosexuality being a ‘disease’, he quoted from the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, the US Supreme Court’s seminal judgment in Lawrence v Texas^[33] and several other studies on the intersection of homosexuality and public health, dismissing this contention entirely. Justice Nariman, invoking the doctrine of ‘manifest arbitrariness’^[34] to dispel the notion that the law treating homosexuals was ‘different’. Since it was based on sexual identity and orientation, such a law was a gross abuse of the equal protection of the Constitution.

Justice Chandrachud, having already built a formidable reputation as the foremost liberal voice on the bench, launched a scathing, almost visceral attack against the idea of ‘unnatural sexual offence’ insofar as it applied to homosexuality.^[35] Mirroring the concern first espoused by Justice Nariman about the chilling effect of majoritarianism, he wondered aloud what societal harm did a provision like Section 377 seek to prevent. In fact, his separate opinion is categorical in its negation of the ‘intelligible differentia’ between ‘natural’ and ‘non-natural’ sex, sardonically stating the perpetuation of heteronormativity cannot be the object of a law.^[36]

As an interesting aside, his judgement in Puttaswamy famously introduced a section called ‘discordant notes’^[37] which led an introspective Court to disown and overturn disturbing precedent from the past, most notably the Court’s opinion in the ADM Jabalpur,^[38] decided that the right to seek redressal for violation of Fundamental Rights remained suspended as a consequence of the National Emergency.

In a similar act of constitutional manipulation, he delved into a critique of the Apex Court’s judgement in the Nergesh Meerza^[39] case. This was a decision which upheld the discriminatory practice of treating men and women as different classes of employees by Air India, denying the women employees certain benefits ordinarily available to men. The Court in Nergesh Meerza read the non-discrimination guarantee in Article 15 narrowly to understand that discrimination based on ‘sex alone’ would be struck down. He held that since the sexes had differences in the mode of recruitment, promotion and conditions of service, it did not tantamount to ‘merely sex based’ categorization and was an acceptable form of classification. In his missionary zeal to exorcise the Court of past blemishes, Dr. Chandrachud observed that interpreting constitutional provisions through such narrow tests as ‘sex alone’ would lead to denuding the freedoms guaranteed within the text. Though not the operative part of the judgement, one hopes his exposition of the facets of the equality doctrine and fallacies in reasoning in Nargesh Meerza will pave the way for just jurisprudence to emerge in sex discrimination cases in the future.^[40]

Reverting to the original issue, the judge addresses several key concerns voiced by the LGBT+ community through their years of struggle. He spoke of bridging the public-private divide by ensuring the protection of sexual minorities in the public sphere as well, wherein they are most vulnerable. Alluding to his opinion in Puttaswamy, he declares that all people have an inalienable right to privacy, which is a fundamental aspect of their liberty and the ‘soulmate of dignity’- ascribing the right to dignified life as a constitutional guarantee for one and all. Denouncing the facial neutrality^[41] of Section 377, insofar as it targets certain ‘acts and not classes of people’, his broad and liberal reading of non-discrimination goes beyond the semantics of neutrality and braves the original challenge- fashioning a justice system with real equality at its core.

Shall History Absolve Us?

Where to from here then? Can the 500 pages of this iconic judgment magically change the social norms that define the existence of LGBT+ communities in modern Indian society? If the reception of this judgement by the conservative factions within society is anything to go by, the answer is clear enough. Yet, the role of this judgment – in an ecosystem of other enablers – might just be a crucial first step. As noted by Harvard Law School professor Lawrence Lessig, law can create, displace or change the collective expectations of society by channelling societal behaviour in a manner that conforms with its contents.^[42] An assessment of the impact of Brown v Board of Education on African-Americans offers an interesting theoretical analogy.^[43]

The unanimous decision of the US Supreme Court in Brown marked a watershed moment in American history that struck down the ‘separate but equal’ doctrine which served as the basis for segregation between communities of colour and the dominant White majority in American public schools. While this ruling initially faced massive resistance, it laid the edifice for progressive legislation such as the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Act a decade later.^[44] While its true impact on evolving acceptable standards of social behaviour remains disputed with valid arguments on all sides, Brown kick-started a counter-culture that sought to wipe out the toxic norms that the Jim Crow-era had birthed in the 1950s. Along with subsequent decisions by the US Supreme Court, it acted as the catalyst that morphed the boundaries between ‘us’ and ‘them’. Republican Senator Barry Goldwater attempted to stifle this counterculture in 1964 by undertaking a sustained campaign that opposed the dictum in Brown not in opposition to African-Americans but instead in opposition to an overly intrusive federal government that was taking away from the cultural traditions and values, particularly of the South.^[45] In the past few years, cultural apathy seems to have taken a more sinister turn as recent incidents of police violence and the rebirth of white supremacist movements indicate.

Lessons from a different context in an alternate society can never be transposed in another without substantial alterations. Discrimination is intersectional and a celebration of identity is a recognition of intersectionality. Therefore, the path ahead for the LGBT+ community lies in crafting a strategy that works for them – a strategy that can draw from lessons learned in other contexts. Last week’s judgment could morph into a point of reference for a counter-cultural movement that works to remove the stains of oppression. The key challenge is carrying this message to swathes of the populace who, goaded by leading public figures, continue to treat homosexuality as an unnatural phenomenon^[46].

Being a majority Hindu nation, one possible medium of communication could be reference to ancient Hindu scriptures that do not ostracize individuals based on their sexual orientation but treat them as fellow sojourners on their path to Nirvana, the idea of spiritual emancipation, a central tenet of Hindu belief.^[47] Strategically, using this framework as a dangling carrot for religious conservatives may be a potential conversation starter but comes riddled with potholes, as the same scriptures could be interpreted to justify subjugation of women, for example. A more holistic approach might be reading these scriptures into the overarching foundation stone of society -The Indian Constitution, which is not a rigid, static document – stuck in the time of its inception – but is a dynamic one that responds to and triggers the Indian social and political journey. The burden of a constitution, as reiterated by Chief Justice Misra and Dr. Chandrachud is to ‘draw a curtain’ on the past of social injustice and prejudice and embrace constitutional morality, a cornerstone of which is the principle of inclusiveness. Inclusiveness driven by rhetoric in political speeches and storylines on the big screen. Inclusiveness that fosters symbiosis between the teachings of religious scriptures and that of Constitutional Law Professors – an inclusiveness that begets the idea of India, which is a fair deal for all Indians.

…And Justice for all?

In the aftermath of this decision come further legal challenges. Legally, while the ‘right to love’ has been vindicated, the right to formalise this union through societal recognition remains to be established. This judgement paves the way for the acceptance of homosexual relationships, but not necessarily the right to marry for a homosexual couple. There are passages within Justice Chandrachud’s visionary analysis which directly address this concern, and advocate for the ‘full protection’ of the law being extended to the LGBT+ populace. It will certainly be instructive for future courts, and one tends to remain hopeful that the long march to freedom for the LGBT+ community and its supporters will not come to a screeching halt through judicial intervention or State action. If anything, the wings of government should bolster these efforts, in view of this verdict.

That said, social acceptance seldom waits on the sanction of the law.

The outpouring of public support which was witnessed through public demonstrations, social media advocacy and concerted efforts from so many quarters to bring down this draconian law needs to continue and consolidate. There are evils yet, and the path to genuine inclusiveness in this country (as in most others) is littered with thorns. And even greater resistance is likely to emerge when tackling some of these issues, which tend to hit closer home than others.

While this judgement entered into detailed discussions on the issue of consent, it remained disquietingly silent on a most contentious subject, perhaps because it was perceived to be beyond the terms of reference. The exception of marital rape carved out in the Indian Penal Code, which keeps married relationships outside the purview of rape laws, remains as a curse – a reminder that gender equality in this nation will only come at tremendous human cost. The institution of family, that sacrosanct space which even the most liberal courtrooms in India have sought to protect, stands threatened. Malignant patriarchy will raise its head and claim its pound of flesh before the dust settles, and in the interest of freedom, it shall be up to the Apex Court to ensure that it settles on the right side of history. Else, all our progress, howsoever incremental, may be undone by this one stain on our collective conscience.

*Agnidipto Tarafder is an Assistant Professor of Law at the National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata, where he teaches courses in Constitutional Law, Labour Law and Privacy.

*Arindrajit Basu recently finished his LLM (Public International Law) at the University of Cambridge and is a Policy Officer at the Centre for Internet & Society, Bangalore

_________________________________________________________________________________________

^[1] Gay Marriage Around the World, Pew Research Centre (Aug 8, 2017) available at http://www.pewforum.org/2017/08/08/gay-marriage-around-the-world-2013/.

^[2] W. P. (Crl.) No. 76 of 2016 (Supreme Court of India).

^[3] Aids Bhedbav Virodhi Andolan, Less than Gay: A Citizen’s Report on the Status of Homosexuality in India (Nov-Dec, 1991) available at https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1585664/less-than-gay-a-citizens-report-on-the-status-of.pdf.

[4] P.P Singh, 377 battle at journey’s end (September 6, 2018) available at https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/section-377-verdict-supreme-court-decriminalisation-gay-sex-lgbtq-5342008/.

^[5] (2009) 160 DLT 277; W.P. (C) No.7455/2001 of 2009 (Delhi HC).

[6] Sangeeta Barooah Pisharoty, It is like reversing the motion of the earth, The Hindu (December 20, 2013) available at https://www.thehindu.com/features/metroplus/society/it-is-like-reversing-the-motion-of-the-earth/article5483306.ece.

^[7] Id.

^[8] (2014) 1 SCC 1 (Supreme Court of India).

^[9] Ibid, at para 42.

^[10] Gautam Bhatia, The unbearable wrongness of Koushal v Naz Foundation, Ind Con Law Phil (December 11, 2013)

[11] supra note 8, at para 43.

^[12] Manjunath, India’s UN Vote: A Reflection of Our Deep Seated Anti-Gay Sentiments, Amnesty International (Apr 20, 2015) available at https://amnesty.org.in/indias-un-vote-reflection-societys-deep-seated-anti-gay-prejudice/.

[13] The concept of curative petitions was laid down in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra, (2002) 4 SCC 388 (Supreme Court of India).

[14] Ajay Kumar, All you need to know about the SC’s decision to reopen the Section 377 debate, FIRSTPOST (February 3, 2016) available at https://www.firstpost.com/india/all-you-need-to-know-about-the-scs-decision-to-reopen-the-section-377-debate-2610680.html.

^[15] 2017 (10) SCC 1(Supreme Court of India).

^[16] The Wolfenden Report, Brit. J; Vener. Dis. (1957) 33, 205 available at https://sti.bmj.com/content/sextrans/33/4/205.full.pdf.

^[17] Griswold v Connecticut, 381 US 479.

^[18] Gautam Bhatia, Indian Supreme Court reserves judgment on the de-criminalisation of Homosexuality, OHRH Blog (August 15, 2018) available at http://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/the-indian-supreme-court-reserves-judgment-on-the-de-criminalisation-of-homosexuality/.

[19] Krishnadas Rajagopal, Supreme Court refers plea to decriminalize homosexuality under Section 377 to larger bench, The Hindu (January 8, 2018) available at https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/supreme-court-refers-377-plea-to-larger-bench/article22396250.ece.

^[20] Puttuswamy, paras 124-28.

[21] Aditi Singh, Government leaves decision on Section 377 to the wisdom of Supreme Court, LIVEMINT (July 11, 2018) available at https://www.livemint.com/Politics/fMReaXRcldOWyY20ELJ0GK/Centre-leaves-it-to-Supreme-Court-to-decide-on-Section-377.html.

^[22] supra note 2, at para 20.

^[23] Ibid.

^[24] Express News Service, Lok Sabha votes against Shashi Tharoor’s bill to decriminalize homosexuality again, Indian Express (March 12, 2016) available at https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/decriminalising-homosexuality-lok-sabha-votes-against-shashi-tharoors-bill-again/.

^[25] Navtej Johar v. Union of India, W. P. (Crl.) No. 76 of 2016 (Supreme Court of India) at para 1.

^[26] Ibid, at para 2.

^[27] Ibid, at para 82.

^[28]Ibid, at para 224.

^[29] Ibid, at para 253.

^[30] Ibid.

^[31] Separate Opinion, RF Nariman, paras 1-20.

^[32] Ibid, at paras 28-9.

^[33] Ibid. Lawrence v Texas, 539 US 558 (2003), discussed in paras 108-09.

^[34] Ibid, at para 82.

^[35] Separate Opinion, DY Chandrachud, at para 28.

^[36] Ibid, at para 56-7, 61.

^[37] Supra note 20, at para 118-9.

^[38] ADM Jabalpur v Shiv Kant Shukla (1976) 2 SCC 521. (Supreme Court of India)

^[39] Air India v Nergesh Meerza (1981) 4 SCC 335. (Supreme Court of India)

^[40] Supra note 25, at paras 36-41.

^[41] Ibid, at paras 42-43, 56.

^[42] Lawrence Lessig, The Regulation of Social Meaning, 62 University of Chicago Law Review 943 ,947 (1995)

^[43] Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483.

^[44] David Smith, Little Rock Nine: The day young students shattered racial segregation, The Guardian (September 24, 2017) available at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/24/little-rock-arkansas-school-segregation-racism.

^[45]Michael Combs and Gwendolyn Combs, Revisiting Brown v. Board of Education: A Cultural, Historical-Legal, and Political Perspective (2005).

^[46] Poulomi Saha, RSS on 377: Gay sex not a crime but is unnatural, India Today (September 6, 2018) available at https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/rss-on-section-377-verdict-gay-sex-not-a-crime-but-is-unnatural-1333414-2018-09-06.

^[47] S Venkataraman and H Varuganti, A Hindu approach to LGBT Rights, Swarajya (July 4, 2015) available at https://swarajyamag.com/culture/a-hindu-approach-to-lgbt-rights.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/socio-legal-review-national-law-school-of-india-university-agnidipto-tarafder-and-arandrajit-basu-377-bites-the-dust

Are online shows obscene?

Admin — 2018-10-16T15:58:40Z

Should content on online platforms such as Netflix be monitored and censored? How can they show nudity when films made for the cinema halls can’t, a petition wants to know.

The article by Anila Kurian was published in Deccan Herald on October 10, 2018. Akriti Bopanna was quoted.

Last Friday, the Bombay High Court issued a notice to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting over a public interest case seeking regulation of content online.

The petitioner, Divya Ganeshprasad Gontia, finds content on online platforms such as Netflix “vulgar and obscene.” The PIL argues that broadcasting nude or vulgar scenes in a cognisable offence under the Indian Penal Code, the Cinematograph Act, Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act of 1986 and the Information Technology Act of 2000.

Advocate Shyam Dewani, the petitioner’s lawyer in Mumbai, spoke extensively to Metrolife about the case.

“There is a falling standard when it comes to web series nowadays. It started with just movies but now, with the form becoming popular, competitors have started making other shows. The more liberal the forum became, the more obscene the content became,” he says. Many shows are now vulgar and hurt religious sentiments. There must be some restriction, he argues.

No web series can be above the law and creators should follow guidelines, Dewani contends.

“There are extensive advertisements promoting shows on these online portals and even children have access to them. Other countries have regulations like parental control, for example, so why can’t we?” he says.

Shows like ‘Gandi Baat’ on ALTBalaji and ‘Sacred Games’ on Netflix feature ‘vulgar content,’ and are offensive to women, the petition alleges. One of the ways in which this could be curbed, the petitioner argues, is for the I&B ministry to set up a pre-screening committee for web shows, films and other content released directly on these platforms.

Even though these shows have been marked ‘18+’ as their certication, there is no authority making the certication, says Dewani.

“Who are you to self-certify your own show? If content for movies also followed the pattern, there would be a huge hue and cry. So regulating it is all we are asking for,” he says.

Akriti Bopanna, policy officer at the Centre for Internet and Society, Bengaluru, says it is true that sections of the IPC say you can’t broadcast nudity and vulgar content. “Because online portals directly publish on the Internet, there is no one to check them. There’s a sense that since there’s no censor board, they can get away with anything," she says.

The audiences are different for online platforms, however.

“While we see films that are bold and good for society, there are others that are the complete opposite. There are no hard and fast rules to say if this is good or bad for freedom of speech. Right now, this could go either way,” she says.

Here’s what others in the entertainment industry say.

Danish Sait, Actor: Moral policing isn’t good
“I’ve grown to realise that we can’t have a blanket rule to anything in our country. The online medium is the one section of society that is desperately trying to be liberal but that’s also under the scanner now. I understand that kids are exposed to and impacted by the digital world, in which case, this doesn’t seem like such a bad idea. But it also feels like everything is looked at from a moral policing point of view. Even I find some shows explicit. But as an adult, I make the choice to move on. I think this can be solved if there is parental control. So, for the rest of the world, live and let live.”

Kubbra Sait, Actor (Cuckoo in Sacred Games) : They shouldn't dictate terms
“Censoring online content is unfair. If the content is not something that causes any communal riot affects the peace and dynamics of our country or society, it should not be censored. We need the authorities to give us guidelines on who can consume it, but they shouldn’t dictate what the content should be.

Children are uploading videos of harming themselves, and that is not regulated. Artistes have reached where they have now because they broke barriers set in the past. If a committee starts dictating things to us, we will go back to regressive content. We used to applaud husbands slapping their wives for infidelity, and understood that two bobbing flowers was a symbol of sex. It’s 2018 and we’ve evolved. So please give us the freedom somewhere. Let me choose the content I want and watch it where I want.”

Rasika Dugal, Actor: Don't curb free expression
“I have never been in favour of censorship. I feel you should consume and make sense of the material according to your own sensibility. But there seems to be an understanding in society that some things need regulation. As an artiste, I am against that. Having said that, if there are already certain checks and balances in place, which aren’t curbing your freedom of expression, then it shouldn’t be a problem. I hope, when this eventually rolls out, it doesn’t become a place from which everything is looked at from a moral high ground and doesn’t take away from your freedom of expression.”

Pawan Kumar, Director: Self-censorship works better
“At the end of the day, censorship is a personal choice. No matter how much the government does whatever it does, people will find a way to watch what they want. By restricting like this, I think you are only affecting creative jobs. There could be good content that we might miss out on. Then again, content creators will always and newer ways to bring out their stories, whether it is adult-oriented or sensitive issue-oriented. The more you barricade it, the more new mediums will come out. It’s an on-going journey. I think what should probably be done is to educate one about self-censorship; you decide what to watch and not to.”

Why the furore?
Many films and series on Netflix feature explicit scenes of lovemaking. The narratives of Lust Stories and Sacred Games are spiced with scenes rarely seen before on the big screen in India. Content for web content is not screened by any authority, and therefore enjoys greater freedom than regular films, which must go through a certification process controlled by the government.

Ball in court
The High Court has sought responses from the ministries of information technology, law and home affairs. They have to respond by October 31.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/deccan-herald-october-10-2018-anila-kurian-are-online-shows-obscene

Internet services not to be affected as DNS servers undergo update

Admin — 2018-10-16T14:28:20Z

Internet services across the country are unlikely to be impacted over the next 48 hours even as the Domain Name System (DNS) servers undergo a security update coordinated by global regulator, Internet Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).

The article by an HT correspondent was published in the Hindustan Times on October 12, 2018. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

“ICANN, the global certifying authority for DNS security, had taken a decision a year back to change the Trust Key. All ISPs were notified to update their configuration to the new key. Accordingly, the Internet Service Providers (ISP) have confirmed that they have already updated their DNS servers with the new key and the country does not carry any risk of impact on Internet services,” said National Cyber Security Coordinator Gulshan Rai in a statement on Friday. DNS servers are like the phone book for the Internet which translates human-friendly computer labels into their respective IP addresses. If the DNS servers become inactive, it will be impossible for users to access different websites in the absence of this translation.

The ICANN’s ongoing maintenance work over the next two days is to change the cryptographic key that helps protect DNS. This has been necessitated to counter the rising incidents of cyber attacks, ICANN said.

Rai had held a meeting with all ISPs in this regard on September 5. During which ISPs said that they had taken all necessary steps to update their systems in order to avoid any inconvenience to their users. Rai reviewed the situation again on Friday.

Sunil Abraham, founder, Centre for Internet and Society, said, “This security update is the responsibility of the management and network administrators at ISPs and telcos. Only time will tell what percentage of people have done their job. Its very likely that this number is very small, in case of people who haven’t updated their servers,” he explained.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/hindustan-times-october-12-2018-internet-services-not-to-be-affected-as-dns-servers-undergo-update