We are anonymous, we are legion

The Big Debit Card Breach: Three Things Card Holders Need To Understand

praskrishna — 2016-10-21T13:43:17Z

A total of 32 lakh debit cards across 19 banks could have been compromised on account of a purported fraud, the National Payment Corporation of India said in a statement.

The article by Alex Mathew was published by Bloomberg on October 20, 2016. Udbhav Tiwari was quoted.

The issue was brought to light when State Bank of India blocked the debit cards of 6 lakh customers on October 14. This was done after the bank was alerted to a possible fraud by the National Payment Corporation of India, MasterCard and Visa, said Managing Director Rajnish Kumar in a telephonic interview with BloombergQuint.

In a statement released on Thursday evening, the NPCI clarified that the problem was brought to their attention when they received complaints from a few banks that customers’ cards were used fraudulently, mainly in China and the U.S., while those cardholders were in India.

“The complaints of fraudulent withdrawal are limited to cards of 19 banks and 641 customers. The total amount involved is Rs 1.3 crore as reported by various affected banks to NPCI,” the payments corporation said.

SISA Security, a Bengaluru-based company is currently undertaking a forensic study to identify the extent of the problem and will submit a final report in November.

Based on the advisory issued by NPCI and other schemes, it is gathered that banks have advised their customers to change their debit card PIN. In situations where customers could not be contacted, the cards have been blocked and fresh cards are being issued by member banks.

NPCI statement

State Bank of India has blocked 6 lakh cards, while other banks have sent notifications to customers advising them to change their personal identification numbers.

How The Breach Could Have Occured

The breach that has apparently given hackers access to the PIN codes of several bank customers is likely to be on account of a malware attack. This attack is believed to have originated at an ATM.

The actual modus operandi of the hackers will only become clear once the forensic audit is released in November, but BloombergQuint spoke to cyber security expert Udbhav Tiwari to find out how the attack could have been orchestrated.

First, the hacker would have had to gain physical access to an ATM. The malware was then likely injected by connecting a laptop or another special device to a port on the cash disbursing machine, said Tiwari, a consultant at Centre For Internet & Society in Bengaluru.

Once the malware is injected, it automatically spreads across the network and infects other devices that are not protected against it. In this case, the malware could have infected a payment switch provider’s network.

A payment switch provider is an entity that facilitates a transaction either from an ATM or an online payment gateway. The service provider decides to whom the request for authorisation will be sent and then transmits the request back to the merchant or the ATM where the transaction originated.

In this case, one payment switch provider, Hitachi Payment Services, which manages close to 50,000 ATMs across the country, was asked by banks to investigate 30 of its ATMs on account of around 400 suspicious transactions that took place outside India, Managing Director Loney Antony told BloombergQuint in a telephonic interview.

The company had earlier said in a statement that an interim report by the audit agency does not suggest any breach or compromise in its systems.

The Scale Of The Breach

According to a study conducted by NPCI in collaboration with the banks, the number of debit cards that were infected by the malware has been set at 32 lakh. But Tiwari said this number could be higher.

The hypothetical limit to how much the malware can spread is dependent on the vulnerability of the systems, and if one of the payment switch provider’s systems was vulnerable and they still haven’t decided how many systems are vulnerable, it is quite possible that the malware is spreading at this point.

Udbhav Tiwari, Consultant, Centre For Internet & Society

What A Customer Should Do

The first, and most important step a customer should take is to immediately change their debit card PIN, Tiwari pointed out.

State Bank of India has said that its customers can opt to restrict the usage of their debit cards, for example whether it can be used both internationally and domestically or only domestically. Also, the daily limit of the debit card can be changed.

Once these steps have been taken, according to Tiwari, it is most important that customers stay vigilant and keep monitoring their bank statements. If an unauthorised transaction takes place, a customer should immediately contact their bank and block their card.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/bloomberg-alex-mathew-october-20-2016-the-big-debit-card-breach

Intelligence agencies will not have open access to Aadhaar data: UIDAI chief

praskrishna — 2016-10-21T01:32:56Z

Intelligence agencies will not have free access to Aadhaar data, a top government official said on Thursday, looking to assuage fears of abuse of personal information.

The article by Aloke Tikku was published in the Hindustan Times on October 20, 2016. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

The Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), which issued identity cards to 1.07 billion Indians, last month decided to retain data related to the verification of Aadhaar-enabled transactions for seven years, leading to security concerns over data safety.

As reported by HT on Monday, privacy experts expressed concerns that transaction data retained for so long could be accessed by the security establishment for surveillance on individuals without sufficient grounds.

“This fear is completely misplaced,” ABP Pandey, UIDAI’s chief executive officer told HT in an interview.

Security agencies can access the data only in case of national security after they get the nod of an oversight committee headed by the cabinet secretary. This committee has to clear every order made by the designated joint secretary-level officer before the information is shared, he said.

“You cannot have any legal protection stronger than this,” Pandey added.

Aadhaar transaction data is not only protected by the most powerful, contemporary law to restrict access but also by strong cryptography.

“Even if someone attempts, the 2048-bit encryption is so strong that it will take them millions of computers and billions of years to decrypt the data,” he said.

A vocal critic of Aadhaar’s design, Sunil Abraham of the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) suggested he wouldn’t rely too much on the legal framework. “You cannot put a legal band-aid on a broken technological solution. You need to get privacy and security right by design,” the director of the Bengaluru-based research body said.

Abraham said the problem could have been averted if the UIDAI did not store the data in a centralised form. Instead, it could have used its digital signature to sign proof of authentication that could be stored by the authenticating agency and the citizen on a smart card.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/hindustan-times-aloke-tikku-october-20-2016-intelligence-agencies-will-not-have-open-access-to-aadhaar-data

MLATs and the proposed Amendments to the US Electronic Communications Privacy Act

Vipul Kharbanda and Elonnai Hickok — 2016-12-28T01:09:34Z

In continuance of our blog post on mutual legal assistance treaties (MLATs), we examine a new approach to international bilateral cooperation being suggested in the United States, by creating a mechanism for certain foreign governments to directly approach the data controllers.

Published under Creative Commons License CC BY-SA. Anyone can distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon this document, even for commercial purposes, as long as they credit the creator of this document and license their new creations under the terms identical to the license governing this document.

In the previous article on MLATs we discussed, in some detail, what MLATs are and why they are needed. One area which was briefly focused upon in that article was the limitations and criticisms of the MLAT mechanism, of which one of the main criticisms being the problems caused due to different legal standards in various jurisdictions as well as the time taken to process a request for information sent from one country to another. Talking specifically about the United States, where most internet companies are headquartered and hold large amounts of data, it typically takes months to process requests under MLATs and foreign governments often struggle to comprehend and comply with the legal standards in the United States for obtaining data for use in their investigations.[1] The requirement that a foreign government should take permission from, and comply with the requirements of a foreign government simply because the data needed happens to be controlled by a service provider based in a foreign country strikes many foreign law enforcement officials as damaging to security and law enforcement efforts, especially when they are requesting data pertaining to a crime between two of their own citizens that primarily took place on their soil.[2]

These inefficiencies of the MLAT process lead to further problems of foreign governments attempting to apply their search and surveillance laws in an extraterritorial manner for example in 2014 the UK passed the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act, 2014 with gives the government the power to directly access data from foreign service providers if sought for specific purposes and the request is approved by the Secretary of State or other specified executive branch official.[3] Another response that may occur is if, frustrated by such inefficiencies of the existing systems, courts in foreign states start assuming extra territorial jurisdiction, as happened when a District Court in Vishakhapatnam restrained Google from complying with a subpoena issued by the Superior Court of California, ordering Google to share the password of the Gmail account belonging to an Indian citizen residing in Vishakhapatnam.[4]

Solution proposed in the United States

In order to overcome these inefficiencies, at least in the American context, the Department of Justice has proposed a legislation which seeks to make the process of foreign governments getting information from US based entities more streamlined by amending the provisions of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) of the United States (the “Amendment”). These amendments have been proposed primarily for the US and UK to effectuate a proposed bilateral agreement whereby the UK government will be able to approach US companies directly with requests for information without going through the MLAT process or getting an order from a US court.

The Amendment seeks to ensure that requests from foreign governments for information from US entities get answered in a smooth manner by including those requests in the process for seeking information under the ECPA itself. This move would no doubt, make it easier for foreign governments to access data in the US, but such a move can be criticized on the ground that it would then allow all states, irrespective of their legal standards of privacy, etc. to get access to such information. This problem has been overcome in the amendment by adding a new section to Title 18 which would allow the Attorney General, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State to certify to the Congress that the legal standards in the contracting state which is being given access to the mechanism under the ECPA satisfies certain requirements specified in the chapter (and discussed below). Only after such a certification has been received by the Congress, a contracting state would be able to receive the benefits sought to be granted under the Amendment.

It is important to note that the US administration is looking to use the US-UK Agreement as a standard to be followed for similar potential agreements with a number of other countries wherein the agencies in those countries could request information from US based entities through court orders through a properly specified legal framework. Though to our knowledge India has not been formally approached by the US government to enter into such an agreement, it is important to ask the question viz. if approached:

Does India's present legal system meet the standards laid down in the amendment to the ECPA?
And if they do, should India also seek to enter into such an Agreement with the United States?
And if India does, what could be the implications for citizens and for countries in a similar position as India?

We hope to be able to answer the above three questions, or at least throw some light on them, in the conclusion of this paper by relying upon the discussions contained herein.

Criticisms of the Amendment

While such a mechanism may be very effective in addressing the needs of security agencies in investigation and prevention of criminal activities, one cannot accept such an overarching change in cross border enforcement without analyzing the consequences that such a proposal will have on the right to privacy. Some of these consequences have been highlighted by experts responding to the amendment:

Lack of Judicial Authorisation: The Amendment requires that the foreign governments have a process whereby a person could seek post-disclosure review by an independent entity instead of a warrant by a court.[5] Although a court order is not the norm for interception even in Indian law, however under American law such protection is given to data held by American companies even though the data may belong to Indian citizens and this protection will no longer be available if the Amendment is passed.

Vague Standard for requests: Under the domestic law of any state there is usually a large amount of jurisprudence regarding when search orders can be issued, such as the “probable cause” standard that is followed in the United States or similar standards that may be followed in other jurisdictions. This ensures that even when the wording of the law is not precise, which it cannot be for such a subjective issue, there is still some amount of clarity around when and under what circumstances such warrants may be issued. In contrast, the Amendment requires that the orders be based on “requirements for a reasonable justification based on articulable and credible facts, particularity, legality, and severity regarding the conduct under investigation.” Although the language here may seem reasonable but in the absence of any jurisprudence backing it, it becomes very vague and susceptible to misuse. Disclosure without a Warrant: Under the current MLAT process as followed in the United States, a judge in the U.S. must issue a warrant based on probable cause in order for a U.S. company to turn over content to a foreign government. This requirement protects individuals abroad by requiring their governments to meet certain standards when seeking information held by U.S. companies. The Amendment seeks to remove this essential safeguard for a judicial warrant. The Amendment does not require requests from foreign governments to be based on a prior judicial authorization, since a large number of countries (including India) do not always require judicial orders for such orders.[6]

Allows Real Time Surveillance by Foreign Governments: American privacy rights activists have raised the concern that the Amendment would allow foreign governments to conduct ongoing surveillance by asking American companies to turn over data in real time. The requirements that the foreign governments would have to fulfill to execute such an order are less stringent than those which have to be fulfilled by the American security agencies if they want to indulge in similar activities. When the U.S. government wants to conduct real-time surveillance, it must comply with the Wiretap Act, which imposes heightened privacy protections.[7] The court orders for this purpose also require minimization of irrelevant information, are strictly time-limited, only available for certain serious crimes, etc.[8] In Indian law any such request, apart from being time limited and being available only for certain specified purposes, also has to satisfy that interception is the only reasonable option to acquire such information.

Process to determine which countries can make demands is not credible: Under the Amendment, the Attorney General and the Secretary of State, would decide whether the laws and practices of the foreign government adequately meet the standards set forth in the legislation for entering into a bilateral agreement. Their decisions would not be liable to be reviewed by a court or in any administrative procedure. They could make their determinations based on information which is not available to the public and the criteria for making the decision are vague and flexible. Further these criteria have been described as “factors” and not “requirements”[9] so that even if some of them are not satisfied, the certification process can still be completed.

Companies do not have the resources to determine if a request complies with the terms of the agreement: The Amendment does not provide any oversight to ensure that technology companies are only turning over information permitted in a specific bilateral agreement. For example, a bilateral agreement may permit disclosure of information only in response to orders that do not discriminate on the basis of religion, however, it may not be possible for the companies receiving the request to determine whether a particular request complies with that condition or not. The Amendment does not require that individual companies put in place requisite processes to weed out requests that may be non compliant with the provisions of the agreement; nor are there periodic audits to ensure that companies are properly responding to foreign government information requests.[10]

Non compliance with Human Rights Standards: Under international human rights law, governments are allowed to conduct surveillance only based on individualized and sufficient suspicion; authorized by an independent and impartial decision-maker; necessary and proportionate to achieve a legitimate aim, including by being the least intrusive means possible.[11] However the mechanism proposed by the Amendment falls woefully short of these standards.[12]

One must not lose sight of the fact that most of the criticisms of the proposal that have been discussed above have been made in the context of, and based on the standards of privacy protection that are available to American citizens. If we look at it from an Indian perspective most of those protections are not available to Indian citizens in any case since independent judicial oversight is not a sine qua non for access to information by the security agencies in India. Although the Amendment leaves open the question of how a request would be made by the foreign government to the individual Agreements, it may be safe to assume that were India to enter into such an Agreement with the United States, it would require the orders for access to comply with the standards laid down under Indian law before the relevant authorities send the request to the US based data controllers. At the least, this would ensure that the rights of Indian citizens currently guaranteed under Indian law, howsoever flawed they might be, would in all likelihood be safeguarded as per Indian law.

Certification from the Attorney General to the US Congress

In the above background if India were to enter into the agreement with the U.S Government apart from actually negotiating and signing that Agreement, the Indian government will also have to ensure (if the Amendment is passed) that the Attorney General of the United States, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State gives a certificate to the Congress that Indian law satisfies the requirements set forth in the proposed section XXXX of Title 18.

It must be kept in mind that if the negotiations between India and the United States in this regard reach such a mature stage that the certification from the Attorney General is required, then that would mean that there is enough political will on both sides to ensure that such an arrangement actually comes to fruition. In this context it would not be unfair to assume that the Attorney General may have a slight bias towards opining that Indian laws do conform to the requirements of the Amendment, as the Attorney General would want to support the decision taken by the administration, and our analysis shall have a similar bias in order to be more contextual.

The certification would, inter alia, contain the determination of the Attorney General:

That the domestic law of India affords robust substantive and procedural protections for privacy and civil liberties in light of the data collection and activities of the Indian government that will be subject to the agreement.It should be noted that the Amendment specifies various factors that should be taken into account to reach such a determination, which include whether the Indian government:

(i) has adequate substantive and procedural laws on cybercrime and electronic evidence, as demonstrated through accession to the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, or through domestic laws that are consistent with definitions and the requirements set forth in Chapters I and II of that Convention; Although India is not a signatory to the Budapest Convention the Information Technology Act, 2000 (which is the main legislation dealing with cybercrime) has penal provisions which have borrowed heavily from the provisions of the Budapest Convention.

demonstrates respect for the rule of law and principles of nondiscrimination;

The provisions of Article 14 as well as Article 21 of the Constitution of India demonstrates that the legal regime in India is committed to the rule of law and principles of non discrimination.

adheres to applicable international human rights obligations and commitments or demonstrates respect for international universal human rights (including but not limited to protection from arbitrary and unlawful interference with privacy; fair trial rights; freedoms of expression, association and peaceful assembly; prohibitions on arbitrary arrest and detention; and prohibitions against torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment);

India is a signatory to a number of international human rights conventions and treaties, it has acceded to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), 1966, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), 1966, ratified the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), 1965, with certain reservations, signed the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), 1979 with certain reservations, Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), 1989 and signed the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), 1984. Further the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution takes within its fold a number of human rights such as the right to privacy. Freedom of expression, right to fair trial, freedom of assembly, right against arbitrary arrest and detention are all fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India.

has clear legal mandates and procedures governing those entities of the foreign government that are authorized to seek data under the executive agreement, including procedures through which those authorities collect, retain, use, and share data, and effective of oversight of these activities;

India has a number of legislations which govern the interception and request for information such as the Information Technology Act, 2000, the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, etc. which put in place mechanisms governing the authorities and entities which can ask for information.

has sufficient mechanisms to provide accountability and appropriate transparency regarding the government’s collection and use of electronic data; and

The Right to Information Act, 2005 provides the citizens the right to access any public document unless access to the same is prohibited due to the specific exemptions provided in the Act. It may be noted here that the provisions of the Right to Information Act are often frustrated by the bureaucracy by using exceptions such as “national security”, but for the purposes of this write up we are already assuming a bias towards fulfillment of these factors/conditions and therefore as long as there is even some evidence of compliance, the conditions will be considered as fulfilled by the Attorney General for the purposes of his certificate.

demonstrates a commitment to promote and protect the global free flow of information and the open, distributed, and interconnected nature of the Internet.

The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, which regulates telecom services in India has also issued the Prohibition of Discriminatory Tariffs for Data Services Regulations, 2016 which prohibits service providers from charging discriminatory tariffs for data services on the basis of content.

Other than Indian law, the certificate from the Attorney General will also have to certify certain issues which would have to be addressed in the bilateral agreement itself, viz.:

That the Indian government has adopted appropriate procedures to minimize the acquisition, retention, and dissemination of information concerning United States persons subject to the agreement.
That the agreement requires the following with respect to orders subject to the agreement:

(i) The Indian government may not intentionally target a United States person or a person located in the United States, and must adopt targeting procedures designed to meet this requirement;

(ii) The Indian government may not target a non–United States person located outside the United States if the purpose is to obtain information concerning a United States person or a person located in the United States;

(iii) The Indian government may not issue an order at the request of or to obtain information to provide to the United States government or a third-party government, nor shall the Indian government be required to share any information produced with the United States government or a third-party government;

(iv) Orders issued by the Indian government must be for the purpose of obtaining information relating to the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of serious crime, including terrorism;

(v) Orders issued by the Indian government must identify a specific person, account, address, or personal device, or any other specific identifier as the object of the Order;

(vi) Orders issued by the Indian government must be in compliance with the domestic laws of India, and any obligation for a provider of an electronic communications service or a remote computing service to produce data shall derive solely from Indian law;

(vii) Orders issued by the Indian government must be based on requirements for a reasonable justification based on articulable and credible facts, particularity, legality, and severity regarding the conduct under investigation;

(viii) Orders issued by the Indian government must be subject to review or oversight by a court, judge, magistrate, or other independent authority;

(ix) Orders issued by the Indian government for the interception of wire or electronic communications, and any extensions thereof, must be for a fixed, limited duration; interception may last no longer than is reasonably necessary to accomplish the approved purposes of the order; and orders may only be issued where that same information could not reasonably be obtained by another less intrusive method;

(x) Orders issued by the Indian government may not be used to infringe freedom of speech;

(xi) The Indian government must promptly review all material collected pursuant to the agreement and store any unreviewed communications on a secure system accessible only to those trained in applicable procedures;

(xii) The Indian government must segregate, seal, or delete, and not disseminate material found not to be information that is, or is necessary to understand or assess the importance of information that is, relevant to the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of serious crime, including terrorism, or necessary to protect against a threat of death or seriously bodily harm to any person;

(xiii) The Indian government may not disseminate the content of a communication of a U.S. person to U.S. authorities unless the communication (a) may be disseminated pursuant to Section 4(a)(3)(xii) and (b) relates to significant harm, or the threat thereof, to the United States or U.S. persons, including but not limited to crimes involving national security such as terrorism, significant violent crime, child exploitation, transnational organized crime, or significant financial fraud;

(xiv) The Indian government must afford reciprocal rights of data access to the United States government;

(xv) The Indian government must agree to periodic review of its compliance with the terms of the agreement by the United States government; and

(xvi) The United States government must reserve the right to render the agreement inapplicable as to any order for which it concludes the agreement may not properly be invoked.

Conclusion

It is clear from the discussion above that the proposed Amendment is a controversial piece of legislation which will affect the way law enforcement is carried out in the internet. While there is no doubt that proposing an alternate mechanism to the existing inefficient MLAT structure is definitely the need of the hour, whether the mechanism proposed in the proposed Amendment, with all the negative implications on privacy, is the right way forward is far from certain.

As for the three questions that we had sought out to answer in the beginning of this paper, we would not like to say that Indian law definitely conforms to all the requirements listed in the Amendments, but it can safely be said that it appears that if the governments of India and the United States so wish, it would not be difficult for the Attorney General of the United States to be able to give a certification to the Congress as required in the proposed Amendment.

The other two questions as to whether India should try to opt for such an arrangement if given a chance and what would be the consequence for its people are somewhat related, in the sense that it is only by examining the consequences on its citizens that we will arrive at an answer as to whether India should opt for such an arrangement or not. The level of protections offered to Indian citizens under India law in terms of protection of their private data from government surveillance is lower than that which is offered to American citizens under American law. The growing influence of the internet is changing the citizen-state dynamic giving rise to increasing incidents where the government has to approach private actors for permission in order to carry out their governmental functions of providing security. This is because more and more private data of individual citizens is being uploaded on to the internet and controlled by private actors such as telecom companies, social media sites, etc. and the governments have to approach these private actors in case they want access to this information. The fact that the government has to approach private actors to get access to data gives private citizens some leverage to ask for better privacy protections in the context of state surveillance.

Although this proposed Amendment may not affect the local surveillance laws in India, however it would definitely have an effect on the way that citizens’ data is protected and accessed by the government.

[1] Explanation by the Assistant Attorney General attached to the proposed Amendment.

[2] https://www.justsecurity.org/24145/u-s-u-k-data-sharing-treaty/

[3] https://www.justsecurity.org/24145/u-s-u-k-data-sharing-treaty/

[4] http://spicyip.com/2012/04/clash-of-courts-indian-district-court.html

[5] https://www.justsecurity.org/32529/foreign-governments-tech-companies-data-response-jennifer-daskal-andrew-woods/

[6] https://www.aclu.org/letter/aclu-amnesty-international-usa-and-hrw-letter-opposing-doj-proposal-cross-border-data-sharing

[7] https://www.aclu.org/letter/aclu-amnesty-international-usa-and-hrw-letter-opposing-doj-proposal-cross-border-data-sharing

[8] https://www.justsecurity.org/32529/foreign-governments-tech-companies-data-response-jennifer-daskal-andrew-woods/

[9] https://www.justsecurity.org/32529/foreign-governments-tech-companies-data-response-jennifer-daskal-andrew-woods/

[10] https://www.aclu.org/letter/aclu-amnesty-international-usa-and-hrw-letter-opposing-doj-proposal-cross-border-data-sharing

[11] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art. 17, Dec. 19, 1966, U.N.T.S 999, cf. https://www.aclu.org/letter/aclu-amnesty-international-usa-and-hrw-letter-opposing-doj-proposal-cross-border-data-sharing

[12] https://www.aclu.org/letter/aclu-amnesty-international-usa-and-hrw-letter-opposing-doj-proposal-cross-border-data-sharing

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/mlats-and-the-proposed-amendments-to-the-us-electronic-communications-privacy-act

New regulations in place; Aadhaar Card records to be preserved for 7 yrs by Centre

praskrishna — 2016-10-17T14:46:31Z

UIDAI chief executive office ABP Pandey said that the concerns regarding Aadhar card-related benefits were "exaggerated" and that the agency will keep the records in case any disputes arise in the future.

The article was published in the Financial Express on October 17, 2016. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

As per new regulations, the government will now keep a record for seven years of all services and benefits that are availed using Aadhaar number. Fearing that the database might be used for surveillance, the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) will preserve the records.

UIDAI chief executive office ABP Pandey said that the concerns regarding Aadhar card-related benefits were “exaggerated” and that the agency will keep the records in case any disputes arise in the future.

Pandey added that the information will be available online for two years and shall be shifted to the offline archives for the next five years. In that case, users will be able to check the records only for two years. However, the rules won’t apply for security agencies and that they will need a district judge’s permission to access the data.

According to HT, the rules allow designated joint secretary-level officers at the Centre to order access to information on the grounds of national security.

Talking about this Sunil Abraham, director of the Bengaluru-based think tank, Centre for Internet and Society said that once Aadhar becomes mandatory, it can be misused to conduct a 360-degree surveillance on any person.

Every time a person fingerprints and quotes the Aadhaar number, the agency concerned sends the data to UIDAI to crosscheck the particulars.
The UIDAI authenticates about five million Aadhaar numbers, which are quoted to avail LPG subsidy, cheap ration and even passport, a day against a capacity to verify 100 million requests daily, reports HT.

Meanwhile, The Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) has launched a drive to enrol any leftover population for Aadhaar in 22 states and UTs that have “statistically” hit 100 per cent coverage for adults.

The ‘Challenge drive’ starts from October 15 for a month, a UIDAI statement said, adding that as of today, over 106.69 crore Aadhaar numbers have been generated across the country.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/financial-express-october-17-2016-new-regulations-in-place-aadhaar-card-records-to-be-preserved-for-7-yrs-by-centre

Govt to keep Aadhaar record for 7 years, activists worried

praskrishna — 2016-10-17T01:53:24Z

The government will keep for seven years a record of all the services and benefits availed using the Aadhaar number, say new rules, prompting fears that the database could be used for surveillance.

The article by Aloke Tikku was published in the Hindustan Times on October 17, 2016. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

The Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), which issues the 12-digit biometric identity to all Indian residents, will be required to preserve its record of verification of an Aadhaar number for the duration.

“This is an unprecedented centralised data retention provision,” said Sunil Abraham, director of the Bengaluru-based think tank, Centre for Internet and Society.

UIDAI chief executive officer ABP Pandey said the concerns were exaggerated. The agency was keeping records in case a dispute arose over a transaction.

The information will be retained online for two years and another five years in the offline archives, say the rules notified in September.

Users will be able to check the records but only for two years.

This restriction won’t apply to security agencies. Pandey, however, said the records would not be available to them without a district judge’s permission.

But, HT found that the rules allow designated joint secretary-level officers at the Centre to order access to information on the grounds of national security.

“Once Aadhaar becomes mandatory for all services, it can be used by benign and malignant actors to conduct a 360-degree surveillance on any individual,” Abraham said.

This is how the system, which will need millions of fingerprint-reading machines, works.

Every time a person fingerprints and quotes the Aadhaar number, the agency concerned sends the data to UIDAI to crosscheck the particulars.

The UIDAI authenticates about five million Aadhaar numbers, which are quoted to avail LPG subsidy, cheap ration and even passport, a day against a capacity to verify 100 million requests daily.

“You can think of it as Natgrid Plus,” Abraham said, a reference to the National Intelligence Grid being built by the government.

A one-stop database for counter-terrorism agencies, Natgrid will collate information real time from databases of various agencies such as bank, rail and airline networks.

“…we do not record the purpose for which an authentication request was received but only the details of the agency that sent it,” UIDAI’s Pandey said.

But seven years is a long time. Only a select category of government files are kept for longer than five years.

Asked about two-year deadline for users, Pandey said it would have been a logistic nightmare to let people access the records once the information was offline.

The Supreme Court has a ruled that Aadhaar is not a must for availing welfare schemes and is to decide if collecting biometric data for the 12-digit number infringed an individual’s privacy.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/hindustan-times-aloke-tikku-october-17-2016-govt-to-keep-aadhaar-record-for-seven-years-activitsts-worried

Request for Specifics: Rebuttal to UIDAI

hans — 2016-10-30T15:06:31Z

Responding to the Unique Identification Authority of India’s article that found “serious mathematical errors” in “Flaws in the UIDAI Process” (EPW 12 March 2016), the main mathematical argument used to arrive at the number of duplicates in the biometric database is explained.

The article was published in the Economic & Political Weekly on September 3, 2016, Vol.51, Issue No.36.

The author of a technical paper will be alarmed when he is convicted of “serious mathematical errors” by someone who has not bothered himself with “going too deep into the mathematics” used. The man must possess miraculous powers of divination one feels: fears rather. The UIDAI seems to have even such formidable diviners in their employ: who have dismissed just so peremptorily, in their rebuttal, the calculations made in my paper titled Flaws in the UIDAI process. The paper appeared in the issue of this journal dated to February 27 of this year. The rebuttal was published in the issue dated to the 12th of March. The interested reader can confirm that I have only repeated what was said there. The rebuttal does not specify, in any way, the mathematical mistakes I am supposed to have made. So I shall rehearse the relevant calculations very broadly: and the experts of the UIDAI will then exhibit, I trust, the specific mistakes they impute to me.[*]

[*]My reply to the UIDAIs attempted rebuttal was sent in to the EPW a few days after that appeared in print: and published as a “web exclusive” article in Volume 51, Issue Number 36 of the EPW, on 03/09/2016.

Read the Full Article

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/economic-and-political-weekly-journal-vol-51-issue-36-september-3-2016-hans-varghese-mathews-request-for-specifics

Here is why government twitter handles have been posting offensive and partisan messages

praskrishna — 2016-10-16T03:24:45Z

You have failed us big time Mr Kejriwal, for your petty political gains you can become headlines for Pakistani press,” read a tweet on October 5 from @IndiaPostOffice, the official twitter handle of the Indian postal service.

The article by Danish Raza was published in the Hindustan Times on October 15, 2016. Nishant Shah was quoted.

It was a reference to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal urging the Prime Minister to counter Pakistan’s propaganda over surgical strikes.

Within hours, India Post tweeted an apology saying that the account was hacked.

This is the latest in a series of opinions and statements posted from official twitter handles of government departments and bodies. Of late, the Twitter handles meant to broadcast information related to government programmes have appeared like personal accounts tweeting slander and criticism.

Last month, the Twitter handle of Digital India tweeted a poem in Hindi calling on the Indian Army to persistently fire at protesters in Kashmir.

In August, the Twitter handle of Startup India retweeted a post suggesting that the Indian Army should ‘take care’ of #Presstitutes, a reference to sections of Indian media critical of the government.

The tweets expose loopholes in the government’s social media policy and raise questions about the norms followed in the recruitment of social media professionals for ministries and government institutions.

Work in Progress

The process of adopting new tools is work in progress. While the government agencies are trying to leverage social media to enhance citizen engagement, for the vast majority of government bodies, it is unexplored territory. Babus who have traditionally been dealing in paperwork and file notings are overwhelmed to see hash tags and trends. With a tech- savvy Prime Minister at the helm, every government department is trying to increase its digital footprint. At the same time, they face the challenge of reinterpreting existing work ethics and codes of conduct and applying them to the use of social media. Ministries such as the Ministry of External Affairs, Information & Broadcasting and the Prime Minister’s Office which have cohesive programmes and big mandate, have separate social media wings of their own with well- defined protocols. But these are exceptions.

Overall, the government bodies lack social media guidelines for their own efforts or which others can learn from. According to Chinmayi Arun, executive director, Centre for Communication Governance, National Law University, Delhi, mistakes are bound to happen given that everyone is new to social media. But it should be non-negotiable that when anything is said using an official governmental handle, the government should take more responsibility than just saying ‘oops’. “One of course is a clear and unequivocal statement apologising and taking back whatever was said. However, it should take pro-active measures to train and test people who handle its public-facing accounts and publish a clear monitoring and accountability mechanism by which they can be called to account. It should not be open to anyone to misuse the government’s official handles in this manner,” said Arun.

One of the areas where the lack of sensitisation is apparent is the usage of the same mobile device for multiple twitter handles – the most common reason for such goof-ups cited by social media consultants attached to various government departments. “I believe these were inadvertently posted by people handling these accounts. It may neither have been their mandate nor their intention. It happens when the person has configured multiple twitter handles from the same device and ends up posting from the wrong account,” said Amit Malviya, BJP’s National Convener, IT.

The majority of ministries and government departments do not give phones to members of the social media teams. It is up to the individual to use his personal device or get an additional one to manage the professional handle (s). A mistake will happen if a comment which was to be posted from the personal handle is posted from the official handle.

Twitter Goof-ups from GoI Accounts

“Because of the personalised and individual nature of social media, it is easy to forget that they are representing an institution and not themselves when using these handles. This also suggests the lack of public usage training in these organisations, and the need to educate our public actors in using social media with more responsibility as office bearers of an institution rather than a personal expression or an opinion,” said Nishant Shah, co-founder of the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore.

Another issue is that access to the account is given to multiple people. “Each one of them brings their individual personality and politics to their operation of the handle,” said Shah.

Hiring Issues

Part of the problem lies in the fact that there is no standard protocol on who can access the twitter handle of Indian government bodies and how this person or team is hired.

A few ministries (example: the ministry of railways) have a team comprising of government employees and staff of private agencies handling their account. Others have outsourced the job to agencies.

During the campaigning for the 2009 election, political parties got outside expertise to mark their presence online. The selection parameters of social media consultants – established public relations firms in some cases and individuals in others – was not uniform.

Unlike the traditional public relations officers who are from the Indian Information Services cadre, the social media consultants were selected based on their expertise in the field, political affiliation, and proximity to a party or leader.

Those who started handling social media accounts of political parties and leaders included trolls and social media influencers. “Parties got youngsters who were politically motivated and willing to work for political parties. They became cheaper alternatives for social media experts,” said Ishan Russel, political communication consultant.

After the NDA came to power, almost every ministry outsourced its digital expertise to agencies. Many individuals who were earlier directly working with leaders and parties got back with them via agencies. “If an agency is looking for people to handle the twitter account or Facebook page of a certain ministry in the BJP government, then those who are politically inclined towards the BJP will apply for the vacancies and their chances of getting hired are also much higher than someone who is neutral or known to be an AAP sympathiser,” said Vikas Pandey, 32-year-old software engineer, who headed the “I Support Namo” campaign on Facebook and Twitter, as a volunteer for the BJP.

Last year, the Prime Minister felicitated more than a dozen social media enthusiasts, including Vikas. The move raised eyebrows because many felt that the government was encouraging trolls. “It illuminates the fact that trolls have found gainful employment in the Government of India. Also that the entire edifice of the centre is being taken over by woefully undereducated bigots,” said Swati Chaturvedi, senior journalist and author.

Agency, the Soft Target

Till the time the government staff is well versed with social media tools, attributing the mistakes to an ‘outside agency’ appears to be the norm.

In the case of the twitter goof-up involving Startup India, Commerce and Industry minister Nirmala Sitharaman blamed a private agency that was managing the account of Startup India. “The retweets were done by an employee of the agency hired by the department of industrial policy and promotion. The person assigned by the agency for this particular job is not decided by the department and is the sole prerogative of the agency,” she said.

S Radha Chauhan, CEO of National e-Governance Division, attributed the controversial post from Digital India’s twitter handle to an agency called Trivone. “The person responsible had mistakenly tweeted from the official handle what he wanted to tweet from his personal account,” said Chauhan.

Those familiar with the functioning of the government’s social media verticals say that agencies are mentioned to cover up for mistakes often committed by someone from the government staff. “When in crisis, blame the agency, is the thumbrule the government follows. The fact is that each twitter post is approved by the client before it is posted,” said a senior executive with a digital marketing firm attached to a ministry which has recently earned lot of praise for its social media initiatives.

Nishtha Arora, social media and digital consultant in a reputed ad agency, was handling a political account till very recently. She said that the client required her to just randomly tweet or RT to be heard by the followers of a tech-savvy minister and be his digital mouthpiece. “I often had to draft tweets which looked like press releases,” she said.

“Digital faux pas is blamed on to someone who might be an expert in the field but yet has to bow down to the client pressure so that their agenda for the day is met and the said government body or ministry remains in the news,” she added.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/hindustan-times-danish-raza-october-15-2016-here-is-why-government-twitter-handles-have-been-posting-offensive-and-partisan-messages

Hakon 2016

praskrishna — 2016-10-15T10:04:41Z

Udbhav Tiwari attended attended Hakon 2016, a conference held between September 30 and October 2, 2016 at Indore, Madhya Pradesh, India,on behalf of CIS under the Hewlett Cyber Security Project.

Hakon 2016 was the third edition of the conference which has been organised by Ninja Information Security Systems, an ISO 27001:2013 & 9001:2008 certified training organisation and the primary sponsor of the conference from Indore. The conference was efficiently organised, had about 150 to 200 people attending overall and provided an unique window into the non-tech hub/big city ethical hacker ecosystem and their place within the cyber security setup in India. The agenda of this year's conference was the Underground Digital Black Market & Digital Terrorism, with a fair mix of participants from the industry, academia and the government. The conference website can be looked up at http://www.hakonindia.org/ for further details, including a look at past editions of the conference.

The technical workshops held during the first two days of the conference were well organised and networking with the teachers during and mostly at the end of the conference was very helpful in understanding a practitioners perspective on cutting edge aspects of cyber security. This was particularly true for Chuck Easttom Williams, an accomplished cyber security expert from the USA who regularly trains government agencies and in a fairly reputed industry veteran who has been an invited speaker at DEFCON and even has a couple of patents to his name.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/hakon-2016

IANA Transition: A Case of the Emperor’s New Clothes?

vidushi — 2016-11-03T06:20:46Z

Transparency is key to engaging meaningfully with ICANN. CIS has filed the most number of Documentary Information Disclosure Policy (DIDP) requests with ICANN, covering a range of subjects including its relationships with contracted parties, financial disclosure, revenue statements, and harassment policies. Asvatha Babu, an intern at CIS, analysed all responses to our requests and found that only 14% of our requests were answered fully.

The post was published by Digital Asia Hub on October 6, 2016.

In March 2014, the US Government committed to ending its contract with ICANN to run the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), and also announced that it would hand over control to the “global multistakeholder community”. The conditions for this handover were that the changes must be developed by stakeholders across the globe, with broad community consensus.

Further, it was indicated that any proposal must support and enhance the multistakeholder model; maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet Domain Name System (DNS); meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the IANA services and maintain the openness of the Internet. Further, it must not replace the NTIA role with a solution that is government-led or by an inter-governmental organisation.

These conditions were met, ICANN’s Supporting Organisations (SO’s) and Advisory Committees (ACs) accepted transition proposals, and these proposals were then accepted by the ICANN Board as well, putting the transition in motion. But not quite. The “global multistakeholder community” still had to wait for approval from the NTIA and the US government, both of whom eventually approved the proposal. The latter’s approval was confirmed after considerable uncertainty due to Senator Ted Cruz’s efforts to stop the transition, due to his belief that the transition was an exercise of the US government handing over control of the internet to foreign governments. Notwithstanding this, on 29th September, the US Senate passed a short term bill to keep the US Government funded till the end of the year, without a rider on the IANA transition. The next hurdle was a lawsuit filed in federal court in Texas by the attorney generals of four states to stop the handover of the IANA contract. As on the 30^th of September, the court denied the Plaintiffs’ Application, thus allowing the transition to proceed.

What does this transition mean? What does it change? The transition, while a welcome step, leaves much to be desired in terms of tangible change, primarily because it fails to address the most important question, that of ICANN jurisdiction. It is important to have the Internet’s core Domain Name System (DNS) functioning free from the pressures and control of a single country or even a few countries; the transition does not ensure this, as the Post Transition IANA entity (PTI) will be under Californian jurisdiction, just like ICANN was pre-transition. The entire ICANN community has been witness to a single American political figure almost derailing its meticulous efforts simply because he could; and in many ways these events cemented the importance of having diversity in terms of legal jurisdiction of ICANN, the PTI and the root zone maintainer.

My colleague Pranesh Prakash has identified 11 reasons why the question of jurisdiction is important to consider during the IANA transition. Some of these issues depend on where ICANN, the PTI and the root zone maintainer are situated, some depend on the location of the office in question and still others depend on contracts that ICANN enters into. ICANN’s new bylaws state that it will be situated in California, the post transition IANA entities bylaws also make a Californian jurisdiction integral to its functioning. As an alternative, the Centre for Internet & Society has called for the “jurisdictional resilience” of ICANN, encompassing three crucial points: legal immunity for core technical operators of Internet functions (as opposed to policymaking venues) from legal sanctions or orders from the state in which they are legally situated, division of core Internet operators among multiple jurisdictions, and jurisdictional division of policymaking functions from technical implementation functions.

Transparency is also key to engaging meaningfully with ICANN. CIS has filed the most number of Documentary Information Disclosure Policy (DIDP) requests with ICANN, covering a range of subjects including its relationships with contracted parties, financial disclosure, revenue statements, and harassment policies. Asvatha Babu, an intern at CIS, analysed all responses to our requests and found that only 14% of our requests were answered fully. 40% of our requests had no relevant answers disclosed at all (these were mostly to do with complaints and contractual compliance). To illustrate the importance of engaging with ICANN transparency, CIS has focused on understanding ICANN’s sources of income since 2014. This is because we believe that conflict of interest can only be properly understood by following the money in a granular fashion. This information was not publicly available, and in fact, it seemed like ICANN didn’t know where it got its money from, either. It is only through the DIDP process that we were able to get ICANN to disclose sources of income, and figures along with those sources for a single financial year.

ICANN prides itself on being transparent and accountable, but in reality it is not. The most often used exception to avoid answering DIDP requests has been “Confidential business information and/or internal policies and procedures”, which in itself is a testament to ICANN’s opacity. Another condition for non-disclosure allows ICANN to reject answering “Information requests: (i) which are not reasonable; (ii) which are excessive or overly burdensome; (iii) complying with which is not feasible; or (iv) are made with an abusive or vexatious purpose or by a vexatious or querulous individual.”. These exemptions are not only vague, they are also extremely subjective: again, demonstrative of the need for enhanced accountability and transparency within ICANN. Key issues have not been addressed even at the time that the transition is formally underway. The grounds for denying DIDP requests are still vague and wide, effectively giving ICANN the discretion to decline answering difficult questions, which is unacceptable from an entity that is at the center of the multi-billion dollar domain name industry.

ICANN’s jurisdictional resilience and enhanced accountability are particularly vital for countries in Asia. Its policies, processes and functioning have historically been skewed towards western and industry interests, and ICANN can neither be truly global nor multistakeholder till such countries can engage meaningfully with it in a transparent fashion. The IANA transition is, of course, largely political, and may symbolise a transition to the global multistakeholder community, but in reality, it changes very little, if anything.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/digital-asia-hub-october-6-2016-vidushi-marda-iana-transition

Tech companies like Gmail, WhatsApp may be asked to store user information

praskrishna — 2016-10-14T01:12:14Z

The government is moving to formulate rules that will require technology ‘intermediaries’— including email services like Gmail, chat apps such as WhatsApp and Snapchat or even ecommerce firms like Amazon — to retain user information, a development that is expected to be met with determined opposition.

The article by Surabhi Agarwal was published in Economic Times on October 14, 2016. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.

What the government is looking to do now is draft rules for Section 67C of the Information Technology Act, and this will be done by a committee that has been set up for the purpose. The rules — whose drafting has been waiting since 2008 — will spell out what type of data has to be stored, in which format, and for how long, according to three members of the newly-formed committee. All this so that law-enforcement agencies can access the information if they need it.

Sharing of information between foreign firms and the Indian government has been a contentious issue, and experts said the mandate may be impossible to implement for firms such as WhatsApp that promise end-to-end encryption. Or for Snapchat – a chat app where messages disappear within seconds and are not even stored on the company’s servers.

Firms may also oppose the diktat, especially since most of them are not governed by Indian laws and also due to the high cost of data retention.

The committee is headed by additional secretary in the ministry of electronics and IT (MEITY), Ajay Kumar, and has one representative each from the ministry of home affairs, department of telecom, department of personnel and training, Nasscom, Internet Service Provider Association of India (ISPAI), along with an advocate specialising in cyber law and a few officers from MEITY. The first meeting of the committee took place in the last week of September.

“This is a fairly complex issue, compounded by the general lack of understanding of mobile apps and over the top service providers,” said a person on the committee who did not wish to be identified. This person said that most technology players are based in the United States and they have always been at loggerheads about sharing of information with the government. “Even if it is for national security reasons, how much are these companies answerable to the Indian security establishment? And we do know how Apple refused to unlock the phone even for FBI."

Google and Facebook did not respond to requests for comment.

‘Huge balancing act’

Supreme Court lawyer and cyber law expert Pavan Duggal said the section has been drafted in very “broad” terms and the move may be driven by the realisation that these companies are huge data repositories – some of which might be relevant to law enforcement investigations. “It will have to be a huge balancing act and will be interesting to see what this committee decides,” added Duggal.

While Section 67C refers to the obligation of the service providers to retain information, the nature of the data to be retained and the time period is not specified. Companies which do not comply with the law can be levied fine and its officers sent to jail.

Another member on the committee said the ambit of this task is huge. “In the last meeting we argued that the rules should be the same for everybody and there should be no differential treatment for foreign companies such as Google or Microsoft,” he said. This person said that ambiguity is rampant as various government arms have different sets of rules for data retention.

For instance, the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) asks for data to be stored for six months, while the Registrar of Companies mandates some information to be retained for one year while the income-tax rules mandate data storage for six-seven years. “There has only been one meeting so far. It is a long procedure and will require several rounds of consultation,” said a third person on the committee.

Privacy activists like Pranesh Prakash of the Centre for Internet and Society said that one of the principles that’s frequently cited while discussing international practices on surveillance is that data retention should not be required of service providers.

And internationally too, there is no standard on this issue. “There were norms at the European Union-level regarding data retention, but they were struck down in 2014 by the European Court of Justice as being violative of human rights,” he said.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/economic-times-october-14-2016-surabhi-agarwal-tech-companies-like-gmail-whatsapp-may-be-asked-to-store-user-information

National Cyber Defence Summit 2016

praskrishna — 2016-10-10T12:54:29Z

National Cyber Defence Summit – 2016 was organized by the National Cyber Safety and Security Standards in association with State & Central Governments, Ministry of Defence, Government of India, AICTE & Anna University on 30 September and 1 October 2016 in Chennai. Vanya Rakesh attended the summit.

The Summit focused on multiple issues linked with the current use of cyberspace by the various stake holders and creating awareness of the responsibility associated with the judicious use of this significant and powerful tool, without endangering the fragile security and social framework. The mission of the Summit is to establish a multi-stakeholder consortium that brings together Industry, Government, and Academic interests in an effort to improve the state of Cyber Security on both a domestic and international level. Primarily, the Summit focuses on multiple issues linked with the current use of cyberspace by the various stake holders and creating awareness of the responsibility associated with the judicious use of this significant and powerful tool, without endangering the fragile security and social framework.

In fact this is the one and only High Level Summit which gathers the presence of Multi-Stakeholders from State/Central Governments, Defence, MNCs, PSUs, Academics, PSBs, Intelligence Agencies, Enforcement Agencies and etc. For more info see the website here. Agenda can be viewed here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/national-cyber-defence-summit-2016

Internet Democratisation: IANA Transition Leaves Much to be Desired

vidushi — 2016-11-03T07:52:37Z

At best, the IANA transition is symbolic of Washington’s oversight over ICANN coming to an end. It is also symbolic of the empowerment of the global multistakeholder community. In reality, it fails to do either meaningfully.

The article was published in the Hindustan Times on October 6, 2016.

Many suspect Washington’s 2014 announcement of handing over control of the IANA contract to be fuelled by the outcry following Edward Snowden’s revelations of the extent of US government surveillance. Source: AFP

September 30, 2016, marked the expiration of a contract between the US government and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to carry out the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions.

In simpler, acronym-free terms, Washington’s formal oversight over the Internet’s address book has come to an end with the expiration of this contract, with control now being passed on to the “global multistakeholder community”.

ICANN was incorporated in California in 1998 to manage the backbone of the Internet, which included the domain name system (DNS), allocation of IP addresses and root servers. After an agreement with the US National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), ICANN was tasked with operating the IANA functions, which includes maintenance of the root zone file of the DNS. Over the years Washington has rejected calls to hand over the control of IANA functions, but in March 2014 it announced its intentions to do so and laid down conditions for the handover. Many suspect the driving force behind this announcement to be the outcry following Edward Snowden’s revelations of the extent of US government surveillance.

The conditions laid down by the NTIA were met, and the US government accepted the transition proposal, amidst much political pressure and opposition, most notably from Senator Ted Cruz.

This transition is a step in the right direction, but in reality, it changes very little as it fails to address two critical issues: Of jurisdiction and accountability.

Jurisdiction is important while considering the resolution of contractual disputes, application of labour and competition laws, disputes regarding ICANN’s decisions, consumer protection, financial transparency, etc. Many of these questions, although not all, will depend on where ICANN is located. ICANN’s new bylaws mention that it will continue to be incorporated in California, and subject to California law just as it was pre-transition. Having the DNS subject to the laws of a single country can only lend to its fragility. ICANN’s US jurisdiction also means that it is not free from the political pressures from the US Senate and in turn, the toxic effect of American party politics that were made visible in the events leading up to September 30.

Another critical issue that the transition does not address is that of ICANN accountability. Post-transition, ICANN’s board will continue to be the ultimate decision-making authority, thus controlling the organisation’s functioning, and ICANN staff will be accountable to the board alone.

To put things in perspective, look at the board’s track record in the recent past. In August, an Independent Review Panel (IRP) found that ICANN’s board had violated ICANN’s own bylaws and had failed to discharge its transparency obligations when it failed to look into staff misbehaviour. Following this, in September, ICANN decided to respond to such allegations of mismanagement, opacity and lack of accountability by launching a review. The review however, would not look into the issues, failures and false claims of the board, but instead focus on the process by which ICANN staff was able to engage in such misbehaviour. This ironically, will be in the form of an internal review that will pass through ICANN staff — the subjects of the investigation — before being taken up to the board.

At best, the transition is symbolic of Washington’s oversight over ICANN coming to an end. It is also symbolic of the empowerment of the global multistakeholder community. In reality, it fails to do either meaningfully.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/hindustan-times-october-6-2016-vidushi-marda-internet-democratisation

If all goes well, Indian IT Act may enter 21st century

praskrishna — 2016-10-06T16:49:12Z

The government is aiming to refresh the main law governing information technology by giving it a revamp which it hopes will bring it in tune with the times and address criticisms about its weaknesses, a senior official said on condition of anonymity.

The article by Surabhi Agarwal was published in the Economic Times on October 6, 2016. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

The move is triggered by the realisation that the Information Technology Act passed in 2000 and last amended eight years ago may be wanting in many respects due to advances in technology and its ubiquitousness in nearly every aspect of life.

The government will take a first step by constituting a committee whose job will be to make suggestions to refresh the law. The magnitude of fraud, terrorism, bullying and stalking in cyber space has grown along with advances in technology and its adoption, and these are some of the areas where the law could do with an update.

The government's massive push on Digital India is also leading to significant digitisation of government services and records. In 2000, when the Act was first passed, there were a mere 5 million internet users in the country. India has surpassed the US to become the second-largest Internet market with 436 million users as of June 2016.

"It has been realised that we need more provisions on things such as mobile security, internet of things," the official said. "The last amendment came in 2008, so almost a decade has passed." This person said that there is confusion among various law enforcement agencies regarding the ambit of the IT Act.

Fresh provisions are also required in fields such as how long agencies – both state as well as private – should hold citizens' information, which has been shared by them, for any kind of authentication through means such as emails. Supreme Court advocate and cyber security expert Pavan Duggal called the IT Act an "outdated" piece of legislation.

"The Act and the amendments are in the pre-social media era. Current realities, challenges and the policy aspects of cyberspace have not been addressed," he said. There are no provisions, for instance, for mandatory reporting of cyber-crime and cyber-security breaches, he said. Besides, there are the challenges posed by the dark net where everything from weapons to drugs are being peddled.

"Cyber bullying is the number one problem in Indian schools and universities which is not addressed in the Act. There have been no convictions for cyber stalking which is extremely prevalent in India," Duggal said, suggesting measures such as the setting up of special courts for cyber crime and terror.

In the past couple of years, the government has come under fire for several attempts to bring in laws on encryption, contain pornography and the spread of obscene material online. The Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI) said that while the move to change the Act is welcome, it should be done in an "inclusive" manner with the "widest possible public consultation" and not by a committee which consists only of government representatives.

Subho Ray, president of IAMAI said that while the definition of intermediaries needs to be reviewed and the list expanded, citizens' fundamental rights need to kept in mind while trying to bring back a modified form of Section 66A (it dealt with offences on the internet), which was struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional.

The ministry of electronics and IT is currently trying to form a committee with experts from the private sector, the source said, and cautioned about the prospect of a "long-haul" before changes come about. Sunil Abraham, director of the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) said that India's data protection laws under Section 43A of the IT Act must be upgraded and this would help Indian companies which export IT-enabled services.

"We also need to apply the principle of equivalence more clearly, which says that if something is illegal offline, it should also be illegal online," said Abraham.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/economic-times-surabhi-agarwal-october-6-2016-if-all-goes-well-indian-it-act-may-enter-twenty-first-century

Services like TwitterSeva aren’t the silver bullets they are made out to be

sunil — 2016-10-06T16:31:51Z

TwitterSeva is great, but it should not be considered a sufficient replacement for proper e-governance systems. This is because there are several serious shortcomings with the TwitterSeva approach, and it is no wonder that enthusiastic police officers and bureaucrats are somewhat upset with the slow deployment of e-governance applications. They are also right in being frustrated with the lack of usability and scalability of existing applications that hold out the promise of adopting private sector platforms to serve citizens better.

Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Centre for Internet and Society, wrote this in response to the FactorDaily story on TwitterSeva, a special feature developed by Twitter’s India team to help citizens connect better with government services. Sunil's article in FactorDaily can be read here.

Let’s take a look at why the TwitterSeva approach is not adequate:

1. Vendor and Technology Neutrality: Providing a level ground for competing technologies in e-governance has been a globally accepted best practice for about 15 years now. This is usually done by using open standards policies and interoperability frameworks.

India does have a national open standards policy, but the National Informatics Centre (NIC) has only published one chapter of the Interoperability Framework for e-Governance .

The thing is, while Twitter might be the preferred choice for urban elites and the middle class, it might not be the choice of millions of Indians coming online. By implicitly signaling to citizens that Twitter complaints will be taken more seriously than e-mail or SMS complaints, the government is becoming a salesperson for Twitter. Ideally, all interactions that the state has with citizens should be such that citizens can choose which vendor and technology they would like to use. Ideally, the government should have its own work-flow so that it can harvest complaints, feedback and other communications from all social media platforms be it Twitter or Identica, Facebook or Diaspora, and publish responses back onto them.

By implicitly signalling to citizens that Twitter complaints will be taken more seriously than e-mail or SMS complaints, the government is becoming a salesperson for Twitter

Apart from undermining the power of choice for citizens, lack of vendor and technology neutrality in government use of technology undermines the efficient functioning of a competitive free market, which is the bedrock of future innovation.

When it comes to micro-blogging, Twitter has established a near monopoly in India. There are no clear signs of harm and therefore it would not be wise to advocate that the Competition Commission of India investigate Twitter. However, if the government helps Twitter tighten its grip over the Indian market, it is preventing the next cycle of creative destruction and disruption. Therefore, e-governance applications should ideally only “loosely couple” with the APIs of private firms so that competition and innovation are protected.

2. Holistic Approach and Accountability: Ideally, as the Electronic Service Delivery Bill 2011 had envisaged, every agency within the government was supposed to (within 180 days of the enactment of the Act) do several things: publish a list of services that will be delivered electronically with a deadline for each service; commit to service-level agreements for each service and provide details of the manner of delivery; provide an agency-level grievance redressal mechanism for citizens unhappy with the delivery of these electronic services.

Notwithstanding the 180-day commitment, the Bill required that “all public services shall be delivered in electronic mode within five years” after the enactment of the Bill with a potential three-year extension if the original deadline was not met. The Bill also envisaged the constitution of a Central Electronic Service Delivery Commission with a team of commissioners who “monitor the implementation of this Bill on a regular basis” and publish an annual report which would include “the number of electronic service requests in response to which service was provided in accordance with the applicable service levels and an analysis of the remaining cases.”

The Electronic Service Delivery Bill 2011 had a much more comprehensive and accountable plan for e-governance adoption in the country

Citizens suffering from non-compliance with the provisions of the Bill and unsatisfied with the response from the agency level grievance redressal mechanism could appeal to the Commission. The state or central commissioners after giving the government officials an opportunity to be heard were empowered to impose a fine of Rs 5000.

Unlike the piecemeal approach of TwitterSeva, the Bill had a much more comprehensive and accountable plan for e-governance adoption in the country.

3. Right To Transparency: Some of the interactions that the government has with citizens and firms may have to be disclosed under the obligation emerging from the Right to Information Act for disclosure to the public or to the requesting party. Therefore it is important that the government take its own steps for the retention of all data and records — independent of the goodwill and lifecycles of private firms.

Twitter is only 10 years old. It took 10 years for Orkut to shut down. Maybe Twitter will shut down in the next 10 years. How then will the government comply with RTI requests? Even if the government is not keen on pushing for data portablity as a right for consumers (just like mobile number portability in telecom, so that consumers can seamlessly shift between competing service providers), it absolutely should insist on data portability for all government use.

Twitter is only 10 years old. It took 10 years for Orkut to shut down. Maybe Twitter will shut down in the next 10 years. How then will the government comply with RTI requests?

This will allow it to shift to a) support multiple services, b) shift to competing/emerging services c) incrementally build its own infrastructure and also comply with the requirements of the Right to Information Act.

4. Privacy: Unfortunately, thanks to the techno-utopians behind the Aadhaar project, the current government is infected with “data ideology.” There is an obsession with collecting as much data as possible from citizens, storing it in centralized databases and providing “dashboards” to bureaucrats and politicians. This is diametrically opposed to the view of the security community.

Unfortunately, thanks to the techno-utopians behind the Aadhaar project, the current government is infected with “data ideology”

For example, Bruce Schneier posted on his blog in March this year (in a piece titled ‘Data is a Toxic Asset‘) saying: “What all these data breaches are teaching us is that data is a toxic asset and saving it is dangerous. This idea has always been part of the data protection law starting with the 2005 EU Data Protection Directive expressed as the principle of “Data Minimization” or “Collection Limitation”. More recently technologists and policy makers also use the phrase “Privacy by Design”. Introducing an unnecessary intermediary or gate-keeper between what is essentially transactions between citizens and the state is an egregious violation of a key privacy principle.”

5. Middle Class and Elite Capture: The use of Twitter amplifies the voices of the English-speaking, elite, and middle class citizens at the expense of the voices of the poor. While elites don’t exhibit fear when tagging police IDs and making public complaints from the comforts of their gated communities with private security guards shielding them the violence of the state, this might be a very intimidating option for the poor and disempowered.

While elites don’t fear tagging police IDs and making public complaints from the comforts of their gated communities, it’s intimidating for the disempowered

While the system may not be discriminatory in its design, it will have disparate impact on different sections of our society. In other words, the introduction of TwitterSeva will exacerbate power asymmetries in our society rather than ameliorating them.

The canonical scholarly reference for this is Kate Crawford’s analysis of City of Boston’s StreetBump smartphone, which resulted in an over-reporting of potholes in elite neighbourhoods and under-reporting from poor and elderly residents. This meant that efficiency in the allocation of the city’s resources was only a cover for increased discrimination against the powerless.

6. Security: The most important conclusion to draw from the Snowden disclosure is that the tin-foil conspiracy theorists who we used to dismiss as lunatics were correct. What has been established beyond doubt is that the United States of America is the world leader when it comes to conducting mass surveillance on netizens across the globe. It is still completely unclear how much access the NSA has to the databases of American social media giants. When the complete police force of a state starts to use Twitter for the delivery of services to the public, then it may be possible for foreign intelligence agencies to use this information to undermine our sovereignty and national security.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/factordaily-sunil-abraham-october-6-2016-services-like-twitterseva-are-not-the-silver-bullets-they-are-made-out-to-be

Not Everyone Plays by the Rules in the Digital Playground: Addressing Online Child Sexual Exploitation

praskrishna — 2016-10-05T15:08:40Z

Japreet Grewal spoke at a panel on 'Prevention through Awareness and Education' at a meeting titled 'Not Everyone Plays by the Rules in the Digital Playground:Addressing Online Child Sexual Exploitation' that was organised by the International Centre for Missing and Exploited Children, Singapore (ICMEC) and TULIR - Centre for the Prevention and Treatment of Child Sexual Abuse, India on October 3-4, 2016 at India Habitat Centre, New Delhi.

Click the links below to access:

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/not-everyone-plays-by-the-rules-in-the-digital-playground-addressing-online-child-sexual-exploitation