We are anonymous, we are legion

Net Gain

praskrishna — 2011-08-29T11:52:54Z

The draft Electronic Service Delivery Bill, 2011, is aimed at making government services available online. But there are many hurdles to bringing in effective e-governance, says Hemchhaya De

At a time when India is hotly debating the Lokpal Bill, another significant piece of legislation is about to make its way to Parliament this monsoon session. The government has mooted the draft Electronic Service Delivery Bill, 2011, to ensure that all ministries and government departments provide their services to citizens online.

The bill, drafted by the department of information technology (DIT) under the ministry of communication and information technology, could have far-reaching benefits for citizens. If implemented, one would no longer have to stand in long queues, make frequent trips to government offices and deal with red tape in order to procure even such basic documents as driving licences or land record copies.

Of course, the key question is whether the necessary infrastructure will be in place to allow citizens to access these services via the electronic mode. In a country where active Internet user penetration in rural areas is as low as 2.13 per cent, the feasibility of e-governance depends on the state providing enough number of access centres.

E-governance is not a completely new concept in India. The Centre laid down an ambitious National e-Governance Plan (NeGP) in 2006 and roped in industry bodies like Nasscom to facilitate the delivery of e-services. According to a Nasscom report, there has been substantial progress in NeGP. Of the 1,100 services targeted under the plan, over 600 services in both government-to-citizen (G2C) and government-to-business (G2B) domains across central ministries and state departments can now be accessed electronically.

However, many experts feel that the NeGP has not lived up to its promise. "Progress in NeGP has been slow," says Subhash Bhatnagar, honorary adjunct professor at IIM, Ahmedabad, and member of the steering committee of the 12th Five Year Plan (2012-17) for the communication and IT and information sector.

That said, some states have been running successful e-government projects. “Take Karnataka’s online delivery and management of land records,” says Bhatnagar. “The online system offers services to ordinary people on a first-come, first-served basis without subjecting them to the whims and fancies of babus.”

However, Karnataka is an exception rather than the rule and many states are lagging behind when it comes to extending e-governance. “IIM, Ahmedabad, carried out an e-governance impact assessment study in 12 states. West Bengal is one state which hasn’t fared well and it figures in the bottom half of the list,” reveals Bhatnagar.

The draft Electronic Service Delivery Bill aims to exert pressure on states and government departments to fully automate or computerise their services to citizens. Crucially, it sets a clear time limit for delivering online services. The bill says, “every competent authority of the appropriate Government” is required to publish or specify the services that will be digitised within six months from the commencement of the law. “If there’s any delay, departments have to explain it in writing,” says a senior official of the DIT who does not wish to be named.

The bill further mandates that all public services should be delivered in electronic modes within five years from the commencement of the law. This period may be extended by not more than three years.

In addition to a grievance redressal mechanism, the bill proposes setting up a Central Electronic Service Delivery Commission to enforce the provisions of the law. The commission should comprise a central chief commissioner and not more than two central commissioners — all of whom shall have “worked as secretary or equivalent level… either in the central government or in the state government”.

Many experts feel that the proposed legislation is a step in the right direction. “The bill will reduce red tape and promote efficient services in various government departments,” says Payal Chawla, partner, Hemant Sahai Associates, a Delhi-based law firm. “The time limit of five years with an extension of a maximum of three years to bring all the services in the purview of the legislation is well-intended.”

Agrees Sunil Abraham, executive director, Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), a Bangalore-based organisation which carries out research in IT. “The bill ensures that government departments publicly commit to Service Level Agreements (SLAs) and demonstrate compliance to these SLAs,” he says. “Like the RTI Act, there is an office of the central chief commissioner which can penalise officials who don’t provide electronic services or comply with their own SLAs.”

But others argue that the bill is too open-ended. “I’d have liked to see the services specified clearly,” says Neel Ratan, executive director, PricewaterhouseCoopers. “Just starting an e-service isn’t enough — the quality or level of performance of the service needs to be ascertained as well. The bill seems to be silent on how quality can be ensured.”

Bhatnagar too feels that the draft bill should have first clearly defined what “electronic service delivery” is all about. All it says is “electronic service delivery means the delivery of services through electronic mode including, inter alia, the receipt of forms and applications, issue or grant of any licence, permit, certificate, sanction or approval and the receipt or payment of money”.

However, electronic delivery of services should encompass all end-to-end steps necessary for delivering the service, points out Bhatnagar. “Receiving an application, receiving supporting documents, receiving payment of various fees, issue of licence/receipts/certificates/ documents such as ration cards and passports and payment of dues to citizens should be web enabled. Citizens who wish to carry out the transaction through a portal without having to visit a government office should be able to do so,” he says.

Furthermore, says Bhatnagar, government agencies should ensure that every citizen has access to a public service delivery centre (government owned or private) from where he or she can access such services. And a person shouldn’t have to travel more than 10km to access these services.

Experts say there are several hurdles to e-governance in India. “The domestic IT industry has not focussed on this important market and services have been decentralised without ensuring common standards. So different states may be using different software, which can make the whole system messy and lead to uneven and poor quality projects,” says Abraham of CIS. “We are still very far away from the sophistication of G2C and G2B systems currently deployed in many Western countries.”

In sum, enacting a law to bring in complete e-governance may not be enough. Without the necessary investment in the country’s technology infrastructure, the initiative, however well-intended, may never truly get off the ground.

Graphic by Mantashir Iqbal Shaikh

This article by Hemchhaya De was published in the Telegraph on 24 August 2011. The original can be read here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/net-gain

Net Freedom Campaign Loses its Way

sunil — 2014-05-27T11:07:04Z

A recent global meet was a victory for governments and the private sector over civil society interests.

The article was published in the Hindu Businessline on May 10, 2014.

One word to describe NetMundial: Disappointing! Why? Because despite the promise, human rights on the Internet are still insufficiently protected. Snowden’s revelations starting last June threw the global Internet governance processes into crisis.

Things came to a head in October, when Brazil’s President Dilma Rousseff, horrified to learn that she was under NSA surveillance for economic reasons, called for the organisation of a global conference called NetMundial to accelerate Internet governance reform.

The NetMundial was held in São Paulo on April 23-24 this year. The result was a statement described as “the non-binding outcome of a bottom-up, open, and participatory process involving … governments, private sector, civil society, technical community, and academia from around the world.” In other words — it is international soft law with no enforcement mechanisms.

The statement emerges from “broad consensus”, meaning governments such as India, Cuba and Russia and civil society representatives expressed deep dissatisfaction at the closing plenary. Unlike an international binding law, only time will tell whether each member of the different stakeholder groups will regulate itself.

Again, not easy, because the outcome document does not specifically prescribe what each stakeholder can or cannot do — it only says what internet governance (IG) should or should not be. And finally, there’s no global consensus yet on the scope of IG. The substantive consensus was disappointing in four important ways:

Mass surveillance : Civil society was hoping that the statement would make mass surveillance illegal. After all, global violation of the right to privacy by the US was the raison d'être of the conference.

Instead, the statement legitimised “mass surveillance, interception and collection” as long as it was done in compliance with international human rights law. This was clearly the most disastrous outcome.

Access to knowledge: The conference was not supposed to expand intellectual property rights (IPR) or enforcement of these rights. After all, a multilateral forum, WIPO, was meant to address these concerns. But in the days before the conference the rights-holders lobby went into overdrive and civil society was caught unprepared.

The end result — “freedom of information and access to information” or right to information in India was qualified “with rights of authors and creators”. The right to information laws across the world, including in India, contains almost a dozen exemptions, including IPR. The only thing to be grateful for is that this limitation did not find its way into the language for freedom of expression.

Intermediary liability: The language that limits liability for intermediaries basically provides for a private censorship regime without judicial oversight, and without explicit language protecting the rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Even though the private sector chants Hillary Clinton's Internet freedom mantra — they only care for their own bottomlines.

Net neutrality: Even though there was little global consensus, some optimistic sections of civil society were hoping that domestic best practice on network neutrality in Brazil’s Internet Bill of Right — also known as Marco Civil, that was signed into law during the inaugural ceremony of NetMundial — would make it to the statement. Unfortunately, this did not happen.

For almost a decade since the debate between the multi-stakeholder and multilateral model started, the multi-stakeholder model had produced absolutely nothing outside ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, a non-profit body), its technical fraternity and the standard-setting bodies.

The multi-stakeholder model is governance with the participation (and consent — depending on who you ask) of those stakeholders who are governed. In contrast, in the multilateral system, participation is limited to nation-states.

Civil society divisions

The inability of multi-stakeholderism to deliver also resulted in the fragmentation of global civil society regulars at Internet Governance Forums.

But in the run-up to NetMundial more divisions began to appear. If we ignore nuances — we could divide them into three groups. One, the ‘outsiders’ who are best exemplified by Jérémie Zimmermann of the La Quadrature du Net. Jérémie ran an online campaign, organised a protest during the conference and did everything he could to prevent NetMundial from being sanctified by civil society consensus.

Two, the ‘process geeks’ — for these individuals and organisations process was more important than principles. Most of them were as deeply invested in the multi-stakeholder model as ICANN and the US government and some who have been riding the ICANN gravy train for years.

Even worse, some were suspected of being astroturfers bootstrapped by the private sector and the technical community. None of them were willing to rock the boat. For the ‘process geeks’, seeing politicians and bureaucrats queue up like civil society to speak at the mike was the crowning achievement.

Three, the ‘principles geeks’ perhaps best exemplified by the Just Net Coalition who privileged principles over process. Divisions were also beginning to sharpen within the private sector. For example, Neville Roy Singham, CEO of Thoughtworks, agreed more with civil society than he did with other members of the private sector in his interventions.

In short, the ‘outsiders’ couldn't care less about the outcome and will do everything to discredit it, the ‘process geeks’ stood in ovation when the outcome document was read at the closing plenary and the ‘principles geeks’ returned devastated.

For the multi-stakeholder model to survive it must advance democratic values, not undermine them.

This will only happen if there is greater transparency and accountability. Individuals, organisations and consortia that participate in Internet governance processes need to disclose lists of donors including those that sponsor travel to these meetings.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-hindu-business-line-may-10-2014-sunil-abraham-net-freedom-campaign-loses-its-way

Net advocacy body probing linkages between telcos and Facebook’s auto-play video option

praskrishna — 2015-10-29T00:53:55Z

Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), India’s leading internet advocacy body, which has often been critical of Facebook’s Internet.org — now called Free Basics — initiative, has said that it is looking into the possibility of Facebook helping telecom companies through its auto-play video option.

The article by Prabhu Mallikarjunan was published in the Financial Express on October 28, 2015. Sunil Abraham gave inputs.

In an interaction with FE on Tuesday, Sunil Abraham, executive director of The Centre for Internet and Society, said CIS will inititiate research on the notion that the new video option will result in 50% increase in data billing for the telecom companies. It will also look into whether this, in turn, will encourage the telecom companies to be on the Internet.org platform.

This initiative from CIS comes on the eve of Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg’s visit to India on Wednesday, where he will address a gathering at IIT, Delhi. Facebook has been trying to hard sell the Free Basics concept at a time when the Indian government is looking to work closely with the internet major to push the Digital India initiative. “The company (Facebook) has done some good things, and also done some not so good things. The good thing is that, they have changed the name of the application and called it Free Basics. Also, they have re-enabled https and have published “the technical requirements document, through which they have eliminated the exclusivity arm both on the telco end and for OTT (Over the top) players,” Abraham said.

“How does FB gain from making the videos autoplay. It doesn’t gain. Why should the telcos be made happy? We are looking into this theory of whether auto-play video option will result in 50% increase in data billing for the telecom companies,” Abraham said.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/financial-express-prabhu-mallikarjunan-october-28-2015-net-advocacy-body-probing-linkages-between-telcos-and-facebooks-auto-play-video-option

Nel suk dei nativi digitali. Perché gli studenti 2.0 hanno bisogno di una bussola per orientarsi

praskrishna — 2011-04-02T01:31:15Z

Addio al vecchio sapere lineare fondato sulla parola scritta e sulla trasmissione di conoscenza maestro-alunno: imparare oggi ha la forma di un suk arabo nell'ora di punta. Tra social network, video-racconti su YouTube, la musica di MySpace, il linguaggio sincopato delle chat e le bufale online, gli studenti di nuova generazione hanno bisogno di una bussola per orientarsi. Ma la scuola non c'è. O meglio, non ce la fa: a studenti 2.0 corrispondono spesso istituti scolastici da secolo scorso.

Chi sono questi famigerati "nativi digitali" nati e cresciuti a rivoluzione Internet compiuta? Come ha scritto l'ex direttore del programma Comparative media studies dell' Mit di Boston, Henry Jenkins, la loro cultura è "partecipativa" e si fonda su "produzione e condivisione di creazioni digitali" e una "partnership informale" tra insegnanti e alunni che porta il bambino a sentirsi responsabile del progetto educativo. Il maestro non è più un trasmettitore di conoscenza ma un "facilitatore", che fa da filtro tra il caos della rete e il cervello del piccolo studente.

"Frequentano gli schermi interattivi fin dalla nascita", spiega Paolo Ferri docente di tecnologie didattiche e teoria e tecnica dei nuovi media all'Università Bicocca di Milano, "e considerano Internet "il principale strumento di reperimento, condivisione e gestione dell'informazione". È la prima generazione (che oggi ha tra gli o e i 12 anni) veramente hi-tech che pensa, apprende e conosce in maniera differente dai suoi fratelli maggiori. "Se per noi imparare significava leggere-studiare-ripetere, per i bambini cresciuti con i videogames vuol dire innanzitutto risolvere i problemi in maniera attiva", spiega Ferri che studia e promuove da anni il "digital learning".

I bambini cresciuti con consolle e cellulare sono "abituati a vedere la risoluzione di compiti cognitivi come un problema pragmatico", aggiunge. Lynn Clark direttrice dell' Estlow International Center for Journalism and New Media dell'Università di Denver ha condotto un progetto di ricerca su 300 famiglie americane per capire come se la cavano con i media digitali.

"Grazie ai videogiochi, il sapere dei bambini si nutre di simboli, sfide e modelli sempre diversi di narrazione", spiega Clark che aggiunge: "quando le modalità di apprendimento scolastico sono simili a quelle di un gioco ci sono maggiori chances che gli alunni apprendano volentieri e in fretta". "Se qualcosa può essere visto, ascoltato, suonato, perché dovrebbe essere raccontato a parole?", si chiede Paolo Ferri.

Nishant Shah, che a 26 anni dirige il Center for Internet and Society di Bangalore in India, lo spiega così via Skype: "La tecnologia dei nostri padri è quella televisiva: un modello analogico che stabilisce ruoli, responsabilità e struttura della produzione, diffusione e consumo di conoscenza. Con l'esplosione del p2p - l'idea di una rete dove non esiste gerarchia e tutto viene condiviso- i ruoli sono messi in discussione dallo studente, che si considera parte attiva nella produzione di sapere e vede i libri come una fonte tra le tante".

Se è vero che il "l'ha detto Internet" ha assunto tra i bambini l'autorevolezza di una sentenza della Cassazione, è innegabile che la rete sia la patria del vero-simile. "Internet sta ridisegnando i confini della verità - continua Shah - e questo pone grandi sfide per gli educatori del XXI secolo: come si fa a imparare utilizzando fonti che non hanno approvazione istituzionale? Come si può riconoscere un valido provider di conoscenza nel caos online?".

Anche il professore della Bicocca ammette che "la cut-and-paste culture e la presunzione di veridicità della Rete" tendono ad abbassare la percezione critica degli utenti: "Internet diventa per i bambini "la fonte" a prescindere dall'autorevolezza del sito e da chi scrive", dice.

Se passa il modello Wikipedia, crolla l'importanza dell'autore. O, come ha scritto l'antropologa Susan D. Blum sul New York Times, "se per lo studente non è fondamentale essere unico, va bene usare parole di altri. Dice cose a cui non crede? Allora è ok scrivere testi su argomenti sconosciuti con l'unico scopo di prendere un buon voto: conoscere è diventato un mezzo per ottenere consensi e socialità".

Per il momento le iniziative più interessanti di digital learning riguardano i fratelli più grandi. Dal prossimo anno in 2500 campus universitari americani arriverà un software per pc, iPad e telefonini (il costo va dai 30 ai 70 dollari e il maggiore produttore è la Turning Technologies) chiamato "clickers", che permette all'insegnante di verificare il livello di attenzione dello studente - immerso nella navigazione internet - chiedendo feedback sulla tastiera ogni 15 minuti. Il professore di Harvard Charles Nesson ha tenuto un corso virtuale su Second Life, mentre il progetto di educazione civica "YouMedia", sponsorizzato dall'amministrazione di Chicago, promuove l'apprendimento attraverso video-racconti pubblici di libri.

Nella Woodside High School, in California, gli studenti hanno borse di studio per comprare l'iPad, un centro multimediale da tre milioni di dollari e lezioni su come registrare la musica e usare Internet in maniera responsabile. Grazie ai computer economici del guru informatico Nicholas Negroponte, tutti i bambini uruguaiani delle elementari hanno un pc.

In Europa - che ha messo la competenza digitale al quarto posto (dopo prima lingua, lingua straniera e matematica e scienze) tra le competenze chiave per l'educazione degli stati membri dell'Unione - il paese più "nativi digitali oriented" è l'Inghilterra, dove la riforma del sistema scolastico voluta dal governo Blair ha ridotto drasticamente il numero degli studenti per classi, favorendo così la personalizzazione dell'insegnamento, e tagliato il numero delle materie. "Sono passati- sottolinea Paolo Ferri - da un modello disciplinare basato sui contenuti a quello per competenze che si regge su un principio: imparare ad imparare". Ferri ricorda che la lavagna interattiva è presente nel 100% delle classi primarie e secondarie inglesi mentre in Italia si punta ad averne una su dieci entro il 2011. Qui la strada è ancora tutta in salita.

Il ministero dell'Istruzione porta avanti il progetto LIM, che riguarda l'introduzione di lavagne interattive nelle aule, e quello Cl@ssi 2.0 che punta a finanziare con 30mila euro 156 classi (in Italia ci sono circa 25mila scuole) delle scuole medie inferiori per lo sviluppo di progetti innovativi. "C'è una grande carenza di investimenti dall'alto - denuncia Ferri - arginata da qualche dirigente di buona volontà". Per il professore della Bicocca è a livello territoriale, grazie all'autonomia scolastica e alle capacità manageriali e creative di qualche preside, che si vedono i migliori esperimenti.

A Bollate, un comune di 37 mila abitanti alle porte di Milano, per imparare a usare l'iPad basta chiedere aiuto a un bambino. Nelle aule dell'Istituto di via Brianza - due scuole elementari e due medie inferiori - al posto di quadernetti e matite, da settembre gli alunni usano il tablet computer prodotto dalla Apple.

Qualche centinaia di chilometri più a Sud, a Reggio Emilia - la città dove tutti vorrebbero avere 3 anni per quel "Reggio Approach", lodato dal New York Times (parole d'ordine: arte, assemblee di classe e respiro globale), che ha fatto guadagnare al capoluogo emiliano il titolo di capitale mondiale degli asili nido - software, dispositivi elettronici e lavagne interattive hanno ormai sostituito seggioloni e orsacchiotti.

Bollate e Reggio non sono residui di una bizzarra avanguardia pedagogica, il cui simbolo cinematografico è ancora "Bianca" di Nanni Moretti, con le vicende della scuola "Marylin Monroe" dove al posto della foto del presidente della Repubblica c'e' Dino Zoff e i professori giocano alle slot machines e al flipper. Dimostrano piuttosto che ci sono, anche in Italia, presidi e maestri che hanno capito chi sono e come si educano i nativi digitali.

"Ma il risultato è quella di una cartina dell'innovazione a macchia di leopardo", dichiara Ferri, che tuttavia si dice ottimista. Da un lato perché "nel 2013 andrà in pensione la metà degli insegnanti italiani", dall'altro perché crede nel contagio positivo: "In 10 anni le scuole al passo con le trasformazioni sociali e tecnologiche, e per questo premiate con finanziamenti e alto numero di iscrizioni, avranno costretto le altre ad adeguarsi". Una speranza? No, un dovere. Perché "innovare innovare innovare", il famoso mantra di Hal Varian di Google News, è l'unica chance di sopravvivenza anche per la scuola italiana.

Read the original article here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/nel-suk

Need a standard strategy to deal with Web issues: Chandrasekhar

praskrishna — 2012-09-05T08:37:09Z

The government has been facing allegations of Internet censorship for over a year now.

This article by Surabhi Agarwal was published in LiveMint on September 4, 2012. Pranesh Prakash's analysis is quoted.

The government said it needed to improve the way in which it dealt with issues such as Internet hate messages besides blog posts and SMSes that seek to create panic so that it’s not accused of trying to gag free speech.

"We all have agreed that we need some combination of self-regulation and government interventions. But we need to do it in a proper way,” said department of telecom secretary R. Chandrasekhar, while addressing a Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (Ficci) conference on the issue of “legitimate restrictions on freedom of online speech".

	The Union government has been facing allegations of censorship after it sought to contain messages that led to communal violence and a panicexodus by people from the north-eastern states in some cities. Last month, the government ordered the blocking of almost 310 web pages for content deemed to be attacking particular communities. According to a post by Pranesh Prakash of the Centre for Internet and Society, 33% of them were on Facebook, 28% on Google Inc.’s YouTube and around 10% on Twitter.

The Union government has been facing allegations of censorship after it sought to contain messages that led to communal violence and a panicexodus by people from the north-eastern states in some cities.

Last month, the government ordered the blocking of almost 310 web pages for content deemed to be attacking particular communities. According to a post by Pranesh Prakash of the Centre for Internet and Society, 33% of them were on Facebook, 28% on Google Inc.’s YouTube and around 10% on Twitter.

Defending the government move, Gulshan Rai, chief of the Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-in), said it was the first time that the emergency provision of the Information Technology Act 2008 had been exercised. Even though the list was not drawn up by his agency, due scrutiny was carried out before issuing orders to block the sites.

This came after allegations that government may have also blocked bona fide posts as it sought to block content related to the North-East.

Twitter accounts of some journalists and other individuals associated with and sympathetic to right-wing causes were blocked, according to a list published earlier by The Economic Times.

"This is certainly not the last time we are seeing such a situation, so meaningful ways to respond to such complex situations will have to be devised," said Chandrasekhar.

He added that there was also a need to collaborate better with all stakeholders to devise not just defensive strategies during a crisis but also ways to contain its impact using the social media.

Ankhi Das, head of public policy at Facebook India, said that during the London riots of 2011, the UK government enlisted the support of social networking sites to dispel rumours.

"Social media can also be allies of the government at times like this," she said.

Raman Jit Singh Cheema, a senior policy analyst at Google India, cited a similar example of authorities in Japan using such methods to send out correct information following the tsunami that hit the country in 2011.

"We need to collaborate on a continuing basis, so that when you are faced with such a crisis, you are able to deal with it," said Chandrasekhar.

The government has been facing allegations of Internet censorship for over a year after minister for communication and information technology Kapil Sibal raised the issue of regulating social networking sites. They had allegedly not complied with the government’s demand that offensive content be removed.

Chandrasekhar said that processes should be clearer, more transparent and well-defined.

"These need to be brought out in the form of some kind of a standard operating procedure, so that they (stakeholders) are expected to know how to conduct themselves and how they can expect the government to deal if a contingency arises," he said.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/www-livemint-com-surabhi-agarwal-sep-4-2012-need-a-strategy-to-deal-with-web-issues

NE exodus: List containing 309 blocked URLs leaks online

praskrishna — 2012-08-24T13:37:21Z

Latest reports coming in have confirmed that a list containing 309 URLs, whose ban the government had sought in light of the Assam violence and the subsequent NE exodus, has been leaked online.

Published in tech2. Pranesh Prakash's analysis is quoted.

The aforementioned URLs comprise URLs, Twitter accounts, img tags, blog posts, blogs and a handful of websites, and were blocked between August 18, 2012 till August 21, 2012. In an analysis that Pranesh Prakash, programme manager at the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), carried of the leaked items, among other things in his post, he wrote that, "It is clear that the list was not compiled with sufficient care."

In his post, he further noted that the censorship process itself has been riddled with egregious mistakes. Giving instances of the egregious mistakes, he added that even some people and posts debunking the rumours were blocked as part of the censorship. Further, he wrote that some of the items that were blocked were not even web addresses (e.g., a few HTML img tags were included). In his findings, Prakash also found that despite there having been a clear warning issued by the DIT pertaining to the blocking of "above URLs only" and not that of main websites, like www.facebook.com, www.youtube.com, some ISPs (like Airtel) went "overboard in their blocking". This incident, in particular pertains to yesterday's reports, wherein it had been revealed that Airtel had blocked the entire YouTube short URL youtu.be in some cities.

On account of the sensitivity of the issue, he writes that it "would be premature to share the whole list." He, however, writes that CIS plans to make the entire list public soon. The list that CIS has released, however includes -

ABC.net.au
AlJazeera.com
AllVoices.com
WN.com
AtjehCyber.net
BDCBurma.org
Bhaskar.com
Blogspot.com
Blogspot.in
Catholic.org
CentreRight.in
ColumnPK.com
Defence.pk
EthioMuslimsMedia.com
Facebook.com
Farazahmed.com
Firstpost.com
HaindavaKerelam.com
HiddenHarmonies.org
HinduJagruti.org
Hotklix.com
HumanRights-Iran.ir
Intichat.com
Irrawady.org
IslamabadTimesOnline.com
Issuu.com
JafriaNews.com
JihadWatch.org
KavkazCenter
MwmJawan.com
My.Opera.com
Njuice.com
OnIslam.net
PakAlertPress.com
Plus.Google.com
Reddit.com
Rina.in
SandeepWeb.com
SEAYouthSaySo.com
Sheikyermami.com
StormFront.org
Telegraph.co.uk
TheDailyNewsEgypt.com
TheFaultLines.com
ThePetitionSite.com
TheUnity.org
TimesofIndia.Indiatimes.com
TimesOfUmmah.com
Tribune.com.pk
Twitter.com
TwoCircles.net
Typepad.com
Vidiov.info
Wikipedia.org
Wordpress.com
YouTube.com
YouTu.be

Further, in response to the question - as to why some items could still be accessed that were supposed to be blocked, he wrote that there are several errors in the list, making it difficult to apply. And the order has to be put into action by hundreds of ISPs. He adds that some ISPs may not have begun enforcing the blocks yet. "This analysis is based on the orders sent around to ISPs, and not on the basis of actual testing of how many of these have actually been blocked by Airtel, BSNL, Tata, etc. Additionally, if you are using Twitter through a client (on your desktop, mobile, etc.) instead of the web interface, you will not notice any of the Twitter-related blocks," he elaborated further.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/tech-2-in-com-ne-exodus

Navigating the 'Reconsideration' Quagmire (A Personal Journey of Acute Confusion)

Padmini Baruah and Geetha Hariharan — 2016-11-30T13:48:41Z

An earlier analysis of ICANN’s Documentary Information Disclosure Policy already brought to light our concerns about the lack of transparency in ICANN’s internal mechanisms. Carrying my research forward, I sought to arrive at an understanding of the mechanisms used to appeal a denial of DIDP requests. In this post, I aim to provide a brief account of my experiences with the Reconsideration Request process that ICANN provides for as a tool for appeal.

Backdrop: What is the Reconsideration Request Process?

The Reconsideration Request process has been laid down in Article IV, Section 2 of the

ICANN Bylaws. Some of the key aspects of this provision have been outlined below^{^[1]},

ICANN is obligated to institute a process by which a person materially affected by ICANN action/inaction can request review or reconsideration.

To file this request, one must have been adversely affected by actions of the staff or the board that contradict ICANN’s policies, or actions of the Board taken up without the Board considering material information, or actions of the Board taken up by relying on false information.
A separate Board Governance Committee was created with the specific mandate of reviewing Reconsideration requests, and conducting all the tasks related to the same.
The Reconsideration Request must be made within 15 days of:
- FOR CHALLENGES TO BOARD ACTION: the date on which information about the challenged Board action is first published in a resolution, unless the posting of the resolution is not accompanied by a rationale, in which case the request must be submitted within 15 days from the initial posting of the rationale;
- FOR CHALLENGES TO STAFF ACTION: the date on which the party submitting the request became aware of, or reasonably should have become aware of, the challenged staff action, and
- FOR CHALLENGES TO BOARD OR STAFF INACTION: the date on which the affected person reasonably concluded, or reasonably should have concluded, that action would not be taken in a timely manner

.The Board Governance Committee is given the power to summarily dismiss a reconsideration request if:
- the requestor fails to meet the requirements for bringing a Reconsideration Request;
- it is frivolous, querulous or vexatious; or
- the requestor had notice and opportunity to, but did not, participate in the public comment period relating to the contested action, if applicable

If not summarily dismissed, the Board Governance Committee proceeds to review and reconsider.
A requester may ask for an opportunity to be heard, and the decision of the Board Governance Committee in this regard is final.

The basis of the Board Governance Committee’s action is public written record information submitted by the requester, by third parties, and so on.
The Board Governance Committee is to take a decision on the matter and make a final determination or recommendation to the Board within 30 days of the receipt of the Reconsideration request, unless it is impractical to do so, and it is accountable to the Board to make an explanation of the circumstances that caused the delay.
The determination is to be made public and posted on the ICANN website.

ICANN has provided a neat infographic to explain this process in a simple fashion, and I am reproducing it here:

(Image taken from https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/accountability/reconsiderationen)

Our Tryst with the Reconsideration Process

The Grievance
Our engagement with the Reconsideration process began with the rejection of two of our requests (made on September 1, 2015) under ICANN’s Documentary Information Disclosure Policy. The requests sought information about the registry and registrar compliance audit process that ICANN maintains, and asked for various documents pertaining to the same^{^[2]}:

Copies of the registry/registrar contractual compliance audit reports for all the audits carried out as well as external audit reports from the last year (20142015).
A generic template of the notice served by ICANN before conducting such an audit.
A list of the registrars/registries to whom such notices were served in the last year.
An account of the expenditure incurred by ICANN in carrying out the audit process.
A list of the registrars/registries that did not respond to the notice within a reasonable period of time.
Reports of the site visits conducted by ICANN to ascertain compliance.
Documents which identify the registries/registrars who had committed material discrepancies in the terms of the contract.
Documents pertaining to the actions taken in the event that there was found to be some form of contractual noncompliance.
A copy of the registrar selfassessment form which is to be submitted to ICANN.

ICANN integrated both the requests and addressed them via one response on 1 October, 2015 (which can be found here). In their response, ICANN inundated us with already available links on their website explaining the compliance audit process, and the processes ancillary to it, as well as the broad goals of the programme none of which was sought for by us in our request. ICANN then went on to provide us with information on their ThreeYear Audit programme, and gave us access to some of the documents that we had sought, such as the preaudit notification template, list of registries/registrars that received an audit notification, the expenditure incurred to some extent, and so on .

Individual contracted party reports were denied to us on the basis of their grounds for nondisclosure. Further, and more disturbingly, ICANN refused to provide us with the names of the contracted parties who had been found under the audit process to have committed discrepancies. Therefore, a large part of our understanding of the way in which the compliance audit process works remains unfinished.

What we did

Dissatisfied with this response, I went on to file a Reconsideration request (number 1522) as per their standard format on November 2, 2015. (The request filed can be accessed here).As grounds for reconsideration, I stated that “As a part of my research I was tracking the ICANN compliance audit process, and therefore required access to audit reports in cases where discrepancies where formally found in their actions. This is in the public interest and therefore requires to be disclosed...While providing us with an array of detailed links explaining the compliance audit process, the ICANN staff has not been able to satisfy our actual requests with respect to gaining an understanding of how the compliance audits help in regulating actions of the registrars, and how they are effective in preventing breaches and discrepancies.” Therefore, I requested them to make the records in question publicly available “We request ICANN to make the records in question, namely the audit reports for individual contracted parties that reflect discrepancies in contractual compliance, which have been formally recognised as a part of your enforcement process. We further request access to all documents that relate to the expenditure incurred by ICANN in the process, as we believe financial transparency is absolutely integral to the values that ICANN stands by.”

The Board Governance Committee’s response³

The determination of the Board Governance Committee was that our claims did not merit reconsideration, as I was unable to identify any “misapplication of policy or procedure by the ICANN Staff”, and my only issue was with the substance of the DIDP Response itself, and substantial disagreements with a DIDP response are not proper bases for reconsideration

(emphasis supplied).

The response of the Board Governance Committee was educative of the ways in which they determine Reconsideration Requests. Analysing the DIDP process, it held that ICANN was well within its powers to deny information under its defined Conditions for NonDisclosure, and denial of substantive information did not amount to a procedural violation. Therefore, since the staff adhered to established procedure under the DIDP, there was no basis for our grievance, and our request was dismissed..

Furthermore, as a postscript, it is interesting to note that the Board Governance Committee delayed its response time by over a month, by its own admission “In terms of the timing of the BGC’s recommendation, it notes that Section 2.16 of Article IV of the Bylaws provides that the BGC shall make a final determination or recommendation with respect to a reconsideration request within thirty days, unless impractical. To satisfy the thirtyday deadline, the BGC would have to have acted by 2 December 2015. However, due to the timing of the BGC’s meetings in November and December, the first practical opportunity for the BGC to consider Request 1522 was 13 January 2016.”⁴

Whither do I wander now?

To me, this entire process reflected the absurdity of the Reconsideration request structure as an appeal mechanism under the Documentary Information Disclosure Policy. As our experience indicated, there does not seem to be any way out if there is an issue with the substance of ICANN’s response. ICANN, commendably, is particular about following procedure with respect to the DIDP. However, what is the way forward for a party aggrieved by the flaws in the existing policy? As I had analysed earlier, the grounds for ICANN to not disclose information are vast, and used to deny a large chunk of the information requests that they receive. How is the hapless requester to file a meaningful appeal against the outcome of a bad policy, if the only ground for appeal is noncompliance with the procedure of said bad policy? This is a serious challenge to transparency as there is no other way for a requester to acquire information that ICANN may choose to withold under one of its myriad clauses. It cannot be denied that a good information disclosure law ought to balance the free disclosure of information with the holding back of information that truly needs to be kept private.^{^[3]}^{^[4]} However, it is this writer’s firm opinion that even instances where information is witheld, there has to be a stronger explanation for the same, and moreover, an appeals process that does not take into account substantive issues which might adversely affect the appellant falls short of the desirable levels of transparency. Global standards dictate that grounds for appeal need to be broad, so that all failures to apply the information disclosure law/policy may be remedied.⁶ Various laws across the world relating to information disclosure often have the following as grounds for appeal: an inability to lodge a request, failure to respond to a request within the set time frame, a refusal to disclose information, in whole or in part, excessive fees and not providing information in the form sought, as well as a catchall clause for other failures.⁷

Furthermore, independent oversight is the heart of a proper appeal mechanism in such situations^{^[5]}; the power to decide the appeal must not rest with those who also have the discretion to disclose the information, as is clearly the case with ICANN, where the Board Governance Committee is constituted and appointed by the ICANN Board itself [one of the bodies against whom a grievance may be raised].

Suggestions

We believe ICANN, in keeping with its global, multistakeholder, accountable spirit, should adopt these standards as well, especially now that the transition looms around the corner. Only then will the standards of open, transparent and accountable governance of the Internet upheld by ICANN itself as the ideal be truly, meaningfully realised. Accordingly, the following standards ought to be met with:

Establishment of an independent appeals authority for information disclosure cases
Broader grounds for appeal of DIDP requests
Inclusion of disagreement with the substantive content of a DIDP response as a ground for appeal.
Provision of proper reasoning for any justification of the witholding of information that is necessary in the public interest.

[1] Article IV, Section 2, ICANN Bylaws, 2014 available at https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylawsen/#IV

[2] Copies of the request can be found here and here.

[3] Katherine Chekouras, Balancing National Security with a Community's RighttoKnow: Maintaining

Public Access to Environmental Information Through EPCRA 's NonPreemption Clause, 34 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev 107, (2007).

[4] Toby Mendel, Freedom of Information: A Comparative Legal Study 151 (2nd edn, 2008).

Id, at 152

³4 Available here. https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/reconsideration1522cisfinaldetermination13jan16en.pdf

[5] Mendel, supra note 6.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/navigating-reconsideration-quagmire-a-personal-journey-of-acute-confusion

National Stakeholders Consultation on the National Digital Health Blueprint

Admin — 2019-08-07T14:21:29Z

Ambika Tandon and Aayush Rathi attended the National Stakeholders Consultation on the National Digital Health Blueprint organised by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare on 6 August 2019 at Constitution Club of India in New Delhi.

It was also attended by representatives from MeitY apart from industry and civil society. We raised questions about the provisions for privacy andinteroperability in the NDHB, in relation to provisions in the DISHA Act and the Srikrishna report. The public call for the event can be found here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/national-stakeholders-consultation-on-the-national-digital-health-blueprint

National Seminar on Cyber Security & Cyber Laws - Issues and Concerns

praskrishna — 2014-12-31T02:04:37Z

Sharath Chandra Ram was a panelist at this seminar organized by the Advanced Centre for Research, Development & Training in Cyber Laws & Forensics on December 27 and 28, 2014 at the National Law School of India University in Bangalore.

Sharath was part of a plenary session on "Multi-Disciplinary Challenges in Ensuring Cyber Security". He spoke about 'multi-stakeholderim in cyber security and CERT programs of nations'.

PROGRAMME SCHEDULE

Day 1 - 27^th December 2014
09:00- 10:00	REGISTRATION
10:00- 11:00 INAUGURAL SESSION AT SHRI. KRISHNAPPA MEMORIAL HALL [ACADEMIC BLOCK]	Welcome & Introduction: Dr. Nagarathna. A., Seminar Director Inaugural Address: Shri. Pratap Reddy, IPS, IGP, Internal Security Division, Karnataka Police, Bangalore Key Note Address: Dr. R. Venkata Rao, Vice Chancellor, NLSIU Vote of Thanks: Dr. T. V. Subba Rao, Senior Professor, NLSIU
11:00-11:45	GROUP PHOTO & TEA BREAK
11:45-01:00 PLENARY SESSION AT SHRI. KRISHNAPPA MEMORIAL HALL [ACADEMIC BLOCK]	THEME: "MULTI-DISCIPLINARY CHALLENGES IN ENSURING CYBER SECURITY" Members of the Panel: 1. Mr. Subrahmanya Boda, CISO, GMR 2. Mr. Sunil Varkey, CISO, WIPRO 3. Mr. Ramesh Kauta , CISO, GE [India] 4. Mr. T T Thomas, CTO Synergia Technologies, 5. Mr. Rahul Matthan, Partner, Trilegal. 6. Sharath Chandra Ram (Sharathchandra Ramakrishnan), Researcher at Centre for Internet & Society 7. Mr. Srinivas P, CISO, Infosys & Anchor, DSCI Bangalore Chapter [Moderator of the session]
01:00-02:00	LUNCH BREAK
venue	Shri Krishnappa Memorial Hall (Academic Block)		International Training Centre
02:00-03:30	Technical Session 1		Technical Session 2
03:30-04:00	TEA BREAK
04:00-05:30	Technical Session 3		Technical Session 4
6:00 to 7. 00	CULTURAL EVENING Venue: Quad, Academic Block
Day 2 - 28^th December 2014
08:00-09:00	BREAK FAST
venue	Shri Krishnappa Memorial Hall (Academic Block)	International Training Centre		MPP Class Room (Academic Block)
09:30- 11:00	Technical Session 5	Technical Session 6		Technical Session 7
11:00- 11:30	TEA BREAK
	Shri Krishnappa Memorial Hall (Academic Block)	International Training Centre		MPP Class Room (Academic Block)
11:30-1:30	Technical Session 8	Technical Session 9		Technical Session 10
01:30-02:30	LUNCH BREAK
02:30-03. 45 PLENARY SESSION AT SHRI. KRISHNAPPA MEMORIAL HALL [ACADEMIC BLOCK]	THEME: "SECURING CYBER SPACE THROUGH INSTITUTIONAL INVOLVEMENT" Members of the Panel: 1. Dr. Kamble, Director, Computer Emergency Response Team [CERT] India, Dept of Electronics & IT, Ministry of IT, Government of India 2. Dr. S.B.N. Prakash, Senior Professor of Law, NLSIU 3. Mr. Naa Vijay Shankar, Cyber Law Consultant, Bangalore 4. Mr. Balasubramanya, Vice President, Tata Consultancy Services, Bangalore 5. Mr. Ranganath, Delivery Project Executive, IBM, Bangalore 6. Mr. Venkatesh Murthy, Senior Manager, Cyber Forensics, Data Security Council of India [DSCI], Bangalore. 7. Mr. M. D. Sharath, Dy. S. P., Cyber Police, Bangalore 8. Dr. Nagarathna. A., Senior Assistant Prof of Law, NLSIU [Moderator]
3. 45 to 4. 00	TEA BREAK
04:00-05:00 AT SHRI. KRISHNAPPA MEMORIAL HALL [ACADEMIC BLOCK]	VALEDICTORY SESSION Seminar Resolutions: Dr. T. V. Subba Rao, Senior Professor, NLSIU Valedictory Address & Distribution of Certificates: : Dr. R. Venkata Rao, Vice Chancellor, NLSIU Vote of thanks: Dr. Nagarathna. A., Seminar Director

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/national-seminar-cyber-security-and-cyber-laws

National Privacy Workshop

Admin — 2017-12-05T14:24:16Z

Centre for Internet & Society is organizing a round-table to discuss the potential impact of numerous policy developments with wide ranging implications for recognition and governance of privacy in India. The round-table will be held on December 9, 2017 at India International Centre in New Delhi, 10.30 a.m. to 5.00 p.m.

Background

The recent past in India has seen numerous policy developments with wide ranging implications for recognition and governance of privacy in India. The emphatic and unanimous avowal of the right to privacy by the Supreme Court, the government’s stated commitment to a data protection law and the formation of the Sri Krishna Committee are developments which will continue to inform policymaking around privacy in India for a long time to come. The Supreme Court’s conception of a robust right to privacy encompassing different element - spatial, decisional and informational, and its guidance on strict limiting tests may have a wide impact on a range of issues. The impact of this judgment and a data protection law on informational privacy in India will be immense and it is important to delve in challenges and issues that it may throw up. In last year, we have also seen instances of purported conflict between the transparency instruments such as the right to information and the right to informational privacy. How these conflicts are resolved in law and practice will be key to these two essential human rights in the modern information society. Further, while these general consensus on privacy principles, the appropriate ways to govern and enforce privacy remains an open issue, and the success of any data protection framework will depend as much on what kind of privacy governance models are adopted.This roundtable will look to discuss the potential impact of these policy decisions, what theories should guide the data protection law in India, what models of privacy governance are workable and how privacy can co-exist with transparency principle and robust RTI regime.

Agenda

10.30 - 11.00	Tea
11.00 - 11.30	Welcome and setting the scene
11.30 - 12.30	Session 1: Policy Developments around Informational Privacy in India What do different policy developments indicate about privacy in India? What are the (potential) impacts of these developments? What questions are being asked and are these the right questions to ask? How do we expect the ‘state of privacy’ to change in India in response to these policy developments?
12.30 - 13.30	Session 2: Approaches to Privacy and Data Protection for India What are different approaches to privacy and government the Indian government can take? What cultural/political etc. aspects should be taken into consideration when thinking through this question? What are the pros and cons to different approaches? What are the pros and cons to the below approaches: - Privacy as control - Data as property - Utilitarian approaches - Technological Solutions
13.30 - 14.30	Lunch
14.30 - 15.30	Session 3: Transparency and Privacy How can transparency from the private sector enable the right to privacy? What are key principles that can guide this relationship? Where is transparency from the private sector most needed with respect to privacy? What are incentives that governments can adopt to encourage privacy?
15.30 - 16.30	Governance Models for Data Protection What kind of institutional framework is required for governance of privacy in India? How do we address questions of liability, penalties and enforcement? What role do sectoral players have in a data governance framework? What is best way for other stakeholders like industry, civil society and academia in collaborative governance of privacy?
16.30 - 17.00	Tea and snacks

Speakers

Usha Ramanathan
Rahul Sharma
Apar Gupta
Malavika Raghavan
Shankar Narayanan
Ujwala Uppaluri
Rebecca MacKinnon
Nikhil Pahwa
Kamlesh Bajaj
Manasa Venkatraman
Smitha K Prasad

Download the Agenda

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/national-privacy-workshop-at-india-international-centre

National IG Mechanisms – Looking at Some Key Design Issues

praskrishna — 2012-12-09T00:50:46Z

The Centre for Internet & Society is coorganizing this workshop along with Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, Institute for System Analysis, Russian Academy of Sciences, et.al., at the seventh Internet Governance Forum 2012 in Azerbaijan. The workshop will be held in Conference Room 4, from 2.30 p.m. to 4.00 p.m. Pranesh Prakash is a panelist for this workshop.

Workshop Theme:
Other
Theme Question:
It is a workshop on national level IG mechanisms, and does not directly address any main theme questions

Concise Description of Workshop:

Such is the unique nature of the Internet that its governance often calls for institutional innovations. The proposed workshop will look at a range of national level IG mechanisms across the world. While the discussion will refer to good models and practices in different countries, it will not be organized around simple show-casing of different national IG mechanisms. The discussion will centre around key contexts, requirements, challenges and possibilities. It will be directed towards examining key institutional design issues, functions and outcomes with regard to national level IG mechanisms with the purpose to help countries make appropriate decisions in their specific contexts. Some of these are; - How should the national commons of Internet resources be managed?- What kinds of mechanisms are appropriate for technical matters, what for those that are partly technical and partly social, and what for larger public policy matters, requiring more political responses? - Should there be a common single mechanism to address all the above kinds of issues, or different ones? How to coordinate different mechanisms, and different parts of the national governance machinery dealing with different aspects or kinds of IG issues? - How to ensure meaningful participation of all stakeholders in a manner that focuses on public interest?- How can the surplus from domain name registration fees etc collected by national IG agencies be employed for public interest purposes, especially, for taking up Internet related research.

Organiser(s) Name:

Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore - Civil SocietyBrazilian Internet Steering Committee - National level governance bodyInstitute for System Analysis, Russian Academy of Sciences - Academic InsitutionCentre for Community Informatics Research, Development and Training (CCIRDT), Vancouver, BC CANADA - Civil Society Instituto NUPEF , Rio de Janeiro - Civil SocietyIT for Change, Bangalore - Civil Society.

Previous Workshop(s):

See in the workshops section in IGF 2011IG4D Workshop 183: A Possible Framework for Global Net Neutrality.

Submitted Workshop Panelists:

Carlos Afonso, Insituto NUPEF, Board Member, Brazilian Steering CommiteeEmily Taylor, Independent Consultant, Formerly with NOMINETAlice Munya, Chairperson, Kenya Internet Steering CommiteeVictor Tishchenko, Institute of Advanced Systems, Russian Academy of Sciences,Sunil Abraham, Centre for Internet and Society,Moderator, Micheal Gurstein, Centre for Community Informatics Research, Development and Training, Canada.

Name of Remote Moderator(s):

Ginger Paque

Read the original published on the IGF website here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/national-ig-mechanisms

National Health Stack: Data For Data’s Sake, A Manmade Health Hazard

Murali Neelakantan, Swaraj Barooah, Swagam Dasgupta and Torsha Sarkar — 2018-09-16T05:01:18Z

On Oct. 5, 2017, an HIV positive woman was denied admission in Hyderabad’s Osmania General Hospital even though she was entitled to free treatment under India’s National AIDS Control Organisation programme. Another incident around the same time witnessed a 24-year-old pregnant woman at Tikamgarh district hospital in Madhya Pradesh being denied treatment by hospital doctors once she tested positive for HIV. The patient reportedly delivered the twins outside the maternity ward after she was turned away by the hospital, but her newborn twin girls died soon after.

The op-ed was published in Bloomberg Quint on August 14, 2018.

Apart from facing the severity of their condition, patients afflicted with diseases such as HIV, tuberculosis, and mental illnesses, are often subject to social stigma, sometimes even leading to the denial of medical treatment. Given this grim reality would patients want their full medical history in a database?

The ‘National Health Stack’ as described by the NITI Aayog in its consultation paper, is an ambitious attempt to build a digital infrastructure with a “deep understanding of the incentive structures prevalent in the Indian healthcare ecosystem”. If the government is to create a database of individuals’ health records, then it should appreciate the differential impact that it could have on the patients.

The collection of health data, without sensitisation and accountability, has the potential to deny healthcare to the vulnerable.

We have innumerable instances of denial of services due to Aadhaar and there is a real risk that another database will lead to more denial of access to the most vulnerable.

Earlier, we had outlined some key aspects of the NHS, the ‘world’s largest’ government-funded national healthcare scheme. Here we discuss some of the core technical issues surrounding the question of data collection, updating, quality, and utilisation.

Resting On A Flimsy Foundation: The Unique Health ID

The National Health Stack envisages the creation of a unique ID for registered beneficiaries in the system — a ‘Digital Health ID’. Upon the submission of a ‘national identifier’ and completion of the Know Your Customer process, the patient would be registered in the system, and a unique health ID generated.

This seemingly straightforward process rests on a very flimsy foundation. The base entry in the beneficiary registry would be linked to a ‘strong foundational ID’. Extreme care needs to be taken to ensure that this is not limited to an Aadhaar number. Currently, the unavailability of Aadhaar would not be a ground for denial of treatment to a patient only for their first visit; the patient must provide Aadhaar or an Aadhaar enrolment slip to avail treatment thereafter. This suggests that the national healthcare infrastructure will be geared towards increasing Aadhaar enrollment, with the unstated implication that healthcare is a benefit or subsidy — a largess of government, and not, as the courts have confirmed, a fundamental right.

Not only is this project using government-funded infrastructure to deny its citizens the fundamental right to healthcare, it is using the desperate need of the vulnerable for healthcare to push the ‘Aadhaar’ agenda.

Any pretence that Aadhaar is voluntary is slowly fading with the government mandating it at every step of our lives.

Aadhaar Seva kendra. (Source: Aadhaar Official Account/Facebook

Is The Health ID An Effective And Unique Identifier?

Even if we choose to look past the fact that the validity of Aadhaar is still pending the test of legality before the apex court, a foundational ID would mean that the data contained within that ID is unique, accurate, incorruptible, and cannot be misused. These principles, unfortunately, have been compromised by the UIDAI in the Aadhaar project with its lack of uniqueness of identity (i.e, fake IDs and duplicity), failure to authenticate identity, numerous alleged data leaks (‘alleged’ because UIDAI maintains that there haven’t been any leaks), lack of connectivity to be able to authenticate identity and numerous instances of inaccurate information which cannot be corrected.

Linking something as crucial and basic as healthcare data with such a database is a potential disaster.

There is a real risk that incorrect linking could cause deaths or inappropriate medical care.

The High Risk Of Poor Quality Data

The NITI Aayog paper envisages several expansive databases that are capable of being updated by different entities. It includes enrollment and updating processes but seems to assume that all these extra steps will be taken by all the relevant stakeholders and does not explain the motivation for stakeholders to do so.

In a country where government doctors, hospitals, wellness centres, etc are overburdened and understaffed, this reliance is simply not credible. For instance, all attributes within the registries are to be digitally signed by an authorised updater, there must be an audit trail for all changes made to the registries, and surveyors will be tasked with visiting providers in person to validate the data. Identifying these precautions as measures to assure accurate data is a great step towards building a national health database, but this seems an impossible task.

Who are these actors and what will incentivise them to ensure the accuracy and integrity of data?

In other words, what incentive and accountability structures will ensure that data entry and updating is accurate, and not approached from a more ‘jugaad’ ‘let’s just get this done for the sake of it’ attitude that permeates much of the country. How will patients have access to the database to be able to check its accuracy? Is it possible for a patient (who will presumably be ill) to gain easy access to an updater to change their data? If so, how? It is worth noting that the patient’s ‘right’ to check her data assumes that they have access to a computer that is connected to the internet as well as a good level of digital literacy, which is not the case in India for a significant section of the population. Even data portability loses its potential benefits if the quality of data on these registries is not reliable. In this case, healthcare providers will need to verify their patients’ health history using physical records instead, rendering the stack redundant.

Who will be liable to the patient for misdiagnosis based on the database?

A sonographic image is displayed on a monitor as a patient undergoes an ultrasound scan in Bikaner, Rajasthan, India. (Photographer: Prashanth Vishwanathan/Bloomberg)

Leaving the question of accountability vague opens updaters to the possibility of facing dangerous and unnecessarily punitive measures in the future. The NITI Aayog paper fails to address this key issue which arose recently. Despite being a notifiable disease, there are reports that numerous doctors from the private sector failed to notify or update TB cases to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare ostensibly on the grounds that they did not receive consent from their patients to share their information with the government. This was met with a harsh response from the government which stated that clinical establishment that failed to notify tuberculosis patients would face jail time. According to a few doctors, the government’s new move would coerce patients to go to ‘underground clinics’ to receive treatment discreetly and hence, would not solve the issue of TB.

The document also offers no specific recommended procedures regarding how inaccurate entries will be corrected or deleted.

It is then perhaps not a stretch to imagine that these scenarios would affect the quality of the data stored; defeating NITI Aayog’s objective of researchers using the stack for high-quality medical data.

The reason why the quality and integrity of data is at the head of the table is that all the proposed applications of the NHS (analytics, fraud detection etc.) assume a high quality, accurate dataset. At the same time, the enrolment process, updating process and disclosed measures to ensure data quality will effectively lead to poor quality data. If this is the case, then applications derived from the NHS dataset should assume an imperfect data, rather than an accurate dataset, which should make one wonder if no data is better than data that is certainly inaccurate.

Lack Of Data Utilisation Guidelines

Issues with data quality are exacerbated depending on how and where it is used, and who uses it. The paper has identified some users to be health-sector stakeholders such as healthcare providers (hospitals, clinics, labs etc), beneficiaries, doctors, insurers and accredited social health activists but misses laying down utilisation guidelines. The foresight to create a dataset that can be utilised by multiple actors for numerous applications is commendable, but potentially problematic -- especially if guidelines on how this data is to be used by stakeholders (especially the private sector) are ignored.

In order to bridge this knowledge gap, India has the opportunity to learn from the legal precedent set by foreign institutions. As an example, one could examine the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH) and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) in the U.S. which sets out strict guidelines for how businesses are to handle sensitive health data in order to maintain the individual’s privacy and security. It goes one step further to also lay down incentive and accountability structures in order that business associates necessarily report security breaches to their respective covered entities.

If we do not take necessary precautions now, we not only run the risk of poor security and breach of privacy but of inaccurate data that renders the national health data repository a health risk for the whole patient population.

There’s also the lack of clarity on who is meant to benefit from using such a database or whether the benefits are equal to all stakeholders, but more on that in a subsequent piece.

A medical team uses a glucometer to check the blood glucose level of a patient at a mobile clinic in Pancharala, on the outskirts of Bengaluru, India. (Photographer: Dhiraj Singh/Bloomberg)

It’s Your Recipe, You Try It First!

If the NITI Aayog and the government are sure that there is a need for a national healthcare database, perhaps they can start using the Central Government Health Scheme (which includes all current and retired government employees and their families) as a pilot scheme for this. Once the software, database and the various apps built on it are found to be good value for money and patients benefit from excellent treatment all over the country, it could be expanded to those who use the Employees’ State Insurance system, and then perhaps to the armed forces. After all, these three groups already have a unique identifier and would benefit from the portability of healthcare records since they are likely to be transferred and posted all over the country. If, and only if, it works for these groups and the claimed benefits are observed, then perhaps it can be expanded to the rest of the country’s healthcare systems.

Murali Neelakantan is an expert in healthcare laws. Swaraj Barooah is Policy Director at The Centre for Internet and Society. Swagam Dasgupta and Torsha Sarkar are interns at The Centre for Internet and Society.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/bloomberg-quint-murali-neelakantan-swaraj-barooah-swagam-dasgupta-torsha-sarkar-august-14-2018-national-health-stack-data-for-datas-sake-a-manmade-health-hazard

National Elections 2014: How Technology Powered Campaigns

praskrishna — 2014-05-20T07:03:51Z

HasGeek and the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) welcome you to a presentation on how technology powered politicial campaigns in the recently concluded 2014 national elections. Developers, advocacy organizations and the general public are invited to participate. The event will be held at CIS on May 23, 2014, 6.00 p.m. to 8.30 p.m.

During the 2014 Indian general elections, technology was widely used for candidate and party campaigns. The purpose of these technology-driven campaigns was to help voters make more informed decisions before casting their votes. Voter responses to these campaigns continuously helped individual candidates and political parties (via their technology teams and consultants) to rework messaging till the very end.

HasGeek and CIS are organizing three presentations followed by an interactive Q&A session to understand how technology spurred campaigns during the 2014 elections, and how voters will have to get smarter just as parties are becoming smart in reaching out to them.

Sessions

Campaigning in the pre-Internet and Internet Era (Talk)

Vijay Grover, founder of Bangalore Media Foundation and television journalist since 17 years, will compare the past and present to explain how internet technologies have changed campaigning stratgies. Grover will argue that voters need to get smart in sifting information and making choices as more and more parties use social media and information technologies in reaching out to them.

Technology-driven campaigns (Talk)

Viral Shah, part of Nandan Nilekani's campaign management team, will talk about how India is placed in the global scene with respect to technology-driven political campaigns. Viral will also discuss how to design a campaign with technology and how technology was used to power Nilekani's campaign.

Tools used for powering campaigns and attracting volunteers (Talk)

BG Mahesh, founder and managing director at Oneindia.in, will talk about the tools used during Narendra Modi's campaign. Apart from informing voters about the candidate, volunteers were also enlisted through the drives. BG Mahesh will throw light on how technology made this possible.

Schedule

Time	Sessions
18.00 18.15	Introductions: HasGeek, CIS, The Fifth Elephant
18.15 18.45	Vijay Grover: Campaigning in the pre-Internet and Internet Era
18.45 19.15	Viral Shah: Technology-driven campaigning
19.15 19.45	B.G.Mahesh: Tools used for powering campaigns and attracting volunteers
19.45 20.15	Q & A Session
20.15 20.30	Snacks

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/events/national-elections-2014-how-technology-powered-campaigns

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

National Consultation on Media Law

praskrishna — 2014-09-30T06:52:50Z

The Law Commission of India and the National University, Delhi have joined hands to organize the National Consultation on Media Law at the India Habitat Centre in New Delhi on September 27 and 28, 2014. Nehaa Chaudhari participated in this event.

Click to view the:

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/national-consultation-on-media-law