We are anonymous, we are legion

Big Data Governance Frameworks for 'Data Revolution for Sustainable Development'

Meera Manoj — 2016-07-05T13:13:32Z

A key component of the process to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals is the call for a global 'data revolution' to better understand, monitor, and implement development interventions. Recently there has been several international proposals to use big data, along with reconfigured national statistical systems, to operationalise this 'data revolution for sustainable development.' This analysis by Meera Manoj highlights the different models of collection, management, sharing, and governance of global development data that are being discussed.

1. What are the Sustainable Development Goals?

2. The Need for a Data Revolution

3. Big Data: Characteristics and Use for Development

3.1. Characteristics of Big Data

3.2. Using Big Data for Development

4. Sustainable Development and Data Rights

5. Governance Frameworks Proposed

5.1. UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network

5.2. The UN DATA Revolution Group

5.3. Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development

5.4. The Global Partnership for Sustainable Development of Data

5.5. The World Economic Forum (WEF)

5.6. Dr. Julia Lane - A Quadruple Data Helix

5.7. Data Pop Alliance

6. Conclusion

7. Endnotes

8. Author Profile

Speaking on Big Data, Dan Ariely commented that, "Everyone talks about it, nobody really knows how to do it, and everyone thinks everyone else is doing it, so everyone claims they are doing it" [1]. This offers a useful insight into the lack of adequate discourse on the kind of governance and accountability frameworks that are needed to facilitate the developmental, sustainable, and responsible uses of big data.

In light of the recent international proposals to use big data to track the Sustainable Development Goals, this paper highlights the different models of management, sharing, and governance of data that are being discussed, and concurrently, how they conceptualise the various rights around big data and how are they to be protected.

1. What are the Sustainable Development Goals?

The Sustainable Development Goals, otherwise known as the Global Goals, build on the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Adopted on 1 January 2016, these universally applicable 17 goals of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, seek to end all forms of poverty, fight inequalities, tackle climate change and address a range of social needs like education, health, social protection and job opportunities over the next 15 years [2].

Source: UN Data Revolution Group, A World that Counts, 2014, p.12.

2. The Need for a Data Revolution

An overwhelming cause of concern regarding the precursor to the SDGs, the MDGs, is the data unavailability to monitor their progress. For instance, the figure below indicates that there is no five-year period when the availability of MDG related data is more than 70% of what is required. Entire groups of people and key issues remain invisible [3]. Lack of data is not only a problem for global statisticians, but also for people whose needs and demands remain invisible due to lack of quantitative representation of the same. For instance, the incidences of gender related crimes when not recorded could lead to a misconception on the achievement of the MDG of gender equality.

Source: UN, Sustainable Development Goals.

As the new goals (SDGs) cover a wider range of issues it is clear that a far higher level of detail is required. To this effect the High-Level Panel of Eminent Persons on the post-2015 agenda has called for a "data revolution for sustainable development" [4].

The world is experiencing a Data Revolution and a "data deluge." One estimate has it that 90% of the data in the world has been created in the last 2 years. As Eric Schmidt of Google in 2010 famously said, "There were 5 exabytes of information created between the dawn of civilization through 2003, but that much information is now created every 2 days [5].

In its report A World that Counts, the UN Data Revolution Group defines the data revolution as an explosion in the volume of data, the speed with which data are produced, the number of producers of data, the dissemination of data, and the range of things on which there is data, coming from new technologies such as mobile phones and the “internet of things”, and from other sources, such as qualitative data, citizen-generated data and perceptions data [6].

This data revolution in the context of sustainable development has been defined by the UN Secretary General’s Independent Expert Advisory Group (IEAG) as follows:

[T]he integration of data coming from new technologies with traditional data in order to produce relevant high‐quality information with more details and at higher frequencies to foster and monitor sustainable development. This revolution also entails the increase in accessibility to data through much more openness and transparency, and ultimately more empowered people for better policies, better decisions and greater participation and accountability, leading to better outcomes for the people and the planet [7].

The majority of such “data coming from new technologies” is what can be called big data. It is data being generated in real-time, in high velocity and volume, in a variety of forms and formats, and on an increasing range of phenomenon that are being mediated by digital technologies – from governance to human communication. Further, a good part of such big data is not about the content of the phenomenon concerned but about its process – for example, Call Detail Records are generated for each mobile phone call a person makes and it contains data about the process of the call (time, location, duration, recipient, etc.) but not about the content of the call. Big data about various governmental and human processes are becoming a crucial instrument for documenting and monitoring of the same.

3. Big Data: Characteristics and Use for Development

3.1. Characteristics of Big Data

The simplest definition of big data is that it is a dataset of more than 1 petabyte. The US Bureau of Labour Statistics terms it to be non-sampled data, characterized by the creation of databases from electronic sources whose primary purpose is something other than statistical inference [8].

The characteristics which broadly distinguish Big Data are sometimes called the “3 V’s”: more volume, more variety and higher rates of velocity [9]. Big data sources generally share some or all of these features [10]:

Digitally generated,
Passively produced,
Automatically collected,
Geographically or temporally trackable, and
Continuously analysed.

Increasingly, Big Data is recognised as creating "new possibilities for international development" [11]. It could provide faster, cheaper, more granular data and help meet growing and changing demands. It was claimed, for example, that "Google knows or is in a position to know more about France than INSEE" [12], its highly resourceful national statistical agency. To illustrate, Global Pulse gives the example of a hypothetical small household facing soaring commodity prices, particularly food and fuel [13]. They have the options of:

Getting part of their food at a nearby World Food Programme distribution centre,
Reducing mobile usage,
Temporarily taking their children out of school,
Calling a health hotline when children show signs of malnutrition related diseases, and
Venting about their frustration on social media.

Such a systemic shock of food insecurity will prompt thousands of households to react in roughly similar ways. These collective behavioural changes may show up in different digital data sources:

WFP might record that it serves twice as many meals a day,
The local mobile operator may see reduced usage,
UNICEF data may indicate that school attendance has dropped,
Health hotlines might see increased volumes of calls reporting malnutrition, and
Tweets mentioning the difficulty to “afford food” might begin to rise.

Thus the power of real-time, digital data to predict paths for development is immense. Amassing such a large volume of data which tracks practically every aspect of social behavious can revolutionize the field of official statistics and policy making.

Two points to be noted are: 1) all these data sources are not available for comparison in the real-time by default, so one task before using big data in developmental work is to make data from different sources available across agencies and make them comparable, and 2) finding repeating patterns within large data sets, sourced from varied origins, can not only allow for monitoring but also (statistically) predicting future possibilities and implications for development action.

3.2. Using Big Data for Development

There are several international organizations attempting to use such data.

Global Pulse, a United Nations initiative, launched by the Secretary-General in 2009, seeks to leverage innovations in digital data, rapid data collection and analysis to help decision-makers gain a real-time understanding of how crises impact vulnerable populations. To this end, Global Pulse is establishing an integrated, global network of Pulse Labs, anchored in Pulse Lab New York, to pilot the approach at country level [14].

The Global Working Group on Big Data for Official Statistics, created in May 2014, pursuant to Statistical Commission, makes an inventory of ongoing activities and examples regarding the use of big data, addresses concerns related to methodology, human resources, quality and confidentiality, and develops guidelines on classifying various types of big data sources [15].

There have been applications even on a national and individual level. For instance, in 2013, various sources reported that the CIA had admitted to the “full monitoring of Facebook, Twitter, and other social networks” to identify links between events and sequences or paths leading to national security threats, ultimately leading to forecasting future activities and events [16].

In the field of conflict prevention is the emerging applications to map and analyse unstructured data generated by politically active Internet use by academics, activists, civil society organizations, and even general citizens. In reference to Iran’s post-election crisis beginning in 2009, it is possible to detect web-based usage of terms that reflect a general shift from awareness towards mobilization, and eventually action within the population [17].

The "Big Data, Small Credit" report proposes that financial inclusion can be promoted by allowing consumers with mobile phones to access credit formally as customers [18].

At a national level, the biggest challenge for most big data projects is the limited or restricted access the government agencies have to potential big data sets owned by the private sector [19]. The overall consensus is that Big Data to track SDGs must complement traditional data sources [20]. This is because big data may not always be available for the entire population, or include a diverse enough sample of the population. Moreover most big data projects measure development indicators through a correlation which may not always be correct unlike official data. For instance big data might help in predicting lowered household income through reducing mobile bills while traditional data directly collects income statistics.

In a survey by the Global Working Group on Big Data for Official Statistics [21], it was found that only a few countries have developed a long-term vision for the use of big data, while many are formulating a big data strategy. Most countries have not yet defined business processes for integrating big data sources and results into their work and do not have a defined structure for managing big data projects.

Thus there exists a need to identify a governance framework for big data for sustainable development, not only at national level, but also at the international level.

4. Sustainable Development and Data Rights

Any discussion on governance frameworks would be incomplete without defining the kind of data rights they must seek to protect.

In the famous parable of the six blind men and the elephant they conclude that the elephant is like a wall, snake, spear, tree, fan or rope, depending upon where they touch. Similarly Internet experiences of individual users (what they touch) often contrast drastically with different views (what they conclude) on what would constitute data rights.

The IEAG in its report has identified the following set of data related rights, but has not defined any actual framework or process for ensuring them (yet) [22]:

Right to be counted,
Right to an identity,
Right to privacy and to ownership of personal data,
Right to due process (for example when data is used as evidence in proceedings, or in administrative decisions),
Freedom of expression,
Right to participation,
Right to non-discrimination and equality, and
Principles of consent.

Personal data is broadly defined as "any information relating to an identified or identifiable individual" [23]. Often primary data producers (users of services and devices generating data) are unaware of individual privacy infringements [24].

A survey by the Global Working Group on Big Data for Official Statistics found that only a few countries have a specific privacy framework for big data, while most apply the privacy framework for traditional statistics to big data as well [25].

Conventionally, safeguards against the re-use of big data to protect data rights have involved the “anonymization” or “de-identification” of data, to conceal individual identities. Global Pulse, for instance, is putting forth the concept of Data Philanthropy, whereby "corporations take the initiative to anonymize (strip out all personal information) their data sets and provide this data to social innovators to mine the data for insights, patterns and trends in real-time or near real-time" [26]. There however exists a debate on whether data can actually be anonymized effectively. Several state that data can never be effectively de-anonymized due to technological challenges [27]. For instance, when the New York City government released de-anonymised data sets of New York cab drivers were made re-identifiable by approaching a separate method. Within less than 2 hours work, researchers knew which driver drove every single trip in this entire dataset. It would be even be easy to calculate drivers’ gross income, or infer where they live [28].

Even the OECD opines that the current model of limiting identifiability of individuals is unsustainable. It recommends moving towards one where the focus is on transparency around how data is being used, rather than preventing specific types of use, stating that - "research funding agencies and data protection authorities should collaborate to develop an internationally recognized framework code of conduct covering the use of new forms of personal data, particularly those generated via network communication. This framework, built on best practice procedures for consent from data subjects, data sharing and re-use, anonymization methods, etc., could be adapted as necessary for specific national circumstances" [29].

Thus, there is a push for the arguement that the historical approaches to protecting privacy and confidentiality — namely, informed consent and anonymity — no longer hold [30]. Some have even suggested using big data itself to keep track of user permissions for each piece of data to act as a legal contract [31].

There is an overall consensus that any legal or regulatory mechanisms set up to mobilise the 'data revolution for sustainable development' should protect the data rights of the people [32], without any clear agreement on what these rights may be.

5. Governance Frameworks Proposed

A largely unanswered question that is posed in light of the emerging consensus on the use of Big Data for monitoring SDGs is within what sort of governance frameworks these data collection and analysis methods will operate. Methods of collection and the key actors involved in data analysis, management, storage and coordination. The role of NGOs and CSOs, if any, within these systems must be delineated. Certain key global organizations and eminent researchers have suggested the following models.

5.1. UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network

In 2012, the UN Secretary-General launched the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN) to mobilize global scientific and technological expertise to promote practical problem solving for sustainable development, including the design and implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [33]. It has proposed the following.

Collection

The Inter-Agency and Expert Group on Sustainable Development Goal Indicators (IAEGSDG) and the United Nations Statistical Commission are to establish roadmaps for strengthening specific data collection tools that enable the monitoring of SDG indicators.

Analysis

Based on discussions with a large number of statistical offices, including Eurostat, BPS Indonesia, the OECD, the Philippines, the UK, and many others, 100 is recommended to be the maximum number of global indicators to analyse data for which NSOs can report and communicate effectively in a harmonized manner. This conclusion was strongly endorsed during the 46th UN Statistical Commission and the Expert Group Meeting on SDG indicators [34].

Specialist indicators developed by thematic communities must be used for data analysis as they include input and process metrics that are helpful complements to official indicators, which tend to be more outcome-focused. For example, the UN Inter-Agency Group on Child Mortality Estimation has developed a specialist hub responsible for analysing, checking, and improving mortality estimation. This is a leading source for child morality information for both governments and non-governmental actors [35].

Research arms of private companies such as Microsoft Research, IBM research, SAS, and R&D arms of telecom companies could directly partner with official statistical systems to share sophisticated analysing techniques [36].

Management

Four levels of monitoring, national, regional, global, and thematic, should be "organized in an integrated architecture" [37].

Countries must decide individually whether official data must be complemented with non-official indicators from big data which can add richness to the monitoring of the SDGs.

Where possible, regional monitoring should build on existing regional mechanisms, such as the Regional Economic Commissions, the Africa Peer Review Mechanism, or the Asia-Pacific Forum on Sustainable Development [38].

To coordinate thematic monitoring under the SDGs, each thematic initiative may have one or more lead specialist agencies or “custodians” as per the IAEG-MDG monitoring processes. Lead agencies would be responsible for convening multi-stakeholder groups, compiling detailed thematic reports, and encouraging ongoing dialogues on innovation. These thematic groups can become testing grounds in launching a data revolution for the SDGs, trialling new measurements and metrics that in time can feed into the global monitoring process with annual reports [39].

Schematic illustration with explanation of the indicators for national, regional, global, and thematic monitoring.
Source: UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network, Indicators and a Monitoring Framework for the Sustainable Development Goals: Launching a Data Revolution for the SDGs, 2015, p.3.

Role of NSOs

Monitoring the SDG agenda will require substantive improvements in national statistical capacity. Assessments of existing capacity to fulfil SDG monitoring expectations must be undertaken and needs be integrated into National Strategies for the Development of Statistics (NSDSs) [40].

Coordination

A Global Partnership for Sustainable Development Data must be established and a World Forum on Sustainable Development Data be convened in 2016 to create mechanisms for ongoing collaboration and innovation.

A high-level, powerful group of businesses and states must convene the various data and transparency sustainable development initiatives under one umbrella.

To ensure comparability, Global Monitoring Indicators must be harmonized across countries by one lead technical or specialist agency which will additionally coordinate data standards and collection and provide technical support.

The following table indicates the suggested Lead Agencies for individual SDGs [41].

Number	Sustainable Development Goal	Lead Agencies
1.	No Poverty	World Bank, UNDP, UNSD, UNICEF, ILO, FAO, UN-Habitat, UNISDR, WHO, CRED, UNFPA, and UN Population Division
2.	No Hunger	FAO, WHO, UNICEF, and Internal Fertilizer Industry Associaton (IFA)
3.	Good Health	WHO, UN Population Division, UNICEF, World Bank, GAVI, UN AIDS, and UN-Habitat
4.	Quality Education	UNESCO, UNICEF, and World Bank
5.	Gender Equality	UNICEF, UN Women, WHO, UNSD, ILO, UN Population Division, and UNFPA
6.	Clean Water and Sanitation	WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP), FAO, UN Water, and UNEP
7.	Renewable Energy	Sustainable Energy for All, IEA, WHO, World Bank, and UNFCC
8.	Good Jobs and Economic Growth	IMF, World Bank, UNSD, and ILO
9.	Innovation and Infrastructure	World Bank, OECD, UNIDO, UNFCC, UNESCO, and ITU
10.	Reduced Inequalities	UNSD, World Bank, and OECD
11.	Sustainable Cities and Communities	UN-Habitat, Global City Indicators Facility, WHO, CRED, UNISDR, FAO, and UNEP
12.	Responsible Consumption	EITI, UNCTAD, UN Global Compact, FAO, UNEP Ozone Secretariat, WBCSD, GRI, IIRC, and Global Compact
13.	Climate Action	OECD DAC, UNFCCC, and IEA
14.	Life below Water	UNEP-WCMC, IUCN, and FMC
15.	Life on Land	FAO, UNEP, IUCN, and UNEP- WCMC
16.	Peace and Justice	UNODC, WHO, UNOCHA, UNCHR, IOM, OCHA, OECD, UN Global Compact, EITI, UNCTAD, UNICEF, UNESCO, and Transparency International
17.	Partnership for the Goals	BIS, IASB, IFRS, IMF, WIPO, WTO, UNSD, OECD, World Bank, OECD DAC, and SDSN

5.2. The UN DATA Revolution Group

The group constituted by the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in August 2014, is an Independent Expert Advisory Group with the aim of making concrete recommendations on bringing about a 'data revolution for sustainable development' [42]. In its report, A World that Counts, it makes the following recommendations [43].

Collection

Clear standards on data collection methods must be developed based on the UN Fundamental Principles of Official Statistics. Periodic audits must be conducted by professional and independent third parties to ensure data quality.

Governments, civil society, academia and the philanthropic sector must work together strengthening statistical literacy so that all people have capacity to input into and evaluate the quality of data.

Social entrepreneurs, private sector, academia, media, civil society and other individuals and institutions must be engaged globally with incentives (prizes, data challenges) to encourage data sharing.

Analysis

A SDGs Analysis and Visualisation Platform is to be set up for fostering private-public partnerships and community-led peer-production efforts for data analysis.

A dashboard on ”the state of the world” will engage the UN, think-tanks, academics and NGOs in analysing, and auditing data.

Academics and scientists are to analyse data to provide long-term perspectives, knowledge and data resources at all levels.

The “Global Forum of SDG-Data Users” will ensure feedback loops between data producers, processors and users to improve the usefulness of data and information produced.

A “SDGs data lab” to support the development of a first wave of SDG indicators is to be established mobilizing key public, private and civil society data providers, academics and stakeholders working with the Sustainable Development Solutions Network.

Storage

A “world statistics cloud” will store data and metadata produced by different institutions but according to common standards, rules and specifications.

Role of NSOs

Civil society organisations must share data and processing methods with private and public counterparts on the basis of agreements. They must hold governments and companies accountable using evidence on the impact of their actions, provide feedback to data producers, develop data literacy and help communities and individuals generate and use data.

NSOs are the central players of the Data Revolution. Their autonomy must be strengthened to maintain data quality. They must abandon expensive and cumbersome production processes, incorporate new data sources like big data that is human and machine-readable, compatible with geospatial information systems and available quickly enough to ensure that the data cycle matches the decision cycle. Collaborations with the private sector can boost technical and financial investments.

Coordination

Key stakeholders must create a “Global Consensus on Data”, to adopt principles concerning legal, technical, privacy, geospatial and statistical standards. Best practices related to public data such as the Open Government Partnership (OGP) and the G8 Open Data Charter are recommended foundations for such principles.

A UN-led “Global Partnership for Sustainable Development Data” is proposed, to coordinate and broker key global public-private partnerships for data sharing [44].

A “World Forum on Sustainable Development Data” and “Network of Data Innovation Networks” will be a converging point for the data ecosystem to share ideas and experiences for improvements, innovation and technology transfer.

5.3. Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD)

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is an inter-governmental organization that seeks to promote policies that will improve the economic and social well-being of people globally. It has made the following proposals [45].

Collection

Data is to be collected from National statistical agencies, national and international researchers and international organisations.

Role of NSOs

By leveraging the expertise of telecommunications companies and software developers, for instance, national statistical systems could potentially reduce costs and improve the availability of data to monitor development goals [46].

Coordination

National Data Forums for Social Science Data must be created for the development of social science data for improved coordination between social scientists, data producers (national statistical agencies, government departments, large private sector businesses and sources undertaking academic direction), and data curators.

Social science research communities must contribute to national plans of action after a needs assessment [47]. Research funding agencies must collaborate at the international level for a common system for referencing datasets in research publications [48].

5.4. The Global Partnership for Sustainable Development of Data

The partnership is a global network of governments, NGOs, and businesses working to strengthen the inclusivity, trust, and innovation in the way that data is used to address the world’s sustainable development efforts [49].

Analysis

There must be a common framework for information processing. At minimum, a simple lexicon must tag each datum specifying:

What: i.e. the type of information contained in the data,
Who: the observer or reporter,
How: the channel through which the data was acquired,
How much: whether the data is quantitative or qualitative, and
Where and when: the spatio-temporal granularity of the data.

Analysis of data involves filtering relevant information, summarising keywords and categorising into indicators. This intensive mining of socioeconomic data, known as “reality mining,” can be done by: (1) Continuous analysis of real time streaming data, (2) Digestion of semi-structured and unstructured data to determine perceptions, needs and wants. (3) Real-time correlation of streaming data with slowly accessible historical data repositories.

Use of big data for developmental goals can draw upon all three techniques to various degrees depending on availability of data and the specific needs.

Role of NSOs

NSOs have a pivotal part to play in the data revolution. Countries and organizations believe that big data cannot replace traditional official statistical data as it is based more on perception than facts. To quote Winston Churchill, "Do not trust any statistics that you did not fake yourself."

For instance, a study found that Google Flu Trends, to detect influenza epidemics, predicted nonspecific flu-like respiratory illnesses well but not actual flu. The mismatch was due to popular misconceptions on influenza symptoms. This has important policy implications. Doctors using Google Flu Trends may overstock on flu vaccines or be overly inclined to diagnose normal respiratory illnesses as influenza [50].

However Big Data if understood correctly, can inform where further targeted investigation is necessary and give immediate responses to favourably change outcomes.

5.5. The World Economic Forum (WEF)

The WEF is an International Organization for Public-Private Cooperation. It engages the foremost political, business and other leaders of society to shape global, regional and industry agendas [51]. In the report titled Big Data, Big Impact: New Possibilities for International Development, it makes the following recommendations [52].

Collection

Data production and development actors include individuals, public sector and the private sector. Each produce different kinds of data that have unique requirements. The private sector maintains vast troves of transactional data, much of which is "data exhaust," or data created as a by-product of other transactions. The public sector maintains enormous datasets in the form of census data, health indicators, and tax and expenditure information. The following figure highlights the different kinds of data that each sector collects and what incentives they have to share the data along with requirements to maintain such data.

World Economic Forum - Diagram on Data Commons.
Source: World Economic Forum, Big Data, Big Impact: New Possibilities for International Development, 2012, p.4.

Business models must be created to provide the appropriate incentives for private-sector actors to share data. Such models already exist in the Internet environment. For instance companies in search and social networking profit from products they offer at no charge to end users because the usage data these products generate is valuable to other ecosystem actors. Similar models could be created in garnering Big Data for SDGs. The following flowchart illustrates how different sectors must work together to incentivise data collection and sharing.

World Economic Forum - Diagram on Global Coordination.
Source: World Economic Forum, Big Data, Big Impact: New Possibilities for International Development, 2012, p.7.

5.6. Dr. Julia Lane - A Quadruple Data Helix

Dr. Julia Lane is a Professor in the Wagner School of Public Policy at New York University; and also a Provostial Fellow in Innovation Analytics and a Professor in the Center for Urban Science and Policy [53]. She has done extensive research on the uses of big data. In her paper titled "Big Data for Public Policy: A Quadruple Data Helix," she makes the following suggestions [54].

Collection

In the future there will exist a model of a quadruple data helix for data collection which will have four strands — state and city agencies, universities, private data providers, and federal agencies.i

A new set of institution, city/university data facilities, must be established. These institutions should form the backbone of the quadruple helix, with direct connections to the private sector and to the federal statistical agencies.

Analysis

There is a need for graduate training for non-traditional students, who need to understand how to use data science tools as part of their regular employment. They must identify and capture the appropriate data, understand how data science models and tools can be applied, and determine how associated errors and limitations can be identified from a social science perspective.i

Universities can act as a trusted independent third party to process, store, analyze, and disseminate data. ii

Management

The new infrastructure must ensure that data from disparate sources are collected managed and used in a manner that is informed by end users. There are many technical challenges: disparate data sets must be ingested, their provenance determined, and metadata documented. Researchers must be able to query data sets to know what data are available and how they can be used. And if data sets are to be joined, they must be joined in a scientific manner, which means that workflows need to be traced and managed in such a way that the research can be replicated.

Coordination

The role of State and City agencies is to address immediate policy issues, rather than to build long-term data infrastructures as their mandate is to work with city data than the full spectrum of available data.

5.7. Data-Pop Alliance

Data-Pop Alliance is a global coalition on Big Data and development created by the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative, MIT Media Lab, and Overseas Development Institute that brings together researchers, experts, practitioners, and activists to promote a people-centred big data revolution through collaborative research, capacity building, and community engagement [55]. It makes the following suggestions.

Collection

The idea of shared responsibility between the public and private sector is a proposed operational principles to create a deliberative space. Mechanisms and legal frameworks must be devised for private companies to share their big data under formalized and stable arrangements instead of being compelled by ad hoc requests from researchers and policymakers.

The media too, could avoid publishing statistical data collected by unexplained methodologies by employing "statistical editors" and disseminate verified information.

Role of NSOs

For official statistics, engaging with Big Data is not a technical consideration but a political obligation. In a two tier system of official and non-official statistics, the public and investors tend to distrust official figures. For instance, the results of the 2010 census in the UK are being disputed on the basis of sewage data.

It is imperative for NSOs to retain, or regain, their primary role as the legitimate custodian of knowledge and creator of a deliberative public space to democratically drive human development [56].

6. Conclusion

The Big data frameworks provide some useful insights on monitoring mechanisms though some questions remain unanswered in each model. Key actors that have been proposed include city and state agencies like NSOs, private companies, social scientists, private individuals and international research agencies. Data analysis can be through public-private collaborations, data philanthropy, and using indicators by thematic communities.

Collection

There appears consensus across models that collection must be effected through public private partnerships while providing incentives.

Analysis

While several methods of analysis have been proposed by the Global Partnership it is unclear on who will be conducting the analysis. The UNSDSN has suggested that it be conducted by academics and scientists with Julia Lane stating it must be through public private partnerships which appear more feasible and transparent.

Role of NSOs

All frameworks agree on the pivotal role of NSOs and acknowledge them as the key players and coordinators at the national level. They must be strengthened financially, technologically and politically. Most frameworks seek to empower national agencies which will coordinate collaborations with the private sector through incentives while protecting personal data.

Coordination

Several international fora have been proposed to enable coordination while there is consensus that the NSOs. A Global Partnership for Sustainable Development Data, a Global Consensus on Data and a World Forum on Sustainable Development Data have been suggested. UN organizations appear to be suggesting more responsibility for those in the UN framework with UNSDSN giving an extensive list of lead agencies (UNDP, UN Women, Who etc) while the WEF emphasises on the private sector, Data Pop Alliance on NSOs, and Prof. Lane on State and City agencies.

On an international level countries can opt to join international organization that are being setup for the purpose. It remains to be seen whether all countries globally can achieve such a feat in a coordinated manner without infringing on data rights when unanswerable to any set international organization. The burden appears to fall on civil society and market forces within the private sector to regulate this process. For instance when a private sector company starts providing large un-anonymized data sets for government use, the privacy concerns of civil society that result in them opting for the company’s competitor’s more privacy friendly products will result in a regulation through market forces. However these forces may have disparate strengths in different contexts and countries depending on market practices and information asymmetry resulting in the lack of a uniform accountability mechanism.

7. Endnotes

[1] Dan Ariely, Facebook, January 06, 2013, https://www.facebook.com/dan.ariely/posts/904383595868.

[2] United Nations Organizations, 'Sustainable Development Goals' (United Nations Sustainable Development, 26 September 2015), http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/, accessed 6 June 2016.

[3] Data Revolution Group, 'A World that Counts: Mobilising the Data Revolution for Sustainable Development' (November 2014), http://www.undatarevolution.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/A-World-That-Counts2.pdf, accessed 8 June 2016.

[4] High level panel on the post-2015 development agenda , 'A New Global Partnership: Eradicate Poverty and Transform Economies through Sustainable Development'(Post2015hlp,0rg, July 2012), http://www.post2015hlp.org/, accessed 8 June 2016.

[5] Gary King, 'Ensuring the Data-Rich Future of the Social Sciences' [2011] 3(2) Science, http://gking.harvard.edu/files/datarich.pdf, accessed 8 June 2016.

[6] See [3].

[7] Ibid.

[8] Michael Horrigan, 'Big Data: A Perspective from the BLS' (Amstatorg, 1 January 2013) http://magazine.amstat.org/blog/2013/01/01/sci-policy-jan2013/, accessed 4 June 2016.

[9] UN Global Pulse, 'Big Data for Development: Challenges & Opportunities' (6 May 2012) http://www.unglobalpulse.org/sites/default/files/BigDataforDevelopment-UNGlobalPulseJune2012.pdf, accessed 5 June 2016.

[10] Emmanuel Letouzé and Johannes Jütting, 'Official Statistics, Big Data and Human Development: Towards a New Conceptual and Operational Approach' (2014) 12(3), Data-Pop Alliance White papers Series, https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/events-documents/5161.pdf, accessed 4 June 2016.

[11] See [9].

[12] See [10].

[13] See [9].

[14] UN Global Pulse, 'About: United Nations Global Pulse' (2016) http://www.unglobalpulse.org/about-new, accessed 7 June 2016.

[15] UN Stats, 'Global Working Group' (2014) http://unstats.un.org/unsd/bigdata/, accessed 8 June 2016.

[16] New York City Press Release, ‘Mayor Bloomberg, Police Commissioner Kelly and Microsoft Unveil New, State-of-the-Art Law Enforcement Technology that Aggregates and Analyzes Existing Public Safety Data in Real Time to Provide a Comprehensive View of Potential Threats and Criminal Activity’ (New York City, 8 August 2012), http://www1.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/291-12/mayor-bloomberg-police-commissioner-kelly-microsoft-new-state-of-the-art-law, accessed 2 July 2016.

[17] Francesco Mancini, 'New Technology and the Prevention of Violence and Conflict' (Reliefwebint, April 2013), http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/ipi-e-pub-nw-technology-conflict-prevention-advance.pdf, accessed 2 July 2016.

[18] Arjuna Costa, Anamitra Deb, and Michael Kubzansky, 'Big Data, Small Credit: The Digital Revolution and Its Impact on Emerging Market Consumers,' (Omidyar, 3 March 2013) https://www.omidyar.com/sites/default/files/file_archive/insights/Big%20Data,%20Small%20Credit%20Report%202015/BDSC_Digital%20Final_RV.pdf, accessed 2 July 2016.

[19] United Nations Economic and Social Council, 'Report of the Global Working Group on Big Data for Official Statistics' (UN Stats, 3 March 2015), http://unstats.un.org/unsd/statcom/doc15/2015-4-BigData-E.pdf, accessed 8 June 2016.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Ibid.

[22] See [3].

[23] OECD, 'OECD Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data' (23 September 1980), http://www.oecd.org/sti/ieconomy/oecdguidelinesontheprotectionofprivacyandtransborderflowsofpersonaldata.htm, accessed 29 May 2016.

[24] Amir Efrati, ''Like' Button Follows Web Users' (WSJ, 18 May 2011) http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704281504576329441432995616, accessed 23 May 2016.

[25] See [15].

[26] Robert Kirkpatrick, 'Data Philanthropy: Public and Private Sector Data Sharing for Global Resilience' (UN Global Pulse, 16 September 2011), http://www.unglobalpulse.org/blog/data-philanthropy-public-private-sector-data-sharing-global-resilience, accessed 4 June 2016.

[27] Ibid.

[28] Arvind Narayanan, 'No silver bullet: De-identification still doesn't work' (1 April 2016), http://randomwalker.info/publications/no-silver-bullet-de-identification.pdf, accessed 3 July 2016.

[29] OECD Global Science Forum, 'New Data for Understanding the Human Condition: International Perspectives,' (February 2013) http://www.oecd.org/sti/sci-tech/new-data-for-understanding-the-human-condition.pdf, accessed 2 June 2016.

[30] S. Barocas, 'The Limits of Anonymity and Consent in the Big Data Age,' in Privacy, Big Data, and the public good: Frameworks for Engagement (Cambridge University Press, 2014).

[31] A. Pentland, 'Institutional Controls: The New Deal on Data,' in Privacy, Big Data, and the public good: Frameworks for Engagement (Cambridge University Press, 2014).

[32] See [3].

[33] UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network, 'About Us: Vision and Organization' (2012) http://unsdsn.org/about-us/vision-and-organization/, accessed 2 June 2016.

[34] UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network, 'Indicators and a Monitoring Framework for the Sustainable Development Goals: Launching a data revolution for the SDGs' (12 June 2015) http://unsdsn.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/150612-FINAL-SDSN-Indicator-Report1.pdf, accessed 4 June 2016.

[35] UNICEF, 'CME Info - Child Mortality Estimates' (2014) http://www.childmortality.org/, accessed 1 June 2016.

[36] See [10].

[37] UNESCO, 'Technical report by the Bureau of the United Nations Statistical Commission (UNSC) on the process of the development of an indicator framework for the goals and targets of the post-2015 development agenda' (6 March 2015) http://www.uis.unesco.org/ScienceTechnology/Documents/unsc-post-2015-draft-indicators.pdf, accessed 3 June 2016.

[38] UN, 'The Road to Dignity by 2030: Ending Poverty, Transforming All Lives and Protecting the Planet ' (4 December 2014) http://www.un.org/disabilities/documents/reports/SG_Synthesis_Report_Road_to_Dignity_by_2030.pdf, accessed 7 June 2016.

[39] Ibid.

[40] UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network, 'Data for Development: An Action Plan to Finance the Data Revolution for Sustainable Development' (10 July 2015) http://unsdsn.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Data-For-Development-An-Action-Plan-July-2015.pdf, accessed 3 June 2016.

[41] See [34].

[42] UN Data Revolution Group, 'About the Independent Expert Advisory Group' (6 November 2014) http://www.undatarevolution.org/about-ieag/, accessed 4 June 2016.

[43] See [3].

[44] The Partnership has already been established, and it is developing a further framework.

[45] Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development), 'The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD): About' (2016) http://www.oecd.org/about/, accessed 2 June 2016.

[46] Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, 'Strengthening National Statistical Systems to Monitor Global Goals' (2015) http://www.oecd.org/dac/POST-2015%20P21.pdf, accessed 1 June 2016.

[47] Ibid.

[48] OECD Global Science Forum, 'New Data for Understanding the Human Condition: International Perspectives' (February 2013) http://www.oecd.org/sti/sci-tech/new-data-for-understanding-the-human-condition.pdf, accessed 2 June 2016.

[49] The Global Partnership On Sustainable Development Data, 'Who We Are: The Data Ecosystem and the Global Partnership' (2016) http://www.data4sdgs.org/who-we-are/, accessed 5 June 2016.

[50] World Economic Forum, 'Big Data, Big Impact: New Possibilities for International Development' (22 January 2012) http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_TC_MFS_BigDataBigImpact_Briefing_2012.pdf, accessed 8 June 2016.

[51] World Economic Forum, 'Our Mission: The World Economic Forum' (12 January 2016) https://www.weforum.org/about/world-economic-forum/, accessed 7 June 2016.

[52] See [50].

[53] Julia Lane, Homepage, http://www.julialane.org/.

[54] Julia Lane, 'Big Data for Public Policy: The Quadruple Helix' (2016) 8(1) Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, DOI:10.1002/pam.21921, accessed 1 June 2016.

[55] Data-Pop Alliance, 'Data-Pop Alliance: Our Mission' (May 2014) http://datapopalliance.org/, accessed 1 June 2016.

[56] See [10].

8. Author Profile

Meera Manoj is a law student at the Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar and has completed her first year. She is passionate about civil rights, feminism, economics in law and anything involving paneer. She aspires to travel the world and build up a vast library, with unparalleled sections on International Law and Archie comics.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/big-data-governance-frameworks-for-data-revolution-for-sustainable-development

Cyberstalkers, the new bullies in town

praskrishna — 2016-07-04T02:44:39Z

The advent of social media and an increase in accessibility has led to increasing concerns with regard to cyber safety.

The article by S. Poorvaja was published in the Hindu on July 4, 2016. Pranesh Prakash gave inputs.

Bombarded with messages, poems and photographs from a cyber stalker across multiple social networking platforms, Shradha Muralidharan, a consultant in the city, said that being curt and asking the stalker to stop bothering was of no use.

“I initially did not want to engage with him as I was afraid that it would only provoke him more. But then ignoring him did not help as well and I was forced to speak to him. He, however, went ahead and contacted a host of my friends on these sites and asked them if they could introduce me to him,” she recalled.

Cyberstalking is now on the increase with people being flooded with messages and having their information online manipulated and used to threaten them with.

Vandhana,* an engineer from the city, says she thinks twice before posting content online — be it on her Instagram or her Facebook profile.

“Despite having adequate privacy tools, I later found that my photos and other information were being shared by a colleague who was on my friends’ list to his friend, who then proceeded to cyberstalk me,” she said.

What to share?

While multiple tools that social media sites offer do allow people to mute, block or even report people, Pranesh Prakash, Policy Director for the Centre for Internet and Society, said technical restrictions didn’t play much of a part in a situation where information one posts to a private audience is shared further, without their consent.

“Trust plays a large role in what you share online since someone can find a way to get around technological restrictions. While there are some violations that can be addressed by the law, a few cannot be, and it is important for people to be aware of the legal provisions that exist,” he added.

Be it social media meet-ups, Facebook friends catching up outside of the virtual world or web writers meeting to brainstorm ideas, the last five years have seen a gradual increase in such socialising and new safety concerns have cropped up.

Karthika, a chartered accountant from the city who went through an unpleasant experience of being stalked on social media sites and cyber-bullied, said that while the police were helpful when she sought them out, she was also constantly questioned as to why she was befriending people online in the first place.

“I tried not to keep mum about what was happening to me but was also simultaneously told by people that it would seem like I was drawing unnecessary attention to myself if I made public what was happening to me. More people should come forward and support the person who is getting stalked, rather than be intimidated,” she said.

The use of internet, email or any form of electronic communication to contact and harrass a person who has expressed disinterest, and to cause them trauma is what qualifies as Cyberstalking

To prevent misuse of information, social media users can use privacy tools and settings that enable them have a control on who vies their information

With smartphone apps for social media sites that have access to the user's location, caution must be exercised by the user in knowing who is privy to such information

With children being active online as well, the use of parental control softwares that helps monitor the content they share is necessary as they are vulnerable victims to stalking and cyber bullying

Knowledge about the cyber crime laws and where/whom to report incidences of the same to.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-hindu-s-poorvaja-july-4-2016-cyberstalkers-the-new-bullies-in-town

Why Geospatial Bill is draconian and how it will hurt startups

praskrishna — 2016-07-02T04:57:35Z

Last week, the Indian government rejected Google’s plans to map Indian cities, tourist spots and mountain ranges, using the 360-degree panoramic Google Street View feature.

The article was published in Indian Express on June 13, 2016

Last week, the Indian government rejected Google’s plans to map Indian cities, tourist spots and mountain ranges, using the 360-degree panoramic Google Street View feature. The government officials cited “national security” as a reason for not granting permission to Google. It is expected that the Google’s Street View permission would be relooked at, once the draft Geospatial Information Regulation Bill, 2016, is enforced as law. Many however feel that this draft bill is draconian and will have serious repercussions on the startup ecosystem.

The Geospatial Bill seeks to make creating, accessing and distribution or sharing of map related information, illegal and that every company will have to take prior permission and license from the government for the same. Wayback in 2011, Google had announced the introduction of Street View for Bangalore, on Google Maps. But the project ran into trouble with Bangalore Police stopping Street View cars from plying in the city, citing security reasons.

Google Street View, launched in 2007, is popular in San Francisco, Las Vegas, Denver, New York and Miami, which allows users to navigate virtual streets from photographs gathered from directional cameras on special vehicles. While the service has been hugely successful it has caused problems of privacy in some countries.

In 2010 almost 250,000 Germans told Google to blur pictures of their homes on the Street View service, while Czech government also banned Google from taking any new photos for the service. In Switzerland, the matter went to the court and it was accepted that Google would be obliged to pixelate 99% of images to blur faces, vehicle registrations and that it would not be filming certain sensitive places such as schools, prisons and shelter homes.

This adds to the list of recent controversies on Google Earth, and the draft Geospatial Information Regulation Bill, on adoption of mapping technology in India. Commenting on the development, Sumandro Chattapadhyay, research director at the Centre for Internet and Society said, the key country where the Google Street View faced legal challenge, and was fined too, is Germany. This legal challenge, however, was not based on the concern for national security but on that for the privacy of the citizens. However, it was eventually allowed to roll out Street View in Germany provided that it asks for consent from the house owners before images of any house.”

“One of the crucial concerns with the draft Geospatial Information Regulation Bill remains its vast scope of application. Not only initiatives like Google Street View may be regulated under it (for capturing geo-referenced imagery from the street level) but absolutely any mobile application that requires the user’s geo-location (either automatically detected, or manually entered by the user) would be within the purview of this Bill. This evidently creates a great pressure upon the entire ICT-enable product and service sector in India,” Chattapadhyay added.

This would mean that, any company, particularly the new age startups, those in the food tech, fintech and e-commerce space, which uses geo-location to identify the customer location to either deliver goods, food products, or the likes of Ola and Uber which uses maps to pickup and drop customers, will have to obtain license from the government.

Raman Shukla, director—strategy and product, Medikoe, said, “At Medikoe we are helping users to locate the nearest healthcare service provider with the available technologies. Google Maps is one of key feature our company banks on. Though we understand the country’s security concerns, the draft bill, if implemented, would be a violation of independent internet. We believe that a much better solution can be identified to solve security concerns.”

Venu Kondur, founder of LOBB, the online truck booking platform said, “Geostatial data is a very important data for our business. Customers booking truck through LOBB platform get real-time track & trace facility. Our customers rely heavily on this data for their day-day activity. Startups like us depend largely on maps data for real-time tracking of consignment. Lot of our business intelligence data is drawn out of it.”

In case, if the draft gets implemented, many startups will be forced to change the business model and while it will also increase the product delivery time. A group of 15 volunteers created a SaveTheMap.in portal to educate the readers about the draft bill and also give complete information on how the bill have an impact on the citizen and users of certain application. Sajjad Anwar one of the volunteer, said, through the portal about 1700 mails have been sent to the ministry of home affairs airing their view on why they do not support the draft Bill.

Comparing with other countries, Chattapadhyay further said, “At first, other countries deal with the question of display of security establishments in publicly available maps through direct interactions with large mapping companies, and does not turn this into a financial and political burden for the entire economy. Secondly, it is the concern about privacy of the citizens that should frame the Indian government’s response to products and services like Google Street View, and not concerns regarding national security.”

What the draft bill says

No person shall, in any manner, make use of, disseminate, publish or distribute any geospatial information of India, outside India, without prior permission from the security vetting authority under the Central government.

Penalty

Whoever acquires any geospatial information of India in contravention to the rules, shall be punished with a fine ranging from Rs 1 crore to Rs 100 crore and /or imprisonment for a period upto seven years.

Application for license

Every person who has already acquired any geospatial imagery or data of any part of India either through space or aerial platforms such as satellite, aircrafts, airships, balloons, unmanned aerial vehicles or terrestrial vehicles shall within one year from the commencement of this Act, make an application along with requisite fees to the security vetting authority.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/financial-express-prabhu-mallikarjunan-june-13-2016-why-geospatial-bill-is-draconian-and-how-it-will-hurt-startups

Here is the entire list of 'escorts service' websites that the government has banned

praskrishna — 2016-07-02T04:51:30Z

Another day and another opaque order asking Indian service providers to block websites that allegedly offer or advertise escort services in India. In total, the government has ordered ban on 237 websites. But as it happens whenever the Indian government bans website, there has been no public communication about the same.

The article was published in India Today on June 16, 2016

Also, it has not been explained what, if any, process was followed before these websites were banned and what norms were applied for the order that the internet service providers have received.

However, now Centre for Internet and Society has caught hold of the list of the websites that have been banned. Here is what the organisation says, "Unfortunately, the government does not make available publicly the list of websites they have ordered ISPs to block. Given that knowledge of what is censored by the government is crucial in a democracy, we are publishing the entire list of blocked websites."

As for the websites and URLs here they are:

www.sterlingbioscience.com
rawpoint.biz
www.onemillionbabes.com
www.mumbaihotcollection.in
simranoberoi.in
rubinakapoor.biz
talita.biz
www.mumbaiescortsagency.net
www.mumbaifunclubs.com
www.alishajain.co.in
www.ankitatalwar.co.in
https://www.jennyarora.ind.in
www.riya-kapoor.com
shneha.in
missinimi.in
www.mumbaiglamour.in
kalyn.in
www.saumyagiri.co.in/city/mumbai/
bookerotic.com
www.divyamalik.in
www.suhanisharma.co.in
www.ruhi.biz
umbaiqueens.in
www.aliyaghosh.com
priyasen.in
www.highprofilemumbaiescorts.co.in
charmingmumbai.com
www.poojamehata.in
kiiran.in/
mansikher.in
www.newmumbaiescorts.in
www.mumbaifunclubs.com
www.punarbas.in
www.discreetbabes.in
www.alisharoy.in
www.arpitarai.in
www.nidhipatel.in
navimumbailescort.com
www.zoyaescorts.com
www.juhioberoi.in
shoniya.in
panchibora.in
rehu.in
www.nehaanand.com
www.aditiray.co.in
www.rakhibajaj.in
www.alianoidaescorts.in
www.sobiya.in
www.alishaparul.in
mumbai-escorts.leathercurrency.com
ankita-ahuja.in
www.yamika.in
mumbailescort.co
www.ranjika.in
www.aditiray.com
www.alinamumbailescort.in
www.sonikaa.com/services/
riyamodel.in
soonam.in
www.sejalthakkar.com
www.yomika-tandon.in
www.asika.in
www.siyasharma.org/
www.rubikamathur.in
www.mumbaiescortslady.com
www.sexyshe.in
www.indepandentescorts.com
www.saanvichopra.co.in
www.goswamipatel.in
ojaloberoi.in
www.naincy.in
www.sonyamehra.com
www.pinkgrapes.in
anjalitomar.in/
www.nishakohli.com/
sagentia.co.in
mumbai.vivastreet.co.in/escort+mumbai
www.deseescortgirls.in
guides.wonobo.com/mumbai/mumbai-escorts-service/.4299
jasmineescorts.com
www.shalinisethi.com
www.highclassmumbailescort.com
www.vipescortsinmumbai.com
www.mumbaiescorts69.co.in
monikabas.co.in
www.riyasehgal.com
onlycelebrity.in
www.greatmumbaiescorts.com/escort-service-mumbai.html
www.aishamumbailescort.com
www.jennydsouzaescort.com
www.desifun.in
www.siyaescort.co.in
masti-escort.in
www.sofya.in
www.mumbaiwali.in/navi-mumbai-escort-service.php
www.mumbaiwali.in
www.calldaina.com
www.mumbaiescortsservice.co.in
www.escortsgirlsinmumbai.com
www.passionmumbai.escorts.com
www.nehakapoor.in
meerakapoor.com
www.dianamumbaiescorts.net .in
www.allmumbailescort.in
www.rakhiarora.in
www.ritikasingh.com
www.rekhapatil.com
www.mumbaidolls.com
www.piapandey.com
www.mumbaicuteescorts.in
www.mumbaiescortssevice.com
www.onlycelebrity.com
www.meetescortservice.com
onlyoneescorts.com
simirai.org
www.riyamumbaiescorts.in
www.neharana.in
www.mumbaihiprofilegirls.in
www.sexyescortsmumbai.in
www.sexymumbai.escorts.com
www.four-seasons-escort.in
www.mumbaiescortsgirl.com
www.vdreamescorts.com
www.passionatemumbaiescorts.in
www.payalmalhotra.in
www.shrutisinha.com
www.juliemumbaiescorts.com
www.indiasexservices.com/mumbai.html
www.mumbai-escorts.co.in
www.aliyamumbaiescorts.net.in
shivaniarora.co.in/escort-service-mumbai.html
www.pinkisingh.com
soyam.in
www.arpitaray.com
www.localescorts.in
www.jennifermumbaiescorts.com
www.yanaroy.com
escorts18.in/mumbai-escorts.html
www.tinamumbaiescorts.com
www.mumbaijannatescorts.com
www.deepikaroy.com
www.nancy.co.in
www.pearlpatel.in
30minsmumbaiescorts.in
www.datinghopes.com
https://www.riyaroy.com/services.html
www.sonalikajain.com
www.zainakapoor.co.in
kavyajain.in
www.kinnu.co.in
exmumbai.in/
www.mansimathur.in/pinkyagarwal
exmumbai.in
www.mansimathur.in/pinkyagarwal
www.devikabatra.in
katlin.in
riyaverma.in
escortsinindia.co/
www.snehamumbaiescorts.in
shimi.in
www.mumbaiescortsforu.com/about
www.chetnagaur.co.in/chetna-gaur.html
www.escortspoint.in
www.rupalikakkar.in
www.hemangisinha.co.in
1escorts.in/location/mumbai.html
www.salini.in/navi-mumbai-independent-escort-service.php
www.salini.in/navi-mumbai-independent-escort-service.php
www.mumbaibella.in
mohitescortservicesmumbai.com
www.anchu.in
www.aliyaroy.co.in
jaanu.co.in/mumbai-escorts-service-call-girls.html
www.andyverma.com
dreams-come-true.biz
feel-better.biz
jellyroll.biz
dreamgirlmumbai.com
role-play.biz
mansi-mathur.com
www.zarinmumbaiescorts.com
mymumbai.escortss.com
www.goldentouchescorts.com
www.mumbaipassion.biz
ishitamalhotra.com
happy-ending.biz
juicylips.biz
www.escortsmumbai.name
www.kirstygbasai.net
www.hiremumbaiescorts.com
www.meeraescorts.com/mumbai-escorts.php
3-5-7star.biz
www.pranjaltiwari.com
www.richagupta.biz
way2heaven.biz
piya.co/
pinkflowers.info
www.beautifulmumbaiescorts.com
www.bestescortsinmumbai.com/charges-html
www.mumbaiescorts.me
www.tanikatondon.com
www.escortsinmumbai.biz
www.escortgirlmumbai.com
www.mumbaicallgrils.com
www.quickescort4u.com
www.mayamalhotra.com
www.legal-escort.com
escortsbaba.com/mumbai-escorts.html
rupa.biz
www.mumbaiescorts.agency/erotic-service-mumbai.html
www.escortscelebrity.com
www.independentescortservicemumbai.com/mumbai%20escort%20servi..
garimachopra.com
kajalgupta.biz
lipkiss.site
aanu.in
bombayescort.in
hotkiran.co.in
khushikapoor.in
joyapatel.in
rici.in
aaditi.in
andheriescorts.org.in
www.jiyapatel.in
spicymumbai.in
rimpyarora.in
lovemaking.co.in
riyadubey.co.in
escortservicesmumbai.in
mumbaiescorts.co.in
midnightprincess.in/
vashiescorts.co.in/
angee.in/
www.rozakhan.in/
www.mumbaiescortsvilla.in/
kylie.co.in/
escortservicemumbai.co.in

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/india-today-june-16-2016-here-is-the-entire-list-of-escorts-service-websites-that-govt-has-banned

ISPs start blocking escort websites following govt order

praskrishna — 2016-07-02T04:17:25Z

DoT on Monday ordered blocking of 240 URLs; blocking of websites takes place under Section 69A of the IT Act, and Information Technology Rules.

The article by Moulishree Srivastava was published in the Business Standard on June 14, 2016.

The Internet Service Providers (ISPs) have started blocking websites allegedly offering escort services after an order from the Department of Telecommunication (DoT).

The DoT on Monday asked ISPs to immediately block around 240 such URLs (Uniform Resource Locator) offering escort services, to filter out obscene content on the internet. Speaking to Business Standard, Internet Service Providers Association of India’s (ISPAI) President Rajesh Chharia said the ISPs were in process of shutting down these websites. ISPAI represents 60 ISPs including Bharti Airtel, Tata Teleservices, Reliance Communication, Vodafone and Idea Cellular.

“We received the order yesterday, and it entails a list of about 240 websites that the government wants us to block,” said Chharia. “CERT-In, which works under the Department of Electronics and Information Technology (Deity), advised the department on certain websites that it feels could be a national or social threat. Deity then reached out to DoT, which is our licensor. We are the licensee, and as per the licensing agreement, we have to comply with the order.”

While declining to comment on whether this is the first such order the association had received this year, Chharia said, “Since last few years, we have been receiving orders to block websites which hosts content that may be a threat to social order or national security.” Blocking of websites takes place under Section 69A of the IT Act, and a 2009 secondary legislation called the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules (“Blocking Rules”).

The rules empower the central government to direct any agency or intermediary to block access to information when satisfied that it is “necessary or expedient so to do” in the interest of the “sovereignty and integrity of India, defense of India, security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognisable offence relating to above. Intermediaries failing to comply are punishable with fines and prison terms up to seven years.”

In December 2014, around six months after the Modi-led BJP government came into power, the DoT ordered ISPs to block 32 websites, including Vimeo, Dailymotion, GitHub and Pastebin.

According to an RTI filed by no-for-profit organisation Software Freedom Law Centre in March last year, Deity said 2341 URLs were blocked in 2014, adding that “barring few numbers, all URLs were blocked on the orders of the Court”.

Another RTI filed by Bangalore based think tank Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) found that 143 URLs were blocked in first three months of 2015 in order to comply with the directions of the competent courts. Later that year, the government attempted to block about 857 porn websites, but it had to revoke the order following the backlash online and offline.

The recent notice named a number of websites that need to be banned, including pinkysingh.com, jasmineescorts.com, onlyoneescorts.com, payalmalhotra.in, localescorts.in, pearlpatel.in, kavyajain.in, xmumbai.in, shimi.in and anchu.in.

According to Freedom on the Net 2015 report by Freedom House, which termed India as a “partly free” country on the internet, there were 129 operational ISPs in India as of May 2015.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/business-standard-moulishree-srivastava-june-14-2016-isps-start-blocking-escort-websites-following-govt-order

Behind the scenes of Escort Economy 2.0

praskrishna — 2016-07-01T15:43:36Z

With the government banning over 200 escort sites last week, Sunday Times speaks to the owner of an agency to find out how tech is driving the world's oldest profession.

The article by Sharmila Ganeshan Ram was published in the Times of India on June 26, 2016. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

He excuses himself to bark a series of expletives in Hindi, supposedly at a driver. He returns to the phone call and says sorry and that the people he is surrounded by only respond to colourful language. But then, this otherwise patient, English-speaking man, who runs an escort business in Mumbai, also has a more legitimate reason to swear.

Last week, the central government blocked 237 escort websites, among which one (or perhaps more, he won't say) belongs to this man. Understandably, he does not want to be named but it is a surprise he even agreed to talk. Because the question, "How has the government's move of blocking escort websites affected you?" elicits nothing from escort agencies, especially those in other cities, except a meek "I don't know" in Bengaluru to "Madam, ek night spend kar lo mere saath, bata deta hoon." That, of course, came from a man in Delhi.

Most of the Mumbai numbers against names that sound like they belong to female characters from a Karan Johar movie are bound to lead you to a tiny constellation of men, chiefly call-centre workers. If you go as far as asking for their names, you are bound to get some well-deserved lies. "Guru Dutt," answered one of these men in Mumbai.

One call eventually led to this nameless man with an "IT background" who has been running an escort business for six years and does not understand the logic of blocking websites. "If you block one domain, it will pop up in other forms. Also, why block a few websites in one city while not in others?" asks the agency owner.

He says he has lost "almost 90%" of his daily revenue following the government's move. "We used to earn up to Rs 2 lakh a day from just one website. Now, it has come down to Rs 15,000."

As far as the escort economy goes, Mumbai, he says, is a "small town" compared to Delhi, with its many high-profile clients and tony hotels. While he pegs Delhi's daily turnover at Rs 50 crore a day, he says Mumbai's escort industry sees Rs 10 crore a day.

In India, the escort business falls in the murky, grey area between legal and illegal, especially because websites and agencies tend to hide behind words like 'friendship' and 'company' to describe the service and cops can't really arrest them for that.

"The escort is not a criminal. She has the right to gift her body to anyone she pleases. Besides, escort business usually involves accompanying VIPs to important events and may or may not end in sex. I know of VIPs who do not so much as touch the girl. They just want conversation," he says. That's advertised online as GFE or girlfriend experience. Of course, the housewives seeking male escorts when their husbands are not in town want more.

The escorts are mostly models and struggling actors, for whom a shoot may throw up Rs 2,000 a day while an escort job pays between Rs 20,000 and Rs 40,000. "This business helps them sustain their lifestyle and buy clothes and accessories," says the agency owner. "In the movie business, anyway, the casting couch phenomenon exists. She has to compromise and for free. Here, she is getting paid for it," he reasons. Besides models, he says there are several 20-somethings from the corporate world who leave the business after a year or so.

But you soon realize why these cities may not care as much when you trawl through the list of blocked websites released by the Centre for Internet and Society. In this list — which besides 'juicy lips' and 'midnight princess' also includes a curious one called 'sterling bioscience' — you will find that most websites are based in Mumbai. Most of the Mumbai numbers against names that sound like they belong to female characters from a Karan Johar movie are bound to lead you to a tiny constellation of men, chiefly call-centre workers. If you go as far as asking for their names, you are bound to get some well-deserved lies. "Guru Dutt," answered one of these men in Mumbai. One call eventually led to this nameless man with an "IT background" who has been running an escort business for six years and does not understand the logic of blocking websites.

"If you block one domain, it will pop up in other forms. Also, why block a few websites in one city while not in others?" asks the agency owner. He says he has lost "almost 90%" of his daily revenue following the government's move. "We used to earn up to Rs 2 lakh a day from just one website. Now, it has come down to Rs 15,000."As far as the escort economy goes, Mumbai, he says, is a "small town" compared to Delhi, with its many high-profile clients and tony hotels. While he pegs Delhi's daily turnover at Rs 50 crore a day, he says Mumbai's escort industry sees Rs 10 crore a day. In India, the escort business falls in the murky, grey area between legal and illegal, especially because websites and agencies tend to hide behind words like 'friendship' and 'company' to describe the service and cops can't really arrest them for that."

The escort is not a criminal. She has the right to gift her body to anyone she pleases. Besides, escort business usually involves accompanying VIPs to important events and may or may not end in sex. I know of VIPs who do not so much as touch the girl.

They just want conversation," he says. That's advertised online as GFE or girlfriend experience. Of course, the housewives seeking male escorts when their husbands are not in town want more.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/times-of-india-sharmila-ganesan-ram-june-26-2016-behind-the-scenes-of-escort-economy

Indian experts doubt government ban on porn sites will be effective

praskrishna — 2016-07-01T15:00:32Z

The Indian government directed service providers to block 240 websites but doubts have surfaced over the legality of such an order.

This was published in ZDNet on June 20, 2016.

Last year, the Indian government identified more than 850 websites that provided escort services but action has been initiated only with respect to 240 such websites after a Mumbai court issued an order to ban them last week.

These sites were banned under the provision of Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 -- as their content relate to morality and decency as given in Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India -- on June 13 after a committee of experts in the Indian Home Ministry recommended action against them.

But experts doubt whether the government can proscribe them in view of a lack of adequate legislation. Jaspreet Grewal, programme officer with the Centre for Internet and Society, said that though the websites offering escort services may potentially be in violation of the law, they cannot be banned under the existing provisions of the IT Act.

Even the government appears to be in a dilemma, as although it notified internet service providers to disable 857 websites on July 31, 2015, it modified the orders four days later, saying that the service providers were free "not to disable" any of the 857 sites if they did not have child pornographic content.

Following an uproar, with netizens lashing out at the government on the social media platforms such as Reddit and Twitter saying that it was trying to impose censorship and also curb freedom of expression, the government decided to rescind its July 31 directives.

According to a report in Delhi-based English daily Hindustan Times, Indian Minister for Communication and Information Technology Ravi Shankar Prasad rejected that the present government was a Talibani government, as being said by some of the critics. "Our government supports free media, respects communication on social media, and has respected freedom of communication always," he said.

The minister, while making a statement in Parliament last month, admitted that it was a significant challenge to filter the sites with pornographic content as most of the pornographic sites were hosted outside the country, where viewing pornography is legal.

"These websites keep on changing the names, domain addresses, and hosting platforms from time to time, making it difficult to filter or block such websites using technical tools available in the market," he added.

The minister also said that the government was asking the service providers regularly to upgrade their infrastructure and technology to effectively address the shortcomings with regard to identifying and blocking encrypted websites. "The government is also in regular touch with social networking sites, having their offices in India, to disable objectionable contents at the source from their websites," he added.

However, the government seems to be treading cautiously and an indication to this effect was given by a senior official in the Department of Electronics and Information Technology (DeitY). "Though a debate is taking place for a long time, the government is now taking a calibrated approach," DeitY Joint Secretary Rajiv Bansal said at an ICANN event held in Delhi on Thursday.

He also felt that banning the websites was not a solution as new sites were sprouting to replace the blocked ones.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/zdnet-vl-srinivasan-june-20-2016-indian-experts-doubt-government-ban-on-porn-sites-will-be-effective

CIS Submission to TRAI Consultation on Free Data

pranesh — 2016-07-01T16:04:27Z

The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) held a consultation on Free Data, for which CIS sent in the following comments.

The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) asked for public comments on free data. Below are the comments that CIS submitted to the four questions that it posed.

Question 1
Is there a need to have TSP agnostic platform to provide free data or suitable reimbursement to users, without violating the principles of Differential Pricing for Data laid down in TRAI Regulation? Please suggest the most suitable model to achieve the objective.

Is There a Need for Free Data?

No, there is no need for free data, just as there is no need for telephony or Internet. However, making provisions for free data would increase the amount of innovation in the Internet and telecom sector, and there is a good probability that it would lead to faster adoption of the Internet, and thus be beneficial in terms of commerce, freedom of expression, freedom of association, and many other ways.

Thus the question that a telecom regulator should ask is not whether there is a need for TSP agnostic platforms, but whether such platforms are harmful for competition, for consumers, and for innovation. The telecom regulator ought not undertake regulation unless there is evidence to show that harm has been caused or that harm is likely to be caused. In short, TRAI should not follow the precautionary principle, since the telecom and Internet sectors are greatly divergent from environmental protection: the burden of proof for showing that something ought to be prohibited ought to be on those calling for prohibition.

Goal: Regulating Gatekeeping

TRAI wouldn’t need to regulate price discrimination or Net neutrality if ISPs were not “gatekeepers” for last-mile access. “Gatekeeping” occurs when a single entity establishes itself as an exclusive route to reach a large number of people and businesses or, in network terms, nodes. It is not possible for Internet services to reach their end customers without passing through ISPs (generally telecom networks). The situation is very different in the middle-mile and for backhaul. Even though anti-competitive terms may exist in the middle-mile, especially given the opacity of terms in “transit agreements”, a packet is usually able to travel through multiple routes if one route is too expensive (even if that is not the shortest network path, and is thus inefficient in a way). However, this multiplicity of routes is generally not possible in the last mile.¹ This leaves last mile telecom operators (ISPs) in a position to unfairly discriminate between different Internet services or destinations or applications, while harming consumer choice.

However, the aim of regulation by TRAI cannot be to prevent gatekeeping, since that is not possible as long as there are a limited number of ISPs. For instance, even by the very act of charging money for access to the Internet, ISPs are guilty of “gatekeeping” since they are controlling who can and cannot access an Internet service that way. Instead, the aim of regulation by TRAI should be to “regulate gatekeepers to ensure they do not use their gatekeeping power to unjustly discriminate between similarly situated persons, content or traffic”, as we proposed in our submission to TRAI (on OTTs) last year.

Models for Free Data

There are multiple models possible for free data, none of which TRAI should prohibit unless it would enable OTTs to abuse their gatekeeping powers.

Government Incentives For Non-Differentiated Free Data

The government may opt to require all ISPs to provide free Internet to all at a minimum QoS in exchange for exemption from paying part of their USO contributions, or the government may pay ISPs for such access using their USO contributions.

TRAI should recommend to DoT that it set up a committee to study the feasibility of this model.

ISP subsidies

ISP subsidies of Internet access only make economic sense for the ISP under the following ‘Goldilocks’ condition is met: the experience with the subsidised service is ‘good enough’ for the consumers to want to continue to use such services, but ‘bad enough’ for a large number of them to want to move to unsubsidised, paid access.

Providing free Internet to all at a low speed.
1. This naturally discriminates against services and applications such as video streaming, but does not technically bar access to them.
Providing free access to the Internet with other restrictions on quality that aren’t discriminatory with respect to content, services, or applications.

Rewards model

A TSP-agnostic rewards platform will only come within the scope of TRAI regulation if the platform has some form of agreement with the TSPs, even if it is collectively. If the rewards platform doesn’t have any agreement with any TSP, then TRAI does not have the power to regulate it. However, if the rewards platform has an agreement with any TSP, it is unclear whether it would be allowed under the Differential Data Tariff Regulation, since the clause 3(2) read with paragraph 30 of the Explanatory Memorandum might disallow such an agreement.

Assuming for the sake of argument that platforms with such agreements are not disallowed, such platforms can engage in either post-purchase credits or pre-purchase credits, or both. In other words, it could be a situation where a person has to purchase a data pack, engage in some activity relating to the platform (answer surveys, use particular apps, etc.) and thereupon get credit of some form transferred to one’s SIM, or it could be a situation where even without purchasing a data pack, a consumer can earn credits and thereupon use those credits towards data.

The former kind of rewards platform is not as useful when it comes to encouraging people to use the Internet, since only those who already see worth in using in the Internet (and can afford it) will purchase a data pack in the first place. The second form, on the other hand is quite useful, and could be encouraged. However, this second model is not as easily workable, economically, for fixed line connections, since there is a higher initial investment involved.

Recharge API

A recharge API could be fashioned in one of two ways: (1) via the operating system on the phone, allowing a TSP or third parties (whether OTTs or other intermediaries) to transfer credit to the SIM card on the phone which have been bought wholesale. Another model could be that of all TSPs providing a recharge API for the use of third parties. Only the second model is likely to result in a “toll-free” experience since in the first model, like in the case of a rewards platform that requires up-front purchase of data packs, there has to be a investment made first before that amount is recouped. This is likely to hamper the utility of such a model.

Further, in the first case, TRAI would probably not have the powers to regulate such transactions, as there would be no need for any involvement by the TSP. If anti-competitive agreements or abuse of dominant position seems to be taking place, it would be up to the Competition Commission of India to investigate.

However, the second model would have to be overseen by TRAI to ensure that the recharge APIs don’t impose additional costs on OTTs, or unduly harm competition and innovation. For instance, there ought to be an open specification for such an API, which all the TSPs should use in order to reduce the costs on OTTs. Further, there should be no exclusivity, and no preferential treatment provided for the TSPs sister concerns or partners.

“0.example” sites

Other forms of free data, for instance by TSPs choosing not to charge for low-bandwidth traffic should be allowed, as long as it is not discriminatory, nor does it impose increased barriers to entry for OTTs. For instance, if a website self-certifies that it is low-bandwidth and optimized for Internet-enabled feature phones and uses 0.example.tld to signal this (just as wap.* were used in for WAP sites and m.* are used for mobile-optimized versions of many sites), then there is no reason why TSPs should be prohibited from not charging for the data consumed by such websites, as long as the TSP does so uniformly without discrimination. In such cases, the TSP is not harming competition, harming consumers, nor abusing its gatekeeping powers.

OTT-agnostic free data

If a TSP decides not to charge for specific forms of traffic (for example, video, or for locally-peered traffic) regardless of the Internet service from which that traffic emanates, as as long as it does so with the end customer’s consent, then there is no question of the TSP harming competition, harming consumers, nor abusing its gatekeeping powers. There is no reason such schemes should be prohibited by TRAI unless they distort markets and harm innovation.

Unified marketplace

One other way to do what is proposed as the “recharge API” model is to create a highly-regulated market where the gatekeeping powers of the ISP are diminished, and the ISP’s ability to leverage its exclusive access over its customers are curtailed. A comparison may be drawn here to the rules that are often set by standard-setting bodies where patents are involved: given that these patents are essential inputs, access to them must be allowed through fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory licences. Access to the Internet and common carriers like telecom networks, being even more important (since alternatives exist to particular standards, but not to the Internet itself), must be placed at an even higher pedestal and thus even stricter regulation to ensure fair competition.

A marketplace of this sort would impose some regulatory burdens on TRAI and place burdens on innovations by the ISPs, but a regulated marketplace harms ISP innovation less than not allowing a market at all.

At a minimum, such a marketplace must ensure non-exclusivity, non-discrimination, and transparency. Thus, at a minimum, a telecom provider cannot discriminate between any OTTs who want similar access to zero-rating. Further, a telecom provider cannot prevent any OTT from zero-rating with any other telecom provider. To ensure that telecom providers are actually following this stipulation, transparency is needed, as a minimum.

Transparency can take one of two forms: transparency to the regulator alone and transparency to the public. Transparency to the regulator alone would enable OTTs and ISPs to keep the terms of their commercial transactions secret from their competitors, but enable the regulator, upon request, to ensure that this doesn’t lead to anti-competitive practices. This model would increase the burden on the regulator, but would be more palatable to OTTs and ISPs, and more comparable to the wholesale data market where the terms of such agreements are strictly-guarded commercial secrets. On the other hand, requiring transparency to the public would reduce the burden on the regulator, despite coming at a cost of secrecy of commercial terms, and is far more preferable.

Beyond transparency, a regulation could take the form of insisting on standard rates and terms for all OTT players, with differential usage tiers if need be, to ensure that access is truly non-discriminatory. This is how the market is structured on the retail side.

Since there are transaction costs in individually approaching each telecom provider for such zero-rating, the market would greatly benefit from a single marketplace where OTTs can come and enter into agreements with multiple telecom providers.

Even in this model, telecom networks will be charging based not only on the fact of the number of customers they have, but on the basis of them having exclusive routing to those customers. Further, even under the standard-rates based single-market model, a particular zero-rated site may be accessible for free from one network, but not across all networks: unlike the situation with a toll-free number in which no such distinction exists.

To resolve this, the regulator may propose that if an OTT wishes to engage in paid zero-rating, it will need to do so across all networks, since if it doesn’t there is risk of providing an unfair advantage to one network over another and increasing the gatekeeper effect rather than decreasing it.

Question 2

Whether such platforms need to be regulated by the TRAI or market be allowed to develop these platforms?

In many cases, TRAI would have no powers over such platforms, so the question of TRAI regulating does not arise. In all other cases, TRAI can allow the market to develop such platforms, and then see if any of them violates the Discriminatory Data Tariffs Regualation. For government-incentivised schemes that are proposed above, TRAI should take proactive measure in getting their feasibility evaluated.

Question 3

Whether free data or suitable reimbursement to users should be limited to mobile data users only or could it be extended through technical means to subscribers of fixed line broadband or leased line?

Spectrum is naturally a scarce resource, though technological advances (as dictated by Cooper’s Law) and more efficient management of spectrum make it less so. However, we have seen that fixed-line broadband has more or less stagnated for the past many years, while mobile access has increased. So the market distortionary power of fixed-line providers is far less than that of mobile providers. However, competition is far less in fixed-line Internet access services, while it is far higher in mobile Internet access. Switching costs in fixed-line Internet access services are also far higher than in mobile services. Given these differences, the regulation with regard to price discrimination might justifiably be different.

All in all, for this particular issue, it is unclear why different rules should apply to mobile users and fixed line users.

Question 4

Any other issue related to the matter of Consultation.

None.

In India’s mobile telecom sector, according to a Nielsen study, an estimated 15% of mobile users are multi-SIM users, meaning the “gatekeeping” effect is significantly reduced in both directions: Internet services can reach them via multiple ISPs, and conversely they can reach Internet services via multiple ISPs. See Nielsen, ‘Telecom Transitions: Tracking the Multi-SIM Phenomena in India’, http://www.nielsen.com/in/en/insights/reports/2015/telecom-transitions-tracking-the-multi-sim-phenomena-in-india.html↩

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-submission-trai-consultation-free-data

Submission by the Centre for Internet and Society on Revisions to ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior

vidushi — 2016-06-30T06:07:37Z

Prepared by Vidushi Marda, with inputs from Dr. Nirmita Narasimhan and Sunil Abraham.

We at the Centre for Internet and Society (“CIS”) are grateful for the opportunity to comment on the proposed revisions to ICANN’s Expected Standards of Behavior (“Standards”).

Before providing specific comments on the proposed revisions, CIS would like to state for the record our extreme disappointment while noting that there is no indication of the intention to draft and adopt a dedicated anti - harassment policy. We are of the firm opinion that harassment, and particularly sexual harassment, is not only a sensitive topic, but also a deeply complex one. Such a policy should consider scope, procedural questions, redressal and remedies in cases of harassment in general and sexual harassment in particular. A mere change in language to these Standards, however well intentioned, cannot go too far in preventing and dealing with cases of harassment in the absence of a framework within which such instances can be addressed.

Some of the issues that arose at ICANN55 were confusion surrounding the powers and limits of the Ombudsman’s office in dealing with cases of harassment, the exact procedure to be followed for redressal surrounding such incidents, and the appropriate conduct of parties to the matter. There will be no clarity in these respects, even if these proposed changes are to be adopted.

Specifically, the proposed language is problematic and completely inadequate for the following reasons:

Vague

Terms like “professional conduct” and “appropriate behavior” mean little in the absence of a definition that entails such conduct. These terms could mean vastly different things to each community member and such language will only encourage a misalignment of expectation of conduct between community members. The “general” definition of harassment is at best, an ineffective placeholder, as it does not encompass exactly what kind of behavior would fall under its definition.
Fails to consider important scenarios

The proposed language fails to consider situations where some attempts or advances at communication, sexual or otherwise, occur. For example, consider a situation in which one community member stalks another online, and catalogues his/her every move. This is most certainly foreseeable, but will not be adequately covered by the proposed language. Further, terms like “speech or behavior that is sexually aggressive or intimidates” could or could not include types of speech such as art, music, photography etc, depending on who you ask. It also does not explain the use of the word behavior - physical, emotional, professional, online behavior are all possible, but the scope of this term would depend on the interpretation one chooses to apply. In part 4 below, we will demonstrate how ICANN has applied a far more detailed framework for harassment elsewhere.
Ignores complexity

In discussions surrounding the incident at ICANN55, a number of issues of arose. These included, inter alia, the definition of harassment and sexual harassment, what constituted such conduct, the procedure to be followed in such cases, the appropriate forum to deal with such incidents and the conduct that both parties are expected to maintain. These questions cannot, and have not been answered or addressed in the proposed change to the Standards. CIS emphasizes the need to understand this issue as one that must imbibe differences in culture, expectation, power dynamics, and options for redressal. If ICANN is to truly be a safe space, such issues must be substantively and procedurally fair for both the accused and the victim. This proposed definition is woefully inadequate in this regard.
Superficial understanding of harassment, sexual harassment

The proposed changes do not define harassment, and sexual harassment in an adequate fashion. The change currently reads, “Generally, harassment is considered unwelcome hostile or intimidating behavior -- in particular, speech or behavior that is sexually aggressive or intimidates based on attributes such as race, gender, ethnicity, religion, age, color, national origin, ancestry, disability or medical condition, sexual orientation, or gender identity.” These are subject to broad interpretation, and we have already highlighted the issues that may arise due to this in 1, above. Here, we would like to point to a far more comprehensive definition.

ICANN’s own Employment Policy includes within the scope of sexual harassment “verbal, physical and visual conduct that creates an intimidating, offensive or hostile working environment, or interferes with work performance.” The policy also states:

Harassing conduct can take many forms and includes, but is not limited to, the following:

Slurs, jokes, epithets, derogatory comments, statements or gestures;

Assault, impeding or blocking another’s movement or otherwise physically interfering with normal work;

Pictures, posters, drawings or cartoons based upon the characteristics mentioned in the first paragraph of this policy.
Sexually harassing conduct includes all of the above prohibited actions, as well as other unwelcome conduct, such as requests for sexual favors, conversation containing sexual comments, and unwelcome sexual advances.”

This definition is not perfect, it does not comprehensively consider advances or attempts at communication, sexual or otherwise, which are unwelcome by the target. Nonetheless, CIS believes that this is a far more appropriate definition that does not include vague metrics that the proposed changes do. Since it is one ICANN has already adopted, it can act as an important stepping stone towards a comprehensive framework.

Like ICANN, UNESCO’s organisational approach has been to adopt a comprehensive Anti-Harassment Policy which lays down details of definition, prevention, complaint procedure, investigations, sanctions, managerial responsibility, etc. Acknowledging the cultural sensitivity of harassment particularly in international situations, the policy also recognizes advances or attempts at communication, sexual or otherwise. Most importantly, it states that for conduct to come within the definition of sexual harassment, it “must be unwelcome, i.e. unsolicited and regarded as offensive or undesirable by the victim.”

Conclusion

In conclusion, we would like to reiterate the importance of adopting and drafting a dedicated anti-harassment policy and framework. The benefits of safety, certainty and formal redressal mechanisms in cases of harassment cannot be over emphasized.

Importantly, such measures have already been taken elsewhere. The IETF has adopted an instrument to address issues of harassment that occur at meetings, mailing lists and social events. This instrument contemplates in detail, problematic behavior, unacceptable conduct, the scope of the term harassment, etc. It further envisages a framework for redressal of complaints, remediation, and even contemplates issues that may arise with such remediation. It is particularly important to note that while it provides a definition of harassment, it also states that "[a]ny definition of harassment prohibited by an applicable law can be subject to this set of procedures, recognising harassment as a deeply personal and subjective experience, and thus encouraging members to take up issues of harassment as per their cultural norms and national laws, which are then considered as per procedures laid down."

A similar effort within the ICANN community is critical.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/submission-by-the-centre-for-internet-and-society-on-revisions-to-icann-expected-standards-of-behavior

Jurisdiction: The Taboo Topic at ICANN

pranesh — 2016-06-29T07:51:05Z

The "IANA Transition" that is currently underway is a sham since it doesn't address the most important question: that of jurisdiction. This article explores why the issue of jurisdiction is the most important question, and why it remains unaddressed.

In March 2014, the US government announced that they were going to end the contract they have with ICANN to run the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), and hand over control to the “global multistakeholder community”. They insisted that the plan for transition had to come through a multistakeholder process and have stakeholders “across the global Internet community”.

Why is the U.S. government removing the NTIA contract?

The main reason for the U.S. government's action is that it will get rid of a political thorn in the U.S. government's side: keeping the contract allows them to be called out as having a special role in Internet governance (with the Affirmation of Commitments between the U.S. Department of Commerce and ICANN, the IANA contract, and the cooperative agreement with Verisign), and engaging in unilateralism with regard to the operation of the root servers of the Internet naming system, while repeatedly declaring that they support a multistakeholder model of Internet governance.

This contradiction is what they are hoping to address. Doing away with the NTIA contract will also increase — ever so marginally — ICANN’s global legitimacy: this is something that world governments, civil society organizations, and some American academics have been asking for nearly since ICANN’s inception in 1998. For instance, here are some demands made in a declaration by the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus at WSIS, in 2005:

“ICANN will negotiate an appropriate host country agreement to replace its California Incorporation, being careful to retain those aspects of its California Incorporation that enhance its accountability to the global Internet user community. "ICANN's decisions, and any host country agreement, must be required to comply with public policy requirements negotiated through international treaties in regard to, inter alia, human rights treaties, privacy rights, gender agreements and trade rules. … "It is also expected that the multi-stakeholder community will observe and comment on the progress made in this process through the proposed [Internet Governance] Forum."

In short: the objective of the transition is political, not technical. In an ideal world, we should aim at reducing U.S. state control over the core of the Internet's domain name system.¹

It is our contention that U.S. state control over the core of the Internet's domain name system is not being removed by the transition that is currently underway.

Why is the Transition Happening Now?

Despite the U.S. government having given commitments in the past that were going to finish the IANA transition by "September 30, 2000", (the White Paper on Management of Internet Names and Addresses states: "The U.S. Government would prefer that this transition be complete before the year 2000. To the extent that the new corporation is established and operationally stable, September 30, 2000 is intended to be, and remains, an 'outside' date.") and later by "fall of 2006",² those turned out to be empty promises. However, this time, the transition seems to be going through, unless the U.S. Congress manages to halt it.

However, in order to answer the question of "why now?" fully, one has to look a bit at the past.

In 1998, through the White Paper on Management of Internet Names and Addresses the U.S. government asserted it’s control over the root, and asserted — some would say arrogated to itself — the power to put out contracts for both the IANA functions as well as the 'A' Root (i.e., the Root Zone Maintainer function that Network Solutions Inc. then performed, and continues to perform to date in its current avatar as Verisign). The IANA functions contract — a periodically renewable contract — was awarded to ICANN, a California-based non-profit corporation that was set up exclusively for this purpose, but which evolved around the existing IANA (to placate the Internet Society).

Meanwhile, of course, there were criticisms of ICANN from multiple foreign governments and civil society organizations. Further, despite it being a California-based non-profit on contract with the government, domestically within the U.S., there was pushback from constituencies that felt that more direct U.S. control of the DNS was important.

As Goldsmith and Wu summarize:

"Milton Mueller and others have shown that ICANN’s spirit of “self-regulation” was an appealing label for a process that could be more accurately described as the U.S. government brokering a behind-the-scenes deal that best suited its policy preferences ... the United States wanted to ensure the stability of the Internet, to fend off the regulatory efforts of foreign governments and international organizations, and to maintain ultimate control. The easiest way to do that was to maintain formal control while turning over day-to-day control of the root to ICANN and the Internet Society, which had close ties to the regulation-shy American technology industry." [footnotes omitted]

And that brings us to the first reason that the NTIA announced the transition in 2014, rather than earlier.

ICANN Adjudged Mature Enough

The NTIA now sees ICANN as being mature enough: the final transition was announced 16 years after ICANN's creation, and complaints about ICANN and its legitimacy had largely died down in the international arena in that while. Nowadays, governments across the world send their representatives to ICANN, thus legitimizing ICANN. States have largely been satisfied by participating in the Government Advisory Council, which, as its name suggests, only has advisory powers. Further, unlike in the early days, there is no serious push for states assuming control of ICANN. Of course they grumble about the ICANN Board not following their advice, but no government, as far as I am aware, has walked out or refused to participate.

L'affaire Snowden

Many within the United States, and some without, believe that the United States not only plays an exceptional role to play in the running of the Internet — by dint of historical development and dominance of American companies — but that it ought to have an exceptional role because it is the best country to exercise 'oversight' over 'the Internet' (often coming from clueless commentators), and from dinosaurs of the Internet era, like American IP lawyers and American 'homeland' security hawks, Jones Day, who are ICANN's lawyers, and other jingoists and those policymakers who are controlled by these narrow-minded interests.

The Snowden revelations were, in that way, a godsend for the NTIA, as it allowed them a fig-leaf of international criticism with which to counter these domestic critics and carry on with a transition that they have been seeking to put into motion for a while. The Snowden revelations led Dilma Rousseff, President of Brazil, to state in September 2013, at the 68th U.N. General Assembly, that Brazil would "present proposals for the establishment of a civilian multilateral framework for the governance and use of the Internet", and as Diego Canabarro points out this catalysed the U.S. government and the technical community into taking action.

Given this context, a few months after the Snowden revelations, the so-called I* organizations met — seemingly with the blessing of the U.S. government³ — in Montevideo, and put out a 'Statement on the Future of Internet Governance' that sought to link the Snowden revelations on pervasive surveillance with the need to urgently transition the IANA stewardship role away from the U.S. government. Of course, the signatories to that statement knew fully well, as did most of the readers of that statement, that there is no linkage between the Snowden revelations about pervasive surveillance and the operations of the DNS root, but still they, and others, linked them together. Specifically, the I* organizations called for "accelerating the globalization of ICANN and IANA functions, towards an environment in which all stakeholders, including all governments, participate on an equal footing."

One could posit the existence of two other contributing factors as well.

Given political realities in the United States, a transition of this sort is probably best done before an ultra-jingoistic President steps into office.

Lastly, the ten-yearly review of the World Summit on Information Society was currently underway. At the original WSIS (as seen from the civil society quoted above) the issue of US control over the root was a major issue of contention. At that point (and during where the 2006 date for globalization of ICANN was emphasized by the US government).

Why Jurisdiction is Important

Jurisdiction has a great many aspects. Inter alia, these are:

Legal sanctions applicable to changes in the root zone (for instance, what happens if a country under US sanctions requests a change to the root zone file?)
Law applicable to resolution of contractual disputes with registries, registrars, etc.
Law applicable to labour disputes.
Law applicable to competition / antitrust law that applies to ICANN policies and regulations.
Law applicable to disputes regarding ICANN decisions, such as allocation of gTLDs, or non-renewal of a contract.
Law applicable to consumer protection concerns.
Law applicable to financial transparency of the organization.
Law applicable to corporate condition of the organization, including membership rights.
Law applicable to data protection-related policies & regulations.
Law applicable to trademark and other speech-related policies & regulations.
Law applicable to legal sanctions imposed by a country against another.

Some of these, but not all, depend on where bodies like ICANN [the policy-making body], the IANA functions operator [the proposed "Post-Transition IANA"], and the root zone maintainer are incorporated or maintain their primary office, while others depend on the location of the office [for instance, Turkish labour law applies for the ICANN office in Istanbul], while yet others depend on what's decided by ICANN in contracts (for instance, the resolution of contractual disputes with ICANN, filing of suits with regard to disputes over new generic TLDs, etc.).

However, an issue like sanctions, for instance, depends on where ICANN/PTI/RMZ are incorporated and maintain their primary office.

As Milton Mueller notes, the current IANA contract "requires ICANN to be incorporated in, maintain a physical address in, and perform the IANA functions in the U.S. This makes IANA subject to U.S. law and provides America with greater political influence over ICANN."

He further notes that:

While it is common to assert that the U.S. has never abused its authority and has always taken the role of a neutral steward, this is not quite true. During the controversy over the .xxx domain, the Bush administration caved in to domestic political pressure and threatened to block entry of the domain into the root if ICANN approved it (Declaration of the Independent Review Panel, 2010). It took five years, an independent review challenge and the threat of litigation from a businessman willing to spend millions to get the .xxx domain into the root.

Thus it is clear that even if the NTIA's role in the IANA contract goes away, jurisdiction remains an important issue.

U.S. Doublespeak on Jurisdiction

In March 2014, when NTIA finally announced that they would hand over the reins to “the global multistakeholder community”. They’ve laid down two procedural condition: that it be developed by stakeholders across the global Internet community and have broad community consensus, and they have proposed 5 substantive conditions that any proposal must meet:

Support and enhance the multistakeholder model;
Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS;
Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the IANA services; and,
Maintain the openness of the Internet.
Must not replace the NTIA role with a solution that is government-led or an inter-governmental organization.

In that announcement there is no explicit restriction on the jurisdiction of ICANN (whether it relate to its incorporation, the resolution of contractual disputes, resolution of labour disputes, antitrust/competition law, tort law, consumer protection law, privacy law, or speech law, and more, all of which impact ICANN and many, but not all, of which are predicated on the jurisdiction of ICANN’s incorporation), the jurisdiction(s) of the IANA Functions Operator(s) (i.e., which executive, court, or legislature’s orders would it need to obey), and the jurisdiction of the Root Zone Maintainer (i.e., which executive, court, or legislature’s orders would it need to obey).

However, Mr. Larry Strickling, the head of the NTIA, in his testimony before the U.S. House Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, made it clear that,

“Frankly, if [shifting ICANN or IANA jurisdiction] were being proposed, I don't think that such a proposal would satisfy our criteria, specifically the one that requires that security and stability be maintained.”

Possibly, that argument made sense in 1998, due to the significant concentration of DNS expertise in the United States. However, in 2015, that argument is hardly convincing, and is frankly laughable.⁴

Targetting that remark, in ICANN 54 at Dublin, we asked Mr. Strickling:

"So as we understand it, the technical stability of the DNS doesn't necessarily depend on ICANN's jurisdiction being in the United States. So I wanted to ask would the US Congress support a multistakeholder and continuing in the event that it's shifting jurisdiction."

Mr. Strickling's response was:

"No. I think Congress has made it very clear and at every hearing they have extracted from Fadi a commitment that ICANN will remain incorporated in the United States. Now the jurisdictional question though, as I understand it having been raised from some other countries, is not so much jurisdiction in terms of where ICANN is located. It's much more jurisdiction over the resolution of disputes.

"And that I think is an open issue, and that's an appropriate one to be discussed. And it's one I think where ICANN has made some movement over time anyway.

"So I think you have to ... when people use the word jurisdiction, we need to be very precise about over what issues because where disputes are resolved and under what law they're resolved, those are separate questions from where the corporation may have a physical headquarters."

As we have shown above, jurisdiction is not only about the jurisdiction of "resolution of disputes", but also, as Mueller reminds us, about the requirement that ICANN (and now, the PTI) be "incorporated in, maintain a physical address in, and perform the IANA functions in the U.S. This makes IANA subject to U.S. law and provides America with greater political influence over ICANN."

In essence, the U.S. government has essentially said that they would veto the transition if the jurisdiction of ICANN or PTI's incorporation were to move out of the U.S., and they can prevent that from happening after the transition, since as things stand ICANN and PTI will still come within the U.S. Congress's jurisdiction.

Why Has the ICG Failed to Consider Jurisdiction?

Will the ICG proposal or the proposed new ICANN by-laws reduce existing U.S. control? No, they won't. (In fact, as we will argue below, the proposed new ICANN by-laws make this problem even worse.) The proposal by the names community ("the CWG proposal") still has a requirement (in Annex S) that the Post-Transition IANA (PTI) be incorporated in the United States, and a similar suggestion hidden away as a footnote. Further, the proposed by-laws for ICANN include the requirement that PTI be a California corporation. There was no discussion specifically on this issue, nor any documented community agreement on the specific issue of jurisdiction of PTI's incorporation.

Why wasn't there greater discussion and consideration of this issue? Because of two reasons: First, there were many that argued that the transition would be vetoed by the U.S. government and the U.S. Congress if ICANN and PTI were not to remain in the U.S. Secondly, the ICANN-formed ICG saw the US government’s actions very narrowly, as though the government were acting in isolation, ignoring the rich dialogue and debate that’s gone on earlier about the transition since the incorporation of ICANN itself.

While it would be no one’s case that political considerations should be given greater weightage than technical considerations such as security, stability, and resilience of the domain name system, it is shocking that political considerations have been completely absent in the discussions in the number and protocol parameters communities, and have been extremely limited in the discussions in the names community. This is even more shocking considering that the main reason for this transition is, as has been argued above, political.

It can be also argued that the certain IANA functions such as Root Zone Management function have a considerable political implication. It is imperative that the political nature of the function is duly acknowledged and dealt with, in accordance with the wishes of the global community. In the current process the political aspects of the IANA function has been completely overlooked and sidelined. It is important to note that this transition has not been a necessitated by any technical considerations. It is primarily motivated by political and legal considerations. However, the questions that the ICG asked the customer communities to consider were solely technical. Indeed, the communities could have chosen to overlook that, but they did not choose to do so. For instance, while the IANA customer community proposals reflected on existing jurisdictional arrangements, they did not reflect on how the jurisdictional arrangements should be post-transition , while this is one of the questions at the heart of the entire transition. There were no discussions and decisions as to the jurisdiction of the Post-Transition IANA: the Accountability CCWG's lawyers, Sidley Austin, recommended that the PTI ought to be a California non-profit corporation, and this finds mention in a footnote without even having been debated by the "global multistakeholder community", and subsequently in the proposed new by-laws for ICANN.

Why the By-Laws Make Things Worse & Why "Work Stream 2" Can't Address Most Jurisdiction Issues

The by-laws could have chosen to simply stayed silent on the matter of what law PTI would be incorporated under, but instead the by-law make the requirement of PTI being a California non-profit public benefit corporation part of the fundamental by-laws, which are close to impossible to amend.

While "Work Stream 2" (the post-transition work related to improving ICANN's accountability) has jurisdiction as a topic of consideration, the scope of that must necessarily discount any consideration of shifting the jurisdiction of incorporation of ICANN, since all of the work done as part of CCWG Accountability's "Work Stream 1", which are now reflected in the proposed new by-laws, assume Californian jurisdiction (including the legal model of the "Empowered Community"). Is ICANN prepared to re-do all the work done in WS1 in WS2 as well? If the answer is yes, then the issue of jurisdiction can actually be addressed in WS2. If the answer is no — and realistically it is — then, the issue of jurisdiction can only be very partially addressed in WS2.

Keeping this in mind, we recommended specific changes in the by-laws, all of which were rejected by CCWG's lawyers.

The Transition Plan Fails the NETmundial Statement

The NETmundial Multistakeholder Document, which was an outcome of the NETmundial process, states:

In the follow up to the recent and welcomed announcement of US Government with regard to its intent to transition the stewardship of IANA functions, the discussion about mechanisms for guaranteeing the transparency and accountability of those functions after the US Government role ends, has to take place through an open process with the participation of all stakeholders extending beyond the ICANN community

[...]

It is expected that the process of globalization of ICANN speeds up leading to a truly international and global organization serving the public interest with clearly implementable and verifiable accountability and transparency mechanisms that satisfy requirements from both internal stakeholders and the global community.

The active representation from all stakeholders in the ICANN structure from all regions is a key issue in the process of a successful globalization.

As our past analysis has shown, the IANA transition process and the discussions on the mailing lists that shaped it were neither global nor multistakeholder. The DNS industry represented in ICANN is largely US-based. 3 in 5 registrars are from the United States of America, whereas less than 1% of ICANN-registered registrars are from Africa. Two-thirds of the Business Constituency in ICANN is from the USA. While ICANN-the-corporation has sought to become more global, the ICANN community has remained insular, and this will not change until the commercial interests involved in ICANN can become more diverse, reflecting the diversity of users of the Internet, and a TLD like .COM can be owned by a non-American corporation and the PTI can be a non-American entity.

What We Need: Jurisdictional Resilience

It is no one's case that the United States is less fit than any other country as a base for ICANN, PTI, or the Root Zone Maintainer, or even as the headquarters for 9 of the world's 12 root zone operators (Verisign runs both the A and J root servers). However, just as having multiplicity of root servers is important for ensuring technical resilience of the DNS system (and this is shown in the uptake of Anycast by root server operators), it is equally important to have immunity of core DNS functioning from political pressures of the country or countries where core DNS infrastructure is legally situated and to ensure that we have diversity in terms of legal jurisdiction.

Towards this end, we at CIS have pushed for the concept of "jurisdictional resilience", 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
Jurisdictional division of policymaking functions from technical implementation functions

Of these, the most important is the limited legal immunity (akin to a greatly limited form of the immunity that UN organizations get from the laws of their host countries). This kind of immunity could be provided through a variety of different means: a host-country agreement; a law passed by the legislature; a U.N. General Assembly Resolution; a U.N.-backed treaty; and other such options exist. We are currently investigating which of these options would be the best option.

And apart from limited legal immunity, distribution of jurisdictional control is also valuable. As we noted in our submission to the ICG in September 2015:

Following the above precepts would, for instance, mean that the entity that performs the role of the Root Zone Maintainer should not be situated in the same legal jurisdiction as the entity that functions as the policymaking venue. This would in turn mean that either the Root Zone Maintainer function be taken up Netnod (Sweden-headquartered) or the WIDE Project (Japan-headquartered) [or RIPE-NCC, headquartered in the Netherlands], or that if the IANA Functions Operator(s) is to be merged with the RZM, then the IFO be relocated to a jurisdiction other than those of ISOC and ICANN. This, as has been stated earlier, has been a demand of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. Further, it would also mean that root zone servers operators be spread across multiple jurisdictions (which the creation of mirror servers in multiple jurisdictions will not address).

However, the issue of jurisdiction seems to be dead-on-arrival, having been killed by the United States government.

Unfortunately, despite the primary motivation for demands for the IANA transition being those of removing the power the U.S. government exercises over the core of the Internet's operations in the form of the DNS, what has ended up happening through the IANA transition is that these powers have not only not been removed, but in some ways they have been entrenched further! While earlier, the U.S. had to specify that the IANA functions operator had to be located in the U.S., now ICANN's by-laws themselves will state that the post-transition IANA will be a California corporation. Notably, while the Montevideo Declaration speaks of "globalization" of ICANN and of the IANA functions, as does the NETmundial statement, the NTIA announcement on their acceptance of the transition proposals speaks of "privatization" of ICANN, and not "globalization".

All in all, the "independence" that IANA is gaining from the U.S. is akin to the "independence" that Brazil gained from Portugal in 1822. Dom Pedro of Brazil was then ruling Brazil as the Prince Regent since his father Dom João VI, the King of United Kingdom of Portugal, Brazil and the Algarves had returned to Portugal. In 1822, Brazil declared independence from Portugal (which was formally recognized through a treaty in 1825). Even after this "independence", Dom Pedro continued to rule Portugal just as he had before indepedence, and Dom João VI was provided the title of "Emperor of Brazil", aside from being King of the United Kingdom of Portugal and the Algarves. The "indepedence" didn't make a whit of a difference to the self-sufficiency of Brazil: Portugal continued to be its largest trading partner. The "independence" didn't change anything for the nearly 1 million slaves in Brazil, or to the lot of the indigenous peoples of Brazil, none of whom were recognized as "free". It had very little consequence not just in terms of ground conditions of day-to-day living, but even in political terms.

Such is the case with the IANA Transition: U.S. power over the core functioning of the Domain Name System do not stand diminished after the transition, and they can even arguably be said to have become even more entrenched. Meet the new boss: same as the old boss.

It is an allied but logically distinct issue that U.S. businesses — registries and registrars — dominate the global DNS industry, and as a result hold the reins at ICANN.↩
As Goldsmith & Wu note in their book Who Controls the Internet: "Back in 1998 the U.S. Department of Commerce promised to relinquish root authority by the fall of 2006, but in June 2005, the United States reversed course. “The United States Government intends to preserve the security and stability of the Internet’s Domain Name and Addressing System (DNS),” announced Michael D. Gallagher, a Department of Commerce official. “The United States” he announced, will “maintain its historic role in authorizing changes or modifications to the authoritative root zone file.”↩
Mr. Fadi Chehadé revealed in an interaction with Indian participants at ICANN 54 that he had a meeting "at the White House" about the U.S. plans for transition of the IANA contract before he spoke about that when he visited India in October 2013 making the timing of his White House visit around the time of the Montevideo Statement.↩
As an example, NSD, software that is used on multiple root servers, is funded by a Dutch foundation and a Dutch corporation, and written mostly by European coders.↩

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/jurisdiction-the-taboo-topic-at-icann

Under Modi government, foreign funding of NGOs has come down

praskrishna — 2016-06-14T16:37:26Z

Information obtained under RTI from the Home Ministry suggests NGOs have had to take a serious hit in the last 2 years.

This was published by Newslaundry on May 20, 2016. Sunil Abraham gave inputs.

It was in 2015 that reports started coming in of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) being targeted by the Indian government. However, according to data from the Ministry of Home Affairs, the state’s crackdown onNGOs’ foreign funding appears to have started within weeks of Prime Minister Narendra Modi taking charge in 2014.

During 2014-15, foreign contributions to NGOs in India came down by more than 30 per cent compared to the previous year. The number of organisations receiving foreign funding too declined. Foreign contributions came down from Rs 13,115 crore in 2013-14 to Rs 8,756 crore in 2014-15, according to information obtained under the Right to Information Act by 101reporters for Newslaundry.

In 2013-14, Delhi had received the highest amount of funding from the foreign donors, but in 2014-15, it registered a dramatic decline by almost 50 per cent in 2014-15. Other states that registered massive declines include Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh.

“The cutting down on funding for NGOs are mostly a political step to shut up the voice of certain section in the society,” a senior official at Indian Audits and Accounts Service, with the Comptroller and Auditor General of India’s office. “But sometimes irregularities are found in NGOs working and violate certain rules prescribed by the law.” The official shared this view on condition of anonymity.

While the newly-installed government led by Modi has clamped down on foreign funding to NGOs, it wasn’t acting any differently than other governments. The Economist wrote on Sept 13, 2014, soon after the Modi government took charge, “Indian NGOs have needed government approval for foreign donations since 1976, in response to what Indira Gandhi, then prime minister, thought was the “foreign hand” of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) of US meddling in her country’s affairs.” Anxieties about the role of foreign donors is evidently an Indian tradition. The Economist further wrote, “Recent reports of an intelligence dossier claiming that the activities of foreign-funded NGOs had cut India’s growth rate have sparked fears that Narendra Modi, the nationalistic new prime minister, will tighten the rules further.” It did however note that these restrictions “sit alongside a thriving civil society”.

In the second half of 2015, the Indian government cancelled registrations of more than 10,117 NGOs across the country.

The union government alleged that due to not filing of annual returns for the financial years 2009-2010, 2010-11 and 2011-12, the government had cancelled the registration of these NGOs in 2015. Most number of registrations were cancelled from state of Andhra Pradesh (1,420), followed by Uttar Pradesh (1,147) and Tamil Nadu (10,068).

The most prominent of the cancellations was Greenpeace, an organisation that campaigns to protect the environment, whose licence was cancelled by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) on September 3, 2015.

Following the clampdown on NGOs, the global charity the Ford Foundation, which is based in America, froze $4 million of funding to India. The US Ambassador to India Richard Verma said that the tougher approach may have a “chilling effect” on civil society and democratic traditions.

The Ford Foundation has donated more than $500 million to India since opening its first overseas office in Delhi in 1952. It has also funded a number of NGOs and institutions across the country, including Bengaluru-based National Law School of India University (NLSIU) and Centre for Internet and Society.

Executive director of Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), Sunil Abraham, explained that unconventional intuitions — which work in fields other than health, education and social security — like CIS are mostly funded by foreign philanthropy entities. “Foreign funding cut on NGOs is a step to restrain institutions from debating and questioning government policies,” said Abraham.

An Indian Express report from this time stated that the National Democratic Alliance government had proposed a series of amendments to the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) in order to strengthen its scrutiny of financial transactions involving NGOs. The most important change was that government would equate “economic security” for NGOs under the FCRA with the definition provided in Section 2 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).

An analysis of data for the past eight years shows that the number of organisations receiving foreign funding is on decline. In 2006-07, the total number of NGOs that received foreign funding was 22,261. By 2014-15, the number had declined to 12,014 across the country.

However, in terms of amounts, there has been an overall increase in funding. In the fiscal year of 2006-07, foreign contributions to NGOs in India amounted to Rs 11, 260 crore, which went up to Rs 13,115 crore by 2013-14.

Both the amount of funding received and the number of NGOs have no schematic patterns that establish how funding went down or that NGO registrations were revoked during any particular government until 2014-15, but the considerable decline in funding for NGOs since 2014-15 has raised concern.

In the last nine years, Delhi (Rs 20,033 crore) received the highest foreign funding, followed by Tamil Nadu (Rs 15,589 crore), Karnataka (Rs 10,110 crore) and Maharashtra (Rs 9,952 crore). This figure clearly shows that funding for NGOs has nothing to do with political parties, as the above states have been governed by different governments at different time periods.

However, the data does suggest that states run by BJP have fewer NGO registrations compared to NGO registrations in non-BJP ruled states. Barring Maharashtra, BJP-ruled states such as Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Gujarat have small numbers of registered NGOs in comparison to those ruled by either Congress or regional parties. Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Karnataka have more registered NGOs.

And among them Tamil Nadu with 4,938 has the highest number of registered NGOs. In Tamil Nadu, during the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam reign from 2006-2011, foreign funding to NGOs declined drastically, rising again after 2012-13, only to decline substantially in 2014-15.

Fearing harassment, most of the NGOs contacted declined to comment on the reduced funding. And those who did speak sought anonymity.

A director of a Mumbai-based educational welfare society, working in the field of education said, “I didn’t understand the reason for reducing our foreign funding. We were receiving foreign funding for the last four years, but received the least in 2014-15, over 32% less than from the previous year.” The society received Rs 8 crore as foreign funding in 2012-13, which was cut down to Rs 5 crore in 2014-15.

A senior member of the Yesuraja Trust in Dharmapuri, which works in the fields of health and education in Tamil Nadu, at first declined to comment but later declared, “We’re a private entity and not an NGO.” The FCRA website reveal that the trust has zero funding in financial year in 2013-14 and 2014-15.

The unprecedented crackdown was not peculiar to India alone. Human rights  organisations have been facing restrictions in a number of countries, which have passed or were in the process of passing laws to curtail NGO activities. A Guardian report stated that over the past three years, more than 60 countries have passed or drafted laws that curtail the activity of non-governmental and civil society organisations. India is on this list along with countries like China, Russia and Egypt. It’s not a particularly august list of which to be part.

James Savage of Amnesty International said, “This global wave of restrictions has rapidity and breadth to its spread we’ve not seen before, that arguably represents a seismic shift and closing down of human rights space not seen in a generation.” Onno Ruhl, country director for World Bank, India, agreed with Savage and said to Indian Express, “NGOs are quite inconvenient at times. But I would still rather have an inconvenient NGO than people not having the right to speak.”

The serious question that these numbers raise is the effect that the reduced foreign funding will have on philanthropic work and social welfare in India. NGOs have a long history of being development partners of the state and the government’s decision to restrict their finances could have a serious impact upon the work done as well as increase their dependence upon the state. Is that what the country needs?

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/newslaundry-may-20-2016-himadri-ghosh-under-modi-government-foreign-funding-of-ngos-has-come-down

Stand up for Digital Rights

elonnai — 2016-06-13T15:30:12Z

The Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) invites you to a discussion on a set of recommendations for Ethical Tech, a report on human rights and private online intermediaries which describes key areas where such actors have responsibilities. The event will be held at CIS office in Bangalore on June 15, 2016 from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m.

The discussion intends to launch a report on human rights and private online intermediaries, which describes key areas where such actors have responsibilities and provides a detailed set of recommendations for Ethical Tech. This work is the culmination of a year long research project led by the Centre for Law and Democracy (CLD), in collaboration with the Arabic Network for Human Rights Information (ANHRI), the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), Open Net Korea, the Center for Studies on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information at the University of Palermo (CELE) and researchers with the University of Ottawa and the Munk School of Global Affairs at the University of Toronto. The key themes for discussion would include:

General Human Rights Responsibilities and Private Online Intermediaries
Expanding Access
Net Neutrality
Content Moderation
Privacy
Transparency and Informed Consent
Responding to State Interferences

We look forward to meeting you and making this forum for knowledge exchange a success.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/stand-up-for-digital-rights

UN Special Rapporteur Report on Freedom of Expression and the Private Sector: A Significant Step Forward

vidushi — 2016-06-08T17:27:22Z

On 6 June 2016, the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, David Kaye, released a report on the Information and Communications Technology (“ICT”) sector and freedom of expression in the digital age. Vidushi Marda and Pranesh Prakash highlight the most important aspects of the report.

Background

Today, the private sector is more closely linked to the freedom of expression than it has ever been before. The ability to speak to a mass audience was at one time a privilege restricted to those who had access to mass media. However, with digital technologies, that privilege is available to far more people than was ever possible in the pre-digital era. As private content created on these digital networks is becoming increasingly subject to state regulation, it is crucial to examine the role of the private sector in respect of the freedom of speech and expression.

The first foray by the Special Rapporteur into this broad area has resulted in a sweeping report, that covers almost every aspect of freedom of expression within the ICT sector, except competition which we will elaborate on later in this post.

Introduction

The report aims to “provide guidance on how private actors should protect and promote freedom of expression in a digital age”. It identifies the relevant international legal framework as Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The UN “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework and Guiding Principles, also known as the Ruggie Principles provide the framework for private sector responsibilities on business and human rights.

The report categorises different roles of the private sector in organising, accessing, regulating and populating the internet. This is important because the manner in which the ICT sector affects the freedom of expression is far more complicated than traditional communication industries. The report identifies the distinct impact of internet service providers, hardware and software companies, domain name registries and registrars, search engines, platforms, web hosting services, platforms, data brokers and e-commerce facilities on the freedom of expression.

Legal and Policy Issues

The Special Rapporteur discusses four distinct legal and policy issues that find relevance in respect of this problem statement: Content Regulation, Surveillance and Digital Security, Transparency and Remedies.

Content Regulation

The report identifies two main channels through which content regulation takes place: the state, and internal processes.

Noting that digital content made on private networks is increasingly subject to State regulation, the report highlights the competing interests of intermediaries who manage platforms and States which demand for regulation of this content on grounds of defamation, blasphemy, protection of national security etc. This tension is demonstrated through vague laws that compel individuals and private corporations to over-comply and err on the side of caution “in order to avoid onerous penalties, filtering content of uncertain legal status and engaging in other modes of censorship and self-censorship.” Excessive intermediary liability forces intermediaries to over-comply with requests in order to ensure that local access to their platforms are not blocked. States attempt at regulating content outside the law through extra legal restrictions, and push private actors to take down content on their own initiative. Filtering content is another method, wherein States block and filter content through the private sector. Government blacklists, illegal content and suspended accounts are methods employed, and these have sometimes raised concerns of necessity and proportionality. Network or service shutdowns are classified as a “particularly pernicious” method of content regulation. Non neutral networks also are a method of content regulation with the possibilities of internet service providers throttling traffic. Zero rating is a potential issue, although the report acknowledges that “it remains a subject of debate whether they may be permissible in areas genuinely lacking Internet access”.

The other node of content regulation has been identified as internal policies and practices of the private sector. Terms of service restrictions are often tailored to the jurisdiction’s laws and policies and don’t always address the needs and interests of vulnerable groups. Further, the report notes, design and engineering choices of how private players choose to curate content are algorithmically determined and increasingly control the information that we consume.

Transparency

The report notes that transparency enables those entities subject to internet regulation to take informed decisions about their responsibilities and liabilities in a digital sphere and points out, that there is a severe lack of transparency about government requests to restrict or remove content. Some states even prohibit the publication of such information, with India being one example. In respect of the private sector, content hosting platforms sometimes at least reveal the circumstances under which content is removed due to a government request, although this is rather erratic. The report recognises the need to balance transparency with competing concerns like security and trade secrecy, and this is a matter of continued debate.

Surveillance and Digital Security

Freedom of expression concerns arise as data transmitted on private networks is gradually being subjected to surveillance and interference from the State and private actors. The report finds that several internet companies have reported an increase in government requests for customer data and user information. According to the Special Rapporteur, effective resistance strategies include inclusion of human rights guarantees, restrictively interpreting government requests negotiations. Private players also make surveillance and censorship equipment that enable States to intercept communications. Covert surveillance has been previously reported, with States tapping into communications as and when necessary. When private entities become aware of interception and covert surveillance, their human rights responsibilities arise. As private entities work towards enhancing encryption, anonymity and user security, states respond by compelling companies to create loopholes for them to circumvent such privacy and security enhancing technology.

Remedies

Unlawful content removal, opaque suspensions, data security breaches are commonplace occurrences in the digital sphere. The ICCPR guarantees that all people whose rights have been violated must have an effective remedy, and similarly, the Ruggie principles require that remedial and grievance mechanisms must be provided by corporations. There is some ambiguity on how these complaint or appeal mechanisms should be designed and implemented, and the nature and structure of these mechanisms is also unclear. The report states that it is necessary to investigate the role of the state in supplementing/regulating corporate mechanisms, its role in ensuring that there is a mechanism for remedies, and its responsibility to make sure that more easily and financially accessible alternatives exist for remedial measures.

Special Rapporteur’s priorities for future work and thematic developments

Investigating laws, policies and extralegal measures that equip governments to impose restrictions on the provision of telecommunications and internet services. Examining the responsibility of companies to respond in a way that respects human rights, mitigates harm, and provides avenues for redress.
Evaluating content restrictions under terms of service and community standards. Private actors face substantial pressure from governments and individuals to restrict expression, and a priority is to evaluate the interplay of private and state actions on freedom of expression in light of human rights obligations and responsibilities.
Focusing on the legitimacy of rationales for intermediary liability for content hosting, restrictions, conditions for removing third party content.
Exploring censorship and surveillance within the human rights framework, and encouraging greater scrutiny before using these technologies for purposes that undermine the freedom of expression.
Identifying ways to balance an increasing scope of freedom of expression with the need to address governmental interests in national security and public order.
Internet access - Future work will explore issues around access and private sector engagement and investment in ensuring affordability and accessibility, particularly considering marginalized groups.
Internet governance - Internet governance frameworks and reform efforts are sensitive to the needs of women, sexual minorities and other vulnerable communities. Throughout this future work, the Special Rapporteur will pay particular attention to legal developments (legislative, regulatory, and judicial) at national and regional levels.

Conclusions and Recommendations

States: The report recommends that states should not pressurise the private sector to interfere with the freedom of speech and expression in a manner that does not meet the condition of necessary and proportionate principles. Any request to take down content or access customer information must be based on validly enacted law, subject to oversight, and demonstrate necessary and proportionate means of achieving the aims laid down in Article 19(3) of the ICCPR.
Private Actors: The Special Rapporteur recommends that private actors develop and implement transparent human rights assessment procedures, and develop policies keeping in mind their human rights impact. Apart from this, private entities should integrate commitments to the freedom of expression into internal processes and ensure the “greatest possible transparency”.
International Organisations: The report recommends that organisations make resources and educational material on internet governance publicly accessible. The Special Rapporteur also recommends encouraging meaningful civil society participation in multi-stakeholder policy making and standard setting processes, with an increased focus on sensitivity to human rights.

CIS Comments

CIS strongly agrees with the expansion of the Special Rapporteur’s scope that this report represents. He is no longer looking solely at states but at the private sector too.
CIS also notes that competition is an important aspect of the freedom of expression, but has not been discussed in this report. Viable alternatives to platforms, networks, internet service providers etc., will ensure a healthy, competitive marketplace, and will have a positive impact in resolving the issues identified above.
Our work has called for maintaining a balanced approach to liability of intermediaries for their users’ actions, since excessive liability or strict liability would lead to over-caution and removal of legitimate speech, while having no liability at all would make it difficult to act effectively against harmful speech, e.g., revenge porn.
CIS’ work on network neutrality has highlighted the importance of neutrality for freedom of speech, and has advocated for an evidence-based approach that ensures there is neither under-regulation, nor over-regulation. The Special Rapporteur suggests that ‘Zero-Rating’ practices always violate Net Neutrality, but the majority of the definitions of Net Neutrality proposed by academics and followed by regulators across the world often do not include Zero-Rating. Similarly, he suggests that the main exception for Zero-Rating is for areas genuinely lacking access to the Internet, whereas the potential for some forms of Zero-Rating to further freedom of expression, especially of minorities, even in areas with access to the Internet, provides sufficient reason for the issue to merit greater debate.

(Pranesh Prakash was invited by the Special Rapporteur to provide his views and took part in a meeting that contributed to this report)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/un-special-rapporteur-report-on-freedom-of-expression-and-the-private-sector-a-significant-step-forward

Smart City Policies and Standards: Overview of Projects, Data Policies, and Standards across Five International Smart Cities

Kiran A. B., Elonnai Hickok and Vanya Rakesh — 2016-06-11T13:29:04Z

This blog post aims to review five Smart Cities across the globe, namely Singapore, Dubai, New York City, London and Seoul, the Data Policies and Standards adopted. Also, the research seeks to point the similarities, differences and best practices in the development of smart cities across jurisdictions.

Download the brief: PDF.

Introduction

Smart City as a concept is evolutionary in nature, and the key elements like Information and Communication Technology (ICT), digitization of services, Internet of Things (IoT), open data, big data, social innovation, knowledge, etc., would be intrinsic to defining a Smart City [1].

A Smart City, as a “system of systems”, can potentially generate vast amounts of data, especially as cities install more sensors, gain access to data from sources such as mobile devices, and government and other agencies make more data accessible. Consequently, Big Data techniques and concepts are highly relevant to the future of Smart Cities. It was noted by Kenneth Cukier, Senior Editor of Digital Products at The Economist, that Big Data techniques can be used to enhance a number of processes essential to cities - for example, big data can be used to spot business trends, determine quality of research, prevent diseases, tack legal citations, combat crime, and determine real-time roadway traffic conditions [2]. Having said this, data is deemed to be the lifeblood of a Smart City and its availability, use, cost, quality, analysis, associated business models and governance are all areas of interest for a range of actors within a smart city [3]

This blog reviews five Smart Cities namely Singapore, Dubai, New York City, London and Seoul. In doing so, the research seeks to point the similarities, differences and best practices in the development of smart cities across jurisdictions. To achieve this, the research reviews:

The definition of a Smart City in a given context or project (if any).
Existing policy/regulations around data or notes the lack thereof.
The cities adherence to the International standards and providing an update on the current status of the Smart City programme.

Singapore

Introduction

The Smart Nation programme in Singapore was launched on 24th November, 2014. The programme is being driven by the Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore, through which Singapore seeks to harness ICT, networks and data to support improved livelihoods, stronger communities and creation of new opportunities for its residents [4] According to the IDA, a Smart Nation is a city where “people and businesses are empowered through increased access to data, more participatory through the contribution of innovative ideas and solutions, and a more anticipatory government that utilises technology to better serve citizens’ needs” [5]. The Smart Nation programme is driven by a designated Office in the Prime Minister’s Office [6]. As a core component to the Smart Nation Programme, the Smart Nation Platform has been developed as the technical architecture to support the Programme. This Platform enables greater pervasive connectivity, better situational awareness through data collection, and efficient sharing and access to collected sensor data, allowing public bodies to use such data to develop policy and practical interventions [7] Such access would allow for anticipatory governance - a goal of the Smart Nation Programme as noted by Dr. Yaacob Ibrahim, Minister for Communications and Information stating “Insights gained from this data would enable us to better anticipate citizens’ needs and help in better delivery of services” [8].

Status of the Project

The Smart Nation Programme is an ongoing initiative, being built on the past programme Intelligent Nation 2015 (iN2015 masterplan). The plan involves putting in place the infrastructure, policies, ecosystem and capabilities to enable a Smart Nation, by adopting a people-centric approach [9]. A number of co-creating solutions adopted by the Government include:

Development of Mobile Apps to facilitate communication between the public and the providers of public services.
Organization of Hackathons by government agencies or corporations in collaboration with schools and industry partners to ideate and develop solutions to tackle real-world challenges.
Adopt measure for smart mobility to create a more seamless transport experience and providing greater access to real-time transport information so that citizens can better plan their journeys.
Smart technologies are also being introduced to the housing estates [10].

Policies and Regulations

The Smart Nation plan derives its legitimacy from the constitution of Singapore, holding the Prime Minister responsible to take charge of the subject ‘Smart Nation’ blueprint under the Statutory body of ‘Smart Nation’ Programme Office [11]. Singapore has a comprehensive data protection law – the Personal Data Protection Act 2012, rules governing the collection, use, disclosure and care of personal data. The Personal Data Protection Commission of Singapore has committed to work closely with the private sector, and also to support the Smart Nation vision on data privacy and cyber security ecosystem [12] [13].

Towards achieving the Smart Nation vision the government has also promoted the use of open data. In 2015 the Department of Statistics has made a vast amount of data available (across multiple themes say transport, infocomm, population, etc.) for free to the public in order to encourage innovation and facilitate the Smart Nation [14]. Prior to this initiative, the government had adopted the Open Data Policy in 2011, enabling public data for analysis, research and application development [15]. The concept of Virtual Singapore, which is a part of the Smart Nation Initiative, has been developed to adopt and simulate solutions on a virtual platform using big data analytics [16].

Adoption of International Standards

The Smart Nation initiative follows the standards laid under the purview of the Singapore Standards Council (SSC). It specifies three types of Internet of Things (IoT) Standards – sensor network standards (TR38 - for public areas & TR40 - for homes), IoT foundational standards (common set of guidelines for IoT requirements and architecture, information and service interoperability, security and data integrity) and domain-specific standards (healthcare, mobility, urban living, etc.) [17].

Singapore is part of ISO/IEC JTC 1/WG7 Sensor Networks and ISO/IEC JTC 1/WG10 Internet of Things (IoT) [18]. Singapore IT standards abides to the international standards as defined by ISO, ITU, etc.Singapore is a member of many international standards forums (see Singapore International Standards Committee) which includes JTC1/WG9 - Big Data; JTC1/WG10 - Internet of Things; JTC1/WG11 - Smart Cities.

Dubai, United Arab Emirates

Introduction

The Dubai Smart City strategy was launched as part of the Dubai Plan 2021 vision, in the year 2015 [19]. Dubai Plan 2021 describes the future of Dubai evolving through holistic and complementary perspectives, starting with the people and the society and places the government as the custodian of the city’s development. Within the Plan, the smart city theme envisions a platform that is fully connected and integrated infrastructure that enables easy mobility for all residents and tourists, and provides easy access to all economic centers and social services, in line with the world’s best cities [20]. Center to the smart city platform is data and data analytics, particularly cross functional data and big data techniques to give a complete view of the city [21] As envisioned, the Dubai Data portal would provide a gateway to empower relevant stakeholders to understand the nuances of the city and pursue questions that will result in the greatest impact from the city’s data [22]. The platform will be based on current data and existing services, initiatives, and networks to identify opportunities for a smart city [23]. The Smart City Plan also includes a framework for aligning districts of Dubai with the Smart City vision and dimensions [24].

The Smart Dubai roadmap 2015 provides a consolidated report and planned smart city services, its status and the stage of its implementation, for e.g. Smart Grid, Mobile Payment, Smart Water, Health applications, Public Wi-Fi, Municipality, E-Traffic solutions, etc [25].

Status of the Project

The Smart Dubai strategy is envisioned to be completed by the year 2020, and currently it’s ongoing. The first phase of Smart Dubai masterplan is expected to end by 2016. Between 2017 and 2019, the plan aims to deliver new initiatives and services. The second phase of the masterplan is expected to be completed by the year 2020 [26].

Policies and Regulations

The Smart City Plan is being driven by the Dubai Smart City Office – which has been established under Law No. (29) of 2015 on the establishment of Dubai Smart City Office; Law No. (30) of 2015 on the establishment of Dubai Smart City Establishment; Decree No. (37) of 2015 on the formation of the Board of the Dubai Smart City Office; and Decree No (38) of 2015- appointing a Director General for the Office, which will develop overall policies and strategic plans, supervise the smart transformation process and approve joint initiatives, projects and services [27]. Also, an open data law called Dubai Open Data Law was issued to complete the legislative framework for transforming Dubai into a Smart City [28]. This law will enable the sharing of non-confidential data between public entities and other stakeholders.

Adoption of International Standards

In 2015 the Smart Dubai Executive Committee has collaborated through an agreement with the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) adopt the performance indicators by the ITU Focus Group on Smart Sustainable Cities to evaluate the feasibility of the indicators [29]. The Focus Group is working towards identifying global best practices for the development of smart cities [30].

New York City, United States of America

Introduction

The ‘One New York Plan’ announced in the year 2015 is a comprehensive plan for a sustainable and resilient city. It includes the adoption of digital technology and considers the importance of the role of data in transforming every aspect of the economy, communications, politics, and individual and family life [31]. Furthermore, through a publication on 'Building a Smart+Equitable City', the Mayor’s Office of Technology and Innovation (MOTI) describes efforts to leverage new technologies to build Smart city.

Accordingly, the plan seeks to establish better lives through establishing principles and strategic frameworks to guide connected device and Internet of Things (IoT) implementation; MOTI serving as the coordinating entity for new technology and IoT deployments across all City agencies; collaborating with academia and the private sector on innovative pilot projects, and partnering with municipal governments and organizations around the world to share best practices and leverage the impact of technological advancements [32].

Status of the Project

OneNYC represents a unified vision for a sustainable, resilient, and equitable city developed with cross-cutting interagency collaboration, public engagement, and consultation with leading experts in their respective fields. The Mayor’s Office of Sustainability oversees the development of OneNYC and now shares responsibility with the Mayor’s Office of Recovery and Resiliency for ensuring its implementation [33].

Policies and Regulations

As per the Local Law 11 of 2012, each City entity must identify and ultimately publish all of its digital public data for citywide aggregation and publication by 2018. In adherence to this law, there exists a NYC Open Data Plan which requires annual data updation [34].

The LinkNYC initiative, one of the key projects to make New York a ‘smart’ city, aims to connect everyone through a city wide wi-fi network. The LinkNYC initiative will retrofit payphones with kiosks to provide high-speed WiFi hotspots and charging stations for increased connectivity [35]. Data Privacy in the initiative is addressed through the customer first privacy policy, which considers user’s privacy on priority and will not sell any personal information or share with third parties for their own use. LinkNYC will use anonymized, aggregate data to make the system more efficient and to develop insights to improve your Link experience [36].

Adoption of International Standards

The ANSI Network on Smart and Sustainable Cities (ANSSC) is a forum for information sharing and coordination on voluntary standards, conformity assessment and related activities for smart and sustainable cities in the US [37]. The US is a signatory of the ISO/ITU defined standards on smart cities [38].

London, United Kingdom

Introduction

The Smart London Plan was unveiled in the year 2013 by the Mayor of London. The plan is being driven through the Greater London Authority, with the advice of the Smart London Board. The Smart London Plan envisions ‘Using the creative power of new technologies to serve London and improve Londoner’s lives’ [39]. ‘Smart London’ is about harnessing new technology and data so that businesses, Londoners and visitors experience the city in a better way, and do not face bureaucratic hassle and congestion. Smart London seeks to improve the city as a whole and focuses on city macro functions that result from the interplay between city subsystems - such as local labour markets to financial markets, from local government to education, healthcare, transportation and utilities. According to strategy documents, a smarter London recognises and employs data as a service and will leverage data to enable informed decision making and the design of new activities.

Status of the Project

This project is currently ongoing. Since its formation in March 2013, the Smart London Board has been advising the Greater London Authority.The Plan sits within the overarching framework of the Mayor’s Vision 2020 [40].

Policies and Regulations

The Smart London Plan incorporates the existing open data platform called ‘London DataStore’. The rules and guidelines for this platform are defined by the Greater London Authority, which includes working with public and private sector organisations to create, maintain and utilise it, enabling common data standards, identify and prioritise which data are needed to address London’s growth challenges, establish a Smart London Borough Partnership to encourage boroughs to free up London’s local level data. Also, privacy is protected and there is transparent use of data - to ensure data use is managed in the best interests of the public rather than private enterprise.⁴² The Smart London Plan aims to build on this existing datastore to identify and publish data that addresses specific growth challenges, with an emphasis on working with companies and communities to create, maintain, and use this data [41].

The Open Data White Paper, issued by the Office of Paymaster General, seeks to build a transparent society by releasing public data through open data platforms and leveraging the potential of emerging technologies [42]. The Greater London Authority processes personal data in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998 [43].

Adoption of International Standards

The British Standards Institution (BSI) has already established Smart City standards and has associated with the ISO Advisory Group on smart city standards. The UK subscribes to the BSI standards for smart cities and has adopted the same [44]. The following standards and publications help address various issues for a city to become a smart city:

The development of a standard on Smart city terminology (PAS 180)
The development of a Smart city framework standard (PAS 181)
The development of a Data concept model for smart cities (PAS 182)
A Smart city overview document (PD 8100)
A Smart city planning guidelines document (PD 8101)
BS 8904 Guidance for community sustainable development provides a decision-making framework that will help setting objectives in response to the needs and aspirations of city stakeholders
BS 11000 Collaborative relationship management
BSI BIP 2228:2013 Inclusive urban design - A guide to creating accessible public spaces.

Further, the Smart London Plan incorporates open data standards in accordance with London DataStore [45]. Various government reports – Smart Cities background paper, Open Data White Paper, etc., have suggested the use of standards related to Internet of Things (IoT), open data standards, etc [46].

Seoul, Korea

Introduction

Smart Seoul 2015 was announced in June 2011 by the Seoul Metropolitan Government, which envisions integrating IT services into every field, including administration, welfare, industry and living. Through this, the Seoul Metropolitan Government plans to create a Seoul that uses smart technologies by 2015 [47]. Towards this, the Seoul Metropolitan Government plans to make use of Big Data in policy development, and through scientific analytics, will provide customized administrative services and reduce wasteful spending. Also, the government is utilising Big Data to analyse trends emerging from existing services [48]. Examples of projects that leverage big data that the government has undertaken include the Taxi Matchmaking Project – analyzes the data related to taxi stands and passengers, the Owl Bus [49] - maps the bus routes, etc.

Status of the Project

Building on the Smart Seoul 2015, the Seoul Metropolitan Government plans to establish 'Global Digital Seoul 2020 – New Connections, Different Experiences' vision in next five-years. In this multi-objective plan, it aims to establish a ’Big Data campus’ providing win-win cooperation among public, private, industry and university [50].

Policies and Regulations

The Smart Seoul 2015 aims to create a ‘Seoul Data Mart’, which will be an open platform that makes public information available for data processing [51]. Furthermore, Seoul has opened the Seoul Open Data Plaza [52], an online channel to share and provide citizens with all of Seoul’s public data, such as real-time bus operation schedules, subway schedules, non-smoking areas, locations of public Wi-Fi services, shoeshine shops, and facilities for disabled people, and the information registered in Seoul Open Data Plaza is provided in the open API format.⁴⁵

South Korea has a comprehensive law governing data privacy – Personal Information Protection Act, 2011. The law includes data protection rules and principles, including obligations on the data controller and the consent of data subjects, rights to access personal data or object to its collection, and security requirements. It also covers cookies and spam, data processing by third parties and the international transfer of data [53].

International Standards

The smart city standards are adopted in the development of smart cities in Korea [54]. Korea has adopted the ISO/TC 268, which is focused on sustainable development in communities. Korea also has one working group developing city indicators and another working group developing metrics for smart community infrastructures [55].

Conclusion

The smart city projects studied are at different levels of implementation and have both similarities and differences. Below is an analysis of some of the key similarities and differences between smart city projects, a comparison of these points to India’s 100 Smart City Mission, and a summary of best practices around the development of smart city frameworks.

Nodal Agency

All cities studied have nodal agencies driving the smart city initiatives and many have policies in place backing these initiatives. For example, while the Smart Nation programme in Singapore is being driven by the Infocomm Development Authority, in London the smart city project is governed by the Great London Authority. The Smart Seoul Project in Korea is governed by the Seoul Metropolitan Government and New York has the Mayor’s Office of Technology and Innovation serving as the coordinating entity for new technology and IoT deployments across all City agencies. In India, the nodal agency driving the 100 Smart Cities Project is the Ministry of Urban Development under the Indian Government. In India, the implementation of the Mission at the City level will be done by a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV), which will be a limited company and will plan, appraise, approve, release funds, implement, manage, operate, monitor and evaluate the Smart City development projects.

Policies

Many of the cities had open data policies and data protection policies that pertain to the Smart City initiatives. In Dubai, an open data law called Dubai Open Data Law has been issued to complete the legislative framework for transforming Dubai into a Smart City and the Smart City Establishment will develop policies for the project. New York also has an Open Data Plan in place and LinkNYC will use anonymized, aggregate data to address data privacy of users. In London, the Smart London Plan incorporates the existing open data platform called ‘London DataStore’, the rules for which are defined by the Greater London Authority, which also ensures privacy and transparent use of data by processing personal data in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998. For regulation of data in Seoul, a ‘Seoul Data Mart’ will be established to make public information available for data processing and the Seoul Open Data Plaza is an existing online channel to share and provide citizens with all of Seoul’s public data. South Korea has a comprehensive law governing data privacy in place as well. In Singapore, the Personal Data Protection Commission has committed to work and support the Smart Nation vision on data privacy and cyber security ecosystem. To achieve the vision of the project, the government has also promoted the use of open data. It can be said the these countries , with clearly laid out policies to support and guide the project, have well planned ecosystem for regulation and governance of systems, technologies and cities. All cities have incorporated open data into smart cities and many have developed guidelines for its use. All cities have similar goals of enhancing the lives of citizens and developing anticipatory regulation, however, there appears to be little discussion on the need to amend existing law or enable new law around privacy and data protection in light of data collection through smart cities. In India, no enabling legislation or policy has been formulated by the Government, apart from releasing “Mission Statement and Guidelines”, which provides details about the Project and vision, excluding a definition of a ‘smart city’ or the relevant applicable laws and policies. No information is publicly available regarding deployment of open data, use of specific technologies like cloud, big data, etc., the relevant policies and applicability of laws. Unlike India, all cities recognize the importance of big data techniques in enabling smart city visions, technology and policies. On the lines of these cities, India must work towards addressing the need for an open data framework in light of the 100 Smart Cities Mission to enable the sharing of non-confidential data between public entities and other stakeholders. This requires co-ordination to incorporate, enable and draw upon open data architecture in the cities by the Government with the existing open data framework in India, like the National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy, 2012. Use of technology in the form of IoT and Big Data entails access to open data, bringing another policy area in its ambit which needs consideration. Also, identification and development of open standards for IoT must be looked at. Also, as data in smart cities will be generated, collected, used, and shared by both the public and private sector. It is essential that India’s existing data protection standards and regime must be amended to extend the data regulation beyond a body corporate and oversee the collection and use of data by the Government, and its agencies.

Standards

In Singapore, the Smart Nation initiative follows the standards laid under the purview of the Singapore Standards Council (SSC)and the Singapore IT standards abides to the international standards as defined by ISO, ITU, etc. The Country is also a member of many international standards forums (see Singapore International Standards Committee) which includes JTC1/WG9- Big Data; JTC1/WG10 - Internet of Things; JTC1/WG11 - Smart Cities. In Dubai, the Smart Dubai Executive Committee with the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) to adopt the performance indicators by the ITU Focus Group on Smart Sustainable Cities to evaluate the feasibility of the indicators. For the purpose of standards, the ANSI Network on Smart and Sustainable Cities (ANSSC) in New York is a forum smart and sustainable cities, along with US being a signatory of the ISO/ITU defined standards on smart cities. Also, The British Standards Institution (BSI) has already established Smart City standards and has associated with the ISO Advisory Group on smart city standards. The UK subscribes to the BSI standards for smart cities and has adopted the same and the Smart London Plan incorporates open data standards in accordance with London DataStore. For development of smart cities, Korea has adopted the ISO/TC 268, which is focused on sustainable development in communities and also has one working group developing city indicators and another working group developing metrics for smart community infrastructures. However, in India, the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) has undertaken the task to formulate standardised guidelines for central and state authorities in planning, design and construction of smart cities by setting up a technical committee under the Civil engineering department of the Bureau. However, adoption of the standards by implementing agencies would be voluntary and intends to complement internationally available documents in this area. Also, The Global Cities Institute (GCI) has undertaken a mission in the year 2015 to align with the Bureau of Indian Standards regarding development of standards of smart cities and also to forge relationships with Indian cities in light of ISO 37120. It can be said that India has currently not yet adopted international standards, but is in the process of developing national standards and adopting key international standards. Unlike other cities,which are adopting standards - national, ISO, or ITU, Indian cities are yet to adopt standards for regulation of the future smart cities.

Notes for India

India is in the nascent stages of developing smart cities across the country. Drawing from the practices adopted by cities across the world, smart cities in India should adopt strong regulatory and governance frameworks regarding technical standards, open data and data security and data protection policies. These policies will be essential in ensuring the sustainability and efficiency of smart cities while safeguarding individual rights. Some of these policies are already in place - such as India’s Open Data Policy and India’s data protection standards under section 43A of the ITA. It will be important to see how these policies are adopted and applied to the context of smart cities.

References

[1] Smart Cities and Transparent Evolution, http://www.posterheroes.org/Posterheroes3/_mat/PH3_eng.pdf.

[2] "Data, Data Everywhere." The Economist, February 25, 2010. Accessed March 17, 2016, http://www.economist.com/node/15557443.

[3] "Smart Cities." ISO. 2015. Accessed March 17, 2016, http://www.iso.org/iso/smart_cities_report-jtc1.pdf.

[4] Transcript of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's speech at Smart Nation launch on 24 November, http://www.pmo.gov.sg/mediacentre/transcript-prime-minister-lee-hsien-loongs-speech-smart-nation-launch-24-november.

[5] Smart Nation Vision, https://www.ida.gov.sg/Tech-Scene-News/Smart-Nation-Vision.

[6] Smart Nation, http://www.pmo.gov.sg/smartnation.

[7] Smart Nation Platform, https://www.ida.gov.sg/~/media/Files/About%20Us/Newsroom/Media%20Releases/2014/0617_smartnation/AnnexA_sn.pdf.

[8] Transcript of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong's speech at Smart Nation launch on 24 November, https://www.ida.gov.sg/blog/insg/featured/singapore-lays-groundwork-to-be-worlds-first-smart-nation/.

[9] Prime Ministers’ Office Singapore-Smart Nation, http://www.pmo.gov.sg/smartnation.

[10] Prime Ministers’ Office Singapore-Smart Nation, http://www.pmo.gov.sg/smartnation.

[11] Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Responsibility of the Prime Minister) Notification 2015, http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/aol/search/display/view.w3p;page=0;query=Status%3Acurinforce%20Type%3Aact,sl%20Content%3A%22smart%22;rec=4;resUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fstatutes.agc.gov.sg%2Faol%2Fsearch%2Fsummary%2Fresults.w3p%3Bquery%3DStatus%253Acurinforce%2520Type%253Aact,sl%2520Content%253A%2522smart%2522;whole=yes.

[12] Personal Data Protection Singapore-Annual Report 2014-15, https://www.pdpc.gov.sg/docs/default-source/Reports/pdpc-ar-fy14---online.pdf.

[13] Balancing Innovation and Personal Data Protection, https://www.ida.gov.sg/Tech-Scene-News/Tech-News/Digital-Government/2015/9/Balancing-innovation-and-personal-data-protection.

[14] Department of Statistics Singapore- Free Access to More Data on the SingStat Website from 1 March 2015, http://www.singstat.gov.sg/docs/default-source/default-document-library/news/press_releases/press27022015.pdf.

[15] Singapore Marks 50th Birthday With Open Data Contest, https://blog.hootsuite.com/singapore-open-data/.

[16] Virtual Singapore - a 3D city model platform for knowledge sharing and community collaboration, http://www.sla.gov.sg/News/tabid/142/articleid/572/category/Press%20Releases/parentId/97/year/2014/Default.aspx.

[17] Internet of Things (IoT) Standards Outline to Support Smart Nation Initiative Unveiled, http://www.spring.gov.sg/NewsEvents/PR/Pages/Internet-of-Things-(IoT)-Standards-Outline-to-Support-Smart-Nation-Initiative-Unveiled-20150812.aspx.

[18] Information Technology Standards Committee, https://www.itsc.org.sg/technical-committees/internet-of-things-technical-committee-iottc and https://www.ida.gov.sg/~/media/Files/Infocomm%20Landscape/iN2015/Reports/realisingthevisionin2015.pdf.

[19] Government of Dubai-2021 Dubai Plan-Purpose, http://www.dubaiplan2021.ae/the-purpose/.

[20] Government of Dubai-2021 Dubai Plan, http://www.dubaiplan2021.ae/dubai-plan-2021/.

[21] Smart Dubai, http://www.smartdubai.ae/foundation_layers.php.

[22] The Internet of Things: Connections for People’s happiness, http://www.smartdubai.ae/story021002.php.

[23] Smart Dubai - Current State, http://www.smartdubai.ae/current_state.php.

[24] Smart Dubai - District Guidelines, http://smartdubai.ae/districtguidelines/Smart_Dubai_District_Guidelines_Public_Brief.pdf.

[25] See; http://roadmap.smartdubai.ae/search-services-public.php and http://roadmap.smartdubai.ae/search-initiatives-public.php.

[26] Smart Dubai-Smart District Guidelines, http://smartdubai.ae/districtguidelines/Smart_Dubai_District_Guidelines_Public_Brief.pdf.

[27] Dubai Ruler issues new laws to further enhance the organisational structure and legal framework of Dubai Smart City, https://www.wam.ae/en/news/emirates/1395288828473.html.

[28] See: http://slc.dubai.gov.ae/en/AboutDepartment/News/Lists/NewsCentre/DispForm.aspx?ID=147&ContentTypeId=0x01001D47EB13C23E544893300E8367A23439 and http://www.smartdubai.ae/dubai_data.php.

[29] Dubai first city to trial ITU key performance indicators for smart sustainable cities, http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2015/12.aspx#.VtaYtlt97IU.

[30] Smart Dubai Benchmark Report 2015 Executive Summary, http://smartdubai.ae/bmr2015/methodology-public.php.

[31] Building a Smart + Equitable City, http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/forward/documents/NYC-Smart-Equitable-City-Final.pdf

[32] Building a Smart + Equitable City, http://www1.nyc.gov/site/forward/innovations/smartnyc.page.

[33] One New York: The Plan for a Strong and Just City, http://www1.nyc.gov/html/onenyc/about.html

[34] Open Data for All, http://www1.nyc.gov/assets/home/downloads/pdf/reports/2015/NYC-Open-Data-Plan-2015.pdf.

[35] 7 public projects that are turning New York into a “smart city”, http://www.builtinnyc.com/2015/11/24/7-projects-are-turning-new-york-futuristic-technology-hub.

[36] LinkNYC, https://www.link.nyc/faq.html#privacy.

[7] ANSI Network on Smart and Sustainable Cities, http://www.ansi.org/standards_activities/standards_boards_panels/anssc/overview.aspx?menuid=3

[38] IoT-Enabled Smart City Framework, http://publicaa.ansi.org/sites/apdl/Documents/News%20and%20Publications/Links%20Within%20Stories/IoT-EnabledSmartCityFrameworkWP20160213.pdf.

[39] Smart London (UK) Plan: Digital Technologies, London and Londoners, http://munkschool.utoronto.ca/ipl/files/2015/03/KleinmanM_Smart-London-UK-v5_30AP2015.pdf.

[40] Smart London Plan, http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/smart_london_plan.pdf.

[41] Smart London Plan, http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/smart_london_plan.pdf.

[42] Open Data White Paper, https://data.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Open_data_White_Paper.pdf.

[43] London Datastore-Privacy, http://data.london.gov.uk/about/privacy/.

[44] Future Cities Standards Centre in London, https://eu-smartcities.eu/commitment/5937.

[45] Smart London Plan, http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/smart_london_plan.pdf.

[46] Smart Cities background paper, October 2013, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/246019/bis-13-1209-smart-cities-background-paper-digital.pdf.

[47] Presentation of 2015 Blueprint of Seoul as ‘State-of-the-art Smart City’, http://english.seoul.go.kr/presentation-of-2015-blueprint-of-seoul-as-%E2%80%98state-of-the-art-smart-city%E2%80%99/.

[48] “Policy Where There is Demand,” Seoul Utilizes Big Data, http://english.seoul.go.kr/policy-demand-seoul-utilizes-big-data/

[49] Seoul’s “Owl Bus” Based on Big Data Technology, http://www.citiesalliance.org/sites/citiesalliance.org/files/Seoul-Owl-Bus-11052014.pdf

[50] Seoul Launches “Global Digital Seoul 2020”, http://english.seoul.go.kr/seoul-launches-global-digital-seoul-2020/

[51] Smart Seoul 2015, http://english.seoul.go.kr/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/SMART_SEOUL_2015_41.pdf

[52] Disclosing public data through the Seoul Open Data Plaza, http://english.seoul.go.kr/policy-information/key-policies/informatization/seoul-open-data-plaza/

[53] Data protection in South Korea: overview, http://uk.practicallaw.com/2-579-7926.

[54]Smart Cities Seoul: a case study, https://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-t/oth/23/01/T23010000190001PDFE.pdf

[55] Smart Cities-ISO, http://www.iso.org/iso/livelinkgetfile-isocs?nodeid=16193764.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/policies-and-standards-overview-of-five-international-smart-cities

Criminal Defamation and the Supreme Court’s Loss of Reputation

bhairav — 2016-06-03T03:05:14Z

The Supreme Court’s refusal, in Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, to strike down the anachronistic colonial offence of criminal defamation is wrong. Criminalising defamation serves no legitimate public purpose; the vehicle of criminalisation – sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – is unconstitutional; and the court’s reasoning is woolly at best.

The article was published in the Wire on May 14, 2016.

Politics and censorship

Two kinds of defamation actions have emerged to capture popular attention. First, political interests have adopted defamation law to settle scores and engage in performative posturing for their constituents. And, second, powerful entities such as large corporations have exploited weaknesses in defamation law to threaten, harass, and intimidate journalists and critics.

The former phenomenon is not new. Colonial India saw an explosion of litigation as traditional legal structures were swept away and native disputes successfully migrated to the colonial courts. These included politically-motivated defamation actions that had little to do with protecting reputations. In fact, defamation litigation has long become an extension of politics, in many cases a new front for political manoeuvring.

The latter type of defamation action is far more sinister. Powerful elites, both individuals and corporations, have cynically misused the law of defamation to silence criticism and chill the free press. By filing excessive and often unfounded complaints that are dispersed across the country, which threaten journalists with imprisonment, powerful elites frighten journalists into submission and vindictively hound those who refuse to back down. Such actions are called Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation (SLAPPs) which Rajeev Dhavan warns have created a new system of censorship.

Petitions and politicians

Defamation originates from the concept of scandalum magnatum – the slander of great men – which protected the reputations of aristocrats. The crime was linked to sedition, so insulting a lord was akin to treason. In today’s neo-feudal India, political leaders are contemporary aristocrats. Investigating them can invite devastating consequences, even death. Most of the time, they retaliate through defamation law. Since the criminal justice system is most compromised at its base, where the police and magistrates directly interact with people, the misuse of criminal defamation law hurts ordinary citizens.

This is different from politicians prosecuting each other since they rarely, if ever, suffer punishment. Of all the petitions before the Supreme Court concerning the decriminalisation of defamation, the three that received the most news coverage were those of Subramanian Swamy, Rahul Gandhi, and Arvind Kejriwal. They are all politicians, their petitions were made in response to defamation complaints filed by rival politicians. On the other hand, there are numerous cases which politicians have filed against private members of civil society to silence them. When presented with these concerns, the Supreme Court simply failed to seriously engage with them.

The architecture of defamation

Defamation has many species, a convoluted history, and complex defences. Defamation can be committed by the spoken word, which is slander, or the written word, which is libel. The historical distinction between these two modes of defamation is based on the permanence of written words. Before the invention of the printing press, the law was chiefly concerned with slander. But as written ideas proliferated through mass publication technologies, libel came to be viewed as more malevolent and the law visited serious punishments on writers and publishers.

Such a distinction presumes a literate readership. In largely illiterate societies, the spoken word was more potent. This is why films and radio have long attracted censorship and state control in India. Before mass publishing forked defamation into libel and slander, there existed only the historical crime of libel. Historical libel had four species: seditious libel, blasphemous libel, obscene libel, and defamatory libel.

Seditious libel, which has been repealed in Britain, prospers in India as the offence of sedition which is criminalised by section 124A of the IPC. Blasphemous libel, repealed in Britain, fares well in India as the offence of blasphemy under section 295A of the IPC. Obscene libel, as the offence of obscenity, is criminalised by section 294 of the IPC. And defamatory libel, repealed in Britain, which is the offence of criminal defamation that the Subramanian Swamy case upheld, continues to exist under section 499 of the IPC.

Confusing harms

Of the many errors that litter the Supreme Court’s May 13, 2016 judgment in the Subramanian Swamy case, perhaps the most egregious is the failure to recognise the harm that criminal defamation poses to a healthy civil society in a free democracy. At the crux of this mistake is the Supreme Court’s failure to distinguish between private injury and social harm. Two people may, in their private capacities, litigate a civil suit to recover damages if one feels the other has injured her reputation. This private action of defamation was not in issue before the court.

On the other hand, by criminalising defamation, why should the state protect the reputations of individuals while expending public resources to do so? This goes to the concept of crime. When an action is serious enough to harm society it is criminalised. Rape strikes at the root of public safety, human dignity, equality, and peace, so it is a crime. A breach of contract only injures the party who was expecting the performance of contractual duties; it does not harm society, so it is not a crime. Similarly, a loss of reputation, which is by itself difficult to quantify, does no harm to society and so it should not be a crime.

Truth and the public good

It may be argued, and the Supreme Court hints, that at its fundament, society is premised on the need for truth; so lies should be penalised. This is where defamation law wanders into moral policing. In Indian and European philosophies, truth is consecrated as a moral good. The Supreme Court quotes from the Bhagavad Gita on the virtue of truth. But while quotes like these are undoubtedly meaningful, they have no utility in a constitutional challenge. In reality, society is composed of truth, lies, untruths, half-truths, rumour, satire, and a lot more. In fact, the more shades of opinion there are, the livelier that society is. So lies should not invite criminal liability.

If we concede the moral debate and arrive at a consensus that the law must privilege truth over lies, then truth alone should be a complete defence to defamation. If the law criminalises untruth, then it must sanctify truth. That means when tried for the crime of defamation, a journalist must be acquitted if her writing is true. But the law and the Supreme Court require more. In addition to proving the truth, the journalist must prove that her writing serves the public good. So speaking truth is illegal if it does not serve the public good.

In fact, truth has only recently been recognised as a defence to defamation, albeit not a complete defence. This belies the social foundations of criminal defamation law. The purpose of the offence is not to uphold truth, it is to protect the reputations of the powerful. But what is reputation? The Supreme Court spends 25 pages trying to answer this question with no success. Instead, the court declares that reputation is protected by the right to life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution but it offers no sound reasoning to support this claim. The court also fails to explain why the private civil action of defamation is insufficient to protect reputation.

The constitution and constitutionalism

There are two core constitutional questions posed by the Subramanian Swamy case. They are:

Does the crime of defamation fall within one of the nine grounds listed in Article 19(2) of the constitution; and
Are sections 499 and 500 of the IPC which criminalise and punish defamation reasonable restrictions on the right to free speech?

Article 19(2) contains nine grounds in the interests of which a law may reasonably restrict the right to free speech. Defamation is one of the nine grounds, but the provision is silent as to which type of defamation, civil or criminal, it considers. However, B.R. Ambedkar’s comments in the Constituent Assembly arguably indicate that criminal defamation was intended to be a ground to restrict free speech.

The answer to the second question lies in measuring the reasonableness of the restriction criminal defamation places on free speech. If the restriction is proportionate to the social harm caused by defamation, then it is reasonable. However, restating an earlier point, criminalising defamation serves no legitimate public purpose because society is unconcerned with the reputations of a few individuals. Even if society is concerned with private reputations, the private civil action of defamation is more than sufficient to protect private interests. Further, the danger that current criminal defamation law poses to India’s free speech environment is considerable. Dhavan says: “Defamation cases [are] a weapon by which the rich and powerful silence their critics and censor a democracy.”

The Subramanian Swamy case highlights several worrying trends in India’s constitutional jurisprudence. The judgment is delivered by one judge speaking for a bench of two. Such critically significant constitutional challenges cannot be left to the whims of two unelected and unaccountable men. Moreover, from its position as the guarantor of individual freedoms, the Supreme Court appears to be in retreat. This will have far-reaching and negative consequences for India’s citizenry. If the court fails to enhance individual freedoms, what is its constitutional role? The judiciary would do well to stay away from policy mundanities and focus on promoting India’s democratic project, lest it injure its own reputation.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/criminal-defamation-and-the-supreme-court2019s-loss-of-reputation

We are anonymous, we are legion

Big Data Governance Frameworks for 'Data Revolution for Sustainable Development'

1. What are the Sustainable Development Goals?

Source: UN Data Revolution Group, A World that Counts, 2014, p.12.

2. The Need for a Data Revolution

Source: UN, Sustainable Development Goals.

3. Big Data: Characteristics and Use for Development

3.1. Characteristics of Big Data

3.2. Using Big Data for Development

4. Sustainable Development and Data Rights

5. Governance Frameworks Proposed

5.1. UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network

Schematic illustration with explanation of the indicators for national, regional, global, and thematic monitoring.Source: UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network, Indicators and a Monitoring Framework for the Sustainable Development Goals: Launching a Data Revolution for the SDGs, 2015, p.3.

5.2. The UN DATA Revolution Group

5.3. Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD)

5.4. The Global Partnership for Sustainable Development of Data

5.5. The World Economic Forum (WEF)

World Economic Forum - Diagram on Data Commons. Source: World Economic Forum, Big Data, Big Impact: New Possibilities for International Development, 2012, p.4.

World Economic Forum - Diagram on Global Coordination. Source: World Economic Forum, Big Data, Big Impact: New Possibilities for International Development, 2012, p.7.

5.6. Dr. Julia Lane - A Quadruple Data Helix

5.7. Data-Pop Alliance

6. Conclusion

7. Endnotes

8. Author Profile

Cyberstalkers, the new bullies in town

Why Geospatial Bill is draconian and how it will hurt startups

Here is the entire list of 'escorts service' websites that the government has banned

ISPs start blocking escort websites following govt order

Behind the scenes of Escort Economy 2.0

Indian experts doubt government ban on porn sites will be effective

CIS Submission to TRAI Consultation on Free Data

Question 1 Is there a need to have TSP agnostic platform to provide free data or suitable reimbursement to users, without violating the principles of Differential Pricing for Data laid down in TRAI Regulation? Please suggest the most suitable model to achieve the objective.

Is There a Need for Free Data?

Goal: Regulating Gatekeeping

Models for Free Data

Government Incentives For Non-Differentiated Free Data

ISP subsidies

Rewards model

Recharge API

“0.example” sites

OTT-agnostic free data

Unified marketplace

Question 2

Question 3

Question 4

Submission by the Centre for Internet and Society on Revisions to ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior

Conclusion

Jurisdiction: The Taboo Topic at ICANN

Why is the U.S. government removing the NTIA contract?

Why is the Transition Happening Now?

ICANN Adjudged Mature Enough

L'affaire Snowden

Why Jurisdiction is Important

U.S. Doublespeak on Jurisdiction

Why Has the ICG Failed to Consider Jurisdiction?

Why the By-Laws Make Things Worse & Why "Work Stream 2" Can't Address Most Jurisdiction Issues

The Transition Plan Fails the NETmundial Statement

What We Need: Jurisdictional Resilience

Under Modi government, foreign funding of NGOs has come down

Stand up for Digital Rights

UN Special Rapporteur Report on Freedom of Expression and the Private Sector: A Significant Step Forward

Background

Introduction

Legal and Policy Issues

Content Regulation

Transparency

Surveillance and Digital Security

Remedies

Special Rapporteur’s priorities for future work and thematic developments

Conclusions and Recommendations

CIS Comments

Smart City Policies and Standards: Overview of Projects, Data Policies, and Standards across Five International Smart Cities

Download the brief: PDF.

Introduction

Singapore

Introduction

Status of the Project

Policies and Regulations

Adoption of International Standards

Dubai, United Arab Emirates

Schematic illustration with explanation of the indicators for national, regional, global, and thematic monitoring.
Source: UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network, Indicators and a Monitoring Framework for the Sustainable Development Goals: Launching a Data Revolution for the SDGs, 2015, p.3.

World Economic Forum - Diagram on Data Commons.
Source: World Economic Forum, Big Data, Big Impact: New Possibilities for International Development, 2012, p.4.

World Economic Forum - Diagram on Global Coordination.
Source: World Economic Forum, Big Data, Big Impact: New Possibilities for International Development, 2012, p.7.

Question 1
Is there a need to have TSP agnostic platform to provide free data or suitable reimbursement to users, without violating the principles of Differential Pricing for Data laid down in TRAI Regulation? Please suggest the most suitable model to achieve the objective.