We are anonymous, we are legion

India's Internet Privacy Woes

praskrishna — 2013-09-05T11:09:30Z

“For the sake of national security and to protect the privacy of its citizens, India should develop its own social media platforms,” says Dr Kamlesh Bajaj, CEO of Data Security Council of India (DSCI), a Nasscom-promoted ‘self-regulatory’ organisation on data protection and privacy in India, in a blog post dated August 13.

This article by Rohin Dharmakumar was published in Forbes India on August 26, 2013. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

Citing a litany of woes, including American control over internet infrastructure, Bajaj makes the case for India to take a leaf out of China’s playbook (“even though its reasons were different”) and encourages the creation of “Indian” social media sites and search engines.

“Unfortunately, Dr Bajaj provides a wrong solution to a correct diagnosis,” says Pranesh Prakash, a policy director with the Centre for Internet and Society. “First, I can’t think of any governmental intervention—short of a ban on existing foreign services—that can make a new Indian service successful. Second, India’s privacy laws are worse than those in the US. Nothing will stop the US and Indian governments from coming after this company too.”

The problem arises because services like Facebook and Google store all your data unencrypted on their servers, making it easy for them, or governments and hackers, to monitor everything you do. The correct solution, says Prakash, would be to encourage the creation and use of de-centralised and end-to-end encrypted services that do not store all your data in one place.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/forbesindia-august-26-2013-india-internet-privacy-woes

India's Internet Jam

pranesh — 2014-03-20T12:41:58Z

As authorities continue to clamp down on digital freedom, politicians and corporations are getting a taste for censorship too. Pranesh Prakash reports.

The article was published in Index on Censorship in August 2012. This is an unedited version of the article.

In a matter of three days, in August 2012, India’s central government ordered internet service providers to block around 309 pieces of online content – mostly individual web pages, YouTube videos and Facebook groups. The blocking orders came days after people originally from north-eastern India living in Bangalore began fleeing the city in fear of attack. Rumours that some Muslims in the city were planning violence in retaliation for recent clashes between the indigenous Bodo tribe and Muslim settlers in Assam spread quickly via text messages and through the media. The Nepali migrant community in Bangalore also received text messages from their families, warning them that they might be mistaken for north-eastern Indians and also be targeted. Indian Railway, catering to the huge demand, organised special trains to Assam for the crowds of people.

Freedom of speech is enshrined in the Constitution of India, which came into force in 1952, and specifically in Article 19(1)(a), which guarantees that ‘all citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression’. While in the United States, it wasn’t until the 1920s that the Supreme Court struck down a law or governmental action on freedom of speech grounds, in India, just one year after the constitution was adopted, government actions against both left- and right-wing political speech were struck down for violating Article 19(1)(a). Enraged, the Congress government then amended Article 19, expanding the list of restrictions to the right to free expression. These included speech pertaining to ‘friendly relations with foreign states’, ‘public order’ and ‘incitement to an offence’. In 1963, in response to the 1962 war with China, the ‘sovereignty and integrity of India’ was also added, taking the number of categories of permissible restrictions up to eight. While the constitution categorically stipulates that no further restrictions should be imposed, courts have on occasion added to the list (privacy, for instance) through judicial interpretation without explicitly stating that they are doing so. Comparisons are often drawn between the constitution’s ‘reasonable restrictions’ and the categorical prohibition enshrined in the US Constitution’s First Amendment: ‘Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press’ – a meaningless comparison as there are indeed many categories of speech that are seen as being protected under the US constitution and even speech that is protected may be restrained in a number of ways.

Today, there are a number of laws that regulate freedom of speech in India, from the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Victorian legislation meant to codify crimes, to the Information Technology Act, which was amended in 2008 and in some cases makes behaviour that is perfectly legal offline into a criminal activity when online.

Sedition and social harmony

The Indian Penal Code criminalises sedition; speech intended to cause enmity between communities; speech intended to ‘outrage religious feelings of any class’; selling, singing or displaying anything obscene; and defamation. It also prohibits ‘causing someone, by words or gestures, to believe they’re the target of divine displeasure’. Each of these provisions has been misused, as there are indeed many catagories of speech that are not seen as being protected under thw US constitution, and even speech that is protected may be restrained in a number of ways.

In recent years, sedition charges have been brought against human rights activists (Binayak Sen and Arundhati Roy), journalists (Seema Azad), cartoonists (Aseem Trivedi) and protesters (thousands of villagers in Koodankulam and neighbouring villages who demonstrated against a nuclear reactor in their area). It is usually the higher judiciary that dismisses such cases, while the lower judiciary seems to be supplicant to the bizarre claims of government, the police and complainants. Similarly, the higher judiciary has had to intervene in cases where books and films have been banned for ‘causing enmity between communities’ or for intentionally hurting the sentiments of a religious group.

Of the last six books banned by the Maharashtra government, all but one (RV Bhasin’s Islam: A Concept of Political World Invasion by Muslims) have been overturned by the Mumbai High Court. In one case, the court criticised the government for using a violent protest (organised by the Sambhaji Brigade, one of many right-wing political groups that frequently stage demonstrations) as reason enough for banning an academic book on the Maratha king Shivaji. In its decision, the judge pointed out that it is the government’s job to provide protection against such violence. Given India’s history of communal violence there is indeed a need for the law to address incitement to violence – but these laws should be employed at the actual time of incitement, not after the violence has already taken place. But, as recent events have shown, the government is willing to censor ‘harmful’ books and films and less likely to take action against individuals who incite violence during demonstrations.

Online speech and the law

There are regular calls for the government to introduce legislation that deals specifically with online behaviour, despite the fact that the vast majority of the laws regarding sedition and social harmony apply online as well as offline. One example is the recent move to introduce amendments to the Indecent Representation of Women Act (1986) so that it applies to ‘audiovisual media and material in electronic form’.

But the government’s attempts to control online speech began long before the introduction of any internet-specific legislation. Indeed, when state-monopoly internet service provider VSNL censored content, it did so under the terms of a contract it had entered with its customers, not under any law. In 1998, a mailing list called Middle East Socialist Network was blocked on national security grounds. In 1999, Pakistani newspaper Dawn’s website was blocked during the Kargil conflict. In both of the latter cases, the government relied on the Indian Telegraph Act (1885) to justify its actions, though that act contains no explicit provisions for such censorship.

In 2000, the Information Technology (IT) Act was passed and the Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In) was created, which (unlawfully) assumed the role of official online censor. Importantly, while the IT Act did
make the publication of obscene content online illegal (though it already was under the IPC), it did not grant permission for authorities to block websites. Despite this, an executive order passed on 27 February 2003 granted CERT-In the power to block. Had this been challenged in a court, it may well have been deemed unconstitutional since, in the absence of a statutory law, an executive order cannot reverse the freedom granted under Article 19. And although the telecommunications sector in India was being liberalised around this time, as part of their licence agreements, all internet service providers (ISPs) have to agree to block links upon being requested to do so by the government. In 2008, when the IT Act was amended, it clearly stated that the government can block websites not only when it deems it necessary to do so but also when it is deemed expedient in relation to matters of public interest, national security and with regard to maintaining friendly relations with foreign states. The power to block does not, however, extend to obscenity or defamation offences. At the same time, further categories of speech crimes were introduced, along with other new offences, including the electronic delivery of ‘offensive messages through communication services’ or anything ‘for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience’. This has often been abused, including by the chief minister of West Bengal, who issued proceedings against a professor for forwarding an email containing a cartoon that mocked him. Under this draconian and unconstitutional provision, the police do not need an arrest warrant and the punishment can be as much as three years’ imprisonment, longer than even the punishment for causing death by negligence. The amendment also granted the government extensive powers to monitor and intercept online speech and data traffic, greatly extending the powers provided under colonial laws such as the Indian Telegraph Act (1885). As legislation has been introduced, the penalties for online offences have increased significantly. For example, the penalty for the first-time publication of an obscene ebook is up to five years in prison and a 1,000,000 rupee (US$18,800) fine, compared with two years’ imprisonment and a 2,000 rupee (US$38) fine as stipulated in the IPC for publishing that same material in print version. New laws introduced in 2009 pertain specifically to blocking (section 69a), interception, decryption and monitoring (69 and 69b) and are in accordance with the constitution. However, the amendments were brought in without any attempt at transparency or accountability.

Power in the hands of intermediaries

In April 2011, despite critical submissions received during its public consultation, the government announced new ‘intermediary guidelines’ and ‘cyber cafe rules’, both of which have adverse effects on freedom of expression. The rules, which were issued by the Department of Information and Technology (DIT), grant not only the government but citizens significant powers to censor the internet. They require all intermediaries – companies that handle content, including web hosts, telecom companies, domain name providers and other such intermediaries – to remove ‘disparaging’ content that could ‘harm minors in any way’. They prohibit everything from jokes (if the person sharing the joke does not own copyright to it) to anything that is disparaging. In a recent case, in December 2011, thousands of people used the hashtag #=IdiotKapilSibal on Twitter to criticise the minister of communications and information technology, Kapil Sibal, who had requested that officials from Google, Microsoft, Yahoo! and Facebook in India pre-screen online content. These guidelines and rules are badly drafted and unconstitutional, as they go beyond the limits allowed under Article 19 in the constitution. And do so in a manner that lacks any semblance of due process and
fairness. They are inconsistent with offline laws, too: for example, because the guidelines also refer to gambling, the government of Sikkim can publish advertisements for its PlayWin lottery in newspapers but not online. It’s far easier to persuade officials to remove online material than it is to persuade them to remove books from a bookstore or artwork from a gallery. Police are only empowered to seize books if the government or a court has been persuaded that it violates a law and issues such an order. This fact is always recorded, in government or legal records, police files or in the press. By contrast, web content can be removed on the basis of one email complaint; intermediaries are required to ‘disable’ the relevant content within 36 hours of the complaint. A court order is not required, nor is there a requirement to notify the owner of the content that a complaint has been received or that material has been removed. The effect is that of almost invisible censorship.

This assertion – that it only takes one complaint – may seem far-fetched. But a researcher from the Centre for Internet and Society sent complaints to several intermediaries on a number of occasions, resulting in content being removed in a majority of cases. If intermediaries choose not to take action, they risk losing their immunity against punishment for content. In essence, the law is the equivalent of punishing a post office for the letters that people send via the postal service.

The amendments were brought in without any attempt at transparency or accountability

In 1984, Indira Gandhi was forced to sue Salman Rushdie for defamation in a London court in order to ensure one sentence was expurgated from his novel Midnight’s Children. Today Gandhi wouldn’t need to win a lawsuit against publishers. She would merely have to send a complaint to websites selling the book and it would have to be removed from sale. It is easier to block Akbari.in – the online newspaper run by Vinay Rai, who filed a criminal complaint against multiple internet companies in December 2011 for all manner of materials – than it is to prevent its print publication. There is no penalty for frivolous complaints, such as those sent by researchers from the Centre for Internet and Society, nor is there any requirement for records to be kept of who has removed what. Such great powers of censorship without any penalties for abuse of these powers are a sure-fire way of moving towards greater intolerance, with the internet – that republic of opinions and expressions – being a casualty.

Censorship outside the law

Since 2011, governments and private companies alike have increasingly engaged in internet censorship. In April 2011, in response to a right to information request, the DIT released a list of 11 websites that had been officially blocked under the IT Act since 2009, when the amended act came into force. But, according to a recent Google Transparency Report, government requests for the removal of material far exceeds that number. The report reveals that the government (including state governments) requested that Google remove 358 items from January 2011 to June 2011. Of this number, only eight were considered to be hate speech and only one item was related to concerns over national security. The remaining material, 255 items (71 per cent of all requests), was taken down because of ‘government criticism’. Criticism of the government is protected under the country’s constitution but, nonetheless, Google complied with take-down requests 51 per cent of the time. It’s clear, then, that governmental censorship is far more widespread than officially acknowledged.

In July 2011, Reliance Entertainment obtained a ‘John Doe’ order to protect its intellectual property rights with regard to its film Singham, which was scheduled for release that month. The order prohibited both online and offline infringement of copyright for the film and was sent to a number of ISPs, which then blocked access to file-sharing websites, even though there was no proof of the film having been available on any of them. According to Reliance Entertainment, they merely asked ISPs ‘not to make the film available’ on their networks, even though the order did not authorise it. But a right to information request pertaining to a similar case dealing with the distribution of the film Dhammu showed that the entertainment company’s lawyers had in fact asked for dozens of websites – not just deep-link URLs to infringing content – to be blocked, despite publicly claiming otherwise. If web users encountered any information at all about why access to the sites was blocked, it was that the Department of Telecom had ordered the blocking, which was plainly untrue. In February 2012, following a complaint from the Indian Music Industry (a consortium of 142 music companies), the Calcutta High Court ordered 387 ISPs to block 107 websites for music piracy. At least a few of those, including Paktimes.com and Filmicafe.com, were general interest entertainment sites. The most famous of these sites, Songs.pk, re-emerged shortly after the block as Songspk.pk, highlighting the pointlessness of the block. And outside the realm of copyright, in December 2011, the domain name CartoonsAgainstCorruption.com was suspended based on an unlawful complaint from the Mumbai police requesting its suspension, despite there being no powers for them to do so under any law.

Between August and November 2011, the DIT also went to great efforts to compel big internet companies including Indiatimes, Facebook, Google, Yahoo!, and Microsoft, to ‘self-regulate’. This revealed the department’s desire to gain ever greater powers to control ‘objectionable’ content online, effectively bypassing the IT Act. It’s obvious, too, that by encouraging internet companies to ‘self-regulate’ the government will avoid embarrassing statistics such as those revealed by Google’s Transparency Report.

New dangers

A way forward, at least for internet-specific laws, could be to rekindle the Cyber Regulations Advisory Committee – a multi-stakeholder committee required by the IT Act – and to practise at home what we preach abroad on matters of internet governance: the value of a multi-stakeholder system, which includes industry, academia and civil society and not just governments. The idea of a multi-stakeholder framework has gained prominence since it was placed at the core of the ‘Declaration of Principles’ at the first World Summit on Information Society in Geneva in 2003. It has also been at the heart of India’s pronouncements at the Internet Governance Forum and the India-Brazil-South Africa Dialogue Forum. The Internet Governance Division, which formulates the country’s international stance on internet governance, has long recognised that these decisions must be taken in an open and collaborative manner. It is time the DIT’s Cyber-Law and ESecurity Group, which formulates the country’s national stance on the internet, realises the same.

Freedom of speech means nothing in a democratic society if it does not allow everyone to speak. Despite the internet being a very elite space, the number of people who have used it to express themselves since its introduction in India in 1994 is vast, especially when compared to the number of people in India who have expressed themselves in print since 1947 when the country won its independence. Online speech is indeed a big shift from edited and usually civil discussions in the world of print media. Perhaps this gives us some indication of why there is some support among the mass media for government regulations on speech. Too many discussions of online speech laws in India descend into arguments about the lack of civility online. However, the press – and all of us – would do well to remember that civility and decency in speech, while desirable in many contexts, cannot be the subject of legislation. But in India, the greatest threat to freedom of expression is not a government clampdown on dissent but threats from political and corporate powers with a range of tools at their disposal, including fostering a climate of selfcensorship. The government has passed bad laws that have given way to private censorship. And many of these laws are simply a result of gross ineptitude.

We cannot take sufficient comfort in the fact that, in India, censorship is limited and nowhere on the scale that it is in China or Iran. It is crucial that, from a legal, cultural and technological standpoint we do not open the door for further censorship. And currently, we are failing.

Pranesh Prakash is Policy Director at the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore. Part of this article appeared in a blog by the author on the centre’s website, cis-india.org, in January 2012

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/index-on-censorship-august-2012-pranesh-prakash-indias-internet-jam

India's Identity Crisis

malavika — 2014-01-09T07:56:08Z

Malavika Jayaram's article was published in 2013 Internet Monitor Annual Report: Reflections on the Digital World, published by Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet and Society.

India’s Unique Identity (UID) project is already the world’s largest biometrics identity program, and it is still growing. Almost 530 million people have been registered in the project database, which collects all ten fingerprints, iris scans of both eyes, a photograph, and demographic information for each registrant. Supporters of the project tout the UID as a societal game changer. The extensive biometric information collected, they argue, will establish the uniqueness of each individual, eliminate fraud, and provide the identity infrastructure needed to develop solutions for a range of problems. Despite these potential benefits, however, critical concerns remain about the UID’s legal and physical architecture as well as about unforeseen risks associated with the linking and analysis of personal data.

The most basic concerns regarding the UID project stem from the fact that biometric technologies have never been tested on such a large population. As a result, well-founded concerns exist around scalability, false acceptance and rejection rates, and the project’s core premise that biometrics can uniquely and unambiguously identify people in a foolproof manner. Some of these concerns are based on technical issues—collecting fingerprints and iris scans “in the field,” for instance, can be complicated when a registrant’s fingerprints are eroded by manual labor or her irises are affected by malnutrition and cataracts. Other concerns relate to the project’s federated implementation architecture, which, by outsourcing collection to a massive group of private and public registrars and operators, increases the chance for data breaches, error, and fraud.

Perhaps even more vexing are concerns regarding how the UID, which promises financial inclusion (by reducing the identification barriers to opening bank accounts, for example), might in fact lead to new types of exclusion for already marginalized groups. Members of the LGBT community, for instance, question whether the inclusion of the transgender category within the UID scheme is a laudable attempt at inclusion, or a new means of listing and targeting members of their community for exclusion. More fundamentally, as more and more services and benefits are linked to the UID, the project threatens to exclude all those who cannot or will not participate in the scheme due to logistical failures or philosophical objections.

It is worth noting that the UID is not the only large data project in India. A slew of “Big Brother” projects exist: the Centralised Monitoring System (CMS), the Telephone Call Interception System (TCIS), the National Population Register (NPR), the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network and Systems (CCTNS), and the National Intelligence Grid (NATGRID), which is working to aggregate up to 21 different databases relating to tax, rail and air travel, credit card transactions, immigration, and other domains. The UID is intended to serve as a common identifier across these databases, creating a massive surveillance state. It also facilitates an ecosystem where access to goods and services, from government subsidies to drivers’ licenses to mobile phones to cooking gas, increasingly requires biometric authentication.

The UID project was originally vaunted as voluntary, but the inexorable slippery slope toward compulsory participation has triggered a series of lawsuits challenging the legality of forced enrollment and the constitutionality of the entire project. Most recently, in September 2013, India’s federal Supreme Court affirmed by way of an interim decision that the UID was not mandatory, that not possessing a UID should not disadvantage anybody, and that citizenship should be ascertained as a criteria for registering in order to ensure that UIDs are not issued to illegal immigrants. This last stipulation is particularly thorny given that the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI, the body in charge of the UID project) has consistently distanced the UID from questions of citizenship under the justification that it is a matter beyond their remit (i.e., the UID is open to residents, and is not linked to citizenship). The government moved quickly to urge a modification of the order, but the Supreme Court declined to do so and will instead release its final decision after it reviews a batch of petitions from activists and others. The UIDAI approached the court, arguing that not making the UID mandatory has serious consequences for welfare schemes, but the court recently ordered the federal government, the Reserve Bank of India, and the Election Commission to delink the LPG cooking gas scheme from the UID. This is a considerable setback for the project, given that this was one of the most hyped linkages for the UID. It remains to be seen whether the court will similarly halt other attempts to make the UID mandatory.

In the meantime, the UID project is effectively being implemented in a legal vacuum without support from the Supreme Court or Parliament. The Cabinet is seeking to rectify this and has cleared a bill that would finally provide legal backing for the UID program—its previous attempt was rejected by the Standing Committee on Finance in 2010. This bill is scheduled to come up for debate during the winter session of Parliament. The bill’s progress, along with the final decision of the Supreme Court, will have far reaching consequences for the UID project’s implementation and longevity, as well as for the relationship between India’s citizens and the state.

If fully implemented, the UID system will fundamentally alter the way in which citizens interact with the government by creating a centrally controlled, technology-based standard that mediates access to social services and benefits, financial systems, telecommunications, and governance. It will undoubtedly also have implications for how citizens relate to private sector entities, on which the UID rests and which have their own vested interests in the data. The success or failure of the UID represents a critical moment for India. Whatever course the country takes, its decision to travel further toward or turn away from becoming a “database nation” will have implications for democracy, free speech, and economic justice within its own borders and also in the many neighboring countries that look to it as a technological standard bearer.

The Indian government seems to envision “big data” as a panacea for fraud, corruption, and abuse, but it has given little attention to understanding and addressing the fraud, corruption, and abuse that massive databases can themselves engender. The government’s actions have yet to demonstrate an appreciation for the fact that the matrix of identity and surveillance schemes it has implemented can create a privacy-invading technology layer that is not only a barrier to online activity but also to social participation writ large.

The lack of identification documents for a large portion of the Indian population does need to be addressed. Whether the UID project is the best means to do this—whether it has the right architecture and design, whether it can succeed without an overhaul of several other failures of governmental institutions, and whether fixing the identity piece alone causes more harm than good—should be the subject of intense debate and scrutiny. Only through rigorous threat modeling and analysis of the risks arising out of this burgeoning “data industrial complex” can steps be taken to stem the potential repercussions of the project not just for identity management, fraud, corruption, distributive justice, and welfare generally, but also for autonomy, openness, and democracy.

Click to download the article published in the annual report of Berkman's Center for Internet and Society (PDF 7223 Kb)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/internet-monitor-2013-malavika-jayaram-indias-identity-crisis

India's HIV-positive trans people find 'new strength' in technology

Annie Banerji — 2019-10-18T15:28:18Z

Shoved, cursed and ridiculed, Nisha's hospital visits were always stressful as a transgender woman and got worse after she was diagnosed as HIV-positive.

The article by Annie Banerji was published in Reuters on October 17, 2019 and mirrored in the Jakarta Post as well. Ambika Tandon was quoted. It was mirrored in ET Healthworld.com as well.

But a new app introduced as part of a drive to end an HIV epidemic in India by 2030 is providing her and the transgender community better access to doctors, lifesaving drugs - and hope - although it has raised concerns about digital privacy.

India has the world's third largest population living with HIV - 2.1 million people - according to UNAIDS, with recognition that help is needed in the transgender community where the prevalence is 3.1% compared to 0.26% among all adults.

Nisha tested HIV positive last year after earning a living as a sex worker in New Delhi. On the job, she said, condoms would often break or she would not use one for more money.

"That was a bad idea. I ended up with HIV. I felt suicidal after I found out," Nisha, 29, a trans woman who goes by one name, told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.

"It didn't help that going to the hospital was torturous. People made faces, passed lewd comments ... a doctor even kicked me out."

Despite the Supreme Court recognizing India's 2 million transgender people as a third gender with equal rights in 2014, they are often kicked out by their families and denied jobs, education and healthcare, leading them to begging or sex work.

Trans women like Nisha say they face "double discrimination" and the risk of being shunned and abused - first because of their gender identity and then because of their HIV status.

But a counselling program along with a new app is helping health workers track down HIV-positive transgender people, monitor their treatment and link them to doctors and antiretroviral therapy (ART) to suppress the AIDS virus.

"I have found new strength. I don't feel depressed or nervous anymore," said Nisha, who now begs at traffic lights.

"The app helps keep me physically healthy and she ensures I'm mentally and emotionally (healthy)," she said, pointing to her outreach worker Samyra, an HIV-positive trans woman.

The eMpower app - developed by IBM in partnership with India HIV/AIDS Alliance and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria - monitored more than 1.2 million people between January 2018 and March 2019.

'Half the battle won'

With mobile tablets in hand, HIV-positive transgender outreach workers keep a tab on others in their community living with HIV and counsel them and accompany them to see doctors.

"I tell them 'I'm like you. I'm HIV-positive and I'm taking medicines too. You're not alone'," said Samyra, who works with Vihaan, a national initiative to expand counselling, outreach and follow-up programs to people living with HIV.

"That makes a huge difference because it's coming from one of your own. Half of the HIV battle is won when you have someone to hold your hand along the way."

Health experts said transgender focused initiatives like this and the launch in March of India's first HIV treatment clinic in Mumbai city run for and by LGBT+ people were pushing the country towards its target to end the epidemic by 2030.

But to achieve this target they said it was critical for patients to stick with ART. Sometimes stigma and side effects can cause them to drop out of the treatment.

That is why health workers follow up with clients every few months and record information on the eMpower app, including their weight, viral load and CD4 - white blood cells that fight HIV - and advise them on everything from their diet to safe sex.

They also note whether a client has faced discrimination, and arrange for partners and family members to get tested.

Sonal Mehta, head of India HIV/AIDS Alliance, said the app has helped boost Vihaan's outreach numbers as well as the confidence of trans clients and workers, who often come from poor, semi-literate backgrounds.

"The trans clients definitely feel much more secure ... but the outreach workers themselves also feel very empowered. They are professional officers working on the field, talking to doctors, government officers, engaging with various organisations," she said.

Double-edged sword

While such technological advances are seen as key in the HIV/AIDS fight, health and software experts warn they can come at the cost of privacy.

The eMpower app creates a profile for each client with personal information including name, biometric ID number, occupation and monthly income, and a map pinning their location.

Without proper safeguards, such an app runs the risk of data breach and sharing information with third-parties, which can further ostracize an already marginalized community, said Ambika Tandon, a cyber security expert.

"The potential to monetize is definitely a risk factor," said Tandon, policy officer in gender-based research at the Banaglore-based Centre for Internet and Society.

"Another is informational privacy ... (clients) may not necessarily know where their information is being stored, who will have access to it ... There could be multiple points at which their data could be vulnerable."

Saravanan RM, a senior technical officer at India HIV/AIDS Alliance, said the eMpower app a "fool-proof system".

He said all sensitive data was stored on the organisation's server, which could only be accessed by specific workers through a password-protected system.

None of the information can be seen by any partners - not IBM, state or federal governments. It is further beefed up by a mobile device management (MDM), he said.

"For example, if any device is lost or has gone into someone else's hands, what we can do through MDM is clean out the entire tablet and the data will not be acquired," he said.

Dr. V Sam Prasad, India program manager of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, said the app should not be dismissed because there was a privacy risk as it came with major benefits.

Several HIV-positive transgender people like Swati, a trans woman who contracted HIV after injecting drugs, felt the same.

"Even if it (personal data) is leaked, what's the worst that could happen? I've faced unimaginable things. Nothing scares me, at least not such things," said Swati, 25, after a follow-up meeting with her outreach worker at her one-room home.

"It is (eMpower) saving me. It is not an enemy."

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/reuters-annie-banerji-october-17-2019-indias-hiv-positive-trans-people-find-new-strength-in-technology

India's Data Protection Framework Will Need to Treat Privacy as a Social and Not Just an Individual Good

amber — 2018-05-18T06:22:57Z

The idea that technological innovations may compete with privacy of individuals assumes that there is social and/or economic good in allowing unrestricted access to data. However, it must be remembered that data is potentially a toxic asset, if it is not collected, processed, secured and shared in the appropriate way.

Published in Economic & Political Weekly, Volume 53, Issue No. 18, 05 May, 2018. Article can be accessed online here.

In July 2017, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeITy) in India set up a committee headed by a former judge, B N Srikrishna, to address the growing clamour for privacy protections at a time when both private collection of data and public projects like Aadhaar are reported to pose major privacy risks (Maheshwari 2017). The Srikrishna Committee is in the process of providing its input, which will go on to inform India’s data-protection law.

While the committee released a white paper with provisional views, seeking feedback a few months ago, it may be discussing a data protection framework without due consideration to how data practices have evolved.

In early 2018, a series of stories based on investigative journalism by Guardianand Observer revealed that the data of 87 million Facebook users was used for the Trump campaign by a political consulting firm, Cambridge Analytica, without their permissions. Aleksandr Kogan, a psychology researcher at the University of Cambridge, created an application called “thisisyourdigitallife” and collected data from 270,000 participants through a personality test using Facebook’s application programming interface (API), which allows developers to integrate with various parts of the Facebook platform (Fruchter et al 2018). This data was collected purportedly for academic research purposes only. Kogan’s application also collected profile data from each of the participants’ friends, roughly 87 million people.

The kinds of practices concerning the sharing and processing of data exhibited in this case are not unique. These are, in fact, common to the data economy in India as well. It can be argued that the Facebook–Cambridge Analytica incident is representative of data practices in the data-driven digital economy. These new practices pose important questions for data protection laws globally, and how these may need to evolve to address data protection, particularly for India, which is in the process of drafting its own data protection law.

Privacy as Control

Most modern data protection laws focus on individual control. In this context, the definition by the late Alan Westin (2015) characterises privacy as:

The claim of individuals, groups, or institutions to determine for themselves when, how, and to what extent information about them is communicated to other.

The idea of “privacy as control” is what finds articulation in data protection policies across jurisdictions, beginning with the Fair Information Practice Principles (FIPP) from the United States (US) (Dixon 2006). These FIPPs are the building blocks of modern information privacy law (Schwartz 1999) and not only play a significant role in the development of privacy laws in the US, but also inform data protection laws in most privacy regimes internationally (Rotenberg 2001), including the nine “National Privacy Principles” articulated by the Justice A P Shah Committee in India. Much of this approach is also reflected in the white paper released by the committee, led by Justice Srikrishna, towards the creation of data protection laws in India (Srikrishna 2017)

This approach essentially involves the following steps (Cate 2006):

(i) Data controllers are required to tell individuals what data they wish to collect and use and give them a choice to share the data.
(ii) Upon sharing, the individuals have rights such as being granted access, and data controllers have obligations such as securing the data with appropriate technologies and procedures, and only using it for the purposes identified.

The objective in this approach is to make the individual empowered and allow them to weigh their own interests in exercising their consent. The allure of this paradigm is that, in one elegant stroke, it seeks to “ensure that consent is informed and free and thereby also (seeks) to implement an acceptable tradeoff between privacy and competing concerns.” (Sloan and Warner 2014). This approach is also easy to enforce for both regulators and businesses. Data collectors and processors only need to ensure that they comply with their privacy policies, and can thus reduce their liability while, theoretically, consumers have the information required to exercise choice. In recent years, however, the emergence of big data, the “Internet of Things,” and algorithmic decision-making has significantly compromised the notice and consent model (Solove 2013).

Limitations of Consent

Some cognitive problems, such as long and difficult to understand privacy notices, have always existed with regard to the issue of informed consent, but lately these problems have become aggravated. Privacy notices often come in the form of long legal documents, much to the detriment of the readers’ ability to understand them. These policies are “long, complicated, full of jargon and change frequently” (Cranor 2012).

Kent Walker (2001) lists five problems that privacy notices typically suffer from:

(i) Overkill: Long and repetitive text in small print.
(ii) Irrelevance: Describing situations of little concern to most consumers.
(iii) Opacity: Broad terms that reflect limited truth, and are unhelpful to track and control the information collected and stored.
(iv) Non-comparability: Simplification required to achieve comparability will lead to compromising of accuracy.
(v) Inflexibility: Failure to keep pace with new business models.

Today, data is collected continuously with every use of online services, making it humanly impossible to exercise meaningful consent.
The quantity of data being generated is expanding at an exponential rate. With connected devices, smartphones, appliances transmitting data about our usage, and even the smart cities themselves, data now streams constantly from almost every sector and function of daily life, “creating countless new digital puddles, lakes, tributaries and oceans of information” (Bollier 2010).

The infinitely complex nature of the data ecosystem renders consent of little value in cases where individuals may be able to read and comprehend privacy notices. As the uses of data are so diverse, and often not limited by a purpose identified at the beginning, individuals cannot conceptualise how their data will be aggregated and possibly used or reused.

Seemingly innocuous bits of data revealed at different stages could be combined to reveal sensitive information about the individual. While the regulatory framework is designed such that individuals are expected to engage in cost–benefit analysis of trading their data to avail services, this ecosystem makes such individual analysis impossible.

Conflicts Between Big Data and Individual Control

The thrust of big data technologies is that the value of data resides not in its primary purposes, but in its numerous secondary purposes, where data is reused many times over (Schoenberger and Cukier 2013).

On the other hand, the idea of privacy as control draws from the “data minimisation” principle, which requires organisations to limit the collection of personal data to the minimum extent necessary to obtain their legitimate purpose and to delete data no longer required. Control is excercised and privacy is enhanced by ensuring data minimisation. These two concepts are in direct conflict. Modern data-driven businesses want to retain as much data as possible for secondary uses. Since these secondary uses are, by their nature, unanticipated, their practices run counter to the very principle of purpose limitation (Tene and Polonetsky 2012).

It is evident from such data-sharing practices, as demonstrated by the Cambridge Analytica–Facebook story, that platform architectures are designed with a clear view to collect as much data as possible. This is amply demonstrated by the provision of a “friends permission” feature by Facebook on its platform to allow individuals to share information not just about themselves, but also about their friends. For the principle of informed consent to be meaningfully implemented, it is necessary for users to have access to information about intended data practices, purposes and usage, so they consciously share data about themselves.

In reality, however, privacy policies are more likely to serve as liability disclaimers for companies than any kind of guarantee of privacy for consumers. A case in point is Mark Zuckerberg’s facile claim that there was no “data-breach" in the Cambridge Analytica–Facebook incident. Instead of asking each of the 87 million users whether they wanted their data to be collected and shared further, Facebook designed a platform that required consent in any form only from 270,000 users. Not only were users denied the opportunity to give consent, their consent was assumed through a feature which was on by default. This is representative of how privacy trade-offs are conceived by current data-driven business models. Participation in a digital ecosystem is by itself deemed as users’ consent to relinquish control over how their data is collected, who may have access to it, and what purposes it may be used for.

Yet, Zuckerberg would have us believe that the primary privacy issue of concern is not about how his platform enabled the collection of users’ data without their explicit consent, but in the subsequent unauthorised sharing of the data by Kogan. Zuckerberg’s insistence that collection of data of people without their consent is not a data breach is reminiscent of the UIDAI’s recent claims in India that publication of Aadhaar numbers and related information by several government websites is not a data breach, so long as its central biometric database in secure (Sharma 2018). In such cases also, the intended architecture ensured the seeding of other databases with Aadhaar numbers, thus creating multiple potential points of failure through disclosure. Similarly, the design flaws in direct benefit transfers enabled Airtel to create payments bank accounts with the customers’ knowledge (Hindu Business Line 2017). Such claims clearly suggest the very limited responsibility data controllers (both public and private) are willing to take for personal data that they collect, while wilfully facilitating and encouraging data practices which may lead to greater risk to data.

On this note, it is also relevant to point out that the Srikrishna committee white paper begins with identifying informational privacy and data innovation as its two key objectives. It states that “a firm legal framework for data protection is the foundation on which data-driven innovation and entrepreneurship can flourish in India.”

Conversations around privacy and data have become inevitably linked to the idea of technological innovation as a competing interest. Before engaging in such conversations, it is important to acknowledge that the value of innovation as a competing interest itself is questionable. It is not a competing right, nor a legitimate public interest endeavour, nor a proven social good.

The idea that in policymaking, technological innovations may compete with privacy of individuals assumes that there is social and/or economic good in allowing unrestricted access to data. The social argument is premised on the promises of mathematical models and computational capacity being capable of identifying key insights from data. In turn, these insights may be useful in public and private decision-making. However, it must be remembered that data is potentially a toxic asset, if it is not collected, processed, secured and shared in the appropriate way. Sufficient research suggests that indiscriminate data collection is greatly increasing the ratio of noise to signal, and can lead to erroneous insights. Further, the greater the amount of data you collect, the greater is the attack surface that leads to cybersecurity risks. Further, incidents such as Facebook–Cambridge Analytica demonstrate that toxicity of data in various ways and underscores the need for data regulation at every stage of the data lifecycle (Scheiner 2016). These are important tempering factors that need to be kept in mind while evaluating data innovation as a key mover of policy or regulation.

Privacy as Social Good

As long as privacy is framed as arising primarily from individual control, data controllers will continue to engage in practices that compromise the ability to exercise choice. There is a need to view privacy as a social good, and policymaking should ensure its preservation and enhancement. Contractual protections and legal sanctions can themselves do little if platform architectures are designed to do the exact opposite.

More importantly, policymaking needs to recognise privacy not merely as an individual right, available for individuals to forego when engaging with data-driven business models, but also as a social good. The recognition of something as a social good deems it desirable by definition, and a legitimate goal of law and policy, rather than rely completely on market forces for its achievement.

The Puttaswamy judgment (K Puttaswamy v Union of India 2017) lends sufficient weight to privacy’s social value by identifying it as fundamental to any individual development through its dependence on solitude, anonymity, and temporary releases from social duties.

Sociological scholarship demonstrates that different types of social relationships, be it Gesellschaft (interest groups and acquaintances) or Gemeinschaft (friendship, love, and marriage), and the nature of these relationships depend on the ability to conceal certain things (Simmel 1906). Demonstrating this in the context of friendships, it has been stated that such relationships “present a very peculiar synthesis in regard to the question of discretion, of reciprocal revelation and concealment.” Friendships, much like most other social relationships, are very much dependent on our ability to selectively present ourselves to others. Contrast this with Zuckerberg’s stated aim of making the world more “open” where information about people flows freely and effectively without any individual control. Contrast this also with government projects such as the Aadhaar which intends to act as one universal identity which can provide a 360-degree view of citizens.

Other scholars such as Julie Cohen (2012) and Anita Allen (2011) have demonstrated that data that a person produces or has control over concerns both herself and others. Individuals can be exposed not only because of their own actions and choices, but also made vulnerable merely because others have been careless with their data. This point is amply demonstrated in the Facebook–Cambridge Analytica incident. What this means is that protection of privacy requires not just individual action, but in a sense, requires group co-ordination. It is my argument that this group interest of privacy as a social good must be the basis of policymaking and regulation of data in the future, in addition to the idea of privacy as an individual right. In the absence of attention to the social good aspect of privacy, individual consumers are left to their own devices to negotiate their privacy trade-offs with large companies and governments and are significantly compromised.

What this translates into is a regulatory framework and data protection frameworks should not be value-neutral in their conception of privacy as a facet of individual control. The complete reliance of data regulation on the data subject to make an informed choice is, in my opinion, an idea that has run its course. If privacy is viewed as a social good, then the data protection framework, including the laws and the architecture must be designed with a view to protect it, rather than leave it entirely to the market forces.

The Way Forward

Data protection laws need to be re-evaluated, and policymakers must recognise Lawrence Lessig’s dictum that “code is law.” Like laws, architecture and norms can play a fundamental role in regulation. Regulatory intervention for technology need not mean regulation of technology only, but also how technology itself may be leveraged for regulation (Lessig 2006; Reidenberg 1998). It is key that the latter is not left only in the hands of private players.
Zuckerberg, in his testimony (Washington Post 2018) before the United States Senate's Commerce and Judiciary committees, asserted that "AI tools" are central to any strategy for addressing hate speech, fake news, and manipulations that use data ecosystems for targeting.

What is most concerning in his testimony is the complete lack of mention of standards, public scrutiny and peer-review processes, which “AI tools” and regulatory technologies need to be subject to. Further, it cannot be expected that data-driven businesses will view privacy as a social good or be publicly accountable.

As policymakers in India gear up for writing the country’s data protection law, they must acknowledge that their responsibility extends to creating norms and principles that will inform future data-driven platforms and regulatory technologies.

Since issues of privacy and data protection will have to be increasingly addressed at the level of how architectures enable data collection, and more importantly how data is used after collection, policymakers must recognise that being neutral about these practices is no longer enough. They must take normative positions on data collection, processing and sharing practices. These positions cannot be implemented through laws only, but need to be translated into technological solutions and norms. Unless a multipronged approach comprising laws, architecture and norms is adopted, India’s new data protection regime may end up with limited efficacy.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/epw-amber-sinha-may-18-2018-for-indias-data-protection-regime-to-be-efficient-policymakers-should-treat-privacy-as-a-social-good

India's cyber cafes going porn-free

praskrishna — 2011-05-06T04:53:41Z

Pornography fans in India who like to indulge in the sexual eye candy at public cyber cafes may be in for a forced intervention as a new government ruling bans porn websites, requires cafe owners to keep a one-year log of all sites accessed by customers and forces customers to produce an ID card prior to use. This news was published on msnbc.com on April 28, 2011.

These new guidelines, which were released April 11, are getting a lot of pushback from privacy advocates in India, who cite the legality of watching porn in the country.

"Watching pornography is not illegal in India," Pawan Duggal, a lawyer who specializes in IT laws, told The Times of India."It's absurd to ask cyber cafe owners to tell their customers not to access pornographic material even as law allows individuals to access adult websites unless it's not child pornography. The new rules require a second look."

The "Information Technology (Guidelines for Cyber Cafe) Rules, 2011" imposed by the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology (aka the Department of Information Technology) have several requirements, all of which have met with more questions and concerns over the impact on everyone who accesses the Internet through the cafes, not just porn watchers. Here are the notable issues that show some Big Brother tendencies:

Cyber cafe owners must register with an unnamed agency for licenses for their establishments.

Cyber cafe users must produce a legally valid form of identification prior to using a computer, such as school ID, passport, driver's license and voter ID card. Children without ID must be accompanied by an adult with acceptable identification documents.
If the cyber cafe user isn't able to produce legit ID, then they may be photographed through a webcam.
Refusal to produce identification or to be photographed will result in the user not being allowed to use a computer at the cyber cafe.
"All the computers in the cyber café shall be equipped with the safety/filtering software so as to the avoid access to the websites relating to pornography, obscenity, terrorism and other objectionable materials."
Webcam photos will be part of the log cyber cafe owners need to maintain for a minimum of one year, either in print or online. Cyber cafe owners will also be required to submit monthly reports to the Ministry's overseeing agency that give details about computer use, including: "History of websites accessed, logs of proxy server installed at the the cafe, mail server logs, logs of network devices such as routers, switches, systems etc. installed at the cyber cafe and logs of firewall or Intrusion Prevention/Detection systems, if installed."
Finally, the guidelines bring down barriers between users by disallowing partitions of more than 4.5 feet at computer stations. Children are not to be allowed to use the computers unsupervised.

Duggal told The Times that he thought these rules may very well force cafe owners out of business.

Non-profit watchdog Privacy India has these guidelines square in its sights, protesting: the redundancy of the licensing process (cyber cafes are already subject to registration and licensing), how the guidelines may make cafe owners vulnerable to liability for the actions of their users and blocking internet access to children from "poorer classes, (since they are most likely to routinely access internet through cyber cafes) and denies them the opportunity of developing their computer skills which are crucial for the growth of the “knowledge economy” that India is trying to head towards."

Naturally, privacy is the issue that most concerns the group, which would insist on a purge of the logs after "the minimum retention period." Here's what they have to say about kids and their right to privacy:

In addition, we believe that children are more susceptible to exploitation and consequently have a heightened privacy expectation which must be honoured. We recommend that the current sub-rule be deleted and replaced with a clause which specifically exempts children from proving their identity and forbids taking photographs of them under any circumstance.

And why adults need it, too:

There are many uses of the internet for which a user may legitimately require privacy: For instance, patients, including HIV patients and those with mental illness, may wish to obtain information about their condition. Similarly sexuality minorities may wish to seek support or reach out to a larger community. Enforcing the architecture stipulated in this rule would discourage their access to such vital information. In addition, this architecturewould make it easier for cyber crimes such as identity theft to take place since it would be easier to observe the login details of other users at the cyber café.

The group is also not a fan of all the info that cyber cafes will be sitting on. "We further believe that access to the history of websites and mail server logs is a serious invasion of a person’s privacy, and should be omitted from the back up logs."

As if all those new guidelines weren't already cramping the carefree surfing experience, cyber cafes will also be subject to periodic visits by police inspectors who will have the power to demand all logs and check for compliance.

Read the original here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/cyber-cafes-porn-free

India's Contribution to Internet Governance Debates

Sunil Abraham, Mukta Batra, Geetha Hariharan, Swaraj Barooah and Akriti Bopanna — 2018-08-16T15:38:02Z

India's Contribution to Internet Governance Debates", an article by Sunil Abraham, Mukta Batra, Geetha Hariharan, Swaraj Barooah and Akriti Bopanna, was recently published in the NLUD Student Law Journal, an annual peer-reviewed journal published by the National Law University, Delhi.

Abstract

India is the leader that championed ‘access to knowledge’ and ‘access to medicine’. However, India holds seemingly conflicting views on the future of the Internet, and how it will be governed. India’s stance is evolving and is distinct from that of authoritarian states who do not care for equal footing and multi-stakeholderism.

Introduction

Despite John Perry Barlow’s defiant and idealistic Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace1 in 1996, debates about governing the Internet have been alive since the late 1990s. The tug-of-war over its governance continues to bubble among states, businesses, techies, civil society and users. These stakeholders have wondered who should govern the Internet or parts of it: Should it be the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)? The International Telecommunications Union (ITU)? The offspring of the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS) - the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) or Enhanced Cooperation (EC) under the UN? Underlying this debate has been the role and power of each stakeholder at the decision-making table.States in both the global North and South have taken various positions on this issue.

Whether all stakeholders ought to have an equal say in governing the unique structure of the Internet or do states have sovereign public policy authority? India has, in the past, subscribed to the latter view. For instance, at WSIS in 2003, through Arun Shourie, then India’s Minister for Information Technology, India supported the move ‘requesting the Secretary General to set up a Working Group to think through issues concerning Internet Governance,’ offering him ‘considerable experience in this regard... [and] contribute in whatever way the Secretary General deems appropriate’. The United States (US), United Kingdom (UK) and New Zealand have expressed their support for ‘equal footing multi-stakeholderism’ and Australia subscribes to the status quo.

India’s position has been much followed, discussed and criticised. In this article, we trace and summarise India’s participation in the IGF, UN General Assembly (‘UNGA’), ITU and the NETmundial conference (April 2014) as a representative sample of Internet governance fora. In these fora, India has been represented by one of three arms of its government: the Department of Electronics and Information Technology (DeitY), the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) and the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA). The DeitY was converted to a full-fledged ministry in 2016 known as the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY). DeitY and DoT were part of the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology (MCIT) until 2016 when it was bifurcated into the Ministry of Communications and MeitY.

DeitY used to be and DoT still is, within the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology (MCIT) in India. Though India has been acknowledged globally for championing ‘access to knowledge’ and ‘access to medicine’ at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and World Trade Organization (WTO), global civil society and other stakeholders have criticised India’s behaviour in Internet governance for reasons such as lack of continuity and coherence and for holding policy positions overlapping with those of authoritarian states.

We argue that even though confusion about the Indian position arises from a multiplicity of views held within the Indian government, India’s position, in totality, is distinct from those of authoritarian states. Since criticism of the Indian government became more strident in 2011, after India introduced a proposal at the UNGA for a UN Committee on Internet-related Policies (CIRP) comprising states as members, we will begin to trace India's position chronologically from that point onwards.

Download the paper published in NLUD Student Law Journal here
For a timeline of the events described in the article click here
Read the paper published by NLUD Student Law Journal on their website

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/nlud-student-law-journal-sunil-abraham-mukta-batra-geetha-hariharan-swaraj-barooah-and-akriti-bopanna-indias-contribution-to-internet-governance-debates

India's centralised snooping system facing big delays

praskrishna — 2013-07-15T06:35:05Z

Central Monitoring System lacks algorithms, database and data.

This blog post by Phil Muncaster was published in "The Register, UK" on July 9, 2013. The Centre for Internet & Society is mentioned.

After recent revelations about governments snooping on their own citizens, it's nice to know that not every such effort is going smoothly, as India’s much criticised NSA-style Centralised Monitoring System (CMS) is facing big delays after it emerged that the project is still missing the vital software which will allow analysts to search comms data.

The nation's Department of Telecommunications has now told the Center for Development of Telematics (C-DoT), which is installing the system, to speed things up, according to official documents seen by the Wall Street Journal.

The Rs.4 billion (£47.8m) CMS was originally conceived as a way of allowing the authorities to lawfully intercept voice calls and texts, emails, social media and the geographical location of individuals.

However, the Intelligence Bureau, which will be manning the system, has delayed its introduction for several reasons.

Firstly, mobile operators in only seven of the sub-continent’s 22 service areas have been connected to the CMS, leaving holes in its reach.

There’s also a major issue in that the system currently lacks the search algorithms needed to identify specific documents, meaning that as it stands operatives would have to search every email in the CMS to find the one they’re looking for.

The datacentre where intercepted data is to be stored is also apparently not yet ready, while the country’s Central Bureau of Investigation has yet to be given access to the system, causing further delays.

At a time when mass government monitoring of communications networks is a hot topic around the world thanks to Edward Snowden’s NSA revelations, rights groups have roundly slammed India’s CMS plans.

Human Rights Watch branded the scheme “chilling” in a strongly worded response, while India’s Centre for Internet and Society warned that the country currently doesn’t have privacy laws which could protect individuals from potential abuse of the system.

A Stop ICMS campaign has also been launched online in an attempt to mobilise opposition to the plans.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/theregister-uk-phil-muncaster-july-9-2013-indias-centralised-snooping-system-facing-big-delays

India's Central Monitoring System (CMS): Something to Worry About?

maria — 2014-02-22T13:50:37Z

In this article, Maria Xynou presents new information about India's controversial Central Monitoring System (CMS) based on official documents which were shared with the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS). Read this article and gain an insight on how the CMS actually works!

The idea of a Panoptikon, of monitoring all communications in India and centrally storing such data is not new. It was first envisioned in 2009, following the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks. As such, the Central Monitoring System (CMS) started off as a project run by the Centre for Communication Security Research and Monitoring (CCSRM), along with the Telecom Testing and Security Certification (TTSC) project.

The Central Monitoring System (CMS), which was largely covered by the media in 2013, was actually approved by the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) on 16th June 2011 and the pilot project was completed by 30th September 2011. Ever since, the CMS has been operated by India's Telecom Enforcement Resource and Monitoring (TERM) cells, and has been implemented by the Centre for Development of Telematics (C-DOT), which is an Indian Government owned telecommunications technology development centre. The CMS has been implemented in three phases, each one taking about 13-14 months. As of June 2013, government funding of the CMS has reached at least Rs. 450 crore (around $72 million).

In order to require Telecom Service Providers (TSPs) to intercept all telecommunications in India as part of the CMS, clause 41.10 of the Unified Access Services (UAS) License Agreement was amended in June 2013. In particular, the amended clause includes the following:

“But, in case of Centralized Monitoring System (CMS), Licensee shall provide the connectivity upto the nearest point of presence of MPLS (Multi Protocol Label Switching) network of the CMS at its own cost in the form of dark fibre with redundancy. If dark fibre connectivity is not readily available, the connectivity may be extended in the form of 10 Mbps bandwidth upgradeable upto 45 Mbps or higher as conveyed by the Governemnt, till such time the dark fibre connectivity is established. However, LICENSEE shall endeavor to establish connectivity by dark optical fibre at the earilest. From the point of presence of MPLS network of CMS onwards traffic will be handled by the Government at its own cost.”

Furthermore, draft Rule 419B under Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, allows for the disclosure of “message related information” / Call Data Records (CDR) to Indian authorities. Call Data Records, otherwise known as Call Detail Records, contain metadata (data about data) that describe a telecomunication transaction, but not the content of that transaction. In other words, Call Data Records include data such as the phone numbers of the calling and called parties, the duration of the call, the time and date of the call, and other such information, while excluding the content of what was said during such calls. According to draft Rule 419B, directions for the disclosure of Call Data Records can only be issued on a national level through orders by the Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs, while on the state level, orders can only be issued by the Secretary to the State Government in charge of the Home Department.

Other than this draft Rule and the amendment to clause 41.10 of the UAS License Agreement, no law exists which mandates or regulates the Central Monitoring System (CMS). This mass surveillance system is merely regulated under Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, which empowers the Indian Government to intercept communications on the occurence of any “public emergency” or in the interest of “public safety”, when it is deemed “necessary or expedient” to do so in the following instances:

the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India
the security of the State
friendly relations with foreign states
public order
for preventing incitement to the commission of an offense

However, Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, appears to be rather broad and vague, and fails to explicitly regulate the details of how the Central Monitoring System (CMS) should function. As such, the CMS appears to be inadequately regulated, which raises many questions with regards to its potential misuse and subsequent violation of Indian's right to privacy and other human rights.

So how does the Central Monitoring System (CMS) actually work?

We have known for quite a while now that the Central Monitoring System (CMS) gives India's security agencies and income tax officials centralized access to the country's telecommunications network. The question, though, is how.

Well, prior to the CMS, all service providers in India were required to have Lawful Interception Systems installed at their premises in order to carry out targeted surveillance of individuals by monitoring communications running through their networks. Now, in the CMS era, all TSPs in India are required to integrate Interception Store & Forward (ISF) servers with their pre-existing Lawful Interception Systems. Once ISF servers are installed in the premises of TSPs in India and integrated with Lawful Interception Systems, they are then connected to the Regional Monitoring Centres (RMC) of the CMS. Each Regional Monitoring Centre (RMC) in India is connected to the Central Monitoring System (CMS). In short, the CMS involves the collection and storage of data intercepted by TSPs in central and regional databases.

In other words, all data intercepted by TSPs is automatically transmitted to Regional Monitoring Centres, and subsequently automatically transmitted to the Central Monitoring System. This means that not only can the CMS authority have centralized access to all data intercepted by TSPs all over India, but that the authority can also bypass service providers in gaining such access. This is due to the fact that, unlike in the case of so-called “lawful interception” where the nodal officers of TSPs are notified about interception requests, the CMS allows for data to be automatically transmitted to its datacentre, without the involvement of TSPs.

The above is illustrated in the following chart:

The interface testing of TSPs and their Lawful Interception Systems has already been completed and, as of June 2013, 70 ISF servers have been purchased for six License Service Areas and are being integrated with the Lawful Interception Systems of TSPs. The Centre for Development of Telematics has already fully installed and integrated two ISF servers in the premises of two of India's largest service providers: MTNL and Tata Communications Limited. In Delhi, ISF servers which connect with the CMS have been installed for all TSPs and testing has been completed. In Haryana, three ISF servers have already been installed in the premises of TSPs and the rest of currently being installed. In Chennai, five ISF servers have been installed so far, while in Karnataka, ISF servers are currently being integrated with the Lawful Interception Systems of the TSPs in the region.

The Centre for Development of Telematics plans to integrate ISF servers which connect with the CMS in the premises of service providers in the following regions:

Delhi
Maharashtra
Kolkata
Uttar Pradesh (West)
Andhra Pradesh
Uttar Pradesh (East)
Kerala
Gujarat
Madhya Pradesh
Punjab
Haryana

With regards to the UAS License Agreement that TSPs are required to comply with, amended clause 41.10 specifies certain details about how the CMS functions. In particular, the amended clause mandates that TSPs in India will provide connectivity upto the nearest point of presence of MPLS (Multi Protocol Label Switching) network of the CMS at their own cost and in the form of dark optical fibre. From the MPLS network of the CMS onwards, traffic will be handled by the Government at its own cost. It is noteworthy that a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for MPLS connectivity has been signed with one of India's largest ISPs/TSPs: BSNL. In fact, Rs. 4.8 crore have been given to BSNL for interconnecting 81 CMS locations of the following License Service Areas:

Delhi
Mumbai
Haryana
Rajasthan
Kolkata
Karnataka
Chennai
Punjab

Clause 41.10 of the UAS License Agreement also mandates that the hardware and software required for monitoring calls will be engineered, provided, installed and maintained by the TSPs at their own cost. This implies that TSP customers in India will likely have to pay for more expensive services, supposedly to “increase their safety”. Moreover, this clause mandates that TSPs are required to monitor at least 30 simultaneous calls for each of the nine designated law enforcement agencies. In addition to monitored calls, clause 41.10 of the UAS License Agreement also requires service providers to make the following records available to Indian law enforcement agencies:

Called/calling party mobile/PSTN numbers
Time/date and duration of interception
Location of target subscribers (Cell ID & GPS)
Data records for failed call attempts
CDR (Call Data Records) of Roaming Subscriber
Forwarded telephone numbers by target subscriber

Interception requests from law enforcement agencies are provisioned by the CMS authority, which has access to the intercepted data by all TSPs in India and which is stored in a central database. As of June 2013, 80% of the CMS Physical Data Centre has been built so far.

In short, the CMS replaces the existing manual system of interception and monitoring to an automated system, which is operated by TERM cells and implemented by the Centre for Development of Telematics. Training has been imparted to the following law enforcement agencies:

Intelligence Bureau (IB)
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI)
Research & Analysis Wing (RAW)
National Investigation Agency (NIA)
Delhi Police

And should we even be worried about the Central Monitoring System?

Well, according to the brief material for the Honourable MOC and IT Press Briefing on 16th July 2013, we should not be worried about the Central Monitoring System. Over the last year, media reports have expressed fear that the Central Monitoring System will infringe upon citizen's right to privacy and other human rights. However, Indian authorities have argued that the Central Monitoring System will better protect the privacy of individuals and maintain their security due to the following reasons:

The CMS will just automate the existing process of interception and monitoring, and all the existing safeguards will continue to exist
The interception and monitoring of communications will continue to be in accordance with Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, read with Rule 419A
The CMS will enhance the privacy of citizens, because it will no longer be necessary to take authorisation from the nodal officer of the Telecom Service Providers (TSPs) – who comes to know whose and which phone is being intercepted
The CMS authority will provision the interception requests from law enforcement agencies and hence, a complete check and balance will be ensured, since the provisioning entity and the requesting entity will be different and the CMS authority will not have access to content data
A non-erasable command log of all provisioning activities will be maintained by the system, which can be examined anytime for misuse and which provides an additional safeguard

While some of these arguments may potentially allow for better protections, I personally fundamentally disagree with the notion that a centralised monitoring system is something not to worry about. But let's start-off by having a look at the above arguments.

The first argument appears to imply that the pre-existing process of interception and monitoring was privacy-friendly or at least “a good thing” and that existing safeguards are adequate. As such, it is emphasised that the process of interception and monitoring will “just” be automated, while posing no real threat. I fundamentally disagree with this argument due to several reasons. First of all, the pre-existing regime of interception and monitoring appears to be rather problematic because India lacks privacy legislation which could safeguard citizens from potential abuse. Secondly, the very interception which is enabled through various sections of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, and the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, potentially infringe upon individual's right to privacy and other human rights.

May I remind you of Section 69 of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, which allows for the interception of all information transmitted through a computer resource and which requires users to assist authorities with the decryption of their data, if they are asked to do so, or face a jail sentence of up to seven years. The debate on the constitutionality of the various sections of the law which allow for the interception of communications in India is still unsettled, which means that the pre-existing interception and monitoring of communications remains an ambiguous matter. And so, while the interception of communications in general is rather concerning due to dracodian sections of the law and due to the absence of privacy legislation, automating the process of interception does not appear reassuring at all. On the contrary, it seems like something in the lines of: “We have already been spying on you. Now we will just be doing it quicker and more efficiently.”

The second argument appears inadequate too. Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, states that the interception of communications can be carried out on the occurence of a “public emergency” or in the interest of “public safety” when it is deemed “necessary or expedient” to do so under certain conditions which were previously mentioned. However, this section of the law does not mandate the establishment of the Central Monitoring System, nor does it regulate how and under what conditions this surveillance system will function. On the contrary, Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, clearly mandates targeted surveillance, while the Central Monitoring System could potentially undertake mass surveillance. Since the process of interception is automated and, under clause 41.16 of the Unified License (Access Services) Agreement, service providers are required to provision at least 3,000 calls for monitoring to nine law enforcement agencies, it is likely that the CMS undertakes mass surveillance. Thus, it is unclear if the very nature of the CMS falls under Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, which mandates targeted surveillance, nor is it clear that such surveillance is being carried out on the occurence of a specific “public emergency” or in the interest of “public safety”. As such, the vagueness revolving around the question of whether the CMS undertakes targeted or mass surveillance means that its legality remains an equivocal matter.

As for the third argument, it is not clear how bypassing the nodal officers of TSPs will enhance citizen's right to privacy. While it may potentially be a good thing that nodal officers will not always be aware of whose information is being intercepted, that does not guarantee that those who do have access to such data will not abuse it. After all, the CMS appears to be largely unregulated and India lacks privacy legislation and all other adequate legal safeguards. Moreover, by bypassing the nodal officers of TSPs, the opportunity for unauthorised requests to be rejected will seize to exist. It also implies an increased centralisation of intercepted data which can potentially create a centralised point for cyber attacks. Thus, the argument that the CMS authority will monopolise the control over intercepted data does not appear reassuring at all. After all, who will watch the watchmen?

While the fourth argument makes a point about differentiating the provisioning and requesting entities with regards to interception requests, it does not necessarily ensure a complete check and balance, nor does it completely eliminate the potential for abuse. The CMS lacks adequate legal backing, as well as a framework which would ensure that unauthorised requests are not provisioned. Thus, the recommended chain of custody of issuing interception requests does not necessarily guarantee privacy protections, especially since a legal mechanism for ensuring checks and balances is not in place.

Furthermore, this argument states that the CMS authority will not have access to content data, but does not specify if it will have access to metadata. What's concerning is that metadata can potentially be more useful for tracking individuals than content data, since it is ideally suited to automated analysis by a computer and, unlike content data which shows what an individuals says (which may or may not be true), metadata shows what an individual does. As such, metadata can potentially be more “harmful” than content data, since it can potentially provide concrete patterns of an individual's interests, behaviour and interactions. Thus, the fact that the CMS authority might potentially have access to metadata appears to tackle the argument that the provisioning and requesting entities will be seperate and therefore protect individual's privacy.

The final argument appears to provide some promise, since the maintenance of a command log of all provisioning activities could potentially ensure some transparency. However, it remains unclear who will maintain such a log, who will have access to it, who will be responsible for ensuring that unlawful requests have not been provisioned and what penalties will be enforced in cases of breaches. Without an independent body to oversee the process and without laws which predefine strict penalties for instances of misuse, maintaining a command log does not necessarily safeguard anything at all. In short, the above arguments in favour of the CMS and which support the notion that it enhances individual's right to privacy appear to be inadequate, to say the least.

In contemporary democracies, most people would agree that freedom is a fundamental human right. The right to privacy should be equally fundamental, since it protects individuals from abuse by those in power and is integral in ensuring individual liberty. India may literally be the largest democracy in the world, but it lacks privacy legislation which establishes the right to privacy, which guarantees data protection and which safeguards individuals from the potentially unlawful interception of their communications. And as if that is not enough, India is also carrying out a surveillance scheme which is largely unregulated. As such, it is highly recommended that India establishes a privacy law now.

If we do the math, here is what we have: a country with extremely high levels of corruption, no privacy law and an unregulated surveillance scheme which lacks public and parliamentary debate prior to its implementation. All of this makes it almost impossible to believe that we are talking about a democracy, let alone the world's largest (by population) democracy! Therefore, if Indian authorities are interested in preserving the democratic regime they claim to be a part of, I think it would be highly necessary to halt the Central Monitoring System and to engage the public and the parliament in a debate about it.

After all, along with our right to privacy, freedom of expression and other human rights...our right to freedom from suspicion appears to be at stake.

How can we not be worried about the Central Monitoring System?

The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) is in possession of the documents which include the information on the Central Monitoring System (CMS) as analysed in this article, as well as of the draft Rule 419B under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/india-central-monitoring-system-something-to-worry-about

India's Broken Internet Laws Need a Shot of Multi-stakeholderism

pranesh — 2012-04-26T13:45:25Z

Cyber-laws in India are severely flawed, with neither lawyers nor technologists being able to understand them, and the Cyber-Law Group in DEIT being incapable of framing fair, just, and informed laws and policies. Pranesh Prakash suggests they learn from the DEIT's Internet Governance Division, and Brazil, and adopt multi-stakeholderism as a core principle of Internet policy-making.

(An edited version of this article was published in the Indian Express as "Practise what you preach" on Thursday, April 26, 2012.)

The laws in India relating to the Internet are greatly flawed, and the only way to fix them would be to fix the way they are made. The Cyber-Laws & E-Security Group in the Department of Electronics and Information Technology (DEIT, who refer to themselves as 'DeitY' on their website!) has proven itself incapable of making fair, balanced, just, and informed laws and policies. The Information Technology (IT) Act is filled with provisions that neither lawyers nor technologists understand (not to mention judges). (The definition of "computer source code" in s.65 of the IT Act is a great example of that.)

The Rules drafted under s.43A of the IT Act (on 'reasonable security practices' to be followed by corporations) were so badly formulated that the government was forced to issue a clarification through a press release, even though the clarification was in reality an amendment and amendments cannot be carried out through press releases. Despite the clarification, it is unclear to IT lawyers whether the Rules are mandatory or not, since s.43A (i.e., the parent provision) seems to suggest that it is sufficient if the parties enter into an agreement specifying reasonable security practices and procedures. Similarly, the "Intermediary Guidelines" Rules (better referred to as the Internet Censorship Rules) drafted under s.79 of the Act have been called "arbitrary and unconstitutional" by many, including MP P. Rajeev, who has introduced a motion in the Rajya Sabha to repeal the Rules ("Caught in a net", Indian Express, April 24, 2012). These Rules give the power of censorship to every citizen and allow them to remove any kind of material off the Internet within 36 hours without anybody finding out. Last year, we at the Centre for Internet and Society used this law to get thousands of innocuous links removed from four major search engines without any public notice. In none of the cases (including one where an online news website removed more material than the perfectly legal material we had complained about) were the content-owners notified about our complaint, much less given a chance to defend themselves.

Laws framed by the Cyber-Law Group are so poorly drafted that they are misused more often than used. There are too many criminal provisions in the IT Act, and their penalties are greatly more than that of comparable crimes in the IPC. Section 66A of the IT Act, which criminalizes "causing annoyance or inconvenience" electronically, has a penalty of 3 years (greater than that for causing death by negligence), and does not require a warrant for arrest. This section has been used in the Mamata Banerjee cartoon case, for arresting M. Karthik, a Hyderabad-based student who made atheistic statements on Facebook, and against former Karnataka Lokayukta Santosh Hegde. Section 66A, I believe, imperils freedom of speech more than is allowable under Art. 19(2) of the Constitution, and is hence unconstitutional.

While s.5 of the Telegraph Act only allows interception of telephone conversations on the occurrence of a public emergency, or in the interest of the public safety, the IT Act does not have any such threshold conditions, and greatly broadens the State's interception abilities. Section 69 allows the government to force a person to decrypt information, and might clash with Art.20(3) of the Constitution, which provides a right against self-incrimination. One can't find any publicly-available governmental which suggests that the constitutionality of provisions such as s.66A or s.69 was examined.

Omissions by the Cyber-Law Group are also numerous. The Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In) has been granted very broad functions under the IT Act, but without any clarity on the extent of its powers. Some have been concerned, for instance, that the broad power granted to CERT-In to "give directions" relating to "emergency measures for handling cyber security incidents" includes the powers of an "Internet kill switch" of the kind that Egypt exercised in January 2011. Yet, they have failed to frame Rules for the functioning of CERT-In. The licences that the Department of Telecom enters into with Internet Service Providers requires them to restrict usage of encryption by individuals, groups or organisations to a key length of only 40 bits in symmetric key algorithms (i.e., weak encryption). The RBI mandates a minimum of 128-bit SSL encryption for all bank transactions. Rules framed by the DEIT under s.84A of the IT Act were to resolve this conflict, but those Rules haven't yet been framed.

All of this paints a very sorry picture. Section 88 of the IT Act requires the government, "soon after the commencement of the Act", to form a "Cyber Regulations Advisory Committee" consisting of "the interests principally affected or having special knowledge of the subject-matter" to advise the government on the framing of Rules, or for any other purpose connected with the IT Act. This body still has not been formed, despite the lag of more than two and a half years since the IT Act came into force. Justice Markandey Katju’s recent letter to Ambika Soni about social media and defamation should ideally have been addressed to this body.

The only way out of this quagmire is to practise at home that which we preach abroad on matters of Internet governance: multi-stakeholderism. Multi-stakeholderism refers to the need to recognize that when it comes to Internet governance there are multiple stakeholders: government, industry, academia, and civil society, and not just the governments of the world. This idea has gained prominence since it was placed at the core of the "Declaration of Principles" from the first World Summit on Information Society in Geneva in 2003, and has also been at the heart of India's pronouncements at forums like the Internet Governance Forum. Brazil has an "Internet Steering Committee" which is an excellent model that practices multi-stakeholderism as a means of framing and working national Internet-related policies. DEIT's Internet Governance Division, which formulates India's international stance on Internet governance, has long recognized that governance of the Internet must be done in an open and collaborative manner. It is time the DEIT's Cyber-Law and E-Security Group, which formulates our national stance on Internet governance, realizes the same.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/india-broken-internet-law-multistakeholderism

India's Biometric Identification Programs and Privacy Concerns

divij — 2016-07-21T10:51:42Z

The invasiveness of individual identification coupled with the fallibility of managing big data which biometric identification presents poses a huge risk to individual privacy in India.

Divij Joshi is a 2nd year at NLS. He is interning with the Centre for Internet and Society for the privacy project. This research was undertaken as part of the 'SAFEGUARDS' project that CIS is undertaking with Privacy International and IDRC.

Introduction

Biometric technology looks to be the way ahead for the Indian government in its initiatives towards identification. From the Unique Identity Scheme (Aadhaar) to the National Population Register and now to Election ID’s, [1] biometric identification seems to have become the government’s new go-to solution for all kinds of problems. Biometrics prove to be an obvious choice in individual identification schemes – it’s easiest to identify different individuals by their faces and fingerprints, unique and integral aspects of individuals – yet, the unflinching optimism in the use of biometric technology and the collection of biometric data on a massive scale masks several concerns regarding compromises of individual privacy.

‘Big Data’ and Privacy Issues

Biometric data is going to be collected under several existing and proposed identification schemes of the government, from the Centralized Identities Data Register of the UID to the draft DNA Profiling Bill which seeks to improve criminal forensics and identification. With the completion of the biometric profiling under the UID, the Indian government will have the largest database of personal biometric data in the world. [3] With plans for the UID to be used for several different purposes — as a ration card, for opening a banking account, for social security and healthcare and several new proposed uses emerging everyday,[1] the creation of ‘Big Data’ becomes possible. ‘Big Data’ is characterized by the volume of information that is produced, the velocity by which data is produced, the variety of data produced and the ability to draw new conclusions from an analysis of the data.[2] The UID will generate “Big Data” as it is envisioned that the number will be used in every transaction for any platform that adopts it — for all of the 1.2 billion citizens of India. In this way the UID is different any other identity scheme in India, where the identifier is used for a specific purpose at a specific point of time, by a specific platform, and generates data only in connection to that service. Though the creation of “Big Data” through the UID could be beneficial through analysing data trends to target improved services, for example, at the same time it can be problematic in case of a compromise or breach, or if generated information is analyzed to draw new and unintended conclusions about individuals without their consent, and using information for purposes the individuals did not mean for it to be used.

Biometric ID and Theft of Private Data

The government has touted identification schemes such as the UID and NPR as a tool to tackle rural poverty, illegal immigration and national security issues and with this as the premise, the concerns about privacy seem to have been left in the lurch. The optimism driving the programmes also means that its potential fallibility is often overlooked in the process. Biometric technology has been proven time and again to be just as easily jeopardized as any other and the threat of biometric identity theft is as real and common as something like credit card fraud, with fingerprints and iris scans being easily capable of replication and theft without the individual owners consent. [2] In fact, compromise or theft of biometric identity data presents an even greater difficulty than other forms of ID because of the fact that it is unique and intrinsic, and hence, once lost cannot be re-issued or reclaimed like traditional identification like a PIN, leaving the individual victim with no alternative system for identification or authentication. This would also defeat the entire purpose behind any authentication and identification schemes. With the amount of personal data that the government plans to store in databases using biometrics, and without adequate safeguards which can be publicly scrutinized, using this technology would be a premature and unsafe move.

Biometric data and Potential Misuse

Centralised data storage is problematic not only for the issues with data compromise and identity theft, but the problems of potential third-party misuse in the absence of an adequate legal framework for protecting such personal data, and proper technical safeguards for the same, as has been pointed out by the Standing Committee on Finance in its report on the UIDAI project.[4] The threat to privacy which these massive centralized databases pose has led to the shelving of similar programmes in England as well as France. [4] Further, concerns have been voiced about data sharing and access to the information contained in the biometric database. The biometric database is to be managed by several contracting companies based in the US. These same companies have legal obligations to share any data with the US government and Homeland Security. [5]

A second, growing concern over biometric identification schemes is over the use of biometrics for state surveillance purposes. While the UID’s chief concern on paper has been development, poverty, and corruption alleviation, there is no defined law or mandate which restricts the number from being used for other purposes, hence giving rise to concerns of a function creep - a shift in the use of the UID from its original intended purpose. For example, the Kerala government has recently proposed a scheme whereby the UID would be used to track school children.[5] Other schemes such as the National Population Register and the DNA Profiling Bill have been specifically set up with security of the State as the mandate and aim.[6] With the precise and accurate identification which biometrics offers, it also means that individuals are that much easier to continuously survey and track, for example, by using CCTV cameras with facial recognition software, the state could have real-time surveillance over any activities of any individual.[7]

With all kinds of information about individuals connected by a single identifier, from bank accounts to residential and voter information, the threat of increased state surveillance, and misuse of information becomes more and more pronounced. By using personal identifiers like fingerprints or iris scans, agencies can potentially converge data collected across databases, and use it for different purposes. It also means that individuals can potentially be profiled through the information provided from their various databases, accessed through identifiers, which leads to concerns about surveillance and tracking, without the individuals knowledge. There are no Indian laws or policies under data collection schemes which address concerns of using personal identifiers for tracking and surveillance.[8] Even if such such use is essential for increased national security, the implementation of biometrics for constant surveillance under the present regime ,where individuals are not notified about the kind of data being collected and for what its being used, would be a huge affront on civil liberties, as well as the Right to Privacy, and prove to be a powerful and destructive weapon in the hands of a police state. Without these concerns being addressed by a suitable, publicly available policy, it could pose a huge threat to individual privacy in the country. As was noted by the Deputy Prime Minister of the UK, Nick Clegg, in a speech where he denounced the Identity Scheme of the British government, saying that “This government will end the culture of spying on its citizens. It is outrageous that decent, law-abiding people are regularly treated as if they have something to hide. It has to stop. So there will be no ID card scheme. No national identity register, a halt to second generation biometric passports.” [6]

Biometric technology has been useful in several programmes and policies where its use has been open to scrutiny and restricted to a specific function, for example, the recent use of facial recognition in Goa to tackle voter fraud, and similar schemes being taken up by the Election Commission. [7] However, with lack of any guidelines or specific legal framework covering the implementation and collection of biometric data schemes, such schemes can quickly turn into ‘biohazards’ for personal liberty and individual privacy, as has been highlighted above and these issues must be brought to light and adequately addressed before the Government progresses on biometric frontiers.

[1]. http://www.goacom.com/goa-news-highlights/3520-biometric-scanners-to-be-used-for-elections.

[2]. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/03/hackers-publish.

[3].https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/09/indias-gargantuan-biometric-database-raises-big-questions.

[4]. http://www.informationweek.com/security/privacy/britain-scraps-biometric-national-id-car/228801001.

[5]. http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/questions-for-mr-nilekani/article4382953.ece.

[6]. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8691753.stm

[7]. Supra note 1.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/indias-biometric-identification-programs-and-privacy-concerns

India's biometric database crosses billion-member mark

praskrishna — 2016-04-07T02:54:08Z

India's biometric database notched up one billion members on Monday, as the government sought to allay concerns about privacy breaches in the world's biggest such scheme.

The news by AFP was published by Daily Mail, UK on April 4, 2016. Sunil Abraham gave inputs.

The database was set up seven years ago to streamline benefit payments to millions of poor people as well as to cut fraud and wastage. Under the scheme, called Aadhaar, almost 93 percent of India's adult population have now registered their fingerprints and iris signatures and been given a biometric ID, according to the government.

IT minister Ravi Shankar Prasad hailed it as "an instrument of good governance" at a ceremony in New Delhi marking the crossing of the one-billion member mark.

Prasad said the initiative, inherited from the previous left-leaning Congress government, had enabled millions to receive cash benefits directly rather than dealing with middlemen.

He said the government had saved 150 billion rupees ($2.27 billion) on its gas subsidy scheme alone -- by paying cash directly to biometric card holders instead of providing cylinders at subsidised rates.

He also said all adequate safeguards were in place to ensure the personal details of card holders could not be stolen or misused by authorities given access to the database.

"We have taken all measures to ensure privacy. The data will not be shared with anyone except in cases of national security," Prasad said.

His comments come after parliament passed legislation last month giving government agencies access to the database in the interests of national security.

It was passed using a loophole to circumvent the opposition in parliament, where the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) lacks a majority in the upper house.

The way it was passed, as well as the legislation itself, raised concerns about government agencies accessing private citizens' details.

Internet experts have also raised fears about the safety of such a massive database, including hacking and theft of details.

"It was as if Indian lawmakers wrote an open letter to criminals and foreign states saying, 'we are going to collect data to non-consensually identify all Indians and we are going to store it in a central repository. Come and get it!'," Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Centre for Internet and Society, wrote in India's Frontline news magazine.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/daily-mail-april-4-2016-afp-india-biometric-database-crosses-billion-member-mark

India's billion-member biometric database raises privacy fears

praskrishna — 2016-03-17T15:25:45Z

India's parliament is set to pass legislation that gives federal agencies access to the world's biggest biometric database in the interests of national security, raising fears the privacy of a billion people could be compromised.

The article by Sanjeev Miglani and Manoj Kumar was published by Reuters on March 16, 2016. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

The move comes as the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) cracks down on student protests and pushes a Hindu nationalist agenda in state elections, steps that some say erode India's traditions of tolerance and free speech.

It could also usher in surveillance far more intrusive than the U.S. telephone and Internet spying revealed by former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor Edward Snowden in 2013, some privacy advocates said.

The Aadhaar database scheme, started seven years ago, was set up to streamline payment of benefits and cut down on massive wastage and fraud, and already nearly a billion people have registered their finger prints and iris signatures.

Now the BJP, which inherited the scheme, wants to pass new provisions including those on national security, using a loophole to bypass the opposition in parliament.

"It has been showcased as a tool exclusively meant for disbursement of subsidies and we do not realize that it can also be used for mass surveillance," said Tathagata Satpathy, a lawmaker from the eastern state of Odisha.

"Can the government ... assure us that this Aadhaar card and the data that will be collected under it – biometric, biological, iris scan, finger print, everything put together – will not be misused as has been done by the NSA in the U.S.?"

Finance Minister Arun Jaitley has defended the legislation in parliament, saying Aadhaar saved the government an estimated 150 billion rupees ($2.2 billion) in the 2014-15 financial year alone.

A finance ministry spokesman added that the government had taken steps to ensure citizens' privacy would be respected and the authority to access data was exercised only in rare cases.

According to another government official, the new law is in fact more limited in scope than the decades-old Indian Telegraph Act, which permits national security agencies and tax authorities to intercept telephone conversations of individuals in the interest of public safety.

"POLICE STATE"

Those assurances have not satisfied political opponents and people from religious minorities, including India's sizeable Muslim community, who say the database could be used as a tool to silence them.

"We are midwifing a police state," said Asaduddin Owaisi, an opposition MP.

Raman Jit Singh Chima, global policy director at Access, an international digital rights organization, said the proposed Indian law lacked the transparency and oversight safeguards found in Europe or the United States, which last year reformed its bulk telephone surveillance program.

He pointed to the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which must approve many surveillance requests made by intelligence agencies, and European data protection authorities as oversight mechanisms not present in the Indian proposal.

The Indian government brought the Aadhaar legislation to the upper house of parliament on Wednesday in a bid to secure passage before lawmakers go into recess.

To get around its lack of a majority there, the BJP is presenting it as a financial bill, which the upper chamber cannot reject. It can return it to the lower house, where the ruling party has a majority.

In its assessment of the measure, New Delhi-based PRS Legislative Research said law enforcement agencies could use someone's Aadhaar number as a link across various datasets such as telephone and air travel records.

That would allow them to recognize patterns of behavior and detect potential illegal activities.

But it could also lead to harassment of individuals who are identified incorrectly as potential security threats, PRS said.

Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Bengaluru-based Centre for Internet and Society, said Aadhaar created a central repository of biometrics for almost every citizen of the world's most populous democracy that could be compromised.

"Maintaining a central database is akin to getting the keys of every house in Delhi and storing them at a central police station," he said.

"It is very easy to capture iris data of any individual with the use of next generation cameras. Imagine a situation where the police is secretly capturing the iris data of protesters and then identifying them through their biometric records.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/reuters-march-16-2016-sanjeev-miglani-and-manoj-kumar-indias-billion-member-biometric-database-raises-privacy-fears

India's Aadhaar with biometric details of its billion citizens is making experts uncomfortable

praskrishna — 2017-02-14T14:57:33Z

"Indians in general have yet to understand the meaning and essence of privacy," says Member of Parliament, Tathagata Satpathy.

The blog post was published by Mashable India on February 14, 2017. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

But on Feb. 3, privacy was the hot topic of debate among many in India, thanks to a tweet that showed random people being identified on the street via Aadhaar, India's ubiquitous database that has biometric information of more than a billion Indians.

That's how India Stack, the infrastructure built by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), welcomed OnGrid, a privately owned company that is going to tap on the world's largest biometrics system, conjuring images of Minority Report style surveillance.

But how did India get here?

Aadhaar's foundation

Not long ago, there were more people in India without a birth or school certificate than those with one (PDF). They had no means to prove their identity. This also contributed to what is more popularly known as “leakage” in the government subsidy fundings. The funds weren’t reaching the right people, in some instances, and much of it was being siphoned off by middlemen.

Nearly a decade ago, the government began scrambling for ways to tackle these issues. Could technology come to the rescue? The government dialled techies, people like Nandan Nilekani, a founder of India's mammoth IT firm Infosys, for help.

In 2008, they formulated Aadhaar, an audacious project "destined" to change the prospects of Indians. It was similar to Social Security number that US residents are assigned, but its implications were further reaching.

At the time, the government said it will primarily use this optional program to help the poor who are in need of services such as grocery and other household items at subsidized rates.

Eight years later, Aadhar, which stores identity information such as a photo, name, address, fingerprints and iris scans of its citizens and also assigns them with a unique 12-digit number, has become the world's largest biometrics based identity system.

According to the Indian government, over 1.11 billion people of the country's roughly 1.3 billion citizens have enrolled themselves in the biometrics system. About 99 percent of all adults in India have an Aadhaar card, it said last month.

Today, the significance of Aadhaar, which on paper remains an optional program, is undeniable in the country. The government says Aadhaar has already saved it as much as $5 billion.

But that's not it.

There's a bit of Aadhaar in everyone's life

Aadhaar (Hindi for foundation) has long moved beyond helping the poor. The UPI (Unified Payment Interface), another project by the Indian government that uses Aadhaar, is helping the country's much unbanked population to avail financial services for the first time. Nilekani calls it a "WhatsApp moment" in the Indian financial sector.

In December last year, Prime Minister Narendra Modi launched BHIM, a UPI-based payments app that aims to get millions of Indians to do online money transactions for the first time, irrespective of which bank they had their accounts with. With BHIM, transferring money is as simple as sending a text message. People can also scan QR codes and pay merchants for their purchases.

"This app is destined to replace all cash transactions," Modi said at the launch event. "BHIM app will revolutionize India and force people worldwide to take notice," he added.

The next phase, called Aadhaar Enabled Payments System will do away with smartphones. People will be able to make payments by swiping their finger on special terminals equipped with fingerprint sensors rather than swiping cards.

Last year, the government said people could store their driver license documents in an app called DigiLocker, should they want to be relieved from the burden of carrying paper documents. DigiLocker is a digital cloud service that any citizen in India can avail using their Aadhaar information.

The government also plans to hand out "health cards" to senior citizens, mapped to their Aadhaar number, which will store their medical records, which doctors will be able to access.

“Aadhaar is an instrument for good governance. Aadhaar is the mode to reach the poor without the middlemen,” Ravi Shankar Prasad, India’s IT minister said in a press conference last year.

But despite all the ways Aadhaar is making meaningful impact in millions of lives, some people are very skeptical about it. And for them, the scale at which Aadhaar operates now is only making things worse.

A security nightmare

There have been multiple reports suggesting bogus and fake entries in Aadhaar database. Instances of animals such as dogs and cows having their own Aadhaar identification numbers have been widely reported. In one instance, even Hindu god Hanuman was found to have an Aadhaar card.

The problem, it appears, is Aadhaar database has never been verified or audited, according to multiple security experts, privacy advocates, lawyers, and politicians who spoke to Mashable India this month.

“There are two fundamental flaws in Aadhaar: it is poorly designed, and it is being poorly verified,” Member of Parliament and privacy advocate, Rajeev Chandrasekhar told Mashable India. “Aadhaar isn’t foolproof, and this has resulted in fake data get into the system. This in turn opens new gateways for money launderers,” he added.

Another issue with Aadhaar is, Chandrasekhar explains, there is no firm legislation to safeguard the privacy and rights of the billion people who have enrolled into the system. There’s little a person whose Aadhaar data has been compromised could do. “Citizens who have voluntarily given their data to Aadhaar authority, as of result of this, are at risk,” he added.

Rahul Narayan, a lawyer who is counselling several petitioners challenging the Aadhaar project, echoed similar sentiments. “There’s no concrete regulation in place,” he told Mashable India. “The scope for abuses in Aadhaar is very vast,” he added.

But regulation — or its lack thereof — is only one of the many challenges, experts say. Sunil Abraham, the executive director of Bangalore-based research organisation the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), says the security concerns around Aadhaar are alarming.

“Aadhaar is remote, covert, and non-consensual,” he told Mashable India, adding the existence of a central database of any kind, but especially in the context of the Aadhaar, and at the scale it is working is appalling.

Abraham said fingerprint and iris data of a person can be stolen with little effort — a “gummy bear” which sells for a few cents, can store one’s fingerprint, while a high resolution camera can capture one’s iris data.

Aadhaar doesn’t use basic principles of cryptography, and much of its security is not known.

Aadhaar is also irrevocable, which strands a person, whose data has been compromised, with no choice but to get on with life, Abraham said, adding that these vulnerabilities could have been averted had the government chosen smart cards instead of biometrics.

On top of this, he added, that Aadhaar doesn’t use basic principles of cryptography, and much of the security defences it uses are not known.

Had the government open sourced Aadhaar code to the public (a common practice in the tech community), security analysts could have evaluated the strengths of Aadhaar. But this too isn’t happening.

At CIS, Sunil and his colleagues have written over half-a-dozen open letters to the UIDAI (the authority that governs Aadhaar project) raising questions and pointing holes in the system. But much of their feedback has not returned any response, Abraham told Mashable India.

India Stack: A goldmine for everyone

As part of its push to make Aadhaar more useful, the UIDAI created what is called India Stack, an infrastructure through which government bodies as well as private entities could leverage Aadhaar's database of individual identities. This is what sparked the initial debate about privacy when India Stack tweeted the controversial photo.

Speaking to Mashable India, Piyush Peshwani, a founder of OnGrid, however dismissed the concerns, clarifying that the picture was for representation purposes only. He said OnGrid is building a trust platform, through which it aims to make it easier for recruiters to do background check on their potential employees after getting their consent.

India Stack and OnGrid have since taken down the picture from their Twitter accounts. "OnGrid, much like other 200 companies working with UIDAI, can only retrieve information of users after receiving their prior consent," he said.

The lack of information from the UIDAI and India Stack is becoming a real challenge for citizens, many feel. There also appears to be a conflict of interest between the privately held companies and those who helped design the framework of Aadhaar.

As Rohin Dharmakumar, a Bangalore-based journalist pointed out, Peshwani was part of the core team member of Aadhaar project. A lawyer, who requested to be not identified, told Mashable India that there is a chance that these people could be familiar with Aadhaar’s roadmap and use the information for business advantage, to say the least.

Most people Mashable India spoke to are questioning the way these third-party companies are handling Aadhaar data. There is no regulation in place to prevent these companies from storing people’s data or even creating a parallel database of their own — a view echoed by Abraham, Narayan, and Chandrasekhar.

Not mandatory only on paper

But for many, the biggest concern with Aadhaar remains just how aggressively it is being implemented into various systems. For instance, in the past one month alone, students in most Indians states who want to apply for NEET, a national level medical entrance test, were told by the education board CBSE that they will have to provide their Aadhaar number.

A few months ago, Aadhaar was also made mandatory for students who wanted to appear in JEE, an all India common engineering entrance examination conducted for admission to various engineering colleges in the country.

The apex Supreme Court of India recently asked the central government to register the phone number of all mobile subscribers in India (there are about one billion of those in India) to their respective Aadhaar cards. Telecom carriers are already enabling new connections to get activated by verifying users with Aadhaar database.

A prominent journalist who focuses on privacy and laws in India questioned the motive. “When they kickstarted UIDAI, people were told that this an optional biometrics system. But since then the government has been rather tight-lipped on why it is aggressively pushing Aadhaar into so many areas,” he told Mashable India, requesting not to be identified.

"It is especially difficult to explain why privacy is necessary for a society to advance when taken in the context of Aadhaar."

“It is especially difficult to explain why privacy is necessary for a society to advance when taken in the context of Aadhaar. The Aadhaar card is being offered to people in need, especially the poor, by making them believe that services and subsidies provided by the government will be held back from them unless they register,” Satpathy told Mashable India.

The central government said last week Aadhaar number would be mandatory for availing food grains through the Public Distribution System under the National Food Security Act. In October last year, the government made Aadhaar mandatory for those who wanted to avail cooking gas at subsidized prices.

“No matter how many laws are made about not making Aadhaar mandatory, ultimately it depends on the last mile person who is offering any service to inform citizens about their rights,” Satpathy added.

“These last-mile service providers are companies who would benefit from collecting and bartering big data for profit. They would be least interested to inform citizens about their rights and about the not mandatory status of Aadhaar.

“As Aadhaar percolates more and is used by more government and private services, the citizen will start assuming it's a part of their life. This card is already being misunderstood as if it is essential like a passport,” he added.

“My worry is that this data will be used by government for mass surveillance, ethnic cleansing and other insidious purposes,” Satpathy said. “Once you have information about every citizen, the powerful will not refrain from misusing it and for retention of power. The use of big data for psycho-profiling is not unknown to the world anymore.”

Mashable India reached out to UIDAI on Feb. 8 for comment on the privacy and security concerns made in this report. At the time of publication, the authority hadn't responded to our queries.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/mashable-india-february-14-2017-india-aadhaar-uidai-privacy-security-debate

India's Aadhaar mandate for smartphone makers may rile global firms

praskrishna — 2016-09-15T02:25:31Z

They are unlikely to oblige to request to make changes in their operating system and devices to ensure Aadhaar authentication is done securely on smartphones.

The article by Alnoor Peermohammed was published in the Business Standard on September 14, 2016. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

India is asking global smartphone makers such asApple and Google to adopt locally designed standards on their devices or operating systems that would allow use of biometric scanners for Aadhaarauthentication, a move that could face resistance from global firms.

Apple, the world’s largest smartphone maker runs its own iOS closed ecosystem and mandates apps built by developers to be certified by the company. Its closest rival Google, which owns the Android operating software that runs on nine out of ten smartphones in India, has directives for device makers to comply with. Firms such as Samsung, Lenovo and Micromax build smartphones on the Android OS that are sold in India.

Most global companies are unlikely to oblige India’s request that would require to make changes in their operating system and devices to ensure Aadhaarauthentication is done securely on smartphones, say analysts.

“There is no clarity so far. As of now, it is impossible that they (global smartphone makers) would oblige for a hardware safe zone baked on the sensors,” says Sunil Abraham, executive director at Centre for Internet and Society, a Bengaluru-based researcher that works on emerging technologies. “Because the biometrics contain sensitive personal information, they (UIDAI) don’t want anybody — vmobile manufacturer, OS vendor, telco or ISP — to intercept it”.

India is hoping that global firms would accept the country’s plea considering that most of India’s population use a mobile phone as their only computing device and need them to authenticate on Aadhaar for using government and banking services.

“Right now we’re in consultation with all these device manufacturers as well as the operating system vendors,” said Ajay Bhushan Pandey, Director General of the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) in a phone interview. “Basically we’re trying to evolve our system wherein a manufacturer or the devices where those operating systems are being used will have a facility where Aadhaar authentication can be made possible in a secure manner.”

India has over 105 crore people or 98% of adult population with Aadhaar. Most government and private organisations use Aadhaar authentication to issue services or products such as opening a bank account, getting a ration card or buying a mobile connection.

Reliance plans to reduce paperwork and issue connections in less than an hour usingAadhaar and try to get its 100 million target market sooner.

Over a fifth of India’s one billion users own smartphones and as the country sees better mobile internet access, more people are expected to upgrade to smartphones and use apps to access their banks to transfer funds, do online shopping and access government services.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/business-standard-alnoor-peermohammed-september-14-2016-indias-aadhaar-mandate-for-smartphone-makers-may-rile-global-firms