We are anonymous, we are legion

Introduction: About the Privacy and Surveillance Roundtables

manoj — 2014-11-27T13:34:56Z

The Privacy and Surveillance Roundtables is a Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) initiative, in partnership with the Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI), as well as local partners. The Roundtable will be closed-door deliberation involving multiple stakeholders. Through the course of these discussions we aim to deliberate upon the current legal framework for surveillance in India, and discuss possible frameworks for surveillance in India.

The provisions of the draft CIS Privacy Bill 2013, the International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communication Surveillance, and the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy will be used as background material and entry points into the discussion. The recommendations and dialogue from each roundtable will be compiled and submitted to the Department of Personnel and training.

The third Privacy and Surveillance Roundtable was held in New Delhi at the India International Centre by the Centre for Internet and Society in collaboration with the Cellular Operators Association of India and Vahura, legal Partner on the 1^st of September, 2014.

The aim of the discussion was to gain inputs on what would constitute an ideal surveillance regime in India working with theCIS Draft Privacy Protection Bill, the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy prepared by the Justice Shah committee, and the International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance.

Background and Context: Privacy and Surveillance in India

The discussion began with the chair giving an overview of the legal framework that governs communications interception under Indian Law in the interest of the participants since many were there for the first time.

The legal system to govern the manner in which communications are intercepted in India are defined under three main acts

1. Interception of Telephonic Calls : The Telegraph Act 1885

2. Interception of Posts : The Indian Post Office Act,1898

3. Interception of Electronic communication like e-mails etc :The IT Act, 2000

While the interception of postal mail is governed by Section 26 of the Post Office Act, 1898, the interception of modern forms of communication that use electronic information and traffic data are governed under Sections 69 and 69B of the Information Technology Act, 2000, while interception of telephonic conversations are governed by section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act 1885 and subsequent rules under section 419A.

The main discussion of the meeting revolved around the Telegraph Act since it is the main Act which covers the interception of telecommunications. In 1968 the 30th Law Commission Report studying Section 5(2) of this Act came to the conclusion that the standards in the Act may be unconstitutional given factors such as 'public emergency' & 'public safety' were too wide in nature and called for a relook at the provision.

Objective of Round Table Meetings

The objective of the round table meetings is to, be prepared with the proposals on the Privacy Bill which the new government intends to split into separate Bill for Surveillance and Data privacy. Thus these submissions once out in the public domain would further deliberate more discussion and shape the course of the Bill.

Discussion

Authorisation

The chair initiated the discussion continuing from the last meeting about the two models of authorisation for Interception 1. The Judiciary & 2. The Executive

The chair explained why the earlier proposed Judiciary based model, based on the efficient experience of separation of power, would not fit into the Indian context. The main reason for this being that the lower judiciary in India is not competent enough to take decisions of this nature. Providing examples, the chair explained how in many cases the lower Judiciary overlooks essential human rights in their decisions, and such rights are only addressed when the case is appealed in Higher courts. While participants felt that High Court judges would be favourable, it was expressed that the immense backlog at the High Court level and the lack of judges is a challenge and risks being inefficient. Thus an additional responsibility for the High Court would not be a feasible model. Furthermore, adopting a judicial based model would mean that the existing model of executive would need to be entirely replaced. Owing to these practical implementation issues consensus was built over adoption of the existing executive model, but with more safeguards.

Safeguards proposed:

1. A redressal tribunal: Establishing a tribunal for the redressal of interception complaints. The tribunal could be a non-active body. Such a model would be different from other models adopted around the world - for example e in UK a designated tribunal suo-motu reviews cases on a regular basis. The tribunal could also have judicial review authority, to which one of the participants raised an issue that the tribunals usually will not have the power of Judicial review, however the chair assured him that the delegation of Judicial review to a tribunal does exist in Indian law.

2. A review commission: Establishing a commission to review the interceptions carried out on the orders of home secretary. For such an overseeing body, the commissioner should be appointed independently. The commissioner must be a Judge or a senior Lawyer and should report to the Parliament.

Content data and Metadata

In the next session the chair explained the difference between content data and metadata while initiating discussion on provisions addressing them in the proposed Bill. Content data, also called as payload data, is the actual content of the communication which takes place between X and Y.

Example 1: In the VOIP call the voice is packetized and sent in different packets to the destination, the content of that packet is the content data whereas the information of this content i.e the header, footer and checksum of the packet is the metadata.

Example 2: In the serial communication of the normal phone call the content data will be what the communication happened between two or more people over the call and the metadata will be who were involved in the call, on what date and time the call was made from which place, and under which tower.

It was noted that generally it is easier to intercept metadata than content data. In the proposed bill, section 2 (C) refers to the definition of content data and section 2(E) to metadata.

Participants also pointed out that often it is with metadata that concerned governmental authorities are able to carry out tracking. Thus, when determining procedural safeguards for surveillance - and specifically for interception - the question of whether or not content data and meta data should be treated the same under law must be addressed. Participants suggested looking into German laws, which have procedure to deal with this question. Despite differences over the exact level of protection meta data should legally be afforded, participants agreed that a higher authority should be responsible for the interception, collection, and access to metadata and content data.

In India, because the existing legal framework in India has different standards for different modes of communication, it is proposed that a uniform legal framework be created by harmonizing the three Acts through amendments or overriding existing legislation regulating surveillance in India, and establishing a new framework under a Privacy legislation.

Big Data, Cloud & OTT

In this session a participant raised the issue of Big data and Cloud services, and asked whether the CIS Privacy Protection Bill or the draft Privacy Bill from the government addresses this issue. This question was of particular relevance because a number of the cloud data centres are located in locations outside India. Thus a question of jurisdiction arises. The participant opined that in the coming years and with the new government's vision to have space for every citizen in cloud and data localisation being priority, he stressed that the Bill should clearly address issues related to the cloud, big data, outsourcing, and questions of jurisdiction. Responding to this the chair was of the view that the crimes committed outside the territory of India come under Extra-territorial law, section 4 of IPC and Section 188 Cr. P.C. But it was noted that due to the fact that the crime is committed outside the territory of India, despite the provision, it is practically not implementable unless there is a contract between countries or a treaty signed. The solution could be data localisation, hosting the cloud servers in India, but that again has its own pros & cons. In response participants indicated that if a choice had to be made about data localization - the best option would be one that would be economical for Indian business and the government.

OTT (Over the Top) Services

Another participant brought to the notice of the meeting that most of the networks of service provider's are adopting IP (Internet Protocol). In the context of surveillance, this means that for an interception to take place, Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) must be adopted by service providers. This is currently placing a burden on service providers, as it is costly and the connection time of the calls for the number under surveillance increases - though not enough to be noticed by customers.

Telephone Tapping Process

In India the process of intercepting telephones can be broken down into the following three steps:

1. Authorization

a. The Home Secretary issues an authorization for an interception request.

b. The Authorization is handed over to Police Officer in charge of the investigation.

c. The Police Officer serves the order to the nodal officer in the relevant service provider.

2. The service provider conducts the interception.

3. The intercepted data is handed over to the Police officer.

Under Rule 419A, a committee to review the authorization exists, comprising of officials such as the Cabinet Secretary, Secretary of the Department of Telecommunications, Secretary of the Department of Law and Justice and the Secretary of Information Technology and Communication ministry at the Centre and the Chief Secretary, the Law Secretary and an officer not below the rank of a Principal secretary at the State level.

Since the current infrastructure of telecom and broadband is with private service providers, the government is dependent on service providers to carry out surveillance. As national security is a concern of the government and because in the past intercepted material has been leaked by various sources, the government has proposed to replace the existing system. In this regard the government has proposed to set up a Central Monitoring System (CMS) for the interception of voice and data communications.

It is proposed that the CMS infrastructure will be positioned at the service provider's facilities, and will allow governmental agencies to directly intercept traffic on the network of service providers - thus there would no longer be a need for the government to reply on service providers to carry out interception requests. During the meeting it was discussed how this system has pros & cons

Pros

1. For private companies it eliminates an entire level of compliance.

2. It will reduce the possibility of unlawful, extra legal, & fraudulent authorizations of interception requests.

3. The interception carried out would be maintained in a log, which would clearly recorded, making the interception process becomes accountable.

Cons

1. Even though the existing system gives room for leaks, ironically it is the only way through which a person who is tapped will come to know, hence accounting for some transparency eg: Nira Radia & Amar Singh phone Tap case.

2. CMS will be built upon an existing interception framework, which is not procedurally fair - because of issues such as Internal Authorization, Adhoc procedure, that it is not under the ambit of RTI etc. This will result in a system with no transparency and accountability.

To this last point the Chair noted that in 2011 there were 7.5 Lakh phone taps by a single agency which was reportedly illegal. In an attempt to minimize such brazen violations a Privacy Bill is mooted and the round table conference is a step towards making it possible.

Immunity to TSP's & ISP's

Participants also raised the issue of difficulties that TSPs face while engaged in the process of interception, as they are caught between the customers and government authorities and subjected to harassment sometimes. This places service providers in a position where they must often make a number of compromises as they are expected to store traffic data for a specified period of time, but sometimes a judge might ask for access to data that is dated past the specific retention period. In such a scenario, service providers must provide it by accessing backup data.

The question of who should be the custodian of intercepted data was raised by participants as well as who should be held accountable if intercepted data is leaked into the public domain. The chair responded that the officers investigating the case should be held accountable for the intercepted data. This would be analogous to the system under the Right to Information Act whereby the Information officer is named and held accountable for the data or information he provides. Similarly, for the case of intercepted material, an officer should be named and held accountable for the data and ensuring that it reaches those that it is legally intended to.

It was also expressed that a market regulator, responsible for the safeguarding the interest of communication service providers, could be appointed for handling the personal data. Such a role could be merged with the traditional role of a Data Protection Authority and could be the first step towards an information security and assurance regime.

Legal immunity given to service providers was also discussed, as there was a general concern about the position service providers find themselves in - being held legally liable for not complying with orders from the government and being taken to court by citizens.

Format of Interception Orders and Interception as a service

A question was also posed to participants about what information ideally - apart from the intended duration of the order - should be incorporated into interception orders. Participants suggested that the order should be as specific and precise as possible, which the existing format to a large extent confirms. On the topic, a participant noted that in some cases, despite DoPT guidelines, interception orders are issued in regional languages. This can pose as a problem as the nodal officer might not know the language, thus leading to possible ambiguity & misinterpretation of the order. Participants suggested that orders should be in English.

Participants also pointed out that in most European countries - like France and Italy - a fee for the compliance cost arising out of implementing an interception order is paid to service providers by the government. In India, huge costs are involved in carrying out interceptions which service providers presently have to bare. As law enforcement and security agencies ask for more and more accuracy in surveillance, the charges of carrying out surveillance. To address this, participants suggested that interception as a service should be accommodated in the proposed Bill.

Conclusion

The discussions in the Surveillance and Privacy Roundtable in New Delhi mainly revolved around the authorization model and the process of interception. Overall, participants agreed on an organised executive model with an established accountability and review system. Also discussed was how to ensure that service providers are legally protected from disproportionate and unwarranted penalties. Towards this, the interception process should be viewed as a service rather than an obligation.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/introduction-about-the-privacy-and-surveillance-roundtables

Leave the Net Alone

praskrishna — 2014-12-07T04:12:40Z

The Internet, like the air we breathe, has traditionally been neutral ground. Nobody is allowed to buy preferential treatment on the Internet.

This story was published in BW | Businessworld Issue Dated 15-12-2014. Sunil Abraham gave his inputs.

“The Internet is currently not broke, and the FCC is out to fix it,” began John Oliver, American talk-show host and comedian, introducing his show’s discussion on Net neutrality. America’s telecom regulator Federal Communications Council (FCC) had just proposed allowing Internet carriers to give preference on their network to websites in exchange for a fee.

For example, in an Indian context, if BW| Businessworld was to, hypothetically, pay Airtel a fee, and Airtel were to, in turn, give priority access to the website, it might be natural to argue that eventually, Airtel subscribers would prefer BW|Businessworld’s website over its rivals’.

The Internet, like the air we breathe, has traditionally been neutral ground. Nobody (read, no corporate) is allowed to buy preferential treatment on the Internet. “The point of Net neutrality is that on the Internet you cannot have discrimination on where the information is originating from or who is the consumer,” says Mihir Parikh, partner at law firm Nishith Desai Associates. He compares it to telephone networks where calls get connected on a first-come basis. Nobody has a predominant right over call connections.

And that is exactly what the FCC’s proposals threatens to change, by allowing American carriers such as Verizon or Comcast to charge a fee to give priority on their network to fee payers, like, for example, Daily Motion, which would then get an advantage over rival YouTube. On 10 September, several websites including Mozilla and Netflix deliberately slowed down their sites to show how a slow Internet would look like. Last week, US president Barack Obama put his weight behind a free Internet, where nobody can pay ‘their way up’. The FCC will make its final recommendations next year.

While an Indian browsing the Net is not likely to be affected by the FCC recommendations, it is possible that the transmission of less favoured US-based websites do not get priority, thereby slowing access to them, says Parikh.

But the episode calls attention to the picture in India. “There are no specific laws that speak to the Net neutrality situation in India,” says Sunil Abraham of Centre for Internet Security. So it could be possible that carriers are already censoring speeds to certain services that take up heavy bandwidth. Slow speeds for torrent downloads are an example. Abraham calls for crowd sourced, technically sound research to explore whether carriers are engaging in such practices, as a prelude to petitioning the government for enlightened regulation.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/businessworld-november-25-2014-leave-the-net-alone

Game release cancelled over gay character

praskrishna — 2014-11-22T00:24:32Z

Electronic Arts stops accepting preorders for Dragon Age: Inquisition.

The article by Jaison Lewis was published in Mumbai Mirror on November 19, 2014. Pranesh Prakash gave his inputs.

In a city where just about any kid above the age of five who can afford to do so has played Grand Theft Auto, with its profusion of violence and profanity, it appears unlikely that a game would ever be withdrawn from release owing to explicit content. But when Electronic Arts (EA), creators of several such titles, decide to cancel the release of a game in India because it features a gay character and sequences of gay sex, there are bound to be fiery debates about censorship, moral policing, and the prevalence of gratuitous violence in games.

EA have withdrawn pre-orders for Dragon Age: Inquisition, a role playing franchise in which you play a character that you create - one such role is that of Dorian, who is gay and who is featured in sequences involving gay sex. EA is now in the process of refunding the money (Rs 3,499 for the standard edition (PC) and Rs 4,000 for the collectors' edition (PC)) that gamers in India paid to have access to Dragon Age when it is released on November 21.

Milestone Interactive, the company that distributes EA titles in India, has cancelled several pre-orders for the game that were booked through their website. However, a bulk of the PC pre-orders were made on EA's Origin software, a Windows application that lets gamers buy and play games directly from the company. Electronic Arts issued the following official statement to its Origin users in India, Bangladesh and Pakistan. "In order to avoid a breach of local content laws, EA has withdrawn Dragon Age: Inquisition from sale in India and the game is no longer available for pre-order. Customers who pre-ordered the game will be contacted directly and will be fully refunded."

Though the local laws that applied were not mentioned, several online websites managed to obtain reactions from EA that implied the game's homosexual content was to blame, with mention of Section 377, which criminalises gay sex.

The Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB), a self-regulatory organisation based in New York, has classified Dragon Age as Mature, and, according to their online rating information, it "includes some sexual material: a female character briefly depicted in front of a man's torso (fellatio is implied); characters depicted topless or with exposed buttocks while lying in bed or after sex; some dialogue referencing sex/sexuality. The words "f**k," "sh*t," and "a*shole" appear in dialogue."

LGBT rights activist Aditya Bandopadhyay, said he believes EA could have withdrawn the game under pressure from the government.

"Self-censorship by corporations is even more insidious than censorship by the government, since the latter can be challenged in courts and has to abide within the limits set out within Article 19 of the Constitution, the former cannot be challenged at all except morally, "said Pranesh Prakash, member, The centre for internet and society.

"There can be no defence offered to the offensive instance of self-censorship by Electronic Arts, and is a slap against the fight by the LGBTQ community in India against oppressive colonial laws and mores. As Vikram Seth put it, it is homophobia that came into India, not homosexuality. It is homophobia that is unnatural and which militates against Indian morality. Under Article 19(1)(a), the government can be read to have a positive obligation to ensure an environment where freedom of speech and expression is guaranteed, so I call upon the government to speak out against the decision taken by Electronic Arts, " added Prakash.

"By way of legal background: Homosexuality as a gender identity is not illegal in India, while there is a case pending in the Supreme Court as to the criminality of engaging in 'unnatural' sexual intercourse. This law cannot possibly be read to hold that the public display of homosexuality in art is unlawful," he said

EA representatives were unwilling to discuss the game or the reasons for it being withdrawn from the market in India. "We are going to decline any further info beyond our statement," a spokesperson said.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/mumbai-mirror-november-19-2014-jaison-lewis-game-release-cancelled-over-gay-character

IOCOSE's talk at CIS

praskrishna — 2014-11-25T01:02:24Z

Please join us at the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore on Thursday, November 27, 2014 at 7 p.m. for a presentation of the work of the artists group IOCOSE, current artists in residence at T.A.J./SKE Residency.

What is the life of a drone 'in times of peace'? What are the creative potential of a drone? Drones do not have such a thing as a ‘life’. But what if?

The title of our project, 'In Times of Peace' refers to Paul Virilio's theory of logistics (Pure War, 1983).

Quoting an article published by the Pentagon in late '40s, the theorist highlighted the fact that the text presented logistics as the procedure for which the potential of a nation lies in its armed forces, 'in times of peace' as in times of war.

But what does it mean to live 'in times of peace'? And what does this mean for a drone?”

The talk will open with the announcement of the winner of the NoTube Contest 2014 which will be held at the Sree Venkateshwara Cyber Cafe in Bangalore on the very same day.

IOCOSE

IOCOSE is a collective of four artists who has been working in Italy and Europe since 2006. It organises actions in order to subvert ideologies, practices and processes of identification and production of meanings. It uses pranks and hoaxes as tactical means, as joyful and sound tools. IOCOSE thinks about the streets, internet and word of mouth as a battlefield. Tactics such as mimesis and trickery are used to lead and delude the audience into a semantic pitfall. IOCOSE’s work has been shown internationally, such as at Jeu de Paume (Paris, France; 2011); Tate Modern (London, UK; 2011), Festival Nrmal, (Monterrey, Mexico; 2011); Furtherfield Gallery (London, UK; 2012); Venice Biennal (Italy; 2011), Macro (Rome, Italy; 2012); CLICK Festival (Helsingor, Denmark; 2013); Science gallery (Dublin, Ireland, 2012), http://www.iocose.org

T.A.J. RESIDENCY & SKE PROJECTS

T.A.J. RESIDENCY & SKE PROJECTS is a residency program established in 2013 as a collaborative project between a visual artist and a gallerist. Intended as an interdisciplinary residency, it has already hosted visual artists, curators, academics, scientists, fiction writers and journalists. There is always one visual artist in residence. The residency program is also open to applicants from the fields of architecture, design, music, film, performing arts and education, http://t-a-j.in

Marialaura Ghidini

Marialaura is a curator, researcher and writer. She is the founder director of or-bits.com since 2009. Currently she is AHRC-doctoral researcher with CRUMB (Curatorial Upstart Media Bliss) at the University of Sunderland. Based in London, UK, from Brescia, Italy. She can be contacted at mlghidini@gmail.com

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/iocose-talk-at-cis

Privacy, security and surveillance: tackling international dilemmas and dangers in the digital realm

praskrishna — 2014-12-15T12:56:49Z

Pranesh Prakash was a panelist in the session "Beyond the familiar: how do other countries deal with security and surveillance oversight?" The event was organized by Wilton Park between November 17 and 19, 2014.

Complete details of the programme can be accessed here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/wilton-park-november-17-19-privacy-security-surveillance

The Socratic debate: Whose internet is it anyway?

pranesh — 2014-12-09T13:35:45Z

In the US, President Obama recently spoke out on the seemingly arcane topic of net neutrality. What is more astounding is that the popular satire news show host John Oliver spent a 13-minute segment talking about it in June, telling Internet trolls to “focus your indiscriminate rage in a useful direction” by visiting the US Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) website and submitting comments on its weak draft proposal on net neutrality.

The article was published in the Economic Times on November 18, 2014.

Due to the work of activists, popular media coverage, pro-net neutrality technology companies, and John Oliver, eventually the FCC received 1.1 million responses. Text analysis by the Sunlight Foundation using natural language processing found that only 1% of the responses were clearly opposed to net neutrality. So millions of people in the US are both aware and care about this issue. But the general response in India would be: what is net neutrality and why should I be concerned?

Net neutrality is commonly described as the principle of ensuring that there is no discrimination between the different ‘packets’ that an Internet service provider (ISP) carries. That means that the traffic from NDTV should be treated equally by Reliance Infocomm as the traffic from Network 18’s CNNIBN; that even if Facebook wants to pay Airtel to deliver Whatsapp’s packets faster than Viber’s, Airtel may not do so; that peer-to-peer traffic is not throttled; that Facebook will not be able to pay Airtel to keep its subscribers bound within its walled gardens; and also that Airtel can’t claim to be providing Internet access while restricting that to only Facebook or Whatsapp.

The counter to this by telecom companies the world over, which has little evidence backing it, is primarily two-fold: first, one of equity — that it is ‘unfair’ for the likes of YouTube to get a ‘free ride’ on Airtel networks, hogging up bandwidth but not paying them; and second, that of economic incentives — networks are bleeding money due to services like WhatsApp and Skype replacing SMS and voice, and not being able to charge them will lead to a decrease in profitability and network expansion. The first claim is based on a myth of the ‘free ride’, while the reality is that subscribers who download more also pay the ISP more, while contentemitting companies also have to pay their network providers as per the traffic they generate, and those network providers, in turn, have to enter into ‘transit’ or ‘peering’ agreements with the ISPs that eventually provide access to consumers. The second claim has little evidence to back it up. Efficient competition is the best driver of both profit as well as network expansion. VSNL complained about services like Net2Phone in the 1990s and even filtered all voice-over-IP (VoIP) traffic — and illegally blocked a number of VoIP websites — to preserve its monopoly over international telephony. Instead, removing VSNL’s monopoly only benefited our nation. As for network expansion, it is inability of networks to profit from sparsely populated rural areas that poses a major roadblock. Fixing those problems require smart pricing by telecom companies and intelligent regulation, including exploring policy options like shared spectrum, but they do not necessarily require the abandoning of net neutrality.

However, the fact that the reasons telecom companies often provide against net neutrality are bogus doesn’t mean that it’s easy to ensure net neutrality. The Trai has been exploring this issue by holding a seminar on OTT services. However, the main focus of the discussions were not whether and how India should ensure net neutrality: it was on whether the government should regulate services like WhatsApp and bring them under the licence Raj. Yes, the debate going around in the regulatory circles is whether India should implement rules to ensure net non-neutrality so as favour telecom companies! Net neutrality is a difficult issue in regulatory terms since there is no common understanding among academics and activists of what all should fall under its ambit: only the ‘last mile’ or interconnection as well?

The policy dialogue in India is far removed from this and from considering the nuanced positions of anti-net neutrality scholars, such as Christopher Yoo, who raise concerns about the harms to innovation and the free market that would be caused by mandating net neutrality. The situation in India is much more dire, since blatant violations of net neutrality — howsoever defined — are already happening with Airtel launching its ‘One Touch Internet’, a limited walled garden approach that lies about offering access to the ‘Internet’ while only offering access to a few services based on secretive agreements with other companies. Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook, recently toured India talking about his grand vision of providing connectivity to the bottom half of the pyramid yet did not talk about how that connectivity would not be to the Internet, but will be limited to only a few services — including Facebook.

Even if we had good laws in favour of net neutrality, without effective monitoring and forceful action by the government, they will amount to little. s. Undoubtedly the contours of the conversation that needs to happen in India over net neutrality will be different from that happening in more developed countries with higher levels of Internet penetration.

However it is a cause of grave concern that while net neutrality is being brutally battered by telecom companies in the absence of any regulation, they are also seeking to legitimize their battery through regulation. It is time the direction of the conversation changed. Perhaps we should invite John Oliver over.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/economic-times-november-18-2014-pranesh-prakash-the-socratic-debate-whos-internet-is-it-anyway

Ground Zero Summit 2014

praskrishna — 2014-12-05T00:42:17Z

Geeta Hariharan participated in this event organized by India Infosec Consortium on November 13 and 14, 2014 in New Delhi.

Living from the successes of last year and our recent conference in Colombo, Ground Zero Summit 2014, in its second year promises to be Asia's largest information security gathering and proposes to be the ultimate platform for showcasing researches and sharing knowledge in the field of cyber security. The event will feature a panel discussion on cyber diplomacy.

Click to read more about the event

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/ground-zero-summit-2014

Fourth Discussion Meeting of the Expert Committee to Discuss the Draft Human DNA Profiling Bill

praskrishna — 2014-12-08T16:07:24Z

The fourth expert committee meeting was held on November 10, 2014 at the Department of Biotechnology to discuss the potential privacy concerns of the draft Human DNA Profiling Bill. Sunil Abraham however was unable to participate because of technical problems.

Agenda

Welcome and opening remarks by the Secretary, DBT
Remarks by the Chairman - Dr. T.S. Rao, Senior Adviser, DBT
A brief overview on deliberations and decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court - Dr. Alka Sharma, Director, DBT
Discussion and finalization of the Bill by the members
Recommendations of the Expert Committee
Any other item with the permission of the Chairman.

Resources

Click here (Zip file, 2698 Kb) to download the following resources from earlier meetings:

Record note of discussions of the Expert Committee Meeting held on January 31, 2013 at DBT, New Delhi, to discuss the potential privacy concerns on draft Human DNA Profiling Bill.
Annexure 1 to Record note: Draft Human DNA Profiling Bill 2012: The Privacy Issues and Concerns
Annexure 2 to Record note: Short background note on the draft Human DNA Profiling Bill
Record note of the 2nd discussion meeting of the Expert Committee held on May 13, 2013 in DBT to discuss the draft Human DNA Profiling Bill
Minutes of the 3rd meeting of the Expert Committee held on November 25, 2013 in DBT to discuss the draft Human DNA Profiling Bill
Record note of the discussions of the Experts Sub-committee Meeting on Human DNA Profiling Bill held on September 3, 2013 at CPFD, Hyderabad
Affidavit on behalf of DBT
Human Draft DNA Profiling Bill 2012 (Working Draft Version, April 29, 2012)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/fourth-discussion-meeting-of-expert-committee-to-discuss-draft-human-dna-profiling-bill

Getting Strategic about Openness and Privacy

praskrishna — 2014-11-09T09:19:23Z

This blog post by Tim Davies, Open Data Research Lead at Web Foundation was published in Open Up? on November 3, 2014.

Click to read the original post here. Sunil Abraham gave his inputs.

Information is powerful. And in a world where the amount of information generated, captured and stored has grown exponentially in recent decades, getting hold of the information you need, when you need it, relies upon having access to the data that describes it. That makes the control of data especially powerful.

Modern transparency initiatives, promoting the idea of open data, have been seeking to break the data-monopoly of privileged actors within the state — unlocking key datasets and making them available for public scrutiny and reducing the information inequalities that undermine open public discourse. Opening up government data is *one* way in which citizens can reclaim some power and reestablish the principle that “they work for us”. Open government data gives us power to know how the government is spending money, what companies are getting public sector contracts and licenses, who owns these companies, what profits they make and what royalties and taxes they pay. Yet, progress has been slow, and we have faced substantial challenges in securing reliable and standardised flows of public data that can be joined-up to give a true picture of how public resources are being used, and key decisions made. Although millions of public datasets have been placed online, the most politically salient are often lacking. The 2013 Open Data Barometer found fewer than 1 in 10 accountability datasets were truly open.

At the same time, advocates of building a more open government need to grapple with three other trends that are shaping discussions of data, power and the state:

Firstly, and most important, the revelations brought to our attention by whistleblower Edward Snowden have confirmed the extent of the secret state and the profound imbalance of power between citizens and their state created through mass surveillance. Whilst projects to disclose even basic data on the state like public spending are underfunded and ad hoc, billions of dollars are poured into tools and technologies that violate basic human rights and that threaten trust and security on the Web. Fundamentally the problem with secret mass surveillance is that it destroys the checks and balances that are meant to limit the power of the state over citizens.
Secondly, and in part due to the discussion spared by Snowden, public awareness of the data, and consequently power, held by corporations has grown. The Web has become increasingly centralised, and large companies now harvest large amounts of data on any individual technology user. In parallel, in some countries such as the UK, governments have sought to use open data agendas as cover for increased proprietary sharing of public data with private firms, seeking to go around established principles of consent to share publicly held health, tax or student records with profit-making firms. Such data-sharing is not inherently wrong if there are public benefits, but building citizen trust in the state’s stewardship of personal data, and ensuring safeguards are in place to warrant that trust, is a major challenge.
Thirdly, concerns have been raised that some of the data released through open data initiatives may also affect the privacy of citizens. Some aggregated and anonymised datasets can be combined with other data to reverse engineer identifiable information. Although early calls for “raw data now” were clear that they were not calling for open personal information, in practice the divide between personal and public can be a narrow one.

So, do these trends mean we should be more cautious about opening up? Should the balance swing back towards a focus on protecting privacy? Ultimately, a simple opposition of privacy and openness is a false dichotomy. The question is not should we focus on openness, or should we protect privacy: but is Who should be open? And how? And whose privacy should be protected, and how?

Sunil Abraham, of the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore, has offered a key solution in the idea that:

“Transparency should be proportional to power, privacy inversely so.”

It is on this basis that organisations working for a fairer future, with more vibrant public discourse, greater freedom, and better governments, can campaign for both privacy and openness together. Those who occupy public office, own companies, or tender for public contracts must accept that there is a legitimate public interest in information about their activities in these roles, whilst independent citizens must be afforded space to form views and live lives without constant state surveillance. Companies should not be considered to have a right to privacy: their interests are already protected by other laws and provisions.

To deliver effective openness through open data, the Web Foundation is working to understand how data gets used on the ground in different settings across the world, and, with Omidyar support, is working on the creation of inclusive open data standards for public contracting data. Standards like the Open Contracting Data Standard are part of building a new infrastructure of open governance, making it possible to join-up data from different places, helping tilt the balance of power towards citizens when it comes to scrutinising governments and corporations. Through the Open Data Barometer we keep track of the availability of key datasets that can be used for accountability, and we’re co-chairing the Open Government Partnership Open Data Working Group, seeking to set high standards for relevant and usable data disclosures by governments.

By focussing on the civic use of data, we can better identify those datasets that must be in the public domain. And by thinking about relative power when considering privacy we can address genuine privacy concerns, whilst not allowing corporations claiming privacy rights, or public figures trying to hide their financial interests, from diminishing the power of data to enable accountability.

At the same time, the Web Foundation leads the Web We Want campaign, challenging mass surveillance and seeking to secure a Web where individuals have the right to privacy, and the tools to secure it. And increasingly transparency of what the state and companies do with personal data can help increase the capacity of citizens to respond to threats to their autonomy, and can increase oversight and safeguards on state or corporate capacity.

Ultimately, our ongoing efforts to open up, and to protect individual freedoms, have to be strategic. And keeping an analysis of power, and Sunil’s maxim, in mind, provides a good starting point to guide the strategy.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/open-up-tim-davies-november-3-2014-getting-strategic-about-openness-and-privacy

White Paper on RTI and Privacy V1.2

vipul — 2014-11-09T02:53:51Z

This white paper explores the relationship between privacy and transparency in the context of the right to information in India. Analysing pertinent case law and legislation - the paper highlights how the courts and the law in India address questions of transparency vs. privacy.

Introduction

Although the right to information is not specifically spelt out in the Constitution of India, 1950, it has been read into Articles 14 (right to equality), 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) and 21 (right to life) through cases such as Bennet Coleman v. Union of India,[1] Tata Press Ltd. v. Maharashtra Telephone Nigam Ltd.,[2] etc. The same Articles of the Constitution were also interpreted in Kharak Singh v.State of U.P.,[3] Govind v. State of M.P., [4] and a number of other cases, to include within their scope a right to privacy. At the very outset it appears that a right to receive information -though achieving greater transparency in public life - could impinge on the right to privacy of certain people. The presumed tension between the right to privacy and the right to information has been widely recognized and a framework towards balancing the two rights, has been widely discussed across jurisdictions. In India, nowhere is this conflict and the attempt to balance it more evident than under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (the "RTI Act").

Supporting the constitutional right to information enjoyed by the citizens, is the statutorily recognized right to information granted under the RTI Act. Any potential infringement of the right to privacy by the provisions of the RTI Act are sought to be balanced by section 8 which provides that no information should be disclosed if it creates an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of any individual. This exception states that there is no obligation to disclose information which relates to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information. [5] The Act further goes on to say that where any information relating to or supplied by a third party and treated by that party as confidential, is to be disclosed, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer has to give written notice to that party within five days of receiving such a request inviting such third party (within ten days) to make its case as to whether such information should or should not be disclosed.[6]

A plain reading of section 11 suggests that for the section to apply the following three conditions have to be satisfied, i.e. (i) if the PIO is considering disclosing the information (ii) the information relates to the third party or was given to a Public Authority by the third party in confidence; and (iii) the third party treated the information to be a confidential. It has been held that in order to satisfy the third part of the test stated above, the third party has to be consulted and therefore a notice has to be sent to the third party. Even if the third party claims confidentiality, the proviso to the section provides that the information cannot be withheld if the public interest in the disclosure outweighs the possible harm or injury that may be caused to the third party, except in cases of trade or commercial secrets.[7] The Courts have also held that section 11 should be read keeping in mind the exceptions contained in section 8 (discussed in detail later) and the exceptions contained therein. [8]

This principle of non disclosure of private information can be found across a number of common law jurisdictions. The United Kingdom's Freedom of Information Act, 2000 exempts the disclosure of information where it would violate the data protection principles contained in the Data Protection Act, 1998 or constitute an actionable breach of confidence.[9] The Australian Freedom of Information Act, 1982 categorizes documents involving unreasonable disclosure of personal information as conditionally exempt i.e. allows for their disclosure unless such disclosure would be contrary to public interest.[10] The Canadian Access to Information Act also has a provision which allows the authorities to refuse to disclose personal information except in accordance with the provisions of the Canadian Privacy Act. [11]

An overview of the RTI Act, especially sections 6 to 8 seems to give the impression that the legislature has tried to balance and harmonize conflicting public and private rights and interests by building sufficient safeguards and exceptions to the general principles of disclosure under the Act. [12] This is why it is generally suggested that section 8, when applied, should be given a strict interpretation as it is a fetter on not only a statutory right granted under the RTI Act but also a pre-existing constitutional right. [13] Logical as this argument may seem and appropriate in some circumstances, it does present a problem when dealing with the privacy exception contained in section 8(1)(j). That is because the right to privacy envisaged in this section is also a pre-existing constitutional right which has been traced to the same provisions of the Constitution from which the constitutional right of freedom of information emanates.[14] Therefore there is an ambiguity regarding the treatment and priority given to the privacy exception vs. the disclosure mandate in the RTI Act, as it requires the balancing of not only two competing statutory rights but also two constitutional rights.

The Privacy Exception

As discussed earlier, the purpose of the RTI Act is to increase transparency and ensure that people have access to as much public information as possible. Such a right is critical in a democratic country as it allows for accountability of the State and allows individuals to seek out information and make informed decisions. However, it seems from the language of the RTI Act that at the time of its drafting the legislature did realize that there would be a conflict between the endeavor to provide information and the right to privacy of individuals over the information kept with public authorities, which is why a privacy exception was carved into section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act. The Act does not only protect the privacy of the third party who's information is at risk of being disclosed, but also the privacy of the applicant. In fact it has now been held that a private respondent need not give his/her ID or address as long as the information provided by him/her is sufficient to contact him/her.[15]

It is interesting to note that although the RTI Act gives every citizen a right to information, it does not limit this right with a stipulation as to how the information shall be used by the applicant or the reason for which the applicant wants such information. [16] This lack of a purpose limitation in the Act may have privacy implications as non sensitive personal information could be sought from different sources and processed by any person so as to convert such non-sensitive or anonymous information into identifiable information which could directly impact the privacy of individuals.

The exception in S. 8(1)(j) prohibits the disclosure of personal information for two reasons (i) its disclosure does not relate to any public activity or interest or (ii) it would be an unwarranted invasion into privacy. The above two conditions however get trumped if a larger public interest is satisfied by the disclosure of such information.

One interesting thing about the exception contained in section 8(1)(j) is that this exception itself has an exception to it in the form of a proviso. The proviso says that any information which cannot be denied to the central or state legislature shall not be denied to any person. Since the proviso has been placed at the end of sub-section 8(1) which is also the end of clause 8(1)(j), one might be tempted to ask whether this proviso applies only to the privacy exception i.e. clause 8(1)(j) or to the entire sub-section 8(1) (which includes other exceptions such as national interest, etc.). This issue was put to rest by the Bombay High Court when it held that since the proviso has been put only after clause 8(1)(j) and not before each and every clause, it would not apply to the entire sub-section 8(1) but only to clause 8(1)(j), thus ensuring that the exceptions to disclosure other than the right to privacy are not restricted by this proviso.[17]

Scope of Proviso to section 8(1)(j)
Though the courts have agreed that the proviso is applicable only to section 8(1)(j), the import of the proviso to section 8(1)(j) is a little more ambiguous and there are conflicting decisions by different High Courts on this point. Whereas the Bombay High Court has laid emphasis on the letter of the proviso and derived strength from the objects and overall scheme of the Act to water down the provisions of section 8(1)(j), [18] the Delhi High Court has disagreed with such an approach which gives "undue, even overwhelming deference" to Parliamentary privilege in seeking information. Such an approach would render the protection under section 8(1)j) meaningless, and the basic safeguard bereft of content.[19] In the words of the Delhi High Court:

" The proviso has to be only as confined to what it enacts, to the class of information that Parliament can ordinarily seek; if it were held that all information relating to all public servants, even private information, can be accessed by Parliament, Section 8(1)(j) would be devoid of any substance, because the provision makes no distinction between public and private information. Moreover there is no law which enables Parliament to demand all such information; it has to be necessarily in the context of some matter, or investigation. If the reasoning of the Bombay High Court were to be accepted, there would be nothing left of the right to privacy, elevated to the status of a fundamental right, by several judgments of the Supreme Court. "

The interpretation given by the Delhi High Court thus ensures that section 8(1)(j) still has some effect, as otherwise the privacy exception would have gotten steamrolled by parliamentary privilege and all sorts of information such as Income Tax Returns, etc. of both private and public individuals would have been liable to disclosure under the RTI Act.

Unfortunately, the RTI Act does not describe the terms "personal information" or "larger public interest" used in section 8(1)(j), which leaves some amount of ambiguity in interpreting the privacy exception to the RTI Act. Therefore the only option for anyone to understand these terms in greater depth is to discuss and analyse the case laws developed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Courts which have tried to throw some light on this issue.

We shall discuss some of these landmark judgments to understand the interpretations given to these terms and then move on to specific instances where (applying these principles) information has been disclosed or denied.

Personal Information
The RTI Act defines the term information but does not define the term "personal information". Therefore one has to rely on judicial pronouncements to understand the term a more clearly. Looking at the common understanding and dictionary meaning of "personal" as well as the definition of "information" contained in the RTI Act it could be said that personal information would be information, information that pertains to a person and as such it takes into its fold possibly every kind of information relating to the person. Now, such personal information of the person may, or may not, have relation to any public activity, or to public interest. At the same time, such personal information may, or may not, be private to the person. [20]

The Delhi High Court has tried to draw a distinction between the term "private information" which encompasses the personal intimacies of the home, the family, marriage, motherhood, procreation, child rearing and of the like nature and "personal information" which would be any information that pertains to an individual. This would logically imply that all private information would be part of personal information but not the other way round. [21] The term 'personal information' has in other cases, been variously described as "identity particulars of public servants, i.e. details such as their dates of birth, personal identification numbers",[22] and as including tax returns, medical records etc.[23] It is worth noting that just because the term used is "personal information" does not mean that the information always has to relate to an actual person, but may even be a juristic entity such as a trust or corporation, etc.[24]

Larger Public Interest
The term larger public interest has not been discussed or defined in the RTI Act, however the Courts have developed some tests to determine if in a given situation, personal information should be disclosed in the larger public interest.

Whenever a Public Information Officer is asked for personal information about any person, it has to balance the competing claims of the privacy of the third party on the one hand and claim of public interest on the other and determine whether the public interest in such a disclosure satisfies violating a person's privacy. The expression "public interest" is not capable of a precise definition and does not have a rigid meaning. It is therefore an elastic term and takes its colors from the statute in which it occurs, the concept varying with the time and the state of the society and its needs. This seems to be the reason why the legislature and even the Courts have shied away from a precise definition of "public interest". However, the term public interest does not mean something that is merely interesting or satisfies the curiosity or love of information or amusement; but something in which a class of the community have some interest by which their rights or liabilities are affected.[25]

There have been suggestions that the use of the word "larger" before the term "public interest" denotes that the public interest involved should serve a large section of the society and not just a small section of it, i.e. if the information has a bearing on the economy, the moral values in the society; the environment; national safety, or the like, the same would qualify as "larger public interest".[26] However this is not a very well supported theory and the usage of the term "larger public interest" cannot be given such a narrow meaning, for example what if the disclosure of the information could save the lives of only 10 people or even just 5 children? Would the information not be released just because it violates one person's right to privacy and there is not a significant number of lives at stake? This does not seem to be what all the cases on the right to privacy, right from Kharak Singh[27] all the way to Naz Foundation, [28] seem to suggest. Infact, in the very same judgment where the above interpretation has been suggested, the Court undermines this argument by giving the example of a person with a previous crime of sexual assault being employed in an orphanage and says that the interest of the small group of children in the orphanage would outweigh the privacy concerns of the individual thus requiring disclosure of all information regarding the employee's past.

In light of the above understanding of section 8(1)(j), there seem to be two different tests that have been proposed by the Courts, which seem to connote the same principle although in different words:

1. The test laid down by Union Public Service Commission v. R.K. Jain:

(i) The information sought must relate to „Personal information‟ as understood above of a third party. Therefore, if the information sought does not qualify as personal information, the exemption would not apply;

(ii) Such personal information should relate to a third person, i.e., a person other than the information seeker or the public authority; AND

(iii) (a) The information sought should not have a relation to any public activity qua such third person, or to public interest. If the information sought relates to public activity of the third party, i.e. to his activities falling within the public domain, the exemption would not apply. Similarly, if the disclosure of the personal information is found justified in public interest, the exemption would be lifted, otherwise not; OR (b) The disclosure of the information would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual, and that there is no larger public interest involved in such disclosure. [29]

2. The other test was laid down in Vijay Prakash v. Union of India, but in the specific circumstances of disclosure of personal information relating to a public official:

(i) whether the information is deemed to comprise the individual's private details, unrelated to his position in the organization;

(ii) whether the disclosure of the personal information is with the aim of providing knowledge of the proper performance of the duties and tasks assigned to the public servant in any specific case; and

(iii) whether the disclosure will furnish any information required to establish accountability or transparency in the use of public resources. [30]

Constitutional Restrictions
Since there is not extensive academic discussion on the meaning of the term "larger public interest" or "public interest" as provided in section 8(1)(j), one is forced to turn to other sources to get a better idea of these terms. One such source is constitutional law, since the right to privacy, as contained in section 8(1)(j) has its origins in Articles 14,[31] 19(1)(a) [32] and 21[33] of the Constitution of India. The constitutional right to privacy in India is also not an absolute right and various cases have carved out a number of exceptions to privacy, a perusal of which may give some indication as to what may be considered as 'larger public interest', these restrictions are:

a) Reasonable restrictions can be imposed on the right to privacy in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence; ^{^[34]}

b) Reasonable restrictions can be imposed upon the right to privacy either in the interests of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribe;^{^[35]}

c) The right to privacy can be restricted by procedure established by law which procedure would have to satisfy the test laid down in the Maneka Gandhi case.^{^[36]}

d) The right can be restricted if there is an important countervailing interest which is superior; ^{^[37]}

e) It can be restricted if there is a compelling state interest to be served by doing so; ^{^[38]}

f) It can be restricted in case there is a compelling public interest to be served by doing so; ^{^[39]}

g) The Rajagopal tests - This case lays down three exceptions to the rule that a person's private information cannot be published, viz. i) person voluntarily thrusts himself into controversy or voluntarily raises or invites a controversy, ii) if publication is based on public records other than for sexual assault, kidnap and abduction, iii) there is no right to privacy for public officials with respect to their acts and conduct relevant to the discharge of their official duties. It must be noted that although the Court talks about public records, it does not use the term 'public domain' and thus it is possible that even if a document has been leaked in the public domain and is freely available, if it is not a matter of public record, the right to privacy can still be claimed in regard to it.^{^[40]}

Section 8(1)(j) in Practice

The discussion in the previous chapter regarding the interpretation of section 8(1)(j), though (hopefully) helpful still seems a little abstract without specific instances and illustrations to drive home the point. In this chapter we shall endeavor to briefly discuss some specific cases regarding information disclosure where the issue of violation of privacy of a third party was raised.

Private Information of Public Officials
Some of the most common problems regarding section 8(1)(j) come up when discussing information (personal or otherwise) regarding public officers. The issue comes up because an argument can be made that certain information such as income tax details, financial details, medical records, etc. of public officials should be disclosed since it has a bearing on their public activities and disclosure of such information in case of crooked officers would serve the interests of transparency and cleaner government (hence serving a larger public interest). Although section 8(1)(j) does not make any distinction between a private person and a public servant, a distinction in the way their personal information is treated does appear in reality due to the inherent nature of a public servant. Infact it has sometimes been argued that public servants must waive the right to privacy in favour of transparency.[41] However this argument has been repeatedly rejected by the Courts, [42] just because a person assumes public office does not mean that he/she would automatically lose their right to privacy in favour of transparency.

If personal information regarding a public servant is asked for, then a distinction must be made between the information that is inherently personal to the person and that which has a connection with his/her public functions. The information exempted under section 8(1)(j) is personal information which is so intimately private in nature that the disclosure of the same would not benefit any other person, but would result in the invasion of the privacy of the third party.[43] In short, the Courts have concluded that there can be no blanket rule regarding what information can and cannot be disclosed when it comes to a public servant, and the disclosure (or lack of it) would depend upon the circumstances of each case.

Although the earlier thinking of the CIC as well as various High Courts of the country was that information regarding disciplinary proceedings and service records of public officials is to be treated as public information in order to boost transparency,[44] however this line of thinking took almost a U-turn in 2012 after the decision of the Supreme Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner,[45] and now the prevailing principle is that such information is personal information and should not be disclosed unless a larger public interest is would be served by the disclosure.

It would also be helpful to look at a list of the type of information regarding public servants which has been disclosed in the past, gleaned from various cases, to get a better understanding of the prevailing trends in such cases:

(i) Details of postings of public servants at various points of time, since this was not considered as personal information; [46]

(ii) Copies of posting/ transfer orders of public servants, since it was not considered personal information; [47]

(iii) Information regarding transfers of colleagues cannot be exempted from disclosure, since disclosure would not cause any unwarranted invasion of privacy and non disclosure would defeat the object of the RTI Act;[48]

(iv) Information regarding the criteria adopted and the marks allotted to various academic qualifications, experience and interview in selection process for government posts by the state Public Service Commission;[49]

(v) Information regarding marks obtained in written test, interview, annual confidential reports of the applicant as well as the marks in the written test and interview of the last candidate selected, since this information was not considered as personal information; [50]

(vi) Information relating to the appointment and educational certificates of teachers in an educational institution (which satisfies the requirements of being a public authority) was disclosed since this was considered as relevant to them performing their functions. [51]

The performance of an employee/officer in an organization is primarily a matter between the employee and the employer and normally those aspects are governed by the service rules which fall under the expression "personal information", the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest. To understand this better below is a brief list of the type of information that has been considered by the Courts as personal information which is liable to be exempt from disclosure under section 8(1)(j):

(i) (a) Salary details, (b) show cause notice, memo and censure, (c) return of assets and liabilities, (d) details of investment and other related details, (e) details of gifts accepted, (f) complete enquiry proceedings, (g) details of income tax returns;[52]

(ii) All memos issued, show cause notices and orders of censure/punishment etc. are personal information. Cannot be revealed unless a larger public interest justifies such disclosure;[53]

(iii) Disciplinary information of an employee is personal information and is exempt under section 8(1)(j); [54]

(iv) Medical records cannot be disclosed due to section 8(1)(j) as they come under "personal information", unless a larger public interest can be shown meriting such disclosure;[55]

(v) Copy of personnel records and service book (containing Annual Confidential Reports, etc.) of a public servant is personal information and cannot be disclosed due to section 8(1)(j);[56]

(vi) Information regarding sexual disorder, DNA test between an officer and his surrogate mother, name of his biological father and step father, name of his mother and surrogate step mother and such other aspects were denied by the Courts as such information was considered beyond the perception of decency and was an invasion into another man's privacy.[57]

It is not just the issue of disclosure of personal details of public officials that raises complicated questions regarding the right to information, but the opposite is equally true, i.e. what about seemingly "public" details of private individuals. A very complicated question arose with regard to information relating to the passport details of private individuals.

Passport Information of Private Individuals
The disclosure of passport details of private individuals is complicated because for a long time there was some confusion because of the treatment to be given to passport details, i.e. would its disclosure cause an invasion of privacy since it contains personally identifying information, specially because photocopies of the passport are regularly given for various purposes such as travelling, getting a new phone connection, etc. The Central Information Commission used a somewhat convoluted logic that since a person providing information relating to his residence and identity while applying for a passport was engaging in a public activity therefore such information relates to a public activity and should be disclosed. This view was rejected by the Delhi High Court in the case of Union of India v. Hardev Singh,[58] and the view taken inHardev Singh was later endorsed and relied upon in Union of India v. Rajesh Bhatia, [59] while hearing a number of petitions to decide what details of a third party's passport should be disclosed and what should be exempt from disclosure.

A list of the Courts conclusions is given below:

Information that can be revealed:

(i) Name of passport holder;

(ii) Whether a visa was issued to a third party or not;

(iii) Details of the passport including dates of first issue, subsequent renewals, dates of application for renewals, numbers of the new passports and date of expiry;

(iv) Nature of documents submitted as proof;

(v) Name of police station from where verification for passport was done;

(vi) Whether any report was called for from the jurisdictional police;

(vii) Whether passport was renewed through an agent or through a foreign embassy;

(viii) Whether it was renewed in India or any foreign country;

(ix) Whether tatkal facility was availed by the passport holder;

Information that cannot be revealed:

(i) Contents of the documents submitted with the passport application;

(ii) Marital status and name and address of husband;

(iii) Whether person's name figures as mother/guardian in the passport of any minor;

(iv) Copy of passport application form;

(v) Residential address of passport holder;

(vi) Details of cases filed/pending against passport holder;

(vii) Copy of old passport;

(viii) Report of the police and CID for issuing the passport;

(ix) Copy of the Verification Certificate, if any such Verification Certificate was relied upon for the issue of the passport.

Other Instances

Apart from the above two broad categories of information that has been the subject of intense judicial discussion, certain other situations have also arisen where the Courts have had to decide the issue of disclosure under section 8(1)(j), a brief summary of such situations is given below:

(i) names and details of people who received money as donations from the President out of public funds was considered as information which has a definite link to public activities and was therefore liable to be disclosed;[60]

(ii) information regarding the religion practiced by a person, who is alleged to be a public figure, collected by the Census authorities was not disclosed since it was held that the quest to obtain the information about the religion professed or not professed by a citizen cannot be in any event; [61]

(iii) information regarding all FIRs against a person was not protected under section 8(1)(j) since it was already a matter of public record and Court record and could not be said to be an invasion of the person's privacy;[62]

(iv) information regarding the income tax returns of a public charitable trust was held not to be exempt under section 8(1)(j), since the trust involved was a public charitable trust functioning under a Scheme formulated by the District Court and registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act as such due to its character and activities its tax returns would be in relation to public interest or activities.[63]

Conclusion

A discussion of the provisions of section 8 and 11 of the RTI Act as well as the case laws under it reveals that the legislature was aware of the dangers posed to the privacy of individuals from such a powerful transparency law. However, it did not want the exceptions carved out to protect the privacy of individuals to nullify the objects of the RTI Act and therefore drafted the legislation to incorporate the principle that although the RTI Act should not be used to violate the privacy of individuals, such an exception will not be applicable if a larger public interest is to be served by the disclosure. This principle is in line with other common law jurisdictions such as the U.K, Austalia, Canada, etc. which have similar exceptions based on privacy or confidentiality.

However it is disappointing to note that the legislature has only left the legislation at the stage of the principle which has left the language of the exception very wide and open to varied interpretations. It is understandable that the legislature would try to keep specifics out of the scope of the section to make it future proof. It is obvious that it would be impossible for the legislature or the courts to imagine every single circumstance that could arise where the right to information and the right to privacy would be at loggerheads. However, such wide and ambiguous drafting has led to cases where the Courts and the Central Information Commission have taken opposing views, with the views of the Court obviously prevailing in the end. This was illustrated by the issue of disclosure of passport details of private individuals with a large number of CIC cases taking different views till the High Court of Delhi gave categorical findings on the issue in the Hardev Singh and Rajesh Bhatia cases. Similar was the issue of service details of public officials since before the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande in 2012 the prevailing thinking of the CIC was that details of disciplinary proceedings against public officials are not covered by section 8(1)(j), however this thinking has now taken a U-turn as the Supreme Court's understanding of the right to privacy has taken stronger roots and such information is now outside the scope of the RTI Act, unless a larger public interest in the disclosure can be shown.

The ambiguity that arises in application when trying to balance the right to privacy against the right to information is a drawback in incorporating only a principle and leaving the language ambiguous in any legislation. This paper does not advocate that the legislature try to list out all the instances of this problem that are possibly imaginable, this would be too time consuming and may even be counterproductive. However, it is possible for the legislature to adopt an accepted practice of legislative drafting and list certain instances where there is an obvious balancing required between the two rights and put them as "Illustrations" to the section. This device has been utilised to great effect by some of the most fundamental legislations in India such as the Contract Act, 1872 and the Indian Penal Code, 1860. An alternative to this approach could be to utilize the approach taken in the Australian Freedom of Information Act, where the Act itself gives certain factors which should be considered to determine whether access to a particular document would be in the public interest or not.

List of References

Primary Sources

1. Australia Freedom of Information Act, 1982.

2. Bennet Coleman v. Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 106.

3. Bhagat Singh v. Chief Information Commissioner, 2008 (64) AIC 284 (Del).

4. Calcutta High Court, WP (W) No. 33290 of 2013, dated 20-11-2013.

5. Canadian Access to Information Act.

6. Canara Bank v. Chief Information Commissioner, 2007 (58) AIC Ker 667

7. Constitution of India, 1950.

8. Govind v. State of M.P., Supreme Court of India, WP No. 72 of 1970, dated 18-03-1975.

9. Haryana Public Service Commission v. State Information Commission, AIR 2009 P & H 14.

10. Jamia Millia Islamia v. Sh. Ikramuddin, Delhi High Court, WP(C) 5677 of 2011 dated 22-11-2011.

11. Jitendra Singh v. State of U.P., 2008 (66) AIC 685 (All).

12. Kharak Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1963 SC 129.

13. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, Supreme Court of India, WP No. 231 of 1977, dated 25-01-1978.

14. Naz Foundation Delhi High Court, WP(C) No.7455/2001 dated 02-07-2009.

15. P.C. Wadhwa v. Central Information Commission, Punjab and Haryana High Court, LPA No. 1252 of 2009 dated 29-11-2010.

16. Paardarshita Public Welfare Foundation v. Union of India and others, AIR 2011 Del 82.

17. President's Secretariat v. Nitish Kumar Tripathi, Delhi High Court, WP (C) 3382 of 2012, dated 14-06-2012.

18. Public Information Officer v. Andhra Pradesh Information Commission,2009 (76) AIC 854 (AP).

19. R. Rajagopal v. Union of India, Supreme Court of India, dated 7-10-1994.

20. Rajendra Vasantlal Shah v. Central Information Commissioner, New Delhi, AIR 2011 Guj 70.

21. Rajinder Jaina v. Central Information Commission, 2010 (86) AIC 510 (Del. H.C.).

22. Right to Information Act, 2005

23. Secretary General, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra, Delhi High Court - Full Bench, LPA No.501/2009, dated 12-01-2010.

24. Srikant Pandaya v. State of M.P., AIR 2011 MP 14.

25. Surendra Singh v. State of U.P, AIR 2009 Alld. 106.

26. Surup Singh Hyra Naik v. State of Maharashtra, 2007 (58) AIC 739 (Bom).

27. Tata Press Ltd. v. Maharashtra Telephone Nigam Ltd., (1995) 5 SCC 139.

28. U.K. Freedom of Information Act, 2000.

29. UCO Bank v. Central Information Commissioner and another, 2009 (79) AIC 545 (P&H).

30. Union Centre for Earth Science Studies v. Anson Sebastian, AIR 2010 Ker. 151

31. Union of India v. Hardev Singh WP(C) 3444 of 2012 dated 23-08-2013.

32. Union of India v. Rajesh Bhatia WP(C) 2232/2012 dated 17-09-2013.

33. Union Public Service Commission v. R.K. Jain, Delhi High Court W.P.(C) 1243/2011 & C.M. No. 2618/2011 ( for stay), dated 13-07-2012.

34. Vijay Prakash v. Union of India, 2009 (82) AIC 583 (Del).

Secondary Sources

1. "Country Report for U.K.", Privacy International, available at https://www.privacyinternational.org/reports/united-kingdom.

2. "Country Report for Australia", Privacy International, available at https://www.privacyinternational.org/reports/australia.

3. "Country Report for Canada", Privacy International, available at https://www.privacyinternational.org/reports/canada.

[1] AIR 1973 SC 106. This case held that the freedom of the press embodies in itself the right of the people to read.

[2] (1995) 5 SCC 139.

[3] AIR 1963 SC 129.

[4] Supreme Court of India, WP No. 72 of 1970, dated 18-03-1975.

[5] Section 8(1) in its entirety states as follows:

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,-

(a) information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;

(b) information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court;

(d) information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;

(e) information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;

(f) information received in confidence from foreign Government;

(g) information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;

(h) information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;

(i) cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers:

Provided that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over:

Provided further that those matters which come under the exemptions specified in this section shall not be disclosed;

(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:

Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.

[6] Section 11 of the RTI Act.

[7] The Registrar General v. A. Kanagaraj, (Madras High Court, 14 June 2013, available at http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/36226888/.

[8] Arvind Kejriwal v. Central Public Information Officer, (Delhi High Court, 30 September 2011, available at http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1923225/.

[9] Sections 40 and 41 of the U.K. Freedom of Information Act, 2000.

[10] Section 11A read with section 47-F of the Australia Freedom of Information Act, 1982.

[11] Section 19 of the Canadian Access to Information Act.

[12] Public Information Officer v. Andhra Pradesh Information Commission,2009 (76) AIC 854 (AP).

[13] Bhagat Singh v. Chief Information Commissioner, 2008 (64) AIC 284 (Del).

[14] Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950.

[15] Calcutta High Court, WP(W) No. 33290 of 2013, dated 20-11-2013.

[16] Jitendra Singh v. State of U.P., 2008 (66) AIC 685 (All).

[17] Surup Singh Hyra Naik v. State of Maharashtra, 2007 (58) AIC 739 (Bom).

[18] Surup Singh Hyra Naik v. State of Maharashtra, 2007 (58) AIC 739 (Bom), para 14. Where the Court held that since the medical records of a convict cannot be denied to Parliament or State legislature therefore they cannot be exempted from disclosure under the Act.

[19] Vijay Prakash v. Union of India, 2009 (82) AIC 583 (Del).

[20] Union Public Service Commission v. R.K. Jain, Delhi High Court W.P.(C) 1243/2011 & C.M. No. 2618/2011 ( for stay), dated 13-07-2012.

[21] Union Public Service Commission v. R.K. Jain, Delhi High Court W.P.(C) 1243/2011 & C.M. No. 2618/2011 ( for stay), dated 13-07-2012.

[22] Vijay Prakash v. Union of India, 2009 (82) AIC 583 (Del).

[23] Secretary General, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra, Delhi High Court - Full Bench, LPA No.501/2009, dated 12-01-2010.

[24] Jamia Millia Islamia v. Sh. Ikramuddin , Delhi High Court, WP(C) 5677 of 2011 dated 22-11-2011.

[25] Union Public Service Commission v. R.K. Jain, Delhi High Court W.P.(C) 1243/2011 & C.M. No. 2618/2011 ( for stay), dated 13-07-2012.

[26] Union Public Service Commission v. R.K. Jain, Delhi High Court W.P.(C) 1243/2011 & C.M. No. 2618/2011 ( for stay), dated 13-07-2012.

[27] AIR 1963 SC 129.

[28] Delhi High Court, WP(C) No.7455/2001 dated 02-07-2009.

[29] Union Public Service Commission v. R.K. Jain, Delhi High Court W.P.(C) 1243/2011 & C.M. No. 2618/2011 (for stay), dated 13-07-2012. This ruling was overturned by a Division Bench of the High Court relying upon a subsequent Supreme Court ruling, however, it could be argued that the Division Bench did not per se disagree with the discussion and the principles laid down in this case, but only the way they were applied.

[30] Vijay Prakash v. Union of India, 2009 (82) AIC 583 (Del).

[31] Right to equality.

[32] Freedom of speech and expression.

[33] Right to life.

[34] Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India, 1950.

[35] Article 19(5) of the Constitution of India, 1950.

[36] Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, Supreme Court of India, WP No. 231 of 1977, dated 25-01-1978. The test laid down in this case is universally considered to be that the procedure established by law which restricts the fundamental right should be just, fair and reasonable.

[37] Govind v. State of M.P., Supreme Court of India, WP No. 72 of 1970, dated 18-03-1975.

[38] Govind v. State of M.P., Supreme Court of India, WP No. 72 of 1970, dated 18-03-1975.

[39] Govind v. State of M.P., Supreme Court of India, WP No. 72 of 1970, dated 18-03-1975. However the Court later used phrases such as "reasonable restriction in public interest" and "reasonable restriction upon it for compelling interest of State" interchangeably which seems to suggest that the terms "compelling public interest" and "compelling state interest" used by the Court are being used synonymously and the Court does not draw any distinction between them. It is also important to note that the wider phrase "countervailing interest is shown to be superior" seems to suggest that it is possible, atleast in theory, to have other interests apart from public interest or state interest also which could trump the right to privacy.

[40] R. Rajagopal v. Union of India , Supreme Court of India, dated 7-10-1994. These tests have been listed as one group since they are all applicable in the specific context of publication of private information.

[41] Vijay Prakash v. Union of India, 2009 (82) AIC 583 (Del).

[42] Secretary General, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra, Delhi High Court - Full Bench, LPA No.501/2009, dated 12-01-2010. Also see Vijay Prakash v. Union of India, 2009 (82) AIC 583 (Del).

[43] Canara Bank v. Chief Information Commissioner, 2007 (58) AIC Ker 667. This case also held that information cannot be denied on the ground that it would be too voluminous.

[44] Union Centre for Earth Science Studies v. Anson Sebastian, AIR 2010 Ker. 151; Union Public Service Commission v. R.K. Jain, Delhi High Court W.P.(C) 1243/2011 & C.M. No. 2618/2011 (for stay), dated 13-07-2012

[45] 2012 (119) AIC 105 (SC).

[46] Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner, 2012 (119) AIC 105 (SC).

[47] Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner, 2012 (119) AIC 105 (SC).

[48] Canara Bank v. Chief Information Commissioner, 2007 (58) AIC Ker 667.

[49] Haryana Public Service Commission v. State Information Commission, AIR 2009 P & H 14.

[50] UCO Bank v. Central Information Commissioner and another, 2009 (79) AIC 545 (P&H).

[51] Surendra Singh v. State of U.P, AIR 2009 Alld. 106.

[52] Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner, 2012 (119) AIC 105 (SC).

[53] Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner, 2012 (119) AIC 105 (SC).

[54] R.K. Jain v. Union Public Service Commission, Delhi High Court, LPA No. 618 of 2012, dated 12-11-2012.

[55] Secretary General, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra, Delhi High Court - Full Bench, LPA No.501/2009, dated 12-01-2010.

[56] Srikant Pandaya v. State of M.P., AIR 2011 MP 14.

[57] Paardarshita Public Welfare Foundation v. Union of India and others, AIR 2011 Del 82. It must be mentioned that this case was not exactly under the procedure prescribed under the RTI Act but was a public interest litigation although the courts relied upon the provisions of the RTI Act.

[58] WP(C) 3444 of 2012 dated 23-08-2013.

[59] WP(C) 2232/2012 dated 17-09-2013.

[60] President's Secretariat v. Nitish Kumar Tripathi, Delhi High Court, WP (C) 3382 of 2012, dated 14-06-2012.

[61] P.C. Wadhwa v. Central Information Commission, Punjab and Haryana High Court, LPA No. 1252 of 2009 dated 29-11-2010.

[62] Rajinder Jaina v. Central Information Commission, 2010 (86) AIC 510 (Del. H.C.).

[63] Rajendra Vasantlal Shah v. Central Information Commissioner, New Delhi, AIR 2011 Guj 70.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/white-paper-on-rti-and-privacy-v-1.2

Learning Forum: Transparency and Human Rights in the Digital Age

praskrishna — 2014-12-04T16:14:38Z

Pranesh Prakash spoke at this event organized by Global Network Initiative on November 6, 2014 in California.

Pranesh Prakash spoke on transparency reports and their use and abuse in India; the Intermediary Liability Rules in India (and its non-provision of any transparency mechanism); and the need for transparency in private speech regulation, not just governmental speech regulation.

The Global Network Initiative and the Telecommunications Industry Dialogue on Freedom of Expression and Privacy present:

2014 Learning Forum - Silicon Valley
Transparency and Human Rights in the Digital Age

Hosted by LinkedIn

Agenda

1:30PM - Registration

2:00PM - Opening Remarks

Mark Stephens, Independent Chair, Global Network Initiative

Jeffrey Dygert, Executive Director of Public Policy, AT&T

Pablo Chavez, Vice President, Global Public Policy and Government Affairs, LinkedIn

2:15PM - Why does transparency matter for protecting and respecting rights online?

Arvind Ganesan, Director of Business and Human Rights, Human Rights Watch

Deirdre Mulligan, Associate Professor, UC Berkeley School of Information

Michael Samway, School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University

3:00PM - What is the state of transparency reporting by companies and governments, and what's missing?

Steve Crown, Vice President and Deputy General Counsel, Microsoft

Jeffrey Dygert, Executive Director of Public Policy, AT&T

Jason Pielemeier, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, U.S. Department of State

Pranesh Prakash, Policy Director, Centre for Internet & Society, Bangalore

Moderated by Bennett Freeman, Senior Vice President, Sustainability Research and Policy, Calvert Investments

4:00PM - Break

4:30PM - How do companies communicate with users in response to live events?

Ben Blink, Senior Policy Analyst, Free Expression and International Relations, Google

Patrik Hiselius, Senior Advisor, Digital Rights, TeliaSonera

Rebecca MacKinnon, Director, Ranking Digital Rights Project, New America Foundation

Hemanshu Nigam, CEO, SSP Blue

Sana Saleem, Director, Bolo Bhi

Moderated by Cynthia Wong, Senior Internet Researcher, Human Rights Watch

The program will be followed by a reception from 5:30 to 6:30pm.

By invitation only, non-transferrable.

Have questions about Learning Forum: Transparency and Human Rights in the Digital Age? Contact Global Network Initiative

The original was published here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/learning-forum-transparency-and-human-rights-in-the-digital-age

E-Consultation on Cyber Security, Justice, and Governance Begins!

praskrishna — 2014-12-04T23:36:27Z

Sunil Abraham facilitated the e-consultation on "Internet access, the freedom of expression online, and development in the Global South" at the event organized by the Hague Institute for Global Justice.

This was originally published on the website of the Hague Institute for Global Justice on November 4, 2014.

On 3 November 2014, The Hague Institute launched its first e-consultation, which seeks to contribute to the work of the Commission on Global Security, Justice, and Governance. This is the first of a series of e-consultations on topics relevant to the research and policy agenda of the Commission.

This consultation brings together over 75 international cyber security and cyber governance experts and seeks to build on the high-level Expert Consultation on Cyber Security, Justice, and Governance hosted by The Hague Institute, The Stimson Center and the Observer Research Foundation in New Delhi on 18 October 2014 following the conclusion of the India Conference on Cyber Security and Cyber Governance.

The consultation was chaired by Dr. Jane Holl Lute – a Commissioner, and President and CEO of the Council on Cyber Security and Former U.S. Deputy-Secretary for Homeland Security. Speakers included former Deputy National Security Advisor of India, Ambassador Latha Reddy and Executive Director of the Centre for Internet and Society, Mr. Sunil Abraham.

A summary of the expert discussion can be read here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-hague-institute-for-global-justice-november-4-2014-e-consultation-on-cyber-security-justice-and-governance-begins

India's Statement at ITU Plenipotentiary Conference, 2014

geetha — 2014-11-04T05:50:06Z

India's Draft Resolution at the ITU Plenipot, which we have previously blogged about, was not passed following discussions at the Ad Hoc Working Group on Internet-related Resolutions. Subsequently, India made a statement at the Working Group of the Plenary, emphasizing the importance of the issues and welcoming further discussions. The statement was delivered by Mr. Ram Narain, DDG-IR, Department of Telecommunications and Head of India's Delegation at PP-14. The full text of the statement is provided below.

"Chairman of Working Group Plenary, Mr Musab Abdulla, Head of Delegations, delegates, ladies and gentlemen, good morning/afternoon to you all. I was indeed impressed with the camaraderie with which discussions were held inspite of the fact that delegates discussing the issues have different cultures, languages, nuances, impressions and sometime interests.

"Governance of packet-switched data telecom Networks based on Internet Protocol (IP), popularly known as Internet, has become an important and contentious issue due to several reasons known to all of us. We put up a draft resolution to address some of these key issues pertaining to IP based networks. When we put up the proposal, I had thought that the proposal would contribute in diminishing some of the differences. These issues and their probable solutions are given in our draft resolution, document 98, about which we were ready to take constructive inputs.

"Information is power these days. The wise Lord Acton said about hundred and fifty years ago that Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The countries in modern times have become great on the principles of equality, liberty and justice. As and when these principles were compromised great powers lost their hold. Broadband penetration and connectivity has been the important running theme of this conference. We believe this, like great empires, can only be built on the principles of fairness, justice, and equality. No Telecom Network whether IP based or otherwise can function without naming and numbering, which is the lifeline of a network. Their availability in a fair, just and equitable manner, therefore, is an important public policy issue and need to be dealt that way. We believe that respecting the principle of sovereignty of information through network functionality and global norms will go a long way in increasing the trust and confidence in use of ICT.

"There are number of existing Internet related resolutions, but they only touch the issue in general and, therefore, without focus concrete action does not happen. Our Resolution was with a view to deal with the issues in a focused manner. Some countries supported our draft resolution, while some other were not able to support it. Some stated since the proposal is a comprehensive one, dealing with number of important issues, more time is needed for them to develop a view on it. Due to the number of proposals with Ad Hoc Group lined up before our draft resolution, there was no time left for detailed discussion on the proposal. Therefore, India agreed not to press the resolution for discussion due to paucity of time, with an understanding that for these issues of concerns for many Member States, contributions can be made in various fora dealing with development of IP based networks and future networks, including ITU. India would like that discussion should take place on these issues and look forward to these discussions. We would request that this Statement is included in the records of Plenipotentiary-14 meeting.

"We would like to thank for the cooperation extended by various Member States, particularly USA, for appreciating our concerns and all those who shared our concerns and supported the draft resolution. I would also like to thank Mr. Fabio Bigi, Chairman of Ad Hoc Working Group for giving patient hearing to all us and tolerating all our idiosyncrasies and still arriving at consensus. This is because of his wisdom, which comes with experience.

Thank you all."

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/indias-statement-at-itu-plenipotentiary-conference-2014

Several Indian Twitter users' accounts suspended due to tech glitch

praskrishna — 2014-12-05T00:17:15Z

Twitter denies conspiracy theory, blames technical glitch for account suspensions

The blog entry by Silky Malhotra was published on digit on November 3, 2014. Pranesh Prakash gave his inputs.

The accounts of several Twitter users were suspended for unknown reasons, setting off conspiracy theories that only the accounts of right-wing supporters had been targeted. However, Twitter has denied these rumors and instead blamed technical issues for the glitch.

Although Twitter blamed a technical glitch for the account suspension, several Twitter users responded by stating that there was a pattern to the suspension because 'suspended users' were asked to change their behavior to be able to continue using the micro-blogging site.

A message sent out to a Twitter user whose account was suspended read, "Twitter has automated systems that find and remove multiple automated spam accounts in bulk".

Twitter officials have denied blocking of accounts deliberately and added that the incident was an accident as part of spam cleaning process.

Twitter also apologized for the inconvenience but added, "Unfortunately, your account got caught in one of these spam groups by mistake. It is possible your account posted an update that appeared to be spam, so please be careful what you tweet... You will need to change your behavior to continue using Twitter. Repeat violations of the Twitter rules may result in the permanent suspension of your account."

However this statement has triggered outrage among users who called it Internet policing. Several users responded with humor, and one posted, "In the Twitter canteen you never get chicken wings in pairs because the right wing is blocked."

Pranesh Prakash, policy director, Centre for Internet and Society, stated that though there have been instances of 'privatisation of censorship' in the past, this incident may not have been that. "It doesn't look deliberate especially because even accounts such as eBay India were suspended."

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/digit-november-3-2014-silky-malhotra-several-indian-twitter-users-accounts-suspended-due-to-tech-glitch

Twitter users find several accounts suspended for unknown reasons

praskrishna — 2014-12-07T01:27:05Z

Twitter users woke up on Saturday to find several accounts suspended for unknown reasons, triggering conspiracy theories that only the accounts of right-wing supporters had been targeted.

The article by Vasudha Venugopal was published in the Economic Times on November 2, 2014. Pranesh Prakash gave his inputs.

While it was said to have resulted from a technical glitch that suspended random accounts, several tweeters said there was a pattern to the suspension because 'suspended users' were asked to change their behaviour to be able to continue using the micro-blogging site. But by afternoon it was clear that many accounts, irrespective of their posts, had been suspended for a few hours. All suspended accounts were restored by afternoon.

A message sent out to a tweeter whose account was suspended read, "Twitter has automated systems that find and remove multiple automated spam accounts in bulk.

Unfortunately, your account got caught in one of these spam groups by mistake." Twitter also apologised for the inconvenience but added, "It is possible your account posted an update that appeared to be spam, so please be careful what you tweet... You will need to change your behaviour to continue using Twitter. Repeat violations of the Twitter rules may result in the permanent suspension of your account."

This triggered outrage among the Twitteratti who called it internet policing. There was humour too, with a tweeter posting, "In the Twitter canteen you never get chicken wings in pairs because the right wing is blocked."

Twitter officials said there was no deliberate blocking of accounts and that the incident was an accident as part of spam cleaning process. Pranesh Prakash, policy director, Centre for Internet and Society, said though there have been instances of 'privatisation of censorship' in the recent past, this incident did not look like one such attempt. "It doesn't look deliberate especially because even accounts such as eBay India were suspended."

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-economic-times-vasudha-venugopal-november-2-2014-twitter-users-find-several-accounts-suspended-for-unknown-reasons