We are anonymous, we are legion

Governing ID: Kenya’s Huduma Namba Programme

amber — 2020-03-02T13:19:15Z

In our fourth case-study, we use our Evaluation Framework for Digital ID to examine the use of Digital ID in Kenya.

Read the case-study or download as PDF.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/governing-id-kenya2019s-huduma-namba-programme

Governing ID: Introducing our Evaluation Framework

Shruti Trikanad — 2020-03-02T08:03:49Z

With the rise of national digital identity systems (Digital ID) across the world, there is a growing need to examine their impact on human rights. In several instances, national Digital ID programmes started with a specific scope of use, but have since been deployed for different applications, and in different sectors. This raises the question of how to determine appropriate and inappropriate uses of Digital ID. In April 2019, our research began with this question, but it quickly became clear that a determination of the legitimacy of uses hinged on the fundamental attributes and governing structure of the Digital ID system itself. Our evaluation framework is intended as a series of questions against which Digital ID may be tested. We hope that these questions will inform the trade-offs that must be made while building and assessing identity programmes, to ensure that human rights are adequately protected.

Rule of Law Tests

Foundational Digital ID must only be implemented along with a legitimate regulatory framework that governs all aspects of Digital ID, including its aims and purposes, the actors who have access to it, etc. In the absence of this framework, there is nothing that precludes Digital IDs from being leveraged by public and private actors for purposes outside the intended scope of the programme. Our rule of law principles mandate that the governing law should be enacted by the legislature, be devoid of excessive delegation, be clear and accessible to the public, and be precise and limiting in its scope for discretion. These principles are substantiated by the criticism that the Kenyan Digital ID, the Huduma Namba, was met with when it was legalized through a Miscellaneous Amendment Act, meant only for small or negligible amendments and typically passed without any deliberation. These set of tests respond to the haste with which Digital ID has been implemented, often in the absence of an enabling law which adequately addresses its potential harms.

Rights based Tests

Digital ID, because of its collection of personal data and determination of eligibility and rights of users, intrinsically involves restrictions on certain fundamental rights. The use of Digital ID for essential functions of the State, including delivery of benefits and welfare, and maintenance of civil and sectoral records, enhance the impact of these restrictions. Accordingly, the entire identity framework, including its architecture, uses, actors, and regulators, must be evaluated at every stage against the rights it is potentially violating. Only then will we be able to determine if such violation is necessary and proportionate to the benefits it offers. In Jamaica, the National Identification and Registration Act, which mandated citizens’ biometric enrolment at the risk of criminal sanctions, was held to be a disproportionate violation of privacy, and therefore unconstitutional.

Risk based Tests

Even with a valid rule of law framework that seeks to protect rights, the design and use of Digital ID must be based on an analysis of the risks that the system introduces. This could take the form of choosing between a centralized and federated data-storage framework, based on the effects of potential failure or breach, or of restricting the uses of the Digital ID to limit the actors that will benefit from breaching it. Aside from the design of the system, the regulatory framework that governs it should also be tailored to the potential risks of its use. The primary rationale behind a risk assessment for an identity framework is that it should be tested not merely against universal metrics of legality and proportionality, but also against an examination of the risks and harms it poses. Implicit in a risk based assessment is also the requirement of implementing a responsive mitigation strategy to the risks identified, both while creating and governing the identity programme.

Digital ID programmes create an inherent power imbalance between the State and its residents because of the personal data they collect and the consequent determination of significant rights, potentially creating risks of surveillance, exclusion, and discrimination. The accountability and efficiency gains they promise must not lead to hasty or inadequate implementation.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/governing-id-introducing-our-evaluation-framework

Governing ID: India’s Unique Identity Programme

Vrinda Bhandari — 2020-03-02T11:38:51Z

In our second case-study, we use our Evaluation Framework for Digital ID to assess India’s Unique Identity Programme.

Read the case-study or download as PDF.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/governing-id-india2019s-unique-identity-programme

Governing ID: A Framework for Evaluation of Digital Identity

Vrinda Bhandari, Shruti Trikanad, and Amber Sinha — 2020-03-02T13:22:43Z

As governments across the globe implement new and foundational digital identification systems (Digital ID), or modernize existing ID programs, there is an urgent need for more research and discussion about appropriate uses of Digital ID systems. This significant momentum for creating Digital ID has been accompanied with concerns about privacy, surveillance and exclusion harms of state-issued Digital IDs in several parts of the world, resulting in campaigns and litigations in countries, such as UK, India, Kenya, and Jamaica. Given the sweeping range of considerations required to evaluate Digital ID projects, it is necessary to formulate evaluation frameworks that can be used for this purpose.

This work began with the question of what the appropriate uses of Digital ID can be, but through the research process, it became clear that the question of use cannot be divorced from the fundamental attributes of Digital ID systems and their governance structures. This framework provides tests, which can be used to evaluate the governance of Digital ID across jurisdictions, as well as determine whether a particular use of Digital ID is legitimate. Through three kinds of checks — Rule of Law tests, Rights based tests, and Risks based tests — this scheme is a ready guide for evaluation of Digital ID.

View the framework or download as PDF.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/governing-id-a-framework-for-evaluation-of-digital-identity

Governing ID:  Use of Digital ID for Verification

Shruti Trikanad — 2020-03-02T11:16:19Z

This is the first in a series of case studies, using our recently-published Evaluation Framework for Digital ID. It looks at the use of digital identity programmes for the purpose of verification, often using the process of deduplication.

Read the case-study or download as PDF.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/governing-id-2028use-of-digital-id-for-verification

Governance issues for private data stores

praskrishna — 2014-04-04T10:30:23Z

Malavika Jayaram is a speaker at this event co-hosted by Harvard Faculty Club and Web Science Trust at 20 Quincy Street, Cambridge on March 28, 2014.

Agenda

8.30: Introductory remarks - Meeting in the shadow of the Presidents 90 day plan for Big Data and Privacy: are we right to have a hopeful expectation that algorithms can resolve questions that algorithms pose?

Prof. Jim Waldo, CTO, Harvard University, Sun Distinguished Engineer

Prof. Andreas Weigend, Stanford University (past Chief Scientist Amazon)

8.45 - 10.00: The network is always on: and you are always on the network.

The worker and the workplace - Anna Burger (past Secretary Treasurer, SEIU)/Carol Rose, Director Ma., ACLU
Personalised messages - targeted advertising - George Pappachen (WPP) /Mike Smith (Hearst Corpn.)
Sensor sensibility:Smart metering/Transport/Home - Yves Alexandre de Montjoye, MIT /John Taysom
Personal medicine - John Wilbanks, Chief Commons Officer, Sage Bionetworks, Senior Fellow, Ewing
Marion Kaufman Foundation
Education - Prof. Jim Waldo, CTO Harvard
National Security - Dr. Malavika Jayaram, Berkman Centre, Harvard, The Indian national id system.

10.00-10.15: Coffee

10.15 - 11.30: The dual nature of the web - publisher and data gatherer

Is the problem a web protocol problem? Is there a protocol solution?
Brendan Eich, CEO Mozilla
Steve MacBeath Product Lead, Microsoft Personal Cloud
John Taysom, Can we build a DMZ for individual id information?

11.30 - 12.30: Governance systems for private data stores - what wont work, and what might?

An example of multi-generational national asset management : Sir Henry Studholme, Chair, UK Forestry Commission.
Mozilla.com and Mozilla.org - Denelle Dixon-Thayer, GC Mozilla
DigiTrust - Jordan Mitchell

12.30: working lunch: Privacy as a competitive advantage

The Microsoft view - Steve MacBeath
The Mozilla view - Brendan Eich
The SalesForce view - JPRangaswami, Chief Scientist, Salesforce.com

1.30 - 2.15: Essential additional policy considerations

Is “privacy” anyway the wrong target - did we really mean “intimacy”? Dorothy Zinberg, Harvard/ How would we police privacy policies anyway? Adam Towvim, TrustLayers
AOB from the floor

2.15 - 2.30: Interim Conclusions - John Taysom

2.30 - 3.00: Discussion and critique of interim conclusions - Prof. Nico Mele, Harvard/ Prof. Dame Wendy Hall, WST

3.00- 3.30: Conclusions and proposed draft recommendations - J Taysom

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/governance-issues-for-private-data-stores

Governance in the Age of the Internet and Free Trade Agreements

praskrishna — 2013-07-03T05:04:39Z

Sunil Abraham was a speaker at this event organized by Thai Netizen Network on June 8, 2013 at Queen Sirikit National Convention Center. The Ministry of Information and Communication and the National Science and Technology Development Agency were co-hosts for the event.

Click to read the details of the event published on Internet Society website

In the age of accelerated international trade and the promotion of free flowing cross-border data transactions, countries and regions are working towards forming a commonly agreed modus operandi and protocols. These protocols seek to facilitate the growth of e-trade, ensure a secure data flow(economic transactions) and protection of its data in the network. In the recent, there has been strong attention by consumers and businesses with the growing scope and content of these agreements addressing Intellectual Property (IP). Emerging trend studies show that there is a growing practices to incorporate mutually exclusive arrangements without involving other stakeholders which happens in closed door negotiations i.e. government to government.

For instance, the European’s Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) proposal and the U.S. Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP).

The bigger concern raised by other stakeholders has been the secrecy of these arrangements and the insufficient protection of consumers and citizens rights in its consideration. So far, the lack of legitimacy and proportionality of legal policy measures has created unintended consequences and collateral damages in far reaching manners whether socially, economically or technologically. Citing practices of filtering technology, deep packet inspection, and Internet cut-off, are introduced by internet service providers to meet legal requirements. Activities in question may vary from country to country, some focus on violations of intellectual property, some on the control of political voices.

Notably, list of concerns have been raised explicitly by UN Special Rapporteur to adhere to the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression were recommended.

This workshop is aim to create discussion on the related topics among stakeholders both in Thailand and in the region of the direct and indirect implications of various developments.

Target: Regulators, consumer rights, human rights activities, Lawyers

Expected Outcomes

Understanding the dynamics of free trade agreements (i.e. APEC, TPP, and ACTA) and its implications on Internet regulations, national sovereignty, and civil rights from various perspectives. (Big picture)
Basic understanding of how various policy and technology related measures or solutions (i.e. digital rights management technology and deep-packet inspection) are used to address Intellectual Property (IP) and how it directly impacts freedom of expression and individual privacy.
Looking Ahead: The developments and upcoming legislations/regulation challenges in both Thailand and the region i.e. new draft of Computer-related Crime Act, new draft of Copyright Act, and the Personal Data Protection Bill.

Panelists

Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore
Konstantinos Komaitis, Policy Advisor, Internet Society, Geneva
Nakorn Serirak, Policy Advisor, Thai Netizen Network, Bangkok
Sawatree Suksri, Lecturer, Faculty of Law, Thammasat University, Bangkok
Lokman Tsui, Policy Advisor, Google Asia Pacific, Hong Kong

Moderator

Mike Hayes, Chair, International MA Program in Human Rights, Mahidol University

Click the PDFs below to download the full details and the presentation:

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/inet-bangkok-june-8-2013-governance-in-the-age-of-internet-and-fta

Google’s privacy policy raises hackles

praskrishna — 2012-01-30T03:58:57Z

Have you ever used Google to search for a restaurant while you were logged in its network using your Google id? Or shared information about your trip to Goa with your friends on Google +? Or watched belly dance on YouTube? Or looked for Sunny Leone pictures on Google images? If yes, Google knows about it. Javed Anwer wrote on article on this. It is published in the Times of India on 26 January 2012.

And according to its new privacy policy it is going to put this information to some use.

The web giant says the new privacy policy will allow it to offer better services, including more relevant search results. But web experts have raised concerns over potential misuse of data and breach of privacy. According to Google's new privacy policy that will come into effect from March 1, the company is "getting rid of over 60 different privacy policies across Google services and replacing them with one that's shorter, easier to read" and something that will enable it to "create intuitive experience across Google" . Unlike in the past when Google had allowed users to choose personalized services, this time there is no option to opt out.

For an end-user this means that whatever information he shares through Google searches, Gmail, Google +, Picassa etc will be used to customize Google services for him. That the move is significant can be gauged from the fact that Google has provided a link to the new policy directly under its search engine on main page, something that the company rarely does. Google users will also be notified about the policy change through an email. "Our new privacy policy makes clear that, if you're signed in, we may combine information you've provided from one service with information from other services. In short, we'll treat you as a single user across all our products, which will mean a simpler, more intuitive Google experience," said Alma Whitten, Google's director of privacy, in a post on the company's official blog.

Whitten gave some example of how this information will be used. "We can make search better - figuring out what you really mean when you type in Apple, Jaguar or Pink. We can provide more relevant ads too," she wrote. "We can provide reminders that you're going to be late for a meeting based on your location , your calendar and an understanding of what the traffic is like that day. Or ensure that our spelling suggestions, even for your friends' names, are accurate because you've typed them before."

The privacy policy from Google is at the heart of its new business strategy as it works to keep the search engine relevant and its services fresh in the face of social networking websites like Twitter and Facebook. It is also prompted by the proliferation of devices like smartphones and tablets. However, privacy experts are not amused. Sunil Abraham, director of Centre for Internet and Society, said the new changes are not good for a consumer's privacy.

"I understand that Google collects the data so that it can build a 360 degree profile of a user and based on the information serve relevant advertisements . But there is no reason for them to store this data for long. Storing data makes it prone to misuse by authorities as well as corporations," said Abraham. Another, problem, he said is that different services are used for different purposes. "I don't want my bakery shop owner to know what kind of medicines Ibuy from the nearby medical store," said Abraham.

Are you being watched?

What |

For an end-user the new policy means that whatever information he shares through Google searches, Gmail, Google+, Picassa, etc will be used to customize Google services for him

Why |

The privacy policy is at the heart of Google's business strategy as it tries to keep the search engine relevant in the face of social networking websites like Twitter and Facebook

Concerns |

It's instrusive as online activity is tracked; storing data makes it prone to misuse by authorities as well as corporations

The original was published in the Times of India. Sunil Abraham has been quoted in it.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/google2019s-privacy-policy-raises-hackles

Google, Facebook's AI group adds new members

praskrishna — 2017-05-19T08:56:31Z

CIS is one of the organizations.

Written by Jens Meyer from AP this was mirrored by Axios on May 16, 2017.

A group trying to demystify artificial intelligence with backing from companies like Google, Facebook, Apple and Microsoft is bolstering its ranks with 22 organizations in total.

New members in the Partnership on AI include:

Companies like Salesforce, Sony and Intel.
Non-profit advocacy groups including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Center for Democracy and Technology and the Future of Privacy Forum.
The list also includes Washington-based consultancy Upturn, which has worked on issues related to how big data collides with civil rights. The ACLU was already involved as a partner in the group.

Why it matters: The new corporate members of the partnership show how widespread interest in AI has become. And the high-level advocacy non-profits joining the partnership shows how AI is on a collision course with questions about privacy and discrimination.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/axios-may-16-2017-google-and-facebook-artificial-intelligence-group-adds-new-members

Google, Facebook will not place ads on sites distributing fake news

praskrishna — 2016-11-15T13:59:40Z

Google plans to update its AdSense program policies to prevent placement of its ads on sites distributing fake news.

The article by John Riberio originally published by IDG News Service was mirrored on CIO on November 14, 2016. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.

Facebook also said Monday it had updated the policy for its Audience Network, which places ads on websites and mobile apps, to explicitly clarify that it applies to fake news.

“In accordance with the Audience Network Policy, we do not integrate or display ads in apps or sites containing content that is illegal, misleading or deceptive, which includes fake news,” Facebook said in a statement. The company said its team will continue to closely vet all prospective publishers and monitor existing ones to ensure compliance.

False news stories have become a sore point after the U.S. presidential elections with critics blaming internet companies like Twitter and Facebook for having had an influence on the outcome of the elections as a result of the fake content.

The controversy also reflects concerns about the growing power of social networks to influence people and events, as well as help people to communicate and organize. Facebook promotes democracy by letting candidates communicate directly with people, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said recently in an interview.

Google had its own embarrassing moments on Sunday with a false story that claimed that President-elect Donald Trump had won the popular vote in the U.S. presidential elections figuring atop some Google search results. Trump’s Democratic rival Hillary Clinton is leading in the popular vote.

“We've been working on an update to our publisher policies and will start prohibiting Google ads from being placed on misrepresentative content, just as we disallow misrepresentation in our ads policies,” Google said Monday in a statement. “Moving forward, we will restrict ad serving on pages that misrepresent, misstate, or conceal information about the publisher, the publisher's content, or the primary purpose of the web property.”

Google evidently expects that the threat of a cut in revenue from ads will dissuade sites from publishing fake content.

Zuckerberg has described as “crazy” the criticism that fake news on Facebook's news feed had influenced the vote in favor of Trump. “Of all the content on Facebook, more than 99% of what people see is authentic. Only a very small amount is fake news and hoaxes,” Zuckerberg said in a post over the weekend. The hoaxes are not limited to one partisan view, or even to politics, he added.

Identifying the "truth" is complicated, as while some hoaxes can be clearly identified, a greater amount of content, including from mainstream sources, often gets the basic idea right but some details wrong or omitted, or expresses a view that some people will disagree with and flag as incorrect even when it is factual, Zuckerberg wrote.

There are concerns that the monitoring of sites for fake news and the penalties could give internet companies more power. "We have to be wary of Facebook and Google being allowed to decide what's 'fake' and what's 'true' news. That only increases their power," said Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Centre for Internet & Society in Bangalore.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/cio-november-14-2016-john-riberio-google-facebook-will-not-place-ads-on-sites-distributing-fake-news

Google's war on nude photos goes against user rights

praskrishna — 2015-03-09T01:57:59Z

Yesterday, Google announced that starting March 23, 2015 users will be unable to share sexually explicit content on its blogging platform -- Blogger.

The article by Sahil Mohan Gupta published by India Today on February 25, 2015 quotes Sunil Abraham.

In a country like India, such content generally causes a 'storm in teacup' this move might be welcomed, however, experts say that it goes against the tenets of free speech.

Interestingly, Google is not alone, but all the major Internet players indulge in such draconian practices. Facebook cracks down on sexually explicit content on its platform while Apple also does not allow any app that has anything close to pornography on its iOS app store.

The bigger issue is that these companies allow anything when they are in the process of attracting users, but turn turtle the moment they attain a level of stickiness with their user-base. Their U-turns are often on frivolous grounds, which go against the very tenets of freedom of speech and human rights.

Sunil Abraham, the executive director of The Center of Internet and Society tells IndiaToday.in that legally big Internet companies like Google are well within their rights to make such modifications.

"According to US and Indian law they 'can' censor as per their own terms of use which is based on contract law," explains Abraham.

"Unfortunately, most of the networked public sphere has been privatized by near monopolies. They are able to use contract law to clamp down on human rights," he adds.

There, however, is light at the end of the tunnel. According to Abraham, the only way states can guarantee human rights is by treating these intermediaries like utilities with narrow exceptions through regulations.

That said, this approach is not without risks and advises extreme caution. "Unfortunately, this will reduce the agile innovation that these near-monopolies contribute to our information society," says Abraham.

Alternatively, increased competition and amendments to contract law will also help in curtailing the ability of companies like Google, Facebook, Apple, and Microsoft to deny user rights.

In the past, Apple notoriously blocked Pulitzer Prize winner Mark Fiore's app on the App Store. It was reportedly making editorial calls on the content of the app.

"We've reviewed NewsToons and determined that we cannot post this version of your iPhone application to the App Store because it contains content that ridicules public figures and is in violation of Section 3.3.14 from the iPhone Developer Program License Agreement which states:

Applications may be rejected if they contain content or materials of any kind (text, graphics, images, photographs, sounds, etc.) that in Apple's reasonable judgment may be found objectionable, for example, materials that may be considered obscene, pornographic, or defamatory," replied an Apple iPhone developer program representative to Fiore while rejecting his app.

The Electronic Frontier Federation (EFF), which is a non-profit organization that helps defend digital rights feels Apple's App store policies are outrageous and bad for both developer and users alike. Due to this, it has not even released an iOS app.

Google for its part right now claims, " We'll still allow nudity if the content offers a substantial public benefit, for example in artistic, educational, documentary, or scientific contexts." However, there is no reason why it could not have a change of heart.

The new rules also mean that now Google will not only act as a platform owner but also an entity that will decide what is art and what is good public taste.

Facebook, the dominant force in the sphere of social networking, has been for years criticized for its draconian policies regarding terms of use. It is also known to clampdown on freedom of speech.

Last year, even Twitter cracked down on explicit sexual Vines. Though Twitter allows users to share explicit content if they properly mark such content as sensitive.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/india-today-february-25-2015-sahil-mohan-gupta-google-war-on-nude-photos-goes-against-user-rights

Google's 'Transparency Report' sketchy, inconclusive: Government

praskrishna — 2012-11-22T07:39:05Z

Google calls it the 'Transparency Report', but as far as Indian authorities are concerned, it is anything but. The world's largest Internet company this week published its latest half-yearly findings on government requests for access to personal information, showing that both the number of requests and the rate of denials have risen. The data, according to the world's largest democracy, are too sketchy for any clear conclusions to be drawn.

This article by Indu Nandakumar was published in the Economic Times on November 17, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

The skirmish is happening during a year in which relations between the Indian government and Internet companies deteriorated, with demands to take down fake Twitter handles and web pages that the former said threatened the security of regional and religious minorities.

The sum and substance of the 'Transparency Report' is that government authorities have increased the number of requests they make for personal information of user accounts on Google-owned services, including YouTube and Gmail. Google, on the other hand, has been denying the requests at a higher rate since it first started publishing the half-yearly report in 2010.

"If we believe a request is overly broad, we seek to narrow it. We may refuse to remove content or produce information, or try to narrow the request in some cases if it was not specific enough," a Google spokesman told ET. In an emailed statement, Google said it respects the legal process in India, but is keen to meet both the letter and spirit of the law before complying.

According to Google, in the first half of 2012, various arms of the Indian government made 2,319 requests but Google "partially or fully" complied with only 64% of those, compared with 70% in the same period in 2011 and nearly 80% in 2010. The government requests also sought information about 3,467 user accounts.

The department of information technology deflected requests for comment to the office of Gulshan Rai, director of India's Cyber Emergency Response Team.

India Big Market for Google

Rai said Google must "transparently" share the data pertaining to requests received by them. "It's Google data, which cannot be accessed by anybody else," he said. "We have been speaking to Google for over a year now to streamline this process and bring in more transparency, but they never came around."

What this could mean is that the government does not have a central repository of all requests for personal information by Indian authorities. So, by depending solely on Google, the government may be leaving itself in a position where it cannot challenge the authenticity of information in the Internet company's report. India's a significant market for Google, which has over 100 million users here with an over 95% market share of the Internet search market, according to research firm StatCounter. Google employs nearly 1,535 engineers in India. In August, the department of electronics & information technology sought 412 web pages hosted on Google to be blocked in connection with the controversial movie "Innocence of Muslims" as well as the mass exodus to the North-East states following riots in Assam.

"Google invariably tends to be more subjective on the adequacy of the request. Earlier they were more inclined to accept government requests. Now with the increase in the number of requests, especially since the 26/11 attacks, there is an exercise to examine the adequacy," said Pawan Duggal, a Supreme Court lawyer specialising in cyber law.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/articles-economic-times-nov-17-2012-indu-nandakumar-googles-transparency-report-sketchy-inconclusive

Google V/s Kapil Sibal

praskrishna — 2011-12-09T11:12:58Z

Mr Kapil Sibal was quoted by the Hindu* today as saying that "he had been left with no choice" because the internet companies "refused to delete incendiary hate-speech."

In response, Google pointed to its Transparency Report which effectively demolishes Mr Sibal's claims, as it points out that out of 358 items requested to be removed in the period Jan-June 2011, only 8 requests pertained to hate speech, while there were as many as 255 complaints against "Government criticism".

Google also told Medianama:

“We believe that access to information is the foundation of a free society. Google Search helps spread knowledge, enabling people to find out about almost anything by typing a few words into a computer. And services like YouTube and Google+ help users to express themselves and share different points of view. Where content is illegal or breaks our terms of service we will continue to remove it.”

Mr Sibal's claims fail to stand up to scrutiny and are contradicted by another, yet unpublished, draft report by the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) which shows that intermediaries are erring “on the side of caution” and "over-complying after complaints are filed" and that free speech on the Internet in India is already being curtailed in a “chilling” manner.

The NYT blog today points to two such examples of over-compliance from this CIS study:

The researcher objected to a comment below an article on a news Web site about the Telangana movement, which aims to create a separate state in Andhra Pradesh. The comment, which was well-written and not obscenity-laced, condemned the violence in the Telangana movement and called its leaders selfish, but supported the cause over all.

The researcher wrote the intermediary that the comment was “racially and ethnically objectionable” and “defamatory.” The researcher received no written response, but within 72 hours the intermediary had taken down not just the “offensive” comment, but all 15 comments that were published below the article.
The researcher sent a take-down notice to another intermediary, defined as a “host and information location tool,” asking that it remove three links provided on its search engine after entering the words “online gambling.” The links, the researcher complained, were “relating or encouraging money-laundering or gambling,” which is illegal under the April rules.

The intermediary wrote back to the complainant, saying that the intermediary’s search engine was a “mere conduit” with no control over the information passing through its platform.

But it subsequently removed the three links mentioned in the take-down notice, and all other URLs of the three Web sites, including their subdomains.

Citing the same as yet unpublished study, The Legally Indian blog notes:

The only response that was rejected outright was a facetious takedown request to a shopping portal that an ad for baby’s diapers “harmed minors” by potentially causing babies’ rashes.

"Of the 7 intermediaries to which takedown notices were sent, 6 intermediaries over-complied with the notices, despite the apparent flaws in them," stated the draft report on the research. "From the responses to the takedown notices, it can be reasonably presumed that not all intermediaries have sufficient legal competence or resources to deliberate on the legality of an expression."

"This is just the tip of the iceberg," commented Abraham, adding that he was told by at least one major international intermediary company operating in India that it was “constantly" receiving takedown requests.

"Our empirical research demonstrates that intermediaries are unable to make the subjective test that is required of them," he added. "They are highly risk averse and they often choose to completely comply with the person sending a takedown notice."

"There is clear anecdotal evidence that […] the recently notified rules have a chilling effect on freedom of speech and expression, and that there is no transparency or accountability."

"What we have is a private censorship regime that is alive and kicking in India."

At the CIS blogs, Pranesh Prakash points out how Online Pre-Censorship is Harmful and Impractical, after noting that there can, of course, be reasonable limitations on freedom of speech as provided in Article 19 of the ICCPR and in Article 19(2) of the Constitution:

What he [Kapil Sibal]is proposing is not enforcement of existing rules and regulations, but of a new restriction on online speech. This should have, in a democracy, been put out for wide-ranging public consultations first...

The more fundamental disagreement is that over how the question of what should not be published should be decided, and how that decision should be and how that should be carried out, and who can be held liable for unlawful speech...

...Newspaper have editors who can take responsibility for content in the newspaper. They can afford to, because the number of articles in a newspaper are limited. Youtube, which has 48 hours of videos uploaded every minutes, cannot. One wag suggested that Mr. Sibal was not suggesting a means of censorship, but of employment generation and social welfare for censors and editors. To try and extend editorial duties to these 'intermediaries' by executive order or through 'forceful suggestions' to these companies cannot happen without amending s.79 of the Information Technology Act which ensures they are not to be held liable for their user's content: the users are.

...Internet speech has, to my knowledge, and to date, has never caused a riot in India. It is when it is translated into inflammatory speeches on the ground with megaphones that offensive speech, whether in books or on the Internet, actually become harmful, and those should be targeted instead. And the same laws that apply to offline speech already apply online. If such speech is inciting violence then the police can be contacted and a magistrate can take action. Indeed, Internet companies like Facebook, Google, etc., exercise self-regulation already (excessively and wrongly, I feel sometimes). Any person can flag any content on Youtube or Facebook as violating the site's terms of use. Indeed, even images of breast-feeding mothers have been removed from Facebook on the basis of such complaints. So it is mistaken to think that there is no self-regulation. In two recent cases, the High Courts of Bombay (*Janhit Manch* case) and Madras (*Karthikeyan R.* case) refused to direct the government and intermediaries to police online content, saying that places an excessive burden on freedom of speech...

Pranesh Prakash goes on to say that the problem stems from the IT Rules that have been in force since April 2011:

While speech that is 'disparaging' (while not being defamatory) is not prohibited by any statute, yet intermediaries are required not to carry 'disparaging' speech, or speech to which the user has no right (how is this to be judged? do you have rights to the last joke that you forwarded?), or speech that promotes gambling (as the governments of Assam does through the PlayWin lottery), and a myriad other kinds of speech that are not prohibited in print or on TV. Who is to judge whether something is 'disparaging'? The intermediary itself, on pain of being liable for prosecution if it is found have made the wrong decision. And any person may send a notice to an intermediary to 'disable' content, which has to be done within 36 hours if the intermediary doesn't want to be held liable. Worst of all, there is no requirement to inform the user whose content it is, nor to inform the public that the content is being removed. It just disappears, into a memory hole. It does not require a paranoid conspiracy theorist to see this as a grave threat to freedom of speech.

Many human rights activists and lawyers have made a very strong case that the IT Rules on Intermediary Due Diligence are unconstitutional. Parliament still has an opportunity, till the 2012 budget session of Parliament, to reject these rules. Parliamentarians must act now to uphold their oaths to the Constitution.

This blog post by Sundeep Dougal was published in Outlookindia.com on 8 December 2011. Pranesh Prakash's work at CIS has been extensively quoted in this blog post.

* Kapil Sibbal was quoted by the Hindu in their article dated 7 December 2011.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/google-vs-kapil

Google Unveils Controversial Street View Mapping in B’lore

praskrishna — 2011-05-30T09:48:29Z

Mapping service, under criticism in Europe because of security reasons, allows users to view pedestrian-level photos of streets, houses. This news was published in the Economic Times, Mumbai on May 27, 2011.

Amid concerns of privacy in Europe and several western countries, Google launched its popular but controversial mapping service Street View in India’s technology hub Bangalore, which will allow users to view pedestrian-level photos of streets and houses.

Google said on Thursday that it has started capturing images of Indian streets which will later allow users to view panoramic images of streets across the country through its popular yet controversial “street view” feature on Google Maps. For starters, cars and three-wheelers, mounted with high resolution cameras will begin driving and taking street level photographs of public locations around Bangalore, top Google executive said at a press conference here on Thursday.

"We are announcing the street view in India. You will start seeing Google cars on the streets collecting imagery and then over time, it will be launched online on Google maps," said Vinay Goel, product head, Google India. Street View is a popular feature of Google Maps which is now used in more than 27 countries. With Street View, users can virtually explore and navigate a neighbourhood through panoramic street-level images. Besides cars, specially designed three-wheel pedi-cabs, called Google Trike, with a camera system mounted on top — will start gathering images from selected locations in the area such as the Nrityagram Dance Village over the next few weeks. The company’s move comes at a time when the Indian government is becoming more and more conscious of privacy laws. In a recent amendment to the existing Information Technology Act, India has added many clauses that protects sensitive information of the citizen. Privacy advocates criticised the feature in the US where it was first launched in 2007. After Google admitted that it collected wi-fi payload data by mistake using the street view cars, lot of bad press and protests followed. Google has stopped collecting wi-fi data.The feature met with opposition on similar grounds in Europe when it was launched. Opponents said that people did not want to be pictured going to places — like bars and strip clubs — they did not want to reveal publicly. They also did not want a private company to capitalise on public data. Google Street View was temporarily banned in Austria and Czech Republic due to privacy concerns.

Goel said, that the company has addressed privacy concerns and is continuously monitoring reports of privacy violations.

"Google will collect only public data. We have also improved the process so that faces and identifiable details like number plates will be blurred out of the images. We have permissions from local authorities and are open to discussions," he added. Users can also report problems to Google directly using the "report a problem" button on Google Maps.

Says Nishant Shah, director, research, Centre for Internet and Society, "Street View has been contested in many other countries on three counts. Private companies should not be allowed to capitalise on public data. This is a serious problem. Another nuanced argument is, if you formalise and regulate space in a particular space, it reduces the possibility of grey areas and diversity. It is also difficult to ensure total privacy. People invariably figure in many of the images captured. Even if you blur faces, there are certain identifiable characteristics of a person and can be misused."

Vinay Goel, product head Google India, launches Street View in Bangalore

Read the original here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/google-unveils-controversial-street-view

Google to change privacy policy to use personal info of users

praskrishna — 2012-01-30T05:03:55Z

It is a warning for users of Google and other Social Networking sites. Who are using these sites for searching anything they want to know and sharing their personal life with friends, colleagues and relatives. If you have ever used Google for searching any place, restaurant or shared information about your personal life with your friends on Google and other social networking sites, or you have watched adult stuff on YouTube, if your answer is yes, Google knows about it. And according to its new privacy policy Google is going to put this information to some use. Sheetal Ranga's article was published in Punjab Newsline on 27 January 2012.

It is claimed by the web enormous that according to new privacy policy, better service will be provided to its users, including more relevant search results. And other side the web experts have expressed their concerns over potential misuse of data and defy of privacy. Google's new privacy policy will come into effect from 1 March 2012, said by Google.

Google provide service which will be shorter and easier to read and something that will enable it to create spontaneous experience across Google. Google had allowed users to choose personalized services; “unlike” this time there is no option to pick for the users.

The new policy of Google has made some people anxious over their privacy issues. The new policy is being adopted by Google, SafeGov monitors security issues for federal, state and local government is not happy with it.

A security analyst, Jeff ( SafeGov) said, "Google should not be data-mining information in e-mails, text messages, searches and documents that workers are putting into Google services. It’s a matter of not making government workers unnecessarily exposed to hackers and to inadvertent disclosures of information."

The Vice President of Google ,Amit Singh claims that Google’s new privacy policy for consumer data is antiquated by data privacy provisions in contracts with government agencies and other organization that use the paid version of Google Apps. Google will maintain our endeavor customers’ data in conformity with the confidentiality and security obligations provided to their domain, he said.

The new policy of Google has made some people edgy over their privacy issues. SafeGov monitors security issues for federal, state and local government agencies are very unhappy with the new policy of Google. It is also said by Sunil Abraham, director of Centre for Internet and Society that the new changes are not good for a consumer's privacy.

Director of privacy Alma Whitten has given some example of how this information will be used. "We can make search better - figuring out what you really mean when you type in Apple, Jaguar or Pink. We can provide more relevant ads too," she wrote. "We can provide reminders that you're going to be late for a meeting based on your location, your calendar and an understanding of what the traffic is like that day. Or ensure that our spelling suggestions, even for your friends' names, are accurate because you've typed them before."

Other side after the cross-checked the contract between Google and the city of Los Angele by Gould, claimed that he didn’t think through the consequences for government users.

Punjab Newsline published this story. Sunil Abraham was quoted in it.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/google-to-change-privacy-policy

We are anonymous, we are legion

Governing ID: Kenya’s Huduma Namba Programme

Governing ID: Introducing our Evaluation Framework

Rule of Law Tests

Rights based Tests

Risk based Tests

Governing ID: India’s Unique Identity Programme

Governing ID: A Framework for Evaluation of Digital Identity

Governing ID: Use of Digital ID for Verification

Governance issues for private data stores

Agenda

Governance in the Age of the Internet and Free Trade Agreements

Panelists

Moderator

Google’s privacy policy raises hackles

Google, Facebook's AI group adds new members

Google, Facebook will not place ads on sites distributing fake news

Google's war on nude photos goes against user rights

Google's 'Transparency Report' sketchy, inconclusive: Government

Google V/s Kapil Sibal

Google Unveils Controversial Street View Mapping in B’lore

Google to change privacy policy to use personal info of users

Governing ID:  Use of Digital ID for Verification