We are anonymous, we are legion

Unique Identification Scheme (UID) & National Population Register (NPR), and Governance

elonnai — 2014-04-30T05:03:51Z

This post examines the UID, NPR and Governance as it exists in India. The background note gives a summary of what is the NPR, the legal grounding of NPR, its objectives, and the information which could be collected under the NPR. The post also throws light on the UID, its objectives, process of enrollment in UID, how UID is being adopted by different states in India, and finally the differences and controversies in UID and NPR.

This research was undertaken as part of the 'SAFEGUARDS' project that CIS is undertaking with Privacy International and IDRC.

Video

The above video is from the "UID, NPR, and Governance" conference held on March 2, 2013 at TERI, Bangalore.

What is the NPR?
In 2010, the Government of India initiated the NPR which entails the creation of the National Citizens Register. This register is being prepared at the local, sub-district, district, state and national level. The database will contain thirteen categories of demographic information and three categories of biometric data collected from all residents aged five and above. Collection of this information was initially supposed to take place during the House listing and Housing Census phase of Census 2011 during April 2010 to September 2010.[1]

What is the legal grounding of the NPR?
The NPR is legally grounded in the provisions of the Citizenship Act, 1955 and the Citizenship Rules 2003. It is mandatory for every usual resident in India to register in the NPR as per Section 14A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, as amended in 2004. The collection of biometrics is not accounted for in the statute or rules.

What are the objectives of the NPR?
The objectives of the NPR as stated by the Citizenship Act is for the creation of a National Citizen Register. The National Citizen Register is intended to assist in improving security by checking for illegal migration. Additional objectives that have been articulated include: providing services to the residents under government schemes and programmes, checking for identity frauds, and improving planning.[2]

What is the process of enrollment for the NPR?
NPR enrollment is being carried out through house to house canvassing. The Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner, India has assigned Department of Information Technology (DIT) the responsibility of collecting and digitizing demographic data in 17 states and 2 Union Territories of India.[2] Collected information will then be printed and displayed in the local area where it is scrutinized by local officers and vetted by local bodies called ´Gram Sabha/Ward Committees´.[4] This process of social audit is meant to bring in transparency, equity, and ensure accuracy.

What information will be collected under the NPR?
The NPR database will include thirteen categories of demographic information and three categories of biometrics. The collection biometrics has not been provided for in the text of the Citizenship Rules, and is instead appears to be authorized through guidelines,[5] which do not have statutory backing. Currently, two iris scans, ten fingerprints, and a photograph are being collected. According to a 2010 Committee note, only the photograph and fingerprints were initially envisioned to be collected.

What is the Resident Identity Card?
The proposed Resident Identity card is a smart card with a micro-processor chip of 6.4 Kb capacity; the demographic and biometric attributes of each individual will be personalized in this chip. The UID number will be placed on the card as well. Currently, the government is only considering the possibility of distributing smart cards to all residents over the age of 18.[6]

What is the UID?
The Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) was established in January 2009 and is part of the Planning Commission of India. UIDAI aims to provide a unique 12 digit ID number to all residents in India on a voluntary basis. The number will be known as AADHAAR. The UIDAI will own and operate a Unique Identification Number database which will contain biometric and demographic data of citizens.[7]

What is the objective of the UID?
According to the UIDAI, the UID will provide identity for individuals. The scheme has been promoted by the UIDAI as enabling a number of social benefits including improving the public distribution system, enabling financial inclusion, and improving the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS). Despite these benefits, the UIDAI only guarantees identity, and does not guarantee rights, benefits or entitlement.[8]

What is the process for enrollment in the UID?
To enroll in the UID, individuals must go to enrollment centers with the appropriate documentation. Once documents are verified and biometrics taken, individuals will receive an acknowledgment slip and their UID number will be sent in the mail.[9] The UIDAI will enroll up to 600 million residents in 16 States and territories.[10] Online registration prior to enrollment at a Center is also now being offered.

How is UID being adopted by different States?
The adoption of the UID by different states and platforms has been controversial as the UID is not a mandatory number, yet with states and services adopting the number for different governmental services, the UID is becoming mandatory by default. Some ways in which states are using the UID include:

Gas and vehicles: The UPA Government has required that citizens have a UID number for services such as purchasing cooking gas, issuing a RTI request, and registering vehicles.[11]
Education: The Kerala government has required that all students must have UID number in order to be tracked through the system.[12] This mandate was questioned by the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights.
First Information Reports (FIR’s): The high court in Bombay has ordered the state home department to direct all police stations in Maharashtra to record the Unique Identification (UID) numbers of accused individuals and witnesses filing a FIR.[13]
Banks: The National Payment Corporation of India has collaborated UIDAI and is issuing ‘RuPay cards’ (Dhan Aadhaar cards) which will serve as ATM/micro-ATM cards. In 2011 the Bank of India had issued 250 cards.[14]
Railway: Railways are proposing to use the UID database for bookings and validation of passengers.[15]
Social Security: Commencing January 1, 2013, MGNREGA, the Rajiv Gandhi Awas Yojana (RGAY), the Ashraya housing scheme, Bhagyalakshmi and the social security and pension scheme have included the UID in the Mysore district

Has there been duplication of UID numbers?
According to news reports:

The UIDAI has blacklisted an operator and a supervisor in Andhra Pradesh for issuing fake UID numbers.

The UIDAI is looking into six complaints regarding the misuse of personal data while issuing the UID numbers to individuals.

The UIDAI has received two received complaints regarding duplication of UID numbers.[17]

What are the differences between the UID and NPR?

Voluntary vs. Mandatory: It is compulsory for all Indian residents to register with the NPR, while registration with the UIDAI is considered voluntary. However, the NPR will store individuals UID number with the NPR data and place it on the Resident Indian Card. In this way and others, the UID number is becoming compulsory by various means.
Number vs. Register: UID will issue a number, while the NPR is the prelude to the National Citizens Register. Thus, it is only a Register. Though earlier the MNIC card was implemented along the coastal area, there has been no proposal to extend the MNIC to the whole country. The smart card that is proposed under the NPR has only been raised for discussion, and there has been no official decision to issue a card.
Statute vs. Bill: The enrollment of individuals for the NPR is legally backed by the Citizenship Act, except in relation to the collection of biometrics, while the UID as proposed a bill which has not been passed for the legal backing of the scheme.
Authentication vs. Identification: The UID number will serve as an authenticator during transactions. It can be adopted and made mandatory by any platform. The National Resident Card will signify resident status and citizenship. It is unclear what circumstances the card will be required for use in.
UIDAI vs. RGI: The UIDAI is responsible for enrolling individuals in the UID scheme, and the RGI is responsible for enrolling individuals in the NPR scheme. It is important to note that the UIDAI is located in the Planning Commission, but its status is unclear, as the NIC had indicated that the data held is not being held by the government.
Door to door canvassing vs. center enrollment: Individuals will have to go to an enrollment center and register for the UID, while the NPR will carry out part of the enrollment of individuals through door to door canvassing. Note: Individuals will still have to go to centers for enrolling their biometrics for the NPR scheme.
Prior documentation vs. census material: The UID will be based off of prior forms of documentation and identification, while the NPR will be based off of census information.
Online vs. Offline: For authentication of an individual’s UID number, the UID will require mobile connectivity, while the NPR can perform offline verification of an individual’s card.

What is the controversy between the UID and NPR?

Effectiveness: There is controversy over which scheme would be more effective and appropriate for different purposes. For example, the Ministry of Home Affairs has argued that the NPR would be more suited for distributing subsidies than the UID, as the NPR has data linking each individual to a household.[18]
Legality of sharing data: Both the legality of the UID and NPR collecting data and biometrics has been questioned. For example, it has been pointed out that the collection of biometric information through the NPR, is beyond the scope of subordinate legislation. Especially as this appears to be left only to guidelines.[19] Collection of any information under the UID scheme is being questioned as the Bill has not been approved by the Parliament.
Accuracy: The UIDAI's use of multiple registrars and enrolment agencies, the reliance on 'secondary information' via existing ID documents for enrollment in the UID, and the original plan to enroll individuals via the 'introducer' system has raised by Home Minister Chidambaram in January 2012 about how accurate the data collected by the UID is is that will be collected.[20] To this extent, the UIDAI has changed the introducer system to a ‘verifier’ system. In this system, Government officials verify individuals and their documents prior to enrolling them.
Biometrics: Though biometrics are mandatory for the UID scheme, according to information on the NPR website, if an individual has already enrolled with the UID, they will not need to provide their biometrics again for the NPR. Application of this standard has been haphazard as some individuals have been required to provide biometrics for both the UID and the NPR, and others have not been required to provide biometrics for the NPR.[21]

What court cases have been filed against the UID?
The following cases are currently filed in courts around the country:

Supreme Court:

K S Puttaswamy, a retired judge of Karnataka High Court filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court challenging the legality of UIDAI.[22]

Chandigarh: A petition was filed in Chandigarh by Sanjeev Pandey which sought to quash executive order passed in violation of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 by which UID cards had been made mandatory for registration of vehicles and grant of learner/regular driving license.[23]
Karnataka: Mathew Thomas and Mr. VK Somasekhar have filed a civil suit in the Bangalore City Civil Courts (numbered 8181 of 2012) asking for the UID project to be stopped. The suit was dismissed, and they have appealed the case to the High Court (numbered 1780 and 1825 of 2013).
Chennai: A PIL has been filed in the Madras High Court challenging the constitutional validity of the UIDAI and its issue of UID numbers.[24]
Bombay: In January 2012 a case was filed in the Mumbai high Court. The petitioners to the case are R. Ramkumar, G. Nagarjuna, Kamayani Mahabal, Yogesh Pawar and Vickram Crishna & Ors.

What is the relationship between UID, NPR, and National Security
The UID and the NPR have both stated improving security as an objective for the projects. To this extent, it is envisioned that the UID and the NPR could be used to track and identify individuals, and determine if they are residents of India. In the case of the NPR, a distinction will be made between residents and citizens. Yet, concerns have also been raised that these projects instead raise national security threats, given the size of the databases that will be created, the centralized nature of the databases, the sensitive nature of the information held in the databases, and the involvement of international agencies.[25]

What is the relationship between UID and Big Data?
Aspects of the UID scheme allow it to generate a large amount of data from a variety of sources. Namely, the UID scheme aims to capture 12 billion fingerprints, 1.2 billion photographs and 2.4 billion iris scans and can be adopted by any platform. This data in turn can be stored, analyzed, and used for a number of purposes by a number of stakeholders in both the government and the private sectors. This is already happening to a certain extent as in November 2012 the UID established a Public Data Portal for the UID project. According to UIDAI officials the data portal will allow for big data analysis using crowd sourcing models.[26]

How is UID being used for BPL direct cash transfers?
Registration with the UID scheme is considered essential to determine whether beneficiaries belong in the BPL category and to provide transparency to the distribution of cash. In this way, the UID requirement is thought to prevent the leakage of social security benefits and subsidies to non-intended beneficiaries, as cash will only be made available to the person identified by the UID as the intended recipient. One of the main prerequisites of a below poverty line (BPL) direct cash transfer in India has become the registration with the UIDAI and the acquisition of a UID number. For example:

The "Cash for Food" programme requires that individuals applying for aid have a bank account, and a UID number. The money is transferred, electronically and automatically, to the bank account and the beneficiary should be able to withdraw it from a micro-ATM using the UID number.[27] It is important to note that micro-ATMs are not actual ATMs, but instead are handheld machines which may give information on bank balance and such, but will not dispense or maintain privacy of transaction. Most importantly, the transaction is mediated though a banking correspondent.
The government plans to cover the target BPL families and deposit USD 570 billion per year in the bank accounts of 100 million poor families by 2014.[28]
Currently, only beneficiaries of thirteen government schemes and LPG connection holders have been identified as being entitled to register for a UID number.[29] Though these schemes have been identified, as of yet, adoption has happened in very few districts.

What are the concerns regarding the use of biometrics in the UID and NPR scheme?
Both the UID and the NPR rely on biometrics as a way to identify individuals. Yet, many concerns have been raised about the use of biometrics in terms of legality, effectiveness, and accuracy of the technology. With regards to the accuracy and effectiveness of biometrics – the following concerns have been raised:

Biometrics are not infallible: Inaccuracies can arise from variations in individuals attributes and inaccuracies in the technology.
Environment matters: An individual’s biometrics can change in response to a number of factors including age, environment, stress, activity, and illness.
Population size matters: Because biometrics have differing levels of stability – the larger the population is the higher the possibility for error is.
Technology matters: The accuracy of a biometric match also depends on the accuracy of the technology used. Many aspects of biometric technology can change including: calibration, sensors, and algorithms.
Spoofing: It is possible to spoof a fingerprint and fool a biometric reader.[30]

[1]. Government of India. Ministry of Home Affairs. Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner. http://bit.ly/IiySDh

[2]. This is according to a 2010 Cabinet note and the official website of the NPR.

[3]. Department of Information Technology: http://ditnpr.nic.in/frmStatelist.aspx - These include: (1) Arunachal Pradesh (2) Assam (3) Bihar (4) Chhattisgarh (5) Haryana (6) Himachal Pradesh (7)Jammu & Kashmir (8) Jharkhand (9) Madhya Pradesh (10)Meghalaya (11)Mizoram (12)Punjab (13)Rajasthan (14)Sikkim (15)Tripura (16)Uttar Pradesh (17)Uttarakhand Union Territories:-(1) Dadra & Nagar Haveli (2) Chandigarh.

[4]. Government of India. Ministry of Home Affairs. Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner: http://bit.ly/IiySDh

[5]. Department of Information Technology. National Population Register. Question 22. What are the procedures to be followed for creating the NPR? The procedures to be followed for creating the NPR have been laid down in the Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and issue of National Identity Cards) Rules, 2003, and the guidelines being issued from time to time.

[6]. The Unique Identification Government of India. Ministry of Home Affairs. Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner: http://censusindia.gov.in/2011-Common/IntroductionToNpr.html Authority of India. http://uidai.gov.in/

[7]. Unique Identification Authority of India. http://uidai.gov.in/

[8]. The point was made by R. Ramachandran. How reliable is UID? Frontline. Volume 28- Issue 24: November 19- December 02, 2011. Available at: http://bit.ly/13UMiSv

[9]. For more information see: How to get an Aadhaar. http://bit.ly/R2jBOP

[10]. Mazumdar. R. UIDAI targets 400 million enrolments by mid 2013, Aadhar hopes to give unique identity to some 1.2 bn residents. Economic Times. December 2012. Available at: http://bit.ly/ZC3Yve. Last accessed: February 28th 2013.

[11]. Malu. B. The Aadhaar Card – What are the real intentions of the UPA Government? DNA. February 18^th 2013. Available at: http://bit.ly/150BXRj. Last accessed: February 28th 2013.

[12]. Government of Kerala. General Education Department Circular No. 52957/G2?2012/G.Edn. Available at: http://bit.ly/15Oiq8J

[13]. Plumber, M. Make UID numbers must in FIRs: Bombay HC. DNA. October 2011. Available at: http://bit.ly/tVsInl. Last accessed: February 28th 2013.

[14]. Press Information Bureau. Government of India. Identity Card to Every Adult Resident of the Country under NPR; No Card being issued by UIDAI. December 2011. Available at: http://bit.ly/tJwZG1

[15]. TravelBiz. Railways to use Aadhar database for passenger validation. February 2013. Available at: http://bit.ly/YcW5wl. Last accessed: February 28th 2013.

[16]. Vombatkere. S.G. Questions for Mr. Nilekani. The Hindu. February 2013. Available at: http://bit.ly/YqPlK1. Last accessed: February 28th 2013.

[17]. Economic Times. UIDAI orders probe into duplication of Aadhaar numbers. http://bit.ly/ZORowg. Last accessed: February 28th 2013.

[18]. Jain. B. Battle over turf muddies waters. Times of India. February 2013. Available at: http://bit.ly/16ud3gm. Last accessed: February 28th 2013

[19]. Rediff. Aadhaar’s allocation is Parliament’s contempt. February 2013. Available at: http://bit.ly/Y638JS. Last accessed: February 28th 2013.

[20]. Ibid 17.

[21]. Times of India. Confused over Aadhaar, Cabinet clears GoM. February 2013. Available at http://bit.ly/UTH2JS. Last accessed: February 28th 2013.

[22]. Times of India. Supreme Court notice to govt on PIL over Aadhar. December 2012. Available at: http://bit.ly/13UNs0i. Last accessed: February 2013.

[23]. The Indian Express. HC issues notice to Centre, UT over mandatory UID for license. January 2013. Available at: http://bit.ly/WJq43M. Last accessed: February 28th 2013.

[24]. Economic Times. PIL seeks to scrap Nandan Nilekani’s Aadhar project. January 2012. Available at: http://bit.ly/zB1H07. Last accessed: February 28th 2013.

[25]. Times of India. UID poses national security threat: BJP. January 2012. Available at: http://bit.ly/WeM6KA. Last accessed: February 28th 2013.

[26]. Zeenews. UIDAI launches Public Data Portal for Aadhaar. November 8th 2012. Available at: http://bit.ly/T9NdX3. Last Accessed: November 12th 2012.

[27]. Punj, S. Wages of Haste: Implementing the cash transfer scheme is proving a challenge. January 2013. Available at: http://bit.ly/1024Dwo. Last accessed: February 28th 2013.

[28]. The International Business Times. India to Roll Out World’s Biggest Direct Cash Transfer Scheme for the Poor. November 2012. Available at: http://bit.ly/UYbtw4. Last accessed: February 28th 2013.

[29]. Mid Day. Do not register for Aadhaar card before March 15: UID in –charge. February 2013. Available at: http://bit.ly/Xymx9d. Last accessed: February 28th 2013.

[30]. These points were raised in the following frontline article Ibid: Ramachandran, R. How reliable is UID? Frontline. Volume 28 – Issue 24 November 19th – December 2nd 2011. Available at: http://bit.ly/13UMiSv. Last accessed February 28th 2013.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/uid-and-npr-a-background-note

Unique ID System: Pros and Cons

Natasha Vaz — 2012-02-29T11:28:58Z

On September 16, 2011, the Citizen’s Voluntary Initiative for the City and Centre for Advocacy and Research organized a public consultation titled “Unique ID System: Pros and Cons” in Bangalore. The consultation was on the utility and impact of the UID system in India and featured a panel discussion with T. Prabhakar, public relations officer, e-governance, Ashok Dalwai, UIDAI regional deputy director, Somashekar V.K., managing trustee of Grahak Shakti and Col. Mathew Thomas, civic activist and retired army officer.

Col. Mathew Thomas began his presentation by a comparative analysis of the Indian and the British experience in providing a unique identity to its citizens. In Britain, this initiative was labelled as ‘intrusive bullying’ and ‘an assault on personal liberties’. Additionally, the government recognized that they must conduct their business as servants of the public and not as their masters. The project was terminated on the grounds that it could not achieve the claimed objectives, and it was dangerous costly.

Nevertheless, the unique identification (UID) system in India is being perscribed as a prestigious project that will eliminate identity fraud, financial exclusion, enhance accessibility for the poor, enable the government to better manage welfare schemes and target corruption in social programs such as the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA), the public distribution system (PDS), public health and financial inclusion.

Col. Mathew Thomas chronicled ID schemes. He explained that the advent and growth of information technology increased the availability of technology, which led to a commercial interest to exploit technology for profit. Technological solutions were heavily marketed, however, it is a mistaken belief that there is a technological fix to every problem (technology could solve any problem). Post 9/11 paranoia resulted in the notion that ID cards were the best possible counter measure to terrorism. “The inherent ridiculousness of this notion is that militants do not come with ID cards, but with AK-47s, and possession of ID cards or citizenship does not prevent one from becoming a terrorist”, says Mathew Thomas. National ID cards do not stop or deter terrorist actions.

India’s history with the UID project can be traced to the recommendations made by the Kargil Review Committee chaired by K. Subrahmanyam.The Committee recommended the issuing of ID cards to people in border areas to prevent infiltration and extend the system to the whole country to combat terrorism. Consequently, in 2003 the Citizenship Act of 1955 was amended by the NDA Government so as to compulsorily register all citizens into a “National Population Register” (NPR) and issue a Multi-purpose National Identity Card (MNIC). The NPR database will be inked to the UID. Subsequently, the UPA Government promoted the UID, as a pro-poor project.

Col. Mathew Thomas discussed the various questionable aspects of the UID project: its legality, financial prudence, ethics and its uses and abuses.

UID and Legality

Firstly, there is no law governing the functioning of the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI). The illegal implementation of the UID is a complete insult to the Parliament and citizens, considering that the National Identification Authority of India Bill 2010 was drafted long after the implementation of the UID commenced.

UID and Financial Prudence

The high-level of apprehension surrounding the UID project stems from the fact that a project of this magnitude, cost and impact on the entire population would be undertaken without a feasibility study and a cost-benefit analysis. There exist two studies: one by the London School of Economics, regarding the UK project, and another by the Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, on UID in India. Both have concluded that such schemes are unworkable and too costly.

UID and Ethics

Ethical questions related to the UID are regarding its history, participation and ubiquity. Firstly, the UIDAI website is silent on the history prior to 2006. It fails to mention the significant historical roots of the UID, specifically, the Kargil War and the National Population Registry. Second, the UID has been promoted as a pro-poor project, whereas huge possibilities for commercial exploitation exist. Lastly, the UIDAI asserts that enrollment for the UID is ‘voluntary’. Although participation in the UID scheme is supposed to be voluntary, service providers can make it compulsory, thereby making it ubiquitous. A subtle campaign is being carried on, hinting at denial of benefits and services to those without UID.

Uses and Abuses

UID claims to transform governance, make ‘Bharath’ part of the growth process, plug ‘leakages’ & ‘slippages’ in welfare schemes, bring about all round prosperity and put India on a ‘fast-track’ growth by becoming the pivot around which all anti-poverty measures will rotate. One can conclude that UID is a panacea or a ‘one size fits all’ solution. Mathew Thomas questioned how these ambitions can be achieved by fingerprinting and scanning the irises of 1.2 billion people and storing the data for use by agencies responsible for the delivery of services.

These claims revolve around the assumptions that a lack of identity denies people welfare benefits; denies access to opportunities and services; and that a unique identification and de-duplication using biometrics would prevent “leakages”, “slippages” and in effect, all corruption. These assumptions need to be tested and verified so as to ensure validity.

The Public Distribution System and UID

Col. Mathew Thomas examined the PDS to analyze the use and claims of UID. He described the supply and demand of the PDS. The ‘supply’ side involves the fixing of minimum support prices, procurement by the centre and state governments, transport to FCI and state storages, distribution by centre to states and distribution by states to fair-price (ration) shops. All of the stages are affected by corruption and surprisingly UID beneficiaries have no role in any of the aforementioned stages.

‘Leakages’ in the supply process could potentially occur during the fixing of the minimum support prices (if deals exist with large farmers), during procurement (if they lift less quantity than what was paid for) and during accounting and storage (if they write off larger quantities than the actual damage; write off against bogus ration-cards; and show more quantity in storage and shops than is actually there).

The ‘demand’ process of the PDS system requires for state governments to decide on the eligibility of BPL people, issue ration cards, allocate ration-card holders to specific ration shops and requires the ration-card holders go to designated shops and collect entitlements. Corruption is possible, probable and happens in this discretionary decision-making. However, the only stage at which UID would find some use, if at all, is when ration-card holders collect rations.

Col. Mathew Thomas provided an excellent example of the government’s lopsided priorities. He describes the UID in PDS as the story of the ‘fence eating the corn’. The ‘fence’ then says, “let’s brand the cattle to find who is stealing the corn!”

The practicality of utilizing UID for authentication in the PDS system is a huge conundrum. Considering that the process to authenticate at ration shops requires all shops to have scanners (approximately six lakhs) which must be connected to a network and power at all the time.

Another problem surrounds the collection of ration. Ration-card holders do not always go to collect rations. There could be occasions where one family member goes for collection or one person collects rations for a number of families. The worst part of the UID application to the PDS system is that the procedure puts the BPL person at the mercy of the ration-shop keeper. He could simply deny rations, saying, “Authentication failed”.

The potential abuses of the UID could arise from the large collection of fingerprints that will be with various government officials and private agencies which could be used to foist false criminal cases against innocent people, forge title deeds, sale deeds, promissory notes wills, etc., and could target individuals and communities.

Col. Mathew Thomas concluded by explaining the main risks of any centralized database, it can be hacked and can crash. Professor Ian Angle, of the London School of Economics, has said that the UID will be "Olympic games of hacking", providing people with the biggest challenge to hack through.

Making a point: (From left) Public Relations Officer, e-governance, T. Prabhakar; UIDAI Regional Deputy Director Ashok Dalwai; Managing Trustee of Grahak Shakti Somashekar V.K.; and civic activist Mathew Thomas at a panel discussion in Bangalore on Friday. — photo: V. Sreenivasa Murthy.

Photo Source: From the Hindu, September 17, 2011, http://goo.gl/gCnqK

Note: Unfortunately, the other presentations were conducted in Kannada and could not be understood by the author of this blog.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/unique-id-system-pros-and-cons

UNICEF & Nasscom Foundation Workshop on Child Online Protection

praskrishna — 2016-02-14T11:01:15Z

Jyoti Panday attended UNICEF & Nasscom Foundation Workshop on Child Online Protection (COP) held on 8 February 2016 at Hotel Claridges in New Delhi.

The workshop was organized to raise awareness of the Child Online Protection and the UNICEF -International Telecom Union COP Guidelines for Industry. The COP Guidelines offer general recommendations for industry on protecting children's safety when using ICT technologies. The guidelines also provide a sector specific checklist that recommend actions to respect and support children's rights. Recommendations are provided for mobile operators, ISPs,content providers, online retailers and app developers,UGC interactive and social media service providers, national and public service broadcasters, hardware manufacturers, OS developers and app stores.

At the workshop the preliminary findings of the Rapid Assessment on Child Online Protection in India, carried out by UNICEF was shared. The discussions were structured as the beginning of a dialogue on Children and Internet with the private sector and other stakeholders and to discuss the incorporation of children’s rights dimensions into key ICT industry initiatives on COP. I participated in the panel discussions on the current scenario on child online protection in India and the role of the industry. I raised the issue of lack of transparency in blocking and taking down content online that deemed is harmful for children.

See the Concept Note
Click for the Agenda

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/unicef-nasscom-foundation-workshop-on-child-online-protection

UNESCO's Open Forum

praskrishna — 2011-04-05T03:58:47Z

As UNESCO organized Freedom of Expression related workshops, this Open Forum will be dedicated to other key IGF topics, notably multilingualism in cyberspace, open access to scientific information, open educational resources, and accessibility for marginalized groups. In addition, UNESCO will take this opportunity to announce new initiatives and share experiences with participants. The interactive panel format will start with brief presentations from experts, followed by a moderated discussion with participants.

Organizer: UNESCO

Moderator:
Mr Jānis Kārkliņš, Assistant Director-General for Communication and Information, UNESCO

Opening by Mr Jānis Kārkliņš

Introductory remarks

Mr Nitin Desai, Chair of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) will speak about: The future of the IGF and UNESCO’s opportunities
Mr Rod Beckstrom, CEO ICANN, on cooperation with UNESCO, next steps

1. Multilingualism in cyberspace

Proposed speakers:

Mr Baher Esmat, Manager, Regional Relations – Middle East, ICANN
Mr Daniel Pimienta, President of FUNREDES (Fundacion Redes y Desarrollo) Saint Domingue, Dominican Republic

Open discussion

2. Open access to scientific information and open educational resources

Proposed speakers:

Mr Indrajit Banerjee, Director, Information Society Division, Communication and Information Sector, UNESCO
Mr Abel Packer, Director of the SciELO.org Open Access (OA) initiative

Open discussion

3. An initiative on developing inclusive information policies using ICTs in education for persons with disabilities

Proposed speakers:

Mr Axel Leblois, Executive Director, the Global Initiative for Inclusive Information and Communications Technologies 9G3ict), An Advocacy Initiative of the United Nations Global Alliance for ICT and Development
Ms Anja Kovacs, Centre for Internet and Society (India)

Open discussion

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/events/unesco-open-forum

UNESCO Multistakeholder consultation at 8th Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum (APrIGF)

Admin — 2017-08-09T01:49:26Z

Sunil Abraham was a speaker at the APrIGF 2017 organized by UNESCO in Bangkok from July 26 to 29, 2017. Vidushi Marda also participated in the event.

UNESCO takes the occasion to present its new project “Defining Internet Universality Indicators” and engage with Asia-Pacific stakeholders, including young experts, at the 8^th Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum (APrIGF) for their inputs and contributions. This is a part of a global consultation to develop a set of Internet Universality indicators. The project is an immediate response following UNESCO’s adoption of the ‘CONNECTing the Dots’ Outcome document in 2015, where UNESCO put the concept of ‘Internet Universality’ at the heart of its work to promote an Internet that works for all. Internet universality points to four fundamental norms – known for short as the ROAM principles – which are the guiding framework that promotes an Internet based on:

Rights (R)

Openness (O)

Accessibility (A)

Multistakeholder Participation (M)

The project aims to elaborate appropriate Internet indicators, which can serve to enrich the stakeholders’ capacity for assessing Internet development, broaden international consensus, and foster online democracy and human rights towards knowledge societies engaged in sustainable development. These indicators will help governments and other stakeholders to assess their own national Internet environments and to promote the values associated with Internet Universality. Special attention will be paid to gender and to the needs and interests of children and young people. There will be a mix of quantitative and qualitative indicators. The work on the project to define Internet Universality indicators is being led for UNESCO by the Association for Progressive Communications (APC).

The 8^thAPrIGF is of high pertinence to the Internet Universality Indicators because it serves as a multi-stakeholder platform for public policy on Internet and its impact on society. It draws discussions and powers collaborations for the developments of universally affordable, accessible, non-discriminated, secure and sustainable Internet across the region, which are the focus topics of UNESCO’s multi-stakeholder consultation; as well as addressing gender inclusion and the inclusion of children and young people in the Internet environment.

The session will start with a brief presentation of the draft indicators and brief remarks from the speakers. The moderator will structure the discussion into five slots on Human Rights, Openness, Access, Multi-stakeholderism and crosscutting dimension and will invite all of you to take the floor. Focus groups will possibly be created to facilitate more in-depth discussion among participants. Some key questions will be asked to all participants regarding your experience of gathering and using Internet indicators within your country/area of work or the most important issues related to human rights, openness, accessibility and multistakeholder approach that should be included in the Internet Universality indicators.

A draft background paper on Defining Internet Universality Indicators will be shared and released before the session as a basis for discussion.

Written contribution is welcome via UNESCO email: internetstudy@unesco.org

An online platform for consultation will be available at: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/internetuniversality

In-Person Co-Moderators: Ms. Xianhong Hu; Ms. Chat Garcia Ramilo

Speakers

Presentation of the project

Ms Xianhong Hu, UNESCO

Speakers on Human Rights dimension indicators

Ms Gayatri Khandahai, APC
Ms. Anja Kovacs, Internet Democracy Project

Speakers on Openness indicators

Ms Xue Hong, Beijing Normal University

Speakers on Accessibility indicators

Mr. Winston Roberts, International Federation of Library Associations & Institutions
Ms. Piyawan Suwattanathum, UNESCO Bangkok Education

Speakers on Multi-stakeholderism indicators

Mr. Sunil Abraham, Center for Internet Society
Mr. Naveed Haq, ISOC
Ms. Joyce Chen, ICANN

Speakers on Crosscutting dimension indicators

Ms. Bishakha Datta, Point of View

Vidushi participated in the following meetings on July 26:

Fellowship Morning Meeting
Meet & Greet for Fellows & Buddies

Sharing of IG/Internet in your economies

Expectation Setting & Quick Brief of 3 days agenda

Capacity Building Day (13:00 - 18:30)

Welcome Social for Fellows @CU International House

The following meetings on July 27:

Opening Plenary
Synthesis Document Townhall Sessions
Respective sub-theme sessions assigned for rapporteur work
Closing Plenary

Digital Asia Hub and CIS workshop on "Technology and Extremism" was a highlight of the event.

Vidushi moderated a panel discussing the PT project and sharing key findings, titled: "Towards Sustainable Development in Asia Pacific: Mobile Internet and Access to Knowledge in the Marketplace".

Vidushi also attended the Global Partners Digital Event on the GCCS. List of APrIGF fellows can be accessed here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/asia-pacific-regional-internet-governance-forum-aprigf-2017

UNESCO Internet Universality Indicators consulted at the 8th Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum

praskrishna — 2017-08-23T02:05:44Z

“Internet Universality indicators should measure broad social implications of the Internet and serve as a powerful tool to foster sustainable development,” was a strong message delivered by Asia-Pacific stakeholders at UNESCO consultation to develop Internet Universality indicators during the 8th Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum (APrIGF) in Bangkok (Thailand), 29 July 2017.

This was published by UNESCO on August 9, 2017.

The Bangkok consultation event, co-moderated by Ms. Xianhong Hu (UNESCO) and Ms. Chat Garcia Ramilo (Association for Progressive Communications, APC), brought multi-stakeholders and experts from the Asia Pacific region to contribute to prioritizing issues within the five categories indicators along the Internet Universality R.O.A.M principles, namely on human Rights, Openness, Accessibility, Multi-stakeholder participation, as well as concerning Crosscutting issues.

“Rights entail a number of digital rights including freedom of religious and political expression and right to assembly and association online. Privacy concerns on the Internet are extremely important as well”, stated Ms Gayatri Khandahi from APC on human Rights indicators. In addition, she noted the importance of social and economic rights exercised on the Internet, such as the right to work and the right to political participation, and the jurisdiction challenges of these rights in the pretext of Internet. She emphasized the need to consult also with vulnerable groups, such as women, trans-gender groups and migrants.

Dr. Anja Kovacs from Internet Democracy Project pointed out that rights have impact on other themes or indicators, for instance online abuse of women impacts access in India. She also noted that in the course of developing these indicators, it is crucial to take into account future trends because digital rights are evolving and these indicators might not be useful in 10 years.

“Open Internet is a top concern since it is being limited by many localized requirements. Thus openness requires open and transparent policy and decision making process which is at the core of multi-stakeholder approach”, commented by Prof. Xue Hong from Beijing Normal University on Openness indicators. She suggested “open access” needs to consider people’s various barriers to access Internet, including legal barriers. She suggested that “open source”, “open innovation” and “open market” are also important aspects to measure the level of openness.

On Accessibility indicators, Mr Winston Roberts from the International Federation of Library Associations & Institutions (IFLA) suggested that the definition of universal access needs to be updated and access in various forms can be used as an indicator, such access to broadband. He stressed the importance to include quality access and access in rural areas.

“Access and accessibility should be defined clearly. Access should include indicators to assess quality of service and openness should include assessment of the market”, stated Ms. Bishakha Datta. Mr. Naveed Haq from Internet Society suggested those accessibility indicators could check how many government websites are available to people with disabilities.

“Internet is a classic example where various communities are represented and thus multistakeholderism becomes important”, said Mr. Naveed Haq from Internet Society on Multistakeholder indicators. Mr. Sunil Abraham from Center for Internet Society raised challenges that the government needs to deregulate policies and laws and redo them with a multi-stakeholder process, but on the other hand, private sectors fail to mitigate harm through the self-regulatory model. Mr. Joyce Chen, ICANN representative, highlighted the importance to engage with governments, who need to facilitate more dialogue.

“The rights and interest of those vulnerable groups, such as transgender and women should be considered by the indicators, particularly to assess how rights, such as the right to privacy intersect with their agenda”, suggested by Ms. Bishakha Datta from Point of View on Crosscutting dimension indicators. Dr Anja Kovacs pointed out that it is crucial not miss out groups of people whose interests might not be directly aligned with their governments, for instance refugees or migrants.”

In addition to the ongoing on-site Multistakeholder consultation sessions, UNESCO is now also offering the possibility for interested actors, including Member States, to participate in the consultation online at https://en.unesco.org/internetuniversality.

As an ongoing project developed by UNESCO, Internet Universality Indicators aims to serve as a recognized and authoritative global research tool for national assessing Internet development along the lines of UNESCO’s Internet Universality concept as endorsed by UNESCO 38^th General Conference in 2015. The final indicators will be presented in 2018 and will be submitted to the UNESCO Member States in the International Programme for the Development of Communication (IPDC) for endorsement.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/unesco-internet-universality-indicators-consulted-at-the-8th-asia-pacific-regional-internet-governance-forum

UNESCAP Google AI Meeting

Admin — 2018-09-20T15:47:42Z

Arindrajit was a panelist at the event on AI in public service delivery hosted by UNESCAP Bangkok on August 29, 2018. The event was co-organized by Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific and Google.

The discussion centered around the two questions (1) Is AI different from other technological advancements in the past and (2) Recommendations for policy-makers to enhance AI in Public Service Delivery.The other panelists were Dr. Urs Gasser (Berkman), Vidushi Marda ( Art.19), Malavika Jayaram (Digital Asia Hub) and Jake Lucchi ( Google) The panel was a platform to discuss some of our findings in our case studies on healthcare and agriculture, which we will receive comments on and will get published in November.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/unescap-google-ai-meeting

UNDP joins Tech Giants in Partnership on AI

Admin — 2018-08-13T15:51:48Z

UNDP joins the Partnership on Artificial Intelligence (AI), a consortium of companies, academics, and NGOs working to ensure that AI is developed in a safe, ethical, and transparent manner. Founded in 2016 by the tech giants - Amazon, DeepMind/Google, Facebook, IBM, and Microsoft - It has since been joined by industry leaders such as Accenture, Intel, Oxford Internet Institute - University of Oxford, eBay, as well as non profit organizations such as UNICEF and Human Rights Watch and many more.

This was published by UNDP on its website on August 1, 2018.

Through the partnership, UNDP’s Innovation Facility will work with partners and communities to responsibly test and scale the use of AI to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. By harnessing the power of data, we can inform risk, policy and program evaluation, we also can utilize robotics and Internet of Things (IoT) to collect data and reach the previously deemed unreachable - to leave no one behind.

UNDP’s AI portfolio is growing rapidly. Drones and remote sensing are used to improve data collection and inform decisions: in the Maldives for disaster preparedness, and in Uganda to engage refugee and host communities in jointly developing infrastructures. We partnered with IBM to automate UNDP’s Rapid Integrated Assessment, aligning national development plans and sectoral strategies with the 169 Sustainable Development Goals’ targets; and with the UNEP, UNDP has launched the UN Biodiversity Lab, powered by MapX. The spatial data platform will help countries support conservation efforts and accelerate delivery of the 2030 Agenda.

In line with UNDP’s Strategic Plan 2018-2021, innovation plays a central role in fulfilling the organization’s mission and achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Benjamin Kumpf, UNDP’s Innovation Facility Lead states, “advances in robotics and AI have the potential to radically redefine human development pathways. The path to such redefinitions entails concrete AI experiments to increase the effectiveness of our work as well as norm-setting: we have to think beyond guidelines for ethical AI to designing accountability frameworks.”

The Partnership on AI aims to advance public understanding of AI, formulate best practices, and serve as an open platform for discussion and engagement about AI and its influences on people and society.

Full list of partners

Amazon, Apple, Deepmind, Facebook, Google, IBM, Microsoft, Aaai, ACLU, Accenture, Affectiva, Ai Forum New Zealand, Ai Now Institute, The Allen Institute For Artificial Intelligence (Ai2), Amnesty International, Article 19, Association For Computing Machinery, Center For Democracy & Technology (Cdt), Center For Human-compatible Artificial Intelligence, Center For Information Technology Policy Princeton University, Centre For Internet And Society, India (Cis), Leverhulme Centre For The Future of Intelligence (Cfi), Cogitai, Data & Society Research Institute, Digital Asia Hub, Doteveryone, Ebay, Element Ai, Electronic Frontier Foundation (Eff), Fraunhofer Iao, The Future of Humanity, Future of Life Institute, The Future of Privacy Forum, The Hastings Center, Hong Kong University of Science And Technology Department Of Electronic & Computer Engineering, Human Rights Watch, Intel, Markkula Center For Applied Ethics Santa Clara University, Mckinsey & Company, Nvidia, Omidyar Network Openai, Oxford Internet Institute - University of Oxford, Salesforce, SAP, Sony, Tufts University Hri Lab, UCL Engineering, UNDP, UNICEF, University of Washington Tech Policy Lab, Upturn, Xprize, Zalando

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/undp-august-1-2018-undp-joins-tech-giants-in-partnership-on-ai

Understanding the Right to Information

elonnai — 2013-06-12T11:39:05Z

Elonnai Hickok summarises the Right to Information Act, 2005, how it works, how to file an RTI request, the information that an individual can request under the Act, the possible responses and the challenges to the citizen and the government. She concludes by saying that there are many structural changes that both citizens and governmental officers can make to improve the system.

Introduction

The Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI) was created in 2005 and marked an important time in Indian legislative history. The Right to Information enables citizens to hold the government accountable and ensure that it is a transparent body. Questions that can be asked by the citizen to the government range from anything that may concern to some meeting notes to why a teacher is not present in a public school, etc. In the current RTI system there are many challenges that are inhibiting the government’s efficient delivery of the RTI as a service to the people. This has changed the concept of how the citizens view the RTI, as the government feels harassed and the citizens feel as though their rights are being unjustly denied. Additionally, individuals have turned the RTI into a redressal mechanism rather than a way to ensure transparency and learn/understand how their government is functioning. The use of the RTI as a redressal mechanism has created a relationship of animosity between the government and citizens. The below note outlines the ecosystem of the RTI and notes specific challenges that both citizens and the government face.[1]

The RTI Ecosystem

RTI work flow

An individual files an RTI with the central/ state public information officer (PIO) or a specific PIO. PIOs are often not trained, and rarely apply for the position, but are instead designated.
Within five days the information is to be forwarded to the correct PIO.
The PIO must open a file and dispose of the request within 30 days.
If the PIO fails to reply to the applicant by either approving or denying a request, the PIO is liable to pay a fine of Rs. 250 for each day of delay.
If information is electronically uploaded, it is stored in any format the officer chooses (jpeg, pdf, html, etc).
Except for land records and staff records, files are retained for a maximum of one year.
If the PIO does not dispose of the request, there is scope for an appeal within 30-45 days to the appellate authority.
There is scope for a second appeal to the information commissioner if the authority does not respond within 90 days or the answer is found to be unsatisfactory.
The final decision of the information commissioner is binding.

Filing an RTI request

Though there is no specific format an individual must follow when submitting an RTI, when filing a request, individuals must include:

His /her name and address.
The name and address of the public information officer (PIO).
The particulars of information/documents required (limited to 150 words and one subject matter).
The time period of the information required.
Proof of payment.
Signature.
Proof if the individual is a BPL holder.[2]

Information that an individual can request under the RTI Act

Inspection of work, documents, and records
Taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records.
Taking certified samples of material.
Obtaining of information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, and video cassettes, or in any other electronic mode, or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer, or in any other device.
Obtaining the status of an RTI request or complaint.

Note: If an individual is requesting third party information, the PIO must inform the third party and provide the individual the opportunity to state a reason for not disclosing the information.

Accepted format of requested materials and records

Material requested can be in any format including: records, documents, memos, emails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, and data material held in any electronic form.
Records requested can include: any document, manuscript and file, any microfilm, microfiche and facsimile copy of a document, and reproduction of image or images embodied in such microfilm (whether enlarged or not), and any other material produced by a computer or any other device.

Possible Responses to an RTI request

An information officer can respond to an RTI in the following ways:

Transfer request to appropriate PIO within five days and notify the applicant about the transfer.
Provide the requested information within 30 days.
Reject the request information within 30 days stating the reasons for rejection, the period within which an appeal against such rejection may be preferred, and the details of the appellate authority.
Not respond to the applicant. If no response is received within 30 days the officer is liable for a penalty of Rs. 250 per day.

Appeal/Complaint Process

First appeal can be filed after 30 days or if the information given was unsatisfactory. The appeal must include: name and address of the appellant, name and address of the PIO involved, brief facts leading to appeal, relief sought, grounds for appeal, and copies of the application or documents involved, including copies of the reply, if received from the PIO.
Second appeal must contain: name and address of the applicant, and name and address of the PIO involved, particulars of the Order including the number if any against which the appeal is preferred, brief facts leading to the appeal, if appeal/complaint is preferred against deemed refusal then the particulars of the application, including number and date and name, address of the PIO to whom the application was originally made, relief sought, grounds for the relief, verification by the applicant, any other information which the commission may deem necessary for deciding during the appeal, self attested copies of the application or documents involved, copies of the documents relied upon by the appellant and referred to in the appeal, and an index of the documents referred to in the appeal.
A complaint must include: name and address of the complainant, name and address of the state PIO against whom the complaint is being made, facts leading to the complaint, particulars of the application [number, date, name and address of the PIO (three copies)], relief sought, grounds and proof for relief, verification of the complainant (three copies), index of documents referred to in the complaint, and any other necessary information.[3]

Challenges to the Citizen

Knowing the correct Public Information Officer

Knowing which public information officer to mail in the RTI request is the first difficulty that an individual faces. As noted above in 2008 there were a total of 73,256 recorded public information commissioners in the State of Karnataka. New public information commissioners are created every day, because the RTI extends not only to any department of the government, but to any sub-contracted company, organization, school, or NGO that is receiving government funding and doing work on behalf of the government directly or indirectly. Lists of PIOs can be found on department bulletin boards and websites, but there is no clear method for an individual to know what information each PIO is the custodian over. Thus, they are left to determine on their own, and rely on the PIO to forward their application to the correct individual.

Filing in the correct format

Though it is stated in the law what language an RTI request will be accepted in, and what information should be included – individuals are often unaware of the guidelines and unaware of how to correctly fill out an RTI request. An incorrectly formatted request is one of the major reasons for rejection of a request by the PIO.

Language

In the State of Karnataka, RTIs can be filed only in two languages: Kannada and English. By law, RTI responses are given only in the language that the department works in on a daily basis, and in English. The information that is supplied through the request is given in its original language. For example, if you ask for a document that is originally in Marathi, the document will be photo copied and sent to you. No translation of documents takes place, because it is not the job function of the officer to translate documents.

Appeals

If an individual is denied information, or does not receive a reply within 30 days, they have the option of seeking an appeal through an appellate authority. In 2008 Karnataka had 5416 Appellate Authorities. Currently, because of the backlog in appeal cases and the slow functioning of the system, an individual might have to wait for upto one year for his/her appeal to be heard. Often at this point the information is no longer relevant or needed.

Privacy

In some cases individuals are denied a request for information based on the grounds that it would invade the privacy of the public officer. This is sometimes the case and sometimes not the case. Finding the right balance between the right to information and privacy is important, as protecting an individual’s privacy is crucial, but privacy should not be used as a reason for the government to be less transparent to the citizen and be used as a way to deny a citizen the information that they are entitled to.[4]

Challenges in the RTI System for the Government

Too many RTI requests and no system to record duplicates: As the figure shows above, in 2008, the Karnataka Government received 42208 RTI requests. Currently, it is not possible to know how many of these requests were duplicates since departments handling RTIs do not make it a practice to upload and organize filed RTI requests in a format easily accessible to citizens. Thus, there is no present system in place to track, upload, and store past RTI's in a meaningful way.
Additional overhead in recording, organizing, accessing, and storing data: In the current system every time an RTI request is received by the government, they open a new file for that request. Though in some ways this system of storage simplifies the process of finding past RTIs, it adds an additional overhead cost as photocopies must be made, new files created, and correctly added to the organized system. Each state follows its own method of recording, organizing, accessing, and storing data – thus, currently it is not possible to easily access the information from another state or combine information from two separate states.
Lack of compliance with section 4(d) pro-active disclosure: Under section 4 (d), the government is required to pro-actively disclose a pre-determined data to the public via websites and other useful modes. Currently there is very little compliance with section 4(d) from governmental departments. There are many factors that contribute to the low rate of compliance that exist including lack of resources and lack of proper enforcement. If governmental departments were to comply with section 4(d) then the load of RTI requests and the time each request must take to answer could be lightened considerably as the government could respond by pointing citizens to the already disclosed information.

Conclusion

Though the Right to Information is an important right, the above entry looks at some of the weaknesses and challenges in the system. There are many structural changes that both citizens and governmental officers can make to improve the system such as pro-actively disclosing information, ensuring that an RTI is filed correctly, and creating a system for organizing previously asked questions. Alongside of these structural changes it is also critical that a positive culture of transparency and accountability is fostered throughout society, thus encouraging citizens to actively engage with the government and exercise their right to information.

Notes

[1].I am grateful to N. Vikram Simha, RTI activist, for his insight and feedback into the RTI system.

[2].N. Vikram Simha, Right to Information Act of 2005: Guide for Citizens.

[3].N. Vikram Simha, Right to Information: Trend Ahead. Karanataka State Chartered Accountants Association, Bangalore

[4].N. Vikram Simha, RTI and Protection of Individual Privacy

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/understanding-right-to-information

Understanding Surveillance and Privacy in India

praskrishna — 2014-09-08T06:08:49Z

Bhairav Acharya delivered a lecture at the Jamia Millia Islamia in New Delhi on August 28, 2014.

Abstract
While privacy seems intuitive to most people, its legal codification and protection is complex. This is because varying expectations of privacy exist in different social contexts demanding different forms and degrees of protection. In India, an unambiguous and enforceable constitutional right to privacy does not exist. The Supreme Court of India has, intermittently and unconvincingly, recognised a limited right to privacy in certain situations. Recent debates on privacy focus primarily on two areas: surveillance, and data protection. The interception of communications – phone calls, emails, and letters, – which is a type of surveillance, is statutorily regulated in India in an uneven way. A colonial law permits and regulates wiretaps in India. A derivative law governs emails and electronic communications. Both these laws suffer serious shortcomings. Indian law permits executive authorisations – by bureaucrats – of wiretaps without an independent audit and oversight mechanism. No legal provisions exist to redress improper wiretaps or information leaks – the Radia tapes controversy illustrates this. These lacunae remain unaddressed even as large-scale techno-utopian projects, such as the Central Monitoring System, move forward. However, the recent governmental push for privacy law does not stem from surveillance concerns but from international commerce in personal data. There is also a growing domestic constituency that is alarmed by the state’s collection of personal data without regulatory safeguards.

About the Speaker
Bhairav Acharya is a constitutional lawyer in India who joined the Bar in 2004 after graduating from the National Law School of India University, Bangalore. From 2004 - 2009, he was the Deputy Director of the Public Interest Legal Support and Research Centre (PILSARC), an organisation established to provide institutional legal support and credible research to popular movements, and to ideas and communities marginalised by law. He headed a UNHCR project to draft a refugee protection law for India and is a member of the NHRC’s National Experts Group on Refugee Law. He litigated – mostly constitutional law – in the chambers of a senior counsel in the Supreme Court of India, where he became especially interested in free speech law. From 2009 - 2010, he advised a leading Indian multinational information technology major on privacy law and data protection. At present, he independently advises the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, on privacy law, and is drafting a proposed privacy statute to regulate data protection and surveillance in India to provide a participatory and consensus - based legal submission to the Indian government.

Event Details
Venue: CCMG Network Governance Lab,
Date: Thursday, August 28, 2014
Time: 11.30 a.m.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/understanding-privacy-and-surveillance-in-india

Understanding IANA Stewardship Transition

Smarika Kumar — 2014-06-22T03:23:37Z

Smarika Kumar describes the process of the IANA stewardship transition, and enumerates what the NTIA announcement does and does not do.

NTIA Announcement and ICANN-convened Processes:

On 14 March 2014, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) of the US Government announced “its intent to transition key Internet domain name functions to the global multistakeholder community”. These key Internet domain name functions refer to the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions. For this purpose, the NTIA asked the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to “convene global stakeholders to develop a proposal to transition the current role played by NTIA in the coordination of the Internet’s domain name system (DNS)”. This was welcome news for the global Internet community, which has been criticising unilateral US Government oversight of Critical Internet Resources for many years now. NTIA further announced that IANA transition proposal must have broad community support and should address the following four principles:

Support and enhance the multistakeholder model;
Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS;
Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the IANA services; and
Maintain the openness of the Internet.

Subsequently, during ICANN49 in Singapore (March 23-27, 2014), ICANN held flurried discussions to gather initial community feedback from participants to come up with a Draft Proposal of the Principles, Mechanisms and Process to Develop a Proposal to Transition NTIA’s Stewardship of the IANA Functions on 8 April 2014, which was open to public comments until 8 May 2014, which was further extended to 31 May 2014. Responses by various stakeholders were collected in this very short period and some of them were incorporated into a Revised Proposal issued by ICANN on 6th June 2014. ICANN also unilaterally issued a Scoping Document defining the scope of the process for developing the proposal and also specifying what was not part of the scope. This Scoping Document came under severe criticism by various commentators, but was not amended.

ICANN also initiated a separate but parallel process to discuss enhancement of its accountability on 6 May 2014. This was launched upon widespread distress over the fact that ICANN had excluded its role as operator of IANA functions from the Scoping Document, as well as over questions of accountability raised by the community at ICANN49 in Singapore. In the absence of ICANN’s contractual relationship with NTIA to operate the IANA functions, it remains unclear how ICANN will stay accountable upon the transition. The accountability process looks to address the same through the ICANN community. The issue of ICANN accountability is then envisioned to be coordination within ICANN itself through an ICANN Accountability Working Group comprised of community members and a few subject matter experts.

What are the IANA Functions?

Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, or IANA functions consist of three separate tasks:

Maintaining a central repository for protocol name and number registries used in many Internet protocols.
Co-ordinating the allocation of Internet Protocol (IP) and Autonomous System (AS) numbers to the Regional Internet Registries, who then distribute IP and AS numbers to ISPs and others within their geographic regions.
Processing root zone change requests for Top Level Domains (TLDs) and making the Root Zone WHOIS database consisting of publicly available information for all TLD registry operators.

The first two of the abovementioned functions are operated by ICANN in consonance with policy developed at the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and Address Supporting Organisation (ASO) respectively, both of which exist under the ICANN umbrella.

The performance of last of these functions is distributed between ICANN and Verisign. NTIA has a Cooperative Agreement with Verisign to perform the related root zone management functions. The related root zone management functions are the management of the root zone “zone signing key” (ZSK), as well as implementation of changes to and distribution of the DNS authoritative root zone file, which is the authoritative registry containing the lists of names and addresses for all top level domains.

Currently, the US Government oversees this entire set of operations by contracting with ICANN as well as Verisign to execute the IANA functions. Though the US Government does not interfere generally in operations of either ICANN or Verisign in their role as operators of IANA functions, it cannot be denied that it exercises oversight on both the operators of IANA functions, through these contracts.

Import of the NTIA Announcement:

The NTIA announcement of 14th March intends to initiate the withdrawal of such oversight of IANA functions by the NTIA in order to move towards global multistakeholder governance. NTIA has asked ICANN to initiate a process to decide upon what such global multistakeholder governance of IANA functions may look like. The following diagram presents the current governance structure of IANA functions and the areas that the NTIA announcement seeks to change:

The IANA Oversight Mechanism (Source)

What does the NTIA Announcement NOT DO?

The NTIA announcement DOES NOT frame a model for governance of IANA functions once it withdraws its oversight role. NTIA has asked ICANN to convene a process, which would figure the details of IANA transition and propose an administrative structure for IANA functions once the NTIA withdraws its oversight role. But what this new administrative structure would look like has not itself been addressed in the NTIA announcement. As per the NTIA announcement, the new administrative structure is yet to be decided by a global multistakeholder community in accordance with the four principles outlined by the NTIA through a process, which ICANN shall convene.

The NTIA announcement DOES NOT limit discussions and participation in IANA transition process to within the ICANN community. NTIA has asked ICANN to convene “global stakeholders to develop a proposal to transition” IANA functions. This means all global stakeholders participation, including that of Governments and Civil Society is sought for the IANA transition process. ICANN has been asked “to work collaboratively with the directly affected parties, including the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the Internet Architecture Board (IAB), the Internet Society (ISOC), the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), top level domain name operators, VeriSign, and other interested global stakeholders”, in the NTIA announcement. This however does not signify that discussions and participation in development of proposal for IANA transition needs to be limited to the ICANN community or the technical community. In fact, ICANN has itself said that the list of events provided as “Timeline of Events” in its Draft Proposal of 8 April 2014 for engagement in development of a proposal for IANA transition is non-exhaustive. This means proposal for IANA transition can be developed by different stakeholders, including governments and civil society in different fora appropriate to their working, including at the IGF and WSIS+10.

The NTIA announcement DOES NOT mean devolution of IANA functions administration upon ICANN. NTIA chooses ICANN and Verisign to operate the IANA functions. If NTIA withdraws from its role, the question whether ICANN or Verisign should operate the IANA functions at all becomes an open one, and should be subject to deliberation. By merely asking ICANN to convene the process, the NTIA announcement in no way assigns any administration of IANA functions to ICANN. It must be remembered that the NTIA announcement says that key Internet domain name functions shall transition to the global multistakeholder community, and not the ICANN community.

The NTIA announcement DOES NOT prevent the possibility of removal of ICANN from its role as operator of IANA functions. While ICANN has tried to frame the Scoping Document in a language to prevent any discussions on its role as operator of IANA functions, the question whether ICANN should continue in its operator role remains an open one. There are at least 12 submissions made in response to ICANN’s Draft Proposal by varied stakeholders, which in fact, call for the separation of ICANN’s role as policy maker (through IETF, ASO, gNSO, ccNSO), and ICANN’s role as the operator of IANA functions. Such calls for separation come from private sector, civil society, as well as the technical community, among others. Such separation was also endorsed in the final NETmundial outcome document (paragraph 27). Governments have, in general, expressed no opinion on such separation in response to ICANN’s Draft Proposal. It is however urged that governments express their opinion in favour of such separation to prevent consolidation of both policy making and implementation within ICANN, which would lead to increased potential situations for the ICANN Board to abuse its powers.

Smarika Kumar is a graduate of the National Law Institute University, Bhopal, and a member of the Alternative Law Forum, a collective of lawyers aiming to integrate alternative lawyering with critical research, alternative dispute resolution, pedagogic interventions and sustained legal interventions in social issues. Her areas of interest include interdisciplinary research on the Internet, issues affecting indigenous peoples, eminent domain, traditional knowledge and pedagogy.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/understanding-iana-transition

Understanding and Mitigating Online Hate Speech and Youth Radicalisation

praskrishna — 2015-10-01T01:59:24Z

The tenth annual IGF meeting will be held in João Pessoa, Brazil, on November 10 - 13, 2015. IGF's MAG has decided to retain the title “Evolution of Internet Governance: Empowering Sustainable Development” as the overarching theme. UNESCO as part of the IGF event is organizing a workshop on hate speech and youth radicalisation. Sunil Abraham will be a panelist for this workshop.

Co-organizers: Council of Europe, Oxford University; OHCHR, Google, ISOC

From socializing and entertainment to homework, the Internet is an essential part of life for young people today, opening vast new opportunities for connecting and learning. At the same time, the Internet provides violent extremists with powerful tools to propagate hatred and violence and to identify and groom potential recruits, creating global online communities that promote radicalization.

The emergence and diffusion of hate speech online is a new and fast evolving phenomenon and collective efforts are needed to understand its significance and consequences, as well as to develop effective responses.

UNESCO takes this session to share the initial outcome from its commissioned research on online hate speech including practical recommendations on combating against online hate speech through understanding the challenges, mobilizing civil society, lobbying private sectors and intermediaries and educating individuals with Media and Information Literacy. In related to this, the workshop would also discuss how to help empower youth to address online radicalization and extremism, and realize their aspirations to contribute to a more peaceful and sustainable world.

Chaired by Ms Lidia Brito, Director for UNESCO Office in Montevideo
Frank La Rue, Former Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression
Lillian Nalwoga, President ISOC Uganda and rep CIPESA, Technical community
Bridget O’Loughlin, CoE, IGO
Gabrielle Guillemin, Article 19
Iyad Kallas, Radio Souriali
Sunil Abraham executive director of Center for Internet and Society, Bangalore, India
Eve Salomon, global Chairman of the Regulatory Board of RICS (the self-regulatory body for surveyors)
Javier Lesaca Esquiroz, University of Navarra
Representative GNI
Remote Moderator: Xianhong Hu, UNESCO
Rapporteur: Guilherme Canela De Souza Godoi, UNESCO

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/understanding-and-mitigating-online-hate-speech-and-youth-radicalisation

Understanding Aadhaar and its New Challenges, May 26-27, 2016

sumandro — 2016-05-26T10:29:43Z

A workshop on “Understanding Aadhaar and its New Challenges” is being organised by the Centre for Studies in Science Policy, Jawaharlal Nehru University, and the Centre for Internet and Society, during May 26-27. It is also supported by the Centre for Communication Governance at NLU Delhi, Free Software Movement of India, Knowledge Commons, PEACE, and Center for Advancement of Public Understanding of Science & Technology. This is a legal and technical workshop to be attended by various key researchers and practitioners to discuss the current status of the implementation of the project, in the context of the passing of the Act and the various ongoing cases.

Workshop Programme

First Day, May 26

9:00-9:30	Registration
9:30-10:00	Prof. Dinesh Abrol - Welcome Self-introduction and expectations of participants Dr. Usha Ramanathan - Overview of the Workshop
10:00-11:00	Current Status of Aadhaar Dr. Usha Ramanathan, Legal Researcher, New Delhi - What the 2016 Law Says, and How it Came into Being S. Prasanna, Advocate, New Delhi - Status and Force of Supreme Court Orders on Aadhaar Discussion
11:00-11:30	Tea Break
11:30-13:30	Direct Benefits Transfers Prof. Reetika Khera, Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi - Welfare Needs Aadhaar like a Fish Needs a Bicycle Prof. Ram Kumar, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai - Aadhaar and the Social Sector: A critical analysis of the claims of benefits and inclusion Ashok Rao, Delhi Science Forum - Cash Transfers Study Discussion
13:30-14:30	Lunch
14:30-16:00	Aadhaar: Science, Technology, and Security Prof. Subashis Banerjee, Deptt of Computer Science & Engineering, IIT, Delhi - Privacy and Security Issues Related to the Aadhaar Act Pukhraj Singh, former National Cyber Security Manager, Aadhaar, New Delhi - Aadhaar: Security and Surveillance Dimensions Discussion
16:00-16:30	Tea Break
16:30-17:30	Aadhaar - International Dimensions Prof. Chinmayi Arun, Center for Communication Governance, National Law University, Delhi - Biometrics and Mandatory IDs in other parts of the world Dr. Gopal Krishna, Citizens Forum for Civil Liberties - International Dimensions of Aadhaar Discussion
17:30-18:00	High Tea
18:00-19:00	Video Presentations

Second Day, May 27

9:30-11:00	Privacy, Surveillance, and Ethical Dimensions of Aadhaar Prabir Purkayastha, Free Software Movement of India, New Delhi - Surveillance Capitalism and the Commodification of Personal Data Arjun Jayakumar, SFLC - Surveillance Projects Amalgamated Col Mathew Thomas, Bengaluru - The Deceit of Aadhaar Discussion
11:00-11:30	Tea Break
11:30-10:30	Aadhaar: Broad Issues - I Prof. G Nagarjuna, Homi Bhabha Center for Science Education, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai - How to prevent linked data in the context of Aadhaar Dr. Anupam Saraph, Pune - Aadhaar and Moneylaundering Discussion
13:00-13:30	Video Presentations
13:30-14:30	Lunch
14:30-15:30	Aadhaar: Broad Issues - II Prof. MS Sriram, Visiting Faculty, Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore - Financial lnclusion Nikhil Dey, MKSS, Rajasthan (TBC) - Field witness: Technology on the Ground Prof. Himanshu, Centre for Economic Studies & Planning, JNU - UID Process and Financial Inclusion Discussion
15:30-16:00	Conclusion

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/understanding-aadhaar-and-its-new-challenges-may-26-27-2016

Under Modi government, foreign funding of NGOs has come down

praskrishna — 2016-06-14T16:37:26Z

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unbundling Issues of Privacy, Data Security, Identity Matrics, for Financial Inclusion

praskrishna — 2016-01-03T10:45:19Z

This event was organized by Indicus Foundation and MicroSave on December 10, 2015 at the Metropolitan Hotel and Spa, New Delhi. Sunil Abraham was a speaker.

While the initiative towards financial inclusion has gathered new impetus with the PMJDY and the accelerated roll out of benefits, there is also a parallel narrative of concerns over the legality and fundamental constitutionality of identity verification, which is a centre piece for delivery of financial benefits and services. These divergent narratives have now reached the Supreme Court.

At one end of the spectrum are the voices that avow the power of biometric technology to irrepudiately establish biological identity; at the other, the alarmism over targeting, concentration and misuse of personal information contained in the world’s biggest personal database. There is also a third extreme position of whether Indian citizens are entitled to the right to privacy constitutionally, and whether the right to privacy includes the right to refuse a national identity number or metric altogether. That India has yet to enact a Privacy Bill and the National Identity Authority Bill on which rests the statutory basis for UIDAI and Aadhaar only adds to the quagmire.

Several issues lie intertwined in this miasma: Privacy as an absolute right; Definition and Limits of Personal Information and Sensitive Personal Information; Consent protocols over use of personal information; Data Security; Appropriate and inclusive technology platforms; and Responsibilities and Liabilities governing the use of personal information for bonafide purposes. These straddle multiple domains: data accuracy and irrepudiability; storage, security and encryption; and sharing of information for transaction processing including across national boundaries. Unfortunately, all of these tend to get lumped together in the public debate.

The aim of this workshop is to unbundle the issues and understand each of them from the perspective of financial inclusion, to be able to answer these questions:

How essential and critical is a unified Identity metric for digital financial transactions? How essential is that such a metric be biometric?
To what extent does the centralised storage of biometric data represent risks of personal safety and national security, compared to the information on election voter lists, passport offices, census data, and bank accounts?
What are the possible sources of transactional risk and security breaches in data sharing, and what are the international best practices?
Is the present Aadhaar architecture robust enough to: address all the genuine and reasonable concerns over leakage and misuse of sensitive personal information; and to ensure that no genuine identity holder is turned away from a service, entitlement or benefit to which (s)he has a right or claim?

In this direction, we have the privilege to interact in this workshop with experts from The Centre for Internet and Society, and Data Security Council of India who have been at the forefront of the discussions on privacy and data security aspects of technology based innovations including for financial inclusion.

Download the Workshop Schedule here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/unbundling-issues-of-privacy-data-security-identity-matrics-for-financial-inclusion