We are anonymous, we are legion

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

Unbox Festival 2019: CIS organizes two Workshops

saumyaa — 2019-02-26T01:53:39Z

Centre for Internet & Society organized two workshops at the Unbox Festival 2019, in Bangalore, on 15 and 17 February 2019.

'What is your Feminist Infrastructure Wishlist?

The first workshop 'What is your Feminist Infrastructure Wishlist?' was on Feminist Infrastructure Wishlists that was conducted by P.P. Sneha and Saumyaa Naidu on 15 February 2019. The objective of the workshop was to explore what it means to have infrastructure that is feminist. How do we build spaces, networks, and systems that are equal, inclusive, diverse, and accessible? We will also reflect on questions of network configurations, expertise, labour and visibility. For reading material click here.

AI for Good

With a backdrop of AI for social good, we explore existing applications of artificial intelligence, how we interact and engage with this technology on a daily basis. A discussion led by Saumyaa Naidu and Shweta Mohandas invited participants to examine current narratives around AI and imagine how these may transform with time. Questions around how we can build an AI for the future will become the starting point to trace its implications relating to social impact, policy, gender, design, and privacy. For reading materials see AI Now Report 2018, Machine Bias, and Why Do So Many Digital Assistants Have Feminine Names?

For info on Unbox Festival, click here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/unbox-2019-festival

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

vidushi — 2016-06-08T17:27:22Z

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

Background

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

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

Introduction

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

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

Legal and Policy Issues

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

Content Regulation

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

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

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

Transparency

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

Surveillance and Digital Security

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

Remedies

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

Special Rapporteur’s priorities for future work and thematic developments

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

Conclusions and Recommendations

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

CIS Comments

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

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

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

UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Privacy Consultation on 'Privacy and Gender'

Admin — 2019-11-02T06:39:25Z

Ambika Tandon was a speaker at the Consultation on Privacy and Gender organised by the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy held at New York University, New York on October 30 - 31, 2019.

The consultation was held to receive feedback on the report on privacy and gender towards which Pallavi, Aayush, Pranav and Ambika sent comments. Ambika was a speaker in the session 'The Body: as Data, as Identity, as Money Maker', chaired by Eva Blum-Dumontet from Privacy International, with co-panelists Anja Kovacs, Director, Internet Democracy Project, and Joana Varon, Director, Coding Rights.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/un-special-rapporteur-on-the-right-to-privacy-consultation-on-privacy-and-gender

UN Questionnaire on Digital Innovation, Technologies and Right to Health

Pahlavi and Shweta Mohandas — 2022-11-21T16:10:06Z

The Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) contributed to the questionnaire put out by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, on digital innovation, technologies and the right to health. The responses were authored by Pahlavi and Shweta Mohandas, and edited by Indumathi Manohar.

Questionnaire

1. What are benefits of increased use of digital technologies in the planning and delivery of health information, services and care? Consider the use of digital technologies for healthcare services, the collection and use of health-related data, the rise of social media and mobile phones, and the use of artificial intelligence specifically to plan and deliver healthcare. Please share examples of how such technologies benefited specific groups. How have digital technologies contributed to availability, accessibility, acceptability and quality of healthcare? Has the use of artificial intelligence improved access to health information, services and care? Please comment on existing or emerging biases in health information, services and care.

The use of digital technologies and forms of digital health interventions has seen an increase in interest from governments, industries, as well as individuals since the beginning of the pandemic. The lockdowns, and other social distancing measures created a push towards telemedicine and online consultations. Digital health services provide a number of people the opportunity to seek medical help without traveling, which particularly help people with accessibility needs, the elderly, and anyone else that has difficulty in movement.1 Telemedicine can also help meet the challenges of healthcare delivery to rural and remote areas, in addition to serving as a means of training and education.2

The pandemic brought about a push towards telehealth and telemedicine and the telemedicine market has been reported to touch $5.4 Bn by 2025,3 with a number of applications working to make it more accessible to people in India. With respect to AI there has been some adoption of AI in India to help the most vulnerable group of people. For example: Microsoft has teamed up with the Government of Telangana to use cloud-based analytics for the Rashtriya Bal Swasthya Karyakram program by adopting MINE (Microsoft Intelligent Network for Eyecare), an AI platform to reduce avoidable blindness in children.4 Similarly Philips Innovation Campus (PIC) in Bengaluru, Karnataka is harnessing technology to make solutions for TB detection from chest x-rays, and a software solution (Mobile Obstetrics Monitoring) to identify and manage high-risk pregnancies.5 More recently IWill by ePsyClinic, a mental-health platform in India, has received a grant from Microsoft's 'AI for Accessibility' program to accelerate the building of a Hindi-based AI Mental Health conversational program.6

However the use of digital technologies and online medical interventions has also widened the increasing gap between those who can afford a smart phone and internet and those who cannot. A digital-only health intervention also results in excluding a wide number of people who do not have a smartphone, for example the Indian contact-tracing app, Aarogya Setu, which was a mandatory download to access public places during the lockdown was initially only available via a smartphone. Additionally, the app initially was not compatible with screen readers.7 The disparities in digital access and infrastructure is not limited to individuals— a report by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology India highlighted that the government hospitals and dispensaries have very little ICT infrastructure with only some major public hospitals having computers and connectivity.8

As stated above, the adoption of digital health technologies is not uniform around the world, and the people who are not able to access these technologies missed being included in the data that is being collected by these systems, further excluding from the data set which might be used to train future interventions. In the same light, digital technologies such as AI based screening are based on historical data that have been proved to contain biases against

marginalised communities. Continuing to use these systems without addressing these biases and or including more diverse dataset results in the same people being marginalised and misdiagnosed further. For example, safety apps where data is provided by limited people could identify Dalit and Muslim areas as unsafe, reflecting the prejudices of the app’s middleand upper-class users.9 While this has not been revealed in healthcare apps, the growing use of CCTVs and subsequent use of facial recognition in only certain pockets of the city reveal the historical biases in the police system that lead to targeted surveillance.10

2. How has the rise of web platforms and social media increased access to health information and services, or conversely, increased risk of misdiagnosis or other harms? Please share examples of ways in which social media and web platforms facilitated innovation in access to evidence-based health information and services, or created new threats of discrimination, mental health harms, or online or offline violence.

Social media platforms have helped people immensely during the pandemic. For example, when people reached out to strangers for help for hospital beds and oxygen. However, the benefits of such were limited to people who were on social media and had the reach and networks to share such information.11Furthermore, social media and messaging apps such as Whatsapp also led to the spread of misinformation during the pandemic. For example a Whatsapp message claiming to be from the Ministry of Aayush which permitted homeopathy doctors to treat Covid19 spread significantly, leading to the official government channels clarifying that it is fake and cautioning people against it.12 It was also noted that at times when women shared requests for beds or oxygen during covid on social media, they were faced with fake calls, stalking and trolling on social media, making it harder for them to seek help.

3. How has the right to privacy been impacted by the use of digital technologies for health? Please share examples of ways in which data gathered from digital technologies have been used by States, commercial entities or other third parties to either benefit or harm groups regarding the right to health.

In 2006, the National e-Governance Plan (NeGP) was approved by the Indian State wherein a massive infrastructure was developed to reach the remotest corners and facilitate easy access of government services efficiently at affordable costs.13There has been a paradigm shift in the Indian state’s governance strategy, with severe implications for privacy and inclusion. However, this shift has been undertaken primarily through a series of administrative orders with no real legislative mandate and minimal judicial oversight. This digitisation began with services such as taxation, land record, passport details, but it soon extended its ambit, and it now covers most services for which the citizen is dependent upon the state— the latest being digital health.

In the Indian context, there have been a number of policies that have been published which dealt with digital health. The policies looked at creating a digital health ID, digitisation of health data, and the management of health data. However these policies are being introduced without the existence of a comprehensive data protection legislation. While there are certain safeguards mentioned in each policy, without privacy and data protection legislation it is impossible to ensure compliance and the rights of the data owners. This issue became a reality when during the vaccination for Covid, some vaccination centres created Health ID for people without their consent.14

4. What are current strengths or weaknesses of digital health governance at national, regional and global levels? Please provide examples of laws, regulations or other safeguards that has been put in place to protect and fulfill the rights to health, privacy, and confidentiality within the use of digital technologies for health? Do restrictive laws or law enforcement create any specific challenges for persons using digital technologies to access health information or services?

Digitisation of the healthcare system in India had started prior to the pandemic. However, the pandemic also saw a slew of digitisation policies being rolled out, the most notable being the National Digital Health Mission (re-designed as the Aayushman Bharat Digital Mission) which empowered and saw the government use the vaccination process to generate Health IDs for citizens, in several reported cases without their knowledge or consent.15 The entire digitisation process has been undertaken in the absence of any legislative mandate or judicial oversight. It has primarily been undertaken through issuance of executive notifications and resulting in absent or inadequate grievance redressal mechanisms.

The rollout of the NDHM also saw health IDs being generated for citizens. In several reported cases across states, this rollout happened during the Covid-19 vaccination process— without the informed consent of the concerned person. All of these developments took place in the absence of a data protection law and a law regulating the digital health sphere, raising critical concerns around citizens’ privacy and the governance and oversight mechanisms for digital health initiatives.

Valdez, R. S., Rogers, C. C., Claypool, H., Trieshmann, L., Frye, O., Wellbeloved-Stone, C., & Kushalnagar, P. (2021). Ensuring full participation of people with disabilities in an era of telehealth. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 28(2), 389-392.
Paul, Hickok, Sinha, & Tiwari. (2018). Artificial Intelligence in the Healthcare Industry in India. Centre for Internet and Society India. Retrieved November 15, 2022, from https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/ai-and-healthcare-report/view
Dayalani, V., K., H., S., G., R., T., & M., L. (2021, February 15). 1mg Rises In Indian Telemedicine Space As Sector Set To Touch $5.4 Bn Market Size by 2025. Inc42 Media. Retrieved November 15, 2022, from https://inc42.com/datalab/telemedicine-a-post-covid-reality-in-india/
Government of Telangana adopts Microsoft Cloud and becomes the first state to use Artificial Intelligence for eye care screening for children - Microsoft Stories India. (2017, August 3). Microsoft Stories India. Retrieved November 15, 2022, from https://news.microsoft.com/en-in/governmenttelangana-adopts-microsoft-cloud-becomes-first-state-use-articial-intelligence-eye-care-screeningchildren/
D’Monte, L. (2017, February 15). How Philips is using AI to transform healthcare. Mint. Retrieved November 15, 2022, from https://www.livemint.com/Science/yxgekz1jJJ3smvvRLwmaAL/How-Philips-is-using-AI-to-transformhealthcare.html
PTI. (2022, November 11). Microsoft supports IWill with “AI for Accessibility” grant to develop AI CBT mental health program for 615 million Hindi users. Microsoft Supports IWill With “AI for Accessibility”Grant to Develop AI CBT Mental Health Program for 615 Million Hindi Users. Retrieved November 15,2022, from https://www.ptinews.com/pti/Microsoft-supports-IWill-with--AI-for-Accessibility--grant-todevelop-AI-CBT-mental-health-program-for-615-million-Hindi-users/58238.html
Nath. (2020, May 2). Coronavirus | Mandatory Aarogya Setu app not accessible to persons with disabilities.Coronavirus | Mandatory Aarogya Setu App Not Accessible to Persons With Disabilities - the Hindu. Retrieved November 15, 2022, from https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/coronavirus-mandatory-aarogya-setu-app-notaccessible-to-persons-with-disabilities/article31489933.ece
Sharma, N. C. (2018, July 16). Adoption of e-medical records facing infra hurdles: Report. Mint. Retrieved November 15, 2022, from https://www.livemint.com/Politics/CucBmKaoWLZuSf1Y9VaafM/Adoption-of-emedical-recordsfacing-infra-hurdles-Report.html
https://www.livemint.com/news/world/ai-algorithms-far-from-neutral-in-india-11613617957200.html
Vipra. (n.d.). The Use of Facial Recognition Technology for Policing in Delhi. Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy. Retrieved November 15, 2022, from https://vidhilegalpolicy.in/research/the-use-of-facial-recognition-technology-for-policingin-delhi/
Kalra, A., & Ghoshal, D. (2021, April 21). Twitter becomes a platform of hope amid the despair of India’s COVID crisis. Reuters. Retrieved November 15, 2022, from https://www.reuters.com/world/india/twitterbecomes- platform-hope-amid-despair-indias-covid-crisis-2021-04-21/
Times of India . (2020, April 29). WhatsApp message on Homeopathy and coronavirus treatment is fake- Times of India. The Times of India. Retrieved November 15, 2022, from https://timesondia.indiatimes.com/gadgets-news/whatsapp-message-on-homeopathy-and-coronavirustreatment-is-fake/articleshow/75425274.cms
Amber Sinha, Pallavi Bedi and Amber Sinha, “Techno-Solutinist Responses to Covid 19”, EPW, Vol LVI, No. 29, July 17, 2021 Retrieved from: https://www.epw.in/journal/2021/29/commentary/technosolutionist-responses-covid-19.html
Rana, C. (2021, October 1). COVID-19 vaccine beneficiaries were assigned unique health IDs without their consent.The Caravan. Retrieved November 15, 2022, from https://caravanmagazine.in/health/covid-19-vaccinebeneficiaries-were-assigned-unique-health-ids-without-their-consent

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/un-questionnaire-digital-innovation-technologies-right-to-health

UN Human Rights Council urged to protect human rights online

geetha — 2014-06-19T13:28:32Z

63 civil society groups urged the UN Human Rights Council to address global challenges to freedom of expression, privacy and other human rights on the Internet. Centre for Internet & Society joined in the statement, delivered on behalf of the 63 groups by Article 19.

The 26th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) is currently ongoing (June 10-27, 2014). On June 19, 2014, 63 civil society groups joined together to urge the United Nations Human Rights Council to protect human rights online and address global challenged to their realization. Centre for Internet & Society joined in support of the statement ("the Civil Society Statement"), which was delivered by Article 19 on behalf of the 63 groups.

In its consensus resolution A/HRC/20/8 (2012), the UNHRC affirmed that the "same rights that people have offline must also be protected online, in particular freedom of expression, which is applicable regardless of frontiers and through any media of one’s choice". India, a current member of the UNHRC, stood in support of resolution 20/8. The protection of human rights online was also a matter of popular agreement at NETmundial 2014, which similarly emphasised the importance of protecting human rights online in accordance with international human rights obligations. Moreover, the WSIS+10 High Level Event, organised by the ITU in collaboration with other UN entities, emphasized the criticality of expanding access to ICTs across the globe, including infrastructure, affordability and reach.

The Civil Society Statement at HRC26 highlights the importance of retaining the Internet as a global resource - a democratic, free and pluralistic platform. However, the recent record of freedom of expression and privacy online have resulted in a deficit of trust and free, democratic participation. Turkey, Malaysia, Thailand, Egypt and Pakistan have blocked web-pages and social media content, while Edward Snowden's revelations have heightened awareness of human rights violations on the Internet.

At a time when governance of the Internet and its institutions is evolving, a human rights centred perspective is crucial. Openness and transparency - both in the governance of Internet institutions and rights online - are crucial to continuing growth of the Internet as a global, democratic and free resource, where freedom of expression, privacy and other rights are respected regardless of location or nationality. In particular, the Civil Society Statement calls attention to principles of necessity and proportionality to regulate targeted interception and collection of personal data.

The UNHRC, comprising 47 member states, is called upon to address these global challenges. Guided by resolutions A/HRC/20/8 and A/RES/68/167, the WSIS+10 High Level Event Outcome Documents (especially operative paragraphs 2, 8 and 11 of the Vision Document) and the forthcoming report of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights regarding privacy in the digital age, the UNHRC as well as other states may gather the opportunity and intention to put forth a strong case for human rights online in our post-2015 development-centred world.

Civil Society Statement:

The full oral statement can be accessed here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/un-human-rights-council-urged-to-protect-human-rights-online