We are anonymous, we are legion

Attempted data breach of UIDAI, RBI, ISRO and Flipkart is worrisome

Admin — 2018-01-02T16:20:58Z

Perhaps, we got lucky this time, but the ongoing problem of massive cyber-security breaches wouldn't stop at one thwarted attempt to steal sensitive information from the biggest and most important databases.

This was published by DailyO on October 4, 2017.

An alarming report on a potential data breach impacting almost 6,000 Indian organisations — including the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) that hosts Aadhaar numbers, Reserve Bank of India, Bombay Stock Exchange and Flipkart — has surfaced and supposedly been contained.

A cyber security firm in Pune, Seqrite, had found in its Cyber Intelligence Labs that India's national internet registry, IRINN (Indian Registry for Internet Names and Numbers), which comes under NIXI (National Internet Exchange of India), was compromised, though the issue has reportedly been "addressed".

Sequite tracked an advertisement on the "dark net" — the digital underworld — offering access to servers and database dump of more than 6,000 Indian businesses and public assets, including the big ones such as UIDAI, RBI, BSE and Flipkart.

The report states that the "dealer could have had access to usernames, email ids, passwords, organisation name, invoices and billing documents, and few more important fields, and could have potentially shut down an entire organisation".

The UIDAI has denied the security breach of Aadhaar data in the IRINN attacks, in an expected move. "UIDAI reiterated that its existing security controls and protocols are robust and capable of countering any such attempts or malicious designs of data breach or hacking," said the report, which is basically a rebuttal from the powerful organisation at the heart of centralising all digital information of all Indians.

Though the aggrieved parties have been notified, and the NCIIPC (National Critical Information Infrastructure Protection Centre) is looking at the issue, what this means is that digital information is a minefield susceptible to all kinds of threats from criminals as well as foreign adversaries, along with being commercially exploited by major conglomerates.

Till August 2017 alone, around 37 incidents of ransomware attacks have been reported, including the notorious WannaCry attacks. But what makes the attacks very, very threatening is the government's insistence — illegal at that — to link Aadhaar with every service, and create a centralised nodal, superior network of all networks.

This "map of maps" has been rightly called out as a potential national security threat, as it makes a huge reservoir of data vulnerable to cyberthreats from mercenaries, the digital underworld and foreign adversaries.

A widely circulated report prepared by the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) underlined the major flaws in the 2016 Aadhaar Act, that makes it vulnerable to several digital threats. Photo: Reuters

That the data dump in the digital black market provides access to entire servers for a meagre sum of Rs 42 lakh, as mentioned in the report, is a sign of how insecure our personal information could be on the servers of the biggest government organisations and commercial/online retail giants. This includes the likes of Flipkart, which store our passwords, emails, phone numbers and other important information linked to our bank details and more.

Whilst UIDAI was declared a "protected system" under Section 70 of the Information Technology Act, and a critical information infrastructure, in practice, there are way too many breaches and leaks of Aadhaar data to merit that tag.

Because the current (officially thwarted) attempt to hack into these nodal databases involved the data of hundreds of millions of Indians, the matter has been dealt with the required seriousness. However, as the report states, "among the companies whose emails they found were Tata Consultancy Services, Wipro, Indian Space Research Organisation, Mastercard/Visa, Spectranet, Hathway, IDBI Bank and EY".

This is a laundry list of the biggest and most significant organisations, with massive digital footprints, which are sitting on enormous databanks. Hacking into ISRO, for example, could pose a formidable risk to India's space programmes as well as jeopardise information safety of crucial space projects that are jointly conducted with friendly countries such as Russia, China and the US.

A widely circulated report prepared by the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) on the Aadhaar Act and its non-compliance with data protection law in India underlined the major flaws in the 2016 Aadhaar Act, that makes it vulnerable to several digital threats.

Moreover, CIS also reported how government websites, especially "those run by National Social Assistance Programme under Ministry of Rural Development, National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) run by Ministry of Rural Development, Daily Online Payment Reports under NREGA (Governemnt of Andhra Pradesh) and Chandranna Bima Scheme (also run by Government of Andhra Pradesh) combined were responsible for publicly exposing personal and Aadhaar details of over 13 crore citizens".

The government has been rather lackadaisical about the grave security threats posed by India's shaky digital infrastructure, saying it's robust when it's not: the UIDAI itself has been brushing the allegations of exclusion, data breach and leaking of data from various government and private operators' servers and there have been several documentations of the security threat as well as the human rights violations that the digital breaches pose for India's institutions and its citizens.

As noted welfare economist Jean Dreze says, "With Aadhaar immensely reinforcing the government's power to reward loyalty and marginalise dissenters, the embers of democracy are likely to be further smothered."

Even as India's jurisprudence held privacy and autonomy as supreme, Indians remain vulnerable to institutional failures and an abject lack of awareness on the gravity of digital destabilisation.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/daily-o-october-4-2017-attempted-data-breach-of-uidai-rbi-isro-and-flipkart

At the Heart of Crypto Investing, There is Tether. But Will its Promise Pan Out?

aman — 2021-07-01T14:46:46Z

The $18.5 million fine levied by the New York attorney general’s office earlier this year to settle a legal dispute, raises more questions than answers.

The article was published in the Wire on June 30, 2021.

Cryptocurrencies have become the centerpiece of the global digital zeitgeist in 2021. Anyone remotely familiar with them would probably be able to name a few of the famous ones like Bitcoin and Ethereum.

However, there exists a lesser known cryptocurrency at the heart of this $ 3 trillion market, Tether. Issued by the company Tether.ltd, Tether forms the foundation for modern day crypto trading and could potentially be one of the biggest schemes in financial history.

Tether is a special type of cryptocurrency known as a stablecoin. Unlike coins such as Bitcoin and Ethereum, Tether’s monetary value is not a function of the forces of the crypto market but is rather pegged to the US Dollar. What this means is that 1 Tether will always be worth exactly 1 USD. This fixed value has allowed it to occupy a unique position within the crypto ecosphere, with it becoming the de facto standard of liquidity within these markets by acting as a widely accepted substitute to the US dollar.

At present, buying cryptocurrency using traditional fiat money (like dollars or rupees) comes with certain challenges. Purchasing with traditional currencies requires the use of banking services that come with a host of fees and time delays. At the same time, purchasing one type of crypto coin like Bitcoin with another coin like Ethereum can prove difficult due to the constantly shifting values of both coins. This is where Tether comes in. Acting as a bridge between the traditional financial world and the crypto market, it has become a sort of digital dollar — one that makes cryptocurrency trading significantly easier.

The problem with tether

On the surface, Tether seems like a perfectly reasonable innovation that looks to fill in the gaps that exist within the market. Dig a little deeper than the surface and the discrepancies start to appear.

The premise of Tether’s appeal comes from its value being pegged to the US dollar. The company initially claimed to have achieved this by ensuring that their currency was “fully backed” by cash reserves.

The process looked something like this: You gave the company 1 US dollar and they gave you 1 Tether that you could use to make other crypto purchases. If you returned your Tether, you would get your dollar back and the Tether you returned would be ‘burned’ (removed from circulation). This meant that for every Tether that existed the company would have 1 corresponding dollar in reserve in the bank, ensuring that the currency was backed.

An illustrated image shows US dollars, cryptocurrency and NFT written on a phone. Photo: Marco Verch/Flickr CC BY 2.0

However, there was an enormous flaw in this system. Since Tether.ltd was the sole creator of the coin, it could create as many of them as it wanted while falsely claiming that these new Tethers were also backed fully by cash reserves. And this is exactly what is alleged to have happened in a case brought forward against Tether.ltd by the New York Attorney General’s office. The filings made by the attorney general noted that in their investigation they found that not only did the company have inadequate reserves to back the number of Tethers in circulation, but that there were significant periods of time wherein the company did not have any bank accounts or any access to banking at all — thereby exposing Tethers claims of being backed as being demonstrably false.

The scam was alleged to have worked as follows. First, the company would issue new coins that were not actually backed by any corresponding dollars. These new Tethers were then transferred to Bitfinex – a cryptocurrency exchange that was owned by Tether.ltd. These unbacked Tethers would then be used to buy bitcoin, with the momentum from this increased demand causing the price of bitcoin to rise. They would then exchange their newly appreciated bitcoins for actual US dollars — thereby essentially creating real money where none had previously existed. While there is no conclusive evidence for this being true, research has pointed to increased tether supply causing a boom in bitcoin prices in 2017.

The company has since altered its claim from being backed by cash reserves, to now being backed by a number of assets (which it refers to as its ‘reserves’) – of which cash only formed a small subset. It maintains that the cumulative value of their assets does equal the number of Tethers in circulation, though it is worth noting that the veracity of these claims has been consistently challenged.

How does this affect the rest of the crypto market?

Tether’s problems are unfortunately not limited to itself, but rather affect the entire crypto marketplace. If the New York Attorney General’s filings are true, then it would mean that a significant amount of the demand in the crypto market could potentially not be backed by any actual purchasing power and that the price of cryptocurrencies like bitcoin have been artificially inflated.

If Tether was ever found (either by a regulatory body or through leaks) to have been creating unbacked units of its currency then it would result in a significant amount of buying pressure disappearing from the crypto market. And since Tether isn’t just any other cryptocurrency but rather is a medium for exchange in the crypto world, its downfall would have severe knock on effects that could cause a serious crash in the entire crypto market.

Quantifying such knock-on effects would be extremely difficult, however as previously mentioned, research has clearly outlined a significant causal relationship between tether’s supply and increased bitcoin prices. This leads to the conclusion that the reverse would likely be true; that a rapid decrease in tethers would cause a significant decrease in the price of bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.

Ultimately, no one knows for sure whether Tether is a scheme or not. However, mounting evidence from a number of independent sources have all pointed to discrepancies in the company’s functioning. What is clear is that, if the allegations are in fact true, then Tether poses a serious risk to the entire crypto marketplace and investors.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-wire-aman-nair-june-30-2021-cryptocurrency-tether-stablecoin-dollar

ASSOCHAM National Council on IT / ITes

praskrishna — 2015-02-05T14:56:27Z

This meeting was held in New Delhi on January 30, 2015 at ASSOCHAM Corporate Office.

Draft Minutes of Meeting

Meeting Attended by:

Mr. Shashi Mal, Co-Chairman, ASSOCHAM National Council on IT/ ITES
Mr. T. V. Ramachandran, Chairman, ASSOCHAM National Council on Telecom
Mr. Anupam Aggarwal, TCS
Mr. Anthony Thomas, Vodafone India Ltd.
Ms. Geetha Hariharan, The Centre for Internet & Society
Mr. Sreedhar.C, Amara Raja
Mr. Naveen Tandon, AT&T India
Mr. Nripendra Singh , Ernst & Young LLP
Mr. S. Chandrasekhar, Microsoft
Mr. Akhilesh Tuteja, KPMG
Mr. Pankaj Sharma, CA Technologies
Mr. Sanjay Sarma, Design Worldwide
Mr. Subhodeep Jash, DUA Consultant
Mr. Ashok Sud, AUSPI
Mr. Ashis Mukherjee, WIPRO
Mr. Saurabh Joshi, Accenture
Ms. Ambika Khurana, IBM
Mr. Sumit Monga, R Com
Cmde Shyam Kaushal, wimax
Mr. Jitender Singh, Qualcomm
Mr. Vikram Tiwathia, COAI
Mr. Ranjeet Goshwami, TCS
Mr. Sant Pratap Singh Matta, Railtel Corporation
Mr. Kinshuk De, TCS
Mr. T R Dua, TAIPA
Mr. B B Anand, AUSPI
Mr. Dilip Sahay, AUSPI
Mr. Nitin Wali, Verisign
Mr. A.k. Gidwani, BPCL
Mr. Harsh Rastogi, TUV Rheinland India
Mr. Sanjeev Arora, Vodafone
Mr. Anil Prakash, ITU/APT Foundation
Mr. Avik Banerjee, DEN Networks
Ms. Neelima Agrawal, LUXURY CHRONICLE
Ms. Amrita Jagatdeo, Bihang Welfare Association
Mr. Minushri Madhumita, Bihang Welfare Association
Mr. Varun Aggarwal, ASSOCHAM
Mr. Parag Tripathi, ASSOCHAM
Mr. Ashish Malik, ASSOCHAM

The Meeting started with the Chairman of the Meeting Shri Shashi Mal, Co-Chairman, ASSOCHAM IT/ITes Council & Director & Industry Leader, IBM India welcoming the Members present.

Mr. Mal introduced the topic of discussion and its importance in the present context.

Mr. Mal pointed out that internet has touched every aspect of life and has significant stake in almost every business in the present times.

He further pointed out two main points, how internet can be managed and how do you legally govern the activities going on the internet. He suggested approaching all interest groups for their views before we make the recommendations.

He emphasized that the consensus has to be build within the stakeholders of the subject and informed that for this ASSOCHAM is planning to organize INDIA INTERNET GOVERNANCE SUMMIT (IIGS)-2015 on 26^th March, 2015 in New Delhi.

Mr. T. V. Ramachandran, Chairman, ASSOCHAM National Council on Telecommunications said that there are many opinions within the stakeholders. He said that India, with maximum numbers of users has the right to be heard in the international forums. He further said that Industry should have an active participation in the policy making.

Mr. Vikram Tiwathia, COAI asked why ASSOCHAM is organizing this program and who has mandated them to do so and why they want to send the recommendations to the Government.

It was informed that ASSOCHAM has already announced in the Ministry of External Affairs Meeting and the National Security Council Secretariat that ASSOCHAM will be creating a forum where all the stakeholders could present their point of view and proceedings of this Summit will be shared with the Government as the Recommendations.

Mr. Vikram Tiwathia to this replied that there are many stakeholders like civil society, academia, but ASSOCHAM should present the view of the Industry only.

Mr. Mal suggested that there might be different views within the Industry on Internet Governance.

Mr. Tiwathia informed the Members present that Department of Electronics and IT, Government of India has constituted a Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) for the India Internet Governance Forum but had met only twice. He suggested taking MAG outside the Deity to a more autonomous body. He also suggested that India should sign the Budapest Convention (or what are the obstacles in signing the Budapest Convention).

One of the Members present suggested coming up with commercially accepted views for Internet Growth usage and Protection of Investors along with steps for Principle for Self Regulations.

One of the Members also brought out the Hygine Part of the Internet ie how internet is being used today.

It was decided that the following major issues in the Internet Governance will be discussed with Political, Technical & Economic aspects.

Cyber Security
Cyber Policy
Access
Diversity
Emerging issues like e-Commerce

It was decided that the Members will email their inputs on the above points to ASSOCHAM latest by Monday, 9th February, 2015. A core group is being constituted with the following Members to further develop on the issues from the inputs received by 14th February, 2015.

Core Group Members:

Mr. Anupam Agarwal, TCS
Mr. Anthony Thomas, Vodafone India
Ms. Geetha Hariharan, The Centre for Internet & Society
Mr. Akhilesh Tuteja, KPMG
Mr. Dilip Sahay, AUSPI
Mr. Jitendra Singh, Qualcomm
Mr. Vikram Tiwathia, COAI

It was suggested that ASSOCHAM should engage a Knowledge Partner to collate and make the Report/ Background Paper on the subject by 1st Week of March 2015.

There are Speakers and Sponsorship Opportunities for which you could also forward your suggestions to ASSOCHAM at the earliest.

It was decided that ASSOCHAM will prepare the rough draft of Program Agenda & Circulate among Members

The Meeting ended with thanks to the Chair.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/assocham-national-council-on-it-ites

Asian Regional Consultation on the WSIS+10 Review

praskrishna — 2015-09-27T11:33:33Z

The Asian Regional Consultation on the WSIS+10 Review was held in Pattaya, Thailand from September 3 to 5, 2015. The event was organized by The Internet Democracy Project, Bytes for All, APNIC, the Association for Progressive Communications, ISOC, Global Partners Digital and ICT Watch. Jyoti Panday participated in the meeting.

The Asian Regional Consultation on the WSIS+10 Review brought together experts from different backgrounds and from around the Asian region who were concerned about issues concerning ICTs, sustainable development, human rights and Internet governance, to ask: what are the issues that our governments need to squarely address in the process of the review?

The meeting was conceived as a highly interactive working meeting that was geared towards producing a joint submission to the next input round on the Review outcome document.

Agenda of the meeting can be accessed here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/asian-regional-consultation-on-the-wsis-10-review

Asian Forum on Global Governance

praskrishna — 2013-11-20T04:35:38Z

The Asian Forum on Global Governance is an annual workshop jointly organized by the ZEIT-Stiftung Ebelin und Gerd Bucerius, and the Observer Research Foundation.

See the details on the Asian Forum on Global Governance website here. Sunil Abraham will participate in a panel discussion. Click below for:

This year's Asian Forum is scheduled to take place from November 10 - 19, 2013 in New Delhi, India. The nomination and application process commences from March 15 and the last date for submission of applications is June 1, 2013.

The Asian Forum on Global Governance will take a close look at the Asian region and at the challenges facing the global community. The primary objective of this forum is to provide an instructional and networking platform for young professional leaders to discuss, debate and challenge conventional interpretations of the existing complex realities confronting communities and leaders. The program provides a unique opportunity for them to confer with high-ranking figures from the political, business and academic communities from around the globe, and especially from Asia.

Though the emphasis is on Asia, there will be a fair mix of young leaders from Europe, Americas, Africa, Asia and Australia. The participants will be drawn from diverse sectors and streams of study. Each of these participants will, at the outset, be nominated by senior figures – Heads of Governments, Ministries and Government Departments, the CEO’s of major National and Multinational Companies, Heads of Universities and of Non-Profit Organizations – and thereafter carefully selected by an eminent jury of experts.

The participants will be between 28 and 35 years of age. They would have acquired significant professional experience and would already exhibit promise at work.

Agenda

Sunday, November 10, 2013

Arrival in New Delhi at Hotel Oberoi, Dr. Zakir Hussain Marg, New Delhi, 110003 (Ph. +91.11.24363030)

14.00

Arrival and Check-in at Hotel Oberoi/ Lunch

16.00
19.00

Optional Heritage Walk

Spend an Afternoon Exploring the Woods and the Fort of Rai Pithora

Long before the Mughals came to Delhi, the only territory which was inhabited was Qila Rai Pithora in what is now South Delhi. Excavations have found evidence of settlements at the site. The city had 13 gates, of which only some signs of three—Hauz Rani, Barka and Badaun-- have been found so far. The Badaun gate has been mentioned by the famous traveller Ibn Batuta and could have been the main entrance to the city. We will explore the ruins of the old fort built by Prithviraj Chauhan, climbing the crumbling ramparts and fort walls to get a panoramic view of the forest surroundings.

20.00

Dinner at Restaurant “The Rooftop”, Hotel Oberoi

Welcome Remarks
Sascha Suhrke, Program Director, Governance, ZEIT – Stiftung Ebelin und Gerd Bucerius, Germany

Monday, November 11, 2013

Reimagining Sovereignty

09.00 09.10	Welcome Remarks Sunjoy Joshi, Director, Observer Research Foundation, India Manfred Lahnstein, Chairman of the Board of Trustees, ZEIT – Stiftung Ebelin und Gerd Bucerius, Germany
09.20 09.30	Co-Chair Address C. Raja Mohan, Head, Strategic Studies, Observer Research Foundation Theo Sommer, Editor-at-Large, DIE ZEIT
09.30 09.50	Honorary Patron’s Address Shashi Tharoor, Minister of State for Human Resource Development, Government of India and Honorary Patron, Asian Forum on Global Governance
09.50 10.30	Breaking the Ice: Self Introduction by Participants
10.30 11.00	Tea/Coffee
11.00 11.30	Keynote Address: Gridlock: Why Global Cooperation is Failing When we need it Most David Held, Master, University College, Durham, UK
11.30 12.30	Plenary Discussion
12.30 13.00	Group Photograph
13.00 14.30	Lunch
14.30 16.30	Panel Discussion: A New Definition of Sovereignty Ashley Tellis, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, USA Siddharth Varadarajan, Editor, The Hindu, India Shen Dingli, Vice Dean of the Institute of International Affairs, Fudan University, China Michael Schaefer, Chairman, BMW Stiftung, Germany
16.30 17.00	Tea/Coffee
18.30 19.00	Bus Transfer to Lodhi Estate
19.00 22.00	Cocktails and Dinner Hosted by Sunanda and Shashi Tharoor
22.00 22.30	Bus Transfer to Hotel Oberoi

Tuesday, November 12, 2013

Technology, Security and Society

09.00 09.30	Plenary Address: Technology vs. Sovereignty Reka Szemerkenyi, Chief Foreign and Security Policy Adviser to the Prime Minister of Hungary (TBC)
09.30 10.30	Plenary Discussion
10.30 11.00	Tea/Coffee
11.00 13.00	Panel Discussion: Internet and the State: A New Area of Conflict Tripurari Sharan, Director General, Doordarshan, India Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), India Katharine Sarikakis, Professor, Department of Communication, University of Vienna, Austria
13.00 14.30	Lunch
Working Groups
14.30 17.00	Technology, Security and Society a) Drones and Sovereignty b) Cyber Security and Privacy c) Democracy and New Media
17.00 17.30	Tea/Coffee
17.30 18.00	Rapporteur’s Report
19.30 20.00	Bus Transfer to Restaurant “China Kitchen”, Hyatt Regency
20.00 22.30	Dinner
22.30 23.00	Bus Transfer to Hotel Oberoi

Wednesday, November 13, 2013

Economic Gridlock: From one Crisis to the Next

09.30 11.30	Panel Discussion: Elusive Global Financial Governance Steffen Kern, Chief Economist, European Security and Markets Authority, France John Hulsman, President, Hulsman Enterprises, Germany Manfred Lahnstein, Former Federal Minister of Finance, Germany Jwalant Nanavati, Co-Head, Corporate Finance, BNP Paribas, India
11.30 12.00	Tea/Coffee
Working Groups (shorter format)
12.30 13.00	Gridlocks in Rulemaking a) Is the UNSC still Relevant for Peace and Security? b) FTAs, Regional Blocs and Equity: Who will Represent the Voiceless in Trade? c) Oceans: Governing the New Arenas of Contest or Cooperation?
13.30 14.30	Lunch

Thursday, November 14, 2013

Demography and Governance

09.00 09.30	Plenary Address: Dreaming with a Billion Shashi Tharoor, Minister of State for Human Resource Development, Government of India and Honorary Patron, Asian Forum on Global Governance
09.30 10.30	Plenary Discussion
10.30 11.00	Tea/Coffee
11.00 11.30	Panel Discussion: Delivery of Public Goods Rakesh Basant, Professor, Indian Institute of Management Yogesh Jain, Founder and Secretary, Jan Swasthya Sahyog (People’s Health Support Group), India Glauco Arbix, President, Brazilian Agency for Innovation, Brazil Chhavi Rajawat, Sarpanch, Soda Village, India (TBC
13.00 13.15	Preparation for Site Visits (Collection of Packed lunch)
13.15 18.15	Site Visits
19.30 20.00	Bus Transfer to Restaurant “Indian Accent”
20.00 20.30	Dinner
22.30 23.00	Bus Transfer to Hotel Oberoi

Friday, November 15, 2013

10.00 10.45	Review of Site Visits by Participants
10.45 11.00	Wrap-Up Remarks by Chair
11.00 11.30	Tea/Coffee
Climate Change, Sustainable Development and the Crisis in Multilateralism
11.30 13.30	Panel Discussion: Climate Change and Sustainable Development: The Roadblocks to Consensus Aled Jones, Director, Global Sustainability Institute, Anglia Ruskin University, UK Lydia Powell, Senior Fellow, Observer Research Foundation, India Catherine MacKenzie, Lecturer in Law, University of Cambridge, UK
13.30 14.30	Lunch
14.30 17.30	Simulation Exercise
17.30 18.00	Debriefing Session
19.30 20.00	Transfer to “The Lodhi”
20.00 22.30	Dinner
22.30 23.00	Bus Transfer to Hotel Oberoi

Saturday, November 16, 2013

Agra Retreat (ITC Mughal, Taj Ganj, Agra, 282001; Ph: +91 562 4021700)

08.00 11.00	Bus Transfer to Agra (Breakfast Served on Bus)
11.00 12.00	Arrival and Check In at ITC Mughal
12.00 13.30	Lunch
Post Lunch Session
13.30 15.30	Panel Discussion: Religion and Democracy Tarek Fatah, Writer and Political Activist, Canada Charles Kupchan, Whitney Shepardson Senior Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations, USA Ananya Vajpeyi, Ananya Vajpeyi, Associate Fellow, Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, India (TBC)
15.30 16.00	Tea/Coffee
16.00 19.00	Preparation for Debating Day
20.00	An Indian Evening

Sunday, November 17, 2013

Agra retreat

08.30 10.30	Visit to Taj Mahal
10.30 12.30	Visit to Agra Fort
12.30 13.30	Lunch
13.30 16.30	Bus Transfer to Delhi
20.00 22.30	Dinner at “The Rooftop”, Oberoi Hotel

Monday, November 18, 2013

Debating Day

09.00 09.30	Directions for Debating Day
09.30 12.30	Working Groups (Preparation for Debating Clubs) Will Sovereignty Trump Globalism? Is Green Capitalism an Oxymoron? Is Asia Facing a Demographic Nightmare? Does Social Media Strengthen Democracy?
13.00 14.00	Lunch
14.00 16.00	Debating Sessions
16.00 16.30	Tea/Coffee
16.30 17.00	Results
19.30 20.00	Bus Transfer to “Olive Beach”, Mehrauli
20.00 22.30	Dinner
22.30 23.00	Bus Transfer to Hotel Oberoi

Tuesday, November 19, 2013

Valedictory Session

09.00 09.10	Opening Remarks by Organizers
09.10 09.30	Keynote Address: Riva Ganguly Das, Joint Secretary & Head, Public Diplomacy Division, Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India
09.30 10.20	Valedictory Address
10.20 11.30	Plenary Discussion
11.30 12.30	Dean’s Address and Distribution of Certificates
12.30 13.30	Lunch
13.30 14.00	Closing Session
Departures Commence
20.00 22.30	Dinner at Chez Saran

Wednesday, November 20, 2013

Departures conclude

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/asian-governance-forum-2013

As Simple as a Tweet

praskrishna — 2011-05-24T07:17:50Z

Got caught in traffic, need to let your folks know you’ll be late, Twitter to your rescue. This article by Nidhi R Daiya appeared in the Deccan Chronicle on May 24, 2011.

When you can you use the micro-blogging site, do you think celebrities would be left far behind?

With stars clearing the air on the site, be it the beautiful Shilpa Shetty denying the rumours about her pregnancy or the Kidnap actress Minisha Lamba claiming to be innocent, Twitter is many celebrities’ rescue route or way to stay in ‘direct’ touch with their fans.

The Nadunisi Naaygal actress Sameera Reddy might not be tech-savvy but sure connects to her fans when she finds the time. "I am not tech-savvy but whenever I have the time I make sure I tweet about my happening so my fans know about me."

Ask Sameera if she thinks this micro-blogging site is the ultimate platform to get in touch with her fans. "It’s the best way to be in touch with your fans directly," she says.

While some might use the site to stay in touch with their fans others use this powerful medium to clear the air. Soundtrack composer and singer Yuvan Shankar Raja denied the rumours about his and Gautham Menon’s tiff through his tweets.

"Not only can one get in touch with your fans directly but also get the opportunity to clear doubts about any rumours surrounding you. Earlier, media used to play the catalyst now it’s all direct and a lot easier," says Yuvan.

Well, if Dhanush can confirm on Twitter that the superstar is fine and Bipasha Basu can confirm her status, do you think other stars will be left behind?

Srinivasan, an active blogger, explains why some celebrities who have a blog prefer tweeting to writing pages full of stuff. "Having only 140 characters to convey your message — it’s short, sweet and personal. So obviously Twitter is a hit."

But he goes on to explain why blogs still have that personal touch to them.

"Twitter might be quick but elements like pictures cannot be shared in it, so those who are ardent followers will still follow celebrity blogs."

Sandeep Verma, a social media analyst, seconds the thought. "Those active bloggers have now turned to Twitter because it’s easy and direct. The reaction speed is fast and it’s a good medium. Stars like Shah Rukh Khan and Amitabh Bachchan too have stayed in touch with their fans and responded to tweets that have been misinterpreted. The fans may be left confused because reports may tell a different story but celebs tell a different story too," adds Sandeep.

However, Nishant Shah, director of Research, Centre for Internet and Society, says Twitter is another extension of the media itself, "Even though Twitter is on a public space and gives one 140 characters to emote, the information is grabbing attention. A tweet can be called as a body of many tweets as you can add links, tag or re-tweet."

What They Tweeted

Tweets about stars that have cleared the rumours or apologised publicly.

Dhanush tweeted "Guys superstar is absolutely fine! He is taking complete rest. After 35 years of hard work he deserves it too. Ve a good day. God bless!"
Amitabh tweeted: "When Graham Bell discovered the telephone, he found two missed calls from Rajinikanth."

Later Amitabh responded to the accusations that he was making fun of Rajini by tweeting "I was not criticizing Rajinikanth…actually it’s praising him...praising his status and greatness...and not making fun of him...he is a noble successful humble person."
Ranvir shorey to apologise on twitter for a comment posted by (@swathipradeep2) on-simple! since @ranvirshorey career is doomed, he is bootlicking barkha didi to use her influence & get him movies" (sic)."
Shilpa Shetty: 'I Am sick and tired of all the congratulatory messages and calls. For the last time I am saying, I am not pregnant, all this is so annoying.'
Bipasha Basu tweeted: "Hi all! Speculation is a part of r business! I knw d warmth n love tht I get frm u all!
Anurag Kashyup on the Dabangg controversy apologised saying 'Dost fati toh meri dawood se nahi jab black friday banai thi, na halaat se jab film release nahi hoti thi…maafi maangi kyonki galat news pe react kiya tha.. galti maanne main bhi nahi phati…tum log bas thodey badey ho jaao.'

Read the original published in the Deccan Chronicle here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/simple-as-a-tweet%20

Artificial Intelligence: Consumer Experiences in New Technologies

Admin — 2019-05-28T01:57:23Z

A new report by Consumer International on Consumer Experiences in New Technologies has cited CIS research on artificial intelligence. Arindrajit Basu was interviewed and provided feedback at a roundtable conducted in Singapore in March.

Click to read the report

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/artificial-intelligence-consumer-experiences-in-new-technologies

Artificial Intelligence: a Full-Spectrum Regulatory Challenge [Working Draft]

sunil — 2020-08-04T06:10:13Z

Today, there are certain misconceptions regarding the regulation of AI. Some corporations would like us to believe that AI is being developed and used in a regulatory vacuum. Others in civil society organisations believe that AI is a regulatory circumvention strategy deployed by corporations. As a result, these organisations call for onerous regulations targeting corporations. However, some uses of AI by corporations can be completely benign and some uses AI by the state can result in the most egregious human rights violations. Therefore policy makers need to throw every regulatory tool from their arsenal to unlock the benefits of AI and mitigate its harms.

This policy brief proposes a granular, full spectrum approach to the regulation of AI depending on who is using AI, who is impacted by that use and what human rights are impacted. Everything from deregulation, to forbearance, to updated regulations, to absolute and blanket prohibitions needs to be considered depending on the specifics. This approach stands in contrast to approaches of ethics, omnibus law, homogeneous principles, and human rights, which will result in inappropriate under-regulation or over-regulation of the sector.

Find a copy of the working draft here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/artificial-intelligence-a-full-spectrum-regulatory-challenge-working-draft

Artificial Intelligence in the Governance Sector in India

Arindrajit Basu and Elonnai Hickok — 2018-09-14T11:37:58Z

The use of Artificial Intelligence has the potential to ameliorate several existing structural inefficiencies in the discharge of governmental functions. Our research indicates that the deployment of this technology across sub-sectors is still on the horizons.

Ecosystem Mapping:Shweta Mohandas and Anamika Kundu
Edited by: Amber Sinha, Pranav MB and Vishnu Ramachandran

Much of the technological capacity and funding for AI in governance in India is coming from the private sector - a trend we expect will continue as the government engages in an increasing number of partnerships with both start-ups and large corporations alike. While there is considerable enthusiasm and desire by the government to develop AI-driven solutions in governance, including the release of two reports identifying the broad contours of India’s AI strategy, this enthusiasm is yet to be underscored by adequate financial, infrastructural, and technological capacity. This gap provides India with a unique opportunity to understand some the of the ethical, legal and technological hurdles faced by the West both during and after the implementation of similar technology and avoid these challenges when devising its own AI strategy and regulatory policy.

The case study identified five sub-sectors including law enforcement, education, defense, discharge of governmental functions and also considered the implications of AI in judicial decision-making processes that have been used in the United States. After mapping the uses of AI in various sub-sectors, this report identifies several challenges to the deployment of this technology. This includes factors such as infrastructural and technological capacity, particularly among key actors at the grassroots level, lack of trust in AI driven solutions and adequate funding. We also identified several ethical and legal concerns that policy-makers must grapple with. These include over-dependence on AI systems, privacy and security, assignment of liability, bias and discrimination both in process and outcome, transparency and due process. Subsequently, this report can be considered as a roadmap for the future of AI in India by tracking corresponding and emerging developments in other parts of the world. In the final section of the report, we propose several recommendations for policy-makers and developers that might address some of the challenges and ethical concerns identified. Some of these include benchmarks for the use of AI in the public sector, development of standards of explanation, a standard framework for engagement with the private sector, leveraging AI as a field to further India’s international strategy, developing adequate standards of data curation, ensuring that the benefits of the technology reaches the lowest common denominator, adopting interdisciplinary approaches to the study of Artificial Intelligence and developing fairness,transparency and due process through the contextual application of a rules-based system.

It is crucial that policy-makers do not adopt a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to AI regulation but consider all options within a regulatory spectrum that considers the specific impacts of the deployment of this technology for each sub-sector within governance - with the distinction of public sector use. Given that the governance sector has potential implications for the fundamental rights of all citizens, it is also imperative that the government does not shy away from its obligation to ensure the fair and ethical deployment of this technology while also ensuring the existence of robust redress mechanisms. To do so, it must chart out a standard rules-based system that creates guidelines and standards for private sector development of AI solutions for the public sector. As with other emerging technology, the success of Artificial intelligence depends on whether it is deployed with the intention of placing greater regulatory scrutiny on the daily lives of individuals or for harnessing individual potential that augment rather than counter the core tenets of constitutionalism and human dignity.

Read the full report here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/artificial-intelligence-in-the-governance-sector-in-india

Artificial Intelligence in India: A Compendium

Centre for Internet & Society — 2023-05-09T06:56:25Z

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is fast emerging as a key technological paradigm in different sectors across the globe including India.

Towards understanding the state of AI in India, challenges to the development and adoption of the same, and ethical concerns that arise out of the use of AI - CIS is undertaking research to understand and document national developments, discourse, and impact (actual and potential) to ethical and regulatory solutions and compare the same against global developments in the space. As part of this, CIS is creating a compendium of reports that dive into the use of AI across sectors including healthcare, manufacturing, governance, and finance.

Each report seeks to map the present state of AI in the respective sector. In doing so, it explores: Use: What is the present use of AI in the sector? What is the narrative and discourse around AI in the sector? Actors: Who are the key stakeholders involved in the development, implementation and regulation of AI in the sector? Impact: What is the potential and existing impact of AI in the sector? Regulation: What are the challenges faced in policy making around AI in the sector?

The reports are as follows:

AI and the Healthcare Industry in India
AI and the Manufacturing and Services Sector in India
AI and the Banking and Finance Industry in India: (19th June 2018 Update: This case study has been modified to remove interview quotes, which are in the process of being confirmed. The link above is the latest draft of the report.)
AI in the Governance Sector in India

The research is funded by Google India. Comments and feedback are welcome. The reports are drafts.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/artificial-intelligence-in-india-a-compendium

Artificial Intelligence in Governance: A Report of the Roundtable held in New Delhi

Saman Goudarzi and Natallia Khaniejo — 2018-05-03T15:49:40Z

This Report provides an overview of the proceedings of the Roundtable on Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Governance, conducted at the Indian Islamic Cultural Centre, in New Delhi on March 16, 2018. The main purpose of the Roundtable was to discuss the deployment and implementation of AI in various aspects of governance within the Indian context. This report summarises the discussions on the development and implementation of AI in various aspects of governance in India. The event was attended by participants from academia, civil society, the legal sector, the finance sector, and the government.

Event Report: Download (PDF)

This report provides a summary of the proceedings of the Roundtable on Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Governance (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Roundtable’). The Roundtable took place at the India Islamic Cultural Centre in New Delhi on March 16, 2018 and included participation from academia, civil society, law, finance, and government. The main purpose of the Roundtable was to discuss the deployment and implementation of AI in various aspects of governance within the Indian context.

The Roundtable began with a presentation by Amber Sinha (Centre for Internet and Society - CIS) providing an overview of the CIS’s research objectives and findings thus far. During this presentation, he defined both AI and the scope of CIS’s research, outlining the areas of law enforcement, defense, education, judicial decision making, and the discharging of administrative functions as the main areas of concerns for the study. The presentation then outlined the key AI deployments and implementations that have been identified by the research in each of these areas. Lastly, the presentation raised some of the ethical and legal concerns related to this phenomenon.

The presentation was followed by the Roundtable discussion that saw various topics in regards to the usages, challenges, ethical considerations and implications of AI in the sector being discussed. This report has identified a number of key themes of importance evident throughout these discussions.These themes include: (1) the meaning and scope of AI, (2) AI’s sectoral applications, (3) human involvement with automated decision making, (4) social and power relations surrounding AI, (5) regulatory approaches to AI and, (6) challenges to adopting AI. These themes in relation to the Roundtable are explored further below.

Meaning and Scope of AI

One of the first tasks recommended by the group of participants was to define the meaning and scope of AI and the way those terms are used and adopted today. These concerns included the need to establish a distinction between the use of algorithms, machine learning, automation and artificial intelligence. Several participants believed that establishing consensus around these terms was essential before proceeding towards a stage of developing regulatory frameworks around them.

The general fact agreed to was that AI as we understand it does not necessarily extend to complete independence in terms of automated decision making but it refers instead to the varying levels of machine learning (ML), and the automation of certain processes that has already been achieved. Several concerns that emerged during the course of the discussion centred around the question of autonomy and transparency in the process of ML and algorithmic processing. Stakeholders recommended that over and above the debates of humans in the loop [1] on the loop [2] and out of the loop, [3] there were several other gaps with respect to AI and its usage in the industry today which also need to be considered before building a roadmap for future usage. Key issues like information asymmetries, communication lags, a lack of transparency, the increased mystification of the coding process and the centralization of power all needed to be examined and analysed under the rubric of developing regulatory frameworks.

Takeaway Point: The group brought out the need for standardization of terminology as well as the establishment of globally replicable standards surrounding the usage, control and proliferation of AI. The discussion also brought up the problems with universal applicability of norms. One of the participants brought up an issue regarding the lack of normative frameworks around the usage and proliferation of AI. Another participant responded to the concern by alluding to the Asilomar AI principles.[4] The Asilomar AI principles are a set of 23 principles aimed at directing and shaping AI research in the future. The discussion brought out further issues regarding the enforceability as well universal applicability of the principles and their global relevance as well. Participants recommended the development of a shorter, more universally applicable regulatory framework that could address various contextual limitations as well.

AI Sectoral Applications

Participants mentioned a number of both current and potential applications of AI technologies, referencing the defence sector, the financial sector, and the agriculture sector. There are several developments taking place on the Indian military front with the Committee on AI and National Security being established by the Ministry of Defence. Through the course of the discussion it was also stated that the Indian Armed Forces were very interested in the possibilities of using AI for their own strategic and tactical purposes. From a technological standpoint, however, there has been limited progress in India in researching and developing AI.

While India does deploy some Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), they are mostly bought from Israel, and often are not autonomous. It was also pointed out that contrary to reportage in the media, the defence establishment in India is extremely cautious about the adoption of autonomous weapons systems, and that the autonomous technology being rolled out by the CAIR is not yet considered trustworthy enough for deployment.

Discussions further revealed that the few technologies that have a relative degree of autonomy are primarily loitering ammunitions and are used to target radar insulations for reconnaissance purposes. One participant mentioned that while most militaries are interested in deploying AI, it is primarily from an Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) perspective. The only exception to this generalization is China where the military ethos and command structure would work better with increased reliance on independent AI systems. One major AI system rolled out by the US is Project Maven which is primarily an ISR system. The aim of using these systems is to improve decision making and enhance data analysis particularly since battlefields generate a lot of data that isn’t used anywhere.

Another sector discussed was the securities market where algorithms were used from an analytical and data collection perspective. A participant referred to the fact that machine learning was being used for processes like credit and trade scoring -- all with humans on the loop. The participant further suggested that while trade scoring was increasingly automated, the overall predictive nature of such technologies remained within a self limiting capacity wherein statistical models, collected data and pattern analysis were used to predict future trends. The participant questioned whether these algorithms could be considered as AI in the truest sense of the term since they primarily performed statistical functions and data analysis.

One participant also recommended the application of AI to sectors like agriculture with the intention of gradually acclimatizing users to the technology itself. Respondents also stated that while AI technologies were being used in the agricultural space it was primarily from the standpoint of data collection and analysis as opposed to predictive methods. It was mentioned that a challenge to the broad adoption of AI in this sector is the core problem of adopting AI as a methodology – namely information asymmetries, excessive data collection, limited control/centralization and the obfuscatory nature of code – would not be addressed/modified. Lastly, participants also suggested that within the Indian framework not much was being done aside from addressing farmers’ queries and analysing the data from those concerns.

Takeaway Point: The discussion drew attention to the various sectors where AI was currently being used -- such as the military space, agricultural development and the securities market -- as well as potential spaces of application -- such as healthcare and manual scavenging. The key challenges that emerged were information asymmetries with respect to the usage of these technologies as well as limited capacity in terms of technological advancement.

Human Involvement with Automated Decision Making

Large parts of discussions throughout the Roundtable event were preoccupied with automated decision making and specifically, the involvement of humans (human on and in the loop) or lack thereof (human out of the loop) in this process. These discussions often took place with considerations of AI for prescriptive and descriptive uses.

Participants expressed that human involvement was not needed when AI was being used for descriptive uses, such as determining relationships between various variables in large data sets. Many agreed to the superior ability of ML and similar AI technologies in describing large and unorganized datasets. It was the prescriptive uses of AI where participants saw the need for human involvement, with many questioning the technology making more important decisions by itself.

The need for human involvement in automated decision making was further justified by references to various instances of algorithmic bias in the American context. One participant, for example, brought up the use of algorithmic decision making by a school board in the United States for human resource practices (hirings, firing, etc.) based on the standardized test scores of students. In this instance, such practices resulted in the termination of teachers primarily from low income neighbourhoods.[5] The main challenge participants identified in regards to human on the loop automated decision making is the issue of capacity, as significant training would have to be achieved for sectors to have employees actively involved in the automated decision making workflow.

An example in the context of the healthcare field was brought up by one participant arguing for human in the loop in regards to prescriptive scenarios. The participant suggested that AI technology, when given x-ray or MRI data for example, should only be limited to pointing out the correlations of diseases with patients’ scans/x-rays. Analysis of such correlations should be reserved for the medical expertise of doctors who would then determine if any instances of causality can be identified from this data and if it’s appropriate for diagnosing patients.

It was emphasized that, despite a preference for human on/in the loop in regards to automated decision making, there is a need to be cognisant of techno-solutionism due to the human tendency of over reliance on technology when making decisions. A need for command and control structures and protocols was emphasized for various governance sectors in order to avoid potentially disastrous results through a checks and balances system. It was noted that the defense sector has already developed such protocols, having established a chain of command due to its long history of algorithmic decision making (e.g. the Aegis Combat System being used by the US Navy in the 1980s).

One key reason why militaries prefer human in and on the loop systems as opposed to out of the loop systems is because of the protocol associated with human action on the battlefield. International Humanitarian Law has clear indicators of what constitutes a war crime and who is to be held responsible in the scenario but developing such a framework with AI systems would be challenging as it would be difficult to determine which party ought to be held accountable in the case of a transgression or a mistake.

Takeaway Point: It was reiterated by many participants that neither AI technology or India’s regulatory framework is at a point where AI can be trusted to make significant decisions alone -- especially when such decisions are evaluating humans directly. It was recommended that human out of the loop decision making should be reserved for descriptive practices whereas human on and in the loop decision making should be used for prescriptive practices. Lastly, it was also suggested that appropriate protocols be put in place to direct those involved in the automated decision making workflow. Particularly when the process involves judgements and complex decision making in sectors such as jurisprudence and the military.

The Social and Power Relations Surrounding AI

Some participants emphasized the need to contextualize discussions of AI and governance within larger themes of poverty, global capital and power/social relations. Their concerns were that the use of AI technologies would only create and reinforce existing power structures and should instead be utilized towards ameliorating such issues. Manual scavenging, for example, was identified as an area where AI could be used to good effect if coupled with larger socio-political policy changes. There are several hierarchies that could potentially be reinforced through this process and all these failings needed to be examined thoroughly before such a system was adopted and incorporated within the real world.

Furthermore the discussion also revealed that the objectivity attributed to AI and ML tends to gloss over the fact that there are nonetheless implicit biases that exist in the minds of the creators that might work themselves into the code. Fears regarding technology recreating a more exclusionary system were not entirely unfounded as participants pointed out the fact that the knowledge base of the user would determine whether technology was used as a tool of centralization or democratization.

One participant also questioned the concept of governance itself, contrasting the Indian government’s usage of the term in the 1950s (as it appears in the Directive Principle) with that of the World Bank in the 1990s.

Takeaway Point: Discussions of the implementation and deployment of AI within the governance landscape should attempt to take into consideration larger power relations and concepts of equity.

Regulatory Approaches to AI

Many recognized the need for AI-specific regulations across Indian sectors, including governance. These regulations, participants stated, should draw from notions of accountability, algorithmic transparency and efficiency. Furthermore, it was also stated that such regulations should consider the variations across the different legs of the governance sector, especially in regards to defence. One participant, pointing to the larger trends towards automation, recommended the establishment of certain fundamental guidelines aimed at directing the applicability of AI in general. The participant drew attention to the need for a robust evaluation system for various sectors (the criminal justice system, the securities market, etc.) as a way of providing checks on algorithmic biases. Another emphasized for the need of regulations for better quality data as to ensure machine readability and processiblity for various AI systems.

Another key point that emerged was the importance of examining how specific algorithms performed processes like identification or detection. A participant recommended the need to examine the ways in which machines identify humans and what categories/biases could infiltrate machine-judgement. They reiterated that if a new element was introduced in the system, the pre-existing variables would be impacted as well. The participant further recommended that it would be useful to look at these systems in terms of the couplings that get created in order to determine what kinds of relations are fostered within that system.

The roundtable saw some debate regarding the most appropriate approach to developing such regulations. Some participants argued for a harms-based approach, particularly in regards to determining if regulations are needed all together for specific sectors (as opposed to guidelines, best practices, etc.). The need to be cognisant of both individual and structural harms was emphasized, mindful of the possibility of algorithmic biases affecting traditionally marginalized groups.

Others only saw value in a harms based approach insomuch that it could help outline the appropriate penalties in an event of regulations being violated, arguing instead for a rights-based approach as it enabled greater room for technological changes. An approach that kept in mind emerging AI technologies was reiterated by a number of participants as being crucial to any regulatory framework. The need for a regulatory space that allowed for technological experimentation without the fear of constitutional violation was also communicated.

Takeaway Point: The need for a AI-specific regulatory framework cognisant of differentiations across sectors in India was emphasized. There is some debate about the most appropriate approach for such a framework, a harms-based approach being identified by many as providing the best perspective on regulatory need and penalties. Some identified the rights-based approach as providing the most flexibility for an rapidly evolving technological landscape.

Challenges to Adopting AI

Out of all the concerns regarding the adoption of algorithms, ML and AI, the two key points of resistance that emerged, centred around issues of accountability and transparency. Participants suggested that within an AI system, predictability would be a key concern, and in the absence of predictable outcomes, establishing redressal mechanisms would pose key challenges as well.

A discussion was also initiated regarding the problems involved in attributing responsibility within the AI chain as well as the need to demystify the process of using AI in daily life. While reiterating the current landscape, participants spoke about how the usage of AI is currently limited to the automation of certain tasks and processes in certain sectors where algorithmic processing is primarily used as a tool of data collection and analysis as opposed to an independent decision making tool.

One of the suggestions and thought points that emerged during the discussion was whether a gradual adoption of AI on a sectoral basis might be more beneficial as it would provide breathing room in the middle to test the system and establish trust between the developers, providers, and consumers. This prompted a debate about the controllers and the consumers of AI and how the gap between the two would need to be negotiated. The debate also brought up larger concerns regarding the mystification of AI as a process itself and the complications of translating the code into communicable points of intervention.

Another major issue that emerged was the question of attribution of responsibility in the case of mistakes. In the legal process as it currently exists, human imperfections notwithstanding, it would be possible to attribute the blame for decisions taken to certain actants undertaking the action. Similarly in the defence sector, it would be possible to trace the chain of command and identify key points of failure, but in the case of AI based judgements, it would be difficult to place responsibility or blame. This observation led to a debate regarding accountability in the AI chain. It was inconclusive whether the error should be attributed to the developer, the distributor or the consumer.

A suggestion that was offered in order to counter the information asymmetry as well as reduce the mystification of computational method was to make the algorithm and its processes transparent. This sparked a debate, however, as participants stated that while such a state of transparency ought to be sought after and aspired towards, it would be accompanied by certain threats to the system. A key challenge that was pointed out was the fact that if the algorithm was made transparent, and its details were shared, there would be several ways to manipulate it, translate it and misuse it.

Another question that emerged was the distribution of AI technologies and the centralization of the proliferation process particularly in terms of service provision. One participant suggested that given the limited nature of research being undertaken and the paucity of resources, a limited number of companies would end up holding the best tech, the best resources and the best people. They further suggested that these technologies might end up being rolled out as a service on a contractual basis. In which case it would be important to track how the service was being controlled and delivered. Models of transference would become central points of negotiation with alternations between procurement based, lease based, and ownership based models of service delivery. Participants suggested that this was going to be a key factor in determining how to approach these issues from a legal and policy standpoint.

Takeaway Point: The two key points of resistance that emerged during the course of discussion were accountability and transparency. Participants pointed out the various challenges involved in attributing blame within the AI chain and they also spoke about the complexities of opening up AI code, thereby leaving it vulnerable to manipulation. Certain other challenges that were briefly touched upon were the information asymmetry, excessive data collection, centralization of power in the hands of the controllers and complicated service distribution models.

Conclusion

The Roundtable provided some insight into larger debates regarding the deployment and applications of AI in the governance sector of India. The need for a regulatory framework as well as globally replicable standards surrounding AI was emphasized, particularly one mindful of the particular needs of differing fields of the governance sector (especially defence). Furthermore, a need for human on/in the loop practices with regards to automated decision making was highlighted for prescriptive instances, particularly when such decisions are responsible for directly evaluating humans. Contextualising AI within its sociopolitical parameters was another key recommendation as it would help filter out the biases that might work themselves into the code and affect the performance of the algorithm. Further, it is necessary to see the involvement and influence of the private sector in the deployment of AI for governance, it often translating into the delivery of technological services from private actors to public bodies towards discharge of public functions. This has clear implications for requirements of transparency and procedural fairness even in private sector delivery of these services. Defining the meaning and scope of AI while working to demystify algorithms themselves would serve to strengthen regulatory frameworks as well as make AI more accessible for the user / consumer.

[1]. Automated decision making model where final decisions are made by a human operator

[2]. Automated decision making model where decisions can be made without human involvement but a human can override the system.

[3]. A completely autonomous decision making model requiring no human involvement

[4]. https://futureoflife.org/ai-principles/

[5]. The participant was drawing this example from Cathy O’Neil’s Weapons of Math Destruction, (Penguin,2016), at 4-13.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/artificial-intelligence-in-governance-a-report-of-the-roundtable-held-in-new-delhi

Artificial Intelligence for India's Transformation

Admin — 2019-03-20T01:38:48Z

ASSOCHAM's 3rd International Conference was organized at Hotel Imperial in New Delhi. Amber Sinha a session on use, impact and ethics in AI.

Click to view the agenda.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/artificial-intelligence-for-indias-transformation

Artificial Intelligence for Growth: Leveraging AI and Robotics for India's Economic Transformation

Admin — 2018-05-05T09:08:07Z

Amber Sinha took part in the second international conference organized by ASSOCHAM at Hotel Shangri-La in New Delhi on April 27, 2018.

Keynote Address

12.15 p.m. - 12.30 p.m.: Shri Gopalakrishnan S., Joint Secretary, Ministry of Electronics and IT, Government of India

Special Address

12.30 p.m. - 12.45 p.m.: Dr. Pushpak Bhattacharyya, Director and Professor, Computer Science and Engg, IIT Patna and Chairman, BIS Committee for Standardisation in Artificial Intelligence

Panel Discussion

Session Moderator

12.45 p.m. - 1.40 p.m.: Shri Sudipta Ghosh, India Leader, Data and Analytics, PwC

Panelists

Shri Amber Sinha, Senior Programme Manager, Centre for Internet and Society
Shri Utpal Chakraborty, Lead Architect - AI, L&T Infotech
Shri Atul Rai, CEO & Co-Founder, Staqu Technologies
Shri Prabhat Manocha, IBM

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/artificial-intelligence-for-growth-leveraging-ai-and-robotics-for-indias-economic-transformation

Artificial Intelligence and Data Initiative

Admin — 2019-05-14T15:06:02Z

On 3 May 2019 Arindrajit Basu attended a meeting of the Artificial Intelligence and Data Initiative held at IIC in Delhi. I am a member of the Working Group and co-authoring a report with Anindya Chaudhuri of Global Development Network on the prospect of collaborations in Public uses of AI.

The agenda can be viewed here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/artificial-intelligence-and-data-initiative

Artificial Intelligence - Literature Review

Shruthi Anand — 2017-12-18T15:12:52Z

With origins dating back to the 1950s Artificial Intelligence (AI) is not necessarily new. However, interest in AI has been rekindled over the last few years, in no small measure due to the rapid advancement of the technology and its applications to real- world scenarios. In order to create policy in the field, understanding the literature regarding existing legal and regulatory parameters is necessary. This Literature Review is the first in a series of reports that seeks to map the development of AI, both generally and in specific sectors, culminating in a stakeholder analysis and contributions to policy-making. This Review analyses literature on the historical development of the technology, its compositional makeup, sector- specific impacts and solutions and finally, overarching regulatory solutions.

Edited by Amber Sinha and Udbhav Tiwari; Research Assistance by Sidharth Ray

With origins dating back to the 1950s Artificial Intelligence (AI) is not necessarily new. With an increasing number of real-world implications over the last few years, however, interest in AI has been reignited over the last few years.

The rapid and dynamic pace of development of AI have made it difficult to predict its future path and is enabling it to alter our world in ways we have yet to comprehend. This has resulted in law and policy having stayed one step behind the development of the technology.

Understanding and analyzing existing literature on AI is a necessary precursor to subsequently recommending policy on the matter. By examining academic articles, policy papers, news articles, and position papers from across the globe, this literature review aims to provide an overview of AI from multiple perspectives.

The structure taken by the literature review is as follows:

Overview of historical development
Definitional and compositional analysis
Ethical & Social, Legal, Economic and Political impact and sector-specific solutions
The regulatory way forward

This literature review is a first step in understanding the existing paradigms and debates around AI before narrowing the focus to more specific applications and subsequently, policy-recommendations.

Download the full literature review

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/artificial-intelligence-literature-review