We are anonymous, we are legion

Thinking with Data@CIS

praskrishna — 2012-09-05T08:11:49Z

The Thinking with Data course offered at the National Institute of Advanced Studies (NIAS) will be screened at the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore. The screening will be followed by online discussions with the faculty through Skype or Google+ Hangouts.

Introduction to the course

Rajesh and Anand are offering a course titled Thinking with Data at NIAS. It’ll be covered in 12 – 14 two-hour sessions. The course will cover the basic ways in which we can use data to enhance our thinking capacities. Click here for more information about the course.

Salient Features

How to think with data and work on interesting problems.
Refresher course in programming using Python and HTML.
Discussions and FAQs with faculty and participants.
Project work.

Timings and Venue

It will be screened every Wednesday, starting from September 12, 2012, from 6.30 p.m. to 8.30 p.m.
Venue: Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore.

As part of the class, we are also offering a refresher course in Python and HTML

Objectives: Introduction to Programming using Python

Hardware Requirement: Learners should bring their own laptops

Prerequisites: Enthusiasm to learn.

Audience Level: Learners with following answers are welcomed.

I’m not too comfortable with programming
I can program, but not that well in Python
I’m good at Python

Timings of the Refresher Course:

September 16, 2012: 5:00 to 8.30 p.m.

September 17, 2012: 5:00 to 8:30 p.m.

September 18, 2012: 5:00 to 8:30 p.m.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/thinking-with-data

They know where you are

Admin — 2019-01-18T02:14:46Z

With hotel-booking app routinely sharing real-time guest data with police and government, lives of those fleeing persecution is in danger, privacy advocates fear.

The article by Tini Sara Anien was published in Deccan Herald on January 17, 2019. Aayush Rathi was quoted.

Oyo Rooms, the online hotel room booking service, has been receiving brickbats since it disclosed this week that it was sharing real-time data of guests with the police and the government.

Internet and legal experts in Bengaluru say it is a breach of informational privacy, granted as a fundamental right by the Constitution. Couples running away from hostile families and individuals escaping religious and political persecution are at huge risk if their whereabouts are shared, they say.

Aayush Rathi, policy officer with Centre for Internet and Society, finds the sharing of live guest data disturbing.

“Hotels have always maintained records. Earlier, when information from hotels was needed, a specific query had to be raised by law enforcement, pursuant to an ongoing case. The registry represents a significant departure by facilitating the collection of this data by law enforcement without cause,” he says.

He also rues the lack of transparency about what the government will do with such data.

“The government is already collecting a lot of data and has little direction on what to do with it. There is no clarity on how this information will be used and protected. The government might say it is necessary for security, a very broad umbrella term, but in the absence of regulations, the data can be used for purposes little to do with security,” says Rathi.

The service had initially marketed itself as a couple-friendly service, while across the country, unmarried, inter-faith couples face various challenges finding a room. “This targeting could get even more enhanced,” he fears.

Recently, passport details were leaked from a popular hotel chain. The leaked data from hotel bookings can be used for multifarious purposes, ranging from selling to potential advertisers to identity theft,” Rathi says.

Lawyer-researcher Nayantara Ranganathan, from the Internet Democracy Project, says the argument that sharing data improves privacy is “absolutely disingenuous.”

“Sharing all guest records in real-time to state governments and law enforcement is shocking and most definitely a breach of privacy,” she says.

With the state getting access to such information with the promise of preventive policing, there is no telling how data is going to be used, she says.

She finds it bizarre that a private company is proactively sharing data, especially at a time when companies are “waking up to the fact that their consumers value their privacy.”

Why it endangers lives

Vinay Sreenivasa, lawyer and member of Alternative Law Forum, says providing access to such information is ‘criminal.’ “A couple could be running away from moral policing after an inter-caste marriage and people might be tracking them, or someone might be going through a divorce and just need some privacy. There could be several reasons why one seeks a room and such data could put lives at risk,” he says.

The Supreme Court has clearly stated one’s data is one’s own and consent has to be taken when any personal information is used. The government has no business accessing such information, he says.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/tini-sara-anien-deccan-herald-january-17-2019-they-know-where-you-are

There's a Spy Behind Your Gadget Screen Tracking Data

praskrishna — 2015-05-31T15:50:13Z

More people are becoming aware of the risks that come with online habits.

The article by Evelyn Fok & Krithika Krishnamurthy published in the Times of India on April 25, 2015 quotes CIS research on Privacy.

Thejesh GN, a Bangalore-based technologist, does not have a Facebook app on his phone, often browses on incognito mode and has installed a tool that detects and blocks spy ads and trackers. All this is to escape from the pervasive ads that have now begun to invade his online presence.

But Thejesh knows it's of little use. Given the proliferation of ecommerce companies in India, the barrage of ads are unlikely to stop.

“It's an everyday fight.There is no way to get rid of all these ads,“ said Thejesh, cofounder of data science community Datameet.

Thejesh represents a growing population of Internet users who are becoming aware of the risks that come with their online habits specifically, having each data point of their everyday lives collected by companies and tech startups. This includes an individual's IP address, browser type, pages viewed, and the date and time of use.On mobile, the data collected could be more elaborate and accurate including a user's location, device type and contact list.

Where does all this data go?
Some are sold to brands via ad networks, and others are used by companies to streamline the ads shown to specific users. In India there are no rules explicitly regulating online behavioural advertising, and thus it is not clear what practices different companies and internet service providers undertake. It is not clear what information is collected, how the information is used, how long the information is stored for, and what access law enforcement has to this information, the Center for Internet and Society said in a report titled `Consumer Privacy'.

Siddharth Shankar, a student of statistics from Patna University, who is also learning ethical hacking, is of the view that few people care about privacy in India. “Their simple reply: What will they do with our data?“ said Shankar, who takes steps similar to Thejesh to protect his privacy online.

More people seem to be waking up to the fact that privacy is important and that ads are intrusive. Of the 50 million users who block ads using AdBlock Plus, about 1.2 million are from India. AdBlock Plus, a mobile and browser tool, recently won a case against two publishers in Germany who wanted it to stop blocking ads on their websites. Most digital products, including apps and content, are free. To sustain themselves, the digital product makers sell the data they collect at the time of app installs or website visits to brands or ad networks.In other words, the end-users are not their customers advertisers are.

“It boils down to, `If you are not paying for the product, you are the product,'“ said Vinod Chandrashekhar, chapter leader of DataKind Bangalore, a movement to use big data for the benefit of public causes. “I won't be surprised in the future if a few firms might charge to erase your data.“

And that, he says, is one of the popular ways for restaurant and company review apps to make money: prompting owners to buy a premier account or be charged for ad vertising in order to delete unfavourable reviews.

Privacy breaches also give way to corporate espionage.

“The South Asian market is, in many ways, similar to what we're seeing in South America. They are looking for not only security for their businesses and for their own personal affairs, but they are also looking for something that is affordable,“ said Jon Callas, cofounder and chief technology officer at Silent Circle.

The Swiss-based firm provides an end-toend secure access channel from a smartphone to a telecommunication network allowing users to go about their daily lives without leaking their online footprint.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-times-of-india-evelyn-fok-krithika-krishnamurthy-there-is-a-spy-behind-your-gadget-screen-tracking-data

There is No Such Thing as Free Basics

subha — 2016-02-14T11:37:50Z

India would not see the rain of Free Basics advertisements on billboards with images of farmers and common people explaining how much they could benefit from this Firefox project. Because the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) has taken a historical step by banning the differential pricing without discriminating services.

The article was published in Bangalore Mirror on February 9, 2016.

In their notes, TRAI has explained, "In India, given that a majority of the population are yet to be connected to the Internet, allowing service providers to define the nature of access would be equivalent of letting TSPs shape the users' Internet experience." Not just that, violation of this ban would cost Rs 50,000 every day.

Facebook's earlier plan was to launch Free Basics in India by making a few websites—that are mostly partners with Facebook—available for free. The company not just advertised heavily on billboards and commercials across the nation, it also embedded a campaign inside Facebook asking users to vote in support of Free Basics.

TRAI criticised Facebook's attempt for such a manipulative public provocation. However, Facebook was heavily criticised by many policy and Internet advocates, including non-profits groups like Free Software Movement of India and Savetheinternet.in campaign.

The latter two collectives were strongly discouraging Free Basics by bringing public opinion wherein Savetheinternet.org was used to send over 10 lakh emails to TRAI to disallow Free Basics.

Furthermore 500 start ups including major ones like Cleartrip, Zomato, Practo, Paytm and Cleartax also wrote to prime minister Narendra Modi requesting continued support for Net Neutrality — a concept that advocates equal treating of websites — on the Republic Day.

Stand-up comedy groups like AIB and East India Comedy had created humorous but informative videos explaining the regulatory debate and supporting net neutrality which went viral.

Technology critic and Quartz writer Alice Truong reacted saying: "Zuckerberg almost portrays net neutrality as a first-world problem that doesn't apply to India because having some service is better than no service."

In the light of differential pricing, news portal Medianama's founder Nikhil Pawa, in his opinion piece in Times of India, emphasised the way Aircel in India, Grameenphone in Bangladesh and Orange in Africa were providing free access to Internet with a sole motif of access to Internet, and criticised the walled Internet of Facebook that confines users inside Facebook only.

Had the differential pricing been allowed, it would have affected start ups and content-based smaller companies adversely, as they could never have managed to pay the high price to a partner service provider to make their service available for free.

On the other hand, tech-giants like Facebook could have easily managed to capture the entire market. Since the inception of the Facebook-run non-profit Internet.org has run into a lot of controversies because of the hidden motive behind the claimed support for social cause.

The decision by the government has been welcomed largely in the country and outside.

In support of the move, Web We Want programme manager at the World Wide Web Foundation, Renata Avila, has shared saying,

"As the country with the second largest number of Internet users worldwide, this decision will resonate around the world.

"It follows a precedent set by Chile, the United States, and others which have adopted similar net neutrality safeguards. The message is clear: We can't create a two-tier Internet — one for the haves, and one for the have-nots. We must connect everyone to the full potential of the open Web."

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/bangalore-mirror-subhashish-panigrahi-february-9-2016-there-is-no-such-thing-as-free-basics

The Fundamental Right to Privacy: Part III SCOPE

amber — 2017-10-02T04:14:00Z

This is the third paper in a series on the recent judgment on the right to privacy by the nine judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court in a reference matter in Puttaswamy and others v. Union of India. The first two papers on the Sources and Structure of the constitutional right to privacy are available here, and here, respectively. While the previous papers dealt with the sources in the Constitution and the interpretive tools used by the bench to locate the right to privacy as a constitutional right, as well as the structure of the right with its various dimensions, this paper will look at the judgment for guidance on principles to determine what the scope of the right of privacy may be.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/the200b-200bfundamental200b-200bright200b-200bto200b-200bprivacy-200b-200bpart200b-200biii-scope

The year social media came of age in India

praskrishna — 2012-12-31T03:33:19Z

Sambhavi Saxena, 19, was at Jantar Mantar on December 25 protesting against Nirbhaya's brutal rape when Delhi Police swooped down, rounded her up along with other agitators and took them to the Parliament Street police station. Sambhavi fired tweet after tweet even as she was bundled into a van.

The article by Javed Anwer and Rukmini Shrinivasan was published in the Times of India on December 31, 2012. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

She went on broadcasting to the world all that was happening around her. "Illegally being held here at Parliament St Police Station Delhi w/ 15 other women. Terrified, pls RT," she tweeted. It worked. In a flash, more than 1,700 people retweeted her SOS. Social media analytics firm Favstar later said the message reached over two lakh people.

Police later contested many of Sambhavi's claims. Yet, there was no denying it was her voice that was heard. Her tweets triggered a social media frenzy. The media reacted swiftly. Lawyers volunteered, activists landed up at the police station. Celebrities condemned the action. The police stood no chance.

For the government and keepers of law, it was a PR disaster. They had lost a battle they were accustomed to winning hands down. Now, there was a pesky entity — the public — seeking to change the rules of the game. A teenager armed with a smartphone had used the magic platform called social media to devastating effect, catching the agents of the state flatfooted.

India might have tasted the power of the smartphone first in 2011 when Anna Hazare's stinging anti-corruption message rode the social media wave. But this year saw social media creating a new phenomenon — the rise of the virtually connected Indian youth — which is likely to redraw the terms of engagement between the state and its urban population.

The networking tool that's now a weapon

Finance minister P Chidambaram recently tried to sum up the phenomenon by likening social media-driven snap protests to a flash-mob phenomenon. "Flash mob is a new phenomenon... sometimes they gather to dance and sing. But sometimes they gather to protest... I don't think we are fully prepared to deal with it." Going by the last fortnight, when the government fumbled in dealing with widespread protests over Nirbhaya, the minister's admission was an understatement. Let alone being "fully prepared", they didn't have a clue.

The unbridling of the power of the social media was undoubtedly a top, if not no. 1, trend of 2012 in India. In many cases, it set the agenda of public discourse. As in Palghar, where young Shaheen Dhada's Facebook comment on the shutdown of Mumbai after Bal Thackeray's death kicked off a storm, the virtual world triggered several real-world controversies.

In fits and starts, politicians and the government realized the folly of not joining the fast-unfolding revolution, the exceptions being the Twitter-savvy Shashi Tharoor and Omar Abdullah. The @PMOIndia Twitter handle was born, and today 3.5 lakh people follow it. A host of politicians soon hopped on, realizing the freedom the platform offered for comment on issues, which TV studios didn't.

For Bollywood celebs and cricketers, it became a great way to keep in touch with fans. But the real power of this irreverent and often insolent medium lay with the young aam admi who used social media fearlessly. They voiced their opinion and unsparingly ridiculed leaders with hashtags like #theekhai, making powerful headlines out of what otherwise would have been just whistling in the air.

What's the USP of the social media? On this platform, free speech is unhindered. It's a virtual megaphone with a global reach, as the numbers show. Whether it's Twitter or Facebook, India is a huge presence. Facebook has more than 65 million active users here, putting the country among the top five worldwide in terms of users. Twitter, which has 200 million active users globally, doesn't provide country-specific numbers. But SemioCast, a Paris-based research firm, said in a report in July that India had around 18 million Twitter accounts, placing it sixth among the biggest Twitter nations.

A lot of this social media boom happened in 2012. Research firm SocialBakers estimated in November that the number of Indian Facebook users swelled by 14 million in the past six months. While internet penetration in India is just 11% — three times lower than the global average — around 137million users make the country third biggest in terms of web-connected citizens. Most of these users are urban and young. A Comscore report says 75% of web users here are under-35.

Unlike youngsters in many other countries, Indians are politically active on the web. A Pew Research study this December established that nearly 45% of Indian web users, most of them from urban areas, connect on social media to discuss politics. Only Arab countries scored higher than India on this account. The numbers are backed by GlobalWebIndex, which noted in a September report that India is the third most socially active country with around 78 points.

But this unfettered, unfiltered flow of information and messages showed its ugly side as well. The mischievous rumour-mongering in the wake of the Assam riots was a case in point, as MMSs and incendiary text messages triggered an exodus of people belonging to the northeast from Bangalore, Pune, Chennai and Hyderabad.

Facebook and Twitter started off as friendship and networking tools. But, they have evolved into potent weapons of social mobilization. In a way, India Against Corruption can be credited with starting it in mid-2010. "If you have a worthy cause, social media provides you an unbiased, unfiltered avenue," says Shivendra Chauhan, social media manager for the outfit. "Without it, we wouldn't have got the kind of overwhelming support we received from the youth."

But Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society, cautions against being overly technologically deterministic. "Technology doesn't have agency; human beings do. Transferring energy from social media on to the streets isn't something that'll happen every time. It depends on whether the message resonates," he says.

While the anti-corruption movement ran on a sophisticated social media strategy and campaign, the ongoing anti-rape protests have no single organizer or banner, just a message that resonates, says Abraham. On the other hand, when Anonymous India called for boots on the ground at its protests against internet censorship, the turnout was poor, far lower than the number of hashtags on Twitter would have indicated, he adds.

Abraham points out there are close linkages between internet, text messages, social media and mainstream media. "These channels leak into each other and the causal connection becomes unclear," he says. Madhuresh Kumar, national coordinator of the National Alliance of People's Movements (NAPM), an umbrella organization of grassroots movements of the marginalized, agrees. "We use social media, not so much to mobilize people to come to our protests, but to mobilize the mainstream media."

The message determines the power of the medium. If it's something that connects viscerally, like the Nirbhaya protests, its power and reach can be beyond imagination. If it is a more niche message, like an SOS for a dwindling fish species, it will reach a smaller, targeted audience such as environmentalists. But it will reach — unhindered in the palm of your hand.

Look at it any which way, it is here to stay. So, it's time for the state to learn to deal with the new power of the ordinary citizen.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/times-of-india-december-31-2012-javed-anwer-and-rukmini-shrinivasan-the-year-social-media-came-of-age-in-india

The Worldwide Web of Concerns

pranesh — 2012-12-10T05:10:47Z

The threat of a ‘UN takeover’ of the Internet through the WCIT is non-existent. However, that does not mean that activists have been crying themselves hoarse in vain.

Pranesh Prakash's column was published in the Asian Age on December 10, 2012.

The International Telecommunication Union’s World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT-12) is currently under way in Dubai, after a gap of 25 years. At this conference, the International Telecommunication Regulations — a binding treaty containing high-level principles — are to be revised.

Much has changed since the 1988 Melbourne conference. Since 1988, mobile telephony has grown by leaps and bounds, the Internet has expanded and the World Wide Web has come into existence. Telecommunications is now, by and large, driven by the private sector and not by state monopolies.

While there are welcome proposals (consumer protection relating to billing of international roaming), there have also been contentious issues that Internet activists have raised: a) process-related problems with the ITU; b) scope of the ITRs, and of ITU’s authority; c) content-related proposals and “evil governments” clamping down on free speech; d) IP traffic routing and distribution of revenues.

Process-related problems: The ITU is a closed-door body with only governments having a voice, and only they and exorbitant fees-paying sector members have access to documents and proposals. Further, governments generally haven’t held public consultations before forming their positions. This lack of transparency and public participation is anathema to any form of global governance and is clearly one of the strongest points of Internet activists who’ve raised alarm bells over WCIT.

Scope of ITRs: Most telecom regulators around the world distinguish between information services and telecom services, with regulators often not having authority over the former. A few countries even believe that the wide definition of telecommunications in the ITU constitution and the existing ITRs already covers certain aspects of the Internet, and contend that the revisions are in line with the ITU constitution. This view should be roundly rejected, while noting that there are some legitimate concerns about the shift of traditional telephony to IP-based networks and the ability of existing telecom regulations (such as those for mandatory emergency services) to cope with this shift.

ITU’s relationship with Internet governance has been complicated. In 1997, it was happy to take a hands-off approach, cooperating with Internet Society and others, only to seek a larger role in Internet governance soon after. In part this has been because the United States cocked a snook at the ITU and the world community in 1998 through the way it established Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) as a body to look after the Internet’s domain name system. While the fact that the US has oversight over ICANN needs to change (with de-nationalisation being the best option), Russia wants to supersede ICANN and that too through current revisions of the ITRs. Russia’s proposal is a dreadful idea, and must not just be discarded lightly but thrown away with great force. The ITU should remain but one among multiple equal stakeholders concerned with Internet governance.

One important, but relatively unnoticed, proposed change to ITU’s authority is that of making the standards that ITU’s technical wing churns out mandatory. This is a terrible idea (especially in view of the ITU’s track record at such standards) that only a stuffy bureaucrat without any real-world insight into standards adoption could have dreamt up.

Content-related proposals: Internet activists, especially US-based ones, have been most vocal about the spectre of undemocratic governments trying to control online speech through the ITRs. Their concerns are overblown, especially given that worse provisions already exist in the ITU’s constitution. A more real threat is that of increasing national regulation of the Internet and its subsequent balkanisation, and this is increasingly becoming reality even without revisions to the ITRs. Having said that, we must ensure that issues like harmonisation of cyber-security and spam laws, which India has been pushing, should not come under ITU’s authority. A further worry is the increasing militarisation of cyberspace, and an appropriate space must be found by nation-states to address this pressing issue, without bringing it under the same umbrella as online protests by groups like Anonymous.

Division of revenue: Another set of proposals is being pushed by a group of European telecom companies hoping to revive their hard-hit industry. They want the ITU to regulate how payments are made for the flow of Internet traffic, and to prevent so-called “net neutrality” laws that aim to protect consumers and prevent monopolistic market abuse. They are concerned that the Googles and Facebooks of the world are free-riding on their investments. That all these companies pay to use networks just as all home users do, is conveniently forgotten. Thankfully, most countries don’t seem to be considering these proposals seriously.

Can general criteria be framed for judging these proposals? In submissions to the Indian government, the Centre for Internet and Society suggested that any proposed revision of the ITRs be considered favourably only if it passes all the following tests: if international regulation is required, rather than just national-level regulation (i.e., the principle of subsidiarity); if it is a technical issue limited to telecommunications networks and services, and their interoperability; if it is an issue that has to be decided exclusively at the level of nation-states; if the precautionary principle is satisfied; and if there is no better place than the ITRs to address that issue. If all of the above are satisfied, then it must be seen if it furthers substantive principles, such as equity and development, competition and prevention of monopolies, etc. If it does, then we should ask what kind of regulation is needed: whether it should be mandatory, whether it is the correct sort of intervention required to achieve the policy objectives.

The threat of a “UN takeover” of the Internet through the WCIT is non-existent. Since the ITU’s secretary-general is insisting on consensus (as is tradition) rather than voting, the possibility of bad proposals (of which there are many) going through is slim. However, that doesn’t mean that activists have been crying themselves hoarse in vain. That people around the world are a bit more aware about the linkage between the technical features of the Internet and its potential as a vehicle for free speech, commerce and development, is worth having to hear some shriller voices out there.

The writer is policy director at the Centre for Internet and Society, Bengaluru

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/asian-age-column-december-10-2012-pranesh-prakash-the-worldwide-web-of-concerns

The Worldwide Web of Concerns

pranesh — 2012-12-27T04:31:39Z

The International Telecommunication Union’s World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT-12) is currently under way in Dubai, after a gap of 25 years. At this conference, the Inter-national Telecommunication Regulations — a binding treaty containing high-level principles — are to be revised.

Pranesh Prakash's column was published in the Deccan Chronicle on December 10, 2012.

Much has changed since the 1988 Melbourne conference. Since 1988, mobile telephony has grown by leaps and bounds, the Internet has expanded and the World Wide Web has come into existence.

Telecommunications is now, by and large, driven by the private sector and not by state monopolies.

Process-related problems: The ITU is a closed-door body with only governments having a voice, and only they and exorbitant fees-paying sector members have access to documents and proposals. Further, governments generally haven’t held public consultations before forming their positions. This lack of transparency and public participation is anathema to any form of global governance and is clearly one of the strongest points of Internet activists who’ve raised alarm bells over WCIT.

w Scope of ITRs: Most telecom regulators around the world distinguish between information services and telecom services, with regulators often not having authority over the former. A few countries even believe that the wide definition of telecommunications in the ITU constitution and the existing ITRs already covers certain aspects of the Internet, and contend that the revisions are in line with the ITU constitution. This view should be roundly rejected, while noting that there are some legitimate concerns about the shift of traditional telephony to IP-based networks and the ability of existing telecom regulations (such as those for mandatory emergency services) to cope with this shift.

Content-related proposals: Internet activists, especially US-based ones, have been most vocal about the spectre of undemocratic governments trying to control online speech through the ITRs. Their concerns are overblown, especially given that worse provisions already exist in the ITU’s constitution. A more real threat is that of increasing national regulation of the Internet and its subsequent balkanisation, and this is increasingly becoming reality even without revisions to the ITRs.

Having said that, we must ensure that issues like harmonisation of cyber-security and spam laws, which India has been pushing, should not come under ITU’s authority. A further worry is the increasing militarisation of cyberspace, and an appropriate space must be found by nation-states to address this pressing issue, without bringing it under the same umbrella as online protests by groups like Anonymous.

Division of revenue: Another set of proposals is being pushed by a group of European telecom companies hoping to revive their hard-hit industry. They want the ITU to regulate how payments are made for the flow of Internet traffic, and to prevent socalled “net neutrality” laws that aim to protect consumers and prevent monopolistic market abuse. They are concerned that the Googles and Facebooks of the world are free-riding on their investments. That all these companies pay to use networks just as all home users do, is conveniently forgotten. Thankfully, most countries don’t seem to be considering these proposals seriously.

Can general criteria be framed for judging these proposals? In submissions to the Indian government, the Centre for Internet and Society suggested that any proposed revision of the ITRs be considered favourably only if it passes all the following tests: if international regulation is required, rather than just national-level regulation (i.e., the principle of subsidiarity); if it is a technical issue limited to telecommunications networks and services, and their interoperability; if it is an issue that has to be decided exclusively at the level of nation-states; if the precautionary principle is satisfied; and if there is no better place than the ITRs to address that issue. If all of the above are satisfied, then it must be seen if it furthers substantive principles, such as equity and development, competition and prevention of monopolies, etc. If it does, then we should ask what kind of regulation is needed: whether it should be mandatory, whether it is the correct sort of intervention required to achieve the policy objectives.

The writer is policy director at the Centre for Internet and Society, Bengaluru

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/deccan-chronicle-pranesh-prakash-december-10-2012-the-worldwide-web-of-concerns

The world is your oyster, by invitation only

praskrishna — 2011-05-01T01:40:59Z

Recent trends show the world of social networking actually reflects the social divides and groupings in the real world. This article by Shreya Ray was published in the Livemint on April 26, 2011.

Looking for love and thinking it’s a shame someone as gorgeous as you is single? Worry not, for Beautifulpeople.com is here. The UK-based site guarantees beautiful singletons a chance to find “beautiful relationships” through their network. The homepage gives you a little snapshot into what they are all about. A cluster of model-like people, different ethnicities and yet, ironically, strikingly similar in their Anglo-Saxon good looks: high cheekbones and sharp noses. Membership is open for all with one caveat: The photo you submit must first be rated by your peer group (that is, the people already deemed “beautiful” by the website), only then do you get admission.

Based on a similar principle of peer-group approval is Facebook’s Compare People application, where you rate friends based on their smile, eyes, sex appeal, profile picture (and other school-report card qualities such as “helpfulness”). And then, of course, there are quizzes such as “How Beautiful Are You”, in which too your final score is based on where you stand vis-à-vis other people in the network.

To be fair, this isn’t just a fetish of the beautiful and those who want to officially belong to “beautiful-only” groups. Because, in just the same way, the social networking world is just as populated by people wanting to either be part of “rich-only” (Affluence.org) or “smart only” (Epernicus.com, for researchers) groups, and most recently, the India-based Vagad Visible (Vagadvisible.com, for the Vagads, a small clan within Kutchi Jains), among others. The world of social networking is about everyone wanting to be something “only” and in that sense, to quote Chicago-based social networking expert David Armano, it is “less about being social”.

Exclusivity: The invite-only system allows social networks and other Web platforms to control and stagger the growing load on their infrastructure. Raajan/Mint

Unsocial networking

One of the latest improvements on Facebook towards the end of 2010 was the option that allows you to edit friends with hyperactive user activity (people who are forever cluttering your page with Farmville updates or quizzes) and “hide” such user activity from your feed. “On Facebook, groups are smaller gatherings, individuals which are invite-only. On Twitter, users create lists to help them filter out signal from noise. Lists on Twitter are not really about exclusivity, but they do say something about how people desire to extract more value from a network,” says Armano, in an email interview.

Sunil Abraham, executive director of the research institute Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, says the “hierarchy on the online attention economy often reflects the class and social divides in the real world”.The term attention economy was first used by Michael Goldhaber in December 1997 to describe a new arrangement in which the “flow of attention” metaphorically replaced money as the currency of the Internet.

Quantitative research in the Philippines has shown that rich people are less likely to respond to messages that say “will you be my friend”, he adds, citing the work of researcher Raul Pertierra. “On Facebook, the act of friending someone may appear symmetric. But privacy settings on content, groups and feed configurations may be used to fine-tune the exact power dynamics of the relationship. In platforms such as Twitter, the asymmetry is explicit: For example, Twitter, where I can follow you but you need not follow me,” he says.

Technology has aided this aspect of exclusivity. “There are now beta releases of social software which typically get released to a smaller group of influential and digital savvy individuals. There are now services such as Klout that partner with brands to reward individuals who have the largest social graphs,” adds Armano. Klout measures your overall online influence using over 35 variables on Facebook and Twitter and rates you as True Reach, Amplification Probability, and Network Score.

The other way of practising exclusivity—unlike Facebook, Twitter and other “open” networks—is to just come out and say it: invite only. Beautifulpeople.com will only admit you on the basis of your looks; asmallworld (Asmallworld.net), becoming increasingly popular among the First World swish set, can only be accessed by invitation; and Affluence.org very categorically states it is a place for wealthy individuals to “connect” (membership is free but requires a verifiable minimum household net worth of $1 million, or Rs. 4.5 crore) and “engage in meaningful conversations”. There are others that are slightly work oriented: The Behance network (Behance.net) is a place for creative professionals and you have to seek a membership invitation by describing your creative work. Sermo (Sermo.com) is a place for physicians to “share medical insights”.

Vahad Visible is completely restricted to the Vahad community (a user’s credentials are authenticated by a phone interview and other records), and is social networking meets matrimonial meets classified ads.

The why

There are many reasons for this exclusivity. First, technical. “The invite-only system allows social networks and other Web platforms to control and stagger the growing load on their infrastructure,” says Abraham.

There is also a marketing and commercial aspect to it. Affluence.org, for instance, provides a forum for “exclusive, high quality content and advice from experts on subjects such as art, technology and travel”. Similarly, asmallworld has advertisements for accommodation (it also doubles up as a couch-surfing site of sorts, only these are all rich people living in the First World), among others. Both the technical and the commercial aspects, however, are tied to the larger, that is, sociological aspect of exclusivity. For instance, the “invite-only” system also creates a sense of exclusivity and then drives registrations, says Abraham.

Sociologically, the recipient of this exclusivity, according to Armano, “feels special and rewarded for their social status”. “Those who deal in exclusivity are looking to create smaller “higher quality” networks of individuals who they deem are connected in a way which benefits them,” he says. The way we configure our social network and allow access to our feeds on Twitter or the Facebook page are based on our individual priorities and objectives. “Exclusive social networks are meant for those with overlapping priorities and objectives. The generic social networking websites are meant for finding long-lost classmates and friends and weak ties in general. Exclusive social networks are for accumulating new contacts and building strong ties,” says Abraham.

The dichotomy about social networks, adds Armano, is that “in theory, they flatten social norms” and also make certain things more accessible—like personal publishing. “However, networks do not guarantee that you will find yourself in the desirable social circles. You still have to do that the old-fashioned way—networking,” he adds.

Read the original article published by Livemint here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/world-is-your-oyster

The Wolf in Sheep's Clothing: Demanding your Data

Rekha Jain — 2020-11-10T17:44:13Z

This piece was originally published in The Economic Times Telecom, on 8 September, 2020.

The increasing digitalization of the economy and ubiquity of the Internet, coupled with developments in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) has given rise to transformational business models across several sectors. These developments have changed the very structure of existing sectors, with a few dominant firms straddling across many sectors. The position of these firms is entrenched due to the large amounts of data they have, and usage of sophisticated algorithms that deliver very targeted service/content and their global nature.

Such data based network businesses are generally multi-sided platforms subject to network effects and winner takes all phenomena, often, making traditional competition regulation inappropriate. In addition, there has been concern that such companies hurt competition as they are owners of large amounts of data collected globally, the very basis on which new services are predicated. Also since users have an inertia to share their data on multiple platforms, new companies find it very challenging to emerge. Several of the large companies are of US origin. Several regions/countries such as EU, UK, India are concerned that while these companies benefit from the data of their citizens or their devices, SMEs and other companies in their own countries find it increasingly difficult to remain viable or achieve scale. With the objective of supporting enterprises, including SMEs in their own countries, Europe, UK India are in different stages of data regulation initiatives.

In India, the Personal Data Protection (PDP) Bill, 2019 deals with the framework for collecting, managing and transferring of Personal Data of Indian citizens, including mandating sharing of anonymized data of individuals and non-personal data for better targeting of services or policy making. In addition, the Report by the Committee of Experts (CoE) on Non Personal Data (NPD) came up with a Framework for Regulating NPD. Since the NPD Report is a more recent phenomenon, this articles analyzes some aspects of it.

According to CoE, non-personal data could be of two types. First, data or information which was never about an individual (e.g. weather data). Second, data or information that once was related to an individual (e.g. mobile number) but has now ceased to be identifiable due to the removal of certain identifiers through the process of ‘anonymisation’. However, it may be possible to recover the personal data from such anonymized data and therefore, the distinction between personal and non-personal is not clean. In any case, the PDP bill 2019 deals with personal data. If the CoE felt that some aspect of personal data (including anonymized data) were not adequately dealt with, it should work to strengthen it. The current approach of the CoE is bound to create confusion and overlapping jurisdiction. Since anonymized data is required to be shared, there are disincentives to anonymization, causing greater risk to individual privacy.

A new class of business based on a “horizontal classification cutting across different industry sectors” is defined. This refers to any business that derives “new or additional economic value from data, by collecting, storing, processing, and managing data” based on a certain threshold of data collected/processed that will be defined by the regulatory authority that is outlined in the report. The CoE also recommends that “Data Businesses will provide, within India, open access to meta-data and regulated access to the underlying data” without any remuneration. Further, “By looking at the meta-data, potential users may identify opportunities for combining data from multiple Data Businesses and/or governments to develop innovative solutions, products and services. Subsequently, data requests may be made for the detailed underlying data”.

With increasing digitalization, today almost every business is a data business. The problem in such categorization will be with the definition of thresholds. It is likely that even a small video sharing app or an AR/VR app would store/collect/process/transmit more data than say a mid-sized bank in terms of data volumes. Further, with increasing embedding of IoT in various aspects of our lives and businesses (smart manufacturing, logistics, banking etc), the amount of data that is captured by even small entities can be huge.

The private sector, driven by profitability, identifies innovative business models, risks capital and finds unique ways of capturing and melding different data sets. In order to sustain economic growth, such innovation is necessary. The private sector would also like legal protection over these aspects of its businesses, including the unique IPR that may be embedded in the processing of data or its business processes. But mandating such onerous requirements on sharing by the CoE is going to kill any private initiative. Any regulatory regime must balance between the need to provide a secure environment for protecting data of incumbents and making it available to SMEs/businesses.

Meta data provides insights to the company’s databases and processes. These are source of competitive advantage for any company. Meta data is not without a context. The basis of demanding such disclosure is mandated with the proposed NPD Regulator who would evaluate such a purpose. In practice, purposes are open to interpretation and the structure of appeal mechanism etc is going to stall any such sharing. Would such mandates of sharing not interfere with the existing Intellectual Property Rights? Or the freedom to contract? Any innovation could easily be made available to a competitor that front-ends itself with a start-up. To mandate making such data available would not be fair. Further, how would the NPD regulator even ensure that such data is used for the purpose (which the proposed regulator is supposed to evaluate) that it is sought for? In Europe, where such data sharing mandates are being considered, the focus is on public data. For private entities, the sharing is largely based on voluntary contributions. Compulsory sharing is mandated only under restricted situations where market failure situations are not addressed through Competition Act and provided legitimate interest of the data holder and existing legal provisions are taken into account.

Further, the compliance requirements for such Data Businesses is very onerous and makes a mockery of “minimum government” framework of the government. The CoE recommends that all Data Businesses, whether government NGO, or private “to disclose data elements collected, stored and processed, and data-based services offered”. As if this was not enough, the CoE further recommends that “Every Data Business must declare what they do and what data they collect, process and use, in which manner, and for what purposes (like disclosure of data elements collected, where data is stored, standards adopted to store and secure data, nature of data processing and data services provided). This is similar to disclosures required by pharma industry and in food products”. Such disclosures are necessary in these industries as the companies in this sector deal with critical aspects of human life. But are such requirements necessary for all activities and businesses? As long as organizations collect and process data, in a legal manner, within the sectoral regulation, why should such information have to be “reported”? Further, such bureaucratic processes and reporting requirements are only going to be a burden to existing legitimate businesses and give rise to a thriving regulatory license raj.

Further questions that arise are: How is any compliance agency going to make sure that all the underlying metadata is made available in a timely manner? As companies respond to a dynamic environment, their analysis and analytical tools change and so does the metadata. This inherent aspect of businesses raises the question: At what point in time should companies make their meta-data available? How will the compliance be monitored?

Conclusion: The CoE needs to create an enabling and facilitating an environment for data sharing. The incentives for different types of entities to participate and contribute must be recognized. Adequate provisions for risks and liabilities arising out data sharing need to be thought through. National initiatives on data sharing should not create an onerous reporting regime, as envisaged by the CoE, even if digital.

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are solely of the author and ETTelecom.com does not necessarily subscribe to it. ETTelecom.com shall not be responsible for any damage caused to any person/organisation directly or indirectly.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-wolf-in-sheeps-clothing-demanding-your-data

The Web of Our Strife

pranesh — 2012-06-04T05:45:34Z

At the 66th session of the UN General Assembly, India proposed the formation of a Committee on Internet-Related Policies (CIRP) to address what it sees as a policy vacuum in internet governance.

Pranesh Prakash's article was published in the Times of India on June 2, 2012.

This CIRP will, in the view of India's government, address the US domination of internet policymaking, and make it more democratic and 'multistakeholder'. As an example of this domination, our government cites the oversight role that the US government exercises over ICANN, the non-profit corporation that controls the net's domain name system, as well as the control it exerts over DNS root servers (with all changes needing to go through the US Department of Commerce).

But many civil society organisations, technology companies, and even a few Indian politicians (notably Rajeev Chandrashekar and P Rajeeve), oppose the CIRP as being a proposal for the UN takeover of internet governance. The role of nation-states in governing the internet has been minimal so far. Many attribute the success of the internet to this lack of interference from governments. They ask why we need to fix something that is not broken? In effect, why regulate something that clearly works without such regulation?

It is clear that this status quo will not suffice for many governments. Various countries - like the US, with its Stop Online Piracy and Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection acts, and India, with our Information Technology Act and recent Intermediary Guidelines Rules - look to actively regulate the net. ICANN, supposedly a purely technical organisation, has got embroiled in policy issues too. This was seen in the. xxx top-level domain name debacle, where governments tried to intervene, but ultimately failed. Many such purely domestic regulations, like SOPA, have international implications. Even India's Intermediary Guidelines Rules, for instance, require compliance from internet companies across the world. The US government has seized domain names of Spanish file-sharing websites that are hosted in Spain, even though they have been held to be legal there.

So while international forums exist for internetrelated policy discussions, including the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), they are limited by a lack of actual power to even so much as recommend policy positions. Hence there are forums for discussions, but none for resolving problems. The proposed CIRP seeks to be such a body, "with a view to ensuring coordination and coherence in crosscutting internet-related global issues".

Besides, apart from domestic legislation starting to encroach upon the international nature of the internet, there's another issue: that of countries like Russia and China pushing for a less 'multistakeholder' approach to internet governance. So the status quo is unsatisfactory, the alternatives are worrisome, and attempts at 'enhanced cooperation' within existing frameworks (for instance, through India's proposal for IGF reforms) have failed to find enough backers. Given this, a CIRP-like mechanism might well be the preferred option. Importantly, a singular body within the UN system for internet policy could help ensure that other UN agencies which are even less 'multistakeholder' don't overstep their mandates and start making regulations all by themselves.

However, the current CIRP proposal lacks many safeguards that would allay the fears expressed by those who oppose it as 'government control of the internet'. First, while the Indian government has, in its proposal, laid out the CIRP's mandate, it has not laid out the limits of its powers in carrying out that mandate. Second, the CIRP is currently a government body that is merely 'advised' by various stakeholders, with nothing to indicate that this advice will be heeded. This is unsatisfactory, given the internet policy transgressions that are committed by various national governments, as seen, say, in Iran or China. Arguments that the UN system is nation-state-centric do not suffice, since processes that aren't nation-state-centric, such as the Internet Governance Forum, are also being spearheaded by the UN.

If such criticism is addressed, then the CIRP should indeed be welcomed. But we should also be realistic. Governments are effectively being asked to cede certain aspects of sovereignty by being told that the internet is a phenomenon that traditional approaches to policymaking just cannot address. They will not do so easily.

Further, the reality of international realpolitik must be acknowledged - about governments actually following the CIRP. The US, for instance, regularly ignores rulings by the ICJ and the WTO with impunity.

More importantly, and as some cyberlibertarians like Milton Mueller and Adam Thierer remind us, 'multistakeholderism' is only a process (involving multiple stakeholders), and does not provide substantive principles for internet governance (when may websites be blocked, for instance;or who should control the domain name system). Such sobering realpolitik, Mueller believes, is reason enough to be sceptical of the CIRP proposal as it currently stands. He may well be right.

But given the current trend of states individually wielding excessive powers over various aspects of how their citizens access and use the internet, a CIRP-like body may well be what is needed to safeguard democratic principles and innovation on the internet.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/the-web-of-our-strife

The War for India's Internet

praskrishna — 2012-06-14T09:12:34Z

Why is the world's biggest democracy cracking down on Facebook and Google? Rebecca Mackinnon's article was published in Foreign Policy on June 6, 2012.

"65 years since your independence," a new battle for freedom is under way in India -- according to a YouTube video uploaded by an Indian member of Anonymous, the global "hacktivist" movement. With popular websites like Vimeo.com blocked across India by court order, the video calls for action: "Fight for your rights. Fight for India." Over the past several weeks, the group has launched distributed denial-of-service attacks against websites belonging to Internet service providers, government departments, India's Supreme Court, and two political parties.

Street protests are being planned for this coming Saturday, June 9, in as many as 18 cities to protest laws and other government actions that a growing number of Indian Internet users believe have violated their right to free expression and privacy online. A lively national Internet freedom movement has grown rapidly across India since the beginning of this year. The most colorful highlight so far was a seven-day Gandhian hunger strike, otherwise known as a "freedom fast," held in early May on a New Delhi sidewalk by political cartoonist Aseem Trivedi and activist-journalist Alok Dixit. Trivedi's website was shut down this year in response to a police complaint by a Mumbai-based advocate who alleged that some of Trivedi's works "ridicule the Indian Parliament, the national emblem, and the national flag."

Escalating political and legal battles over Internet regulation in India are the latest front in a global struggle for online freedom -- not only in countries like China and Iran where the Internet is heavily censored and monitored by autocratic regimes, but also in democracies where the political motivations for control are much more complicated. Democratically elected governments all over the world are failing to find the right balance between demands from constituents to fight crime, control hate speech, keep children safe, and protect intellectual property, and their duty to ensure and respect all citizens' rights to free expression and privacy. Popular online movements -- many of them globally interconnected -- are arising in response to these failures.

Only about 10 percent of India's population uses the web, making it unlikely that Internet freedom will be a decisive ballot-box issue anytime soon. Yet activists are determined to punish New Delhi's "humorless babus," as one columnist recently called India's censorious politicians and bureaucrats, in the country's media. Grassroots organizers are bringing a new generation of white-collar protesters to the streets to defend the right to use a technology that remains alien to the majority of India's people.

The trouble started with the 2008 passage of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, whose Section 69 empowers the government to direct any Internet service to block, intercept, monitor, or decrypt any information through any computer resource. Company officials who fail to comply with government requests can face fines and up to seven years in jail. Then, in April 2011, the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology issued new rules under which Internet companies are expected to remove within 36 hours any content that regulators designate as "grossly harmful," "harassing," or "ethnically objectionable" -- designations that are open to a wide variety of interpretations and that free speech advocates argue have opened the door to abuse. It is thanks to these rules that the website of the hunger-striking cartoonist, Trivedi, was taken offline. Also thanks to the 2011 rules, Facebook and Google are facing trial for having failed to remove objectionable content. If found guilty, the companies could face fines, and executives could be sentenced to jail time.

Saturday's protesters are calling for annulment of the 2011 rules and the repeal of part of the 2008 act. They are also calling for Internet service companies to reverse the wholesale blocking of hundreds of websites, including the file-sharing services isoHunt and The Pirate Bay, as well as the video-sharing site Vimeo and Pastebin, which is primarily used for the sharing of text and links. Internet service providers were responding to a court order from the Madras High Court demanding the blockage, which is aimed at preventing the online distribution of pirated versions of one particular film. The Internet companies, fearing that they would not be able to catch every individual instance on every possible site they host, instead chose to block entire services along with all of their content -- which had nothing to do with the film in question.

Such "John Doe" orders, named because they are directed against unknown potential offenders in the present and future, are characterized "by their overly broad and sweeping nature," argue lawyer Lawrence Liang and researcher Achal Prabhala, which extends "to a range of non-infringing activities as well, thus catching a whole range of legal acts in their net." More broadly, as Delhi-based journalist Shivam Vij wrote in a recent essay: "The current mechanisms of internet censorship in India -- blocking, direct removal requests to websites, intermediary rules -- are draconian and unconstitutional. They need to be replaced with a new set of rules that are fair, transparent and accessible for public scrutiny. They should not be amenable to misuse by the powers-that-be for their own private interests."

Not only are the rules abused, but researchers find that they are causing extralegal censorship by companies that overcompensate in order to err on the side of caution. Last year, the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society performed an experiment in which it sent "legally flawed" takedown demands to seven companies that provide a range of online services, including search, online shopping, and news with user-generated comments. The legal flaws in the notices were such that the companies could have rejected them without being in breach of the law. Yet "of the 7 intermediaries to which takedown notices were sent, 6 intermediaries over-complied with the notices, despite the apparent flaws in them," reads the Centre for Internet and Society report.

Despite the growing public opposition, a motion to annul the 2011 rules was defeated by voice vote in the upper house of Parliament last month. Yet the criticism was sufficiently sharp that Communications Minister Kapil Sibal announced that he will hold consultations with all members of Parliament, representatives of industry, and other "stakeholders" to discuss the law's problems and how it might be revised. Many of the law's critics, however, are skeptical that this will eliminate the law's deep flaws and loopholes for abuse, especially given the government's failure to listen so far. Comments on the 2011 rules submitted last year by the Centre for Internet and Society were not even acknowledged as having been received by the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology. "Sibal uses the excuse of national security and hate speech," says the center's director, Sunil Abraham, "but that is not what is happening."

Abraham worries that what is really happening is a government effort at Internet "behavior modification" through a process akin to an experiment involving caged monkeys, bananas, and ice water. Put four monkeys in a cage and hang a bunch of bananas on the ceiling. Every time one of them climbs up to reach the bananas, you drench all of them with ice water. Soon enough, the monkeys will start policing themselves -- attacking anybody who tries to reach the bananas, making it unnecessary for their masters to deploy the ice water. "This is why the government is being so aggressive so early on, with only 10 percent of India's population online," says Abraham. "If you start the drenching early on, by the time you get to 50 percent [Internet penetration], every one will be well-behaved monkeys." Companies will act as private Internet police for fear of legal punishment before the government is called upon to step in and enforce the law. If it works, Indian politicians could have fewer reasons to worry about online critiques or mockery, because companies fearing prosecution will proactively delete speech that could potentially be designated "harassing" or "grossly harmful."

India is not China or Iran, however. Its politicians may be corrupt, and most of its voters may not understand why Internet freedom matters because they've never used the Internet. But it still has an independent press and boisterous civil society that are not going to give up their critiques and protests anytime soon. India also has a strong, independent judiciary, with a record of ruling against censorship and surveillance measures when a strong case can be made that they conflict with constitutional protections of individual rights. "On free speech I have high faith in the Indian judiciary," says Abraham. "There is a good chance to launch a constitutional challenge."

If Google and Facebook lose at their impending trial -- now scheduled for July -- they will most certainly appeal, which activists hope could provide just such an opportunity to prevent the sort of "behavior modification" process that Abraham warns against. Now India's burgeoning Internet freedom movement needs its own reverse "behavior modification" strategy -- imposing consistent and regular doses of political and legal ice water upon India's bureaucrats, politicians, and companies whenever they do things that threaten to corrode the rights of India's Internet users. Saturday's protest is just the beginning.

Sunil Abraham is quoted in this article. Read the original here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/war-of-india-internet

The Uncertain Future of India's Plan to Biometrically Identify Everyone

praskrishna — 2014-09-08T05:31:28Z

Last Sunday an 11-year-old boy in Andhra Pradesh, a state in southeast India, hung himself from a ceiling fan as his family slept.

Jessica Mckenzie's blog post was published in Techpresident on August 28, 2014. Sunil Abraham gave his inputs.

He was allegedly driven to this act after being denied an Aadhaar card—formally known as Unique Identification (UID)—which he was told he needed to attend school. The card is one arm of India's sprawling scheme to collect the biometric data, including fingerprints and iris scans, of its 1.2 billion citizens and residents, and is quickly becoming practically, if not legally, mandatory, for nearly every aspect of life, from getting married to buying cooking gas to opening a bank account. More than 630 million residents have already enrolled and received their unique 12-digit identification number.

Since its launch in 2010, people have raised a number of questions and concerns about Aadhaar, citing its effects on privacy rights, potential security flaws, and failures in functionality. India's poor, who were supposed to be the biggest beneficiaries of the program, are actually most at risk of being excluded from UID, and there is no evidence that biometric identification has curtailed corruption. The newly-elected Prime Minister Narendra Modi lambasted the UID program as a candidate but in July did an about-face, calling for the enrollment process to be expedited and supporting a UID-linked social assistance program. In all likelihood, the world's largest experiment in biometric identification will continue.

There are still a number of unanswered questions about the future of the program. Although created in large part as a way of more efficiently and less corruptly dispersing government subsidies, last year the Supreme Court ruled that the Aadhaar card could not be made mandatory to receive government assistance. The Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) operates in a kind of legal limbo. Modi is said to have instructed his Finance Minister Arun Jaitley to resolve these legal problems.

Sorting out the legal issues is imperative if UID numbers are going to be linked to Modi's proposed financial inclusion program that aims to bring 75 million additional households into the country's banking system by 2018.

There is also the possibility that UID will be merged, absorbed or superseded by the National Population Register (NPR), yet another biometric identification system. The NPR, unlike Aadhaar, is mandatory for all residents. In addition to fingerprints and iris scans, NPR collects information on familial relationships, nationality, occupation and education level. There is a great deal of overlap between the two programs, which has been a source of conflict between government agencies in the past. The home ministry, for example, argues that government subsidies should be disbursed through NPR, not UID.

There is also speculation that UID could be picked up as part of Digital India, Modi's ambitious plan to modernize India by building national broadband infrastructure, ensuring universal mobile service access, creating e-government services, and establishing a “cradle-to-grave digital identity for every citizen of the country—unique, lifelong, online and authenticable [sic].”

In spite of UID's tenuous position and uncertain future, it has become “essential” in nearly every facet of life. The Delhi government is rolling out a suite of e-government services, starting with marriage registration, that will require a UID. Fishermen in Gujarat have been told they cannot go out to sea without biometric identification.

Then there is Kora Balakrishna, the 11-year-old who committed suicide after being denied an Aadhaar card because he has webbed fingers. His school headmaster had instructed him to get one as a prerequisite for study and, per one news outlet, a mid-day meal. An investigation into the incident has been ordered. Pravin Kumar, a local administrative official, said webbed fingers are not a legitimate reason for rejection from the program.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/tech-president-jessica-mckenzie-august-28-2014-the-uncertain-future-of-indias-plan-to-biometrically-identify-everyone

The UK DNA Database and the European Court of Human Rights

praskrishna — 2012-10-10T10:19:35Z

A presentation by Dr. Helen Wallace, Director, GeneWatch, UK

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/uk-dna-database-and-european-court-of-human-rights.ppt

The trouble with trolls

praskrishna — 2014-07-28T05:42:36Z

Social networking sites give trolls the ability to hide their real identity and cause grief to others. Here is what you need to do if you face an online attack.

The article by Vishal Mathur was published in Livemint on July 22, 2014. Sunil Abraham gave his inputs.

Social networking sites give trolls the ability to hide their real identity and cause grief to others. Here is what you need to do if you face an online attack.

Though social networks were not designed with the intention of letting someone anonymously abuse another online, the reality is that people utilize the ability to hide behind online identities to threaten other users. These could be veiled attacks, direct abuse, or even threats to “cause bodily harm”. What can you do if you’re trolled and threatened on any social network? Follow our five-step guide. Avoid conversation if you can The responses could come in relation to something you may have just posted online. Or perhaps it could be just a random trolling attempt, to get a response from you. It is important to understand and identify such intentions. And as difficult as it may be, do not respond. Getting into a direct interaction with a bully only makes things worse. Report to the social network You should report any instance of cyber bullying or harassment to the host social network—the website or forum on which the interaction happened. There are various methods of getting in touch with the moderators—customer support email, contact submission forms or even via phone, in certain locations. Describe the problem in detail, and persist till the offending account is blocked from the platform. “Most social networks have systems that allow you to report abusive content and users. However, there is great variance in the speed with which they respond across different platforms, jurisdictions, etc.,” says Sunil Abraham, executive director at the Bangalore-based non-profit research organization Centre for Internet and Society. New Delhi-based Anja Kovacs, project director, at civil society organization Internet Democracy Project, adds: “Blocking and reporting an account can be two ways to stop harassment on some social networks, but on other platforms, such as Twitter, it is possible for the person to immediately make a new account under a different username, meaning that these measures do not necessarily stop the harassment.” Ankhi Das, director, public policy, India and South Asia at social network Facebook, says: “Every reported piece of content is reviewed. Serial offenders are notified for non-compliance.” Facebook’s Community Standards, that prevent harassment and offensive posts, have an 11-point categorization for reported content—violence and threats, hate speech, graphic content, bullying and harassment, to name some. Raheel Khursheed, head of news, politics and government at Twitter India, did not respond to our mail about how Twitter handles trolls at the time of going to press. On blogs and forums, it may be a bit easier to deal with trolling and abuse. If it is your own blog, you can delete comments and block users. If it is a forum, the administrator can do it for you. But, with social networks having millions of users, it is not possible to have one administrator managing it all. And it is not just Facebook and Twitter, all social networks have a method by which you can register your complaint. LinkedIn, for example, automatically blocks a user who gets multiple “I don’t know” responses to invitations to connect. There is a strong monitoring policy where any reported content (recommendations or direct messages) is examined and immediate warnings are sent out to offending parties. Keep a copy of the offensive posts Be it a post, or a series of posts, direct message or even an offending photograph, always save it for future reference. Never assume that the matter will end soon, and always prepare for the worst. Don’t ignore privacy settings Most people start using Facebook, Twitter and other social networks without paying much attention to the privacy settings—what content people can see on your page, and who can directly contact you. Be conservative in sharing information—the less you share, the lower the chances of someone picking on you. “Avoid friending or linking to people whom you don’t know in real life unless you are certain of the chain of trust that exists between you and the unknown person,” says Abraham. New Delhi-based cyber lawyer Apar Gupta, adds: “The privacy settings on most social networking platforms allow users to prevent (restrict) the audience for their posts as well as strangers from contacting them. This will prevent most cases of online harassment.” Get help from the law In case social networks are not able to effectively block a user, or are in some way unwilling to do so, take help from the law-enforcement authorities. File an FIR in the nearest police station. Unfortunately, the progress may not be very smooth. The reality is that not every law-enforcement officer may know about social networking sites. “You could try and go to the police, but without support from the social network platform, they are often at a loss to do much themselves,” warns Kovacs. The police may look for hints of threat to cause bodily harm or worse still, to life. In such cases, they may recommend the case to the Cyber Crime Cell of the Central Bureau of Investigation. “Generally, while the substantive offences do exist under law, the process for having them enforced is deficient. These are deeper structural problems of delay, investigation and conviction which are prevalent across criminal justice or civil litigation,” clarifies Gupta. Officials at the Cyber Crime Cell say they take up cases after reference from the local police, who file the report first and do a preliminary level of investigation. But it is important to realize that only the police and the law-enforcement agencies have the right to demand further details about the perpetrator from the social networks, starting with profile details and Internet Protocol (IP) addresses, which will help track the person down. Das clarifies: “Facebook has a point-of-contact system through which the law-enforcement agencies tell us what the actual case is, depending on severity. The police may ask us to take down particular content, or even ask for user information like IP info, to prevent real crime.” According to Facebook’s Government Requests Report for July-December 2013, the network restricted access to 4,765 pieces of content after requests from the Indian government and law-enforcement agencies.

Though social networks were not designed with the intention of letting someone anonymously abuse another online, the reality is that people utilize the ability to hide behind online identities to threaten other users. These could be veiled attacks, direct abuse, or even threats to “cause bodily harm”. What can you do if you’re trolled and threatened on any social network? Follow our five-step guide.

Avoid conversation if you can
The responses could come in relation to something you may have just posted online. Or perhaps it could be just a random trolling attempt, to get a response from you. It is important to understand and identify such intentions. And as difficult as it may be, do not respond. Getting into a direct interaction with a bully only makes things worse.

Report to the social network
You should report any instance of cyber bullying or harassment to the host social network—the website or forum on which the interaction happened. There are various methods of getting in touch with the moderators—customer support email, contact submission forms or even via phone, in certain locations. Describe the problem in detail, and persist till the offending account is blocked from the platform. “Most social networks have systems that allow you to report abusive content and users. However, there is great variance in the speed with which they respond across different platforms, jurisdictions, etc.,” says Sunil Abraham, executive director at the Bangalore-based non-profit research organization Centre for Internet and Society. New Delhi-based Anja Kovacs, project director, at civil society organization Internet Democracy Project, adds: “Blocking and reporting an account can be two ways to stop harassment on some social networks, but on other platforms, such as Twitter, it is possible for the person to immediately make a new account under a different username, meaning that these measures do not necessarily stop the harassment.” Ankhi Das, director, public policy, India and South Asia at social network Facebook, says: “Every reported piece of content is reviewed. Serial offenders are notified for non-compliance.” Facebook’s Community Standards, that prevent harassment and offensive posts, have an 11-point categorization for reported content—violence and threats, hate speech, graphic content, bullying and harassment, to name some. Raheel Khursheed, head of news, politics and government at Twitter India, did not respond to our mail about how Twitter handles trolls at the time of going to press. On blogs and forums, it may be a bit easier to deal with trolling and abuse. If it is your own blog, you can delete comments and block users. If it is a forum, the administrator can do it for you. But, with social networks having millions of users, it is not possible to have one administrator managing it all. And it is not just Facebook and Twitter, all social networks have a method by which you can register your complaint. LinkedIn, for example, automatically blocks a user who gets multiple “I don’t know” responses to invitations to connect. There is a strong monitoring policy where any reported content (recommendations or direct messages) is examined and immediate warnings are sent out to offending parties.

Keep a copy of the offensive posts
Be it a post, or a series of posts, direct message or even an offending photograph, always save it for future reference. Never assume that the matter will end soon, and always prepare for the worst.

Don’t ignore privacy settings
Most people start using Facebook, Twitter and other social networks without paying much attention to the privacy settings—what content people can see on your page, and who can directly contact you. Be conservative in sharing information—the less you share, the lower the chances of someone picking on you. “Avoid friending or linking to people whom you don’t know in real life unless you are certain of the chain of trust that exists between you and the unknown person,” says Abraham. New Delhi-based cyber lawyer Apar Gupta, adds: “The privacy settings on most social networking platforms allow users to prevent (restrict) the audience for their posts as well as strangers from contacting them. This will prevent most cases of online harassment.”

Get help from the law
In case social networks are not able to effectively block a user, or are in some way unwilling to do so, take help from the law-enforcement authorities. File an FIR in the nearest police station. Unfortunately, the progress may not be very smooth. The reality is that not every law-enforcement officer may know about social networking sites. “You could try and go to the police, but without support from the social network platform, they are often at a loss to do much themselves,” warns Kovacs. The police may look for hints of threat to cause bodily harm or worse still, to life. In such cases, they may recommend the case to the Cyber Crime Cell of the Central Bureau of Investigation. “Generally, while the substantive offences do exist under law, the process for having them enforced is deficient. These are deeper structural problems of delay, investigation and conviction which are prevalent across criminal justice or civil litigation,” clarifies Gupta. Officials at the Cyber Crime Cell say they take up cases after reference from the local police, who file the report first and do a preliminary level of investigation. But it is important to realize that only the police and the law-enforcement agencies have the right to demand further details about the perpetrator from the social networks, starting with profile details and Internet Protocol (IP) addresses, which will help track the person down. Das clarifies: “Facebook has a point-of-contact system through which the law-enforcement agencies tell us what the actual case is, depending on severity. The police may ask us to take down particular content, or even ask for user information like IP info, to prevent real crime.” According to Facebook’s Government Requests Report for July-December 2013, the network restricted access to 4,765 pieces of content after requests from the Indian government and law-enforcement agencies.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/livemint-july-22-2014-vishal-mathur-the-trouble-with-trolls

We are anonymous, we are legion

Thinking with Data@CIS

Introduction to the course

They know where you are

Why it endangers lives

There's a Spy Behind Your Gadget Screen Tracking Data

There is No Such Thing as Free Basics

The​ ​Fundamental​ ​Right​ ​to​ ​Privacy:​ ​Part​ ​III SCOPE

The year social media came of age in India

The Worldwide Web of Concerns

The Worldwide Web of Concerns

The world is your oyster, by invitation only

Unsocial networking

The why

The Wolf in Sheep's Clothing: Demanding your Data

The Web of Our Strife

The War for India's Internet

The Uncertain Future of India's Plan to Biometrically Identify Everyone

The UK DNA Database and the European Court of Human Rights

The trouble with trolls

The Fundamental Right to Privacy: Part III SCOPE