We are anonymous, we are legion

RTI response regarding the UIDAI

vanya — 2015-12-22T02:57:21Z

This is a response to the RTI filed regarding UIDAI

The Supreme Curt of India, by virtue of an order dated 11th August 2015, directed the Government to widely publicize in electronic and print media, including radio and television networks that obtaining Aadhar card is not mandatory for the citizens to avail welfare schemes of the Government. (until the matter is resolved). CIS filed an RTI to get information about the steps taken by Government in this regard, the initiatives taken, and details about the expenditure incurred to publicize and inform the public about Aadhar not being mandatory to avail welfare schemes of the Government.

Response: It has been informed that an advisory was issued by UIDAI headquarters to all regional offices to comply with the order, along with several advertisement campaigns. The total cost incurred so far by UIDAI for this is Rs. 317.30 lakh.

Download the Response

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/rti-response-regarding-the-uidai

RTI regarding Smart Cities Mission in India

Paul Thottan — 2016-04-21T02:25:28Z

Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) had filed an RTI on 3 February 2016 before the Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD) regarding the Smart Cities Mission in India. The RTI sought information regarding the role of various foreign governments, private industry, multilateral bodies that will provide technical and financial assistance for this project and information on Government agreements regarding PPP’s for financing the project.

A response to the RTI is here.

The various government, private industry and civil society actors involved in the Smart Cities Mission.
The various agreements the Government has undertaken through PPP’s for financing the mission.
Role of private companies in this project.
The process for selecting the cities for this mission and ministry responsible for this task.
The various international organisations, foreign governments and multilateral bodies that will provide technical and financial assistance for this project.

The MoUD sent its reply to the RTI application and the response is as follows:

With reference to the first query, the answer provided was that the mission statement and guidelines are available on the Missions website - smartcities.gov.in. This mission statement essentially envisages the role of citizens/citizen groups such as Resident Welfare Associations, Taxpayers Associations, Senior Citizens and Slum Dwellers Associations etc, apart from the government of India, States, Union Territories and Urban local bodies.
Regarding information about agreements for the purpose of financing the project, it has been provided in the response that the Ministry would facilitate the execution of MoU’s between Foreign Agencies and States/UT’s for assistance under this mission. The two agreements that have been executed include the MoU between the United States Trade and Development Agency (USTDA) and the French Agency for Development (AFD) for the States/UT’s of Andhra Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Chandigarh and Puducherry. They have also provided us with copies of the same and they have been summarised below. They also go on to state that various countries like Spain, Canada, Germany, China, Singapore, UK and South Korea have also shown interest in collaborating with the Ministry for the development of Smart Cities.
CIS sought the documents relating to role of private actors in this field. This information could not be provided by the Department since it was not available with them. Further, an application has been sent to the SC-III Division for providing the information directly to us.
As regards the fourth query, the information provided states that the role of the government, States/UT’s and Urban Local Bodies has been envisaged in para 13 of the Smart Cities Mission Statement - smartcities.gov.in
With respect to the query regarding the foreign actors involved, the information provided states that the documents relating to the involvement of the same are scattered in different files. Compilation of such information would divert the limited resources of the Public Authority disproportionately. Another application must be filed if any specific information is required.

Copies of several MoUs signed between Foreign Development Agencies and States (for the respective cities) that were shared with us are:

Memorandum of Understanding between the United States Trade and Development Agency(USTDA) and the Government of Andhra Pradesh of the Republic of India on Cooperation to support the development of Smart Cities in Andhra Pradesh-namely Visakhapatnam.
Memorandum of Understanding between the United States Trade and Development Agency (USTDA) and the Government of Rajasthan of the Republic of India on Cooperation to support the development of Smart Cities in Rajasthan- namely Ajmer.
Memorandum of Understanding between the United States Trade and Development Agency (USTDA) and the Government of Uttar Pradesh of the Republic of India on Cooperation to support the development of Smart Cities in Uttar Pradesh- namely Allahabad.
Memorandum of Understanding between the Agence Francaise De Developpement and the Government of the Union Territory of Chandigarh of the Republic of India on Technical Cooperation in the field of Sustainable Urban Development.
Memorandum of Understanding between the Agence Francaise De Developpement and the Government of Maharashtra on Technical Cooperation in the field of Sustainable Urban Development.
Memorandum of Understanding between the Agence Francaise De Developpement and the Government of the Union Territory of Puducherry of the Republic of India on Technical Cooperation in the field of Sustainable Urban Development.

Key clauses under the MoU between the United States Trade and Development Agency (USTDA) and the governments of Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh are:

The MoU undertaken by the USTDA for the development of Visakhapatnam, Allahabad and Ajmer clearly establishes that the document only cements the intention of the body to assist in the development of these cities and funding must be addressed separately.
The USTDA intends to contribute specific funding for feasibility studies, study tours, workshops/training, and any other projects mutually determined, in furtherance of this interest. The USTDA will also fund advisory services for the same.
The USTDA will seek to bring in other US government agencies such as the Department of Commerce, the US Export Import Bank and other trade and economic agencies to encourage US-India infrastructure development cooperation and support the development of smart cities in Vishakhapatnam, Allahabad and Ajmer.
One of the key points the USTDA stresses on is the creation of a Smart Solutions for Smart Cities Reverse Trade Mission, where Indian delegates will get a chance to showcase their methodologies and inventions in the United States.
The MoU also talks about involving industry organisations in the development of Smart Cities, to address important aviation and energy related infrastructure connected to developing smart cities.
The respective State Governments of the cities will provide resources for the development of these smart cities, including technical information and data related to smart cities planning; staff, logistical and travel support, and state budgetary resources will be allocated accordingly.

Key clauses under the MoU between the Agency Francaise De Developpement (AFD) and the governments of Maharashtra, Chandigarh and Puducherry are:

The MoU with AFD is along the same lines but with more detail provided in the field of research in sustainable urban development. It comprises of four articles dealing with implementation, research, resource allocation and cooperation.
The AFD clearly states that it will adopt an active role in managing and implementing the project.
The AFD will equip the respective state governments with a technical cooperation programme which will include a pool of French experts from the public sector, complemented by experts from the private sector.
The MoU goes on to state the various vectors of sustainable urban development that will be the focal point of this project – urban transport, water and waste management, integrated development and urban planning, architecture and heritage, renewable energy, energy efficiency etc.
Apart from strategizing, the AFD looks to provide technical support as well. This technical expertise would be used to strengthen strategy and management of urban services in the city.
They would also play a key role in management through the creation of a Special Purpose Vehicle(SPV) to build strategic management (Human Resources, finance, potential market assessment) and capacity building for financial management.
As per Article II of the MoU, this support framework will be accompanied by annual reviews, a policy similar to the USTDA Smart Solutions for Smart Cities Reverse Mission with Indian and French counterparts, collaboration between academic and research institutions for the exchange of information, documentation and results of research in the field of smart cities (a key policy to establish firm research groundwork and increase cooperation and innovation), capacity building research and development.
Article III of the MoU deals with resource allocation wherein the respective State Governments will assist AFD by providing technical information and data related to smart cities planning, and also meet their logistical requirements.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/rti-on-smart-cities-mission-in-india

RTI on Officials and Agencies Authorized to Intercept Telephone Messages in India

praskrishna — 2013-07-15T05:23:54Z

In an RTI mailed on April 17, 2013, the Centre for Internet and Society sought comprehensive information on the officials and agencies authorized to intercept telephone messages in India.

A portion of the RTI still awaits response, as it was redirected to the Department of Electronics and Information Technology. But on May 23, 2013 Rakesh Mittal of the Ministry of Home Affairs responded in brief and directed us to the 2007 Amendment to the 1885 Indian Telegraph Act.

Referring to rule 419-A of the amendment and the Ministry of Home Affairs website, we find that within central government the power to order communications surveillance is normally reserved for Union Home Secretary, a position held by Shir Anil Goswami as of June 30, 2013 (previously R.K. Singh). The amendment goes on to say, “In unavoidable circumstances,” however, such an order can be commanded by a Joint Secretary who has been authorized by Union Home Secretary Goswami. On the federal level, the Ministry of Home Affairs includes nearly 20 such Joint Secretaries able to be authorized for making interception commands.

A listing of the original question requests are given below:

Please provide a list containing name, rank and office address of the officers/agencies authorized by the Central Government to issue an order for interception under section 5(2) of the Telegraph Act, 1885
Please provide a list containing name, rank and office address of the officers authorized to issue interception orders under Rule 419A(1) of the Telegraph Rules, 1951 in unavoidable circumstances when such orders cannot be issued by the secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs.
Please provide a list containing the name, rank and office address of the officers/agencies designated as “competent authority” in terms of the Rule 419A(1) proviso of the Telegraph Rules, 1951.
Please provide a list of the agencies authorized by the Central Government to intercept, monitor, decrypt any information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource under section 69(1) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Please provide a list of the agencies authorized by the Central Government to monitor and collect traffic data or information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource under section 69-B of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Please provide a list containing name, rank and office address of the officers/agencies authorized to issue interception orders under Rule 3, first proviso, of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Interception, Monitoring and Decryption of Information) Rules, 2009.
Please provide a list of the agencies authorised to intercept, monitor, decrypt any information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource under Rule 4 of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Interception, Monitoring, and Decryption of Information) Rules, 2009.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/rti-on-officials-and-agencies-authorized-to-intercept-telephone-messages-in-india

RTI on Complaints under Section 79 of IT Act

praskrishna — 2013-06-12T09:50:40Z

The Department of Electronics and Information Technology, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, gave its reply to an RTI application filed by Saket Bisani. We are reproducing the text below:

No. 14(146)/2012-ESD
M/o Communications & Information Technololgy
Department of Electronics & Information Technology
Electronics Niketan,6, CGO Complex
New Delhi-110003

																					Dated: 15.1.13

Subject: RTI application received from Shri Saket Biswani

With reference to your RTI application requesting for the following information.

In an article titled "We believe in the freedom of speech and expression" published in Mint of February 1, 2012, Dr. Gulshan Rai has been quoted saying:

"if the police say something has to be disabled, we tell then (Google and others) that a complaint has come under section 79 of the IT Act. We feel them: "we're bringing it to your notice. Please look at it and do whatever best you can do under the law."

With respect the above quote I request you to provide me the following information under Right to Information Act, 2005:

Please provide me a copy of every complaint that has been received by the Department of Information Technology (now the Department of Electronics and Information Technology) under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Please provide me a copy of every notice and complaint that your office has sent pursuant to complaints received under section79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The information as received from the custodian of the information is placed below:

Department of Electronics and Information Technology has not received any complaint quoting specifically under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act,2000.
Not applicable.

																		(A.K. Kaushik) Additional Director & CPIO (E-Security & Cyber Laws)

Shri Saket Bisani
No. 194, 2nd ׳C Cross
Domlur 2nd Stage *
Bangalore-560 071

Read a scanned version of the reply that we got from the Department of Electronics and Information Technology.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/rti-on-complaints-under-it-act-section-79

RTI and Third Party Information: What Constitutes the Private and Public?

Noopur Raval — 2011-11-24T09:21:20Z

The passing of the Right to Information Act, 2005 was seen as giving an empowering tool in the hands of the citizens of India, six years post its implementation, loopholes have surfaced with misuse of the many fundamental concepts, which have yet not been defined to allow for a consistent pattern of decisions. Among many problems that emerge with the Act, a major problem is defining the extent to which an individual has access to other people’s information. While most of us tend to think that asking for other people’s phone numbers, personal details like passport number or IT returns are private and would be kept so, under the RTI Act and as seen in the Central Information Commission (CIC) decisions, all of these details can be availed of by someone who doesn’t know you at all!

According to section 2 (n) of the RTI Act, 2005, 'third party' means a person other than the citizen making a request for information and includes a 'public authority'. This implies that the term 'third party' includes anyone other than the appellant or the respondent. In matters where an appellant is seeking information not regarding his or her own activities, or is asking for details of shared records that list details of several persons other than him or her, information cannot be provided until the ‘third party’ consents to disclosure and subsequently until the Central Public Information Office (CPIO), after considering the implications of such disclosure allows it. Section 11 (1) the Act provides the procedure to access third party information wherein the appellant needs to request for the third party’s consent after which the CPIO will produce a written request to the 'third party' and within a stipulated time period obtain their response. However, it is not the information bearer (third party) who holds the key to disclosure. The power, by the RTI Act, 2005, is vested in the public information officer who will then, either see a 'larger public interest', or otherwise allow disclosure based on the merits of the case.

In such a situation, it is interesting to see who the Central Information Commission (CIC) regards as 'third party'. While going through the judgments delivered by the CIC, one comes across several judgments that tell you who can and who cannot access your information. While a son or daughter naturally inherits his/her father’s wealth, land or other possessions, they do not inherit his position for obtaining information. This is just one instance. Similar holds true for access to information of a deceased kin. Unless the public information officer sees a ‘larger public interest’ in disclosure of such information, it cannot be revealed even to the deceased’s wife, husband or children unless they hold a power of attorney specifically to a right to access information.

This brings us to the question of ‘larger public interest’ and what information can be delved to anyone for this cause. While the RTI Act, 2005, clearly states that the appellant needs not a reason to ask for any information, it is largely based on the public information officer’s inference as to what the appellant may do with the data and hence, maybe deemed as acting in public interest or for personal gains. This also produces positions of potential criminality and the need for State subjects to prove themselves as ideal information seekers, void of malice in order for the public information officer to rule in their favour.

Third party position is a problematic one as it only goes so far as to define the state-mediated interaction between two subjects in relation to each other through legal machinery that holds massive discretionary powers to disclose or withhold information. Hence, while, in relation to ‘third party’, a subject may need to justify his larger benevolent interests, the State finds no problems revealing or disclosing information for its own good. In Shri Rajender Kumar Arya vs Dy. Commissioner of Police (DCP), (4 March 2009), the commission ruled that they now have the decision of the Madras High Court in the context of right to privacy in light of the RTI Act. The Madras High Court observed that with the advent of the Right to Information Act, section 3 of the Act entitles a citizen to the right of information. Section 4(2) of the said Act obliges a public authority to disclose information to common people. Even personal information or information, which may otherwise amount to an invasion of privacy, may also be disclosed if the larger public interest so warrants. The court in fact came to the conclusion that the right to privacy virtually fades out in front of the 'Right to Information' and 'larger public interest’. This tells us that ‘third party’ is a mere negotiating position from which the State itself regulates information flow to citizens and can revoke these privileges as and when needed.

Moreover, there is no clear definition to the ‘larger public interest’ or ‘invasion of privacy’. In several judgments, the committee upholds principles of natural justice to justify instance of public good but these cannot be upheld for all decisions. It is also interesting to see what comes under the purview of ‘public information’. It’s a misconception if you think that you hold the right to revealing your age, birth date, place you belong to, your marks, the rank that you hold, the salary you get, the returns you file or subsequently any of this information regarding your children. As upheld in Madhulika Rastogi vs Regional Passport Office, New Delhi, on 4 February 2009, M. Rajamannar vs PIO, AC Division, Indira Gandhi National Open University on 18 February 2009 and A.V.Subrahmanyam vs BSNL, Hyderabad on 16 February 2009 — the judgments illustrate that information submitted to public authorities at any point in time whether to get admitted to school, to get a license, to pass a public services examination or even file a divorce; all qualify for access to other people because they have been knowingly submitted to the public domain. A lot of sensitive information like passport details, telephone call records and medical records that can map intimate interactions of a person’s daily life can also be obtained if larger public interest is proven.

Hence, it becomes important to revise and rethink the commonly accepted notions of privacy, especially when information gains such strategic importance as well as fluidity through fast expanding platforms as well as tools such as RTI. While one may confidently think that information generated by the self, pertaining to one’s own business and life rightfully belongs to the private domain, it is very important to realize the constantly looming hold of the State to any information. In such a situation, what you can claim as private data totally depends on how much common interest it garners.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/rti-and-third-party-info

Roundtable: Identifying and Limiting Hate Speech and Harassment Online

praskrishna — 2016-08-09T13:31:58Z

Japreet Grewal attended this event organized by Software Freedom Law Centre at Constitution Club Of India, Rafi Marg, New Delhi on July 28, 2016.

See the original report published by SFLC here.

SFLC.in organized a roundtable discussion on 28^th July, 2016 in New Delhi to initiate a focused and collaborative dialogue around the increasingly important issues of online harassment and hate speech. This roundtable was intended as the first in a series of discussions around said issues, and was attended by representatives from various stakeholder groups including intermediary platforms, civil society groups, and media houses, along with individuals who had personally experienced such online abuse & harassment. The core objective of this discussion was to recognize and understand the vast range of concerns that exist in this sphere, in an effort to develop a framework for the regulation of such activities, without stepping on the right to freedom of expression. The discussion was conducted under Chatham House rules so as to facilitate an uninhibited exchange of views.

Over the course of the event, the complex and multifaceted nature of its overarching theme unraveled, as the discussion moved from underlying social constructs, to responsibilities of intermediary platforms, adequacy of existing laws, sensitization of everyday users and effective handling of grievances by law enforcement agencies. At the very outset, it was highlighted that social media platforms, with their increasing popularity, are being considered centralized hubs for businesses and others. However, individuals, communities & institutions often find themselves at the receiving end of sustained abuse and threats either on grounds of their actual or perceived characteristics, or over their online expression. The dynamic discussion that ensued brought to light significant concerns that would require a collaborative effort across stakeholder groups to address. For the sake of clarity, we are categorizing these learnings under the following heads:

Conceptual understanding of online harassment and hate speech: It was discussed at length that hate speech and speech that culminates in harassment on the online sphere, are reflective of the social outlook of the country at large. Women were seen as more frequent targets of harassment in the form of rape threats, sexual remarks, and name calling, whereas men are mostly called out for their beliefs and opinions. When discussing hate speech relations, it was considered important to take note of the power dynamics at play amongst the stronger groups, and the vulnerable ones. Limiting such content gets specially complicated considering the apprehension that in an effort to monitor hate speech and harassment, free speech may get stifled. The paradox of anonymity being an enabler of free speech, as well the reason for unabashed harassment adds yet another layer of complexity to the issue. Moreover, it was felt that a nuanced distinction needed to be made regarding the systematic attacks by online mobs against a particular person, as opposed to hateful and/or harassing speech that engages on a one to one level. This all culminated in a realization that this issue goes beyond the online domain, into the societal mindset that is amplified on the Internet, and that the faint line between free speech, and hateful & harassing speech is very difficult to pin-point.
Role of intermediaries: It was the opinion of the representatives of intermediary platforms at the roundtable that the current legal frameworks in the country are sufficient to tackle this issue and they should operate in compliance with such laws. While the specific terms of service may differ in terms of permissible content depending on the type of service being provided by the intermediary, these platforms do invariably keep a check on the content being generated and evaluate them for compliance with the applicable terms of service. Additionally, platforms that have the option of users creating & generating their own content, give the user various tools such as block, filter, un-follow, and other customized options to moderate the content they receive. though the intermediaries, in their own words ‘ are not a delete squad, but a compliance team’, it was said that they ran the perpetual risk of either censoring content that should not have been censored, or not censoring enough of the content that should have been censored. This incentivizes them to exercise zero-tolerance policies in certain areas such as child sexual abuse or terrorism, and resort to immediate take down of content related to such themes. However, in spite of the sheer volume of material that is generated and reported, it was felt that a completely automated approach cannot be followed for filtering hateful and harassing content that violates terms of service Taking down content and expression requires processing various factors that determine the context of that material, and this calls for a subjective approach that requires a set of human eyes. Therefore, the intermediaries do have tools for users that protect them from hate and harassing speech, and they work with certain safety experts to ensure that the users feel safe while using their services.
Adequacy of legal frameworks: A distinction was drawn over the course of the discussion between hate speech as a social as opposed to a legal concept. For legal purposes, speech would not attract penalties until it incites a real threat of violence and civic disorder. However, the law is not sufficiently equipped to deal with speech that does not incite violence, but causes psychological damage. It was undisputed that the concerns in this area cannot be solved by creating more statutes. Going down this road could lead to the creation of a Section 66A equivalent that would lead to censorship through law and cause a chilling effect on freedom of expression. It was emphasized that the existing laws have adequate provisions, but a strict implementation is required.
Response from law enforcement agencies: An evaluation of this point led to the conclusion that people who are harassed online, or are the targets of hate speech, are hesitant to approach the police and law enforcement agencies for their help. There have been instances where the police is unable to help due to the limited application of laws in such cases, as mentioned above.
Possible remedies: As a part of this roundtable, SFLC.in had proposed a set of best practices aimed at limiting hateful and harassing content online. These were intended as self-regulatory measures that could be followed by intermediaries functioning as speech platforms, where users could create and publish content without pre-filtrations. Amongst the measures that was discussed extensively was the practice of promoting ‘counter speech’ on the platforms that are most frequently used to spread hateful propaganda and harassment. This was generally seen as an effective counter-measure deserving further exploration, and one of the intermediaries mentioned a project they were formulating on ‘counter radicalization’. However, concerns were raised with respect to the identification of areas that would benefit from counter speech, and its effectiveness with respect to mob attacks. Another unique approach suggested by the participants was to ‘vaccinate’ first time users by educating them about the enormity and complexity of the Internet, including intiation of such users to the idea that freedom of expression online often crosses over to hate speech and harassment. This would act as an initiation process to understand the working of the Internet and the prevalence of hateful and harassing content on its numerous speech platforms, so that first-time users are not discouraged from using the Internet merely due to the presence of negative content. An interesting suggestion for the platforms was to work towards a mechanism that is more offender centric, and facilitates the tracking of repeat offenders along with providing tools of blocking for users.

This roundtable served in exploring the many layers of hateful and harassing speech that runs across roles and responsibilities of various stakeholder groups and concerns that are deeply entrenched in our societal outlook. The increasing frequency and amount of such content on the Internet is an indication of the urgent need to collaborate and develop a framework for limiting such speech, while balancing the fundamental right to freedom of expression. We thank all the participants and appreciate their valuable contributions that facilitated a better understanding of the overall theme.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/roundtable-identifying-and-limiting-hate-speech-and-harassment-online

Roundtable with the WhatsApp leadership

Admin — 2019-07-30T00:33:15Z

Will Cathcart, WhatsApp's new global head, visited India and invited Sunil Abraham for a discussion on 26 July 2019 at the Mountbatten, The Oberoi, New Delhi. Sunil met with some other people from WhatsApp leadership.

Discussions took place on the changing policy landscape in India. The event was a free flowing off the record discussion for about an hour between Will Cathcart and representatives of leading civil society organizations.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/roundtable-with-the-whatsapp-leadership

Roundtable on Intermediary Liability and Gender Based Violence at the Digital Citizen Summit, 2018

Admin — 2018-11-07T02:55:40Z

Akriti Bopanna and Ambika Tandon conducted a panel on 'Gender and Intermediary Liability' at the Digital Citizen Summit, hosted by the Digital Empowerment Foundation, on November 1, 2018 at India International Centre, New Delhi.

Ambika was the moderator for the panel, with Apar Gupta, Jyoti Pandey, Amrita Vasudevan, Anja Kovacs, and Japleen Pasricha as speakers. Click to read the concept note and the agenda.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/roundtable-on-intermediary-liability-and-gender-based-violence-at-the-digital-citizen-summit-2018

Roundtable on Indian Privacy Law and Policy

bhairav — 2014-12-27T14:18:16Z

This event was hosted by the Centre for Law and Development of the National University of Advanced Legal Studies (NUALS) in Kochi. It was attended by members of the faculty of NUALS, some students from the 2nd year, 3rd year, 4th year, and 5th year.

The meeting began with a talk by Bhairav Acharya on the origin of privacy law, its jurisprudential evolution, and the current context in which privacy is being debated in India and around the world.

Bhairav began by talking about the nature of privacy law around the world. Privacy has, until recently, never been a right in English common law. Indeed, the tort of invasion of privacy is also relatively incomplete. Privacy is protected through other torts, including the torts of nuisance, trespass, and others. European treaty requirements have foisted a right to privacy upon the British legal system; the contours of this right remain unclear.

American courts, on the other hand, have been more receptive to claims of the right to privacy. There is much in the American political and legal tradition that has contributed to the easy acceptability of privacy claims. Not least among these are the strong emphasis on the individual as the fundamental unit of governance and sovereignty, and the American libertarian tradition of autonomy.

Bhairav then spoke of the right to privacy in India. Early cases in the Supreme Court of India see privacy as a negotiation between the liberties of citizens and the power of the state. In a legal tradition deeply influenced by colonialism, Indian courts readily accepted claims against physical police surveillance and other related rights in the criminal justice process – public rights against the state that were once denied to Indian subjects of colonial rule, but held short of viewing privacy as a necessary individual protection against society. This has resulted in dichotomous privacy jurisprudence.

Bhairav then talked about the contexts in which privacy claims arise in India today. Specifically, he spoke about increasingly sophisticated surveillance techniques and large-scale personal data collection and processing. There are many complexities in both these fields and a lot of time and questions were spent going over them. Surveillance is older than the nation-state; privacy law does not seek the end of surveillance, but only its optimal use. There are many kinds of surveillance, the contemporary debate deals solely with wiretapping and electronic surveillance. Privacy law cannot be blind to the many other kinds of surveillance, including old-fashioned physical surveillance on the road.

Data collection, too, cannot be ended, nor should it for it forms the basis of modern commerce and is tied to India’s economic growth. There were questions and discussion on ‘big data’, data mining, analytics, business models, and other related areas. In India, however, in the absence of an innovative IT industry, the dominant business model is of receiving foreign personal data, usually of Europeans and Americans, to provide cheap processing services. This model depends entirely on comparatively lower Indian wages. Hence, it is not surprising that the first personal data protection rules issued by the Indian government in 2011 applied solely to foreign data that was outsourced to India.

Bhairav then introduced the 2011 draft Right to Privacy Bill that was proposed by the Department of Personnel and Training of the Indian government, as well as the Personal Data Protection Rules issued under the Information Technology Act, 2000. These measures were studied clause-by-clause.

Similarly, Indian law in respect of communications surveillance was analysed in detail. The Indian Telegraph Act 1885, the Indian Telegraph Rules 1951 (including the amendments of 1961, 1999, 2007, and 2014) were looked at in detail. These laws were compared to the Indian Post Office Act 1898 and the Information Technology Act 2000. The 1968 report of the Law Commission of India that examined the wiretapping power and suggested possible overreach was also examined.

Bhairav reviewed Indian law in respect of wiretapping. All Supreme Court case law, especially the cases of Hukum Chand and Peoples Union for Civil Liberties, were analysed. Finally, the group looked at how the legal principles applicable to wiretapping have been extended to electronic and Internet surveillance. Over here, the group studied the two sets of 2011 Rules under the IT Act that enable Internet and email surveillance of both content and metadata.

After a lunch break, the group spoke about possible models for privacy regulation and protection in India. In respect of surveillance, a lot of time was spent discussing the merits and demerits of judicial warranting of surveillance, as opposed to executive authorisations. The consensus of the group, with a few exceptions, was that judicial warranting would not be a suitable model for Indian surveillance, due to several systemic weaknesses. The group also rejected several of the principles proposed by Justice A. P. Shah in the 2012 Report that was commissioned by the Planning Commission.

After a discussion on legislative models, the group discussed, clause-by-clause, the CIS proposal on privacy that was read through by Bhairav. This discussion lasted several hours, and covered many areas.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/roundtable-on-indian-privacy-law-and-policy

Roundtable on ICANN Accountability

praskrishna — 2015-04-03T16:54:41Z

The roundtable was organised by the Department of Electronics and Information Technology (DeitY), National Internet Exchange of India and Centre for Communication Governance, National Law University, Delhi at the Indian International Centre, New Delhi on 13 March 2015. Geetha Hariharan participated in the roundtable.

Timings	Programme
10.00 10.30	Welcome Address by Chimayi Arun, Research Director, Centre for Communication Governance at National Law University, Delhi
10.30 10.40	Introductory Remarks by Dr. Ajay Kumar (IAS) Joint Secretary, DeitY
10.45 11.15	Session I: NTIA IANA Functions' Stewardship Transition
13.15 14.30	Lunch
14.30 16.30	Session II: Accountability and Transparency at ICANN
16.30	Tea

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/roundtable-on-icann-accountability

Roundtable on Enhancing Indian Cyber Security through Multi-Stakeholder Cooperation

Admin — 2018-02-01T14:04:36Z

A closed door round-table on enhancing Indian cyber security is being organized on 4 November 2017 at Indian Islamic Centre, Lodhi Road in New Delhi.

With the proliferation of digital technologies and the central role they play in national infrastructure and governance, security of systems and services is fundamental to the economic, political, and social development and success of a nation. Digital India, the National Payments Corporation of India, IndiaStack, and the Aadhaar ecosystem are just a few examples of such digital infrastructure. Yet the digital realm is increasingly becoming more complex and difficult to secure and monitor for vulnerabilities, threats, breaches, and attacks. The responsibility of identifying and monitoring such vulnerabilities can be spearheaded by designated governmental bodies like CERT-IN and NCIIPC, but for effective identification of threats and vulnerabilities, collaboration is needed across stakeholder groups including security researchers, industry, and government bodies. Transparency about breaches and attacks is also key in enabling consumer awareness and building trust with the public. Examples of such mechanisms include bug bounty programs and breach notification frameworks.

This closed door roundtable will seek to bring together government, industry, civil society, academia, and security researchers to identify different areas and tools of collaboration between stakeholders towards enhancing Indian cyber security. It will broadly focus on vulnerability identification and reporting and vulnerability/breach notification. This will include a reflection on:

Existing frameworks, forms of collaborations, policies and practices in India.
Practices, standards, certifications, and programmes adopted in other jurisdictions.
The way forward for India addressing issues like establishing trust, harmonization and communication across stakeholders and sectors, and ensuring quality and response.

RSVP: pranav@cis-india.org

Download the Invite

See the Report

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/roundtable-on-enhancing-indian-cyber-security-through-multi-stakeholder-cooperation

Roundtable on Data Integrity and Privacy

Admin — 2017-11-25T02:17:13Z

Amber Sinha attended a roundtable on data integrity and privacy organized by the Observer Research Foundation (ORF) on November 18, 2017 in New Delhi. The round table discussion was chaired by Shri Baijayant Panda, Hon'ble Member of Parliament.

With the 10-member committee headed by former Justice B.N. Srikrishna being mandated to recommend principles for a new data protection bill, the time is ripe for online platforms, service providers and citizen stakeholders to discuss what the substantive elements of the new data protection law should look like.

Regulatory principles around data should be informed by the impetus for innovation, the responsibility to deliver social benefits and most importantly the users’ expectation of privacy. Increasingly, the nature and number of actors collecting and processing user data is becoming unclear. The new data protection framework must clarify the relationship between the user and apps/ mobile platforms that collect her data, but should do so while acknowledging the heterogenous nature of the Indian digital economy, comprising operating systems, platforms and devices of varying security and sophistication.

To kick-start this project, ORF hosted a roundtable chaired by Shri Baijayant Panda to hear from a diverse set of stakeholders to understand what direction the data privacy regime in India should take. The roundtable took place at the Viceroy, Claridges Hotel, 12, Dr APJ Abdul Kalam Road, New Delhi, Delhi 110011.

The roundtable broadly covered the following aspects –

Role of user consent and choice
Importance of cross border data flows
Appropriate regulatory authority
International best practices and relevance to the Indian context
Reasonable restrictions
Private-public collaboration

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/roundtable-on-data-integrity-and-privacy

Roundtable on Cyber-security and the Private Sector

pranav — 2018-10-15T09:18:35Z

The Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) invites you to a roundtable discussion on cyber-security and the private sector. The event will be held at Omidyar Network office in Bangalore from 10.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m.

An increased proliferation of cyber attacks from multiple vectors and a variety of actors has necessitated a multi-stakeholder response to cyber-security that requires private sector involvement, both at the policy and technical fields. This contribution has come in the recent past not only through active involvement at the domestic levels but also through norm-setting in the international arena.

This symposium seeks to discuss the various cyber-security concerns in the Indian private sector and maps initiatives being undertaken by various actors towards furthering cyber-security in an attempt to identify challenges, points of tension, brainstorm solutions-thereby mapping the way forward through engagement not only with private sector actors but also in dialogue with civil society and policy-makers. CIS has undertaken some preliminary research in this area to further discussion in this area and serve as a forum for sharing perspectives for various stakeholders.

The symposium will be divided into three sessions, broadly in the form of a roundtable with different modus operandi in each session.

A Concept Note for the event can be found here, and the agenda can be found here. If you would like to attend, please rsvp pranav@cis-india.org, or register here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/roundtable-on-cyber-security-and-the-private-sector

Roundtable on Consumer Experiences with New Technologies in APAC (Singapore)

Admin — 2019-04-15T10:25:57Z

Arindrajit Basu was invited to a Roundtable on Artificial Intelligence:Consumer Experiences with New Technologies (APAC region).

The event was hosted by Consumer International and delivered at Google, Singapore on March 26, 2019. CIS research and Arindrajit's inputs have been quoted in a report by the same name which will be released by Consumer International within the course of the next month.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/roundtable-on-consumer-experiences-with-new-technologies-in-apac-singapore

Roundtable on AI and Finance in India

saman — 2018-03-11T14:58:55Z

Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) will hold a roundtable on artificial intelligence and finance in India on Wednesday, February 7, 2018 in association with HasGeek and the 50p Conference. The roundtable will take place from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m at TERI (The Energy Resources Institute) in Domlur, Bengaluru.

We invite you all to participate in this roundtable to share and build knowledge about trajectories of AI deployment across sub-sectors of banking in India and the emergent regulatory and public policy concerns.

The objective of the roundtable is to bring together various actors active across the fields of artificial intelligence, machine learning, cognitive computing, financial technologies,and big data credit scoring and online lending, to discuss pressing public policy issues in regards to the utilisation and implementation of AI in the banking and finance sectors of India.

These sectors currently find themselves at the early stages of AI adoption. Such technologies are being implemented to facilitate both front-end and back-end processes by a variety of players with the aim of improving the accessibility, customised user engagement, and quality of current financial services. Leading commercial banks in India have all been working to develop and deploy AI technologies either in house or in partnership with small and large-scale tech companies. Such initiatives have seen the deployment of numerous chatbots and humanoid robots for the purposes of customer service. More significant, however, is the use of such technology by banks and fintech actors to facilitate decision making behind the scenes, on a variety of financial issues including but not limited to credit-worthiness, fraud detection, and investments.

While these sectors are no strangers to the use of big data analytics and similar technologies in aiding with financial decision making and daily operations, the deployment of technologies such as machine learning and natural language processing is still very new. Due to the nascent nature of this phenomenon, little is known about the details of their implications for both producers and consumers. Furthermore, concerns regarding data ownership, liability, and consumer rights have all been raised in light of AI adoption. This roundtable will present us with an opportunity to discuss such issues and begin to fill this knowledge gap.

For agenda and event brochure click here. For RSVP click here. Read the event report here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/roundtable-on-ai-and-finance-in-india