We are anonymous, we are legion

Will Aadhaar Act Address India’s Dire Need For a Privacy Law?

nehaa — 2016-04-05T16:01:06Z

The article was published by Quint on March 31, 2016.

The passage of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 (will hereby be referred to as “the Act”) has led to flak for the government from privacy advocates, academia and civil society, to name a few.

To my mind, the opposition deserves its fair share of criticism (lacking so far), for its absolute failure to engage with and act as a check on the government in the passage of the Act, and the events leading up to it.

The government’s introduction of the Act as a ‘money bill’ under Article 110 of the Constitution of India (“this/the Article”) is a mockery of the constitutional process. It renders redundant, the role of the Rajya Sabha as a check on the functioning of the Lower House.

Article 110 limits a ‘money bill’ only to six specific instances: covering tax, the government’s financial obligations and, receipts and payments to and from the Consolidated Fund of India, and, connected matters.

The Act lies well outside the confines of the Article; the government’s action may attract the attention of the courts.

Political One-Upmanship


Finance Minister Arun Jaitley (left) listens to Reserve Bank of India (RBI) Governor Raghuram Rajan. (Photo: Reuters)

In the past, the Supreme Court (“the Court”) has stepped into the domain of the Parliament or the Executive when there was a complete and utter disregard for India’s constitutional scheme. In recent constitutional history, this is perhaps most noticeable in the anti-defection cases, (beginning with Kihoto Hollohan in 1992); and, in the SR Bommai case in 1994, on the imposition of the President’s rule in states.

In hindsight, although India has benefited from the Court’s action in the Bommai and Hollohan cases, it is unlikely that the passage of the Aadhaar Act as a ‘money bill’, reprehensible as it is, meets the threshold required for the Court’s intervention in Parliamentary procedure.

Besides, the manner of its passage, the Act warrants

Censure for its process
Its (in)compatibility with fundamental rights
The failure to incorporate the suggestions of the Yashwant Sinha-led Standing Committee to UPA’s NIDAI Bill
The possibility of surveillance that it presents
The lack of measures to protect personal information
Its inadequate privacy safeguards
The questions around the realisation of its stated purpose.

Instead, a part of the Aadhaar debate has involved political one-upmanship between the Congress and the BJP, pitting the former’s NIDAI Bill against the latter’s Aadhaar Act.

While an academic comparison between the two is welcome, its use as a tool for political supremacy would be laughable, were it not deeply problematic, given the many serious concerns highlighted above.

Better Than UPA Bill?


The Act may have more privacy safeguards than the earlier UPA Bill. (Photo: iStockphoto)

And while the Act may have more privacy safeguards than the earlier UPA Bill, critics have argued that they not up to the international standard, and instead, that they are plagued by opacity.

Additionally, despite claims that the Act is a significant improvement over the UPA Bill, it fails to address concerns, including around the centralised storage of information, that were raised by civil society members and others.

Perhaps most problematically, however, the Act takes away an individual’s control of her own information. Subsidies, government benefits and services are linked to the mandatory possession of an Aadhar number (Section 7 of the Act), effectively negating the ‘freedom’ of voluntary enrollment (Section 3 of the Act). This directly contradicts the recommendations of the Justice AP Shah Committee, before whom the Unique Identification Authority of India had earlier stated that enrollment in Aadhaar was voluntary.

To make matters worse, the individual does not have the authority to correct, modify or alter her information; this lies, instead, with the UIDAI alone (Section 31 of the Act). And the sharing of such personal information does not require a court order in all cases.


Kanhaiya Kumar speaking in JNU on 3 March 2016. (Photo: PTI)

It may be authorised by Executive authorities under the vague, ill-understood concept of ‘national security’, (Section 33(2) of the Act) which the Act does not define. We would do well to learn the dangers of leaving ‘national security’ open to interpretation, in the aftermath of the recent events at JNU.

These recent events around Aadhaar have only underscored the dire urgency for comprehensive privacy legislation in India and, the need to overhaul our data protection laws to meet our constitutional commitments along with international standards.

Meanwhile, constitutional challenges to the Aadhaar scheme are currently pending in the Supreme Court. The Court’s verdict may well decide the future of the Aadhaar Act, with the stage already set for a constitutional challenge to the legislation. The BJP’s victory in this case may be short-lived.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-quint-march-31-2016-nehaa-chaudhari-will-aadhaar-act-address-indias-dire-need-for-a-privacy-law

Wie die chinesische Mega-App TikTok Indiens Wahlkampf beeinflussen könnte

praskrishna — 2019-03-20T15:20:12Z

Die chinesische Kurzvideo-App Tiktok gehört zu den wertvollsten Start-ups der Welt – und sie wird zunehmend politisch. In Indien weckt das Ängste.

The article by Frederic Spohr was published in Handelsblatt on March 13, 2019. Shweta Mohandas was quoted.

Angela Merkel spricht Hindi, zumindest auf der chinesischen Social-Media-App TikTok. In einem Satire-Video steht die Bundeskanzlerin neben dem indischen Premierminister Narendra Modi – und erklärt dem indischen Regierungschef, dass sie ihn gerne heiraten und mit ihm für immer zusammenleben will. Das sagt Merkels indische Synchronstimme. Die App TikTok, mit der Nutzer selbst gedrehte oder bearbeitete Kurzvideos teilen, ist die derzeit wohl erfolgreichste App der Welt. Das dahinter stehende Start-up Bytedance wird mit umgerechnet 66 Milliarden Euro so hoch bewertet ist wie kein anderes junges Unternehmen. Indien ist dabei der mittlerweile wichtigste Auslandsmarkt für die Chinesen. Mehr als 250 Millionen Inder haben die App bereits heruntergeladen. Monatlich kommen Dutzende weitere Millionen dazu.

Doch der Erfolg der chinesischen App hat auch Ängste geweckt. Ab dem 11. April wird auf dem Subkontinent ein neues Parlament gewählt – und wie in vielen anderen Ländern wächst in Indien die Sorge, dass über Social-Media-Plattformen Wahlen manipuliert werden, zum Beispiel weil darüber Falschnachrichten verbreitet, geheime Wählerprofile angelegt oder die Plattformen für Spionage genutzt werden könnten. Das gilt nun nicht mehr nur für Facebook oder Twitter, sondern auch für TikTok – und wegen seiner chinesischen Herkunft vielleicht insbesondere dafür.

Dass TikTok aus China kommt, ist problematisch, weil es bezüglich Datensammlung und -verarbeitung weniger transparent als andere Social-Media-Apps ist“, sagt Shweta Mohandas, Politik-Beauftragte beim Centre for Internet and Society (Cis) in Bangalore.

Der Subkontinent wird so zu einem Testfall für die wachsende politische Bedeutung chinesischer Social-Media-Apps im Ausland. TikTok ist auch in Amerika und Europa bereits weit verbreitet – und hat bereits Kritiker alarmiert. „Die Reichweite dieser Apps zu ignorieren, wäre ein fataler Fehler“, warnt Claudia Biancotti, leitender Ökonom am amerikanischen Thinktank Peterson Institute for International Economics in einem Blogbeitrag über TikTok.

Für Biancotti ist der Umgang mit chinesischen Social-Media-Apps von ähnlich großer Bedeutung wie der Umgang mit dem chinesischen Mobilfunkausrüster Huawei. „Die Tiefe der gesammelten Nutzerdaten machen sie zu sehr wirksamen Instrumenten sowohl für die Spionage als auch für die Manipulation der öffentlichen Meinung.“ Fünf der zehn beliebtesten Apps im indischen Android-Appstore kamen 2018 bereits aus China.

Anzahl politischer Videos nimmt zu

TikTok wirkt vollkommen unpolitisch. Wie in Deutschland überwiegen auch in Indien kurzweilige Witzvideos und private Videoclips. Die meisten Inhalte auf der App sind Musikvideos von Jugendlichen, die mit Effekten aufgehübscht werden. Auch das Merkel-Video ist kein Manipulationsversuch und dürfte für die meisten als klare Satire erkennbar sein.

Doch die Anzahl politischer Videos auf TikTok hat in Indien vor den Wahlen stark zugenommen: Viele junge Menschen erklären beispielsweise, warum sie welchen Politiker wählen werden. Videos mit dem Hashtag NarendraModi wurden fast 30 Millionen mal angesehen, Clips zu seinem Herausforderer Rahul Gandhi wurden rund 12 Millionen Mal angeguckt.

Viele junge Menschen verwenden TikTok und soziale Medien, um mit der Welt zu kommunizieren. Die politischen Parteien haben das erkannt und versuchen, auf die Erstwähler Eindruck zu machen“, sagt Cis-Expertin Mohandas.

Besonders beliebt ist die App auf dem Land. In der Provinz leben die meisten Inder, gleichzeitig ist hier der Bildungsstandard besonders gering. Diese Zielgruppe dürfte am einfachsten zu manipulieren sein.

Subtile Beeinflussung möglich

Eine Beeinflussung könnte theoretisch so subtil verlaufen, dass sie kaum zu überprüfen ist. Möglich wäre beispielsweise ein Szenario, bei dem auf Druck der chinesischen Regierung die Algorithmen so geändert werden, dass Nutzer bestimmte Inhalte verstärkt gezeigt bekommen – oder dass unliebsame Inhalte überhaupt nicht angezeigt werden. In China selbst filtert die heimische App WeChat bereits kritische Inhalte heraus, ohne Sender oder Empfänger zu benachrichtigen.

Wie in Deutschland wurde in Indien bisher bezüglich TikTok vor allem über den Schutz der Privatsphäre von Kindern gesprochen. Die Jugendlichen präsentieren sich in den Videos oft in freizügigen Posen, die Pädophile anlocken könnten. Die generelle Datenschutzproblematik aufgrund des chinesischen Ursprungs des Unternehmens und die mögliche Verbreitung von Falschnachrichten gerät nun aber immer stärker in den Fokus.

Das indische IT-Ministerium kündigte bereits im Februar eine stärkere Regulierung der Social-Media-Apps an. Einflussreiche Hindu-Nationalisten haben sich sogar für ein Verbot der chinesischen Apps ausgesprochen. Die Angriffe dürften dabei auch wirtschaftliche Hintergründe haben: Angesichts der chinesischen und amerikanischen Dominanz geraten indische Konkurrenzangebote immer stärker ins Hintertreffen.

TikTok selbst wehrt sich vehement gegen die Vorwürfe. Es verweist darauf, sich an alle aktuellen Gesetze zu halten und die Inhalte auf der Plattform in zahlreichen Landessprachen zu überwachen. „Die Privatsphäre und Sicherheit unserer Benutzer hat für TikTok höchste Priorität, und wir halten uns an die lokalen Gesetze und Vorschriften in den Märkten, in denen wir tätig sind“, teilt das Unternehmen dem Handelsblatt mit. „TikTok-Benutzerdaten werden in den USA und anderen Märkten, in denen TikTok über branchenführende Rechenzentren von Drittanbietern tätig ist, gespeichert und verarbeitet.“

Rückendeckung bekommt das Unternehmen von der chinesischen Regierung. In einem Artikel der englischsprachigen Parteizeitung „Global Times“ heißt es, TikTok werde von Amerika wie Huawei als Sicherheitsrisiko dargestellt, um Chinas technologischen Aufstieg zu verhindern. TikTok sei nur eine „Unterhaltungs-App für Menschen auf der ganzen Welt, die Spaß und Entspannung wollen“.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/handelsblatt-frederic-spohr-march-13-2019-wahlkampf-beeinflussung-wie-die-chinesische-mega-app-tiktok-indiens-wahlkampf-beeinflussen-koennte

Why your Facebook Stalker is Not the Real Problem

nishant — 2012-03-21T05:02:16Z

We live in networked conditions. This is a statement that can now be taken at face-value, and immediately explains our highly connected, inter-meshed environments finds Nishant Shah in this article published in FirstPost on March 20, 2012.

Especially within the digital world, the World Wide Web has become synonymous with social networking systems, where increasingly all our access, communication and interaction is located within a series of interconnected networks.

From the imagination of the web as a complex network, we have evolved to looking at the web as facilitating networks where different relationships, transactions and connections can be mapped and managed. This is why we often have romantic imaginations of networks as free, open, collaborative, shared spaces of interaction and expression.

However, we have reached a stage where this idea of a network as a liberatory space is under threat. Even as I write this, Internet Service Providers are now planning to set up sophisticated, automated systems that will do a deep-spy on your data transfer to see if you are sharing files (sometimes also called piracy) using the Internet.

These systems will now keep track of all your digital transactions and will monitor what you consume, who you talk to and determine whether you are a good ethical subject who is only using the Internet in ways that the powers to be want you to.

For me, this particular networked condition of being constantly monitored and watched is scary. And it surprises me that this invasive process is less in public attention than Google’s recently changed privacy policies or the TOS-in-progress nature of privacy on Facebook.

This is because the ubiquitous presences of networks in our lives have made them transparent to us – we do not think of the networks themselves as entities but as spaces where interactions with other objects is possible. Hence, if I ask you, right now, to name the top 5 entities that you interact with the most on Facebook, I am sure you will be able to name them. More probably than not, these top 5 entities with people that you have formed strong Facebook Friendships with.

In fact there are platforms designed to let you know who you are talking with most on your networks. Network influence measurement indices by services like Klout are able to tell you not only who you talk to but also what are your key areas of influence. This is a way by which the network becomes invisible to us. It hides the fact that the thing that talks to you the most on Facebook is Facebook itself.

The marketing of Facebook might tell you that you are talking to other human beings, but reality is that the network is more than the sum total of all human beings on the system. Just look at the amount of information Facebook produces on your behalf and to you. Notifications for adding friends, for liking people, for people writing to you, for people commenting on your walls and posts, form more than 50% of the information traffic on Facebook or social networking systems.

This information is produces and shared by scripts, coded bots, algorithmic applications, and non-human entities that not only support and sustain the network but are also significant members of the networks.

This is the actual networked condition – where the processes and entities that make the networks possible, produce an illusion of seamless communication and interaction, while performing and extraordinary amount of information and for you.

This blindness to our own ‘networkedness’ has crucial ramifications for our online activities because it makes us oblivious to questions of privacy, control, safety and trust. We have privacy settings to protect us from human entities on Facebook. There is very little concern about the non-human entities who store, distribute and use the data that we produce. If we don’t even know what these watchers are, how do we protect ourselves from being watched? What happens when between you and your ‘friend’, is a series of silent interceptors who are recording and using your data without your knowledge?

Being in a network is like being in a glass-house. We cannot see the walls and hence, we presume that we need our privacy from the other inhabitants of the same house. However, in that, we forget that the walls are watching, and that there are invisible watchers beyond the walls, who are in control.

It is time to make our networks visible again. It is time to realise that what we really need to be afraid of, on social networking systems, is the social network itself, and not the mythical stranger who wants to stalk us or that unwanted friend you want to exclude from your information sharing.

Privacy and safety are not merely compromised at the interface, where information might leak and travel into zones outside of your knowledge and control. The real questions of being safe are actually in the protocols and designs of the network itself.

We need to start looking at larger invasive policies exercises by the different invisible actors like the ISP, ICT ministries, corporate policies, design choices and architecture of interception that sustain the networks we so gladly embrace.

Nishant Shah is Director-Research at the Bangalore based Centre for Internet and Society and recently edited a 4 volume book on youth, technology and change, titled ‘Digital AlterNatives with a Cause?’

Read this in FirstPost

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/facebook-stalker-is-not-real-problem

Why you should keep a close eye on the net neutrality debate in the US

Admin — 2018-01-18T14:50:52Z

As the United State's FCC Chairman Ajit Pai gears up to repeal the net neutrality laws put in place in 2015, India should sit up and take note.

The blog post by Subhrojit Mallick was published by Digital.in on November 24, 2017.

Back in 2014, a group of Redditors started debating net neutrality in India after Airtel announced it would charge extra for Voice Over IP (VoIP) services like Skype. Soon, that snowballed into a nation-wide campaign with over a million internet users participating. Things didn’t help when Facebook too wanted to provide a bunch of internet services for free in India through its Internet.org or Free Basics initiative. However, a year-long discussion and public outrage against the two, led the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) to rule in favour of net neutrality and stop both Airtel and Facebook in their tracks of violating a free and open internet.

Fast forward three years down the line and America, the birthplace of the internet, is struggling with the problem of internet freedom. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) under the Donald Trump Administration led by Chairman Ajit Pai submitted a final draft proposal yesterday to repeal the existing net neutrality laws put in force by the Obama administration in 2015. The draft proposal will be voted upon by FCC by the end of the year and considering the FCC has a Republican majority under Ajit Pai, the proposal is likely to pass.

What is FCC chairman Ajit Pai doing?

The draft removes almost every net neutrality rule from 2015, making ISPs the gatekeepers of the internet. It states internet providers will have the freedom to implement fast and slow speed lanes, prioritise traffic and block apps and services. The only rule they have to follow -- publicly disclose when they are doing any of the things stated above.

Executive director of the Centre for Internet and Society, Sunil Abraham elaborated on what's on Pai's mind.

"Ajit Pai's ideology is pro-market. He believes the market will sort all problems out. According to Pai, the magic of competition will eliminate all the harms emerging from net neutrality violation," he said.

"Pai has said, you do what you want to do, but you have to disclose that to the public. You can block, throttle, have fast lanes, prioritise traffic, have discriminatory pricing, but you disclose them. If the customer doesn't like it, he can swith to another network. Pai believes the transparency requirements will allow the magic of the market to diminish and eliminate harm. His regulation of net neutrality is transparency," Abraham further added.

However, such a move will have drastic effects on the free flow of internet traffic. Telecom companies and ISPs can handpick services by charging customers to access some sites or by slowing down the speeds of others. For instance, ISPs can make consumers pay more to watch high-quality content on Netflix.

With net neutrality rules repealed, the internet will become a pay-to-play service. It will essentially divide the internet into fast and slow lanes. One will be a speedy service that could be priced higher and another, much slower and cheaper. While big players like Amazon, Facebook, Google, Netflix and the likes can easily pay the higher fees and stay unfettered, newcomers and smaller players will have it tough. Although, the move will lead to cuts in profits for everyone. A higher price to consumers will eat into the user base of these companies, while startups and new voices in the media will find entry and success prohibitive.

Although it’s true that no single ISP in the US has the entire market to itself and the market is indeed divided into a handful of players, they do operate in a de facto monopolised way. How? ISPs in the US have sliced up the entire country into areas such that users in a particular area have only one choice of service provider. That essentially leaves users at the mercy of whatever Comcast or Spectrum is offering (or not offering).

By putting the net neutrality rules in place in 2015, the US had ensured these ISPs won’t do anything grossly uncompetitive. The current rules make broadband in the country a public utility, same as electricity. And now, Ajit Pai-led FCC is about to repeal those very rules that kept them grounded.

Will the FCC ruling make apps and services expensive in other countries?

While Pai’s jurisdiction does not extend beyond the United States, his tirades against a free internet will most definitely have rippling effects across the world. More importantly, it will raise the cost of operations of companies like Netflix and Amazon who will have to hire legal experts and lobbyists to negotiate deals with service providers. That extra cost will be burdened on the US consumers of course, but since they have a large international presence, it is likely that the extra cost will trickle down to users outside the US as well.

And that’s not just the streaming companies. All the tech giants hail from the US and it is only logical that a rise in their costs of operation will have an impact on their global operations.

Although, if the level playing field in the US is disrupted, companies will look for greener pastures and if that means moving out of the US to other countries, it could happen.

How will FCC’s decision impact India?

While US is grappling with such a reality, Indians fought against it and won. Or did they? Last year, after Airtel and Facebook were asked to drop their plans for differential pricing, TRAI released a paper on net neutrality and differential pricingto finalise its views on the matter. The regulatory body released a 14-question long consultation paper seeking comments on internet traffic management from the public.

“Increasingly, concerns have been raised globally relating to discriminatory treatment of Internet traffic by access providers. These concerns relating to nondiscriminatory access have become the centre of a global policy debate. The purpose of this second stage of consultation is to proceed towards the formulation of final views on policy or regulatory interventions, where required, on the subject of NN,” the paper read.

“Net Neutrality being repealed in the US will hurt innovation in that country, and will lead to a consolidation of power with those Internet companies which have the money to partner with US carriers. This hurts Indian product startups, because it means that their apps may not be as easily available to users in the US. The Internet is one world, and we need the same Internet to be available everywhere, across the world: one Internet for the entire world,” Nikhil Pahwa, Co-Founder of Internet Freedom Foundation told Digit.

That means, essentially, the debate on net neutrality is not over in India. In fact, both RS Sharma, the Chairman of TRAI and FCC’s Ajit Pai agree on the need to bridge the digital divide. Both are exploring ways to keep the internet open while providing access to the unconnected. Thankfully, both differs on the approach to meet that goal.

Pai believes the internet should be left unregulated despite the “hypothetical harms” to the consumer. He thinks the current rules were put in place to avoid theoretical harms which were not based on hard evidence. Pai claims there should be evidence-based regulation of the internet.

Sharma, in contrast, disagrees on an evidence-based approach.

“The TRAI's view of Net Neutrality has so far been diametrically opposite to Ajit Pai's FCC, and with good reason. Net Neutrality ensures that all ISPs and telecom operators act as exchanges of data between users, and do not discriminate on the basis of the type or source of that data. This allows for permission-less innovation on the Internet, which has given us the Internet that we have today,” Pahwa added.

Will India’s stance on net neutrality change after the FCC’s decision?

Rajan Mathews, Director General of Cellular Operators Association of India believes the FCC’s decision will no doubt have some impact on the path India takes.

“I think the policymakers will look at the decision the US makes. They had taken their decision as a point of reference before and the FCC’s ruling is too large an issue to not look at it. Both the DoT (Department of Telecom) and TRAI will have to reevaluate their approach in the context of the what happens in the US,” he said.

“Net neutrality approach in both countries is still in flux and India is going to tread lightly on net neutrality issues,” he added. As per Mathews, in India, the situation is different from the US where a handful of telecom companies and ISPs wield control of the entire country. In India, there is a licensed environment which provides a minimal standard of net neutrality, which is applied across the board and everybody who is providing a similar service is made to follow similar guidelines.

However, Mathews did attribute India’s efforts to enforce net neutrality to the United States’ efforts to place the rules in the first place in 2015 under the Obama administration, when internet was deemed as a public utility, same as electricity or telephone.

“Net neutrality in India emerged from the US definition. Now that they are going to repeal it, people in India who were looking at the US as a model will evaluate the implications of the move,” Mathews elaborated.

The US is looking to implement an ex-post approach to regulating the internet wherein the ISPs and telcos will adopt a free market approach and will only be investigated if they violate a rule. India, Mathews says, is adopting an ex-ante approach where there will be some commonly accepted criteria of net neutrality, but operators will have the ability to manage their traffic to ensure quality of service.

Minister of Information and Broadcasting, Ravi Shankar Prasad also helped alleviate fears of India following suit. During the Global Summit for Cyberspace Security held yesterday, he said, "The citizens' right of accessing the internet is "non-negotiable" and the government will not allow any company to restrict people's entry to the worldwide web."

Prime Minister Narendra Modi also came in support of net neutrality in India. He tweeted, "The internet, by nature, is inclusive and not exclusive. It offers equity of access and equality of opportunity."

Pahwa, who fought hard against Airtel and Facebook to ensure the internet remains neutral, was confident the decision won’t affect India’s stance on net neutrality. However, he is apprehensive that Indian telecom companies might borrow a leaf from their US counterparts and lobby hard to repeal the rules.

“I don't think the FCC decision affects the Indian regulation in any way, because the Indian regulator TRAI has already established strong and well rooted principles for Net Neutrality regulations in India. The only thing that worries me is that Indian telecom operators will use the developments in the US to push back against Net Neutrality with renewed vigour,” he said.

So, on the face of it, while India is well insulated from the catastrophe the United States has embarked upon, it is important to watch what the US is doing closely and make sure we don’t repeat their mistakes here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/digit-in-subhrojit-mallick-november-24-2017-why-you-should-keep-a-close-eye-on-the-net-neutrality-debate-in-the-us

Why We Should All Worry About The Mandatory Imposition Of Aadhaar

praskrishna — 2017-03-27T15:02:10Z

It appears that with each passing day, the government is linking an increasing number of benefits and government services to the 12-digit biometric-based Aadhaar number for Indians, despite growing concerns around its data privacy and security.

The article by Rimin Dutt and Ivan Mehta was published by Huffington Post on March 24, 2017. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

Aadhaar, which collects among other information, citizens' iris scans and fingerprints and stores them into a centralised database for a prolonged time with only loose guidelines and no pre-existing laws to ensure the privacy of that data, is now linked to no less than 38 government schemes, including the government's latest directive –- that Aadhaar become mandatory for tax filing and securing PAN numbers -- introduced by Finance Minister Arun Jaitley earlier this week.

Jaitley openly admitted on Wednesday in the Parliament that the government, in effect, would be forcing people to get Aadhaar in an effort to increase tax compliance.

Aadhaar's use, by no means, is restricted to government agencies alone. A growing number of private financial institutions are now fulfilling their "Know Your Customer" or e-KYC formalities by making Aadhaar compulsory. The government is also in the process of making Aadhaar the basis of all financial transactions.

While the timing of the government's aggressive push of Aadhaar, in itself, is raising eyebrows among political observers, there are some serious concerns about this unique experiment that deserve stronger scrutiny.

Why disregard the Supreme Court?

In making Aadhaar mandatory for filing taxes and securing core taxpayer identity, the government has openly gone against a Supreme Court order from last year that explicitly stated that the Aadhaar Card scheme is "purely voluntary" and cannot be made mandatory until the court has decided on this.

The government has defended its move, saying it is allowed to do so under the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act 2016.

However, as Gopal Krishna, a member of the Citizens Forum for Civil Liberties, writes in Business Today, the passage of the Act by the Parliament "does not automatically imply that any agency can make UID/Aadhaar compulsory disregarding the Supreme Court's orders."

According to Krishna, in doing so, the government is "clearly stepping beyond" the mandate of the Aadhaar Act, and also acting in contempt of the Parliament, according to him.

In addition, if tax evasion was the driving factor behind the move, it begs the question — wouldn't forcing people to get Aadhaar actually do the opposite by adding another layer of hassle?

Indeed, tax experts have noted how this requirement may hinder tax collection. Archit Gupta, Founder & CEO ClearTax.com, a tax service provider told HuffPost India, "The [Aadhaar] announcement is likely to be a dampener to tax filers, specially first-timers ... FY 2016-17 filing is expected to see a large number of first-time filers due to demonetisation efforts, and this move may make them more guarded."

Why not strengthen PAN?

The government already has an extensive mandate for the Permanent Account Number (PAN) cards, which are required to validate several important services or for undertaking transactions such as buying and selling property or jewellery worth over ₹2 lakhs. Last year, the government, in fact, said that the National Pension System (NPS) scheme would accept PAN cards over Aadhaar cards to validate new customers.

On Wednesday, however, Jaitley said PAN cards have been misused by certain people to evade taxes, and there are reports that Aadhaar may become the ultimate authenticating document. However, the continued and growing use of PAN along with Aadhaar adds an extra layer of formalities for citizens to access government services, which are their constitutionally guaranteed rights.

How safe is Aadhaar anyway?

Depending on who you talk to, the safety concerns of Aadhaar come up as a pressing issue, especially in the wake of a recent security incident when the Unique Identification Authority of India initiated police action against entities associated with Axis Bank including Suvidhaa Infoserve and e-sign provider eMudhra, which had allegedly engaged in unauthorised authentication and impersonation by illegally storing Aadhaar biometrics.

Earlier this month, in a separate incident, security researcher Srinivas Kodali warned Indian authorities of a website that was leaking Aadhaar demographic data of over five lakh minors, as well as the existence several parallel databases that had key identification data linked to Aadhaar, Scroll reported.

In the absence of any privacy laws in India, these security concerns have assumed even greater significance.

UIDAI, the authority behind Aadhaar, has maintained the technology behind Aadhaar is robust and that it uses advanced encryption to transmit and store data. It specifically denied that any breach of centralised data took place in the Axis Bank incident, saying the case was an isolated incident.

However, in a rather ironic twist in the Aadhaar Act, which itself contains no provisions to address privacy concerns, any legal action against any misuse or theft of Aadhaar data can only be initiated by UIDAI, leaving citizens with no legal recourse should a breach occur.

That represents an obvious conflict of interest as it gives exclusive power to the very authority that is responsible for the security and confidentiality of identity information and authentication records, PRS Legislative Research, has noted.

In addition, the controversial Aadhaar Act contains several other inherent dangers such as the potential to profile citizens based on the linking of other databases with Aadhaar by studying patterns of behaviour.

"Techniques such as running computer programmes across datasets for pattern recognition can be used for various purposes such as detecting potential illegal activities...However, these can also lead to harassment of innocent individuals who get identified incorrectly as potential threats," noted PRS Legislative.

There are currently no safeguards to prevent inappropriate profiling, instances of which could increase as more and more private organisations link their data to Aadhaar, and potentially exploit data for commercial purposes without the consent of citizens.

The US, in comparison, has laws in place that require agencies that collects data to submit an annual report to US Congress on all such data mining activities.

Other unresolved concerns

There are several other concerns related to the widespread use of Aadhaar card and the power it is afforded under the Aadhar act. The act allows UIDAI to collect biometric information beyond iris and fingerprint scans, for example, to include other bio-data such as DNA, noted PRS.

The act also allows private agencies to use Aadhaar, which contradicts an earlier stated objective of the scheme that sought to restrict the use of Aadhaar for only government expenditures.

"It allows private persons to use Aadhaar as a proof of identity for any purpose. This provision will enable private entities such as, airline, telecom, insurance, real estate etc. companies, to require Aadhaar as a proof of identity for availing their services," PRS has noted.

There's also the worrying prospect of Aadhaar being used as a surveillance tool by the government, instead of an e-governance technology, Sunil Abraham, executive director of research organisation, Centre for Internet and Society, told the The Hindu Business Line, adding biometrics only make citizens transparent to the state and not the state transparent to citizens.

"We warned the government six years ago, but they ignored us," said Abraham.

Krishna has a more dire warning: "The JAM Trinity -- Jan Dhan Yojana, Aadhaar and mobile numbers -- may well be a fish bait to trap unsuspecting citizens into the world's biggest transnational biometric database to turn them into subjects under surveillance forever in the name of a set of welfare and anti-poverty policies.

What has been done to address the security concerns?

It is unclear what the government or UIDAI may have done in the wake of the security incident to upgrade its systems. According to an expert HuffPost Post India talked to, many third party apps that are using Aadhar data may not be screened or audited for security, which is a huge worry.

Kodali told HuffPost India that Aadhaar has potential design issues when it comes to information security.

"By design it allows anyone store information of the Aadhaar holder through [application programming interface]. This is creating many parallel databases with Aadhaar as a key," he said.

He notes that security is an afterthought for many institutions and companies.

"UIDAI and the architects of Aadhaar do not accept that data can be a liability instead of an asset," he said. "The mandatory nature of Aadhaar without the right infrastructure and skilled workforce is not just a cyber security issue, but a national security issue."

When will India get privacy laws?

No one quite knows. But there's a growing call for a need for strict privacy laws, given the move towards digital financial transactions and growing e-commerce use. Most advanced economies including the US, the UK, France, Australia and New Zealand have enacted privacy laws.

However, in India, the right to privacy still doesn't exist despite it being recognised by even the UN charter of human rights. Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."

The potential for cyber criminals to misuse citizen data isn't lost on even prominent IT industry experts.

Recently, the chief of IT industry body Nasscom R Chandrashekhar told PTI that personal data of online consumers can never be fully secure, emphasising the need for strict consumer protection laws. "More than 3 million credit card data details were misused recently. Let us face it, these kind of security breaches will take place. There is nothing called fully perfect security in IT," he said.

To be sure, Aadhaar has been lauded by several prominent experts and economists, and it is, undoubtedly, an ambitious project to potentially aid financial inclusion for a large population that has historically been outside of a formal financial services net. India also has one of the lowest tax compliance rates, making tax collection a priority for the government.

Recently, Paul Romer, World Bank's chief economist told Bloomberg, "The system in India is the most sophisticated that I've seen ... It's the basis for all kinds of connections that involve things like financial transactions. It could be good for the world if this became widely adopted."

But given the sensitivity of citizen biometrics data and potential for misuse, the government ought to be held accountable for its proper use and ensure enough safeguards are put in place before its imposition on each citizen.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/huffington-post-rimin-dutt-ivan-mehta-march-24-2017-why-we-should-all-worry-about-the-mandatory-imposition-of-aadhaar

Why was the Gwalior court in such a hurry to block IIPM URLs?

praskrishna — 2013-02-19T11:51:43Z

Is it really that easy to get courts to block online content as it appears from the latest case of the blocking of 73 URLs related to IIPM? Legally speaking, yes.

The article by Danish Raza was published in FirstPost on February 19, 2013. Snehashish Ghosh's analysis on blocked sites is quoted.

In cases of defamation, violations of copyright and trademark law and threats to national security, courts can direct the government agency (CERT-in or Computer Emergency Response Team- India) to take down the offending content. And these can be ex-parte orders. Meaning the person or organisation posting the content online is not intimated every time the material is blocked.

Legality aside however, advocates of free speech say that such court orders should be exceptions and not the rule. There is a perception that the process in its current form – right from the filing of court case to the content being taken offline- is opaque.

Traditionally the Internet has been viewed as a more liberal, open and democratic platform as compared to traditional media. Through such orders, says Delhi based advocate and expert on cyber law Apar Gupta, courts seem to give out a warning that online content is not outside the purview of the law.

The problem in this case however, is not the ‘warning’ itself. It is the way that the warning is being given that is setting the wrong precedent.

The blocks on IIPM related URLs is based on an interim order passed by a Gwalior court. The head of the institute, Arindam Chaudhuri in an exclusive interview with Firstpost, said that the case was filed last year by one his ‘channel partners’. He added that the court had made him a party in the case only in January and he would soon respond to court orders.

Three of the affected parties (Careers 360, Caravan and Kafila), however, said that they were never informed about the blocks, reported Mint.

After the block orders, Shivam Vij, founder of the blog, Kafila, told Firstpost, “This is against the principle of natural justice. The court blocked the URL of my blog without giving me a chance to defend myself.

While there are occasions warranting the urgent removal of content, experts say similar exigency need not be shown in cases of defamatory content.

In his analysis of blocked URLs related to IIPM, Snehashish Ghosh from the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), a Bangalore based organisation, notes that according to the Bonnard Rule, in a defamation case, interim injunction should not be awarded unless a defence of justification by the defendant was certain to fail at trial level. “Therefore, it appears that the (Gwalior) Court order has moved away from the settled principles of law while awarding an interim injunction for blocking of content related to IIPM”, says the report.

Commenting on court ordered blocks, Parminder Jeet Singh, executive director of IT for change, a Bangalore based organisation which works on internet governance issues, says, “When there is clear imminent danger or threat to the society, as in case of possible rioting, immediate removal of content without notifying and hearing the other party is understandable. But defamatory content does not fall in this category. Decisions on such largely civil matter should be taken with due deep consideration, after listening to all parties. And by far the considerations of free speech should have overwhelming weight in making decisions.”

Singh adds that “Even if it is considered necessary to remove any content, a fully transparent process has to be followed.”

The most common reason cited for not sending notices before removing the content is the tiresome process of zeroing in on the one person or authority responsible for posting the content, says Prabir Purkayastha of Knowledge Commons, an organisation which promotes open source information. “If you approach intermediaries such as Google or Yahoo, they will rightly say that they can provide details only if they are allowed to do as per international treaties,” says Purkayastha. But when there is clarity on who put the content online, like in the IIPM case, he says, “DoT cannot absolve itself from the responsibility of writing at least an email to these entities.”

In the case of Tata Sons Ltd. vs Green Peace International, cited by Ghosh of CIS, the Delhi High Court addressed the question whether posting or publishing of libelous material on the Internet calls for a different standard. Ghosh writes, “The court decided that there cannot be a separate standard for the Internet while awarding temporary injunction in defamation cases. The wider viewership or accessibility compared to other medium does not alter the fact that it is a medium.”

Purkayastha agrees. “Freedom of speech and expression and the restraints on it, as enshrined in the constitution, should not depend on the medium of expression. But due to the haste shown by courts in blocking online content, it appears that courts seem be applying two sets of standards with respect to Internet and traditional media,” he says.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/first-post-feb-19-2013-danish-raza-why-was-the-gwalior-court-in-such-a-hurry-to-block-iipm-urls

Why this blocking di?

praskrishna — 2012-05-28T05:47:20Z

In a bid to curb piracy, film producers are now approaching courts to block websites that host pirated content. But the court orders are so vaguely worded that users lose access to even legitimate content. R Krishna reports.

The article by R Krishna was published in Daily News & Analysis on May 27, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted in it.

The film 3 owes its popularity to thousands of netizens who watched the song ‘Why this kolaveri di’ on YouTube, and then recommended it to their friends on social networking sites. It is rather ironic that the same netizens were denied access to legitimate content — such as other independent films, free software, etc — on the internet, by the producers of the film.

Last week, the producers, via Copyright Labs, obtained an order from the Madras High Court against 15 internet service providers (ISPs) and five ‘Ashok Kumars’, directing them to not infringe on the film’s copyright. The result: many popular torrent sites as well as video sharing websites like Vimeo and Dailymotion were blocked by some ISPs.

The ‘Ashok Kumar’ in the order refers to unknown people who may infringe on the film’s copyright. It is the desi version of what is known as a John Doe order, used by courts in the US, UK, Canada and Australia.

Acting against unknown offenders

According to Delhi-based advocate Apar Gupta, John Doe orders came into practice in India in the early 2000s to help producers counter cable operators airing pirated versions of recently released films on their local channels. Films normally release on Friday, and if someone had pirated the movie, producers would have to wait till Monday to file a plea in court against the offenders.

By the time the court issued the order, the pirated film would have done its damage. That’s why courts started granting producers temporary injunctions against unknown people — John Doe — who were likely to infringe on the film’s copyright. This way, producers could serve court notices without any delay.

“The internet is now being included within the scope of such orders,” says Gupta. As a result, a film producer armed with a John Doe order can ask ISPs to block access to any website that is likely to infringe upon his copyright.

“In the digital age, it takes seconds to spread pirated copies with good prints across the world. A John Doe order makes it convenient for us to serve a notice. Of course, we have to prove that (the website) has infringed copyright,” says Sanjay Tandon, vice president, music and anti-piracy, Reliance Entertainment, which started the trend by blocking torrent websites during the release of their film Singham.

Carpet blocking websites

But according to Pranesh Prakash, programme manager, Centre for Internet & Societies, “Unlike the Calcutta High Court order in March this year, which specified the 104 websites that should be blocked, a John Doe order doesn’t mention any specific website. In some cases, the websites are being blocked without any evidence (of copyright infringement). Courts need to be informed of what people with John Doe orders are doing. We need to be specific about what can be blocked and what can’t be.”

A case in point is Vimeo, a website similar to YouTube, which has been blocked by certain ISPs. There is no information about which particular video on Vimeo infringes upon copyright. And even if there is some such video, experts are perplexed why the entire website was blocked.

“The injunctions being granted in India are very generalised and broad. For instance, all it states is that the court is preventing defendants from transmitting copyrighted content. It doesn’t set any limitations, such as requiring the plaintiff to identify specific URLs to be blocked, instead of the whole website,” says Gupta.

However, Tandon points out, Reliance Entertainment has not been asking ISPs to block entire websites. “We are asking ISPs and websites to not allow our content to be streamed via their service. I don’t know why ISPs choose to block entire websites,” he says.

ISPs are not forthcoming in explaining why entire websites are being blocked. “Access to certain sites has been blocked by Airtel pursuant to and in compliance with court orders,” is all an Airtel spokesperson is willing to reveal.

According to Gupta, entire websites are being blocked either because copyright owners demand this, or because ISPs are trying to avoid potential liability. “The fault lies with the legislative procedure. If the ISP is afraid and blocks the entire website, it shows that our laws are not good enough to protect its interests,” says Gupta.

In either case, the present system of functioning is too ham-handed and is like using a butcher’s knife where a surgeon’s scalpel is needed. “Courts should be strict in monitoring how the plaintiff is using the John Doe order. But for things to change, we need one of those unnamed defendants to come before the court and express how the order was used against him,” adds Gupta. Will a John Doe please stand up?

What is happening internationally

John Doe orders are used by courts in the US, UK, Canada and Australia. However, there are few instances abroad where they have been used to block websites. According to Apar Gupta, advocate, there is only instance in the UK where a court ordered the blocking of Pirate Bay. “But even that order was specific to Pirate Bay. In the US, they have the Digital Millennium Copyright Act wherein the copyright holder can write to the website asking them to take down content. It clearly specifies that only specific torrent files can be taken down, not the entire website. Indian laws do not go into such detail,” says Gupta.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/why-this-blocking

Why this ‘kolaveri di' is India's coming of age

praskrishna — 2011-12-05T10:03:40Z

In the last two weeks, two videos have gone viral on the Internet in India. One, the catchy Tanglish-folksy ‘Why this kolaveri di' video, and two, the flash mob at the Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus (CST) in Mumbai where a few hundred Mumbaikars were seen shaking a leg to the Bollywood hit, ‘Rang de basanti'. Nishant Shah, Director-Research has been quoted in this article by Deepa Kurup which was published in the Hindu on 4 December 2011.

If you logged on to any social avatar of the World Wide Web, these videos, the ‘shares', the ‘likes' and the instantly-trending tweets were unmissable. While the flash mob at CST, a tribute to those who lost their lives on 26/11, has around 11.45 lakh views on YouTube, ‘Kolaveri di', a promo for Tamil hero Dhanush's upcoming film 3 uploaded by Sony Music on November 16, has been viewed 1.43 crore times.

On the Web, a world that is constantly on the look out for the ‘next cool thing', that Kolaveri's viewership continues to grow by the day, has made commentators christen it the first viral marketing campaign in India. Perhaps more interesting than the song itself are the over two dozen versions of it that you will find on YouTube. There's an anti-inflation version featuring Sharad Pawar; a group of boys from Kerala using the song to appeal to Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J. Jayalalithaa on the Mullaperiyar dam issue; a talented young girl presenting a “female version” reply to the song that's arguably gender-biased, and many others have done remix versions and videos of the song. Like the song's appeal, the rip-offs too are pan-national.

While Bollywood trailers and content have always been popular online, film-makers have not actively tapped into this medium. Earlier this year, the makers of the Shah Rukh Khan starrer Ra.One became the first film to have its own YouTube channel, featuring songs, promos, footage, ‘behind the scenes', and cast interviews, supplemented by a fairly effective social media campaign. Add to this, the potential of revenue generation offered by music downloads and caller ring-back tone subscriptions; this form of marketing is cheap, easy, instant and a potential recipe for success.

Indeed, mobile value-added service provider, Techzone, which holds the exclusive rights for music tracks, videos and digital entertainment formats for the ‘Kolaveri' movie 3, has seen a “phenomenal” number of subscriptions, downloads and ‘live-in' requests. Techzone reportedly saw 22,000 downloads of the song in the first five days. While refusing to share numbers, marketing representatives from Techzone told The Hindu that the response has been overwhelming. TechZone deployed the content through its entire distribution network, which includes all telecom operators.

“Generally, for Tamil songs, 90 per cent of the demand comes from Tamil Nadu, but with this song we have received a sizable amount of requests from different parts of the country. This is a first for us,” the Techzone representative said.

A Vibrant Medium

So are we witnessing a change in cinema's relationship with cyberspace, asks Nishant Shah, a researcher from the Centre for Internet and Society. A campaign like Ra.One does not compare to ‘Kolaveri' because a movie trailer simply offers people a chance to be spectators, unlike the simple and catchy ‘Kolaveri', which has people remixing, editing the footage and using the video to create their own narratives.

Mr. Shah feels that indeed this is the first viral online video campaign that India has had. Most viral videos so far, he points out, were invariably pornographic or even voyeuristic in nature. “Like the Delhi MMS video — that was perhaps one of the earliest videos to go viral — to other pornographic clips of movie stars. Later on, we saw interesting remixes or spoofs, mostly regional; this is the first time that we have home-grown content that has gone viral simply because it is fun, simple and addictive. In that sense it's an intelligent campaign,” he explained. He also feels that this could be the coming of age of video as a medium, particularly so because the campaign has become a pan-India phenomenon.

Tried and Tested

Viral marketing is quite big abroad. In that sense, this has all been ‘tried and tested' abroad — from commercials for beer and sunglasses to selling computers and even presidential campaigns; online videos and viral marketing plans are indeed the mainstay of many publicity strategies.

Marketing campaigns can no longer ignore the Internet. Neither can they treat it as an also-ran, says Prashanth, a social media junkie and marketing professional. “Campaigns now have to start thinking of making promotional content for the new media. Currently, a shorter version of regular campaigns are edited for the Web; there are some successful ones in this category too. But a campaign such as the ‘Kolaveri' has the industry sitting up and taking notice. In some sense, the logic is simple: you have your audience cut-out, and the reach is pretty much pan-national,” he explains.

Read the original story published in the Hindu

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/kolaveri-di

Why the TikTok ban is worrying

gurshabad — 2019-05-05T10:11:28Z

Rather than critically examining the infringement of liberties by the political executive, the Indian courts are becoming an additional threat to the right to freedom of expression, which we must be increasingly wary of.

The article by Gurshabad Grover was published in Hindustan Times on May 2, 2019.

In a span of less than two weeks, the Madras High Court has imposed and lifted a ban on the TikTok mobile application, an increasingly popular video and social platform. While rescinding the ban is welcome, the events tell a worrying tale of how the courts can arbitrarily censor online expression with little accountability.

On April 3, the Madras High Court heard a public interest litigation petitioning for the TikTok mobile app to be banned in India because it was “encouraging pornography”, “degrading culture”, “causing paedophiles”, spreading “explicit disturbing content” and causing health problems for teenagers. It is difficult to establish the truth of these extreme claims about content on the platform that has user generated content, but the court was confident enough to pass wide ranging interim orders on the same day without hearing ByteDance, the company that operates the Tik Tok app.

The interim order had three directives. First, the Madras High Court ordered the government to prohibit the downloading of the app. Second, it restricted the media from broadcasting videos made using the app. Third, it asked the government to respond about whether it plans to enact legislation that would protect children’s online privacy. While the third directive poses an important question to the government that merits a larger discussion, the first two completely lacked a legal rationale. The court order also implied that the availability of pornography on the platform was problematic, even though it is not illegal to access pornography in India.

Appallingly, the order makes no mention at all of the most pertinent legal provision: Section 79 of the Information Technology (IT) Act and the rules issued under it, which form the liability regime applicable to intermediaries (online services). The intermediary liability rules in India generally shield online platforms from liability for the content uploaded to their platform as long as the company operating is primarily involved in transmitting the content, complies with government and court orders, and is not abetting illegal activity. It is this regime that has ensured that online platforms are not hyperactively censoring expression to avoid liability, and has directly supported the proliferation of speech online.

The courts do have some powers of online censorship under the provision, which they have used many times in the past. They have the authority to decide on questions of whether certain content violates law and then direct intermediaries to disable access to that specific content. Such a legal scenario was certainly not the case before the Madras High Court. We can also be sure that the app stores run by Apple and Google, on which TikTok is available, were not the intermediaries under consideration here (which would also be problematic in its own ways) since the interim order makes no mention of them. So, despite the fact that the court’s order had no clear jurisdiction and legal basis, Apple and Google were ordered by the government to remove TikTok from their respective mobile app stores for India.

ByteDance Technology appealed to the Supreme Court of India to rescind the ban, arguing that they qualify as intermediaries under the IT Act and should not face a blanket ban as a repercussion of allegedly problematic content on their platform. The Supreme Court refrained from staying the problematic Madras High Court interim order, but decided that the ban on the app will be lifted by April 24 if the case wasn’t decided by then. On April 24, sense finally prevailed when the High Court decided to take the interim directive back.

Admittedly, popular online platforms can create certain social problems. TikTok has faced bans elsewhere and was fined by the Federal Trade Commission in the United Sates for collecting information on its users who were below the age of 13. There is no debate that the company is legally bound to follow the rules issued under the IT Act, be responsive to legally valid government and court orders, and should strictly enforce their community guidelines that aim to create a safe environment for the young demographic that forms a part of its user base. However, a ban is a disproportionate move that sends signals of regulatory uncertainty, especially for technology companies trying to break into an increasingly consolidated market. The failure of the government to enact a law that protects children’s privacy also cannot be considered a legitimate ground for a ban on a mobile app.

Perhaps most importantly, the interim court order adds yet another example to the increasing number of times the judiciary has responded to petitions by passing censorship orders that have no basis in law. As constitutional scholar Gautam Bhatia has pointed out, we are faced with the trend of “judicial censorship” wherein the judiciary is exercising power without accountability in ways not envisioned by the Constitution. Rather than critically examining the infringement of liberties by the political executive, the Indian courts are becoming an additional threat to the right to freedom of expression, which we must be increasingly wary of.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/hindustan-times-may-2-2019-gurshabad-grover-why-the-tik-tok-ban-is-worrying

Why The New Government Policy Mandating Panic Buttons On Phones Isn’t Going To Protect Women

praskrishna — 2016-05-15T09:45:36Z

Recently, the Union Minister for Communications and Information Technology Mr Ravi Shankar Prasad tweeted about new rules mandating a panic button in every cell phone sold in the country from January 2017. To keep ladies safe, of course.

The story by Madhura Kadaba was published in the Ladies Finger on May 14, 2016. Rohini Lakshané was quoted.

According to a statement released by the Telecommunications Ministry, the panic button will be activated by pressing a designated button on a smartphone or by holding down both ‘5’ and ‘9’ keys on a basic phone. Pressing the panic button is expected to alert police and designated friends or relatives, similar to apps launched previously by police departments like Himmat.

It followed remarks from the Union Minister for Women and Child Development, Ms Maneka Gandhi, in the Lok Sabha in December 2015. “Every cell phone will have an in-built panic button. Now, all new cell phones will be made with panic buttons. But in case of all old cell phones, you can go to the person who owns the company or the dealer and they will adjust it for you. If a woman is in trouble, she can just press the button on the cell phone and she will immediately get help.”

Two days later, reacting to concerns that the mandate could increase mobile phone costs, Mr Ravi Shankar Prasad said, “Manufacturers… have given their support. My expectation is that they will render their support in social justice and women security.”

After a point, it almost becomes a farce — the government’s continuous search for grand, one-stop solutions to dealing with sexual violence. We had the vast coffers of the Nirbhaya fund, which went nowhere. It had tech solutions coming out of its 1000-crore ears. It included plans for setting up control rooms in 114 cities within 9 months back in 2014 and surveillance cameras in all public transport vehicles including autos! Who was going to be watching the feed of these cameras, if ever by some vast change in the face of humanity such a thing happened, you may wonder? Or as journalist Revati Laul wrote, “Given that police stations across the country are short staffed, given how many of them cannot even afford paper to file a first information report (FIR) or fuel for the police personnel’s motorbike, just how will the appearance of these control rooms change that? How will switchboards help if police stations in even big cities like Varanasi have too few vehicles to cater to the existing load of emergencies they have to deal with?” But hush, don’t interrupt when Daddy is talking.

Recently, we published an investigation into the one-stop centres promised by the Nirbhaya fund. These centres are supposed to provide services like assistance in lodging FIRs, medical assistance for medical examinations, and therapy. On paper, Delhi is supposed to have 6. Good luck locating them because they don’t exist. Most of the staff of the hospitals where the centers were to be located were clueless about the program.

But perhaps we should forget the tiresome past and move to the shiny button-filled future. We asked Rohini Lakshane, a technology expert and Program Officer at the Centre for Internet and Society what she thought of panic buttons. Recently she reviewed a bunch of personal safety apps geared toward women and was very unimpressed. About the government’s new plan, she said, “GPS accuracy in India can sometimes be patchy and not very accurate, and continuous location tracking drains the battery, something that could be problematic for people with phones that do not have good GPS hardware or a long battery life.” Lakshane added, “The app would also enable tracking by family members, which can increase the chance of intimate partner abuse and violence. There have been instances in which apps that provide real-time location or periodic updates of the location of a person to a contact have enabled abuse by intimate partners or by members of the family.” In short, you are unlikely to get the help you need in case of stranger danger and continue to face whatever oppression you maybe facing from your ‘loved ones’.

Which brings us to the biggest problem with panic buttons, the idea that what Indian women should live in fear of scary strangers outside the house.

The story by Madhura Kadaba was published in The Ladies Finger on May 14, 2016. Rohini Lakshane was quoted. The story by Madhura Kadaba was published in the Ladies Finger on May 14, 2016. Rohini Lakshane was quoted.

In fact, carefully conducted research shows over and over again that Indian women are most likely to face violence from their families, within their homes. The Mumbai programme RAHAT’s report shows that 91 percent of the accused in reported cases of rape were by known persons. Add on the fact if you have even a fleeting acquaintance with a man who attacks you the police are additionally reluctant to do anything.

Not that the police like to file complaints if you have been raped by a stranger. That way they are quite equal opportunity about ignoring complaints.

Perhaps we should have a panic button in our phones after all. A daily reminder that you should fear rape, in case for a moment you had decided to stop worrying. A daily reminder that if you do get raped you must remember to press a button that goes nowhere. A great metaphor for how we deal with victims of sexual violence in India.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/why-the-new-government-policy-mandating-panic-buttons-on-phones-isn2019t-going-to-protect-women

Why the Madras HC case on WhatsApp traceability could have wider ramifications

Haripirya Suresh — 2019-08-09T13:58:46Z

While traceability will make law enforcement easier, it could also undermine voices of dissent, say experts.

The article by Haripriya Suresh was published in the News Minute on August 8, 2019. Pranav Manjesh Bidare was quoted.

One of the strengths of the messaging service used by 400 million Indians, WhatsApp, is the end-to-end encryption it offers, which means that only the sender and receiver can view the messages. However, there is a possibility that this may change, with the Madras High Court taking up the issue of traceability of messages.

Two petitions filed in the Madras High Court in July last year by animal welfare activists Antony Rubin and Janani Krishnamurthy, called for Aadhaar or any government-authorised identity proof to be mandatory for any email or social media accounts and utility accounts (such as Ola and Uber). A division bench of the court comprising Justices S Manikumar and Subramonium Prasad expanded the scope of the petition to include curbing of cybercrime and intermediary liability. At a hearing in June, the High Court reportedly said: “Aadhaar is a government accord used only for social welfare schemes. You cannot have the government linking it with social media.” However, the court is looking at the traceability of messages, which experts argue could affect WhatsApp and other big players and have larger ramifications.

Pranav Bidare, a policy officer with the Centre for Internet and Society, says that at present, bringing traceability into the picture will make law enforcement easier, but take away the benefits of end-to-end encryption, which are based on privacy.

“The benefits of whatever tool we're trying to improve has to be weighed in comparison to the potential wrongs that could happen. In this case, when WhatsApp messages have the possibility of not being end-to-end encrypted, the fact that you will be able to trace forwards could mean that you could create a situation where people are afraid to send messages or forward things for fear of action being taken against them. There are two things — fear of spreading problematic material because one is afraid that action will be taken against them, but also fear of spreading material that could put you in a potential situation of danger,” he says.

The Madras High Court asked IIT Madras Prof V Kamakoti, who is also a member of the National Security Advisory Board (NSAB), to submit a report on the feasibility of messages on WhatsApp being traced. In late July, he informed the court that it was possible to trace the original sender of messages on social media platforms, including Facebook and WhatsApp. He suggested that an information tag must be added to the message that was originally sent, so when it is eventually forwarded, the original person’s information details would be attached along with it. Another feature he suggested was that some messages be flagged as messages that cannot be forwarded.

Pranav says that he would favour features to tackle fake news, which is the system of making some messages un-forwardable. “I don't see a free speech problem there. I see a problem in adding actual traceability where if you make people liable for messages that they have been sending, then there is a thin line between curbing fake news, and curtailing free speech,” he adds. To tackle this, Pranav says that design changes are the way to go.

‘Could undermine voices of dissent’

The Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) filed to be an intervenor in the case, which the High Court accepted. An intervention allows the applicant to address the court on a specific matter but is not a party in the case.

Speaking to TNM, Apar Gupta, the Executive Director of IFF, says that while it may not be best to speculate, the stakes in this case are significant and can have wide ramifications “because it wouldn’t be limited to a WhatsApp only”.

“It could extend to any form of encryption deployed in a messaging system, which could potentially mean that even smaller uses of it, and could creep into other areas where encryption is utilised to maintain confidentiality. For instance, in areas such as business and trade secrets, encryption is used widely to ensure trade secrets do not leak out,” he says.

Apar says that it could remove anonymity, which was a point raised by the Tamil Nadu government for traceability. “It could undermine voices of dissent, people who speak up against instances of abuse and harassment online, and also for addressing issues. One very good instance of this was the MeToo accounts put out by several women in India, quite often not under their name because they fear reprisals from men who have done these criminal acts,” he adds.

Once the Madras High Court widened the scope of the petition, Google, Facebook and Twitter have all been impleaded in the case.

Apar agrees that traceability is a debate which is merited, even if it is limited by the court to only WhatsApp. “It could stretch beyond the big players because it’s not limited to them, and it will eventually apply to functionality as opposed to size,” he adds.

This isn’t the first time that the government has gone after social media platforms, and WhatsApp in particular, over encryption and lack of sharing data with law enforcement. Minister of Electronics and IT Ravi Shankar Prasad met with WhatsApp’s global head Will Cathcart late last month after which he said that the company was told that traceability shall be their job and they need to find the mechanism to do so.

“But in the event that the WhatsApp platform is thought to be abused by rogue, terrorist, extremist elements, by repeating some kind of recirculation of messages, then there must be a mechanism whereby those can be traced to enforce appropriate law and order, and safety and security of the country,” Ravi Shankar Prasad then said, according to Medianama.

According to Buzzfeed News, WhatsApp, in a submission to the court, said: “Journalists could be at risk of retaliation for investigating issues that may be unpopular, civil or political activists could be at risk of retaliation for discussing certain right and criticizing or advocating for politicians or political, and personal information like sexual orientation, health, religious affiliation, Aadhaar, and financial information could be at risk of becoming publicly exposed.”

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-news-minute-haripriya-suresh-august-8-2019-why-madras-hc-case-on-whatsapp-traceability-could-have-wider-ramifications

Why the lack of understanding about the Blue Whale Challenge poses a bigger threat?

Admin — 2018-01-03T01:52:34Z

On 30 August, Vignesh A, a 19-year-old college student from Madurai committed suicide. Indications of self-harm on his body swaying investigating agencies to suspect that the suicide was related to the Blue Whale challenge-an online game which involves completing 50 tasks or challenges dictated by a remote 'handler' which ultimately leads to ending their own life.

The blog post by Anusha Ravi was published by Oneindia.com on September 6, 2017.

Though investigating agencies in India are yet to determine the exact cause of Vignesh's fateful decision, the lack of understanding may have caused the former to pass it off as related to the sinister challenge, online experts and child psychologists say.

The game believed to have its origins in Russia (originally known as Siniy Kit-Blue Whale in English) is suspected to have claimed the lives of many youngsters globally and spreading fast in the virtual space. But experts say that misinformation on the challenge is spreading faster.

The information or lack of it

Experts point out to a recent incident. On Monday, the Tamil Nadu government told the Madras High Court that "Blue Whale Challenge cannot be downloaded since all links to the game were blocked." "First of all, one does not require a 'link' to play the Blue Whale game. It can be played on any communication medium, say Whatsapp, Telegram, Facebook messenger, Skype, word of mouth for all you know," said Udbhav Tiwari, a researcher and Policy Officer at The Centre for Internet and Society-a research and advocacy group. He believes that it is virtually impossible to identify or block the game.

Blue whale challenge: Rescued victim tells what it is, calls it mental torture | Oneindia News

The first possible reference to the game was in Russia after a mother investigated her 12-year-old daughter's online activity after she killed herself around mid last year, Bloomberg reported on 25 April. But references to "death groups" was a fact established by a local journalist, later examined and results shared by multiple groups to determine and create awareness to avert further tragedies. A suicide in Mumbai believed to be the first in India, purportedly a Blue Whale Challenge victim in Andheri is still under investigation.

The game itself

According to experts, youngsters who join certain online groups which may have bearing to the game, are spotted by 'curators'. They are first vetted, made to share personal information and later handed over 50 tasks which include waking up at early in the morning (some research says 4.20 am), watching horror movies alone, listening to deep breathing sounds and causing bodily harm like making cuts and incisions initially. Online resources indicate that the challenge is to isolate the individual and making them susceptible for more sinister tasks ahead. Those seeking to back out are coerced into continuing with threats of uploading personal information on the deep web. At a later stage, there is a possibility of meeting with another participant to remove any doubts about continuing the game.

Netting the big fish

States like Tamil Nadu, Kerala, West Bengal among others have issued advisories to parents, teachers and students on how to identify and whom to consult when you notice any of the behavioural changes among children. Anitha Desai, a child psychologist based in Bengaluru says that being able to identify the behavioural change is one of the key aspects to avert a tragedy. "Seclusion, lack of interaction with family and friends, thoughts of running away from home and death, variation in eating and sleeping patterns, moodiness, lack of concentration, dipping interest in studies and falling grades are all the signs of a depressed child," she specifies. But she clarifies that only by indulging the child can the parent or guardian know the cause of the depression, not assuming. While there have been several cases of 'death groups', 'death games' and 'suicide challenges' internationally, all of them, much like the Indian context, are conjectures, experts say.

With only online information, multiple theories explaining various possibilities and versions, there exists very little verified information about the existence of such sinister games or challenges. News reports of such games and its consequences are also likely to mislead or make believe the possible existence of such challenges. Few of us knew Vignesh. But only this teenager, with his whole life ahead of him, took this extreme step. The least we can do is educate ourselves.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/one-india-anusha-ravi-september-6-2017-why-the-lack-of-understanding-about-the-blue-whale-challenge-poses-a-bigger-threat

Why the Internet is Making India Furious

praskrishna — 2016-02-28T03:01:59Z

The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) in Bangalore is a kind of hacker club for wonks and lawyers obsessed with issues of digital rights and global development. Not exactly the mainstream kids’ lunch table. But the Center was brought into sudden relief this week, thanks to … Mark Zuckerberg.

Read Sanjena Sathian's blog post published by Ozy on February 19, 2016

In a splashy bit of news, India’s telecom authority rejected a program called Free Basics, which the Facebook team had been promoting as a way to get free Internet to the masses. (Here on the subcontinent, more than 300 million people use the Internet — but that’s only about a quarter of the population.) The idea: Facebook would allow free access to a handful of websites (the “basics”) to everyone; users would pay for further content. The objections: On the dramatic end came comparisons to colonialism; on the wonkier, objections based on the principles of net neutrality, or the idea that all Internet content should be treated the same. The threat the critics saw in Free Basics was that of the Web as a two-lane highway — the free stuff for the poor folks, and the good stuff for those who can afford it.

Mumbai-based Sanjena Sathian spoke to CIS cofounder and policy director Pranesh Prakash about the changing landscape of web rights that led up to the news.

OZY:

Tell us what you’re thinking in the wake of India’s decision.

Pranesh Prakash:

The order seemed to fix the issue with a sledgehammer rather than a scalpel. It over-regulates and bans things that are beneficial along with that that aren’t. They should have aimed for discriminatory pricing, but they’ve instead eliminated all differential pricing, even when it’s not discriminatory.

What should come next, in my opinion — it is imperative to ensure that governmental resources are used to provide free access to the Internet. If you’ve taken away something that could have helped and said no, no, no, it’s not good for you, then you are under an obligation to provide a replacement.

OZY:

How do you think the larger political conversations going on in India right now seep into the debates about digital rights?

PP:

Many people think the largest divider is between those who are from a developing country or a developed country. I think the larger divide is between those who are politically skeptical of states — more libertarian — versus those who are more trusting of states and see states as having a role to play in Internet governance. How you think the poor in India should get Internet — should that be provided by government or by market mechanisms — well, your political philosophies will play a role. In India, one tends to find fewer free-market fundamentalists than one would meet in, say, San Francisco.

OZY:

I think, increasingly, post-Snowden in particular, people think of digital rights as human rights. Where do you see things going wrong on a rights front here in India?

PP:

Oh, wow … so many ways. In India we have a situation where, right now, more than 3,000 websites were blocked by the government, but no one knows what these sites are. No one knows whether they were blocked through mechanisms that ensure accountability. There is no transparency around any of these. And this is just the visible tip of the iceberg. And how do I know this? I sent a right-to-information request to the government and they gave me this answer. But beyond this, they put in place a few years ago a law which allows for websites and any kind of web content to be censored by anyone. And all they have to do is send a request to any “intermediary,” which could be anything from your ISP to your web host to your DNS provider.

OZY:

Wait, so what does that mean? I get annoyed at a site — where do I go to lodge my complaint?

PP:

All these websites are required by the law to appoint a particular person as a “grievance redressal officer.”

OZY:

What a title!

PP:

Yes … and there are more than 40 grounds for grievances that have been listed in the law, including things such as “causing harm to minors” and certain speech being “disparaging.” Now, I engage in disparaging speech at least 12 times a day. And that’s perfectly legal under Indian law!

OZY:

Eep. Any good news, though?

PP:

A case went all the way up to the Supreme Court, [involving a young woman named] Shreya Singhal. There was a section 66A, quite an odious provision, that allowed for any kind of “offensive” or “annoying” speech to cause that person to be put in prison for up to three years.

Two teenage girls in Maharashtra, upon the death of a politician, put out a comment on social media. The death had caused a bandh, a curfew of sorts in Mumbai, and done not officially by the government but by political party workers. One girl said on Facebook, sure, go ahead, respect this politician, but why inconvenience so many citizens? Her friend liked this. And a case was launched against them. Similarly, some cartoons by an anticorruption activist were challenged and he was imprisoned briefly and released on bail.

OZY:

It’s always the cartoonists.…

PP:

Yes, and one professor in Calcutta — for forwarding a cartoon, he was placed under this law too. Many cases of perfectly fine political speech were made illegal thanks to this law. Eventually, though, in a landmark decision, the Supreme Court struck down this law, and this is the first time in almost three decades that the Supreme Court has struck off an entire law for being unconstitutional.

But, yes. Mostly? It’s not been pretty.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/ozy-february-19-2016-sanjena-sathian-why-internet-is-making-india-furious

Why the DNA Bill is open to misuse: Sunil Abraham

sunil — 2015-09-13T08:37:44Z

The Human DNA Profiling Bill, the law that regulates the collection, storage and use of the human genetic code, has attracted some strong criticism from civil liberties groups including the Bengaluru-based Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) which had participated in the expert committee for DNA profiling constituted by the Department of Biotechnology in 2012.

CIS circulated a detailed dissent note earlier this year on the draft of the Bill. As the government gets ready to table the Bill in Parliament, CIS Executive Director Sunil Abraham tells Kanika Datta why the provisions of the Bill are open to misuse and invasion of privacy. Edited excerpts:

Why does Centre for Internet and Society reject using DNA analysis for non-forensic use as set out in the Human DNA Profiling Bill in its current form? What are the possible risks involved here?

The problem here is that the introduction to the Bill talks of DNA matches "without a doubt". But the way we understand it, biometric technology depends on approximate matching and not discrete matching. Unlike, say, the technology used for matching digital signatures, machines for matching DNA, fingerprints or the iris specify a false positive ratio when they leave the factory - that's what created the controversy in the O J Simpson trial, for example. This means you have to be very conservative in populating the database. For a given false positive ratio - the larger the database the greater the incidence of mistaken identification. That is why we think that for purposes other than forensic use, it would be better to create other databases.

Let me clear: we are not Luddites but neither are we naïve techno-enthusiasts. After all, the Innocence Project in the US has managed to overturn the convictions of many people who were held guilty through DNA evidence. But it is a myth that the more sophisticated the technology the more secure and accurate it is. In fact, the reverse is often true. For instance, the voter machines we use in India are primitive technology but they are much harder to compromise compared to the voting machines used in the US. Given all this, we believe that there should be "process fixes", such as sending DNA collected from a crime scene to two laboratories as a check and balance against the fallibility of human beings and machines.

CIS made the point that the powers of the DNA Board are too wide. In what possible way could these powers be misused since the Board is to be an independent authority?

When this exercise was started, the DNA Board had 26 functions. We proposed that this be cut this down to ten, which was accepted by a sub-committee. But when the final Bill came back it rejected the consensus view and restored the 26 functions, including things like "raising the general awareness". All this detracts from the Board's primary role and efficiency and expands its discretionary powers. It is true that a good regulator needs some amount of discretion but this should be a limited discretion within a tightly defined scope -- this is true for any regulator, not just the DNA Board.

The provision that no civil suit can be entertained on any matter on which the DNA Board is empowered under the Act looks excessive. Is there any precedent that explains why this provision was introduced? What kind of oversight and checks and balances are there in other jurisdictions that could be incorporated in the Indian law?

I can understand the logic here; the government is trying to ensure that the regulator has final say. After all, if you look at telecom, the decisions of the TDSAT (Telecom Dispute Settlement & Appellate Tribunal) can be appealed in the High Court and the Supreme Court. But eliminating judicial appeal as this Bill has state amounts to a violation of classic regulatory design by circumventing the appellate process. Ideally, we need a tripartite separation of law in which the executive frames policies, the DNA board implements them and the courts adjudicate upon them.

You have said the term "DNA Analysis" has not been defined. Could you explain the possible risks of the absence of a definition?

DNA analysis is of many types and some of them allow you to get to know a person quite intimately in terms of their medical history, genetic traits and so on. But forensic analysis looks at a limited set of markers which are essentially privacy-protecting and from which no genetic traits can be determined. You can't, for instance, do a study on the genetic make-up of criminals from this analysis. Now, if this Bill is around law enforcement - which we know is the policy intention - then the DNA analysis should be limited to those markers. That would reduce the chances of abuse.

You have also criticised the low standards of information disclosure and suggest the issue should be vested in an independent third party rather than the DNA Bank Manager. Could you explain how this would help?

In information and technology and telecom there is an executive authorisation mechanism in place for information sharing that requires the home secretary's permission for non-emergency situations and the head of the police station in the case of an emergency. We want a similar authorisation process - say, a judge and an established paper trail so that there are proper checks and balances. When personal information is involved, even the DNA Board is not well placed because its members are scientists whereas disclosure of personal information is a question of the law.

You have said the Bill has not been brought in line with the nine national privacy principles set out by an expert committee in 2012. Shouldn't a privacy law precede the passing of the DNA Bill in any case?

It's not a chicken-and-egg situation, but the point to consider is that the world is moving towards European data protection principles, and something like 100 countries have adopted it. If we in India want to trade in European personal information (via our BPO and outsourcing businesses) we must have a law that is adequate from the data protection perspective. This means, among other things, mandating that anyone whose DNA profile is accessed receives a notice to this effect, for instance. We know that the Department of Personnel and Training has incorporated the principles set out in the Justice Shah report in the privacy Bill two years ago but we haven't heard anything about it since. If and when this Bill is enacted, it will have overriding powers over a host of laws. But where the DNA Bill is concerned, there is no reason for it not to take cognisance of a later law.

What has been the government's reaction to this dissent note?

No reaction!

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/business-standard-kanika-datta-august-1-2015-why-the-dna-bill-is-open-to-misuse-sunil-abraham

Why should you keep a close eye on the net neutrality debate in the US

Admin — 2017-11-25T15:33:32Z

As the United State's FCC Chairman Ajit Pai gears up to repeal the net neutrality laws put in place in 2015, India should sit up and take note.

The blog post by Subhrojit Mallick was published by Digit on November 24, 2017.

Executive director of the Centre for Internet and Society, Sunil Abraham elaborated on what's on Pai's mind.

Will the FCC ruling make apps and services expensive in other countries?

And that’s not just the streaming companies. All the tech giants hail from the US and it is only logical that a rise in their costs of operation will have an impact on their global operations.

Although, if the level playing field in the US is disrupted, companies will look for greener pastures and if that means moving out of the US to other countries, it could happen.

How will FCC’s decision impact India?

While US is grappling with such a reality, Indians fought against it and won. Or did they? Last year, after Airtel and Facebook were asked to drop their plans for differential pricing, TRAI released a paper on net neutrality and differential pricing to finalise its views on the matter. The regulatory body released a 14-question long consultation paper seeking comments on internet traffic management from the public.

Sharma, in contrast, disagrees on an evidence-based approach.

Will India’s stance on net neutrality change after the FCC’s decision?

Rajan Mathews, Director General of Cellular Operators Association of India believes the FCC’s decision will no doubt have some impact on the path India takes.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/digit-subhrojit-mallick-november-24-2017-why-should-you-keep-a-close-eye-on-net-neutrality-debate-in-us