We are anonymous, we are legion

Panel discussion on 'How to Avoid Digital ID Systems That Put People at Risk: Lessons from Afghanistan' at Freedom Online Conference

praskrishna — 2021-12-03T14:52:35Z

Amber Sinha participated as a panelist in a panel discussion on How to Avoid Digital ID Systems That Put People at Risk: Lessons from Afghanistan at the Freedom Online Conference yesterday.

The Freedom Online Coalition (FOC) was established in 2011 in response to the growing recognition of the importance of the Internet for the enjoyment of human rights. Periodically, the FOC holds a multistakeholder Conference that aims to deepen the discussion on how online freedoms are helping to promote social, cultural and economic development. The ownership of the Conference program and outputs lies with the host country, most often the Chair of the Coalition during that year.

The aim of the panel was to use the lessons learned from the Afghanistan case to take a critical and realistic look at the implementation of digital identification programs around the world. A video of the panel can be accessed here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/panel-discussion-how-to-avoid-digital-id-systems-that-put-people-at-risk

Panel Discussion – Intermediary Liability & Freedom of Expression in India

praskrishna — 2014-04-04T10:10:32Z

Bhairav Acharya will participate in a panel discussion on ‘Intermediary Liability & Freedom of Expression’ on Wednesday evening (26th March 2014) from 6:00 pm onwards at the India International Centre Annex. The event is organized by the Centre for Communication Governance at NLU Delhi in association with the Global Network Initiative, Washington D.C.

The panel comprises of three eminent personalities: Shyam Divan, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India; Siddharth Varadarajan, Journalist and Senior Fellow, Centre for Public Affairs and Critical Theory, New Delhi and; Jermyn Brooks, Independent Chair, Global Network Initiative, Washington D.C.

The objective of the panel was to focus on the Indian legal framework governing Internet platforms and explore questions related to Internet intermediaries and the balance that should be involved in regulations affecting user-generated content, in the context of the civil liberties that are key to democracy, in particular free expression and privacy. The discussion was aimed at drawing connections between this ostensibly Internet-related issue and the traditional media, to highlight recurring issues and useful perspectives.

For more details, click here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/panel-discussion-intermediary-liability-and-freedom-of-expression-in-india

Pandemic Technology takes its Toll on Data Privacy

Aman Nair and Pallavi Bedi — 2021-06-26T06:52:52Z

The absence of any legal framework has meant these tools are now being used for purposes beyond managing the pandemic.

The article by Aman Nair and Pallavi Bedi was published in the Deccan Herald on June 13, 2021.

People show Arogya Setu App installed in their phones while travelling by special New Delhi-Bilaspur train from New Delhi Railway Station. Credit: PTI File Photo

Jabalpur: A beneficiary shows his certificate on his mobile phone after receiving COVID-19 vaccine dose, at Gyan Ganga College in Jabalpur, Saturday, May 15, 2021. (PTI Photo)

At a time when technology is spawning smart solutions to combat Covid-19 worldwide, India’s digital response to the pandemic has stoked concerns that surveillance could pose threats to the privacy of the personal data collected. Be it apps or drones, there is widespread criticism that digital tools are being misused to share information without knowledge or consent. At the other end of the spectrum, the great urban-rural digital divide is hampering the already sluggish vaccination drive, exposing vulnerable populations to a fast-mutating virus.

Last year, the Centre, states and municipal corporations launched more than 70 apps relating to Covid-19, demonstrating the country’s digital-driven approach to handling the pandemic. Chief among these was the central government’s contact tracing app Aarogya Setu. Launched under the Digital India programme, the app quickly came under scrutiny over data privacy.

As per its privacy policy, Aarogya Setu collects personal details such as name, age, sex, profession and location. As there is no underlying legislation forming its basis, and in the absence of a personal data protection bill, serious privacy concerns regarding the collection, storage and use of personal data have been raised.

The government has attempted to mitigate these concerns with reassurances that the data will be used solely in tracing the spread of the virus. However, recent reports from the Kulgam district of Jammu and Kashmir point to the sharing of application data with police. This demonstrates how easy it is to use personal data for purposes other than which it was collected, and presents a serious threat to citizen privacy.

Though Aarogya Setu was initially launched as ‘consensual’ and ‘voluntary’, it soon became mandatory for individuals to download the app for various purposes such as air and rail travel (this order was subsequently withdrawn) and for government officials. Initially it was also mandatory for the private sector, but this was later watered down to state that employers should, on a ‘best effort basis', ensure that the app is downloaded by all employees having compatible phones. However, the ‘best effort basis’ soon translated into mandatory imposition for certain individuals, especially those working in the ‘gig economy’.

Several states had also launched apps for various purposes ranging from contact tracing of suspected Covid patients to monitoring the movement of quarantined patients. As a report by the Centre for Internet and Society observed, given the attention on Aarogya Setu, most of the apps launched by the state governments escaped scrutiny and public attention.Most of these apps either did not have a privacy policy or the policy was vague and often did not provide important details such as who was collecting the data, the time period for retaining the data and whether personal data could be shared with other departments, most notably, law enforcement.Apart from contact tracing apps, the pandemic also ushered in a wave of other apps and digital tools by the government. These include systems such as drones to check whether people are following Covid-19 norms and facial recognition cameras to report to the police whether someone has broken quarantine. Similar to Aarogya Setu, these tools have also largely been brought about in the absence of a legal and regulatory framework.
The absence of any legal framework has meant these tools are now being used for purposes beyond managing the pandemic.

The government is now planning to use facial recognition technology along with Aadhaar toauthenticate people before giving them vaccine shots.

Aarogya Setu is now linked with the vaccination process. Beneficiaries have been provided an option to register through Aarogya Setu. The pandemic has also provided a means for the government to bring in changes to health policies and introduce the National Health Data Management Policy for the creation of a Unique Health Identity Number for citizens.

Vaccination and digital platforms

The use of digital technology has extended to the vaccination process through the deployment of the Covid Vaccine Intelligence Network (Co-WIN) platform.During the first phase of inoculation, beneficiaries were required to register on the Co-WIN app while in the subsequent phases, registration was to be done on the Co-WIN website. The beneficiary is required to upload a photo identity proof.

While Aadhaar has been identified as one of the seven documents that can be uploaded for this, the Health Ministry has clarified that Aadhaar is not mandatory for registration either through Co-WIN or through Aarogya Setu. However, as per media reports, certain vaccination centres still seem to insist on Aadhaar identity even though beneficiaries may have used another identity proof to register on the Co-WIN website.

It is also pertinent to note that the website did not have a privacy policy till the Delhi High Court issued directions on June 2, 2021. The privacy policy hyperlinked on the Co-WIN app directed the user to the Health Data Policy of the National Health Data Management Policy, 2020.

The vaccination drive has been used as a means to push the health identity project forward as beneficiaries who have opted to provide Aadhaar identity proof have also been provided with a health identity number on their vaccination certificate. It is interesting to note that Co-WIN’s privacy policy now states that if the beneficiary uses Aadhaar as identity proof, it can 'opt' to get a Unique Health Id.However, as a recent report revealed, health identity numbers have already been generated for certain beneficiaries without obtaining consent from them for the purpose.

Have the apps been successful?

One could argue that privacy concerns are a worthwhile tradeoffin order to contain the spread of thepandemic. But it is worth examining how successful these technologies have been. In reality, the use of digital technology at every stage of combating the pandemic has clearly highlighted the extent of our digital divide. As per data from TRAI, there are around 750 million Internet subscribers in India,which is only a little more than half of India’s estimated 1.3 billion citizens — with this gap having a significant impact on the efficacy of the government’s strategies. Aarogya Setu has fallen far short of its goal, of having near universal adoption. It has limited adoption in much of the country. This has severely limited its efficacy in tracing the spread of the virus. Research from Maulana Azad Medical College has cited socio-economic inequalities,educational barriers and the lack of smartphone penetration as being the key causes behind the app’s limited success, pointing back to the digital divide. Moreover, the app has also brought with it a host of associated problems including lateral surveillance and function creep caused by the addition of new features. All of which, along with the previously mentioned privacy concerns, have served to hamper public trust and adoption.

A similar situation is seen in the case of vaccination and the Centre’s Co-WIN web portal. The need for registration, first on the Co-WIN app and later on the Co-WIN web portal, has disproportionately affected those who either have no or limited digital access. Many of them belong to vulnerable groups such as migrant and informal sector workers (mainly from disadvantaged castes), LGBTQIA + individuals, sex workers and both urban and rural poor. These issues have also been acknowledged by the Supreme Court, which raised serious concerns about the government being able to achieve its stated object of universal vaccination.

As the inoculation exercise opened up for the 18-45 age group, it increasingly favoured the urban population who possessed the technological and digital literacy to either create or access a host of tools. One need to only look at the wave of automated CO-WIN bots that arose as soon as the vaccination process was expanded to see how these dynamics manifested.

Ultimately, the digital-driven approach that the governments have adopted has resulted in a number of issues — most notably, data privacy and exclusion. Going forward, government strategies must actively account for these factors and ensure that citize rights are adequately protected.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/deccan-herald-aman-nair-and-pallavi-bedi-june-13-2021-pandemic-technology-takes-its-toll-on-data-privacy

PAI WG Labor and Economy Meeting

Admin — 2018-05-05T09:35:07Z

Elonnai Hickok co-chaired the first PAI Labor and Economy WG in NYC on April 25, 2018.

Agenda

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/pai-wg-labor-and-economy-meeting

Packets, net neutrality and gaming public policy outcomes

Admin — 2019-08-28T15:15:37Z

Gurshabad Grover attended Prof. Vishal Misra's lecture on net neutrality at Has Geek in Bangalore on August 15, 2019.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/packets-net-neutrality-and-gaming-public-policy-outcomes

Oyo Hotels’ Real-Time Digital Record Database Sparks Privacy Fears

Admin — 2019-01-18T02:26:50Z

Oyo Hotels’ pilot to maintain a real-time digital database of guests and plan to share it with law-enforcement agencies has triggered privacy concerns.

The article by Nishant Sharma was published by Bloomberg Quint on January 16, 2019. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.

The digital check-in and check-out database of guests will do away with the conventional arrival and departure registers, Aditya Ghosh, chief executive India and South Asia at the hotel chain said at a CII event, according to a report in Business Standard. That will make the process efficient and transparent and the SoftBank-backed startup has received acceptance from governments of Haryana, Rajasthan and Telangana for the proposed digitisation of guest entry and departure records, the report said quoting Ghosh.

That triggered an outrage on social media, with users calling it invasion of privacy.

Oyo, in an emailed statement to BloombergQuint, said it will provide information to the law-enforcement agencies about who is staying only after an information order is issued by the police. The company said it will create “stronger data security net”. Oyo, however, didn't clarify who will maintain the data centres.

Centralisation of data of any kind isn't good and will make data more fragile, Sunil Abraham, founder of research think tank Center for Internet and Society, told BloombergQuint. “If someone manages to break into the police data, or where the data is stored then they will be able to have the access to the data. It is always good to store data locally.”

Just last year, Marriott International Inc. reported a hack in which passport numbers, emails and mailing addresses of 327 million of its 500 million Starwood guests was leaked.

To be sure, police always have access to data of customers staying at hotels, one way or the another. As per existing regulations, all hotels, bed and breakfasts and guest-houses have to make an entry of guests checking in and out in a register. This can be checked by the local police when an information order is presented.

Chances of manipulating information in such a register is high, and at times police go through the data without having an information order as well, said an industry executive requesting anonymity.

Srinivas Kodali, a cybersecurity expert, said such a centralised database makes business sense for Oyo because they will get access to data not just of people who booked through them but also of others who checked in without booking online. “Because there is no law, the entities can do it.”

Pranesh Prakash, a technology policy analyst and affiliated fellow at CIS, sees this as an invasion of privacy in the absence of law. Digitisation of data can be allowed only after there’s a law on what happens in the case it’s misused. There is no legal framework about how and where the data will be used, he said.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/bloomberg-quint-nishant-sharma-january-16-2019-oyo-hotels-real-time-digital-record-database-sparks-privacy-fears

OWASP Seasides Conference

Admin — 2019-03-07T23:53:47Z

Karan Saini attended the OWASP Seasides security conference held on February 27 and 28, 2019 at Cavelossim, Goa. The event was organized by OWASP Seasides.

For conference details click here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/owasp-seasides-conference

Overview and Concerns Regarding the Indian Draft DNA Profiling Act

GeneWatch UK & the Council for Responsible Genetics, US — 2012-07-11T11:30:38Z

The Indian Code of Criminal Procedure was amended in 2005 to enable the collection of a host of medical details from accused persons upon their arrest. Section 53 of the Cr.PC provides that upon arrest, an accused person may be subjected to a medical examination if there are “reasonable grounds for believing” that such examination will afford evidence as to the crime.

The scope of this examination was expanded in 2005 to include “the examination of blood, blood-stains, semen, swabs in case of sexual offences, sputum and sweat, hair samples and finger nail clippings by the use of modern and scientific techniques including DNA profiling and such other tests which the registered medical practitioner thinks necessary in a particular case.”

In Thogorani Alias K. Damayanti v. State of Orissa and Ors, 2004 Cri. LJ 4003 (Ori), the Orissa High Court affirmed the legality of ordering a DNA test in criminal cases to ascertain the involvement of persons accused. Refusal to cooperate would result in an adverse inference drawn against the accused.

After weighing the privacy concerns involved, the court laid down the following considerations as relevant before the DNA test could be ordered: “(i) the extent to which the accused may have participated in the commission of the crime; (ii) the gravity of the offence and the circumstances in which it is committed; (iii) age, physical and mental health of the accused to the extent they are known; (iv) whether there are less intrusive and practical ways of collecting evidence tending to confirm or disprove the involvement of the accused in the crime; (v) the reasons, if any, for the accused for refusing consent.” Id.

In brief, the 2007 draft DNA Profiling Bill (hereinafter “Bill”) pending before parliament attempts to create an ambitious centralized DNA bank that would store DNA records of virtually anyone who comes within any proximity to the criminal justice system. Specifically, records are maintained of suspects, offenders, missing persons and “volunteers.” The schedule to the Bill contains an expansive list of both civil and criminal cases where DNA data can be collected including cases of abortion, paternity suits and organ transplant. In all fairness, the Bill contains provisions limiting access to and use of information contained in the database, and provides for the deletion of a person’s DNA profile upon their acquittal.

2007 Draft DNA Profiling Bill

Preamble (§ 1)

Section 1 of the Bill sets out the broad policy objectives of its drafters. The most telling portion of § 1 states: “[DNA analysis] makes it possible to determine whether the source of origin of one body substance is identical to that of another, and further to establish the biological relationship, if any, between two individuals, living or dead without any doubt.” Bill, § 1 (emphasis added). Although it later makes mention of potential harms resulting from governmental misuse of genetic information technology, it is evident that the policy animating the Bill presupposes the objective infallibility of genetic analysis. This patent mistruth underpins the policy rationale for the Bill, and as such casts a long shadow over its substantive provisions. At the very least, it tells the reader (and perhaps one day the court) to broadly interpret the Bill’s language to favor DNA analysis as the privileged solution to investigational and prosecutorial needs.

Definitions (§ 2)

A number of the Bill’s definitions are overbroad, further expanding the scope of its later provisions. The “crime scene index” is defined to include “DNA profiles from forensic material found . . . on or within the body of any person, on anything, or at any place, associated with the commission of a specified offence.” Id., § 2(1)(vii) et seq. A “specified offence” is defined as any of a number of more serious crimes, “or any other offence specified in the Schedule [to the Bill].” The so-called “Schedule,” tucked neatly on page 34 of the Bill’s 35 pages, lists a hodgepodge of various crimes from rape, to “offences relating to dowry,” defamation, and “unnatural 3 offenses.”[1] Taken together, the government is empowered to conduct genetic testing on almost anyone in any way connected with even minor infractions of the criminal law.

Furthermore, the crucial term “suspect” is defined as anyone “suspected of having committed an offence.” Id., § 2(1)(xxxvi). By intentionally leaving out the qualifier “specified,” the drafters’ intent is plain: to sweep within the Bill’s breadth all persons suspected of any crime whatsoever. And, accordingly, the Bill defines the “suspects index” to include “DNA profiles derived from forensic material lawfully taken from suspects.” Id., § 2(1)(xxxvix). It is hard to imagine anybody of subsequent regulation that could adequately circumscribe this manifest affront to personal privacy and bodily integrity.

DNA Profiling Board (§§3 to 13)

The DNA Profiling Board (hereinafter “Board”) is responsible for administering and overseeing the Indian DNA database. §3 et seq. Among its several enumerated powers, the Board is charged with “recommend[ing] privacy protection statutes, regulations and practices relating to access to, or use of stored DNA samples or DNA analyses,” as well as “mak[ing] specific recommendations to . . . ensure the appropriate use and dissemination of DNA information [and] take any other necessary steps require to be taken to protect privacy.” §13(1)(xv) to (xvi). This provision is in lieu of any substantive principle limiting the scope of the legislation, which the bill otherwise lacks.

This is a significant omission. As expressed in the preamble, the stated purpose of the Bill is “to enhance protection of people in the society and [the] administration of justice.” §1. Taken alone, this expresses only the government’s interest in the legislation, suggesting an ambiguously wide scope for its provisions. A substantive concept of individual privacy is required to counterbalance the interests of the government and provide protections for the equally vital privacy interests of the individual. As such, a limiting privacy principle should be included alongside the expressing in §1 of the government’s security interest. Without it, the Board will effectively have carte blanche with regard to what privacy protections are—or are not—adopted.

Approval of Laboratories (§§14 to 18)

Sections 14 to 18 provide for the approval by the DNA Profiling Board of DNA laboratories that will process and analyze genetic material for eventual inclusion on the DNA database. Under §14, all laboratories must be approved in writing prior to processing or analyzing any genetic material. However, a conflicting provision appears in the next section, §15(2), which permits DNA laboratories in existence at the time the legislation is enacted to process or analyze DNA samples immediately, without first obtaining approval.

Either an oversight on the part of the drafters, or the product of overly-vague language, the result is that established genetic laboratories—including whatever genetic material or profiles they may already have for whatever reason—are in effect “grandfathered” into the system. The only review of these laboratories is the post hoc approval of the laboratory by the DNA profiling board. The potential for abuse and error that this conflict of provisions would be best addressed in keeping with the rule articulated in §14, i.e. correcting the language of §15(2) that allows for laboratories to be “grandfathered” into the system.

Standards, Obligations of DNA Laboratory (§§19 to 28)

Chapter V, which concerns the obligations of and the standards to be observed by approved DNA laboratories, lacks adequate administrative provisions. For example, §22 requires that labs ensure “adequate security” to minimize contamination without providing for accountability in the event of contamination. Similarly, §28 provides for audits of DNA laboratories only, withholding from similar scrutiny of the DNA Profiling Board itself.

National DNA Database (§§33 to 37)

In addition on one national DNA database, the Bill sanctions the several Indian states to maintain their own DNA databases, provided these state-level databases forward copies of their content to the national database. Id., § 33(3). The national database is envisioned to comprise several sub-databases, each to contain the genetic information of a subset of persons/samples, namely: (1) unidentified crime scene samples, (2) samples taken from suspects, (3) samples taken from persons convicted or currently subject to prosecution for “subject offences,” (4) samples associated with missing persons, (5) samples taken from unidentified bodies, (6) samples taken from “volunteers,”[3] and finally (7) samples taken for reasons “as may be specified by regulations. Id., § 33(4) et seq. Putting to one side the breadth of persons subject to inclusion under subcategories (1) through (6), subsection (7) appears on its face to be a “catch all” provision, leaving one only to guess at the circumstances under which its specificities may be promulgated. Id.

A close reading of § 33(6) strongly suggests that the agency [4]conducting conducting the forensic analyses and populating the DNA database shall retain the DNA samples thereafter. This section reads in relevant part:

The DNA Data Bank shall contain . . . the following information, namely: (i) in the case of a profile in the offenders index, the identity of the person from whose body substance or body substances the profile was derived, and (ii) in case of all other profiles, the case reference number of the investigation associated with the body substance or body substances from which the profile was derived. Id., § 33(6).

Rather than choose to link the DNA profile data to a specific offender or case, the drafters of the Bill instead like the “body substance or body substances” with that specific offender or case. Whether sloppy drafting or clever nuance, this provision elides the DNA profile with the DNA sample, injecting unneeded—and potentially harmful—ambiguity into the proposed law.

Confidentiality, Access to DNA Profiles, Samples, and Records (§§ 38-44)

Further compounding this ambiguity, § 36 entitled “Access to Information” opens the door to much more than DNA profiles alone being kept on the government database. In all three of its subsections it purports to govern access to “the information” contained in the database, not “the DNA profiles” contained in the database. Id., § 36(1) et seq. Subsection 2 employs even broader language, covering “the information in the offenders’ index pertaining to a convict.” Id. Taken at face value, this provision of the Bill suggests that any and all sort of “information . . . pertaining to a convict” that might be derived from his or her DNA can be stored on the database. Even if prudential oversight provisions elsewhere in the Bill suggests a tightly-controlled techno-forensic apparatus, the overbroad construction of provisions such as §§ 33 and 36 raise significant questions about the wisdom of enacting the text in this form.

Two further provisions regarding access to the database warrant close scrutiny. First, §§ 39 and 40 purport to confer upon the police direct access to all of the information contained in the national DNA database. While administratively expedient, this arrangement opens up the possibility for misuse. A more prudent system would place the Board (or some administrative subordinate portion thereof) between the police and the content of the DNA database, with the latter having to make specific and particular requests to the former. This would minimize the risks inherent in the more expansive model of database access the bill currently envisions.

Second, and more concerning, § 41 permits the Data Bank Manager to grant access to the database to “any person or class of persons that the Data Bank Manager considers appropriate.” This is a sweeping provision. It vests in one individual the ability to permit almost anyone access to the DNA database—without administrative review or oversight of any kind. Taken together with the general lack of administrative safeguards in the bill, § 41 again places the government’s interest in investigating crime far above individual privacy rights.

Omissions

Most notably, the bill specifically excludes a private cause of action for the unlawful collection of DNA, or for the unlawful storage of private information on the national DNA database. Nor does the bill grant an individual right to review one’s personal data contained on the database. Without these two key features, there is effectively no check against the unlawful collection, analysis, and storage of private genetic information on the database.

Best Practices Analysis

Collection of DNA

With consent: only for a specific investigation (e.g. from a victim or for elimination purposes). Volunteers should not have information entered on a database	No provision
Without consent: only from persons suspected of a crime for which DNA evidence is directly relevant i.e. a crime scene sample exists or is likely to exist. Or, broader categories?	No provision
Requirement for an order by a court? Or allowed in other circumstances?	No provision
Samples collected by police officers, or only medical professionals? Must take place in a secure location i.e. not on the street etc.	No provision
Provision of information for all persons from whom DNA is taken	No provision
Crime scenes should be promptly examined if DNA evidence is likely to be relevant, and quality assurance procedures must protect against contamination of evidence	No provision; regulated at discretion of DNA Profiling Board

Analysis of DNA

Should take place only in laboratories with quality assurance	Regulated at discretion of DNA Profiling Board
Laboratories should be independent of police	No provision; regulated at discretion of DNA Profiling Board
Profiling standards must be sufficient to minimise false matches occurring by chance. This must take account of increased likelihood of false matches in transboundary searches, and with relatives.	No provision; regulated at discretion of DNA Profiling Board

Storage of DNA

Data from convicted persons should be separate from others e.g. missing persons’ databases	Unclear
Access to databases and samples must be restricted and there must be an independent and transparent system of governance, with regular information published e.g. annual reports, minutes of oversight meetings	Access to database at discretion of DNA Data Bank Manager
Personal identification information should not be sent with samples to laboratories	No provision; regulated at discretion of DNA Profiling Board
Any transfer of data e.g. from police station to lab or database, must be secure	No provision; regulated at discretion of DNA Profiling Board

User Samples and Data

Research uses should be restricted to anonymised verification of database performance (e.g. checking false matches etc.). Third party access to data for such purposes should be allowed, provided public information on research projects is published. There should be an ethics board.	No provision
Research uses for other purposes e.g. health research, behavioural research should not be allowed.	No provision
Uses should be restricted by law to solving crimes or identifying dead bodies/body parts. Identification of a person is not an acceptable use. Missing persons databases (if they exist) should be separate from police databases.	Ambiguous provisions suggest much wider scope
Familial searching should be restricted e.g. ordered by a court? Or not used? Or regulated for use in special cases?	No provision

Destruction of DNA and Linked Datas

DNA samples should be destroyed once the DNA profiles needed for identification purposes have been obtained from them, allowing for sufficient time for quality assurance, e.g. six months	DNA samples are retained
An automatic removals process is required for deletion of data from innocent persons. This must take place within a reasonable time of acquittal etc.	No provision
There should be limits on retention of DNA profiles from persons convicted of minor crimes	No provision
There should be an appeals process against retention of data	No provision
Linked data on other databases (e.g. police record of arrest, fingerprints) should be deleted at the same time as DNA database records	No provision
Crime scene DNA evidence should be retained for as long as a reinvestigation might be needed (including to address miscarriages of justice)	DNA evidence permitted to be retained indefinitely

Use in Court

Individuals must have a right to have a second sample taken from them and reanalysed as a check	No provision
Individuals must have a right to obtain re-analysis of crime scene forensic evidence in the event of appeal	No provision
Expert evidence and statistics must not misrepresent the role and value of the DNA evidence in relation to the crime	No provision

Other

Relevant safeguards must be proscribed by law and there should be appropriate penalties for abuse	No provision
Impacts on children and other vulnerable persons (e.g. mentally ill) must be considered	No provision
Potential for racial bias must be minimised	No provision

[1]. No examples are given as to which unnatural offences are intended, leaving the reader wondering. Perhaps a DNA test of witchcraft?
[2]. Section 15(2) does mandate that such laboratories petition the DNA Profiling Board for approval within six months after the legislation is enacted.
[3].Per § (2)(1)(xxxxiii) of the Definitions, a “volunteer” is “a person who volunteers to undergo a DNA procedure.” The definition does not require that the “volunteer” be informed of the nature, purpose, or possible consequences of his generosity; nor is any such requirement specified elsewhere in the Bill.
[4].Or, as is laid out in great detail in §§ 14-32, at the privately-contracted forensics laboratory.

Note: § is a symbol for 'section'.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/indian-draft-dna-profiling-act

Over 30 organisations, industry bodies oppose proposal to ban vape content

praskrishna — 2019-03-03T05:49:54Z

More than 30 organisations and industry bodies, including Ficci, CII and the Cellular Operators Association of India, have written to the Electronics and IT Ministry (MeitY), urging it not to ban online content related to the Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS).

The article by Press Trust of India was carried in the Times of India on February 28, 2019.

Other major organisations supporting this include Asia Internet Coalition, Broadband India Forum, Internet Freedom Foundation, Data Security Council of India, Heart Care Foundation of India, and The Centre for Internet and Society.

The draft amendment to the intermediary guidelines rules proposes new regulations for intermediaries (digital platforms), including a clause on banning online content that promotes ENDS.

These entities, in a statement on Thursday, said citizens have the right to access information on safer alternatives to smoking. The submissions form part of the 609-page document.

"...(These) organisations have opposed the ban on content related to ENDS citing overstepping of IT ministry's jurisdiction, violation of consumer rights, no legal backing for the action and use of vague terminology that can lead to misinterpretation and overregulation," it added.

Vape refers to electronic cigarettes or similar devices that simulate the experience of smoking a cigarette.

The statement quoted Association of Vapers India Director Samrat Chowdhery as saying that it is encouraging that many organisations concerned with public health have sought removal of the proposed ban on ENDS content.

"India is reeling under a tobacco epidemic which causes nearly a million deaths a year. We stated in our submission that denying people access to information on safer alternatives will, therefore, be highly detrimental and in violation of Article 21 of our constitution," he added.

The Data Security Council of India (DSCI), a Nasscom initiative, said the terms and expressions used are ambiguous and may be deemed unconstitutional.

Amnesty India said it "is concerned that the rules use vague and overly broad terms to identify expression that can be restricted, going well beyond both Indian and international human rights standards on freedom of expression". SR SR HRS

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/times-of-india-pti-february-28-2019-over-30-organisations-industry-bodies-oppose-proposal-to-ban-vape-content

Outrage before sharing

praskrishna — 2015-09-20T17:08:14Z

Has the social media converted people into a lynch mob that seeks out justice and passes judgement instantly, without bothering to hear both sides of the story?

The article by Nikhil Varma was published in the Hindu on September 9, 2015. Rohini Lakshané was quoted.

The Internet has changed the way we communicate in more ways than we can imagine. Apart from being a medium to share pictures and updates with family and friends, social media has also become an arena where political debates are a commonplace and people are quick to make judgements. The social media space has become one where superlatives are commonly used and videos or conversations about inappropriate behaviour or even a tweet or Facebook post has a tendency to go viral and snowball into a shaming of the individual or organisation in question, without bothering to hear out the other side of the story. Outraging can be over anything, from the faults of the Government, to lay people who sometimes find themselves the subject of an online shaming campaign.

Recently, an FB user put up pictures of a person, who she claimed misbehaved with her on a street in Delhi. Within a few hours, the man’s picture went viral and he was arrested by the police, even as he was called names and abused on social media networks. A few days later, eyewitness accounts corroborated the man’s account of the incident. The response online now put the girl at fault and blamed her for politicising the issue. The initial response to the video of the Rohtak sisters bashing up alleged molesters also saw the outrage shifting sides.

How does one deal with people making judgements with a click of a button? Does online shaming dent the chances of people getting justice in genuine cases of assault?

Rohini Lakshané, a researcher at the Centre for Internet and Society says, “Online, public shaming is a useful and often effective strategy for calling out unacceptable behaviour when recourse to other remedies is tedious, time-consuming, or non-existent. Its flipside is that shaming online could lead to mob justice or a witch-hunt. The onus should be on the viewers or readers of such an act of shaming to not take the law into their own hands and on the news media to do their basic duty of checking facts before publishing or broadcasting anything.”

She adds, “People use social networking sites, among other things, as verandas where they can gather gossip, and talk about their interests. If people jumping the gun and being judgemental offline isn’t a cause for concern, I don’t see why it should be when it happens online.”

On checks, Rohini contends, “They would not be in the interest of free speech. It would, of course, make a difference if social media users paused to think.”

V. Shakti, Social Media and Branding Professional, points out that the mass adoption of social media platforms has had positive and negative effects. “It has ensured that anyone can reach out and get any information. The flip side is that this power to reach millions needs to be handled with care and responsibility. The Jasleen Kaur incident is a glaring reflection. Such is the mindset of people online that anyone who is shamed is assumed guilty and derided. Sometimes the shaming does permanent damage to the target and the effects are life-long. The minute Jasleen posted a picture online, even the media jumped in calling the guy a ‘pervert’, if this were some other country, they would be sued. We need to understand that un-shaming is not an option and hence be careful when throwing mud at someone online. Remember, it could be you tomorrow. Think, verify and then act. Like I always say, there are three sides to every story - yours, mine and the truth.”

For psychiatrist and Integrative medicine specialist Shyam Bhatt, online shaming is a combination of a sense of mob justice and the feeling of participating in a cause. “It is easy to sign up for a cause online, you can click share and feel good about yourself. People also tend to get swayed by what their friend circles are talking about.”

Social media user Praveen Rao feels an attempt to feel involved with causes is responsible for this phenomenon.

“It is important for people to check the authenticity and wait for a clear picture to emerge before talking about something. However, in the rush to appear clued in, people tend to share anything that goes viral, without pausing to think if someone’s life could be ruined. It is a good tool to call out genuine cases of misbehaviour and assault, but mob justice should be avoided.”

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/hindu-nikhil-varma-september-9-2015-outrage-before-sharing

Outrage As Privileged IITians Use Tech To Spy On Sweepers

Rachna Khaira — 2019-12-15T05:33:21Z

Some members of the housekeeping staff at IIT Ropar were put under round the clock surveillance during working hours for many days in February this year without their consent. IIT Ropar Director Prof S K Das has ordered a probe into the incident.

The article by Rachna Khaira was published in Huffington Post on December 31, 2019. Aayush Rathi was quoted.

The Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Ropar is conducting a probe into the reported tagging and round the clock electronic surveillance of some housekeeping staff members as part of an experiment run by the Technology Business Incubation Foundation (TBIF) located at the IIT campus in February this year.

HuffPost India has learnt that the TBIF, a tech incubator run within IIT Ropar, signed off on the “Sweepy” project in which housekeeping staff were given wristbands and brooms secretly embedded with tracking chips, without seeking the consent of the janitorial staff, or informing IIT Ropar management.

While the housekeeping staff were told the wristbands would record their pulse and heart beat, and that they should wear it while cleaning the campus, the tracking chips were used to track to assess if they were sweeping out hard-to-reach corners of the institute.

Prof. Sarit Kumar Das, Director IIT Ropar told HuffPost India that a three member committee comprising of Prof. Bijoy H Barua, Prof. Javed Agrewala and Prof. Deepak Kashyap has been set up to look into the matter.

“We at the IIT Ropar respect privacy and condemn any such violation made by any of our student or staff member,” said Prof. Das. “Before conducting any experiment on human beings, an approval has to be sought from the human ethics team constituted in our institution and they present a case to me after seeking a written consent from the people who would undergo the experiment. Only, after getting my approval, such an experiment can be conducted at the campus.”

Sweeping surveillance

J K Sharma, the Chief Operating Officer of TBIF, told HuffPost India that his tech incubator deliberately misled the housekeeping staff about the true purpose of the wristband as they felt the housekeeping staff wouldn’t agree to wear such a device.

While elaborating more on the ‘Sweepy’ project, Sharma said that the project was based on an idea that came to the hostellers who were upset over the housekeeping staff for not cleaning their rooms.

“The sweepers were not working properly and despite reporting the matter several times to the authorities, they were not taking any cognisance. Perturbed, the students developed this programme in which the location of the sweeper can be recorded and monitored in a control room by a gadget tied to the sweeper’s wrist,” said Sharma.

He further added that a beacon records the activity of the sensor pasted to the broom or mop held by the sweeper and can monitor the area and the time in which it was used. The report was produced digitally on the screen.

Was a consent sought from the sweepers before tagging them?

“The testing was done in a secret manner as the housekeeping staff may not have given their consent for the trial. We tried it on three sweepers and while two of them were found working dedicatedly, one was found to have missed cleaning from few areas assigned to him,” said Sharma.

The findings were shared with the housekeeping supervisor who later directed his staff to do their duty more diligently.

The team working on the project however told HuffPost India that they secured the privacy of the housekeeping staff by removing the microphone from the gadgets tied to their wrists.

This technology does not have video feature and only monitors location of a moving object and is quite cheap as compared to the radio-frequency identification (RFID) technology that uses electromagnetic fields to automatically identify and track tags attached to objects.

The testing was done in a secret manner as the housekeeping staff may not have given their consent for the trial. We tried it on three sweepers and while two of them were found working dedicatedly, one was found to have missed cleaning from few areas assigned to himJ K Sharma, Chief Executive Officer, Technology Business Incubation Foundation, IIT Ropar

Calling this an increasingly commonplace trend of covert spying on domestic workers without their knowledge, Ayush Rathi, Programme Officer, Centre for Internet and Society, said that the housekeeping staff was made to wear the gadget under a false pretense is telling.

“This is a classic example of how the access to privacy is stratified along the axes of class, caste and gender. And ties in closely with a key purpose of surveillance — that of exerting control over people’s bodies to conform to the surveiller’s ideas of right and wrong,” said Rathi.

He further added that in many ways, this story captures the zeitgeist of the 21st century. The is the essence of so much of what qualifies as innovation today is that they seek to find technological solutions to problems that are structural in nature.

“So, in this instance it is very evident that the objective sought to be achieved was not to merely ‘fix’ the problem of the housekeeping staff performing its duties well, but to solely hold them guilty for failing to do so,” said Rathi.

An alternate, albeit more tedious, approach would have been to speak with the workers and iron out the struggles they were facing at the workplace that were preventing them from performing their job well. Any solution could only have been prepared thereafter — he added.

As per Prof. Das, a major problem with the engineering students is that unlike medical students, 90 percent of their experiments are based on machines and not human beings.

“There is too much deficiency of the understanding of human psychology amongst engineering students. To curb this, we at the IIT have started a mandatory course on human ethics which is being taught by some of the renowned human psychology experts. Still sometimes, the violations gets reported,” said Prof. Das.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/huffignton-post-december-13-2019-rachna-khaira-outrage-as-privileged-iit-ians-use-tech-to-spy-on-sweepers

Out of the Bedroom

nishant — 2013-09-06T08:32:58Z

We have shared it with our friends. We have watched it with our lovers. We have discussed it with our children and talked about it with our partners. It is in our bedrooms, hidden in sock drawers. It is in our laptops, in a folder marked "Miscellaneous". It is in our cellphones and tablets, protected under passwords. It is the biggest reason why people have learned to clean their browsing history and cookies from their browsers.

The article by Nishant Shah was published in the Indian Express on August 25, 2013.

Whether we go into surreptitious shops to buy unmarked CDs or trawl through Torrent and user-generated content sites in the quest of a video, there is no denying the fact that it has become a part of our multimedia life. Even in countries like India, where consumption and distribution of pornography are punished by law, we know that pornography is rampant. With the rise of the digital technologies of easy copy and sharing, and the internet which facilitates amateur production and anonymous distribution, pornography has escaped the industrial market and become one of the most intimate and commonplace practices of the online world.

In fact, if Google trend results are to be believed, Indians are among the top 10 nationalities searching for pornography daily. Even a quick look at our internet history tells us that it has all been about porn. The morphed pictures of a naked Pooja Bhatt adorned the covers of Stardust in the late 1990s, warning us that the true potential of Photoshop had been realised. The extraordinary sensation of the Delhi Public School MMS case which captured two underage youngsters in a grainy sexcapade announced the arrival of user-generated porn in a big way. The demise of Savita Bhabhi — India's first pornographic graphic novel — is still recent enough for us to remember that the history of the internet in India is book-ended by porn and censorship.

Recent discussions on pornography have been catalysed by a public interest litigation requesting for a ban on internet pornography filed in April by Kamlesh Vaswani. Whether Vaswani's observations on what porn can make us do stem from his own personal epiphany or his self-appointed role as our moral compass is a discussion that merits its own special space. Similarly, a debate on the role, function, and use of pornography in a society is complex, rich and not for today.

Instead, I want to focus on the pre-Web imagination of porn that Vaswani and his endorsers are trying to impose upon the rest of us. There is a common misunderstanding that all porn is the same porn, no matter what the format, medium and aesthetics of representations. Or in other words, a homogenising presumption is that erotic fiction and fantasies, pictures of naked people in a magazine, adult films produced by entertainment houses, and user-generated videos on the internet are the same kind of porn. However, as historical legal debates and public discussions have shown us, what constitutes porn is specific to the technologies that produce it. There was a time when DH Lawrence's iconic novel now taught in undergraduate university courses — Lady Chatterley's Lover — was deemed pornographic and banned in India. In more recent times, the nation was in uproar at the Choli ke peeche song from Khalnayak which eventually won awards for its lyrics and choreography.

In all the controversy, there has so far been a "broadcast imagination" of how pornography gets produced, consumed and distributed. There is a very distinct separation of us versus them when it comes to pornography. They produce porn. They distribute porn. They push porn down our throats (that was probably a poor choice of words) by spamming us and buying Google adwords to infect our search results. We consume porn. And all we need to do is go and regulate, like we do with Bollywood, the central management and distribution mechanism so that the flow of pornography can be curbed. This is what I call a broadcast way of thinking, where the roles of the performers, producers, consumers and distributors of pornography are all distinct and can be regulated.

However, within the murky spaces of the World Wide Web, the scenario is quite different. Internet pornography is not the same as availability of pornography on the internet. True, the digital multimedia space of sharing and peer-2-peer distribution has made the internet the largest gateway to accessing pornographic objects which are produced through commercial production houses. However, the internet is not merely a way of getting access to existing older forms of porn. The internet also produces pornography that is new, strange, unprecedented and is an essential part of the everyday experience of being digitally connected and networked into sociality.

The recent controversies about the former congressman from New York, Anthony Weiner, sexting — sending inappropriate sexual messages through his cellphone — gives us some idea of what internet porn looks like. It is not just something captured on a phone-cam but interactive and collaboratively produced. Or as our own Porngate, where two cabinet ministers of the Karnataka legislative assembly were caught surfing some good old porn on their mobile devices while the legislature was in session, indicated, porn is not something confined to the privacy of our rooms. Naked flashmobs, young people experimenting with sexual identities in public, and sometimes bizarre videos of a bus-ride where the camera merely captures the banal and the everyday through a "pornographic gaze" are also a part of the digital porn landscape. The world of virtual reality and multiple online role-playing games offer simulated sexual experiences that allow for human, humanoid, and non-human avatars to engage in sexual activities in digital spaces. Peer-2-peer video chat platforms like Chatroulette, offer random encounters of the naked kind, where nothing is recorded but almost everything can be seen.

The list of pornography produced by the internet — as opposed to pornography made accessible through the internet — is huge. It doesn't just hide in subcultural practices but resides on popular video-sharing sites like YouTube or Tumblr blogs. It vibrates in our cellphones as we connect to people far away from us, and pulsates on the glowing screens of our tablets as we get glimpses of random strangers and their intimate bodies and moments. An attempt to ban and censor this porn is going to be futile because it does not necessarily take the shape of a full narrative text which can be examined by others to judge its moral content. Any petition that tries to censor such activities is going to fall flat on its face because it fails to recognise that sexual expression, engagement and experimentation is a part of being human — and the ubiquitous presence of digital technologies in our life is going to make the internet a fair playground for activities which might seem pornographic in nature. In fact, trying to restrict and censor them, will only make our task of identifying harmful pornography — porn that involves minors, or hate speech or extreme acts of violence — so much more difficult because it will be pushed into the underbelly of the internet which is much larger than the searched and indexed World Wide Web.

Trying to suggest that internet pornography is an appendage which can be surgically removed from everyday cyberspace is to not understand the integral part that pornography and sexual interactions play in the development and the unfolding of the internet. The more fruitful efforts would be to try and perhaps create a guideline that helps promote healthy sexual interaction and alerts us to undesirable sexual expressions which reinforce misogyny, violence, hate speech and non-consensual invasions of bodies and privacy. This blanket ban on trying to sweep all internet porn under a carpet is not going to work — it will just show up as a big bump, in places we had not foreseen.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/indian-express-august-25-2013-nishant-shah-out-of-the-bedroom

OurSay: how India’s technology is cutting into corruption

praskrishna — 2012-02-17T02:40:43Z

In the world’s largest democracy, corruption has long been part of the system of governance. However, transformative new technologies are playing an exciting and powerful role in citizen engagement, good governance and in the mobilisation of the masses for social action.

The blog post by by Gautam Raju, co-founder and creative director, OurSay Australia was published in Crikey on 17 February 2012. Nishant Shah has been quoted in it.

Since the beginnings of the Indian independence movement, technology has been a central element to citizen engagement. According to Nishant Shah, from the Centre of Internet and Society, print and cinema reflected the views of citizens and informed them of the visions and changes that the country was going through. Today, India has one of the largest young and connected populations in the world.

Fifty per cent of the population is under the age of 25 and there are about 880 million mobile phone subscribers. New technologies are shifting the way that citizens interact with government and mobilise around issues they care about.

Based in a cramped office in New Delhi, the group Gram Vaani community media are developing tools to make governments more accountable. This group of young people with impressive resumes and big dreams form part of the new generation of Indian social entrepreneurs calling for change.

One of their most revolutionary products is a citizen news telephone hotline. The initiative is having a huge impact with recorded reports of government officials being fined for corruption, school teachers being paid overdue salaries and medical resources being sent to remote areas to fight malaria outbreaks. It allows callers to report incidents or problems from their regions, which are then transcribed and made available through a website for the media, government and general public.

This technology is particularly effective in remote areas, where Gram Vaani partners with local NGOs who empower local communities to use the tool. The service, which is expanding across the Indian state of Jharkhand, clocked 40,000 calls during the first month. Roshan Nair, from Gram Vaani, said: “NGOs have taken up the entire responsibility of informing local residents about our hotline, verifying information, and training new users. We have supported them, but they continue to do good work at great personal risk.” The technology is also currently deployed in Afghanistan with plans to expand to Pakistan and Iraq.

During my most recent visit in January, 74-year-old anti-corruption campaigner Anna Hazare and the India Against Corruption (IAC) movement dominated the media. The movement has been fighting for the introduction of the Lokpal Bill, which would create an independent ombudsman with the power to investigate corruption allegations from citizens. The movement launched a successful social media campaign, which built an image of Hazare as the 21st century Gandhi.

Social networking websites such as Facebook and Twitter were used as organising tools for protests and when Hazare was arrested, his team released YouTube videos of him in jail to rally supporters. Their campaign was incredibly successful, mobilising thousands to support passing of the legislation.

According to a 2011 report released by Facebook, Anna Hazare and the Lokpal Bill were the most mentioned topics in Indian status updates, a sign that Indians are increasingly using the internet to share and debate political events.

Online movements such as the IAC are spreading through Indian urban areas with online campaigns on issues of violence, the environment and the protection of women are gaining momentum and political leverage. Increasing tension from the government around internet censorship and with more organisations and citizens harnessing the power of the internet and mobile phones for social action creates a very interesting space to watch in 2012.

Another powerful governance project Ipaidabribe.com is the world’s largest crowd-sourced database on corruption, with more than 18,000 acts of corruption registered. Developed by NGO Janaagraha, the website aims to tackle corruption by allowing citizens to log corrupt acts that are then used to lobby for better governance systems, law enforcement and regulation. A reporting tool on the website allows the public to view detailed analytics on where bribes are made, to which government department and their total costs to the public.

The Transport Department of Karnataka was frequently reported for bribes on the website, which led to the Public Transport Commissioner inviting Janaagraha to identify procedures that would help foster transparency and accountability in their bureaucratic processes. The Karnataka state government has since agreed to put posters promoting the website in all government offices. The technology is currently deployed in Kenya with Janaagraha stating that they are in talks with 15 countries.

India is booming; changing at a rate the country has never seen before. Despite the increasing use of technology by organisations and social movements, India still has a huge challenge in bridging the digital divide. Despite the powerful examples provided, social action and citizen engagement movements largely remain concentrated in urban, metropolitan settings, and often only engage the middle class. According to Mr Shah, from the Centre of Internet and Society, “there are innovations which are allowing people with cell phones in rural and remote India to be better connected, but there is no substantial data that actually proves that it fosters citizen engagement”.

As organisations such as Gram Vaani and Janaagraha begin to build more tools to foster citizen engagement and hold governments accountable, it is going to be incredibly fascinating to not only observe their future impact, but also see how technologies will be developed and spread to rural areas.

Gautam Raju travelled to India in January as part of an OurSay research trip.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/oursay-how-india2019s-technology-is-cutting-into-corruption

Our Internet and the Law

nishant — 2012-03-26T09:28:22Z

Nishant Shah was interviewed by the BBC Channel 5 (Radio) for its Outriders section. Jamillah Knowles reports this through this blog post published by BBC Radio on 24 January 2012.

Hello Outriders!

This week on the podcast we look at some of the problems netizens are facing when it comes to access and sharing online. SOPA, the stop online piracy act and PIPA - protect IP bills have been making headlines from the United States, where the bills were designed and all over the web where protesters showed that they did not want this sort of legislation to be passed.

It's a tricky topic as there are many protesters raising their voices against the laws and there are plenty of people who support these ideas too.

Indian internet

Along with these headlines about legislation in America, there are many other places around the world that are debating how best to manage a population that has an increasing presence on the internet.

In India, a court case is continuing that may affect how social networking websites work. Not in relation to copyright material, but as a reaction to offensive content being spread and shared.

So, what do they mean by offensive content and who are the big names in this case?

Friend of Outriders, Nishant Shah, is the Co-Founder and director of research at the Bangalore based Centre for Internet and Society, he explained the case and more about the effects of a possible outcome.

Friend of Outriders, Nishant Shah, is the Co-Founder and director of research at the Bangalore based Centre for Internet and Society, he explained the case and more about the effects of a possible outcome.

Last week also saw a huge story of the web as content sharing website Megaupload was taken down and the site's owners were charged with copyright violation.

As a response, the loose network of hackers and activists known as Anonymous activated their own take down campaign, targeting the Department of Justice, the FBI and the Motion Picture Association of America.

Upload down

Many users of the MegaUpload site watched countless hours of video posted by other people with accounts on the site, copyright or otherwise, but the shut down does not just mean that people are no longer able to watch videos, it also means that people who had put files on that site, are currently unable to access them.

One such customer is Jay Springett, who is a technology consultant, photographer and musician. I asked him how he came to use the site and if he had heard anything about getting his files back.

Well, we hope that Jay does get his raw files back and I grateful to him for talking to us about his experience - it's good to have a reminder about our information and files online. Take care of what you own and think twice about the reliability of the cloud. Though you may never be in this situation - and we hope this is the case, it's always a very good idea to keep copies of your own files, you never know what might be ahead as the internet changes.

Well, thanks to our guests as ever and of course you too can share your internet adventures or experiments with electrical things. Drop me a line at outriders at bbc dot co dot uk, tweet at me on Twitter where we are @BBC_Outriders or search for Outriders on Facebook and Google+ to add us to your feed.

Until next week!
~ Jamillah

Listen the Podcast here

The original blog post was published by BBC Radio

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

Other Than Women: Exploring Harassment and Difference Online

praskrishna — 2017-03-27T16:11:30Z

A satellite session at RightsCon in Brussels is being organized by the Tactical Technology Collective on March 28, 2017. Rohini Lakshané is a speaker at this event.

Tactical Tech is interested in the problem of online harassment as a barrier to political participation in quantified societies, and in terms of the harm it causes those targeted. We have been working to customise tactics of resistance and support to communities/individuals who are working online and are exposed to, or are at risk of, harassment.

This Satellite Session at Rightscon is fashioned as an intervention into ongoing advocacy, research, and practical support efforts, and seeks to interrogate a wide range of possible framings of (as well as responses to) online harassment.

For more info, click here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/other-than-women-exploring-harassment-and-difference-online