Centre for Internet and Society

The Centre for Internet and Society joins Worldwide Campaign to Discover Depth of GCHQ's Illegal Spying

elonnai — 2015-03-01T06:13:03Z

The Centre for Internet and Society has joined an international campaign to allow anyone in the world to request whether Britain’s intelligence agency GCHQ has illegally spied on them.

The platform and campaign has been developed in response to a recent court ruling that GCHQ unlawfully obtained millions of private communications from the NSA up until December 2014. This decision allows not only British citizens, but anyone in the world, to ask GCHQ if the individual’s records were unlawfully shared by the NSA.

Individuals who wish to take part in this process can sign up here: https://www.privacyinternational.org/illegalspying

Privacy International intends to collate the inquiries from around the world and submit them to the UK Investigatory Powers Tribunal. Those who have been found to have been illegally spied on can then seek the deletion of their records, including emails, phone records, and internet communications. Given the mass surveillance capabilities of the NSA and GCHQ, and that the agencies “share by default” the information they collect, an unlimited number of people could have been affected by the unlawful spying.

The Investigatory Powers Tribunal, the UK court solely responsible for overseeing intelligence agencies, ruled on 6 February that intelligence sharing between the United States and the United Kingdom was unlawful prior to December 2014, because the rules governing the UK’s access to the NSA’s PRISM and UPSTREAM programmes were secret. It was only due to revelations made during the course of this case, which relied almost entirely on documents disclosed by Edward Snowden, that the intelligence sharing relationship became subject to public scrutiny.

The decision was the first time in the Tribunal’s history that it had ruled against the actions of the intelligence and security services.

According to the Centre for Internet and Society – this is a great example of transparency and the ability for individuals to access information held by the government. It is also an important step towards government accountability with respect to state surveillance.

Eric King, Deputy Director of Privacy International, said:

“We have known for some time that the NSA and GCHQ have been engaged in mass surveillance, but never before could anyone explicitly find out if their phone calls, emails, or location histories were unlawfully shared between the US and UK. The public have a right to know if they were illegally spied on, and GCHQ must come clean on whose records they hold that they should never have had in the first place.

There are few chances that people have to directly challenge the seemingly unrestrained surveillance state, but individuals now have a historic opportunity finally hold GCHQ accountable for their unlawful actions.”

Brief on “Did GCHQ Spy on You Illegally?”

Privacy International on Monday February 16th 2015 launched a campaign and platform allowing people to ask the UK’s surveillance court, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, if GCHQ spied on people illegally. This comes on the heels of our recent legal victory in the IPT, who found that all intelligence sharing from the NSA to GCHQ prior to December 2014 was unlawful.

As on February 17th night, we had over 10,000 signatures, and at the end of today we expect to have more updated figures.

While this has been successful thus far, we need your help!

We need the support of other organisations to truly make this work, and we want your organisation to join as a partner. Being a partner in this can look a few different ways: you can send out emails to your organisation's members, tweet out the links to the platform, or send out a press release to your media contacts telling them you joined the effort.

We hope you can join, and below we try to address some questions we've been getting about the campaign. There's also an additional FAQ more specifically addressing the campaign itself.

What is PI doing?

Simply put: Giving people the chance to remedy illegal government activity and hold intelligence agencies accountable. When someone submits their information through this platform, they are allowing us to go to the IPT on their behalf to find out if they were illegally spied on by GCHQ.

People could have gone directly to the IPT to ask, but that process is difficult to engage in. We wanted to create a simple, low-barrier way to give people the chance to find out if they were victims of illegal spying.

Why are you doing this?

This action is not just about satisfying curiosity. Sure, lots of us are interested in knowing whether our emails have been caught in the NSA and GCHQ’s dragnet surveillance operations, and hopefully through this platform we’ll be able to find out. But, this campaign is about much more than that.

It is about making GCHQ understand the very personal and individual implications of mass surveillance. And it is about ending the feeling of powerlessness that many of us have felt since discovering, thanks to Edward Snowden, the reality of the almost total surveillance that we’re under.

We have never done a public campaign like this, but we felt that this ruling was too important to pass up. People have a right to know if they were illegally spied on, and if so, request that their records are deleted. We want to help them assert those rights, and we think you can help too.

Why should my organisation join?

We don't get many victories in this space, but we have a rare opportunity to give people the chance to do something! Not just sign a petition, but directly hold intelligence agencies accountable and challenge proven illegal government activity.

Numbers are important too, not just important to brag about. The greater number of people who sign up actually increases our likelihood of success. That's because when we submit people's details to the IPT, one of the possible outcomes could be that the court tests a sample to see if/where illegality occurred.

The more people who sign up, the greater chance there is we can prove that people were illegally spied on. If that's the case, we could request that GCHQ delete ALL the records they obtained from NSA prior to December to 2014.

To do that, we need as many people to join. We are not merely interested in building a list, this is not a stunt, and we have no interest in poaching your members. It's simple – more people means greater chance of success.

Also, this is going to be a long fight on our front. We are going to be dealing with this campaign for the next few months if not few years. As each turn comes along the way, we are going to need your help to keep pressure up and keep people involved. Nothing good comes easy!

Is it only for British citizens?

No. This literally affects everyone who has ever used a phone or computer prior to December 2014, which is pretty much every single person.

So, anyone around the world is eligible to join this petition! No matter where you are, you’re entitled under British law to bring a claim in the courts to find out whether you were illegally spied on. Given the degree of intelligence collection by the NSA and its close relationship with the British intelligence services, it’s entirely possible that your communications have been scooped up and unlawful handed over to the UK.

So, what can you do?

Four actions you can do:

Declare your organisation’s support for the campaign! Email mike@privacyinternational.org and we'll add your name to the partner section on the petition page.
Tweet the link for the petition to your followers: www.privacyinternational.org/illegalspying using the hashtag #DidGCHQSpyOnYou
Email your supporters and members and encourage them to join the campaign - if you need further information you can point them to the FAQ on our website or included in this pack: https://www.privacyinternational.org/?q=node/495
Tweet at or contact notable people in your city or country - we’ve been tweeting Members of Parliament, influential journalists, movie stars, whomever!

FAQ on action

URL: https://privacyinternational.org/?q=node/495

Who is able to join?

EVERYONE! The implications of our recent legal victory against GCHQ in the Investigatory Powers Tribunal means that all intelligence sharing from the NSA to GCHQ was unlawful. Because people located all over the world are affected by illegal intelligence sharing, not only British citizens, but anyone in the world, can ask if their records collected by the NSA were unlawfully shared with GCHQ.

Why are we doing this?

Intelligence agencies' culture of secrecy have allowed them, for too long, to avoid public accountability. Whether it’s secret hearings in closed court rooms or committees equipped only with rubber stamps, intelligence agencies like GCHQ have never been forced to answer to the public for their actions.

We think you have a right to know whether you have been caught up in GCHQ and NSA's illegal intelligence sharing. If so, you have a right to demand that data be deleted. Privacy International wants to help you assert those rights.

Wait what? Why do I have to give GCHQ my data?

We know it sounds absurd but it's the only way! The Tribunal can't act by itself, so it needs people to come forward to file complaints. We've kept information needed to a minimum, but the IPT requires more than your name to attempt to find your communications in GCHQ’s massive databases. If they do locate your data, you can ask them to delete it. Hopefully, if enough people sign up, we can show just how widespread Five Eyes mass surveillance and intelligence sharing is, and get the reform we all need!

Will this tell me if GCHQ are currently spying on me?

No. This campaign will only tell you if NSA shared your communications with GCHQ before December 2014. It won't tell you if GCHQ shared communications with NSA. It also won't tell you if GCHQ intercepted your communications by themselves. Should Privacy International be successful in our appeal to the European Court of Human Rights maybe this will change, but for now, this is limited to just whether NSA shared your communications with GCHQ before December 2014.

What will happen once I have entered my details?

After you hit submit, you'll receive an email asking you to confirm your participation. Make sure you click that link, otherwise your submission won't go through. While these few details are all we need from you now, we may need more information from you in the future. By entering your details, you authorise Privacy International and their legal team to pass your information to GCHQ and the Investigatory Powers Tribunal in order to seek a declaration that your rights under Article 8 and Article 10 of the UK Human Rights Act have been violated and to request your records be deleted.

How will I know my communications were illegal shared with GCHQ?

If the IPT find that your communications were illegally shared with GCHQ, they have to tell you. The Investigatory Powers Tribunal has a statutory obligation to investigate any complaint made against GCHQ. When they receive a complaint, if they think they have all the information required to make a determination, then they will do so, and inform you of the outcome. If not, the IPT can demand more information, a meeting or inspection of files held by GCHQ.

Do I get anything if I have been spied on?

Yes. If the IPT is able to establish that you have been illegally spied on, they have to tell you. You will receive a declaration that your privacy rights have been violated and you can request that any information unlawfully obtained be deleted.

WiIl GCHQ hold onto my details when they are handed over to them?

No. GCHQ are only allowed to keep your details for the purposes of establishing whether or not they spied on you illegally and for the duration of the investigation by the IPT.

How soon will I receive an answer to whether I was caught up in NSA and GCHQ's illegal spying?

It might be a while. This is the first time that such a large group action has been mounted against GCHQ so count on it being many months, and likely years before this action is completed. Nothing worth doing is easy!

Is this for all of NSA and GCHQ's programmes?

This legal campaign deals with information collected by the NSA and shared with GCHQ before December 2014, specifically PRISM and UPSTREAM. It doesn't deal with GCHQ initiated interception, but if we're successful with our appeal with the European Court of Human Rights, maybe that could change!

Is my email address and phone number enough for GCHQ to find all records?

No. Unfortunately, we imagine many of GCHQ's databases are unindexed or indexed by a "selector" which could be an IP address, a cookie, a hardware address or almost anything else. For people who want the most comprehensive records searched, much more personal information would have to be provided. Currently we are asking for only your email address and phone number to enable the greatest number of people access to this campaign. If you want to provide more detailed information and a range of selectors to GCHQ, consider submitting your own individual complaint here. We hope to have a detailed guide on how to do so in the next few days.

What are Privacy International going to do with this data?

By entering your details you are authorising Privacy International to pass your information to GCHQ and the Investigatory Powers Tribunal in order to seek a declaration that your privacy rights have been violated. We will provide you with updates on the case and won't use the information for any other purpose. We will only share it with our lawyers, GCHQ and the Investigatory Powers Tribunal.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-joins-worldwide-campaign-to-discover-depth-of-gchq-illegal-spying

Indian Law and the Necessary Proportionate Principles

elonnai — 2015-03-14T02:15:32Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/indian-law-and-necessary-proportionate-principles.pdf

GSMA Research Outputs

elonnai — 2015-04-06T14:18:18Z

This is a collection of research under our GSMA project that we have undertaken in collaboration with Privacy International. The research has sought to understand different legal and regulatory aspects of security and surveillance in India and consists of blog entries and reports. Any feedback or comment is welcome.

Indian Law and the Necessary Proportionate Principles

The presentation shows that there are no comprehensive provisions for the principles of legitimate aim, competent judicial authority, proportionality, transparency, etc. whereas these are partially present for the principles of legality, necessity, adequacy, public oversight, safeguards for international cooperation, etc. The presentation also looks at the Indian intelligence agencies and shows us that there are nine agencies authorized to intercept communications along with at least eleven additional agencies. It further dwelves into the establishment and structure of Indian intelligence agencies and whom they report to, the sharing of information internationally as well as nationally. It shows us that India has MLAT agreements with 36 countries and request to CBI can be initiated informally or formally through court order. It then lists out the various regulatory and important bodies responsible for national security. Some cases of unlawful interception / leaks have been discussed along with examples of arrests based on digital evidence. The various government schemes, the telecommunication companies in India, telecom licenses requirements, government developed security and surveillance solutions, private security companies, security expos, export, import and selling of security and surveillance equipment, and the way forward are also discussed.

Click to download the PDF

Security, Surveillance and Data Sharing Schemes and Bodies in India

Following the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks, India had implemented a wide range of data sharing and surveillance schemes. Though developed under different governments the purpose of these schemes has been to increase public safety and security by tackling crime and terrorism. As such, two data sharing schemes have been proposed - the National Intelligence Grid (NATGRID) and the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network & Systems (CCTNS), as well as several surveillance systems, such as the Lawful Intercept and Monitoring (LIM) system, the Network Traffic Analysis system (NETRA), state Internet Monitoring Systems and the Central Monitoring System (CMS). This chapter details the various schemes and provides policy recommendations for their improvement, with regards to the protection of the right to privacy and other human rights.

Click to download the PDF

Export and Import of Security Technologies in India: QA

The write-up examines in question-answer format the standards regulating the export of technologies that can be used for surveillance purposes, the department and legislation that governs exports and imports of security technologies in India, the procedure for obtaining an export licence for the export of SCOMET items, what is ITC (HS) and why is it important, and examples of ITC codes for technologies that can facilitate security or surveillance. The research finds answers to all these queries.

Click to download the PDF

Regulation of CCTV’s in India

In light of the increasing use and installation of CCTV’s in cities across India, and the role that CCTVs play in the Home Ministry's plans for implementing "Mega Policing Cities", this blog seeks to review various attempts to regulate the use of CCTV's in India, review international best practices, and provide preliminary recommendations for the regulation of CCTV's in India.

Click to download the PDF

Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLATs) and Cross Border Sharing of Information in India

It is unclear the exact process that intelligence agencies in India share information with other agencies internationally. India is a member of Interpol and the Central Bureau of Investigation, which is a Federal/Central investigating agency functioning under the Central Government, Department of Personnel & Training is designated as the National Central Bureau of India.

Click to download the PDF

Composition of Service Providers in India

Telecom, at present, is one of the fastest-growing industries in India. As of January 2014, according to the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) there are 922 million wireless and over the wire subscribers in India, and 56.90 million broadband subscribers including wired, wireless and wimax subscribers. India’s overall wireless teledensity was quoted as having 893.31million subscribers, with a 0.79% (7.02 million) monthly addition.

Click to download the PDF

The Surveillance and Security Industry in India - An Analysis of Indian Security Expos

The ‘Spy Files’, a series of documents released by whistleblower website WikiLeaks over the last few years, exposed the tremendous growth of the private surveillance industry across the world – a multi-billion dollar industry thriving on increasing governmental and private capabilities for mass surveillance of individuals. These documents showed how mass surveillance is increasingly made possible through new technologies developed by private players, often exploiting the framework of nascent but burgeoning information and communication technologies like the internet and communication satellites.

Click to download the PDF

An Analysis of News Items and Cases on Surveillance and Digital Evidence in India

In a technologically advanced era, with preponderance of electronic communications in both professional and social interactions and the ability to store such information in digital form, digital evidence has gained significance in civil as well as criminal litigation in India. In order to match the pace with the progressive technology, the Indian Courts have embarked on placing more and more reliance on the digital evidence and a portion of such digital evidence is obtained through electronic surveillance.

Click to download the PDF

Policy Recommendations for Surveillance Law in India and an Analysis of Legal Provisions on Surveillance in India and the Necessary & Proportionate Principles

The Government of India has created a legal framework which supports the carrying out of surveillance by authorities through its various laws and license agreements for service providers. The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) acknowledges that lawful, warranted, targeted surveillance can potentially be a useful tool in aiding law enforcement agencies in tackling crime and terrorism. However, current Indian laws and license agreements appear to overextend the Government's surveillance capabilities in certain cases, while inadequately safeguarding individuals' right to privacy and data protection.

Click to download the PDF

The Surveillance Industry in India

India has the world's second largest population, an expanding middle class and undoubtedly a huge market which attracts international investors. Some of the world's largest corporations have offices in India, such as Google Incorporated and BlackBerry Limited. In the Information Age, the market revolves around data and companies which produce technologies capable of mining such data are on the rise. Simultaneously, companies selling surveillance technologies appear to be on the peak too, especially since the global War on Terror requires law enforcement agencies around the world to be equipped with the latest surveillance gear.

Click to download the PDF

State of Cyber Security and Surveillance in India: A Review of the Legal Landscape

The issue of cyber security and surveillance, especially unauthorised surveillance, though traditionally unprioritised, has recently gained much traction due to the increasing number of news reports regarding various instances of unauthorised surveillance and cyber crimes. In the case of unauthorised surveillance, more than the frequency of the instances, it is their sheer magnitude that has shocked civil society and especially civil rights groups. In the background of this ever increasing concern regarding surveillance as well as increasing concerns regarding cyber security due to the increased pervasiveness of technology in our society, this paper tries to discuss the legal and regulatory landscape regarding surveillance as well as cyber security.

Click to download the PDF

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/gsma-research-outputs

Security, Governments and Data: Technology and Policy

elonnai — 2015-04-04T05:59:19Z

On January 8, 2015, the Centre for Internet and Society, in collaboration with the Observer research foundation, hosted the day long conference "Security, Governments, and Data: Technology and Policy" The conference discussed a range of topics including internet governance, surveillance, privacy, and cyber security.

The full report written and compiled by Lovisha Aggarwal and Nehaa Chaudhari and edited by Elonnai Hickok can be accessed here.

The conference was focused on the technologies, policies, and practices around cyber security and surveillance. The conference reached out to a number of key stakeholders including civil society, industry, law enforcement, government, and academia and explored the present scenario in India to reflect on ways forward. The conference was a part of CIS’s work around privacy and surveillance, supported by Privacy International.

Welcome Address

The welcome address opened with a reference to a document circulated by CIS in 2014 which contained hypothetical scenarios of potential threats to Indian cyber security. This document highlighted the complexity of cyber security and the challenges that governments face in defending their digital borders. When talking about cyber security it is important that certain principles are upheld and security is not pursued only for the sake of security. This approach allows for security to be designed and to support other rights such as the right of access, the right to freedom of expression, and the right to privacy. Indeed, the generation, use, and protection of communications data by the private sector and the government are a predominant theme across the globe today. This cannot be truer for India, as India hosts the third largest population on the internet in the world.

During the welcome, a brief introduction to the Centre for Internet and Society was given. It was noted that CIS is a 6.5 half year old organization that is comprised of lawyers, mathematicians, sociologists, and computer scientists and works across multiple focus areas including accessibility, internet governance, telecom, openness, and access to knowledge. CIS began researching privacy and surveillance in 2010, and has recently begun to expand their research into cyber security. The purpose of this is to understand the relationship between privacy, surveillance, and security and is the beginning of a learning process for CIS. In 2013 CIS undertook a process to attempt to evolve a legal regime to intelligently and adequately deal with privacy in India. Industry specific requirements are key in the Indian context and this process was meant to try and evolve a consensus on what a privacy law in India should look like by bringing together key stakeholders for roundtables. CIS is now in the final stages of preparing individual legal proposals that will be sent to the Government – to hopefully have an informed Privacy Law in India. This event represents CIS’s first attempt to have a simultaneous dialogue on surveillance, cyber security, and privacy. As part of this event and research CIS is trying to understand the technology and market involved in surveillance and cyber security as these are important factors in the development of policy and law.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/security-governments-datat-technology-and-policy

A Public Meeting on DNA Profiling Bill in Delhi

elonnai — 2012-10-10T10:58:32Z

On September 27, 2012, the Centre for Internet and Society hosted a public talk at the Indian International Centre focused on the draft DNA Profiling Bill. Presenting at the meeting were international experts Dr. Helen Wallace, director of GeneWatch UK and Jeremy Gruber, president and executive director of the Council for Responsible Genetics US, and Dr. Anupuma Raina, senior scientist at AIIMs.

The use of DNA samples for forensics purposes has been increasing as law enforcement in India are relying on DNA samples as a source of evidence to solve crimes. India currently does not have a legislation specifically regulating the collection, use, and storage of DNA samples for forensics purposes. To address this gap, in 2007 a draft DNA Profiling Bill was created by the Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics. In February 2012 a new draft of the bill from the department of biotechnology was been leaked. The draft Bill envisions creating state level DNA databases that will feed into a national level DNA database for the purposes of solving crime.

Opening the meeting was a presentation by Dr. Anupama that focused on how DNA analysis has been used in various cases in India. Dr. Anupama emphasized the important role that DNA plays and the usefulness of the technology, but also cautioned that the police are still perfecting the use of DNA samples for forensic purposes. She promoted the passing of the DNA profiling bill with the correct safeguards. Dr. Anupama also provided insight into the current procedure for DNA analysis in India noting that consent is taken from individuals before taking DNA samples, and that ethical clearance is taken before DNA samples are taken and used for research purposes. She also noted that labs are working on improving quality insurance and emphasized the importance of chain of custody in ensuring that DNA samples are not contaminated.

Following Dr. Anupama, Jeremy Gruber spoke about the US experience with DNA databases and explained how DNA testing was initially introduced as a tool for establishing additional evidence for convicting violent felony offenders or freeing innocent individuals on a case to case basis. He explained how the technology of DNA sampling and its use in forensic cases can be both a useful tool when used justly and democratically, or can be harmful when used unjustly and undemocratically. He noted that there has been an increase in the routine use and retention of DNA by law enforcement today for purposes such as using DNA databases for familial searching purposes, and using DNA analysis to create profiles of individuals. Concerns that Jeremy Gruber raised with respect to the draft DNA Profiling Bill included the assumption in the preamble of the bill that DNA is an infallible piece of evidence, pointing out that when DNA is used for forensic purposes it is vulnerable to inaccuracies such as false matches, sample contamination, and analysis error. He also made the point that the definitions found in the bill are overly broad and work to expand the scope by defining a wide range of crimes for which individuals will be added to the DNA database for. These broad definitions essentially turn the database into an all crimes database. Other concerns with the bill included that DNA laboratories are not clearly independent of the police, and that the bill allows for the additional collection of DNA from missing persons and victims.

In her presentation, Dr. Helen Wallace described the UK experience, where the first DNA database was established in 1995. In 2000 a major expansion of the UK DNA database took place, but was controversial for a number of reasons. In 2008 the European Court of Justice ruled that the regime of retaining DNA samples in the UK was unlawful and a breach of privacy. Now the UK law requires that only a barcode with identifying information be stored. Dr. Wallace also emphasized the fact that the number of convictions resulting from DNA detections has not increased as the UK DNA database has expanded, because the number of solved crimes is driven by the number of crime scene samples. Thus, samples on a database are only useful if they relate directly to the crime scene and a possible criminal. Therefore the more profiles that are added to the database that are related to petty crimes, civil cases, victims, volunteers etc. the less efficient and accurate the database becomes. Dr. Wallace recommended that a DNA database contain only careful crime scene evidence in order to ensure samples are matched accurately. Concerns with the DNA profiling Bill emphasized by Dr. Wallace included that consent is not provided for in the bill, and court orders are not required. Furthermore, the bill does contain a removal process, and it is unclear what DNA profiling system will be used.

Responding to the presentations made by the speakers, members of the audience raised concerns over the use of DNA sampling in India for reasons beyond forensic purposes, such as requiring surrogate mothers and the children to undergo DNA tests. Other members of the audience pointed out that the bill does not address the rights of suspects and prisoners. Additionally the question of the evidentiary weight of DNA samples in court was raised, along with the concern that the broad collection of DNA samples from individuals is just another example of the growing trend by the Indian government to collect and store information about its citizens.

Download Dr. Helen Wallace's presentation

Download Jeremy Gruber's presentation

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/public-meeting-on-dna-profiling-bill

Q&A to the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy

elonnai — 2012-11-09T10:20:48Z

In January 2012 Justice A.P. Shah formed a committee consisting of a group of experts to contribute to and create a report of recommendations for a privacy legislation in India. The committee met a total of seven times from January to September 2012. The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) was a member of the committee creating the report. This blog post is CIS’s attempt to answer questions that have arisen from media coverage on the report, based on our understanding.

Executive Summary

The executive summary explains how the need for a horizontal privacy legislation that recognizes the right to privacy has come about in India in light of projects and practices such as the UID, NATGRID, and the changing nature of business and technology. The executive summary highlights the committee’s recommendations of what should be considered by legislatures while enacting a privacy legislation in India.

Q: What are the salient features of the committee’s recommendations?

A: In its report the committee recommended that any privacy legislation passed should:

Be technologically neutral and interoperable with international standards to ensure that the regulation can adapt to changing technology, and that business will be promoted.
Recognize the multiple dimensions of privacy including physical and informational privacy.
Apply to all data controllers both in the private sector and the public sector to ensure that businesses and governments are held accountable to protecting privacy.
Establish a set of privacy principles that can be applicable to different practices, policies, projects, departments, and businesses to create a uniform level of privacy protection across all sectors.
Create an enforcement regime of co-regulation, where industry has the choice of developing privacy principles and ensuring compliance at the sectoral level with regular oversight by the Privacy Commissioners.

Chapter 1: Constitutional Basis for Privacy

This chapter summarizes a number of decisions from the Indian Judiciary that demonstrate how the right to privacy in India has been defined on a case to case basis and has been defined as either a fundamental right or a common law right.

Q: What are the contexts of the cases covered?

A: This chapter covers cases that speak to the:

Right to privacy in the context of surveillance by the State
Balancing the ‘right to privacy’ against the ‘right to free speech’
The ‘right to privacy’ of HIV patients
Prior judicial sanctions for tapping telephones
The ‘search and seizure’ powers of revenue authorities

Chapter 2: International Privacy Principles

This chapter summarizes recent developments in privacy laws, international privacy principles, and privacy principles developed by specific countries. This review aided the Committee in forming its recommendations for the report.

Q: Privacy principles from which countries were reviewed by the Committee?

A: The Committee reviewed privacy principles from the following countries and international organizations.

EU Regulations of January 2012
US Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights
OECD Privacy Principles
APEC Privacy Framework
Australia
Canada

Chapter 3: National Privacy Principles, Rationales, and Emerging Issues

This chapter lays out the nine national privacy principles and describes the rationale for each principle along with emerging issues around each principle.

Q: What could the principles apply to?

A: The principles apply to the collection, processing, storage, retention, access, disclosure, destruction, sharing, transfer, and anonymization of sensitive personal information, personal identifiable information, and identifiable information by data controllers. The national privacy principles can also be applied to legislation, projects, practices, and policies to ensure that provisions and requirements are in compliance with the national privacy principles.

Q: Who could be brought under the scope of the principles?

A: The principles are applicable to every data controller in the private sector and the public sector. For example organizations and government departments that determine the purposes and means of processing personal information will be brought under the scope of the principles and will be responsible for carrying out the processing of data in accordance with sectoral privacy standards or the national privacy principles.

Q: How could the National Privacy Principles impact individuals?

A: The principles provide individuals with the right to 1. Receive notice before giving consent stating what personal information is being collected, the purposes for which personal information is being collected, the uses of collected personal information, whether or not personal information will be disclosed to third persons, security safeguards established by the data controller, processes available to data subjects to access and correct personal information, and contact details of privacy officers. 2. Opt in and out of providing personal information 3. Withdraw given consent at any point of time. 4. Access and correct any personal information held by data controllers 5. Allow individuals to issue a complaint with the respective ombudsman, privacy commissioner, or court.

Q: Would the National Privacy Principles be binding for every data controller?

A: Yes, but Self Regulating Organizations at the industry level have the option of developing principles for that specific sector. These principles must be approved by the privacy commissioner and be in compliance with the National Privacy Principles.

Chapter 4: Analysis of Relevant Legislation, Bills, and Interests from a Privacy Perspective

This chapter examines relevant legislation, bills, and interests from a privacy perspective. In doing so the chapter clarifies how the right to privacy should intersect with the right to information and the freedom of expression, and anaylzes current and upcoming legislation to demonstrate what existing provisions in the legislation uphold the privacy principles, what existing provisions are in conflict with the principles, and what provisions are missing to ensure that the legislation is compliant to the extent possible with the principles.

Q: How does the report understand the relationship between the Right to Information and the Right to Privacy?

A: When applied the Privacy Act should not circumscribe the Right to Information Act. Furthermore, RTI recipients should not be considered data controllers and thus should not be brought under the ambit of the privacy principles.

Q: How does the report understand the relationship between the freedom of expression and privacy?

A: Questions about how to balance the right to privacy with the freedom of expression can arise in many circumstances including: the right to be forgotten and data portability, journalistic expression, state secrecy and whistle blowers, and national security. Most often, public interest is the test used to determine if the right to privacy should supersede the freedom of expression or vice versa.

Chapter 5: The Regulatory Framework

This chapter outlines the committee’s recommendations for a regulatory framework for the Privacy Act.

Q: Who are the main actors in the regulatory framework?

A: The report recommends that a regulatory framework be comprised of one privacy commissioner at the central level and four commissioners at the regional level, self regulating organizations (SRO’s) at the industry level, data controllers and privacy officers at the organization level, and courts.

Q: What are the salient features of the regulatory framework?

A: The salient features of the regulatory framework include 1. A framework of co-regulation 2. Complaints 3. Exceptions to the Privacy Act 4. Offenses under the Act

Q: What are exceptions to the right to privacy? Are these blanket exceptions?

A: National security; public order; disclosure of information in public interest; prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of criminal offences; and protection of the individual or of the rights and freedoms of others are suggested exceptions to the right to privacy. The committee has qualified these exceptions with the statement that before an exception can be made for the following circumstances, the proportionality, legality, and necessity in a democratic state should be used to measure if the exception applies and the extent of the exception. Thus, they are not blanket exceptions to the right to privacy

Historical and scientific research and journalistic purposes were also recommended as additional exceptions to the right to privacy that may be considered. These exceptions will not be subjected to the principles of proportionality, legality, and necessary in a democratic state.

Q: What are the powers and responsibilities of the privacy commissioners?

A: The powers and responsibilities of the Privacy Commissioners are the following:

Responsibilities:

Enforcement of the Act
Broadly oversee interception/access, audio & video recordings, the use of personal identifiers, and the use of bodily or genetic material.
Evaluate and approve privacy principles developed by SRO’s
Collaborate with stakeholders to endure effective regulation, promote awareness of the Act, and sensitize citizens to privacy considerations

Powers:

Order privacy impact assessments on organisations
Investigate complaints suomotu or based off of complaints from data subjects (summon documents, call and examine witnesses, and take a case to court if necessary )
Fine non-compliant data controllers

Q: How does Co-regulation work?

A: The purpose of establishing a regulatory framework of co-regulation is to ensure that appropriate policies and principles are articulated and enforced for all sectors. If a sector wishes to develop its own privacy standards, the industry level self regulating organization will submit to the privacy commissioner a sub set of self regulatory norms. If these norms are approved by the privacy commissioner the SRO will be responsible for enforcing those norms, but the privacy commissioner will have the power to sanction member data controllers for violating the norms. If a sector does not have an SRO or does not wish to develop its own set of standards, the National Privacy Principles will be binding.

Q: What are data controllers? What are privacy officers? What are ombudsmen?

A: A data controller is any entity that handles or process data. Privacy officers receive and handle complaints at the organizational level and may be appointed as part of a SRO’s privacy requirements for a sector. Ombudsmen are appointed at the SRO level and are also responsible for receiving and handling complaints. The objective of having ombudsman and privacy officers is to reduce the burden of handling complaints on the commissioner and the courts.

Q: When can an individual issue a complaint? Which body should individuals issue complaints to?

A: An individual can issue a complaint at any point of time when they feel that their personal information has not been handled by a data controller according to the principles, or that a data controller is not in compliance with the Act. When applicable complaints are encouraged to be issued first to the organization. If the complaint is not resolved, the individual can take the complaint to the SRO or privacy commissioner. The individual also has the option of taking a complaint straight to the courts. When a complaint is received by the commissioner, the commissioner may fine the data controller if it is found to be non-compliant. Data controllers cannot appeal fines issued by the commissioner, but they can appeal the initial decision of non-compliance.

Q: Can an individual receive compensation for a violation of privacy:

A: Yes. Individuals who suffer damages caused by non-compliance with the principles or any obligation under the Act can receive compensation, but the compensation must be issued by the courts and cannot be issued by a privacy commissioner. Actors that can be held liable by individuals include data controllers, organization directors, agency directors, and heads of Governmental departments.

Q: What offences does the report reccomend?

A: The following constitutes as an offence under the Act:

Non-compliance with the privacy principles
Unlawful collection, processing, sharing/disclosure, access, and use of personal data
Obstruction of commissioner
Failure to comply with notification issued by commissioner
- Processing data after receiving a notification
- Failure to appear before commissioner
- Failure to produce documents requested by commissioner
- Sending report to commissioner with false or misleading information

Chapter 6: The Multiple Dimensions of Privacy

This chapter gives examples of practices that impact privacy in India which the national privacy principles could be applied to. These include interception/access, the use of electronic recording devices, the use of personal identifiers, and the use of bodily and genetic material. The current state of each practice in India is described, and the inconsistencies and gaps in the regimes are highlighted. Each section also provides recommendations of which privacy principles need to be addressed and strengthened in each practice, and how the privacy principles would be affected by each practice.

Q: Does the report give specific recommendations as to how each practice should be amended to incorporate the National Privacy Principles?

A: No. Each section explains the current state of the practice in India, gaps and inconsistencies with the current practice, and recommends broadly what principles need to be addressed and strengthened in the regime, and how the National Privacy Principles may be affected by the practice.

Summary of Recommendations

This chapter consolidates and clarifies all of the Committee’s recommendations for a Privacy Act in India.

Q: Are the recommendations in this chapter different from chapters above?

A: No. The recommendations in this chapter reflect the recommendations made earlier. This chapter does clarify the recommended scope and objectives of the Privacy Act including:

The Act should define and harmonize with existing laws in force.
The Act should extend the right of privacy to all individuals in India and all data processed by any company or equipment locating in India, and all data that originated in India.
The Act should clarify that the publication of personal data for artistic and journalistic purposes in public interest, the use of personal information for household purposes, and the disclosure of information as required by the Right to Information Act should not constitute an infringement of privacy.
The Act should not require a ‘reasonable expectation’ of privacy to be present for the right to be evoked.
If any other legislation provides more extensive protections than those set out by the Privacy Act, than the more extensive protections should apply.

Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy [PDF, 1270 Kb]

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/question-and-answer-to-report-of-group-of-experts-on-privacy

High Level Comparison and Analysis of the Use and Regulation of DNA Based Technology Bill 2017

elonnai — 2017-08-11T02:16:52Z

This blog post seeks to provide a high level comparison of the 2017 and 2015 DNA Profiling Bill - calling out positive changes, remaining issues, and missing provisions.

In July 2017 the Law Commission published a report on DNA profiling and the “Draft Use and Regulation of DNA Based Technology Bill 2017”. India has been contemplating a draft DNA Profiling Bill since 2007. There have been two publicly available versions of the bill, 2012, and 2015, and one version in 2016. In 2013, the Department of Biotechnology formulated an Expert Committee to discuss different aspects and issues raised regarding the Bill towards finalizing the text. The Centre for Internet and Society was a member of the Expert Committee, and in its conclusion, issued a note of dissent to the Expert Committee for DNA Profiling.

This post provides a high level overview of the Use and Regulation of DNA Based Technology Bill 2017 and calls out positive changes from the 2015 Bill, remaining issues, and missing provisions. The post also calls out if, and where, CIS's recommendations to the Expert Committee have been incorporated.

If enacted, the 2017 Bill will establish national and regional DNA data banks that will maintain five different types of indices: a crime scene index, missing persons, offenders, suspects, and unknown deceased persons. The data banks will be led by a Director, responsible for communicating information with requesting entities, foreign states, and international organizations. Information relating to DNA profiles, DNA samples, and records maintained in a DNA laboratory can be made available in six instances: to law enforcement and investigating agencies, in judicial proceedings, for facilitating prosecution and adjudication of criminal cases, for taking defence of an accused, for investigation of civil disputes, and other cases which might be specified by regulations. Offences related to unauthorized disclosure of information in the DNA data bank, obtaining information from DNA data banks without authorization, unlawful access to information in the DNA Data Bank, using DNA sample or result without authorization, and destroying, altering, contaminating, or tampering with biological evidence.

Below are some key positive changes from the 2015 Bill, remaining issues, and missing safeguards from the 2017 Bill:

Positive Changes: The Bill contains a number of positive changes from the 2015 draft. Key ones include:

Consent: Section 21 prohibits the taking of samples from arrested persons without consent, except in the case of a specified offence - a specified offence being any offence punishable with death or imprisonment for a term exceeding seven years. If consent is refused, a magistrate can order the taking of the sample. This can be in the case of any matter listed in the Schedule of the Act. Section 22 provides for consent from volunteers. It is important to note that despite being an improvement from the 2015 Bill, which did not address instances of collection with our without consent, this provision is still broad as the list of offences under the Schedule is expansive and can be further expanded by the Central Government. Furthermore, the Magistrate can overrule a refusal of consent of the parent or guardian of a voluneet who is a minor, which does not provide adequate protection to childrens' rights.
Deletion: Section 31 defines instances for deletion of suspect profiles, under trial profiles, and all other profiles. Though a step in the right direction, as the 2015 Bill only addressed retention and deletion of the offenders index, this provision does not address the automatic removal of innocents.
Purpose limitation: Section 33 limits the purpose of profiles in the DNA Data Bank to that of facilitating identification. This is a positive step from the 2015 Bill - which enabled use of DNA profiles for the creation and maintenance of a population statistics data bank. Section 34 also limits the purposes for which information relating to DNA profiles, samples, and records can be made available.
Destruction of samples: Section 20 defines instances for destruction of DNA samples. Destruction of samples was not address in the 2015 Bill, and is an important protection as it prevents samples from being re-analyzed.
Comparison of profiles: Section 29 clarifies that if the individual is not an offender or a suspect, their information will not be compared with DNA profiles in the offenders’ or suspects index. This creates an important distinction between types of indices held in the data bank and the purpose for the same i.e missing persons are not treated as potential offenders. In the 2015 Bill, profiles entered in the offenders or crime scene index could be compared by the DNA Data Bank Manger against all profiles contained in the DNA Data Bank.
Re-testing: Section 24 allows for an accused person to request for a re-examination of fresh bodily substances if it is believed the sample has been contaminated. The closest provision to this in the 2015 was the creation a post - conviction right for DNA profiling - which is now deleted. It is important to note that fresh samples can easily be obtained from individuals, but if contamination happens at a crime scene, it is much more difficult to obtain a fresh sample.
Limiting Indices and including a crime scene index: The 2017 Bill limits the number of indices to five - a crime scene index, missing persons, offenders, suspects, and unknown deceased persons. This is an improvement from the 2015 Bill which provides for the maintenance of indices in the DNA Bank and includes a missing person’s index, an unknown deceased person’s index, a volunteers’ index, and such other DNA indices as may be specified by regulation.

Remaining Issues: There are some remaining issues in the 2017 Bill. Some of these include:

Delegating and Expanding through Regulation: The Bill delegates a number of procedures to regulation - many which should be in the text of the Bill. For example: the format for receiving and storing DNA profiles, and additional criteria for entry, retention, and deletion of DNA profiles. Furthermore, a number of provisions allow for expansion through regulation. For example, the sources from which DNA can be collected from to be expanded as specified by regulations. Further purposes for making DNA profiles available can be defined by regulation. Important procedures such as privacy and security safeguards are also left to regulation.
Broad Powers and Composition of the Board: The Bill designates twenty one responsibilities to the Board. As pointed out in 1, many of these should be detailed in the text of the legislation.

While serving on the Expert Committee,CIS recommended that the functions of the DNA Profiling Board should be limited to licensing, developing standards and norms, safeguarding privacy and other rights, ensuring public transparency, promoting information and debate and a few other limited functions necessary for a regulatory authority. This recommendation has not been incorporated.

Ideally, the Board should also include privacy experts, an expert in ethics, as well as civil society. Towards this, the Board should be comprised of separate Committees to address these different functions. There should be a Committee addressing regulatory issues pertaining to the functioning of Data Banks and Laboratories and an Ethics Committee to provide independent scrutiny of ethical issues.

As a positive note, the reduction of the size of the Board was agreed upon by the Expert Committee from 16 members (2012 Bill) to 11 members. This reccomendation has been incorporated.

CIS also provided language regarding how the Board could consult with the public:The Board, in carrying out its functions and activities, shall be required to consult with all persons and groups of persons whose rights and related interests may be affected or impacted by any DNA collection, storage, or profiling activity. The Board shall, while considering any matter under its purview, co-opt or include any person, group of persons, or organisation, in its meetings and activities if it is satisfied that that person, group of persons, or organisation, has a substantial interest in the matter and that it is necessary in the public interest to allow such participation. The Board shall, while consulting or co-opting persons, ensure that meetings, workshops, and events are conducted at different places in India to ensure equal regional participation and activities. This language has not been fully incorporated

Lack of Authorization Procedure: Though the Bill defines instances of when DNA information can be made available, it fails to establish or refer to an authorization process for making information available and the decision currently seems to rest with the DNA Bank Director.
Expansive Schedule: The Bill creates a schedule containing a list of matters for DNA testing which includes whole acts and a range of civil disputes and matters that are broad and do not relate to criminal cases - most notably “issues relating to immigration or emigration and issues relating to establishment of individual identity.”
Unclear Data Stored: Though the Bill clarifies the circumstance that the identity of the individual will be associated with a profile, it allows for ‘information of data based on DNA testing and records relating thereto” to be stored, yet it is unclear what information this would entail.
Lack of procedures for chain of custody: Presently, the Bill defines quality assurance procedures for a sample that is already at the lab. There are no provisions defining a process for the examination of a crime scene and laying down standards for the chain of custody of a sample from the crime scene to a DNA laboratory.

Missing Safeguards:

There are some safeguards that, if added, would strengthen the Bill and ensure rights to the individual:

Notification to the individual: There are no provisions that ensure that notification is given to an individual if his/her information is accessed or made available.
Right to challenge: There are no provisions that give the individual the right to challenge the storage of their DNA.
Established profiling standard: Though the Law Commission report refers to the 13 CODIS standard, the Bill does not mandate the use of the 13 CODIS profiling standard.
Reporting standard: There are no standards for how matches or other information should be communicated from the DNA director to the authority or receiving entity including instances of partial matches.
Right to access and review: There are no provisions that allow an individual to review his/her information contained in the regional or the national database.
Lack of costing: There is no cost estimate in the report or a requirement for one to be carried out.
Study for the potential for false matches: This must consider the size of the population and large family size, i.e. relatively large numbers of closely related people and is particularly necessary given the the size over population as large as India's.

Importantly, in the DNA Expert Committee, CIS requested the Expert Committee that the Bill be brought in line with the nine national principles defined in the Report of Experts on Privacy led by Justice AP Shah. These include the principles of notice, choice and consent, collection limitation, purpose limitation, access and correction, disclosure of information, security, openness, and accountability. These principles have not been fully incorporated.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/high-level-comparison-and-analysis-of-the-use-and-regulation-of-dna-based-technology-bill-2017

UIDAI Practices and the Information Technology Act, Section 43A and Subsequent Rules

elonnai — 2014-03-06T07:00:21Z

UIDAI practices and section 43A of the IT Act are analyzed in this post.

In the 52^nd Report on Cyber Crime, Cyber Security, and the Right to Privacy – in evidence provided, the Department of Electronics and Information Technology stated “...Section 43A and the rules published under that Section cover the entire privacy in case of digital data. These are being followed by UIDAI also and other organisations...” (pg.46) [1]

This blog post explains the requirements found under Section 43A of the Information Technology Act 2000 and the subsequent Information Technology “ Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal Data or Information) Rules 2011[2] and analyses publicly available documents from the UIDAI website[3] as well as the UIDAI enrolment form[4] to demonstrate the ways in which:

UIDAI practices are in line with section 43A and the Rules,
UIDAI practices are not in line with section 43A and the Rules,
UIDAI practices are partially in with section 43A and the Rules
Where more information is needed to draw a conclusion.

Applicability and Scope

Section 43A of the Information Technology Act 2008 and subsequent Rules apply only to Body Corporate and to digital information.

Body Corporate under the Information Technology Act 2008 is defined as:

“Any company and includes a firm, sole proprietorship or other association of individuals engaged in commercial or professional activities”

UIDAI Practices - not in line: The UIDAI is not a body corporate. The UIDAI is an attached office under the aegis of the Planning Commission that was set up by an executive order.[5]

The UIDAI collects, processes, stores, and shares both digital and non-digital information. As section 43A and subsequent Rules apply only to digital information, there is not sufficient protection provided over all the information collected, processed, stored, and used by the UIDAI.

Privacy Policy on Website

Rule 4 requires body corporate to provide a privacy policy on their website. The privacy policy must include:

Clear and easily accessible statements of its practices and policies
Type of personal or sensitive personal data or information collected
Purpose of collection and usage of such information
Disclosure of information including sensitive personal information
Reasonable security practices and procedures as provided under rule 8

UIDAI Practices - Partially in Line

Though the UIDAI has placed a privacy policy[6] on their website, the privacy policy only addresses the use of website and does not comprehensively provide clear and accessible statements about all of the UIDAI’s practices and policies.
The UIDAI privacy policy does not state the specific types of personal or sensitive data that could be collected, but instead states “As a general rule, this website does not collect Personal Information about you when you visit the site. You can generally visit the site without revealing Personal Information, unless you choose to provide such information.”

Features on the UIDAI website that require individuals to provide personal information and sensitive personal information include: Booking an appointment, checking aadhaar status, enrolling for e-aadhaar, enrolling for aadhaar, updating aadhaar data. Types of information required for these services include: mobile number, name, address, gender, date of birth, and enrolment ID.[7]

The privacy policy goes on to state: “If you are asked for any other Personal Information you will be informed how it will be used if you choose to give it. If at any time you believe the principles referred to in this privacy statement have not been followed, or have any other comments on these principles, please notify the webmaster through the Contact Us page. Note: The use of the term "Personal Information" in this privacy statement refers to any information from which your identity is apparent or can be reasonably ascertained.”
The UIDAI privacy policy does explain the purpose for collection of information on the website and the use of collected information.
The UIDAI privacy policy does not address the possibility of disclosure of information collected by the UIDAI from the use of its website, except in the case of when an individual provides his/her email at which point the privacy policy states “Your e-mail address will not be used for any other purpose, and will not be disclosed without your consent.”
The UIDAI privacy policy does not provide information about the security practices adopted by the UIDAI.

Consent

Rule 5 requires that prior to the collection of sensitive personal data, the body corporate must obtain consent, either in writing or through fax regarding the purpose of usage before collection of such information.

UIDAI Practices - in Line
The UIDAI collects written consent from individuals through the enrolment form for the issuance of an Aadhaar number.

Collection Limitation

Rule 5 (2) requires that body corporate only collect sensitive personal data if it is connected to a lawful purpose and if it is considered necessary for that purpose.

UIDAI Practices - in Line
The Aadhaar enrolment form requires only the necessary sensitive personal data for the issuance of an Aadhaar number. Individuals are given the option to provide banking and financial information.

Notice During Direct Collection

Rule 5(3) requires that while collecting information directly from an individual the body corporate must provide the following information:

The fact that the information is being collected
The purpose for which the information is being collected
The intended recipients of the information
The name and address of the agency that is collecting the information
The name and address of the agency that will retain the information

UIDAI Practices - Partially in Line
The Aadhaar enrolment form does not provide the following information:

The intended recipients of the information
The name and address of the agency collecting the information
The name and address of the agency that will retain the information

Retention Limitation

Rule 5(4) requires that body corporate must retain sensitive personal data only for as long as it takes to fulfil the stated purpose or otherwise required under law.

UIDAI Practices - Unclear
It is unclear from publicly available information what the UIDAI retention practices are.

Use Limitation

Rule 5(5) requires that information must be used for the purpose that it was collected for.

UIDAI Practices - Unclear
It is unclear from publicly available information if the UIDAI is using collected information only for the purpose for which it was collected for.

Right to Access and Correct

Rule 5(6) requires body corporate to provide individuals with the ability to review the information they have provided and access and correct personal or sensitive personal information.

UIDAI Practices - Partially in Line
Though the UIDAI provides individuals with the ability to access and correct personal information, as stated on the enrolment form, correction is free only if changed within 96 hours of enrolment. Additionally, as stated on the enrolment form, if an individual chooses to allow for the UIDAI to facilitate the opening of a bank account and link present bank accounts to the UID number, this information, after being provided, cannot be corrected. The UIDAI website has a portal for updating information, but only name, address, gender, data of birth, and mobile number can be updated through this method. [9]

Right to ‘Opt Out’ and Withdraw Consent

Rule 5(7) requires that body corporate must provide individuals with the option of 'opting out' of providing data or information sought. Individuals also have the right to withdraw consent at any point of time. Body corporate has the right to withdraw services if consent is withdrawn.

UIDAI Practices - Partially in Line
The UID enrolment form provides individuals with one ‘optional’ field - the option of having the UIDAI open a bank account and link it to the individuals UID number or having the UIDAI link present bank accounts to individuals UID number. No other option to ‘opt out’ or withdraw consent is present on the enrolment form or the UIDAI privacy policy, terms of use, or website.

Security of Information

Rule 8 requires that body corporate must secure information in accordance with the ISO 27001 standard. These practices must be audited on an annual basis or when the body corporate undertakes a significant up gradation of its process and computer resource.

UIDAI Practices - Unclear
The security practices adopted by the UIDAI are not mentioned in the website privacy policy, on the website, or on the enrolment form, thus it is unclear from publicly available information if the UID is compliant with ISO 27001 standards. Though the UIDAI has been functioning since 2010, and it is unclear from publicly available information if annual audits of the UIDAI security practices have been undertaken.

Disclosure with Consent

Rule 6 requires that body corporate must have consent before disclosing sensitive personal data to any third person or party, except in the case with Government agencies for the purpose of verification of identity, prevention, detection, investigation, including cyber incidents and prosecution and punishment of offenses, on receipt of a written request.

UIDAI Practices - Partially in Line
In the enrolment form, consent for disclosure is stated as ‘‘I have no objection to the UIDAI sharing information provided by me to the UIDAI with agencies engaged in delivery of welfare services.” This is a blanket statement and allows for all future possibilities of sharing and disclosure of information provided with any organization that the UIDAI deems as ‘engaged in the delivery of welfare services’.

The UIDAI privacy policy only addresses the disclosure of an individual’s email address with consent. Though not directly addressing disclosure, the UIDAI privacy policy also states “ We will not identify users or their browsing activities, except when a law enforcement agency may exercise a warrant to inspect the service provider's logs.”

Prohibition on Publishing and Further Disclosure

Rule 6(3) and 6(4) prohibit the body corporate from publishing sensitive personal data or information. Similarly, organizations receiving sensitive personal data are not allowed to disclose it further.

UIDAI Practices - in Line
The UDAI does not publish sensitive personal data. It is unclear what practices and standards registrars and enrolment agencies are functioning under.

Requirements for Transfer of Sensitive Personal Data

Rule 7 requires that body corporate may transfer sensitive personal data into another jurisdiction only if the country ensures the same level of protection.

UIDAI Practices - Unclear
It is unclear from publicly available information if information collected by the UIDAI is transferred outside of India.

Establishment of Grievance Officer

Rule 5(9) requires that body corporate must establish a grievance officer and the details must be posted on the body corporates website and grievances must be addressed within a month of receipt.

UIDAI Practices - in Line
The website of the UIDAI provides details of a grievance officer that individuals can contact.[10] It is unclear from publicly available information if grievances are addressed within a month.

[1]. http://164.100.47.134/lsscommittee/Information%20Technology/15_Information_Technology_52.pdf

[2]. http://dispur.nic.in/itact/it-procedures-sensitive-personal-data-rules-2011.pdf

[3]. http://uidai.gov.in/

[4]. http://www.jharkhand.gov.in/marpdf/Aadhar-enrolmentform.pdf

[5]. http://uidai.gov.in/organization-details.html

[6]. http://uidai.gov.in/privacy-policy.html

[7]. http://resident.uidai.net.in/home

[8]. http://www.jharkhand.gov.in/marpdf/Aadhar-enrolmentform.pdf

[9]. https://ssup.uidai.gov.in/web/guest/ssup-home

[10]. http://uidai.gov.in/contactus.html

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/uid-practices-and-it-act-sec-43-a-and-subsequent-rules

Intermediary Liability Resources

elonnai — 2014-07-03T06:45:48Z

We bring you a list of intermediary resources as part of research on internet governance. This blog post will be updated on an ongoing basis.

Shielding the Messengers: Protecting Platforms for Expression and Innovation. The Centre for Democracy and Technology. December 2012, available at: https://www.cdt.org/files/pdfs/CDT-Intermediary-Liability-2012.pdf: This paper analyses the impact that intermediary liability regimes have on freedom of expression, privacy, and innovation. In doing so, the paper highlights different models of intermediary liability regimes, reviews different technological means of restricting access to content, and provides recommendations for intermediary liability regimes and provides alternative ways of addressing illegal content online.
Internet Intermediaries: Dilemma of Liability: Article 19. 2013, available at: http://www.article19.org/data/files/Intermediaries_ENGLISH.pdf:This Policy Document reviews different components of intermediary liability and highlights the challenges and risks that current models of liability have to online freedom of expression. Relying on international standards for freedom of expression and comparative law, the document includes recommendations and alternative models that provide stronger protection for freedom of expression. The key recommendation in the document include: web hosting providers or hosts should be immune from liability to third party content if they have not modified the content, privatised enforcement should not be a model and removal orders should come only from courts or adjudicatory bodies, the model of notice to notice should replace notice and takedown regimes, in cases of alleged serious criminality clear conditions should be in place and defined.
Comparative Analysis of the National Approaches to the Liability of Internet Intermediaries: Prepared by Daniel Seng for WIPO, available at http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/copyright/en/doc/liability_of_internet_intermediaries.pdf:This Report reviews the intermediary liability regimes and associated laws in place across fifteen different contexts with a focus on civil copyright liability for internet intermediaries. The Report seeks to find similarities and differences across the regimes studied and highlight principles and components in different that can be used in international treaties and instruments, upcoming policies, and court decisions.
Freedom of Expression, Indirect Censorship, & Liability for Internet Intermediaries. The Electronic Frontier Foundation. February 2011, available at: http://infojustice.org/download/tpp/tpp-civil-society/EFF%20presentation%20ISPs%20and%20Freedom%20of%20Expression.pdf:This presentation was created for the Trans-Pacific Partnership Stakeholder Forum in Chile and highlights that for freedom of expression to be protected, clear legal protections for internet intermediaries are needed and advocates for a regime that provides blanket immunity to intermediaries or is based on judicial takedown notices.
Study on the Liability of Internet Intermediaries. Contracted by the European Commission. 2007, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/e-commerce/docs/study/liability/final_report_en.pdf. This Report provides insight on the application of the intermediary liability sections of the EU e-commerce directive and studies the impact of the regulations under the Directive on the functioning of intermediary information society services. To achieve this objective, the study identifies relavant case law across member states, calls out and evaluates developing trends across Member States, and draws conclusions.
Internet Intermediary Liability: Identifying Best Practices for Africa. Nicolo Zingales for the Association for Progressive Communications, available at: https://www.apc.org/en/system/files/APCInternetIntermediaryLiability_BestPracticesAfrica_20131125.pdf: This background paper seeks to identify challenges and opportunities in addressing intermediary liability for countries in the African Union and recommend safeguards that can be included in emerging intermediary liability regimes in the context of human rights. The paper also reviews different models of intermediary liability and discusses the limitations, scope, and modes of operation of each model.
The Liability of Internet Intermediaries in Nigeria, Kenya, South Africa, and Uganda: An uncertain terrain. Association for Progressive Communications. October 2012, available at: http://www.academia.edu/2484536/The_liability_of_internet_intermediaries_in_Nigeria_Kenya_South_Africa_and_Uganda_An_uncertain_terrain:This Report reviews intermediary liability in Nigeria, Kenya, South Africa and Uganda – providing background to the political context, relevant legislation, and present challenges . In doing so, the Report provides insight into how intermediary liability has changed in recent years in these contexts and explores past and present debates on intermediary liability. The Report concludes with recommendations for stakeholders affected by intermediary liability.
The Fragmentation of intermediary liability in the UK. Daithi Mac Sithigh. 2013, available at: http://jiplp.oxfordjournals.org/content/8/7/521.full.pdf?keytype=ref&ijkey=zuL8aFSzKJqkozT. This article looks at the application of the Electronic Commerce Directive across Europe and argues that it is being intermixed and subsequently replaced with provisions from national legislation and provisions of law from area specific legislation. Thus, the article argues that systems for intermediary liability are diving into multiple systems – for example for content related to copyright intermediaries are being placed with new responsibilities while for content related to defamation, there is a reducing in the liability that intermediaries are held to.
Regimes of Legal Liability for Online Intermediaries: an Overview. OECD, available at: http://www.oecd.org/sti/ieconomy/45509050.pdf. This article provides an overview of different intermediary liability regimes including EU and US.
Closing the Gap: Indian Online Intermediaries and a Liability System Not Yet Fit for Purpose. GNI. 2014, available at: http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/sites/default/files/Closing%20the%20Gap%20-%20Copenhagen%20Economics_March%202014_0.pdf. This Report argues that the provisions of the Information Technology Act 2000 are not adequate to deal with ICT innovations , and argues that the current liability regime in India is hurting the Indian internet economy.
Intermediary Liability in India. Centre for Internet and Society. 2011, available at: http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/intermediary-liability-in-india.pdf. This report reviews and ‘tests’ the effect of the Indian intermediary liability on freedom of expression. The report concludes that the present regime in India has a chilling effect on free expression and offers recommendations on how the Indian regime can be amended to protect this right.
The Liability of Internet Service providers and the exercise of the freedom of expression in Latin America have been explored in detail through the course of this research paper by Claudio Ruiz Gallardo and J. Carlos Lara Galvez. The paper explores the efficacy and the implementation of proposals to put digital communication channels under the oversight of certain State sponsored institutions in varying degrees. The potential consequence of legal intervention in media and digital platforms, on the development of individual rights and freedoms has been addressed through the course of this study. The paper tries to arrive at relevant conclusions with respect to the enforcement of penalties that seek to redress the liability of communication intermediaries and the mechanism that may be used to oversee the balance between the interests at stake as well as take comparative experiences into account. The paper also analyses the liability of technical facilitators of communications while at the same time attempting to define a threshold beyond which the interference into the working of these intermediaries may constitute an offence of the infringement of the privacy of users. Ultimately, it aims to derive a balance between the necessity for intervention, the right of the users who communicate via the internet and interests of the economic actors who may be responsible for the service: http://www.palermo.edu/cele/pdf/english/Internet-Free-of-Censorship/02-Liability_Internet_Service_Providers_exercise_freedom_expression_Latin_America_Ruiz_Gallardo_Lara_Galvez.pdf

Click to read the newsletter from the Association of Progressive Communications. The summaries for the reports can be found below:

Internet Intermediaries: The Dilemma of Liability in Africa. APC News, May 2014, available at: http://www.apc.org/en/node/19279/. This report summarizes the challenges facing internet content regulators in Africa, and the effects of these regulations on the state of the internet in Africa. Many African countries do not protect intermediaries from potential liability, so some intermediaries are too afraid to transmit or host content on the internet in those countries. The report calls for a universal rights protection for internet intermediaries.

APC’s Frequently Asked Questions on Internet Intermediary Liability: APC, May 2014, available at: http://www.apc.org/en/node/19291/. This report addresses common questions pertaining to internet intermediaries, which are entities which provide services that enable people to use the internet, from network providers to search engines to comments sections on blogs. Specifically, the report outlines different models of intermediary liability, defining two main models. The “Generalist” model intermediary liability is judged according to the general rules of civil and criminal law, while the “Safe Harbour” model protects intermediaries with a legal safe zone.

New Developments in South Africa: APC News, May 2014, available at: http://www.apc.org/en/news/intermediary-liability-new-developments-south-afri. This interview with researchers Alex Comninos and Andrew Rens goes into detail about the challenges of intermediary in South Africa. The researchers discuss the balance that needs to be struck between insulating intermediaries from a fear of liability and protecting women’s rights in an environment that is having trouble dealing with violence against women. They also discuss South Africa’s three strikes policy for those who pirate material.

Preventing Hate Speech Online In Kenya: APCNews, May 2014, available at: http://www.apc.org/en/news/intermediary-liability-preventing-hate-speech-onli. This interview with Grace Githaiga investigates the uncertain fate of internet intermediaries under Kenya’s new regime. The new government has mandated everyone to register their SIM cards, and indicated that it was monitoring text messages and flagging those that were deemed risky. This has led to a reduction in the amount of hate speech via text messages. Many intermediaries, such as newspaper comments sections, have established rules on how readers should post on their platforms. Githaiga goes on to discuss the issue of surveillance and the lack of a data protection law in Kenya, which she sees as the most pressing internet issue in Kenya.

New Laws in Uganda Make Internet Providers More Vulnerable to Liability and State Intervention: APCNews, May 2014, available at: http://www.apc.org/en/news/new-laws-uganda-make-internet-providers-more-vulne. In an interview, Lilian Nalwoga discusses Uganda’s recent anti-pornography law that can send intermediaries to prison. The Anti-Pornography Act of 2014 criminalizes any sort of association with any form of pornography, and targets ISPs, content providers, and developers, making them liable for content that goes through their systems. This makes being an intermediary extremely risky in Uganda. The other issue with the law is a vague definition of pornography. Nalwoga also explains the Anti-Homosexuality Act of 2014 bans any promotion or recognition of homosexual relations, and the monitoring technology the government is using to enforce these laws.

New Laws Affecting Intermediary Liability in Nigeria: APCNews, May 2014, available at: http://www.apc.org/en/news/new-laws-affecting-intermediary-liability-nigeria. Gbenga Sesan, executive director of Paradigm Initiative Nigeria, expounds on the latest trends in Nigerian intermediary liability. The Nigerian Communications Commission has a new law that mandates ISPs store users data for at least here years, and wants to make content hosts responsible for what users do on their networks. Additionally, in Nigeria, internet users register with their real name and prove that you are the person who is registration. Sesan goes on to discuss the lack of safe harbor provisions for intermediaries and the remaining freedom of anonymity on social networks in Nigeria.

Internet Policies That Affect Africans: APC News, May 2014, available at: http://www.apc.org/en/news/intermediary-liability-internet-policies-affect-af. The Associsation for Progressive Communcations interviews researcher Nicolo Zingales about the trend among African governments establishing further regulations to control the flow of information on the internet and hold intermediaries liable for content they circulate. Zingales criticizes intermediary liability for “creating a system of adverse incentives for free speech.” He goes on to offer examples of intermediaries and explain the concept of “safe harbor” legislative frameworks. Asked to identify best and worst practices in Africa, he highlights South Africa’s safe harbor as a good practice, and mentions the registration of users via ID cards as a worst practice.

Towards Internet Intermediary Responsibility: Carly Nyst, November 2013, available at: http://www.genderit.org/feminist-talk/towards-internet-intermediary-responsibility. Nyst argues for a middle ground between competing goals in internet regulation in Africa. Achieving one goal, of protecting free speech through internet intermediaries seems at odds with the goal of protecting women’s rights and limiting hate speech, because one demands intermediaries be protected in a legal safe harbor and the other requires intermediaries be vigilant and police their content. Nyst’s solution is not intermediary liability but responsibility, a role defined by empowerment, and establishing an intermediary responsibility to promote positive gender attitudes.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/intermediary-liability-resources

CIS Welcomes 52nd Report on Cyber Crime, Cyber Security, and Right to Privacy

elonnai — 2014-02-24T10:49:46Z

The “Fifty Second Report on Cyber Crime, Cyber Security, and Right to Privacy” issued by the 2013 -2014 Standing Committee on Information Technology on February 12th 2014, highlights the urgent need for reform in India’s cyber security framework and the need for the much awaited privacy legislation to be finalized and made into a law.

Read the Fifty-Second Report on Cyber Crime, Cyber Security and Right to Privacy released by the Department of Electronics and Information Technology

The Report consists of questions on the state of cyber security, cyber crime, and privacy posed by the Standing Committee and briefings and evidence provided by the Department of Electronics and Information Technology (DEITY ) in reply. The Report concludes with recommendations from the Standing Committee on the way forward.

The Report represents an important step forward in the realm of privacy and cyber security in India as the evidence provided by DEITY clarifies a number of aspects of India’s present and upcoming cyber security policies and practices. Furthermore, the recommendations by the Standing Committee highlight present gaps and inadequacies in India’s policies and practices and needed steps forward– particularly the need for a privacy legislation in India in the context of cyber security, increased transactions of sensitive data, and governmental projects like the Unique Identification Project.

Broadly, the Standing Committee sought input from DEITY on eight different aspects of cyber crime, cyber security, and privacy in India - namely: the growing incidents of cyber crime and resulting financial loss, the challenges and constraints of cyber crime, the role of relevant governmental organizations in India with respect to cyber security, preparedness and policy initiatives, cyber security and the right to privacy, monitoring and grievance redressal mechanism, and education and awareness initiatives. The evidence provided by DEITY sheds light on the present mindset of the Government at this time, upcoming policies, and capacity and infrastructure gaps in India’s cyber security framework.

The Centre for Internet and Society appreciates the Report and we would like to highlight and emphasize the following aspects:

Need for a privacy legislation and inadequacy of privacy provisions in Information Technology Act: When asked by the Standing Committee about the right to privacy and cyber security, DEITY highlighted the fact that the Information Technology Act contains sufficient safeguards for privacy, and added that the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) is in the process of developing a privacy legislation that will address the general concerns of privacy in the country, and thus the two together will be sufficient. DEITY also noted that no study on the extent of privacy breach due to cyber crime in India has been conducted. In their recommendations, the Standing Committee noted that it was unhappy that the Government has yet to institute a legal framework on privacy, as the increased transfer of sensitive data and projects like the UID leave citizens vulnerable to privacy violations . Significantly, the Standing Committee recommended that though the DoPT is currently responsible for drafting the Privacy Bill, DEITY should coordinate with the DoPT and become involved in the process.

As recognized by the Standing Committee, the Centre for Internet and Society would like to further emphasize the inadequacy of the provisions relating to privacy in the Information Technology Act, and the need for a privacy legislation in India. Inadequate aspects of the provisions have been pointed out by a number of sources. For example:

The Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy: Prepared by the committee chaired by Justice AP Shah
First Analysis of the Personal Data Protection Law in India: Prepared by the University of Namur for the Commission of the European Communities Directorate General for Justice, Freedom, and Security
Comments on the Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal Data or Information) Rules, 2011: Prepared by the Centre for Internet and Society and submitted to the Committee on Subordinate Legislation of the 15th Lok Sabha
India’s U-Turns on Data Privacy: Prepared by Graham Greenleaf for the Privacy Laws & Business International Report, Issues 110 -114, 2011

Unclear Enforcement of 43A and associated rules: In evidence provided, DEITY, while discussing section 43A and the associated Rules, noted that the Data Security Council of India and empanelled security auditors through CERT-in are responsible for the ‘auditing of best practice’s (pg 24). The Standing Committee did not directly respond to this comment.

The Centre for Internet and Society would like to point out that DEITY did not clearly state that DSCI and the auditors through CERT-in were responsible for auditing organizational security practices for compliance with 43A. Furthermore, there is no publicly available information regarding audits ensuring compliance with 43A or information about the number of companies that have been found to be compliant. The Centre for Internet and Society would like to encourage that this information be made public, and compliance with 43A be enforced at the organizational level.

UIDAI not in compliance with 43A and associated Rules: In evidence provided, DEITY noted that “..Section 43A and the rules published under that Section cover the entire privacy in case of digital data. These are being followed by UIDAI also and other organisations...” (pg.46) In their recommendations the Standing Committee did not directly address this comment, but did emphasize the need for a privacy legislation in light of the UID scheme.

The Centre for Internet and Society appreciates that the Standing Committee raised concern about the privacy implications of the UID project. We would like to highlight that the UIDAI is not a Body Corporate, and is not in compliance with 43A or the subsequent Rules in the Information Technology Act. Furthermore, the UID project involves the handling and processing of data in analogue and digital formats, and thus the privacy protections found under 43A are not sufficient.

The potential harms of metadata: In evidence provided, the Department noted “...we have been assured that whatever data has been gathered by them for surveillance relates only to the metadata..but we expressed that any incursion into the content will not be tolerated and is not tolerable from the Indian stand and point of view.” (pg.47) The Standing Committee did not respond directly to this comment.

The Centre for Internet and Society would like to thank the Standing Committee for noting that the Government should have taken prior steps to preventing such an interception from taking place and for recommending the Department to take develop a policy to prevent future instances of interception from taking place. The Centre for Internet and Society would like to emphasize the importance and potential sensitive nature of metadata. Metadata can, and often does, disclose more about an individual or an activity than the actual content. For example, metadata can reveal identity, behaviour patterns, associations, and can enable the mapping of location and individual movement. As such, the Centre for Internet and Society would recommend that the Government of India treat access to all information generated by individual and governmental communications as sensitive and confidential.

Inadequacy of the Information Technology Act: When asked by the Standing Committee if the Information Technology Act provided sufficient legal safeguards for cyber security and cyber crime, DEITY highlighted the fact that the Information Technology Act 2000 addresses all aspects of cyber crime in a comprehensive manner. DEITY also pointed out that the National Cyber Security Policy 2013 has provisions to enable the development of a legal framework, and the Department of Personnel and Training is in the process of drafting a privacy legislation for India that will fill any gaps that exist. In their recommendations, the Standing Committee recognized that the Information Technology Act does contain provisions that address cyber security and cyber crime, but, especially in the recent controversy over section 66A of the Act, Standing Committee emphasized the need for periodical reviews of the IT Act.

The Centre for Internet and Society appreciates the fact that the Committee recognized the need for periodical review of the Information Technology Act, particularly in light of the controversy over 66 A. The Centre for Internet and Society would like to underscore the problems associated with 66A and would like to highlight that with regards to privacy and cyber security, the IT Act is not adequate and falls short in a number of areas. Research that the Centre for Internet and Society has conducted explaining these weaknesses can be found through the below links:

Breaking Down Section 66A of the IT Act
Short note on IT Amendment Act, 2008

Implications of domestic servers: In response to questions posed by the Standing Committee about security risks associated with the importation of electronics and IT products, as well as the hosting of servers outside the country, DEITY noted the security risk of using foreign infrastructure and pointed to the hosting of servers in India as a solution to protecting the security and privacy of Indian data. The Standing Committee supported this initiative, and encouraged DEITY to take further steps towards securing and protecting the privacy of Indian data through the hosting of servers for critical sectors within India.

The Centre for Internet and Society appreciates the fact that the Standing Committee carefully limited the recommendation of locating servers in India to those in critical sectors, but would caution the Government of potential implications on users ability to freely access content and services, and highlight the fact that localization of servers is not a security solution in itself as a comprehensive solution and hardening of critical assets against cyber attacks is essential.

Incorporation of safeguards into MOU’s for international cooperation: When asked about MOU’s for international cooperation that DEITY has engaged in with other countries, DEITY reported that currently CERT-in is entering into a number of MOU’s with other countries to facilitate cooperation for cyber security purposes. Presently there are MOUs with the US, Japan, South Korea, Mauritius, Kasakhstan, Finland, and the Canada Electronics and ICT sector. DEITY is also seeking MOUs with Malaysia, Israel, Egypt, Canada, and Brazil. The Standing Committee supported India entering into MOU’s for purposes of international cooperation, and encouraged DEITY to continue entering into MOU’s to mitigate jurisdictional complications when seeking to address issues related to cyber security.

The Centre for Internet and Society recognizes the importance of international cooperation when handling issues related to cyber security and cyber crime. To ensure that this process is in line with human rights, the Centre for Internet and Society would encourage DEITY to ensure that all MOU’s and/or Mutual Legal Assistance Agreements:

Uphold the principle of dual criminality
Apply the highest level of protection for individuals in the case where the laws of more than one state could apply to communications surveillance
Are not used by any party involved to circumvent domestic legal restrictions on communications surveillance.
Are clearly documented and publicly available
Contain provisions guaranteeing procedural fairness.[1]

Hactivism as a benefit to society: In evidence provided on page 14, DEITY, among other elements, referred to Hactivism as a societal challenge to securing cyber security and tackling cyber crime. The Standing Committee did not directly address this comment.

The Centre for Internet and Society would like to point out that hacktivism is a complex topic and consists of methods. Though some methods used by hacktivists are illegal, and some use hacktivism for censorship purposes and to target certain groups, other forms of hacktivism can benefit society and strengthen cyber security by finding and revealing vulnerabilities in a system, and bringing attention to illegal or violative practices.

This works towards ensuring that a system is adequately secure. Because of the dynamic nature of hacktivism, the Centre for Internet and Society believes that hacktivism needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis and the Government should not broadly label hacktivism as a challenge to cyber security and cyber crime.[2]

Importance of the anonymous speech: In evidence provided, DEITY noted the threat to cyber security that the anonymous nature of the internet posed. This was reiterated by the Standing Committee in their recommendations.

While recognizing the potential threat to cyber security that the anonymous nature of the internet can pose, the Centre for Internet and Society would like to highlight the importance of anonymous speech online to an individual’s right to free expression.

Conclusion

Recognizing the direct connection between a strong privacy framework and a strong cyber security framework, as security cannot be achieved without privacy, and recognizing the need for a privacy legislation in light of governmental projects like the UID, the Centre for Internet and Society welcomes the Fifty Second Report on Cyber Crime, Cyber Security, and the Right to Privacy and echoes the Standing Committees recommendation and emphasis on the need for a comprehensive privacy legislation to be passed in India.

[1]. These safeguards are reflected in the principle of “safeguards for International Cooperation” found in the International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance” https://en.necessaryandproportionate.org/text

[2]. For more information about hacktivism see: Activism, Hacktivism, and Cyberterrorism. The Internet as a Tool for Influencing Foreign Policy. By Dorothy E. Denning. Georgetown University. Available at: http://www.iwar.org.uk/cyberterror/resources/denning.htm

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-welcomes-fifty-second-report-on-cyber-crime-cyber-security-right-to-privacy

Comparison of Section 35(1) of the Draft Human DNA Profiling Bill and Section 4 of the Identification Act Revised Statute of Canada

elonnai — 2014-03-03T08:20:55Z

A comparison of section 35(1) of the Draft Human DNA Profiling Bill, section 4 of the Identification Act, Revised Statute of Canada, and a review of international best practices.

In continuance of research around the Draft Human DNA Profiling Bill that has been drafted the Department of Biotechnology, this blog entry reviews best practices for the communication of DNA profiles from the DNA Bank Manager to law enforcement and the police, compares the section 35(1) of the Draft Human DNA Profiling Bill and section 4 of the Identification Act Revised Statute of Canada, and recommends a revision of the present provision in the Draft Human DNA Profiling Bill.

Indian Provision

35 (1) “On receipt of a DNA profile for entry in the DNA Data Bank, the DNA Bank Manager shall cause it to be compared with the DNA profiles in the DNA Data Bank in order to determine whether it is already contained in the DNA Data Bank and shall communicate, for the purposes of the investigation or prosecution in a criminal offence, the following information to a court, tribunal, law enforcement agency or DNA laboratory in India which the DNA Data Bank Manager considers is concerned with it, appropriate, namely –

(a) As to whether the DNA profile received is already contained in the Data Bank; and

(b) Any information, other than the DNA profile received, is contained in the Data Bank in relation to the DNA profile received.

(2) The information as to whether a person’s DNA profile is contained in the offenders’ index may be communicated to an official who is authorized to receive the same as prescribed.”

Canadian Provision vs. Indian Provision

According to the Draft Human DNA Profiling Bill 35(1) was adopted from the DNA Identification Act Revised Statute of Canada section 4. The provision found in the Draft Human DNA Profiling Bill is different in three ways:

The Canadian statute limits the communication of whether a DNA profile is contained in the Data Bank or not to law enforcement agencies or other DNA laboratories, where as the provision in the Draft Human DNA Profiling Bill allows the communication to law enforcement agencies, other DNA data banks, and courts and tribunals.
The Canadian statute limits the comparison of any DNA profile to that as entered in the convicted offenders index or the crime scene index with those DNA profiles that are already contained in the databank, where as the Draft Human DNA Profiling Bill allows for any received profile to be compared with the other profiles in the DNA Data Bank.
The Canadian statute defines four types of information that may be communicated to law enforcement or another DNA databank including:

(a) if the DNA profile is not already contained in the data bank, the fact that it is not;
(b) if the DNA profile is already contained in the data bank, the information contained in the data bank in relation to that DNA profile;
(c) if the DNA profile is, in the opinion of the Commissioner, similar to one that is already contained in the data bank, the similar DNA profile; and
(d) if a law enforcement agency or laboratory advises the Commissioner that their comparison of a DNA profile communicated under paragraph (c) with one that is connected to the commission of a criminal offence has not excluded the former as a possible match, the information contained in the data bank in relation to that profile.

While the Draft Human DNA Profiling Bill provides for communication of only (a) and (b) by the DNA Data Bank Manager.

Concerns with 35(1) and Best Practices

The Centre for Internet and Society finds 35(1) problematic because a DNA profile is never a complete match, and is instead a scientific and statistical based probability. There are a number of steps that go into the analysis of a DNA profile. According to the US National Institute of Justice, these include: “1) the isolation of the DNA from an evidence sample containing DNA of unknown origin, and generally at a later time, the isolation of DNA from a sample (e.g., blood) from a known individual; 2) the processing of the DNA so that test results may be obtained; 3) the determination of the DNA test results (or types), from specific regions of the DNA; and 4) the comparison and interpretation of the test results from the unknown and known samples to determine whether the known individual is not the source of the DNA or is included as a possible source of the DNA.”

Though it is common for DNA Banks to communicate responses such as “match”, “no match”, or “partial match” or “inclusion”, “exclusion”, or “inconclusive” to inquiries received from law enforcement and other DNA Banks, this is not the case for communications to courts and tribunals. For example in England and Wales guidelines for presenting DNA evidence in court were laid out in the rule Rv. Dohemy and Adams (1997) 1 Cr. App. R. 396. Along with comprehensive guidelines on how experts should conduct themselves in court to prevent bias, the guidelines require the following information to be presented when DNA material is used as evidence in a case:

“The scientist should adduce the evidence of the DNA comparisons between the crime stain and the defendant’s sample together with the calculations of the Random Match Probability.
Whenever DNA evidence is adduced the Crown should serve on the defence details as to how the calculations have been carried out which are sufficient to enable the defence to scrutinize the basis of the calculations.
The Forensic Science Service should make available to a defence expert, if requested, the databases upon which the calculations have been made.
The expert will, on the basis of empirical statistical data, five the jury the random occurrence rations - the frequency with which the matching DNA characteristics are likely to be found in the population at large.
Provided that the expert has the necessary data, it may then be appropriate for him to indicate how many people with the matching characteristics are likely to be found in the United Kingdom...”

Recommendations

Given the influential weight that DNA evidence can have in a case, it is critical that the evidence is accurately presented to the court and other key stakeholders. The Centre for Internet and Society recommends that the Bill should distinguish the DNA Bank Manager’s response to law enforcement and other DNA Laboratory’s and the DNA Bank Manger’s response to courts and tribunals as below:

Response to Law enforcement agency and DNA Laboratory: The DNA Bank Manger should respond to a request from law enforcement or a DNA laboratory with either: "match" or "partial match" .
Response to Court and tribunal: When DNA evidence is used in a court of law, the Bill should provide that the presentation should include:

The random match probability: The probability that the profile is in the sample from the individual tested if the individual tested has been selected at random.
The frequency with which the matching DNA characteristics are likely to be found in the population at large.
The probability of contamination.

The Bill should also provide for the database upon which the calculations were based to be made available when requested. In addition, the Bill should provide for rules to be made prescribing the procedure for presentation.

[]. http://nij.gov/topics/forensics/evidence/dna/basics/Pages/analyzing.aspx

[2]. http://www.medicalgenomics.co.uk/pdf/Barrister_vol32-2007.pdf

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/comparision-of-draft-human-dna-profiling-bill-and-identification-act-revised-statute-of-canada-provisions

Draft Human DNA Profiling Bill (April 2012): High Level Concerns

elonnai — 2013-07-12T15:36:59Z

In 2007 the Draft Human DNA Profiling Bill was piloted by the Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics, with the objective of regulating the use of DNA for forensic and other purposes. In February 2012 another draft of the Bill was leaked. The February 2012 Bill was drafted by the Department of Biotechnology. Another working draft of the Bill was created in April 2012. The most recent version of the Bill seeks to create DNA databases at the state, regional, and national level.

This research was undertaken as part of the 'SAFEGUARDS' project that CIS is undertaking with Privacy International and IDRC.

Each database will contain profiles of victims, offenders, suspects, missing persons and volunteers for the purpose of establishing identity in criminal and civil proceedings. The Bill also establishes a process for certifying DNA laboratories, and creating a DNA board for overseeing the carrying out of the Act. Though it is important to carefully regulate the use of DNA for criminal purposes, and such a law is needed in India, the present working draft of the Bill is lacking important safeguards and contains overreaching provisions, which could lead to violation of individual rights. The text of the 2012 draft is still being discussed and has not been finalized. Below are high level concerns that CIS has with the April 2012 draft Human DNA Profiling Bill.

Broad offences and instances of when DNA can be collected

The schedule of the Bill lists applicable instances for human DNA profiling and addition to the DNA database. Under this list, the Bill lays out nine Acts, for example the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Civil Rights Act, and states that offences under these Acts are applicable instances of human DNA profiling. This allows the scope of the database to be expansive, as any individual who has committed an offence found under any of these Acts to be placed on the DNA database, and might include offences for which DNA evidence is not useful.

In the schedule under section C Civil disputes and other civil matters the Bill lists a number of civil disputes and civil matters for which DNA can be taken and entered onto the database. For example:

(v) Issues relating to immigration or emigration
(vi) Issues relating to establishment of individual identity
(vii) Any other civil matter as may be specified by the regulations of the Board

In these instances no crime has been committed and there is no justification for taking the DNA of the individual without their consent. In cases of civil disputes

Recommendation: Offences for which DNA can be collected must be criminal and must be specified individually by the Bill. When DNA is used in civil cases, the consent of the individual must be taken. In civil cases a DNA profile should not be stored on the database. DNA profiling and storage on a database should not be allowed in instances like v, vi, vii listed above.

Inadequate level of authorization for sharing of information

The Bill allows for the DNA Data Bank Manager to determine when it is appropriate to communicate whether the DNA profile received is already contained in the Data Bank, and any other information contained in the Data Bank in relation to the DNA profile received.

Section 35 (1): “…shall communicate, for the purposes of the investigation or prosecution in a criminal offence, the following information to a court, tribunal, law enforcement agency, or DNA laboratory in India which the DNA Data Bank Manager considers is concerned with it, appropriate, namely (a) as to whether the DNA profile received is already contained in the Data Bank; and (b) any information, other than the DNA profile received, is contained in the Data Bank in relation to the DNA profile received.”

Recommendation: The Data Bank Manager should not be given the power to determine appropriate instances for the communication of information. Law enforcement agencies, DNA laboratories, etc. should be required to gain prior authorization, from the DNA Board, before requesting the disclosure of information from the DNA Data Bank Manager. Upon receiving proof of authorization, the DNA databank can share the requested information.

Inaccurate understanding of infallibility of DNA

The preamble to the Bill inaccurately states:

The Dexoxyribose Nucleic Acid (DNA) analysis of body substances is a powerful technology that 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.

Recommendation: The Bill should recognize that DNA evidence is not infallible. For example, false matches can occur based on the type of profiling system used, and that error can take place in the chain of custody of the DNA sample.

The “definition” of DNA profiling is too loose in the Bill. Any technology used to create DNA profiles is subject to error. The estimate of this error should be experimentally obtained, rather than being a theoretical projection.

Inadequate access controls

The Bill only restricts access to information on the DNA database that relates to a victim or to a person who has been excluded as a suspect in relevant investigations.

Section 43: Access to the information in the National DNA Data Bank shall be restricted in the manner as may be prescribed if the information relates to a DNA profile derived from a) a victim of an offence which forms or formed the object of the relevant investigation, or b) a person who has been excluded as a suspect in the relevant investigation.

Recommendation: Though it is important that access is restricted in these instances, access should also be restricted for: volunteers, missing persons, and victims. Broad access to every index in the database should not be permitted when a DNA sample for a crime is being searched for a match. Ideally, a crime scene index will be created, and samples will only be compared to that specific crime scene. The access procedure should be transparent with regular information published in an annual report, minutes of oversight meetings taken, etc.

Lack of standards and process for collection of DNA samples

In three places the Bill mentions that a procedure for the collection of DNA profiles will be established, yet no process is enumerated in the actual text of the Bill.

Section 12 (w) “The Board will have the power to… specify by regulation, the list of applicable instances of human DNA profiling and the sources and manner of collection of samples in addition to the lists contained in the Schedule.

Section 66(d) “The Central Government will have the power to make Rules pertaining to… The list of applicable instances of human DNA profiling and the sources and manner of collection of samples in addition to the lists contained in the Schedule under clause (w) of section 12.
Schedule: In the title “List of applicable instances of Human DNA Profiling and Sources and Manner of Collection of Samples for DNA Profiling”. But the schedule does not detail the manner of collection of samples for DNA profiling.

Recommendation: According to the Criminal Procedure Code, section 53 and 54, DNA samples can only be collected by certified medical professionals. This must be reflected by the Bill. The Bill should also state that the collection of DNA must take place in a secure location and in a secure manner. When DNA is collected, consent must be taken, unless the individual is convicted of a crime for which DNA evidence is directly relevant or the court has ordered the collection. When DNA is collected, personal identification information should not be sent with samples to laboratories, and all transfers of data (from police station to lab) must be secure. Upon collection, information regarding the collection of information and potential use and misuse of DNA information must be provided to the individual.

Inadequate appeal process

The provisions in the Bill allow aggrieved individuals to bring complaints to the DNA Board. If the complaint is not addressed, the individual can take the complaint to the court. Though grievances can be taken to the Board and the court, it is not clear if the individual has the right to appeal the collection, analysis, sharing, and use of his/her DNA. The text of section 58 implies that the Board and the Central government will have the power to take action based on complaints. This power was not listed above in the sections where the powers of the board and the central government are defined, thus it is unclear what actions the Board or the Central Government would be able to take on complaint.

Section 58: No court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act or any rules or regulations made thereunder save on a complaint made by the Central Government or its officer or Board or its officer or any other person authorized by them: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall prevent an aggrieved person from approaching a court, if upon his application to the Central Government or the Board, no action is taken by them within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application.

Recommendation: Individuals should be allowed to appeal a decision to collect DNA or share a DNA profile, and take any grievance directly to the court. If the Board or the Central Government will have a role in hearing complaints, etc. These must be enumerated in the provisions of the Act.

Inclusion of population testing

Though the main focus of the Bill is for the use of DNA in criminal and civil cases, the provisions of the Bill also allow for population testing and research to be done on collected samples.

Section 4: The Board shall consist of the following Members appointed from amongst persons of ability, integrity, and standing who have knowledge or experience in DNA profiling including.. (m) A population geneticist to be nominated by the President, Indian National Science Academy, Den Delhi-Member.

Section 40: Information relating to DNA profiles, DNA samples and records relating thereto shall be made available in the following instances, namely, (e) for creation and maintenance of a population statistics database that is to be used, as prescribed, or the purposes of identification research, protocol development or quality control provide that it does not contain any personally identifiable information and does not violate ethical norms.

Recommendation: Delete these provisions. If DNA testing is going to done for population analysis purposes, regulations for this must be provided for in a separate legislation, stored in separate database, informed consent taken from each participant, and an ethics board must be established. It is not sufficient or ethical to conduct population testing only on DNA samples from victims, offenders, suspects, and volunteers.

Provisions delegated to regulation that need to be incorporated into text of Bill

The Bill empowers the board to formulate regulations for, and the Central Government to make Rules to, a number of provisions that should be within the text of the Bill itself. By leaving these provisions to Regulations and Rules, the Bill is a skeleton which when enacted will only allow for DNA Labs to be certified and DNA databases to be established. Aspects that need to be included as provisions include:

Section 12: The Board shall exercise and discharge the following functions for the purposes of this Act namely

Section 12(j) – authorizing procedures for communication of DNA profile for civil proceedings and for crime investigation by law enforcement and other agencies.
Section 12(p) – making specific recommendations to (ii) ensure the accuracy, security, and confidentiality of DNA information, (iii) ensure the timely removal and destruction of obsolete, expunged or inaccurate DNA information (iv) take any other necessary steps required to be taken to protect privacy.
Section 12(w) – Specifying, by regulation, the list of applicable instances of human DNA profiling and the sources a manner of collection of samples in addition to the lists contained in the Schedule.
Section 12(u) – establishing procedure for cooperation in criminal investigation between various investigation agencies within the country and with international agencies.
Section 12(x) – Enumerating the guidelines for storage of biological substances and their destruction.

Section 65(1) The Central Government may, by notification, make rules for carrying out the purposes of this Act

Section 65 (c) – The officials who are authorized to receive the communication pertaining to information as to whether a person’s DNA profile is contained in the offenders’ index under sub-section (2) of section 35
Section 65 (d) – The manner in which the DNA profile of a person from the offenders’ index shall be expunged under sub-section (2) of section 37
Section 65 (e) – The manner in which the DNA profile of a person from the offender’s index shall be expunged under sub-section (3) of section 37
Section 65 (h) – The manner in which access to the information in the DNA data Bank shall be restricted under section 43
Section 65 (zg) – Authorization of other persons, if any, for collection of non-intimate forensic procedures under Part II of the Schedule.

Broad Language that needs to be specified or deleted

There are a number of places in the Bill which use broad and vague language. This is problematic as it expands the potential scope of the Bill. Instances where broad language is used includes:

Preamble: There is, thus, need to regulate the use of human DNA Profiles through an Act passed by the Parliament only for Lawful purposes of establishing identity in a criminal or civil proceeding and for other specified purposes.

Section 12: The Board may make regulations for (j) authorizing procedures for communications of DNA profile for civil proceedings and for crime investigation by law enforcement and other agencies.
Section 12: The Board may make regulations for (y) undertaking any other activity which in the opinion of the Board advances the purposes of this Act.
Section 12: The Board may make regulations for (z) performing such other functions as may be assigned to it by the Central Government from time to time.
Section 32: The indices maintained under sub-section (4) shall include information of data based on DNA analysis prepared by a DNA laboratory duly approved by the Board under section 15 of the Act and of records relating thereto, in accordance with the standards as may be specified by the regulations made by the Board.
Section 35 (1) On receipt of a DNA profile for entry in the DNA Data Bank, the DNA Data Bank Manager shall cause it to be compared with the DNA profiles in the DNA Data Bank and shall communication, for purposes of the investigation or prosecution in a criminal offence, the following information…(a) as to whether the DNA profile received is already contained in the Data Bank and (b) any information other than the DNA profile received, is contained in the Data Bank in relation to the DNA profile received. (2) The information as to whether a person’s DNA profile is contained in the offenders’ index may be communicated to an official who is authorized to receive the same as prescribed.
Section 39: All DNA profiles and DNA samples and records thereof shall be used solely for the purpose of facilitating identification of the perpetrator of a specified offence under Part I of the Schedule. Provided that such profiles or samples may be used to identify victims of accidents or disasters or missing persons or for purposes related to civil disputes and other civil matters listed in Part 1 of the Schedule for other purposes as may be specified by the regulations made by the board.
Section 40: Information relating to DNA profiles, DNA samples and records relating thereto shall be made available in the following instances, namely (g) for any other purposes, as may be prescribed.
Schedule, C Civil disputes and other civil matters vii) any other civil matter as may be specified y the regulations made by the Board.

Recommendation: All broad and vague language should be deleted and replaced with specific language.

Jurisdiction

Section 1(2) It extends to the whole of India.

Section 2(f) “Crime scene index” means an index of DNA profiles derived from forensic material found (i) at any place (whether within or outside of India) where a specified offence was, or is reasonably suspected of having been, committed.

The validity of DNA profiles found outside of India is unclear as the Act only extends to the whole of India.

Inconsistent provisions

The Bill contains provisions that are inconsistent including:

Preamble … from collection to reporting and also to establish a National DNA Data Bank and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
Section 32 (1) The Central Government shall, by notification establish a National DNA Data Bank and as many Regional DNA Data Banks there under for every State or a group of States, as necessary. (2) Every State Government may, by notification establish a State DNA Data Bank which shall share the information with the National DNA Data Bank. The National DNA Data Bank shall receive DNA data from State DNA Data Banks…

Recommendation: The introduction to the Bill states that only a National DNA Data Bank will be established, yet in the provisions of the Bill it states that Regional and State level DNA databanks will also be established. It should be clarified in the introduction to the Bill that state level, regional level, and a national level DNA database will be created.

Inadequate qualifications of DNA Data Bank Manager

Section 33: “The DNA Data Bank Manager shall be a person not below the rank of Joint Secretary to the Government of India or equivalent and he shall report to the Member –Secretary of the Board. The DNA Data Bank Manager shall be a scientist with understanding of computer applications and statistics.”

Recommendation: This is not sufficient qualifications. The DNA Data Bank Manager needs to have experience and expertise handling, working with, and managing DNA for forensic purposes.

Lack of restrictions on labs seeking certification

According to section 16(2), before withdrawing approval granted to a DNA laboratory...the Board will give time to the laboratory...for taking necessary steps to comply with such directions...and conditions.”
Recommendation: This section should specify that during the time period of gaining certification, the DNA laboratory is not allowed to process DNA.

Incomplete terms for use of DNA in courts

Section 45 of the Bill allows any individual undergoing a sentence of imprisonment or under sentence of death to apply to the court which convicted him for an order for DNA testing. The Bill lists seven conditions that must be met for this DNA evidence to be accepted and used in court.
Recommendation: This section speaks only to the use of DNA in courts upon request by a convicted individual. This section should lay down standards for all instances of use of DNA in courts. Included in this, the provision should clarify that when DNA is used, corroborating evidence will be required in courts, and if confirmatory samples will be taken from defendants. Individuals should also have the right to have a second sample taken and re-analyzed as a check, and individuals must have a right to obtain re-analysis of crime scene forensic evidence in the event of appeal.

Inadequate privacy protections

Besides section 38 which requires that all DNA profiles, samples, and records are kept confidential, the Bill leaves all other privacy protections to be recommended by the DNA profiling Board.

Section 12(o) The Board shall exercise and discharge the following functions…“Making recommendation for provision of privacy protection laws, regulations and practices relating to access to, or use of, store DNA samples or DNA analyses with a view to ensure that such protections are sufficient.”

Recommendation: Basic privacy protections such as access, use, and storage of DNA samples should be written into the provisions of the Bill and not left as recommendations for the Board to make.

Missing Provisions

Notification to the individual: There are no provisions that ensure that notification is given to an individual if his/her information is legally accessed or shared. Notification to the individual would be appropriate in section 36, which allows for the sharing of DNA profiles with foreign states, and section 35, which allows for the sharing of information with a court, tribunal, law enforcement agency, or DNA laboratory. As part of the notification, an individual should be given the right to appeal the decision.
Consent: There are no provisions which speak to consent being taken from individuals whose DNA is collected. Consent must be taken from volunteers, missing persons (or their families), victims, and suspects. DNA can be taken compulsorily from offenders after they have been convicted. If an individual refuses to provide a DNA sample, a judge can override the decisions and order that a DNA sample be taken. In all cases that DNA is collected without consent, it must be clear that DNA evidence is directly relevant to the case.
Right to request deletion of DNA profile from database: There are no provisions which give volunteers (children volunteers when they become adults), victims, and missing persons the right to request that their profile be deleted from the DNA database. This could be provided in section 37 which speaks to the expunction of records of acquitted convicts.
Right of individuals to bring a private cause of action: There are no provisions which give the individual the right to bring a privacy cause of action for the unlawful storage of private information in the national, regional, or state DNA database. This is an important check against the unlawful collection, analysis, and storage of private genetic information on the database.
Right to review one's personal data: There are no provisions that allow an individual to review his/her information contained on the state, regional, or national database. This is an important check against the unlawful collection, analysis, and storage of private genetic information on the database.
Independence of DNA laboratories and DNA banks from the police: There are no provisions which ensure that DNA laboratories and DNA data banks remain independent from the police. This is an important check in ensuring against the tampering of DNA evidence.
Established profiling standard: The Bill does not mandate the use of one single profiling standard. This is important in order to minimize false matches occurring by chance and to ensure consistency across DNA testing and profiling.
Destruction of DNA samples: There are no provisions mandating that original samples of DNA be deleted. 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 (six months). Furthermore, only a barcode and no identifying details should be sent to labs with samples for analysis.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/draft-human-dna-profiling-bill-april-2012

Unique Identification Scheme (UID) & National Population Register (NPR), and Governance

elonnai — 2014-04-30T05:03:51Z

This post examines the UID, NPR and Governance as it exists in India. The background note gives a summary of what is the NPR, the legal grounding of NPR, its objectives, and the information which could be collected under the NPR. The post also throws light on the UID, its objectives, process of enrollment in UID, how UID is being adopted by different states in India, and finally the differences and controversies in UID and NPR.

This research was undertaken as part of the 'SAFEGUARDS' project that CIS is undertaking with Privacy International and IDRC.

Video

The above video is from the "UID, NPR, and Governance" conference held on March 2, 2013 at TERI, Bangalore.

What is the NPR?
In 2010, the Government of India initiated the NPR which entails the creation of the National Citizens Register. This register is being prepared at the local, sub-district, district, state and national level. The database will contain thirteen categories of demographic information and three categories of biometric data collected from all residents aged five and above. Collection of this information was initially supposed to take place during the House listing and Housing Census phase of Census 2011 during April 2010 to September 2010.[1]

What is the legal grounding of the NPR?
The NPR is legally grounded in the provisions of the Citizenship Act, 1955 and the Citizenship Rules 2003. It is mandatory for every usual resident in India to register in the NPR as per Section 14A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, as amended in 2004. The collection of biometrics is not accounted for in the statute or rules.

What are the objectives of the NPR?
The objectives of the NPR as stated by the Citizenship Act is for the creation of a National Citizen Register. The National Citizen Register is intended to assist in improving security by checking for illegal migration. Additional objectives that have been articulated include: providing services to the residents under government schemes and programmes, checking for identity frauds, and improving planning.[2]

What is the process of enrollment for the NPR?
NPR enrollment is being carried out through house to house canvassing. The Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner, India has assigned Department of Information Technology (DIT) the responsibility of collecting and digitizing demographic data in 17 states and 2 Union Territories of India.[2] Collected information will then be printed and displayed in the local area where it is scrutinized by local officers and vetted by local bodies called ´Gram Sabha/Ward Committees´.[4] This process of social audit is meant to bring in transparency, equity, and ensure accuracy.

What information will be collected under the NPR?
The NPR database will include thirteen categories of demographic information and three categories of biometrics. The collection biometrics has not been provided for in the text of the Citizenship Rules, and is instead appears to be authorized through guidelines,[5] which do not have statutory backing. Currently, two iris scans, ten fingerprints, and a photograph are being collected. According to a 2010 Committee note, only the photograph and fingerprints were initially envisioned to be collected.

What is the Resident Identity Card?
The proposed Resident Identity card is a smart card with a micro-processor chip of 6.4 Kb capacity; the demographic and biometric attributes of each individual will be personalized in this chip. The UID number will be placed on the card as well. Currently, the government is only considering the possibility of distributing smart cards to all residents over the age of 18.[6]

What is the UID?
The Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) was established in January 2009 and is part of the Planning Commission of India. UIDAI aims to provide a unique 12 digit ID number to all residents in India on a voluntary basis. The number will be known as AADHAAR. The UIDAI will own and operate a Unique Identification Number database which will contain biometric and demographic data of citizens.[7]

What is the objective of the UID?
According to the UIDAI, the UID will provide identity for individuals. The scheme has been promoted by the UIDAI as enabling a number of social benefits including improving the public distribution system, enabling financial inclusion, and improving the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS). Despite these benefits, the UIDAI only guarantees identity, and does not guarantee rights, benefits or entitlement.[8]

What is the process for enrollment in the UID?
To enroll in the UID, individuals must go to enrollment centers with the appropriate documentation. Once documents are verified and biometrics taken, individuals will receive an acknowledgment slip and their UID number will be sent in the mail.[9] The UIDAI will enroll up to 600 million residents in 16 States and territories.[10] Online registration prior to enrollment at a Center is also now being offered.

How is UID being adopted by different States?
The adoption of the UID by different states and platforms has been controversial as the UID is not a mandatory number, yet with states and services adopting the number for different governmental services, the UID is becoming mandatory by default. Some ways in which states are using the UID include:

Gas and vehicles: The UPA Government has required that citizens have a UID number for services such as purchasing cooking gas, issuing a RTI request, and registering vehicles.[11]
Education: The Kerala government has required that all students must have UID number in order to be tracked through the system.[12] This mandate was questioned by the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights.
First Information Reports (FIR’s): The high court in Bombay has ordered the state home department to direct all police stations in Maharashtra to record the Unique Identification (UID) numbers of accused individuals and witnesses filing a FIR.[13]
Banks: The National Payment Corporation of India has collaborated UIDAI and is issuing ‘RuPay cards’ (Dhan Aadhaar cards) which will serve as ATM/micro-ATM cards. In 2011 the Bank of India had issued 250 cards.[14]
Railway: Railways are proposing to use the UID database for bookings and validation of passengers.[15]
Social Security: Commencing January 1, 2013, MGNREGA, the Rajiv Gandhi Awas Yojana (RGAY), the Ashraya housing scheme, Bhagyalakshmi and the social security and pension scheme have included the UID in the Mysore district

Has there been duplication of UID numbers?
According to news reports:

The UIDAI has blacklisted an operator and a supervisor in Andhra Pradesh for issuing fake UID numbers.

The UIDAI is looking into six complaints regarding the misuse of personal data while issuing the UID numbers to individuals.

The UIDAI has received two received complaints regarding duplication of UID numbers.[17]

What are the differences between the UID and NPR?

Voluntary vs. Mandatory: It is compulsory for all Indian residents to register with the NPR, while registration with the UIDAI is considered voluntary. However, the NPR will store individuals UID number with the NPR data and place it on the Resident Indian Card. In this way and others, the UID number is becoming compulsory by various means.
Number vs. Register: UID will issue a number, while the NPR is the prelude to the National Citizens Register. Thus, it is only a Register. Though earlier the MNIC card was implemented along the coastal area, there has been no proposal to extend the MNIC to the whole country. The smart card that is proposed under the NPR has only been raised for discussion, and there has been no official decision to issue a card.
Statute vs. Bill: The enrollment of individuals for the NPR is legally backed by the Citizenship Act, except in relation to the collection of biometrics, while the UID as proposed a bill which has not been passed for the legal backing of the scheme.
Authentication vs. Identification: The UID number will serve as an authenticator during transactions. It can be adopted and made mandatory by any platform. The National Resident Card will signify resident status and citizenship. It is unclear what circumstances the card will be required for use in.
UIDAI vs. RGI: The UIDAI is responsible for enrolling individuals in the UID scheme, and the RGI is responsible for enrolling individuals in the NPR scheme. It is important to note that the UIDAI is located in the Planning Commission, but its status is unclear, as the NIC had indicated that the data held is not being held by the government.
Door to door canvassing vs. center enrollment: Individuals will have to go to an enrollment center and register for the UID, while the NPR will carry out part of the enrollment of individuals through door to door canvassing. Note: Individuals will still have to go to centers for enrolling their biometrics for the NPR scheme.
Prior documentation vs. census material: The UID will be based off of prior forms of documentation and identification, while the NPR will be based off of census information.
Online vs. Offline: For authentication of an individual’s UID number, the UID will require mobile connectivity, while the NPR can perform offline verification of an individual’s card.

What is the controversy between the UID and NPR?

Effectiveness: There is controversy over which scheme would be more effective and appropriate for different purposes. For example, the Ministry of Home Affairs has argued that the NPR would be more suited for distributing subsidies than the UID, as the NPR has data linking each individual to a household.[18]
Legality of sharing data: Both the legality of the UID and NPR collecting data and biometrics has been questioned. For example, it has been pointed out that the collection of biometric information through the NPR, is beyond the scope of subordinate legislation. Especially as this appears to be left only to guidelines.[19] Collection of any information under the UID scheme is being questioned as the Bill has not been approved by the Parliament.
Accuracy: The UIDAI's use of multiple registrars and enrolment agencies, the reliance on 'secondary information' via existing ID documents for enrollment in the UID, and the original plan to enroll individuals via the 'introducer' system has raised by Home Minister Chidambaram in January 2012 about how accurate the data collected by the UID is is that will be collected.[20] To this extent, the UIDAI has changed the introducer system to a ‘verifier’ system. In this system, Government officials verify individuals and their documents prior to enrolling them.
Biometrics: Though biometrics are mandatory for the UID scheme, according to information on the NPR website, if an individual has already enrolled with the UID, they will not need to provide their biometrics again for the NPR. Application of this standard has been haphazard as some individuals have been required to provide biometrics for both the UID and the NPR, and others have not been required to provide biometrics for the NPR.[21]

What court cases have been filed against the UID?
The following cases are currently filed in courts around the country:

Supreme Court:

K S Puttaswamy, a retired judge of Karnataka High Court filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court challenging the legality of UIDAI.[22]

Chandigarh: A petition was filed in Chandigarh by Sanjeev Pandey which sought to quash executive order passed in violation of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 by which UID cards had been made mandatory for registration of vehicles and grant of learner/regular driving license.[23]
Karnataka: Mathew Thomas and Mr. VK Somasekhar have filed a civil suit in the Bangalore City Civil Courts (numbered 8181 of 2012) asking for the UID project to be stopped. The suit was dismissed, and they have appealed the case to the High Court (numbered 1780 and 1825 of 2013).
Chennai: A PIL has been filed in the Madras High Court challenging the constitutional validity of the UIDAI and its issue of UID numbers.[24]
Bombay: In January 2012 a case was filed in the Mumbai high Court. The petitioners to the case are R. Ramkumar, G. Nagarjuna, Kamayani Mahabal, Yogesh Pawar and Vickram Crishna & Ors.

What is the relationship between UID, NPR, and National Security
The UID and the NPR have both stated improving security as an objective for the projects. To this extent, it is envisioned that the UID and the NPR could be used to track and identify individuals, and determine if they are residents of India. In the case of the NPR, a distinction will be made between residents and citizens. Yet, concerns have also been raised that these projects instead raise national security threats, given the size of the databases that will be created, the centralized nature of the databases, the sensitive nature of the information held in the databases, and the involvement of international agencies.[25]

What is the relationship between UID and Big Data?
Aspects of the UID scheme allow it to generate a large amount of data from a variety of sources. Namely, the UID scheme aims to capture 12 billion fingerprints, 1.2 billion photographs and 2.4 billion iris scans and can be adopted by any platform. This data in turn can be stored, analyzed, and used for a number of purposes by a number of stakeholders in both the government and the private sectors. This is already happening to a certain extent as in November 2012 the UID established a Public Data Portal for the UID project. According to UIDAI officials the data portal will allow for big data analysis using crowd sourcing models.[26]

How is UID being used for BPL direct cash transfers?
Registration with the UID scheme is considered essential to determine whether beneficiaries belong in the BPL category and to provide transparency to the distribution of cash. In this way, the UID requirement is thought to prevent the leakage of social security benefits and subsidies to non-intended beneficiaries, as cash will only be made available to the person identified by the UID as the intended recipient. One of the main prerequisites of a below poverty line (BPL) direct cash transfer in India has become the registration with the UIDAI and the acquisition of a UID number. For example:

The "Cash for Food" programme requires that individuals applying for aid have a bank account, and a UID number. The money is transferred, electronically and automatically, to the bank account and the beneficiary should be able to withdraw it from a micro-ATM using the UID number.[27] It is important to note that micro-ATMs are not actual ATMs, but instead are handheld machines which may give information on bank balance and such, but will not dispense or maintain privacy of transaction. Most importantly, the transaction is mediated though a banking correspondent.
The government plans to cover the target BPL families and deposit USD 570 billion per year in the bank accounts of 100 million poor families by 2014.[28]
Currently, only beneficiaries of thirteen government schemes and LPG connection holders have been identified as being entitled to register for a UID number.[29] Though these schemes have been identified, as of yet, adoption has happened in very few districts.

What are the concerns regarding the use of biometrics in the UID and NPR scheme?
Both the UID and the NPR rely on biometrics as a way to identify individuals. Yet, many concerns have been raised about the use of biometrics in terms of legality, effectiveness, and accuracy of the technology. With regards to the accuracy and effectiveness of biometrics – the following concerns have been raised:

Biometrics are not infallible: Inaccuracies can arise from variations in individuals attributes and inaccuracies in the technology.
Environment matters: An individual’s biometrics can change in response to a number of factors including age, environment, stress, activity, and illness.
Population size matters: Because biometrics have differing levels of stability – the larger the population is the higher the possibility for error is.
Technology matters: The accuracy of a biometric match also depends on the accuracy of the technology used. Many aspects of biometric technology can change including: calibration, sensors, and algorithms.
Spoofing: It is possible to spoof a fingerprint and fool a biometric reader.[30]

[1]. Government of India. Ministry of Home Affairs. Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner. http://bit.ly/IiySDh

[2]. This is according to a 2010 Cabinet note and the official website of the NPR.

[3]. Department of Information Technology: http://ditnpr.nic.in/frmStatelist.aspx - These include: (1) Arunachal Pradesh (2) Assam (3) Bihar (4) Chhattisgarh (5) Haryana (6) Himachal Pradesh (7)Jammu & Kashmir (8) Jharkhand (9) Madhya Pradesh (10)Meghalaya (11)Mizoram (12)Punjab (13)Rajasthan (14)Sikkim (15)Tripura (16)Uttar Pradesh (17)Uttarakhand Union Territories:-(1) Dadra & Nagar Haveli (2) Chandigarh.

[4]. Government of India. Ministry of Home Affairs. Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner: http://bit.ly/IiySDh

[5]. Department of Information Technology. National Population Register. Question 22. What are the procedures to be followed for creating the NPR? The procedures to be followed for creating the NPR have been laid down in the Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and issue of National Identity Cards) Rules, 2003, and the guidelines being issued from time to time.

[6]. The Unique Identification Government of India. Ministry of Home Affairs. Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner: http://censusindia.gov.in/2011-Common/IntroductionToNpr.html Authority of India. http://uidai.gov.in/

[7]. Unique Identification Authority of India. http://uidai.gov.in/

[8]. The point was made by R. Ramachandran. How reliable is UID? Frontline. Volume 28- Issue 24: November 19- December 02, 2011. Available at: http://bit.ly/13UMiSv

[9]. For more information see: How to get an Aadhaar. http://bit.ly/R2jBOP

[10]. Mazumdar. R. UIDAI targets 400 million enrolments by mid 2013, Aadhar hopes to give unique identity to some 1.2 bn residents. Economic Times. December 2012. Available at: http://bit.ly/ZC3Yve. Last accessed: February 28th 2013.

[11]. Malu. B. The Aadhaar Card – What are the real intentions of the UPA Government? DNA. February 18^th 2013. Available at: http://bit.ly/150BXRj. Last accessed: February 28th 2013.

[12]. Government of Kerala. General Education Department Circular No. 52957/G2?2012/G.Edn. Available at: http://bit.ly/15Oiq8J

[13]. Plumber, M. Make UID numbers must in FIRs: Bombay HC. DNA. October 2011. Available at: http://bit.ly/tVsInl. Last accessed: February 28th 2013.

[14]. Press Information Bureau. Government of India. Identity Card to Every Adult Resident of the Country under NPR; No Card being issued by UIDAI. December 2011. Available at: http://bit.ly/tJwZG1

[15]. TravelBiz. Railways to use Aadhar database for passenger validation. February 2013. Available at: http://bit.ly/YcW5wl. Last accessed: February 28th 2013.

[16]. Vombatkere. S.G. Questions for Mr. Nilekani. The Hindu. February 2013. Available at: http://bit.ly/YqPlK1. Last accessed: February 28th 2013.

[17]. Economic Times. UIDAI orders probe into duplication of Aadhaar numbers. http://bit.ly/ZORowg. Last accessed: February 28th 2013.

[18]. Jain. B. Battle over turf muddies waters. Times of India. February 2013. Available at: http://bit.ly/16ud3gm. Last accessed: February 28th 2013

[19]. Rediff. Aadhaar’s allocation is Parliament’s contempt. February 2013. Available at: http://bit.ly/Y638JS. Last accessed: February 28th 2013.

[20]. Ibid 17.

[21]. Times of India. Confused over Aadhaar, Cabinet clears GoM. February 2013. Available at http://bit.ly/UTH2JS. Last accessed: February 28th 2013.

[22]. Times of India. Supreme Court notice to govt on PIL over Aadhar. December 2012. Available at: http://bit.ly/13UNs0i. Last accessed: February 2013.

[23]. The Indian Express. HC issues notice to Centre, UT over mandatory UID for license. January 2013. Available at: http://bit.ly/WJq43M. Last accessed: February 28th 2013.

[24]. Economic Times. PIL seeks to scrap Nandan Nilekani’s Aadhar project. January 2012. Available at: http://bit.ly/zB1H07. Last accessed: February 28th 2013.

[25]. Times of India. UID poses national security threat: BJP. January 2012. Available at: http://bit.ly/WeM6KA. Last accessed: February 28th 2013.

[26]. Zeenews. UIDAI launches Public Data Portal for Aadhaar. November 8th 2012. Available at: http://bit.ly/T9NdX3. Last Accessed: November 12th 2012.

[27]. Punj, S. Wages of Haste: Implementing the cash transfer scheme is proving a challenge. January 2013. Available at: http://bit.ly/1024Dwo. Last accessed: February 28th 2013.

[28]. The International Business Times. India to Roll Out World’s Biggest Direct Cash Transfer Scheme for the Poor. November 2012. Available at: http://bit.ly/UYbtw4. Last accessed: February 28th 2013.

[29]. Mid Day. Do not register for Aadhaar card before March 15: UID in –charge. February 2013. Available at: http://bit.ly/Xymx9d. Last accessed: February 28th 2013.

[30]. These points were raised in the following frontline article Ibid: Ramachandran, R. How reliable is UID? Frontline. Volume 28 – Issue 24 November 19th – December 2nd 2011. Available at: http://bit.ly/13UMiSv. Last accessed February 28th 2013.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/uid-and-npr-a-background-note

Draft International Principles on Communications Surveillance and Human Rights

elonnai — 2013-07-12T15:55:45Z

These principles were developed by Privacy International and the Electronic Frontier Foundation and seek to define an international standard for the surveillance of communications. The Centre for Internet and Society has been contributing feedback to the principles.

The principles are still in draft form. The most recent version can be accessed here. This research was undertaken as part of the 'SAFEGUARDS' project that CIS is undertaking with Privacy International and IDRC.

Our goal is that these principles will provide civil society groups, industry, and governments with a framework against which we can evaluate whether current or proposed surveillance laws and practices are consistent with human rights. We are concerned that governments are failing to develop legal frameworks to adhere to international human rights and adequately protect communications privacy, particularly in light of innovations in surveillance laws and techniques.

These principles are the outcome of a consultation with experts from civil society groups and industry across the world. It began with a meeting in Brussels in October 2012 to address shared concerns relating to the global expansion of government access to communications. Since the Brussels meeting we have conducted further consultations with international experts in communications surveillance law, policy and technology.[1]

We are now launching a global consultation on these principles. Please send us comments and suggestions by January 3rd 2013, by emailing rights (at) eff (dot) org.

Preamble
Privacy is a fundamental human right, and is central to the maintenance of democratic societies. It is essential to human dignity and it reinforces other rights, such as freedom of expression and association, and is recognised under international human rights law.[2] Activities that infringe on the right to privacy, including the surveillance of personal communications by public authorities, can only be justified where they are necessary for a legitimate aim, strictly proportionate, and prescribed by law.[3]

Before public adoption of the Internet, well-established legal principles and logistical burdens inherent in monitoring communications generally limited access to personal communications by public authorities. In recent decades, those logistical barriers to mass surveillance have decreased significantly. The explosion of digital communications content and information about communications, or “communications metadata”, the falling cost of storing and mining large sets of data, and the commitment of personal content to third party service providers make surveillance possible at an unprecedented scale.[4]

While it is universally accepted that access to communications content must only occur in exceptional situations, the frequency with which public authorities are seeking access to information about an individual’s communications or use of electronic devices is rising dramatically—without adequate scrutiny. [5] When accessed and analysed, communications metadata may create a profile of an individual's private life, including medical conditions, political and religious viewpoints, interactions and interests, disclosing even greater detail than would be discernible from the content of a communication alone. [6] Despite this, legislative and policy instruments often afford communications metadata a lower level of protection and do not place sufficient restrictions on how they can be subsequently used by agencies, including how they are data-mined, shared, and retained.

It is therefore necessary that governments, international organisations, civil society and private service providers articulate principles establishing the minimum necessary level of protection for digital communications and communications metadata (collectively "information") to match the goals articulated in international instruments on human rights— including a democratic society governed by the rule of law. The purpose of these principles is to:

Provide guidance for legislative changes and advancements related to communications and communications metadata to ensure that pervasive use of modern communications technology does not result in an erosion of privacy.
Establish appropriate safeguards to regulate access by public authorities (government agencies, departments, intelligence services or law enforcement agencies) to communications and communications metadata about an individual’s use of an electronic service or communication media.

We call on governments to establish stronger protections as required by their constitutions and human rights obligations, or as they recognize that technological changes or other factors require increased protection.

These principles focus primarily on rights to be asserted against state surveillance activities. We note that governments are required not only to respect human rights in their own conduct, but to protect and promote the human rights of individuals in general.[7] Companies are required to follow data protection rules and yet are also compelled to respond to lawful requests. Like other initiatives,[8] we hope to provide some clarity by providing the below principles on how state surveillance laws must protect human rights.

The Principles

Legality: Any limitation to the right to privacy must be prescribed by law. Neither the Executive nor the Judiciary may adopt or implement a measure that interferes with the right to privacy without a previous act by the Legislature that results from a comprehensive and participatory process. Given the rate of technological change, laws enabling limitations on the right to privacy should be subject to periodic review by means of a participatory legislative or regulatory process

Legitimate Purpose: Laws should only allow access to communications or communications metadata by authorised public authorities for investigative purposes and in pursuit of a legitimate purpose, consistent with a free and democratic society.

Necessity: Laws allowing access to communications or communications metadata by authorised public authorities should limit such access to that which is strictly and demonstrably necessary, in the sense that an overwhelmingly positive justification exists, and justifiable in a democratic society in order for the authority to pursue its legitimate purposes, and which the authority would otherwise be unable to pursue. The onus of establishing this justification, in judicial as well as in legislative processes, is on the government.

Adequacy: Public authorities should restrain themselves from adopting or implementing any measure of intrusion allowing access to communications or communications metadata that is not appropriate for fulfillment of the legitimate purpose that justified establishing that measure.

Competent Authority: Authorities capable of making determinations relating to communications or communications metadata must be competent and must act with independence and have adequate resources in exercising the functions assigned to them.

Proportionality: Public authorities should only order the preservation and access to specifically identified, targeted communications or communications metadata on a case-by-case basis, under a specified legal basis. Competent authorities must ensure that all formal requirements are fulfilled and must determine the validity of each specific attempt to access or receive communications or communications metadata, and that each attempt is proportionate in relation to the specific purposes of the case at hand. Communications and communications metadata are inherently sensitive and their acquisition should be regarded as highly intrusive. As such, requests should at a minimum establish a) that there is a very high degree of probability that a serious crime has been or will be committed; b) and that evidence of such a crime would be found by accessing the communications or communications metadata sought; c) other less invasive investigative techniques have been exhausted; and d) that a plan to ensure that the information collected will be only that information reasonably related to the crime and that any excess information collected will be promptly destroyed or returned. Neither the scope of information types, the number or type of persons whose information is sought, the amount of data sought, the retention of that data held by the authorities, nor the level of secrecy afforded to the request should go beyond what is demonstrably necessary to achieve a specific investigation.

Due process: Due process requires that governments must respect and guarantee an individual’s human rights, that any interference with such rights must be authorised in law, and that the lawful procedure that governs how the government can interfere with those rights is properly enumerated and available to the general public.[9]While criminal investigations and other considerations of public security and safety may warrant limited access to information by public authorities, the granting of such access must be subject to guarantees of procedural fairness. Every request for access should be subject to prior authorisation by a competent authority, except when there is imminent risk of danger to human life. [10]

User notification: Notwithstanding the notification and transparency requirements that governments should bear, service providers should notify a user that a public authority has requested his or her communications or communications metadata with enough time and information about the request so that a user may challenge the request. In specific cases where the public authority wishes to delay the notification of the affected user or in an emergency situation where sufficient time may not be reasonable, the authority should be obliged to demonstrate that such notification would jeopardize the course of investigation to the competent judicial authority reviewing the request. In such cases, it is the responsibility of the public authority to notify the individual affected and the service provider as soon as the risk is lifted or after the conclusion of the investigation, whichever is sooner.

Transparency about use of government surveillance: The access capabilities of public authorities and the process for access should be prescribed by law and should be transparent to the public. The government and service providers should provide the maximum possible transparency about the access by public authorities without imperiling ongoing investigations, and with enough information so that individuals have sufficient knowledge to fully comprehend the scope and nature of the law, and when relevant, challenge it. Service providers must also publish the procedure they apply to deal with data requests from public authorities.

Oversight: An independent oversight mechanism should be established to ensure transparency of lawful access requests. This mechanism should have the authority to access information about public authorities' actions, including, where appropriate, access to secret or classified information, to assess whether public authorities are making legitimate use of their lawful capabilities, and to publish regular reports and data relevant to lawful access. This is in addition to any oversight already provided through another branch of government such as parliament or a judicial authority. This mechanism must provide – at a minimum – aggregate information on the number of requests, the number of requests that were rejected, and a specification of the number of requests per service provider and per type of crime. [11]

Integrity of communications and systems: It is the responsibility of service providers to transmit and store communications and communications metadata securely and to a degree that is minimally necessary for operation. It is essential that new communications technologies incorporate security and privacy in the design phases. In order, in part, to ensure the integrity of the service providers’ systems, and in recognition of the fact that compromising security for government purposes almost always compromises security more generally, governments shall not compel service providers to build surveillance or monitoring capability into their systems. Nor shall governments require that these systems be designed to collect or retain particular information purely for law enforcement or surveillance purposes. Moreover, a priori data retention or collection should never be required of service providers and orders for communications and communications metadata preservation must be decided on a case-by-case basis. Finally, present capabilities should be subject to audit by an independent public oversight body.

Safeguards for international cooperation: In response to changes in the flows of information and the technologies and services that are now used to communicate, governments may have to work across borders to fight crime. Mutual legal assistance treaties (MLATs) should ensure that, where the laws of more than one state could apply to communications and communications metadata, the higher/highest of the available standards should be applied to the data. Mutual legal assistance processes and how they are used should also be clearly documented and open to the public. The processes should distinguish between when law enforcement agencies can collaborate for purposes of intelligence as opposed to sharing actual evidence. Moreover, governments cannot use international cooperation as a means to surveil people in ways that would be unlawful under their own laws. States must verify that the data collected or supplied, and the mode of analysis under MLAT, is in fact limited to what is permitted. In the absence of an MLAT, service providers should not respond to requests of the government of a particular country requesting information of users if the requests do not include the same safeguards as providers would require from domestic authorities, and the safeguards do not match these principles.

Safeguards against illegitimate access: To protect individuals against unwarranted attempts to access communications and communications metadata, governments should ensure that those authorities and organisations who initiate, or are complicit in, unnecessary, disproportionate or extra-legal interception or access are subject to sufficient and significant dissuasive penalties, including protection and rewards for whistleblowers, and that individuals affected by such activities are able to access avenues for redress. Any information obtained in a manner that is inconsistent with these principles is inadmissible as evidence in any proceeding, as is any evidence derivative of such information.

Cost of surveillance: The financial cost of providing access to user data should be borne by the public authority undertaking the investigation. Financial constraints place an institutional check on the overuse of orders, but the payments should not exceed the service provider’s actual costs for reviewing and responding to orders, as such would provide a perverse financial incentive in opposition to user’s rights.

Signatories

Organisations

Article 19 (International)
Bits of Freedom (Netherlands)
Center for Internet & Society India (CIS India)
Derechos Digitales (Chile)
Electronic Frontier Foundation (International)
Privacy International (International)
Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (Canada)
Statewatch (UK)

Individuals

Renata Avila, human rights lawyer (Guatemala)

Footnotes

[1]For more information about the background to these principles and the process undertaken, see https://www.privacyinternational.org/blog/towards-international-principles-on-communications-surveillance
[2]Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 12, United Nations Convention on Migrant Workers Article 14, UN Convention of the Protection of the Child Article 16, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 17; regional conventions including Article 10 of the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, Article 11 of the American Convention on Human Rights, Article 4 of the African Union Principles on Freedom of Expression, Article 5 of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, Article 21 of the Arab Charter on Human Rights, and Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; Johannesburg Principles on National Security, Free Expression and Access to Information, Camden Principles on Freedom of Expression and Equality.
[3]Martin Scheinin, “Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism,” p11, available at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/terrorism/rapporteur/docs/A_HRC_13_37_AEV.pdf. See also General Comments No. 27, Adopted by The Human Rights Committee Under Article 40, Paragraph 4, Of The International Covenant On Civil And Political Rights, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.9, November 2, 1999, available at http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/6c76e1b8ee1710e380256824005a10a9?Opendocument.
[4]Communications metadata may include information about our identities (subscriber information, device information), interests, including medical conditions, political and religious viewpoints (websites visited, books and other materials read, watched or listened to, searches conducted, resources used), interactions (origins and destinations of communications, people interacted with, friends, family, acquaintances), location (places and times, proximities to others); in sum, logs of nearly every action in modern life, our mental states, interests, intentions, and our innermost thoughts.
[5]For example, in the United Kingdom alone, there are now approximately 500,000 requests for communications metadata every year, currently under a self-authorising regime for law enforcement agencies, who are able to authorise their own requests for access to information held by service providers. Meanwhile, data provided by Google’s Transparency reports shows that requests for user data from the U.S. alone rose from 8888 in 2010 to 12,271 in 2011.
[6]See as examples, a review of Sandy Petland’s work, ‘Reality Mining’, in MIT’s Technology Review, 2008, available at http://www2.technologyreview.com/article/409598/tr10-reality-mining/ and also see Alberto Escudero-Pascual and Gus Hosein, ‘Questioning lawful access to traffic data’, Communications of the ACM, Volume 47 Issue 3, March 2004, pages 77 - 82.
[7]Report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue, May 16 2011, available at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/17session/a.hrc.17.27_en.pdf
[8]The Global Network Initiative establishes standards to help the ICT sector protect the privacy and free expression of their users. See http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/
[9]As defined by international and regional conventions mentioned above.
[10]Where judicial review is waived in such emergency cases, a warrant must be retroactively sought within 24 hours.
[11]One example of such a report is the US Wiretap report, published by the US Court service. Unfortunately this applies only to interception of communications, and not to access to communications metadata. See http://www.uscourts.gov/Statistics/WiretapReports/WiretapReport2011.aspx. The UK Interception of Communications Commissioner publishes a report that includes some aggregate data but it is does not provide sufficient data to scrutinise the types of requests, the extent of each access request, the purpose of the requests, and the scrutiny applied to them. See http://www.intelligencecommissioners.com/sections.asp?sectionID=2&type=top.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/draft-intl-principles-on-communications-surveillance-and-human-rights

Rethinking Privacy Principles

elonnai — 2017-09-11T02:17:02Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/rethinking-privacy-principles