Centre for Internet and Society

Governing ID:  Use of Digital ID for Verification

Shruti Trikanad — 2020-03-02T11:16:19Z

This is the first in a series of case studies, using our recently-published Evaluation Framework for Digital ID. It looks at the use of digital identity programmes for the purpose of verification, often using the process of deduplication.

Read the case-study or download as PDF.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/governing-id-2028use-of-digital-id-for-verification

Governing ID: Kenya’s Huduma Namba Programme

amber — 2020-03-02T13:19:15Z

In our fourth case-study, we use our Evaluation Framework for Digital ID to examine the use of Digital ID in Kenya.

Read the case-study or download as PDF.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/governing-id-kenya2019s-huduma-namba-programme

Cryptocurrency Regulation in India – A brief history

vipul — 2020-03-05T18:36:09Z

In March 2020, the Supreme Court of India quashed the RBI order passed in 2018 that banned financial services firms from trading in virtual currency or cryptocurrency. Keeping this policy window in mind, the Centre for Internet & Society will be releasing a series of blog posts and policy briefs on cryptocurrency regulation in India

The story of cryptocurrencies started in 2008 when a paper titled “Bitcoin: A Peer to Peer Electronic Cash System” was published by a single or group of pseudonymous developer(s) by the name of Satoshi Nakamoto. The actual network took some time to start with the first transactions taking place only in January 2009. The first actual sale of an item using Bitcoin took place a year later with a user swapping 10,000 Bitcoin for two pizzas in 2010, which attached a cash value to the cryptocurrency for the first time. By 2011 other cryptocurrencies began to emerge, with Litecoin, Namecoin and Swiftcoin all making their debut. Meanwhile, Bitcoin the cryptocurrency that started it all started getting criticised after claims emerged that it was being used on the so-called “dark web”, particularly on sites such as Silk Road as a means of payment for illegal transactions. Over the next five years cryptocurrencies steadily gained traction with increased number of transactions and the price of Bitcoin, the most popular cryptocurrency shot up from around 5 Dollars in the beginning of 2012 to almost 1000 Dollars at the end of 2017.

Riding on the back of this wave of popularity, a number of cryptocurrency exchanges started operating in India between 2012 and 2017 providing much needed depth and volume to the Indian cryptocurrency market. These included popular exchanges such as Zebpay, Coinsecure, Unocoin, Koinex, Pocket Bits and Bitxoxo. With the price of cryptocurrencies shooting up and because of its increased popularity and adoption by users outside of its traditional cult following, regulators worldwide began to take notice of this new technology; in India the RBI issued a Press Release cautioning the public against dealing in virtual currencies including Bitcoin way back in 2013. However, the transaction volumes and adoption of cryptocurrencies in India really picked up in earnest only after the demonetisation of high value currency notes in November of 2016, with the government’s emphasis on digital payments leading to alternatives to traditional online banking such as cryptocurrencies forcing their way into the public consciousness. Indian cryptocurrency exchanges started acquiring users at a much higher pace which drove up volume for cryptocurrency transactions on all Indian exchanges. The growing popularity of cryptocurrencies and its adoption by large numbers of Indian users forced the RBI to issue another Press Release in February 2017 reiterating its concerns regarding cryptocurrencies raised in its earlier Press Release of 2013.

In October and November, 2017 two Public Interest Petitions were filed in the Supreme Court of India, one by Siddharth Dalmia and another by Dwaipayan Bhowmick, the former asking the Supreme Court to restrict the sale and purchase of cryptocurrencies in India, and the latter asking for cryptocurrencies in India to be regulated. Both the petitions are currently pending in the Supreme Court.

In November, 2017 the Government of India constituted a high level Inter-ministerial Committee under the chairmanship of Shri Subhash Chandra Garg, Secretary, Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance and comprising of Shri Ajay Prakash Sawhney (Secretary, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology), Shri Ajay Tyagi (Chairman, Securities and Exchange Board of India) and Shri B.P. Kanungo (Deputy Governor, Reserve Bank of India). The mandate of the Committee was to study various issues pertaining to Virtual Currencies and to propose specific actions that may be taken in relation thereto. This Committee submitted its report in July of 2019 recommending a ban on private cryptocurrencies in India.

In December 2017 both the RBI as well as the Ministry of Finance issued Press releases cautioning the general public about the dangers and risks associated with cryptocurrencies, with the Ministry of Finance Press Release saying that cryptocurrencies are like ponzi schemes and also declaring that they are not currencies or coins. It should be mentioned here that till the end of March 2018, the RBI and the Finance Ministry had issued various Press Releases on cryptocurrencies cautioning people against their risks, however none of them ever took any legal action or gave any enforceable directions against cryptocurrencies. All of this changed with the RBI circular dated April 6, 2018 whereby the RBI prevented Commercial and Co-operative Banks, Payments Banks, Small Finance Banks, NBFCs, and Payment System Providers not only from dealing in virtual currencies themselves but also directing them to stop providing services to all entities which deal with virtual currencies.

The effect of the circular was that cryptocurrency exchanges, which relied on normal banking channels for sending and receiving money to and from their users, could not access any banking services within India. This essentially crippled their business operations since converting cash to cryptocurrencies and vice versa was an essential part of their operations. Even pure cryptocurrency exchanges which did not deal in fiat currency, were unable to carry out their regular operations such as paying for office space, staff salaries, server space, vendor payments, etc. without access to banking services.

As a the operations of cryptocurrency exchanges took a severe hit and the number of transactions on these exchanges reduced substantially. People who had bought cryptocurrencies on these exchanges as an investment were forced to sell their crypto assets and cash out before they lost access to banking facilities. The cryptocurrency exchanges themselves found it hard to sustain operations in the face of the dual hit of reduced transaction volumes and loss of access banking services. Faced with such an existential threat, a number of exchanges who were members of the Internet and Mobile Association of India (IMAI), filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court on May 15, 2018 titled Internet and Mobile Association of India v. Reserve Bank of India, the final arguments in which were heard by the Supreme Court of India in January, 2020 and the judgment is awaited. If the Supreme Court agrees with the arguments of the petitioners, then cryptocurrency exchanges would be able to restart operations in India; as a result the cryptocurrency ecosystem in India may be revived and cryptocurrencies may become a viable investment alternative again.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cryptocurrency-regulation-in-india-2013-a-brief-history

Recommendations for the Covid Vaccine Intelligence Network (Co-Win) platform

Pallavi Bedi — 2021-03-25T13:14:46Z

The first confirmed case of Covid-19 was recorded in India on January 30, 2020, and India’s vaccination drive started 12 months later on January 16, 2021; with the anxiety and hope that this signals the end of the pandemic. The first phase of the vaccination drive identified healthcare professionals and other frontline workers as beneficiaries. The second phase, which has been rolled out from March 1, covers specified sections of the general population; those above 60 years and those between 45 years and 60 with specific comorbid conditions. The first phase also saw the deployment of the Covid Vaccine Intelligence Network (Co-Win) platform to roll out and streamline the Covid 19 vaccination process. For the purpose of this blog post, the term CoWIn platform has been used to refer to the CoWin App and the CoWin webportal.

During the first phase, it was mandatory for the identified beneficiaries to be registered on the Co-Win App prior to receiving the vaccine. The Central Government had earlier indicated that it would be mandatory for all the future beneficiaries to register on the Co-Win app; however, the Health Ministry hours before the roll out of the second phase tweeted that beneficiaries should use the Co-Win web portal (not the Co-Win app) to register themselves for the vaccine. The App which is currently available on the play store is only for administrators; it will not be available for the general public. Beneficiaries can now access the vaccination by; (i) registering on the CoWin website; or (ii) Certain vaccination (sites) have a walk-in-facility: On-site registration, appointment, verification, and vaccination will all be on-site the same day; or (iii) register and get an appointment for the vaccination through the Aarogya Setu app.

The scale and extent of the global pandemic and the Covid-19 vaccination programme differs significantly from the vaccination/immunisation programmes conducted by India previously, and therefore, the means adopted for conducting the vaccination programme will have to be modified accordingly. However, as several newspaper reports have indicated the roll out of the CoWin platform has not been smooth. There are several glitches; from the user data being incorrectly registered, to beneficiaries not receiving the one time password required to schedule the appointment.

An entirely offline or online method (internet penetration is at 40% ) to register for the vaccine is not feasible and a hybrid model (offline registration and online registration) should be considered. However, the specified platform should take into account the concerns which are currently emanating from the use of Co-Win and make the required modifications.

Privacy Concerns

When the beneficiary uses the Co-Win website to register, she is required to provide certain demographic details such as name, gender, date of birth, photo identity and mobile number. Though Aadhar has been identified as one of the documents that can be uploaded as a photo identity, the Health Ministry in a response to a RTI filed by the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) clarified that Aadhaar is nor mandatory for registration either through the Co-Win website or through Aarogya Setu. While, the Government has clarified that the App cannot be used by the general public to register for the vaccination, it still leaves open the question of the status of the personal data of the beneficiaries identified in the first phase of the process, who were registered on the App, and whose personal details were pre-populated on the App. In fact in certain instances, Aadhar details were uploaded on the app as the identity proof, without the knowledge of the beneficiary.

These concerns are exacerbated in the absence of a robust data protection law and with the knowledge that the Co-Win platform (App and the website) does not have a dedicated independent privacy policy. While the Co-Win web portal does not provide any privacy policy, the privacy policy hyperlinked on the App directs the user to the Health Data Policy of the National Health Data Management Policy, 2020. The Central Government approved the Health Data Management Policy on December 14, 2020. It is an umbrella document for all entities operating under the digital health ecosystem.

An analysis of the Health Policy against the key internationally recognised privacy principles which are represented in most data protection frameworks in the world, including the Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019, highlights that the Health Policy does not provide any information on data retention, data sharing and the grievance redressal mechanism. It is important to note that the Health policy has also been framed in the absence of a robust data protection law; the Personal Data Protection Bill is still pending before Parliament.

The Co-WIn website does not provide any separate information on how long the data will be retained, whether the data will be shared and how many ministries/departments have access to the data.

A National Health Policy cannot and should not be used as a substitute for specific independent privacy policies of different apps that may be designed by the Government to collect and process the health data of users. Health Data is recognised as sensitive personal data under the proposed personal data protection bill and should be accorded the highest level of protection. This was also reiterated by the Karnataka High Court in its recent interim order on Aarogya Setu. It held that medical information or data is a category of data to which there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, and “the sharing of health data of a citizen without his/her consent will necessarily infringe his/her fundamental right of privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”

Link with Aarogya Setu

A beneficiary registered on the Co-Win platform can use the Aarogya Setu App to download their vaccination certificate. Beneficiaries have now also been provided an option to register for vaccination through Aarogya Setu. However, the rationale for linking the two separate platforms is not clear, especially as Aaroya Setu has primarily been deployed as a contact tracing application.

There is no information on whether the data (and to what extent) that is stored in the Co-Win platform will be shared with Aarogya Setu. It is also not clear whether the consent of the beneficiary registered on the Co-Win platform will be obtained again prior to sharing the data or whether registration on the Co-Win platform will be regarded as general consent for sharing the data with Aarogya Setu. This is contrary to the principle of informed consent (i.e the consent has to be unambiguous, specific, informed and voluntary), which a data fiduciary has to comply with prior to obtaining personal data from the data principal. The privacy policy of Aarogya Setu has also not been amended to reflect this change in the purpose of the App.

Co-Win registration as an entry to develop health IDs?

One of the objectives of the Health Data Management Policy is to develop a digital unique health ID for all the citizens. The National Health Data Management Policy states that participation in the National Health Data Ecosystem is voluntary; and the participants will, at any time, have the right to exit from the ecosystem. Currently, the policy has been rolled out on a pilot basis in 6 union territories, namely; Chandigarh, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Daman & Diu, Puducherry, Ladakh and Lakshadweep. As Health is a state subject under the Indian Constitution, Chhattisgarh has raised concerns about the viability and necessity of the policy, especially in the absence of a robust data protection legislation.

Mr. R.S. Sharma, the Chairperson of the ‘Empowered Group on Technology and Data Management to combat Covid-19’ had in an interview to India Today stated “ “Not just for vaccinations, but the platform will be instrumental in becoming a digital health database for India”. This indicates that this is an initial step towards generating health ID for all the beneficiaries. It would also violate the principle of purpose limitation, that data collected for one purpose (for the vaccine) cannot be reused for another (for the creation of the Digital Health ID system) without an individual’s explicit consent and the option to opt-out.

Conclusion

Given India’s experience and reasonable success with childhood immunisation, there is reasonable confidence that the country has the ability to scale up vaccination. However, the vaccination drive should not be used as a means to set aside the legitimate concerns of the citizens with regard to the mechanism deployed to get pet people to register for the vaccination drive. As a first step it is essential that Co-Win has a separate dedicated privacy policy which conforms to the internationally accepted privacy principles and enumerated in the Personal Data Protection Bill. It is also essential that Co-Win or any other app/digital platform should not be used as a backdoor entry for the government to create unique digital health IDs for the citizens, especially without their consent and in the absence of a robust data protection law.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/an-analysis-of-the-covid-vaccine-intelligence-network-co-win-platform

A Comment on the 2009 IGF Draft Programme Paper

anja — 2011-08-02T07:15:14Z

The Centre for Internet and Society is part of a broad group of civil society actors that submitted a comment on the Draft Programme Paper of the fourth Internet Governance Forum (IGF), taking place in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt, in November 2009. The IGF is a forum for multistakeholder policy dialogue on Internet governance issues. The comment decries the complete absence of attention for Internet Rights and Principles in the agenda as it stands as of today, and this despite repeated requests from a wide range of stakeholders to make this theme a central one. All stakeholder groups were invited to submit their comments on the Draft Programme Paper of the 2009 IGF to the IGF Secretariat by 15 August.

The comment submitted reads as follows:

Re: IGF Draft Programme Paper, August 2009

We, the undersigned would like to express our surprise and disappointment that Internet Rights and Principles was not retained as an item on the agenda of the 2009 IGF in any way. Although this topic was suggested as a theme for this year's IGF or for a main session by a range of actors during and in the run-up to May's Open Consultations, this widespread support is not reflected in the Draft Programme Paper, which does not include Internet Rights and Principles even as a sub-topic of any of the main sessions. The WSIS Declaration of Principles, 2003, and the Tunis Agenda, 2005, explicitly reaffirmed the centrality of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to an inclusive information society. To make these commitments meaningful, it is of great importance that a beginning is made to explicitly building understanding and consensus around the meaning of Internet Rights and Principles at the earliest. We recommend that the Agenda of the 2009 IGF provide the space to do so.

Signatories:

Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore

Association for Progressive Communications

IP Justice

Bytesforall, Pakistan

Instituto Nupef, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Jacques Berleur

Ginger Paque

Fouad Bajwa

Milton L Mueller

Willie Currie

Michael Gurstein

Jeanette Hofmann

Eric Dierker

Jeffrey A Williams

Charity Gamboa, chairperson Internet Governance Working Group, ISOC Philippines

Ian Peter

Tracy F. Hackshaw

Shaila Rao Mistry, Internet Rights and Principles

Lee W McKnight

Jeremy Malcolm

Tapani Tarvainen

Shahzad Ahmad, ICT Policy Monitors Network

Carlos Afonso

Dina Hovakmian

Rui Correia

Lisa Horner

Deirdre Williams

Jaco Aizenman

Nyangkwe Agien Aaron

Siranush Vardanyan, Armenia

Kwasi Boakye-Akyeampong

Linda D. Misek-Falkoff

Baudouin Schombe

Stefano Trumpy

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/a-comment-on-the-2009-igf-draft-programme-paper

Value Added Services of Information & Communication Technology- Mobile Telephony for Farmers Benefit

radha — 2011-08-02T07:15:28Z

Mr. G Raghunatha, State Manager, IFFCO Kisan Sanchar Ltd., Bangalore and Secretary, Institution of Agricultural Technologists, Bangalore has written an article on how ICT - Mobile Technology can be used for the farmers' benefit.

The rural areas are suffering with extreme poverty and isolation. Such isolation has led to many miseries and tragic consequences in many families. This trend is more evident due to the absence of joint family system, which has deprived the supportive role of family members. It is seen that mobile phones have to some extent end isolation and therefore proved to be most transformative technology of economic development in recent times. The mobile phone technology has been so powerful and costs so little that it has now proved possible to sell mobile phone access to the poor.

The rural poor have access to wireless banking and payment systems. The mobile revolution is creating logistics revolution in farm to retail marketing connecting farmers to food retailers enabling them to sell the produce at high farm gate prices without delay.

Mobile telephony has become a part of everybody’s of life. This has also become a symbol of progress. If rural telephony grows by 1% there will be an increase of 0.6% in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) showing the impact of growth of rural mobile telephony on Indian economy. 70% of the population of the country is still left behind so far as mobile telephone connectivity is concerned. This indicates that there is an excellent potential for growth in rural areas.

The rural population deserves to shift to mobile telephones in view of the delipitated, ancient and almost useless fixed line infrastructure. They have proved to be an effective instrument of empowerment of rural masses. It is a welcome sign that mobile operators have now shifted their focus to service the rural areas. The once neglected, non profitable areas with high operating costs with low income subscribers is now seen as a proverbial pot of gold with technological advancement and better network management.

Karnataka being in the forefront of Information technology revolution has not lagged behind to harness the Information and communication technology for strengthening the rural masses. Communication is a major challenge and serious impediment in taking the fruits of development to our farmers in the country. IFFCO has realized that a reliable and economical communication medium, as well as, useful services of relevance over this channel have the potential to transform the quality of living in our villages. The need of the hour is to take valuable information inputs to farmers- directly to their ‘ears’ & ‘eyes’ using latest information media like mobile technologies, in addition, rural friendly technologies which are simple, affordable and can address the basic needs of our farmers need to be designed, developed and supplied in all the villages of our country. IFFCO was amongst the first in India to realize the importance and benefits of information and communication technology (ICT) for the development of rural India and applied the technology under 'ICT Initiatives for Farmers & Cooperatives'.

As the country witnessed a boom in Communication in the past decades, most of the developments had been limited to urban areas. It is well known that communication plays a vital role in overall growth in country. It has been proved that mobile telephony has a positive and significant impact on economic growth. But communication infrastructure is still lacking in rural areas.

'IFFCO Kisan Sanchar Limited (IKSL)' is IFFCO's initiative tying up with telecom giant “Airtel”to take further the application of ICT to the benefit of Rural India through a mandate to design, develop, source and supply state of the art, economical & environmentally friendly rural communication & other technologies with value additions of content & services. The focus is to empower people living in villages by taking advantage of appropriate technology to address issues relating to farmers who are in need of communication, access to input from experts and services of reliable quality.

IFFCO has always been in the forefront in spreading the benefits of latest in science and technology for the upliftment of quality of life in rural India. Service to farmers is an integral part of the marketing in gaining trust of rural masses. IFFCO has distinction of floating institutions with focus on rural India like IFFCO- TOKIO General Insurance (ITGI), CORDET, IFFCO Foundation, Kisan Sewa Trust and IFFDC. Unique initiatives of ITGI like 'Sankat Haran Bima Yojna' and ‘Barish Bima Yojana’ have become very popular

IKSL is harnessing domain strength of vast resources of expertise both within and outside IKSL by leveraging organizations engaged in communications & rural friendly technologies. Partnerships have been forged with giant companies like Airtel and Freeplay. Innovation, dynamism & sense of purpose guide IKSL in its journey towards harnessing technology for the betterment of life in rural India.

Value added services are designed to disseminate through mobile channel five voice messages of current importance to farmers in local languages every day free of cost. The broad areas covered are: recommendation on best agricultural practices, nutrient management, animal husbandry, problems & possible solutions for the specific location, information on mandies, weather & climate and several other areas. In Karnataka IKSL is entering into an MOU with University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore & Dharwad for developing content in the form of message bank and helpline services which is enhanced and updated on a continuous basis.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/value-added-services-of-information-communication-technology-mobile-telephony-for-farmers-benefit

Information and Communication Technology For Improving Agriculture and Rural Livelihoods

radha — 2011-08-02T07:15:43Z

ಮೈಕೇಲ್, ಮೊಬೈಲ್ ಮತ್ತು ಗ್ರಾಮೀಣ ಅಭಿವೃದ್ಧಿ (ಮೈಕೇಲ್ ರಿಗ್ಸ್ ಭಾಷಣ) - ಚಾಮರಾಜ ಸವಡಿ

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/information-and-communication-technology-for-improving-agriculture-and-rural-livelihoods

ಕೃಷಿ ಸಂಪದ - ಇ-ಮ್ಯಾಗಜೀನ್ ಬಿಡುಗಡೆ

radha — 2011-08-02T07:15:54Z

ಪರಿಸರ ಬರಹಗಾರ ನಾಗೇಶ್ ಹೆಗಡೆ ಅವರು ಕಂಪ್ಯೂಟರಿನ ಸ್ವಿಚ್ ಒತ್ತಿ ಪರದೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಡಿಜಿಟಲ್ ಪುಟ ಬೆಳಗಿ "ಕೃಷಿ ಸಂಪದ" ಇ-ಮ್ಯಾಗಜೀನನ್ನು ಇಂಟರ್ನೆಟ್ ಲೋಕಕ್ಕೆ ಅರ್ಪಿಸಿದರು.

"ನಮ್ಮ ಪಾರಂಪರಿಕ ಜ್ಞಾನವನ್ನು ರಕ್ಷಿಸಲಿಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ತಂತ್ರಜ್ಞಾನ ಮತ್ತು ಸಂವಹನದ ತಂತ್ರಜ್ಞಾನವನ್ನು ಸಮರ್ಥವಾಗಿ ಬಳಸಿಕೊಳ್ಳಬೇಕಾಗಿದೆ. ಇಂಟರ್ನೆಟ್ನಲ್ಲಿ ಪ್ರಕಟವಾಗುವ ಇ-ಮ್ಯಾಗಜೀನಗಳು ಈ ನಿಟ್ಟಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಪ್ರಧಾನಪ್ರಾತ್ರವಹಿಸಬಲ್ಲವು. ಅದಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ಕನ್ನಡದ ಮೊದಲ ಕೃಷಿ ಇ-ಮ್ಯಾಗಜೀನ್ "ಕೃಷಿ ಸಂಪದ" ವನ್ನು ಇಂದು ಬಿಡುಗಡೆ ಮಾಡಲು ಸಂತೋಷವಾಗುತ್ತಿದೆ" ಎಂಬ ಮಾತುಗಳೊಂದಿಗೆ ಪರಿಸರ ಬರಹಗಾರ ನಾಗೇಶ್ ಹೆಗಡೆ ಅವರು ಕಂಪ್ಯೂಟರಿನ ಸ್ವಿಚ್ ಒತ್ತಿ ಪರದೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಡಿಜಿಟಲ್ ಪುಟ ಬೆಳಗಿ "ಕೃಷಿ ಸಂಪದ" ಇ-ಮ್ಯಾಗಜೀನನ್ನು ಇಂಟರ್ನೆಟ್ ಲೋಕಕ್ಕೆ ಅರ್ಪಿಸಿದರು.

ನಲವತ್ತು ವರುಷಗಳ ಮುಂಚೆ ಯು.ಎಸ್.ಎ ದೇಶದ ಗಗನಯಾತ್ರಿಗಳು ಚಂದ್ರನ ನೆಲದಲ್ಲಿ ಪ್ರಪ್ರಥಮ ಭಾರಿ ಪಾದಾರ್ಪಣೆ ಮಾಡಿದರು. ಇಡೀ ಜಗತ್ತು ಆ ಘಟನೆಯನ್ನು ಕಾತರದಿಂದ ನಿರೀಕ್ಷಿಸುತ್ತಿತ್ತು. ಮಾನವನೊಬ್ಬ ಚಂದ್ರನ ಮೇಲಿಟ್ಟ ಪುಟ್ಟ ಹೆಜ್ಜೆ ಮನುಕುಲದ ವೈಜ್ಞಾನಿಕ ಪ್ರಗತಿಯ ಪಯಣದ ಪರ್ವತ ಹೆಜ್ಜೆ. ಆ ಕ್ಷಣದಲ್ಲಿ ಭೂಲೋಕದ ಜನರೆಲ್ಲ ಸಂಭ್ರಮಿಸಿದ್ದರು. ಅದೇ ಸಂದರ್ಭದಲ್ಲಿ ಯು.ಎಸ್.ಎ ದೇಶದ ಮಿಲಿಟರಿ ಇನ್ನೊಂದು ಬೃಹತ್ ಯೋಜನೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಮುಳುಗಿತ್ತು - ರಷ್ಯಾ ದೇಶದಿಂದ ಪರಮಾಣು ಬಾಂಬ್ ದಾಳಿ ನೆಡೆದರೆ, ಯು.ಎಸ್.ಎ ದೇಶದ ಸರಕಾರ, ಸೇನಾಪಡೆಗಳು ಹಾಗು ವೈಜ್ಞಾನಿಕ ಪ್ರಗತಿಗೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಿಸಿದ ಅಗಾಧ ಮಾಹಿತಿಯನ್ನು ರಕ್ಷಿಸುವ ಯೋಜನೆ ಅದಾಗಿತ್ತು. ಅದಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ನಾಲ್ಕು ಬೇರೆ ಬೇರೆ ಸ್ಥಳಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಇರಿಸಿದ ಕಂಪ್ಯೂಟರ್ ಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಶೇಖರಿಸಿಟ್ಟರು. ಒಂದು ಕಂಪ್ಯೂಟರ್ ಬಾಂಬ್ ದಾಳಿಯಿಂದ ನಾಶವಾದರೂ ಉಳಿದ ಮೂರು ಕಂಪ್ಯೂಟರ್ಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಅಗಾಧ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಸುರಕ್ಷಿತವಾಗಿ ಉಳಿದಿರುತ್ತಿತ್ತು. ಈ ಪ್ರಾಜೆಕ್ಟಿಗೆ ಅರ್ಪಾನೆಟ್(ARPANET) ಎಂದು ಹೆಸರಿಡಲಾಗಿತ್ತು.ಇದುವೇ ಮುಂದೆ ಇಂಟರ್ನೆಟ್ ಆಗಿ ಬೆಳೆಯಿತು. ಇಂದು ಕನ್ನಡದ ಮಟ್ಟಿಗೆ ಅದೇ ರೀತಿಯ ಸಂಭ್ರಮ. ಕೃಷಿ ಹಾಗು ಗ್ರಾಮೀಣರಂಗಗಳ ಅಗಾಧ ಮಾಹಿತಿಯನ್ನು ಡಿಜಿಟಲ್ ರೂಪದಲ್ಲಿ ಸಂಗ್ರಹಿಸಿಡುವ ಮಹಾತ್ವಾಕಾಂಕ್ಷೆಯ "ಕೃಷಿ ಸಂಪದ" ಯೋಜನೆ ಅನಾವರಣಗೊಂಡದ್ದು ನಾವೆಲ್ಲ ಹೆಮ್ಮೆ ಪಡಬೇಕಾದ ಬೆಳವಣಿಗೆ ಎಂದು ನಾಗೇಶ್ ಹೆಗಡೆಯವರು ಅಭಿಪ್ರಾಯಪಟ್ಟರು.

ಸಾವಿರಾರು ಕನ್ನಡ ಅಭಿಮಾನಿಗಳು ಸದಸ್ಯರಾಗಿರುವ ಇಂಟರ್ನೆಟ್ ಸಮುದಾಯ "ಸಂಪದ". ಇದರದೇ ಒಂದು ಭಾಗವಾದ ಕೃಷಿ ಸಂಪದದ ಹೊಸದೊಂದು ಯೋಜನೆ "ಕೃಷಿ ಸಂಪದ" ಎಂಬ ಇ-ಮ್ಯಾಗಜೀನ್. ಇದು "ಕ್ರಿಯೇಟೀವ್ ಕಾಮನ್ಸ್" ಲೈಸೆನ್ಸ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ಪ್ರಕಟವಾಗುತ್ತಿರುವ ಪ್ರಥಮ ಕನ್ನಡದ ಇ-ಮ್ಯಾಗಜೀನ್. ಆದ್ದರಿಂದ ಇದರಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಕಂಟೆಂಟನ್ನು (ಬರಹಗಳು, ಪೊಟೋಗಳು ಇತ್ಯಾದಿ) ಯಾರುಬೇಕಾದರೂ "ಇದ್ದದ್ದು ಇದ್ದ ಹಾಗೆ" ಮರುಬಳಕೆ ಮಾಡಬಹುದು. ಅಂದರೆ ಲಾಭರಹಿತ ಉದ್ದೇಶಗಳಿಗಾಗಿ ಮರುಪ್ರಕಟಿಸಬಹುದು ಅಥವಾ ಪ್ರತಿಗಳನ್ನು ತೆಗೆದು ಆಸಕ್ತರಿಗೆ ಹಂಚಬಹುದು ಎಂದು "ಸಂಪದ" ತಂಡದ ಪರವಾಗಿ ಹರಿಪ್ರಸಾದ್ ನಾಡಿಗ್ ಆರಂಭದಲ್ಲಿ ತಿಳಿಸಿದರು.

ಇದೇ ಸಂದರ್ಭದಲ್ಲಿ ಕೃಷಿ ಸಂಪದದ ಸಂಪಾದಕರಾದ ಅಡ್ಡೂರು ಕೃಷ್ಣರಾವ್ ರವರು, ಕೃಷಿ ಹಾಗು ಗ್ರಾಮೀಣ ಬದುಕಿನ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಕಾಳಜಿಯಿರುವ ಎಲ್ಲರಿಗೂ ವೇದಿಕೆ ಒದಗಿಸುವ ಉದ್ದೇಶದಿಂದ ಇ-ಮ್ಯಾಗಜೀನ್ ಅನ್ನು ಆರಂಭಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ ಎಂದು ತಿಳಿಸಿ, ಇದರ ಉದ್ದೇಶಗಳನ್ನು ವಿವರಿಸಿದರು.

ಬೆಂಗಳೂರಿನ "ಕೃಷಿ ತಂತ್ರಜ್ಞರ ಸಂಸ್ಥೆ" ಯಲ್ಲಿ ನೆಡೆದ ಕಾರ್ಯಕ್ರಮದಲ್ಲಿ ಹಲವಾರು ಆಸಕ್ತರು ಭಾಗವಹಿಸಿದ್ದರು. "ಕೃಷಿ ಸಂಪದ" ಬಿಡುಗಡೆಯ ಬಳಿಕ ಜರುಗಿದ ಸಂವಾದದಲ್ಲಿ ಚುರುಕಿನ ಪ್ರಶ್ನೋತ್ತರ ಜರುಗಿತು. ಕಾರ್ಯಕ್ರಮ ಸೆಂಟರ್ ಫಾರ್ ಇಂಟರ್ನೆಟ್ & ಸೊಸೈಟಿ, ಸಂಪದ ಹಾಗು ಕೃಷಿ ತಂತ್ರಜ್ಞರ ಸಂಸ್ಥೆ - ಇವರ ಸಹಯೋಗದಲ್ಲಿ ಆಯೋಜಿಸಲಾಗಿತ್ತು.

ಇ-ಮ್ಯಾಗಜೀನ್ ಪ್ರತಿಯನ್ನು ಕೃಷಿ ಸಂಪದದ ತಾಣದಿಂದ ಡೌನ್ ಲೋಡ್ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಳ್ಳಬಹುದಾಗಿದೆ: http://krushi.sampada.net

ನಿಮ್ಮ ಅನಿಸಿಕೆ ಇತ್ಯಾದಿಗಳನ್ನು ಕೃಷಿಸಂಪದ ತಂಡಕ್ಕೆ ಇ-ಮೈಲ್ ಮೂಲಕ ಕಳುಹಿಸಿ ಕೊಡಬಹುದಾಗಿದೆ: krushi@sampada.net

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/c95cc3cb7cbf-cb8c82caaca6-c87-caeccdcafcbec97c9cca8ccd-caccbfca1cc1c97ca1cc6

The ICANN-US DOC 'Affirmation of Commitments' - A Step Forward?

anja — 2011-08-02T07:16:09Z

On 30 September 2009, ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) signed an Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) with the US Government's Department of Commerce. For those of us who are concerned that the Internet should serve the global public good, is the new arrangement a step forward? An assessment.

On 30 September 2009, ICANN signed an Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) with the US Government's Department of Commerce. ICANN is the not-for-profit public-benefit corporation that coordinates the Internet's naming system. The Affirmation has been widely hailed for the loosening of US-ICANN ties that it implies. The unilateral control that the US exercised over the organisation had for long been criticised in various quarters as inappropriate for a – by now - global resource such as the Internet. A central instrument of this control was constituted by the reviews that the US's NTIA (National Telecommunications and Information Administration) would conduct of the organisation, based on which the country's Department of Commerce would rework and renew its contract with ICANN. With the signing of the AoC, reviews will henceforth be conducted by panels to be appointed by the Chair of ICANN's Board of Directors, as well as the Chair of the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) in consultation with the other members of the GAC. Since the Affirmation of Commitments is of long standing – unlike earlier Memoranda of Understanding, which had a limited validity – and since the US has demanded for itself a permanent seat on only one of the four panels that the AoC institutes, the US has indeed given up significant amounts of the control that it wielded over the organisation so far.

A clear step forward? Well, not necessarily – and in many ways it is too early to tell. Because while the denationalisation of ICANN was high on many stakeholders' agenda, so was the strengthening of ICANN as an accountable tool for global governance. And where the latter is concerned, the AoC falls sorely short. Although ICANN likes to posit itself as an organisation rooted in communities, where policy is developed from the bottom up, this wonderfully democratic discourse stands in rather ugly contrast to the quite questionable practices that are all too frequently reported from the organisation (the rather stepsisterly treatment meted out to noncommercial users in ICANN in recent times, for example, immediately comes to mind [1]). At the root of this contradiction seems to lie the fact that, while ICANN may be a public interest organisation on paper, in practice it is heavily dominated by large businesses, in particular those US-based, who seem to be willing to go to considerable lengths to defend their interests. The AoC has done nothing to check these tendencies. The review panels suggested are an internal affair, where those who develop policy will get to appoint the people who will assess the policy development processes, and most of those appointed, too, will come from within the organisation. While the suggested wider involvement of ICANN communities, including governments, in reviewing the organisation is a welcome move, it remains to be seen, then, to what extent these review panels will have teeth – in any case their recommendations are not binding. But some go even further and argue that the AoC has effectively removed the one democratic control that existed over ICANN's Board: that of the US Government. As the communities that supposedly make up ICANN do not have the power to unseat the Board, the Board now is effectively accountable... to none.

Since it does not directly address accountability problems within ICANN, the AoC is not so much an improvement, then, as simply a change: it has closed a few old doors, and opened some new ones. Whether this is for good or for bad remains to be seen: in the absence of clear structures of control and oversight, the shape of things to come is never fixed. For those within ICANN who genuinely want to work towards an Internet in the service of the public good, rather than of big business, there is, therefore, a tough task ahead of trying to ensure that the most will be made of the opportunities that the new arrangement does provide. Considering ICANN's institutional culture, this will undoubtedly mean that much of their energy will need to be invested in simply trying to shape new procedures and frameworks of governance in more democratic and accountable directions, eating into valuable time that could and should have been devoted to policy development instead. Indeed, irrespective of the final outcome of the AoC, the spectre of ICANN's lack of accountability and its glaring democratic deficit, for now, remains. And for a forum such as ICANN, that is unbecoming to say the least.

1] For more information, please see http://ncdnhc.org/profiles/blogs/ncuc-letter-to-icann-board-of, http://ncdnhc.org/profiles/blogs/top-10-myths-about-civil, and http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2009/10/2/4338930.html.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-icann-us-doc-affirmation-of-commitments-a-step-forward

Access Beyond Developmentalism: Technology and the Intellectual Life of the Poor

radha — 2011-08-02T07:16:36Z

Essay by Lawrence Liang, September 21, 2009 in response to - A Dialogue on ICTs, Human Development, Growth, and Poverty Reduction

In February 2009 we invited the French philosopher Jacques Ranciere to Delhi for the release of his book “Nights of Labour” which we had translated into Hindi, and to have a conversation with a group of young writers and practitioners at the Cybermohalla (“CM”) in Dakshinpuri. The Cybermohalla is one of three media labs that have been set up in different working class colonies in Delhi where young people living in the colony meet, engage in conversations and write about their neighborhood, technology, media, culture and life in the city. Almost six years old, the CMs were set up as experimental spaces to explore ways of looking at the relationship between technology and the urban poor beyond the lens of developmentalism. The CM is presently involved in documenting intellectual life in their neighborhoods and the transformations brought about by media.

In this brief note I would like to raise a few critical questions about the dominant ICT and Development discourse that dominates policy and NGO circles, and I will be using the writings of Ranciere, the CM practitioners, and the conversation between them as the grounds on which to raise these questions. Ranciere began his career as a labour historian, and had initially set out to do a straight forward history of class consciousness in the labour archives outside Paris. What he found surprised him, and informed his philosophy of education and I believe has immense significance for people working on ICT, poverty and development. Ranciere’s rethinking of labour history paves the way for us to start thinking seriously about the hidden domain of aspiration and desire of the subaltern subject, while at the same time thinking about the politics of our own aspirations and desires.

Ranciere goes into an unexplored aspect of the labour archive of nineteenth century France, where he starts looking at small, obscure and short lived journals brought out by workers, in which they were writing about their own lives. But they were not necessarily writing about their work, or their condition as workers. And if they were , they were not writing about it in glorified terms but with immense dissatisfaction. Instead they were interested in writing poetry, philosophy and indulging in the pleasures of thought. They looked enviously at the thinking life that intellectuals were entitled to. At the same time, intellectuals have always been fascinated with the world of work and the romance of working class identity. Ranciere says “what new forms of misreading will affect this contradiction when the discourse of labourers in love with the intellectual nights of the intellectuals encounters the discourse of intellectuals in love with the toilsome and glorious days of the labouring people”

Ranciere’s motley cast of characters include Jerome Gillard, an iron smith tired of hammering iron, and Pierre Vincard, a metal worker who aspires to be a painter. In other words, a series of sketches of people who refused to obey the role sketched out of for them by history, people who wanted to step across the line and perform the truly radical act of breaking down the time-honored barrier separating those who carried out useful labour from those who pondered aesthetics. He says that “A worker who has never learned how to write and yet tried to compose verses to suit the taste of his times was perhaps more of a danger to the prevailing ideological order than a worker who performed revolutionary songs… Perhaps the truly dangerous classes are not so much the uncivilized ones thought to undermine society from below, but rather the migrants who move at the borders between classes, individuals and groups who develop capabilities within themselves which are useless for the improvement of their material lives and which in fact are liable to make them despise material concerns.”

While we ordinarily think of development in terns of an improvement in the material life and living condition of people, it seems from Ranciere’s account that this was not enough. What the workers wanted was to become entirely human, with all the possibilities of a human being which included a life in thought. What was not afforded to works was the leisure of thought, or the time of night which intellectuals had. This is not to say that an improvement in the material conditions of life was not important. On the contrary it was crucially important, but if we are also recognize inequality as being about the distribution of possibilities, then it is futile to maintain a divide between material and intellectual life. The struggle in other words was between time as a form of constraint and time as a possibility of freedom. For Ranciere, a worker then was someone to whom many lives were owed.

If we were to translate what this means for our understanding of ICT and the subject of development, we find that most interventions frame the poor as objects of the discourse of digital access, and they are rarely seen as the subject of digital imaginaries. How do we think of the space created by ICT as one that expands not just the material conditions but also breaks the divide between those entitled to the world of thought, and those entitled to the world of work? In other words, what is the space that we create when we frame the discourse of ‘digital divides’ only as a matter of technological access? How do we begin to look at the technological lives of people beyond developmentalism and take into account the way it changes aspirations and subjectivities?

Suraj, one of the writers at CM, in his conversation with Ranciere says “The capacity of my intellectual life always competes against my imagination. Exploration for me consists of recognizing the continuous pull by others around me (the constant movement), which propels me to the imagination of an intellectual life which always seems to be beyond me.” What this statement forces us to think about is the fact that we all lead intellectual lives, but the distribution of opportunities to lead an intellectual life is unequal, and we need to think through the history of materiality also as the history of conditions which divide people on the basis of those who think and those who work, or the division of time between the days of labour and the nights of writing. It would be tragic if we were to recycle clichéd ideas of the real needs of the elite and the real needs of the subaltern. The development sector seems to have inherited a certain anti intellectualism on the grounds that it is elitist and the left have failed to engage with such desires on the grounds that they were ‘false consciousness’.

But as Ranciere says “What if the truest sorrow lay not in being able to enjoy the false ones.” Ranciere argues that politics has always been about a distribution of the sensible or sensibilities (and this is certainly evidenced in political discourse as well as the critical discourse on technology where we find metaphors of ‘visibility’, ‘silence’ as a way of thinking about the political condition of the underclass). While the focus of the Harvard Forum has been appropriately on the correlation between ICT and poverty alleviation, it is also important to remember that these technologies (computers, mobiles, DVD players) are also a radical redistribution of the sensible. All of a sudden you have a vast number of people whose access to the world of images, texts and sounds have dramatically increased. At the same time they are engaging with the world of the sensible not just as passive consumers but actively producing, sharing and thinking through these new ephemeral forms.

We could ask questions about the larger change that a small experiment like the CM has been able to bring about. Do these young writers have the ability to change the world, is the model sustainable, etc.? The answer would be yes, but perhaps not in the way usually imagined by funders or NGOs. They have already changed the horizon of the possible by reinventing themselves and claiming their space in the world of thought. This also involves a radical rethinking of the very idea of equality itself. The liberal assumption is that equality for something we strive, in other words that we move from inequality to equality. But what if we were to start with equality itself.

Starting from equality does not presuppose that everyone in the world has equal opportunities to learn, to express their capacities. We recognize immense inequalities in the material conditions of life, but we also recognize that there is always some point of equality when we think of each other as thinking beings, and to think of the process of learning, not as a moving from ignorance to knowledge but as a process of going from what is already known or what is already possessed to further knowledge or new possessions.

It in this context that we also have to recognize that ICT technologies are a serious redistribution of the means of thought and expression. When Victor Hugo, a sympathizer of the working class, was shown a poem written by a worker, his embarrassed and patronizing response was “In your fine verse there is something more than fine verse. There is a strong soul, a lofty heart, a noble and robust spirit. Carry on. Always be what you are: poet and worker. That is to say, thinker and worker.” This is a classic instance of what Ranciere would term as an ‘exclusion by homage’. Thus, the aspiration and desires of the poor have to be ‘something more than fine verse’; the information needs of the poor have to be more than wanting to watch a film or even dreaming of becoming a film maker.

These injunctions certainly tell us more about the fantasies of the state, of the intellectual and of NGOs than they do about people participating in the new realms of the digital, and if we are to avoid collapsing all ICT interventions into ‘exclusions by homage’ then we also need to start thinking about the new landscape via the intellectual possibilities that they hold, and the many lives that they enable. After all, the poor are also those to whom many lives are owed.

Lawrence Liang is founder of the Alternative Law Forum and a Distinguished Fellow with the Centre for Internet and Society.

Link to the original article

Link to related article

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/access-beyond-developmentalism

India’s ‘Self-Goal’ in Telecom

Shyam Ponappa — 2020-04-09T07:18:26Z

This post was first published in the Business Standard, on March 5, 2020.

The government apparently cannot resolve the problems in telecommunications. Why? Because the authorities are trying to balance the Supreme Court order on Adjusted Gross Revenue (AGR), with keeping the telecom sector healthy, while safeguarding consumer interest. These irreconcilable differences have arisen because both the United Progressive Alliance and the National Democratic Alliance governments prosecuted unreasonable claims for 15 years, despite adverse rulings! This imagined “impossible trinity” is an entirely self-created conflation.
If only the authorities focused on what they can do for India’s real needs instead of tilting at windmills, we’d fare better. Now, we are close to a collapse in communications that would impede many sectors, compound the problem of non-performing assets (NPAs), demoralise bankers, increase unemployment, and reduce investment, adding to our economic and social problems.
Is resolving the telecom crisis central to the public interest? Yes, because people need good infrastructure to use time, money, material, and mindshare effectively and efficiently, with minimal degradation of their environment, whether for productive purposes or for leisure. Systems that deliver water, sanitation, energy, transport and communications support all these activities. Nothing matches the transformation brought about by communications in India from 2004 to 2011 in our complex socio-economic terrain and demography. Its potential is still vast, limited only by our imagination and capacity for convergent action. Yet, the government’s dysfunctional approach to communications is in stark contrast to the constructive approach to make rail operations viable for private operators.
India’s interests are best served if people get the services they need for productivity and wellbeing with ease, at reasonable prices. This is why it is important for government and people to understand and work towards establishing good infrastructure.

What the Government Can Do

An absolute prerequisite is for all branches of government (legislative, executive, and judicial), the press and media, and society, to recognise that all of us must strive together to conceptualise and achieve good infrastructure. It is not “somebody else’s job”, and certainly not just the Department of Telecommunications’ (DoT’s). The latter cannot do it alone, or even take the lead, because the steps required far exceed its ambit.

Act Quickly

These actions are needed immediately:

First, annul the AGR demand using whatever legal means are available. For instance, the operators could file an appeal, and the government could settle out of court, renouncing the suit, accepting the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) ruling of 2015 on AGR.

Second, issue an appropriate ordinance that rescinds all extended claims. Follow up with the requisite legislation, working across political lines for consensus in the national interest.

Third, take action to organise and deliver communications services effectively and efficiently to as many people as possible. The following steps will help build and maintain more extensive networks with good services, reasonable prices, and more government revenues.

Enable Spectrum Usage on Feasible Terms

Wireless regulations

It is infeasible for fibre or cable to reach most people in India, compared with wireless alternatives. Realistically, the extension of connectivity beyond the nearest fibre termination point is through wireless middle-mile connections, and Wi-Fi for most last-mile links. The technology is available, and administrative decisions together with appropriate legislation can enable the use of spectrum immediately in 60GHz, 70-80GHz, and below 700MHz bands to be used by authorised operators for wireless connectivity. The first two bands are useful for high-capacity short and medium distance hops, while the third is for up to 10 km hops. The DoT can follow its own precedent set in October 2018 for 5GHz for Wi-Fi, i.e., use the US Federal Communications Commission regulations as a model.1 The one change needed is an adaptation to our circumstances that restricts their use to authorised operators for the middle-mile instead of open access, because of the spectrum payments made by operators. Policies in the public interest allowing spectrum use without auctions do not contravene Supreme Court orders.

Policies: Revenue sharing for spectrum

A second requirement is for all licensed spectrum to be paid for as a share of revenues based on usage as for licence fees, in lieu of auction payments. Legislation to this effect can ensure that spectrum for communications is either paid through revenue sharing for actual use, or is open access for all Wi-Fi bands. The restricted middle-mile use mentioned above can be charged at minimal administrative costs for management through geo-location databases to avoid interference. In the past, revenue-sharing has earned much more than up-front fees in India, and rejuvenated communications.2 There are two additional reasons for revenue sharing. One is the need to manufacture a significant proportion of equipment with Indian IPR or value-added, to not have to rely as much as we do on imports. This is critical for achieving a better balance-of-payments, and for strategic considerations. The second is to enable local talent to design and develop solutions for devices for local as well as global markets, which is denied because it is virtually impossible for them to access spectrum, no matter what the stated policies might claim.

Policies and Organisation for Infrastructure Sharing

Further, the government needs to actively facilitate shared infrastructure with policies and legislation. One way is through consortiums for network development and management, charging for usage by authorised operators. At least two consortiums that provide access for a fee, with government’s minority participation in both for security and the public interest, can ensure competition for quality and pricing. Authorised service providers could pay according to usage.
Press reports of a consortium approach to 5G where operators pay as before and the government “contributes” spectrum reflect seriously flawed thinking.3 Such extractive payments with no funds left for network development and service provision only support an illusion that genuine efforts are being made to the ill-informed, who simultaneously rejoice in the idea of free services while acclaiming high government charges (the two are obviously not compatible).
Instead of tilting at windmills that do not serve people’s needs while beggaring their prospects, commitment to our collective interests requires implementing what can be done with competence and integrity.

Shyam (no space) Ponappa at gmail dot com
1. https://dot.gov.in/sites/default/files/2018_10_29%20DCC.pdf
2. http://organizing-india.blogspot.in/2016/04/ breakthroughs- needed-for-digital-india.html
3. https://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/govt-considering-spv-with-5g-sweetener-as-solution-to-telecom-crisis-120012300302_1.html

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/indias-self-goal-in-telecom

Digital Rights and ISP Accountability in India: An Analysis of Policies and Practices

Anubha Sinha, Yesha Tshering Paul, and Sherina Poyyail — 2025-01-23T10:04:44Z

This report presents a comprehensive evaluation of India's four largest Internet Service Providers (ISPs)—Reliance Jio, Bharti Airtel, Vodafone-Idea (Vi), and BSNL—examining their commitment to digital rights and transparency.

Read the full report here.

India's four largest Internet Service Providers (ISPs)—Reliance Jio, Bharti Airtel, Vodafone-Idea (Vi), and BSNL collectively serve 98% of India's internet subscribers, with Jio and Airtel commanding a dominant market share of 80.87%. The assessment comes at a critical juncture in India's digital landscape, marked by a 279.34% increase in internet subscribers from 2014 to 2024, alongside issues such as proliferation of internet shutdowns.

Adapting the Ranking Digital Rights' (RDR) 2022 methodology framework for its 2022 Telco Giants Scorecard, our analysis reveals significant disparities in governance structures and commitment to digital rights across these providers. Bharti Airtel emerges as the leader in governance framework implementation, maintaining dedicated human rights policies and board-level oversight. In contrast, Vi and Jio demonstrate mixed results with limited explicit human rights commitments, while BSNL exhibits the weakest governance structure with minimal human rights considerations. Notably, all ISPs lack comprehensive human rights impact assessments for their advertising and algorithmic systems.

The evaluation of freedom of expression commitments reveals systematic inadequacies across all providers. Terms and conditions are frequently fragmented and difficult to access, while providers maintain broad discretionary powers for account suspension or termination without clear appeal processes. There is limited transparency regarding content moderation practices and government takedown requests, coupled with insufficient disclosure about algorithmic decision-making systems that affect user experiences.

Privacy practices among these ISPs show minimal evolution since previous assessments, with persistent concerns about policy accessibility and comprehension. The investigation reveals limited transparency regarding algorithmic processing of personal data, widespread sharing of user data with third parties and government agencies, and inadequate user control over personal information. None of the evaluated ISPs maintain clear data breach notification policies, raising significant concerns about user data protection.

The concentrated market power of Jio and Airtel, combined with weak digital rights commitments across the sector, raises substantial concerns about the state of user privacy and freedom of expression in India's digital landscape. The lack of transparency in website blocking and censorship, inconsistent implementation of blocking orders, limited accountability in handling government requests, insufficient protection of user rights, and inadequate grievance redressal mechanisms emerge as critical areas requiring immediate attention.

As India continues its rapid digital transformation, our findings underscore the urgent need for both regulatory intervention and voluntary industry reforms. The development of standardised transparency reporting, strengthened user rights protections, and robust accountability mechanisms will be crucial in ensuring that India's digital growth aligns with fundamental rights and democratic values.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/digital-rights-and-isp-accountability-in-india-an-analysis-of-policies-and-practices