Centre for Internet and Society

July 2013 Bulletin

praskrishna — 2013-08-21T09:30:32Z

Our newsletter for the month of July 2013 can be accessed below.

The Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) welcomes you to the seventh issue of its newsletter for the year 2013. In this issue we bring you a report on the Institute on Internet and Society held in the month of June, comments submitted by us to the Office of the Controller General of Patents Designs and Trademarks on the draft guidelines on computer related inventions, report from the fifth privacy roundtable meeting held in Kolkata, updates from Kannada Wikipedia workshops held in Hubli and Sagara, a report on Digital Humanities for higher education, media coverage, and information on our forthcoming events.

Archives of our newsletters are here. Our policies on Ethical Research Guidelines, Non-Discrimination and Equal Opportunities, Privacy, Terms of Website Use and Travel can be accessed here.

Jobs
CIS is inviting applications for the posts of Developer (NVDA Screen Reader Project). To apply for this post, send in your resume to Nirmita Narasimhan (nirmita@cis-india.org). CIS is also seeking applications for the post of Policy Associate (Internet Governance). To apply send your resume to Sunil Abraham (sunil@cis-india.org) and Pranesh Prakash (pranesh@cis-india.org).

Accessibility

CIS is doing two projects in partnership with the Hans Foundation. One is to create a national resource kit of state-wise laws, policies and programmes on issues relating to persons with disabilities in India and another for developing a screen reader and text-to- speech synthesizer for Indian languages:

National Resource Kit for Persons with Disabilities
CIS and the Centre for Law and Policy Research (CLPR) are working in this project. Draft chapters have been published. Feedback and comments are invited from readers for the chapters on Punjab, Uttarakhand, Maharashtra and Chandigarh:

The Punjab Chapter (by Anandhi Viswanathan, July 31, 2013).
The Uttarakhand Chapter (by Anandhi Viswanathan, July 31, 2013).
The Chandigarh Chapter (by CLPR, July 31, 2013).
The Maharashtra Chapter (by Anandhi Viswanathan, July 31, 2013).

Note: All the chapters published on the website are early drafts and will be reviewed and updated.

Access to Knowledge and Openness

The Wikimedia Foundation has given a grant to CIS to support and develop the growth of Indic language communities and projects by community collaborations and partnerships. This is being carried out by the Access to Knowledge team based in Delhi. CIS is also doing a project (Pervasive Technologies) on examining the relationship between production of pervasive technologies and intellectual property. CIS also promotes openness including open government data, open standards, open access, and free/libre/open source software through its Openness programme.

Access to Knowledge (Previously IP Reforms)

Comments

Comments on the Draft Guidelines for Computer Related Inventions (by Puneeth Nagaraj, July 31, 2013). The comments were submitted to the office of the Controller General of Patents Designs & Trademarks, Mumbai on July 26, 2013.

Event Participated

An International Conference on Interface between Intellectual Property and Competition Law (organized by ASSOCHAM, July 12, 2013). Nehaa Chaudhari participated in the conference and shares select notes in a blog post.

Access to Knowledge (Wikipedia)
The A2K team consists of three members based in Bangalore: T. Vishnu Vardhan, Dr. U.B. Pavanaja and Subhashish Panigrahi and one team member Nitika Tandon who is working from Delhi office.

Event Organised

A Kannada Wikipedia Workshop (organized by CIS-A2K team, July 21, 2013, Hubli). Dr. U.B. Pavanaja gave training to the participants on Wikipedia. Leading newspapers like the Times of India, Vijaya Karnataka, Deccan Herald, VijayaVani, Prajavani, Samyukta Karnataka and HosaDiganta covered the event. Scanned versions of the published articles can be viewed here.
A Kannada Wikipedia Workshop at Sagara (organized by CIS-A2K team, Sagara, July 28, 2013). Dr. U.B. Pavanaja gave a talk on Wikipedia and Kannada Wikipedia.

Event Co-organised

Telugu Wiki Academy at Centre for Good Governance (organized by CIS-A2K and Telegu Wikipedia Community, Centre for Good Governance, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, April 9, 2013). T. Vishnu Vardhan participated in this event.

Note: The event was organized in April but report got published only in July.

Event Participated

Free Software (organized by Free Software Movement of Karnataka in partnership with Jnana Vikas Institute of Technology, Bidadi, July 24, 2013). Dr. U.B. Pavanaja made a presentation on Wikipedia.

Ongoing Event

A Workshop on Posting Articles in Kannada on Wikipedia (organised by the Centre for Proficiency Development Placement Service, University of Mysore, CPDPS premises, Manasagangotri, August 6, 2013). Dr. U.B. Pavanaja is conducting a workshop. The announcement was made in an article by R. Krishna Kumar in the Hindu on August 2, 2013.

Press Coverage

Konkani Wikipedia next? (by Diana Fernandes, OHeralO, July 27, 2013). T. Vishnu Vardhan is quoted.

Openness

Events Organised

Delhi: Digital Activism in Europe (The Sarai Programme, Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, New Delhi, July 8, 2013). Bernadette Längle gave a talk about the hacker scene and digital activism in Europe, with a focus on the Chaos Computer Club.
Open Hardware Lab: Play & Invent + Bonus Film Screening (CIS, Bangalore, August 4, 2013). There was a film screening of Theremin: An Electronic Odyssey at the event.

Internet Governance

CIS began two projects earlier this year. The first one on facilitating research and events on surveillance and freedom of expression is with Privacy International and support from the International Development Research Centre, Canada. The second one on mapping cyber security actors in South Asia and South East Asia is with the Citizen Lab, Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto and support from the International Development Research Centre, Canada:

SAFEGUARDS Project
Events Organised

Delhi: Learn to Secure Your Online Communication! (IIC, DU Campus, Delhi, July 6, 2013). A cryptoparty was held in Delhi.
Dharamsala: Learn to Secure Your Online Communication! (Dharamsala, July 13, 2013). A cryptoparty was held in Dharamsala. This was also covered in an article published in the Caravan on August 1, 2013.
Privacy Roundtable Meeting (co-organized by CIS, DSCI, and FICCI, Kolkata, July 13, 2013). An event report was written by Maria Xynou.
The Hackers Way of Reshaping Policies (CIS, Bangalore, August 2, 2012). Bernadette Langle gave a talk on privacy.

Events Participated In

Biometrics or bust? India's Identity Crisis (organised by the Oxford Internet Institute, Oxford University Press, July 2, 2013). Malavika Jayaram participated as a speaker on UID and Privacy.
DSCI Best Practices Meet 2013 (organized by DSCI, Anna Salai, Chennai, July 12, 2013). Kovey Coles attended the meeting.
Achieve Cyber Security Together (organized by the Confederation of Indian Industries, Chennai, July 13, 2013). Kovey Coles attended this event.

Ongoing / Upcoming Events

The Phishing Society: Why 'Facebook' is more dangerous than the Government Spying on You - A Talk by Maria Xynou (CIS, Bangalore, August 7, 2013). Maria Xynou will give a talk on phishing society.
Learn to Protect your Online Activities! (ACJ - Asian College of Journalism, Second Main Road (Behind M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation), Taramani, Chennai, August 7, 2013).
Privacy Meeting: Brussels – Bangalore (CIS, Bangalore, August 14, 2013). Gertjan Boulet and Dariusz Kloza will give a talk on privacy.
Privacy Round Table, New Delhi (co-organised with FICCI and DSCI, FICCI, Federation House, Tansen Marg, New Delhi, August 24, 2013).

Columns

How Surveillance Works in India (by Pranesh Prakash, New York Times, July 10, 2013).
Can India Trust Its Government on Privacy? (by Pranesh Prakash, New York Times, July 11, 2013).
Parsing the Cyber Security Policy (by Chinmayi Arun, The Hoot, and cross-posted in Free Speech Initiative, July 13, 2013).

Blog Entries

The Difficult Balance of Transparent Surveillance (by Kovey Coles, July 10, 2013).
Moving Towards a Surveillance State (by Srinivas Atreya, July 15, 2013).
More than a Hundred Global Groups Make a Principled Stand against Surveillance (by Elonnai Hickok, July 31, 2013).
The Audacious ‘Right to Be Forgotten’ (by Kovey Coles, July 31, 2013).

Interview

An Interview with Reijo Aarnio: Maria Xynou conducted an interview with Reijo, the Finnish Data Protection Ombudsman.

Media Coverage

Google brings tabs to sneak advertisements into your inbox (by Indu Nandakumar, Economic Times, July 30, 2013). Sunil Abraham is quoted.
How the world’s largest democracy is preparing to snoop on its citizens (by Leslie D' Monte and Joji Thomas Philip, July 3, 2013). Sunil Abraham is quoted.
Geeks have a solution to digital surveillance in India: Cryptography (by Joanna Lobo, DNA, July 7, 2013). Pranesh Prakash is quoted.
India's centralised snooping system facing big delays (by Phil Muncaster, The Register, July 9, 2013). CIS is mentioned in this article.
India’s Central Monitoring System: Security can’t come at cost of privacy (by Danish Raza, FirstPost, July 10, 2013). Sunil Abraham is quoted.
Is CMS a Compromise of Your Security? (by Rohin Dharmakumar, Forbes India magazine, July 12, 2013). Sunil Abraham is quoted.
Snooping technology: Will CMS work in India? (by Pierre Fitter, FirstPost, July 17, 2013). Pranesh Prakash is quoted.
सावधान आपके प्रोफ़ाइल पर है पुलिस की नज़र! (by Parul Aggarwal, BBC, July 18, 2013). Pranesh Prakash is quoted.
Your life's an open Facebook (by Shikha Kumar, DNA, July 21, 2013). Sunil Abraham is quoted.
Concerns over central snoop (by Aloke Tikku, Hindustan Times, June 28, 2013). Sunil Abraham is quoted.
Your telco could help spy on you (by Joji Thomas Philip, Leslie D'Monte and Shauvik Ghosh, LiveMint, July 30, 2013). Sunil Abraham is quoted.

DNA Profiling Bill
A sub-committee has been constituted as per the recommendations of the Expert Committee of DNA Profiling Bill. The sub-committee will have a meeting in Hyderabad on August 6, 2013. Sunil Abraham is one of the members of the sub-committee.

Cyber Stewards Project
Laird Brown, a strategic planner and writer with core competencies on brand analysis, public relations and resource management and Purba Sarkar who in the past worked as a strategic advisor in the field of SAP Retail are working in this project.

Video Interviews

Part 3: Interview with Eva Galperin (July 10, 2013).
Part 4: Interview with Marietje Schaake (July 11, 2013).
Part 5: Interview with Amelia Andersdotter (July 12, 2013).
Part 6: Interview with Lhadon Tethong (July 15, 2013).
Part 7: Interview with Jochem de Groot (July 18, 2013).
Part 8: Interview with Jeff Moss (July, 23, 2013).

Cyber Security
Blog Entries

India's National Cyber Security Policy in Review (by Jonathan Diamond, July 31, 2013).
Guidelines for the Protection of National Critical Information Infrastructure: How Much Regulation? (by Jonathan Diamond, July 31, 2013).

Free Speech, Expression and Censorship
Column

You Have the Right to Remain Silent (by Nishant Shah, July 22, 2013).

Event Participated In

Connaught Summer Institute on Monitoring Internet Openness and Rights (organized by the Munk School of Global Affairs, Bloor Street West, July 23, 2013). Malavika Jayaram participated in this event and spoke on "India's Civil Liberties Crisis: Digital Free Will in Free Fall".

Knowledge Repository on Internet Access

CIS in partnership with the Ford Foundation is executing a project to create a knowledge repository on Internet and society. This repository will comprise content targeted primarily at civil society with a view to enabling their informed participation in the Indian Internet and ICT policy space. The repository is available at www.internet-institute.in.

Event Organised

Institute on Internet and Society: Event Report (supported by Ford Foundation, Golden Palms Resort, Bangalore, June 8 – 14, 2013). Pranesh Prakash, Bernadette Längle, Vir Kamal Chopra, AK Bhargava, Ananth Guruswamy, Archana Gulati, Chakshu Roy, Elonnai Hickok, Gaurab Raj Upadhaya, Helani Galpaya, Michael Ginguld, Dr. Nadeem Akhtar, C. Nandini, Dr. Nirmita Narasimhan, Dr. Nishant Shah, Parminder Jeet Singh, Ravikiran Annaswamy, Dr. Ravina Aggarwal, Satyen Gupta, Dr. Subbiah Arunachalam, Sunil Abraham, Tulika Pandey and T. Vishnu Vardhan were speakers at the event. The presentations and videos can now be accessed in this report.

Telecom

CIS is involved in promoting access and accessibility to telecommunications services and resources and has provided inputs to ongoing policy discussions and consultation papers published by TRAI. It has prepared reports on unlicensed spectrum and accessibility of mobile phones for persons with disabilities and also works with the USOF to include funding projects for persons with disabilities in its mandate:

Newspaper Column

Building Up vs Tearing Down (by Shyam Ponappa, July 3, 2013, originally published in the Business Standard, and also mirrored in Organizing India Blogspot).

Digital Humanities

We are building research clusters in the field of Digital Humanities. The Digital will be used as a way of unpacking the debates in humanities and social sciences and look at the new frameworks, concepts and ideas that emerge in our engagement with the digital. The clusters aim to produce and document new conversations and debates that shape the contours of Digital Humanities in Asia.

Event Co-organised

Digital Humanities for Indian Higher Education (co-organised by HEIRA, CSCS, Tumkur University, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai and CIS, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, July 13, 2013).

Event Organised

Digital Humanities Talk (CIS, Bangalore, July 31, 2013). Sara Morais gave a talk on the advantages and problems in doing digital humanities work.

Event Participated In

Political Economy, Activism and Alternative Economic Strategies (organized by the International Institute of Social Studies, Erasmus University of Rotterdam, The Hague, July 9 – 13, 2013). Nishant Shah presented his paper on paper on Citizen Action in the Time of Network.

Blog Entries

Designing Change? Gatekeepers in Digital Humanities (by Sara Morais, July 2, 2013).
Towards Critical Tool-building (by Sara Morais, July 12, 2013).

About CIS

The Centre for Internet and Society is a non-profit research organization that works on policy issues relating to freedom of expression, privacy, accessibility for persons with disabilities, access to knowledge and IPR reform, and openness (including open government, FOSS, open standards, etc.), and engages in academic research on digital natives and digital humanities.

Get short, timely messages from us on Twitter
Join the CIS group on Facebook
Visit us at http://cis-india.org

Support Us
Please help us defend consumer / citizen rights on the Internet! Write a cheque in favour of ‘The Centre for Internet and Society’ and mail it to us at No. 194, 2nd ‘C’ Cross, Domlur, 2nd Stage, Bengaluru – 5600 71.

Request for Collaboration
We invite researchers, practitioners, and theoreticians, both organisationally and as individuals, to collaboratively engage with Internet and society and improve our understanding of this new field. To discuss the research collaborations, write to Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, at sunil@cis-india.org or Nishant Shah, Director – Research, at nishant@cis-india.org

CIS is grateful to its donors, Wikimedia Foundation, Ford Foundation, Privacy International, UK, Hans Foundation and the Kusuma Trust which was founded by Anurag Dikshit and Soma Pujari, philanthropists of Indian origin, for its core funding and support for most of its projects.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/about/newsletters/july-2013-bulletin

The Huawei pointer

Shyam Ponappa — 2018-05-06T13:04:40Z

Taking a cue from Huawei. Huawei has an awe-inspiring record of drive, perseverance, fortuitous circumstances, good strategy, execution, and success.

The article was published in the Business Standard on May 3, 2018 and in Organizing India Blogspot also on May 3, 2018

A Chinese communications company founded in 1987 in Shenzhen by a former army engineer, Ren Zhengfei, Huawei is now a legend. By 2012, it overtook industry leader Ericsson in global revenues. In 2017, its revenues were over $90 billion, two-thirds from outside China. It also has a significant and growing presence in India. How did they do it?

Part of Huawei’s mystique stems from its outstanding founder and its driven work culture. This may be unique and difficult to replicate, but it is a byword for hard-charging Chinese high-tech. A meme that epitomises the culture is “9-9-6” — that is, for 9:00 am to 9:00 pm, 6 days a week. Can factors driving its success to be adopted at the policy level and in enterprises in a democracy?

My previous column addressed the hollowing out of our manufacturing and other abilities. My suggestion is to replace obstructive policies with others that facilitate building infrastructure and local capacity, especially in growth areas. The example of Huawei provides a pointer. Perhaps some of what we learn can be applied at the governmental and the corporate levels.

Reports suggest these key factors in its success:

Strong leadership with a sense of purpose: A customer-first attitude. There’s an anecdote of the founder being willing to meet any customer, but ignoring a potential investor by delegating to a colleague a meeting with a Morgan Stanley team, led by Chief Economist Stephen Roach.
Broad employee ownership: In 2014, 84,000 employees out of 150,000 owned stock along with the founder, who owned only 1.4 per cent.2 They share an understanding that while an IPO would enrich some, the majority would lose their motivation. The essential requirements are hard work and dedication.
Government support: Huawei grew revenues by building market share in China to become a national champion, then got support from the China Development Bank. Initially for $10 billion, it is now $30 billion.3 Building networks in Africa and Latin America, and low prices helped win deals in Europe. Mr Ren himself has said that without policy support, Huawei would not exist.
Its unique culture and organisation: From inception, the founder was passionate about management, and about adapting methods and organisation. For instance, Huawei devised a top management model of a rotating CEO among three top executives, each of whom leads for six months, modelled on a flight of geese that change their order in arrowhead formation.4 Mr Ren is the mentor and coach. In March 2018 there was a change to a rotating Chairman position.

(The founder’s daughter, Meng Wanzhou (aka Sabrina Meng) is the Chief Financial Officer, and holds one of four vice-chair positions. His son Ren Ping works for a subsidiary providing reservations and trade show support.)

Another instance is Huawei’s Integrated Financial Services transformation program, which Ms Meng led since 2007. It was an eight-year partnership program between Huawei and IBM to develop data systems and resource allocation rules, operations, process optimisation, and internal controls.

Huawei reportedly invests 10 per cent of annual revenues on Research & Development.
Huawei also emphasises “the power of thinking”. Executives are urged to read beyond their domains, and books are everywhere.

These factors enable Huawei to solve problems for clients in diverse situations. Examples:

In its early days, networks were at risk from rats gnawing through circuitry in desert and rural areas in China. Multinational vendors did not consider this their problem and left it to their customers. Huawei, by contrast, treated it as their own problem, and developed sturdier equipment and materials such as chew-proof wires. This experience later helped gain large accounts in the Middle East where customers faced similar problems.
Other extreme environmental conditions have been addressed, such as base stations installed at high altitudes (at 6,500 metres on Mt Everest), or in the Arctic. These experiences helped a dedicated and committed workforce gain more clients. For instance, when expanding their 3G market in Europe, Huawei found that clients expected “base stations to be more compact, easier to install, greener, and more energy efficient, while offering wider coverage”. To cater to these needs, Huawei developed distributed base stations that could handle both large and small private networks, making them cheaper to deploy, which became popular with European carriers.
The employee-ownership arrangement and associated dedication enable planning for the long term, as with the Chinese government. Huawei plans for 10 years, whereas competitors have to contend with quarterly financial considerations.

Carriers buying Huawei network equipment get significant discounts in smartphones. Focusing on new technology not controlled by the giants of 3G such as Qualcomm, Ericsson, and Nokia, enabled Huawei to develop 4G, which is much faster and ideally suited for updating-apps, to the point that it competes with Samsung and Apple. Undercutting competitors has enabled it to sell to carriers, and its depth of products and technology has enabled it to meet customer needs, displacing competitors.

Huawei’s R&D Centre in Bangalore established in 1999 is its largest outside China, and it has offshore Global Network Operating Centres in Gurgaon and Bangalore, besides Romania and Nigeria. These GNOCs run networks not only in India but across the globe for a number of operators, offering managed network services integrating a range of equipment at low cost. With its market strength, depth of products, and access to funds, Huawei is likely to control network services in India and much of the world from now on through the 5G evolution cycle.

The only way for competition other than in-house NOCs in India is if the Government of India develops end-to-end supportive policies, transcends election cycles, and sponsors a consortium comprising a major transnational anchor, a system integrator, and local design and production wherever technological opportunities arise.

References

1. David De Cremer and Tian Tao: https://hbr.org/2015/06/huaweis-culture-is-the-key-to-its-success

2. Rebecca Blumenstein: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-secret-of-huaweis-success-1414963782

3. Scott Sendrowski: http://fortune.com/huawei-china-smartphone/?iid=sr-link1

4. Belasco, James A. Stayer, Ralph C. (1993). Flight of the Buffalo. New York, NY: Warner Books.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/telecom/blog/business-standard-shyam-ponappa-may-3-2018-huawei-pointer

India's Draft Telecom Policy Needs to Bridge the Gap Between Intent and Execution

sinha — 2018-05-07T16:13:31Z

Earlier this week, India’s department of telecommunications (DoT) released a draft new telecom policy, titled ‘Draft National Digital Communications Policy 2018’.

The article originally published in the Wire on May 6, 2018 can be read here. Access the Draft National Digital Communications Policy 2018 here.

The three pillars of the draft policy are ‘Connect India’, ‘Propel India’ and ‘Secure India’, which primarily seek to improve broadband connectivity, accelerate development of next-generation technologies and services and institute measures for data sovereignty, security and safety, respectively.

Several strategies have been devised under each pillar – few carry on from previous national telecom policies, and some are new proposals.

The document is high on aspirations, a lot of which it seeks to fulfil by 2022. It also proposes several favourable institutional and regulatory changes and simplifies obtaining of permissions.

However, it remains quite open-ended in terms of how the details could evolve. For example, while it endeavours to develop a fair, flexible, simple and transparent method for spectrum assignments and allocations, by pricing spectrum at an ‘optimal price’ and linking spectrum usage charges (SUC) to reflect costs of regulation and administration of spectrum, it cannot be said if these measures will fully rejuvenate a debt-ridden telecom sector.

Ideally, the policy should have explicitly mentioned that revenue maximisation is not a goal for the government anymore, to reassure the industry that licence fees and SUC will not be astronomically priced – especially as it is in no mood to change the model of spectrum allocation from auction to revenue sharing (circa NTP-99). A clear commitment would have helped inspire more confidence in this strained sector. Regardless, these changes will also need approval from the finance ministry, where stiff resistance is expected.

Expanding both wireless and wired broadband is a clear priority of the government. It sets out four initiatives, encouraging public-private partnerships to serve both rural and urban centres (BharatNet, GramNet, NagarNet, JanWiFi), and several additional measures to accelerate laying of optical fibre, mobile towers and increase sharing of infrastructure.

Although the previous telecom policies (NTP-99, NTP-2012 and recommendations in ‘Fixing Broadband Quickly’ (TRAI, 2015)) determined the similar gaps and objectives, little has translated into concrete results so far. In 2017, ITU and UNESCO reported that India was the largest unconnected market, with 49.5% (approx. 660 million) of our population still unconnected. The report further noted that the penetration of mobile broadband was much higher than fixed-line broadband connections – and urban centres were better served than rural areas. One hopes that the new strategies and objectives will be better realised this time around.

The policy also seeks to boost domestic innovation in the field of standards in communications technologies. This is reflected in its aims to strengthen domestic IP portfolios by providing financial incentives for the development of standard-essential patents (SEPs) and promote them at standard setting organisations. It mandates access to critical, mostly foreign-owned SEPs on a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory basis (FRAND basis). This is an approach to patent licensing that has been endorsed by courts and the Competition Commission of India in the context of mobile phone technologies, as well as in other jurisdictions.

However, it remains to be seen how this mandate will be implemented in TRAI’s forthcoming recommendations on promoting telecom equipment manufacturing in India. This is a real opportunity for the telecom regulator to help the low-cost smartphone manufacturing industry in India to overcome their disadvantage in terms of having to pay exorbitant royalties to foreign-SEP holders and getting sued for infringement in the process. Another strategy that should have found place was the creation of government-controlled patent pools for SEPs, which could have solved the issue of uncertainty for local manufacturers and ensured payments to SEP holders to a great extent.

Additionally, the policy proposes a few consumer-oriented changes such as establishing a ‘Telecom Ombudsman’ and a centralised web-based complaint redressal system. In the third pillar of ‘Secure India’, although the document does not reveal the DoT’s approach to net-neutrality nor data protection and privacy, it does say that the government will be amenable to changing the terms of license to fulfill their core principles.

Curiously, in order to ‘facilitate security and safety of citizens’ it proposes to set up ‘lawful interception agencies with state of the art lawful intercept and analysis systems for implementation of law and order and national security’. This measure did not exist in TRAI’s version of the draft policy.

On next-generation tech in the field of IoT and cloud, it retained TRAI’s suggestion of setting up ‘light-touch’ licensing frameworks. This may prove to be a barrier to innovation in the field.

While the policy is broad and forward-looking, the true intent and meaning of the listed steps will only be understood when complementary legislative and granular policy actions to support these strategies are crystallised. That will make all the difference.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/telecom/blog/the-wire-anubha-sinha-may-6-2018-india-draft-telecom-policy

Comments on the Telecom Commercial Communications Customer Preference Regulations

Sandeep Kumar, Torsha Sarkar, Swaraj Barooah, Gurshabad Grover — 2018-06-23T00:44:47Z

This submission presents comments by the Centre for Internet & Society, India (“CIS”) on the Telecom Commercial Communications Customer Preference Regulations which was released to the public by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) on 29th May 2018 for comments and views.

Preliminary

This submission presents comments by the Centre for Internet & Society (“CIS”), India on ‘The Telecom Commercial Communications Customer Preference Regulations, 2018’ which were released on 29th May 2018 for comments and counter-comments.

CIS appreciates the intent and efforts of Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) to curb the problem of Unsolicited Commercial Communication (UCC), or spam. Spam messages are constant irritants for telecom subscribers. Acknowledging the same, TRAI has proposed regulations which aim to empower subscribers in effectively dealing with UCC. CIS is grateful for the opportunity to put forth its views and comments on the regulations. This submission was made on 18th June 2018. This text has been slightly edited for readability.

The first part of the submission highlights some general issues with the regulations. While TRAI has offered a technological solution to the menace of UCC, the policy documents have no accompanying technical details. TRAI has not made a compelling case for why Distributed Ledger Technologies (DLTs) should be used for storing data instead of a distributed database. There is no clarity on the technical aspects of the proposed DLTs: the participating nodes in the network, how these nodes arrive at a consensus, whether they are independent of each other, are questions that remain unanswered. The draft regulations also mention curbing Robocalls, but technical challenges associated with the same have not been discussed. Spam which is non-commercial in nature remains out of the scope of the current regulations.

The second part of this submission puts forth specific comments related to various sections of the draft and suggests improvements therein. While CIS appreciates the extension of the deadline from 11th June to 18th June, we would like to highlight that the Draft was released on 29th May, and despite the extension, the time to submit comments remains less than a month. Considering the fact that the draft regulations hold significance for the entire telecom industry and nearly 1.5 billion subscribers, TRAI should have granted at least a month’s time for the stakeholder’s sound scrutiny.

General Comments

Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT)

The draft greatly emphasizes the fact that data regarding Consent, Complaints, Headers, Preferences, Content Template Register and Entities are stored on distributed ledgers. The intent is to keep data cryptographically secure with no centralized point of control. However, the regulations do not go into the technical details of the working of these distributed ledgers leading to several potential pitfalls.

As per the draft, every access provider has to establish distributed ledgers for Complaints, Consent, Content, Preference, Header, Entities and so on. There are specific entities mentioned which will act as nodes in the network, and these nodes are preselected.

Whenever a sender seeks to send commercial communications across a list of subscribers, the list is ‘scrubbed’ against the DL-Consent and DL-Preference, to check whether the subscriber has given consent and registered their preference. The sender can only send the commercial communication to the numbers which are present in the scrubbed list.

The objective of these regulations is to protect consumers’ rights but the consumer, i.e., the subscriber, is not a node in the distributed ledger. Since the primary benefits of decentralization are gained when the trust is devolved to the individual subscribers, and the individual users are not specified as participating nodes in the ledger, the justification behind a distributed ledger is unclear.

Additionally, the proposed regime requires the subscriber to place her trust in the access provider to register the complaint, thus offers no tangible benefit over the current regulation. While there are penalties for non-compliant Access Providers (APs), there are no business incentives for APs to expend the extra amount of resources required in for effective implementation of this technology, to act in the users’ interest. This builds a system where APs interests clash with subscribers, but they are nonetheless required to be the guardian of the subscribers’ concerns.

Further, the nodes are entities constituted by the access providers (APs), and there is no mechanism to ensure that they behave independently of each other. In such case, it is wholly possible that all nodes on a distributed ledger are run by the same entity, thus defeating the purpose of establishing consensus. The proposed regulations do not address this scenario.

One solution would be to add subscribers as nodes to the DLT network. But this would be impractical as the technical challenges associated therein, including generating public-private key pairs of each user, the computational complexity of the network, are immense. If this is indeed the intention of TRAI, this has not been spelled out clearly in the draft regulations. Additionally, in such a scenario, there would be no requirement for mandating every AP to maintain their own DLT for customer preference and consent artifacts.

Considering the points mentioned above, we request TRAI to publish the technical specifications of DLTs, which addresses the following issues:

Who can participate in the network other than the entities mentioned in the regulations? Are these participating entities independent of each other? If not, then how will the conflict of interest be resolved?
What is the consensus algorithm used in the DLTs?
Will the code to implement DLTs be open-source?

Our recommendations are three-fold in this regard:

If distributed ledger is used, then, mechanisms should be devised to ensure the integrity of the consensus. For this, participating nodes in the network must be independent of each other. Aforementioned points regarding consensus protocol should be taken into consideration as well.

In place of DLTs, we recommend the use of a distributed database with signature-based authentication and encryption of the data to be stored. The immutability and non-repudiation of data can be achieved in this way. Distributed ledgers such as DL-consent, DL-preference, DL-complaints are instances where authentication of data and subscriber can be done using simplers means such as OTP verification, etc. So, such ledgers need not necessarily utilize DLTs.

The regulations should mandate the open-source publication of the implementation of the DLTs. This will enable interoperability, add transparency to the functioning of the regulations, and enable security audits to ensure accountability of the APs.

Broadening the scope of the Regulations to non-commercial communication

The proposed regulations attempt to specifically curb unsolicited commercial communications as defined in Regulation 2(bt). But, there are other forms of communication which are unsolicited and non-commercial, including political messages and market surveys.

We recommend that the scope of the regulations should be broadened to include both commercial and non-commercial communications. And both of these should be grouped under the category of Institutional Communications. Wherever needed, changes should be made to the regulations dealing with UCC to suit the specific requirements of dealing with unsolicited non-commercial communications as well. At the same time, the regulations should ensure that individual communications are not brought within their ambit.

Technical challenges in combating Robocalls

Robocalls are defined in Regulation 2(ba) and in Schedule IV, provision 3, it has been clubbed with other kinds of spam. However, there are some specific technical challenges in regulating robocalls. Right now, ‘block listing’ is a prevalent model where one can identify a number and then block it so that it cannot be used further. But with robocalls, spoofing of other numbers is easily achievable which makes the blocking of the real identity of caller difficult. The proposed regulations do not adequately address this challenge.

The Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions, with working groups of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), has been working on a different approach to solve this problem. They are working on standards for all mobile and VoIP calling services which would enable them to do cryptographic digital call signing, “so calls can be validated as originating from a legitimate source, and not a spoofed robocall system. The protocols, known as ‘STIR’ and ‘SHAKEN,’ are in industry testing right now through ATIS's Robocalling Testbed, which has been used by companies like Sprint, AT&T, Google, Comcast, and Verizon so far”.

TRAI should take into account these developments and propose a specific regime accordingly. One possible way forward, for now, could be the banning of robocalls unless there is explicit opt-in by subscribers.

Registration of content-template

The draft envisages a distributed ledger system for registration of content template which would have both a fixed part and a variable part. The content template needs to be registered by the content template registrar, which would be an authorized entity.

Problematically, the content template is defined to include the fixed part as well as the variable part. Further, Schedule I, provision 4(3)(e) mandates that content template registration functions should be utilized to extract fixed and the variable portion from actual messages offered for delivery or already delivered. The variable portion of the message contains information specific to a customer, as defined in regulation 2(q)(ii). In addition to privacy concerns with accessing the variable part, there is no functional reason for variable portions to be extracted from the actual message, as only the fixed portion needs to be verified.

The hash of the fixed portion of the message can be used to identify whether a user has received UCC or not. We, therefore, recommend that the variable portion of the message shall not be made accessible to entities because it is not required for the identification of a message as UCC.

‘Safe and Secure Manner’

Throughout the draft, reference is made to the data collected being stored and/or exchanged in a ‘safe and secure manner’, without any clarification as to what this term implies.

We recommend that the term be defined as ‘measures in accordance with reasonable security practices and procedures’ as given in section 43A of the Information Technology Act, 2008 read with section 8 of the Information Technology (Reasonable security practices and procedures and sensitive personal data or information) Rules, 2011.

Bulk Registration

In the Consultation paper published by TRAI, bulk registration was envisaged as a way to curb UCC wherein one member of the family can register on behalf of the family. Australia has already implemented this mechanism.

In India, evidence suggests that major victims of spam are the elderly and people with limited financial capacities. In such cases, consent and preference registration on behalf of these people by one person may help in the successful control of UCC.

Some telecom service providers argued against this by emphasizing the individual choice of a subscriber. However, in cases where there is authorization given by the customer, the primary user can register consent on his/her behalf. Similarly, since corporate connections are by definition owned and paid for by corporates, bulk registration in those situations can be also be done.

We recommend that given the situation in India, the provision for bulk registration be incorporated in the regulations for specific scenarios, as mentioned above. An authorization template giving the nominee power to register on behalf of a class can be incorporated to this effect. Also, an opt-out option must be incorporated in case an individual choice differs from the choice registered in the bulk-registration.

Specific Comments

Inferred Consent [Regulation 2(k)(II)(A)]

Comments
Regulation 2(k)(ii)(a) of the Draft defines consent as “voluntary permission given by the customer to the sender to receive commercial communication”. However, the draft also includes, “inferred consent”, which is defined as consent that can be “reasonably inferred from the customer’s conduct or the business and the relationship between the individual and the sender”.

When consent is derived from the customer’s conduct, rather than being given explicitly, it defeats its ‘voluntary nature’. The provision of consent being ‘reasonably inferred’ from the customer’s conduct is also vague, and there is no indication given in the draft as to what kind of conduct would lead to a reasonable inference of implied consent. The definition can also be interpreted to mean that customer’s conduct will be subject to monitoring, which raises privacy concerns.

Recommendations
Consent shall not be derived from the customer’s conduct unless the person provides it explicitly. We recommend amendment to the definition of ‘inferred consent’ accordingly.

Three years history to be stored in DL-Complaints [Regulations 24(3) and 24(4)]

Comments

Regulation 24(3) and (4) states that the DL-Ledger for Complaints (DL-Complaints) shall record ‘three years history’ of both the complainant and the sender, with details of complaints made, date, time and status of the resolution of the complaint. It is not clear from the regulation whether the mentioned set of data is exhaustive or not.

Recommendations
We recognize that the legislative intent behind drafting Regulation 24(3) and (4) was to curb frivolous or false complaints, which has already been a concern of TRAI. Storing both the complainant and the sender’s history, in such cases, may aid in resolving these.

We recommend that the language of the regulations may be amended to “three years history which only includes details of all complaint(s) made by him, with date(s) and time(s) . . .”, thereby giving a limiting qualification to the broad scope of the term.

The responsibility of the APs to ensure that the devices support the requisite permissions [Regulation 34]

Comments
Regulation 34 mandates that the APs are to ensure that the devices “registered in the network” shall support the requisite permissions of the Apps under this regulations.

In terms of jurisdiction, regulation of the functioning of electronic devices (which can be phones, tablets or smart watches) is outside the scope of the proposed regulations, and probably out of TRAI's regulatory competence.

Even if TRAI can impose the regulation on end devices, this regulation puts the burden on the APs to ensure that devices support the pertinent app permissions. Considering that TRAI itself has been weighing legal recourse against device manufacturers on similar grounds, it is unclear why TRAI assumes that APs have any legal or technical method to ensure control of a device which has neither been manufactured by them nor is it under their physical or remote control.

In modern smartphones, the end-user has full control over most app installations and permissions. This practice is consistent with a consumer's autonomy over the device and its functioning. Considering the fact that TRAI has not implemented basic security features in the 'Do Not Disturb' app, TRAI is putting at risk the privacy of millions of device owners by legally mandating permissions for an app with the second proviso. The proviso further gives TRAI the power to order APs to derecognize devices from their network. This regulation is draconic and inimical to the rights of consumers, who are at risk of losing network access and connectivity because of their device choice, which is a completely different business and market.

Recommendations
Reporting unsolicited messages or calls is a consumer right, and the regulations are in furtherance of the same goals. TRAI should enable consumer rights by giving subscribers the option to report spam and has no reason to force users to report spam possibly through legal overreach and privacy invasion. Accordingly, we recommend the removal of Regulation 34.

Additional Suggestions

Consumer and subscriber

The usage of the terms ‘customer’ and ‘subscriber’ in Regulation 3(1) implies that the terms have two different meanings. This interpretation, however, clashes with the actual definition given in Regulation 2(u) and 2(bk), whereby a customer is a subscriber. This is an inconsistent interpretation.

Either the definition of a ‘customer’ must be clarified or differentiated from that of a ‘subscriber’ in regulation 2, or regulation 3 must be amended to indicate what its actual object of regulation is - the customer or the subscriber.

Drafting misnumbering

There are a few instances of misnumbering of regulations and reference regulations which are non-existent.

Regulations 25(5)(b) and (c) make a reference to regulation 25(3)(a), which does not exist in the given draft. A bare reading of regulation 25, however, indicate that the intention was to refer to regulation 25(5)(a), and as such, this misnumbering should be rectified.

Regulation 34 makes a reference to regulation 7(2), which again, does not exist. In such case, either regulation 34 or regulation 7(2) must be amended to keep a consistent interpretation.

Ambiguous terms

‘Allocation and assignment principles and policies’ - Provision 4(1)(a) of Schedule I of the regulations indicate that header assignment should be done on the basis of ‘allocation and assignment principles and policies’, without any clarification to the meaning of this term. We recommend an amendment to this provision accordingly.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/comments-on-the-telecom-commercial-communications-customer-preference-regulations

June 2018 Newsletter

praskrishna — 2018-08-11T02:52:10Z

CIS newsletter for the month of June 2018.

Dear readers,

Previous issues of the newsletters can be accessed here.

Highlights

Balbharati – the Maharashtra state bureau of textbook production and curriculum research – has issued a copyright policy that forces all publishers, digital educational-content creators, and coaching classes to obtain expensive licenses for developing material directly or indirectly relating to Balbharati’s content. This is an alarming development for Indian students reported Anubha Sinha in an article in the Asian Times on June 20, 2018.
CIS-A2K has started dialogue with the publishers for the last 6 months regarding FOSS, Open knowledge and content donation to Wikimedia Projects. As a result Akhil Bharatiya Marathi Prakashak Sangh, an apex body of publishers at all India level invited us for a orientation session at their annual gathering in Pune.
Submitted comments on the Draft Digital Communications Policy which was released to the public by the Department of Telecommunications of the Ministry of Communications on 1st May 2018 for comments and views.
Submitted comments on the Telecom Commercial Communications Customer Preference Regulations which was released to the public by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) on 29th May 2018 for comments and views.
The Task Force on Artificial Intelligence was established by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry to leverage AI for economic benefits, and provide policy recommendations on the deployment of AI for India. Elonnai Hickok, Shweta Mohandas and Swaraj Paul Barooah wrote a blog entry on the artificial intelligence task force. The blog entry was edited by Swagam Dasgupta.
The world’s oldest networked infrastructure, money, is increasingly dematerialising and fusing with the world’s latest networked infrastructure, the Internet, wrote Sunil Abraham in an article published in the Economic Times on June 10, 2018.
An essay by P.P. Sneha was published in Summer Hill, a journal published by Indian Institute of Advanced Study. In the essay, edited by Dr. Bindu Menon, Sneha draws upon excerpts from a study on the field of digital humanities and related practices in India, to outline the diverse contexts of humanities practice with the advent of the digital and explore the developing discourse around digital humanities in the Indian context.
The inaugural conference of the Digital Humanities Alliance of India (DHAI) was held at the Indian Institute of Management (IIM), Indore on June 1-2, 2018. P.P. Sneha was a keynote speaker at the event. Her talk was titled ‘New Contexts and Sites of Humanities Practice in the Digital’.

Articles

Why NPCI and Facebook need urgent regulatory attention (Sunil Abraham; Economic Times; June 10, 2018).
Digital Native: Cause an Effect (Nishant Shah; Indian Express; June 17, 2018).
Maharashtra's Copyright Policy Makes Education Unaffordable (Anubha Sinha; Asia Times; June 20, 2018).

CIS in the News

Allow admins to add users to online group chats only after permission: SFLC.in (Times of India; June 1, 2018).
EC disables easy access to electoral data across states (Akshatha M; Economic Times; June 5, 2018).
Draft bill proposes Rs 1 crore fine, 3 year jail for data privacy violation (Vidhi Choudhury; Hindustan Times; June 8, 2018).
Citizens’ Draft Privacy Bill Seeks To Revolutionise Data Collection, Storage In India (Arpan Chaturvedi; Bloomberg Quint; June 9, 2018).
Police to counter fake news on WhatsApp (Nilesh Christopher and Naveen Menezes; Times of India; June 14, 2018).
'Full belief in fake texts shows cops not trusted' (Times of India; June 18, 2018).
Anushka finds support for her anti-litter tirade (Nina C. George; Deccan Herald; June 19, 2018).
Jindal varsity's international affairs students shine in job market (Economic Times; June 19, 2018).
Data Privacy: Footprints on the Web (Sujit Bhar; IndiaLegal; June 21, 2018).
Death By WhatsApp (News18.com, June 25, 2018).
Tech transformation: how agriculture is being redefined through digital innovation and startups (Your Story; June 29, 2018).

Access to Knowledge

Access to Knowledge (A2K) is a campaign to promote the fundamental principles of justice, freedom, and economic development. It deals with issues like copyrights, patents and trademarks, which are an important part of the digital landscape. Our A2K program comprises 2 projects: Pervasive Technologies done under a grant from International Development Research Centre examining interplay between cost-effective pervasive technologies and intellectual property and encouraging development of such technologies for social good, and Wikipedia under a grant from Wikimedia Foundation to enable the growth of Indic language communities and cultivate new editors in different Indian languages.

Wikipedia

Event Organized

Marathi Publishers' orientation session on FOSS,Open knowledge & Wikimedia Projects (Co-organized by Akhil Bharatiya Marathi Prakashak Sangh and CIS-A2K; Maratha Chamber of Commerce, Tilak Road, Pune; June 17, 2018).

Internet Governance

The Tunis Agenda of the second World Summit on the Information Society has defined internet governance as the development and application by governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles of shared principles, norms, rules, decision making procedures and programs that shape the evolution and use of the internet. CIS is engaged in two different projects. The first one (under a grant from Privacy International and IDRC) is on surveillance and freedom of expression (SAFEGUARDS). The second one (under a grant from MacArthur Foundation) is on restrictions that the Indian government has placed on freedom of expression online.

Privacy

Blog Entries

NITI Aayog Discussion Paper: An aspirational step towards India’s AI policy (Sunil Abraham, Elonnai Hickok, Amber Sinha, Swaraj Barooah, Shweta Mohandas, Pranav M Bidare, Swagam Dasgupta, Vishnu Ramachandran and Senthil Kumar; June 13, 2018).
The AI Task Force Report - The first steps towards India’s AI framework (Authored by Elonnai Hickok, Shweta Mohandas and Swaraj Paul Barooah and Edited by Swagam Dasgupta; June 27, 2018).

Submissions

Comments on the Draft National Policy on Official Statistics (Gurshabad Grover and Sandeep Kumar; June 7, 2018).
Comments on the Draft Digital Communications Policy (Anubha Sinha, Gurshabad Grover and Swaraj Barooah; June 14, 2018).

Participation in Event

Is Privacy Obsolete? (Organized by TERI; Bangalore; June 22, 2018). Pranesh Prakash was a panelist.

Free Speech & Expression

Blog Entry

Network Disruptions Report by Global Network Initiative (Akriti Bopanna; June 12, 2018).

Telecom

CIS is involved in promoting access and accessibility to telecommunications services and resources, and has provided inputs to ongoing policy discussions and consultation papers published by TRAI. It has prepared reports on unlicensed spectrum and accessibility of mobile phones for persons with disabilities and also works with the USOF to include funding projects for persons with disabilities in its mandate:

Submission

Comments on the Telecom Commercial Communications Customer Preference Regulations (Sandeep Kumar, Torsha Sarkar, Swaraj Barooah, and Gurshabad Grover; June 22, 2018).

Researchers at Work

The Researchers at Work (RAW) programme is an interdisciplinary research initiative driven by an emerging need to understand the reconfigurations of social practices and structures through the Internet and digital media technologies, and vice versa. It aims to produce local and contextual accounts of interactions, negotiations, and resolutions between the Internet, and socio-material and geo-political processes:

Participation in Event

Digital Humanities Alliance of India - Inagural Conference 2018 (Co-organized by IIM and IIT, Indore with support from CIS; IIM, Indore; June 1 - 2, 2018). P.P. Sneha was a speaker and gave the keynote address.

Essay

New Contexts and Sites of Humanities Practice in the Digital (Paper) (P.P. Sneha; June 25, 2018).

About CIS

The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) is a non-profit organisation that undertakes interdisciplinary research on internet and digital technologies from policy and academic perspectives. The areas of focus include digital accessibility for persons with disabilities, access to knowledge, intellectual property rights, openness (including open data, free and open source software, open standards, open access, open educational resources, and open video), internet governance, telecommunication reform, digital privacy, and cyber-security. The academic research at CIS seeks to understand the reconfigurations of social and cultural processes and structures as mediated through the internet and digital media technologies.

► Follow us elsewhere

Twitter: http://twitter.com/cis_india
Twitter - Access to Knowledge: https://twitter.com/CISA2K
Twitter - Information Policy: https://twitter.com/CIS_InfoPolicy
Facebook - Access to Knowledge: https://www.facebook.com/cisa2k
E-Mail - Access to Knowledge: a2k@cis-india.org
E-Mail - Researchers at Work: raw@cis-india.org
List - Researchers at Work: https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/researchers

► Support Us

Please help us defend consumer and citizen rights on the Internet! Write a cheque in favour of 'The Centre for Internet and Society' and mail it to us at No. 194, 2nd 'C' Cross, Domlur, 2nd Stage, Bengaluru - 5600 71.

► Request for Collaboration

We invite researchers, practitioners, artists, and theoreticians, both organisationally and as individuals, to engage with us on topics related internet and society, and improve our collective understanding of this field. To discuss such possibilities, please write to Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, at sunil@cis-india.org (for policy research), or Sumandro Chattapadhyay, Research Director, at sumandro@cis-india.org (for academic research), with an indication of the form and the content of the collaboration you might be interested in. To discuss collaborations on Indic language Wikipedia projects, write to Tanveer Hasan, Programme Officer, at tanveer@cis-india.org.

CIS is grateful to its primary donor the Kusuma Trust founded by Anurag Dikshit and Soma Pujari, philanthropists of Indian origin for its core funding and support for most of its projects. CIS is also grateful to its other donors, Wikimedia Foundation, Ford Foundation, Privacy International, UK, Hans Foundation, MacArthur Foundation, and IDRC for funding its various projects.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/about/newsletters/june-2018-newsletter

July 2018 Newsletter

praskrishna — 2018-08-11T02:50:52Z

CIS July 2018 newsletter.

Dear readers,

Previous issues of the newsletters can be accessed here.

Highlights

Paul Kurien and Akriti Bopanna carried out an analysis of the diversity of participation at the ICANN processes by taking a close look at their mailing lists.
CIS-A2K organized 6 events: partnership discussions with Misimi Telugu monthly magazine; partnership activity in Annamayya Library, Guntur, a workshop in Tumakur University; a workshop of river activists for building Jal Bodh; a workshop of publishers and writers on unicode, open source and wikimedia projects; and a Telugu literary conference.
CIS had worked with the Research and Advisory Group (RAG) of the Global Commission on the Stability of Cyberspace (GCSC). The work looked at the negotiation processes and strategies that various players may adopt as they drive the cyber norms agenda. In continuation CIS has brought out a report which focuses more extensively on the substantive law and principles at play and looks closely at what the global state of the debate means for India.
The debate surrounding privacy has in recent times gained momentum due to the Aadhaar judgement and the growing concerns around the use of personal data by corporations and governments. In this light CIS has made comments and recommendations to the India Privacy Code, 2018.
CIS drafted a response to a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) issued by the U.S. Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) on "International Internet Policy Priorities." CIS commented on the free flow of information and jurisdiction, mult-stakeholder approach to internet governance, privacy and security.
Elonnai Hickok, Shweta Mohandas and Swaraj Paul Barooah compiled the AI Task Force Report, India's first step towards an AI framework. The Task Force on Artificial Intelligence was established by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry to leverage AI for economic benefits, and provide policy recommendations on the deployment of AI for India.
Paul Kurian and Akriti Bopanna carried out an analysis of the diversity of participation at the ICANN processes by taking a close look at their mailing lists.

Articles

Digital Native: The bigger picture (Nishant Shah; Indian Express; July 1, 2018).
The Problems That Should Occupy Our Electioneers (Shyam Ponappa; Business Standard; July 6, 2018).
Digital Native: How smart cities can make criminals out of denizens (Nishant Shah; Indian Express; July 15, 2018).
Anti-trafficking Bill may lead to censorship (Swaraj Barooah and Gurshabad Grover; Livemint; July 24, 2018).
Digital Native: Hashtag Along With Me (Nishant Shah; Indian Express; July 29, 2018).
Lining up the data on the Srikrishna Privacy Draft Bill (Sunil Abraham; Economic Times; July 30, 2018).
Spreading unhappiness equally around (Business Standard; July 31, 2018).

CIS in the News

Smartphone rumours spark series of mob killings in India (Samanth Subramanian; The National; July 2, 2018).
Government Gives Nod To Bill For Building DNA Databases In India, For 'Criminal Investigation And Justice Delivery' (Huffington Post; July 5, 2018).
'Hope for such swift crackdowns for everyone' (Times of India; July 6, 2018).
Child-lifting rumours caused 69 mob attacks, 33 deaths in last 18 months (Business Standard; July 9, 2018).
Death by Social Media (Pretika Khanna, Abhiram Ghadyalpatil and Shaswati Das; Livemint; July 9, 2018).
India's Latest Data Leak: People's Aadhaar Number And Bank Account Are Just One Google Search Away (Gopal Sathe; Huffington Post; July 12, 2018).
People Should Have Right To Their Data, Not Companies, Says TRAI (Bloomberg Quint; July 16, 2018).
After Securing Net Neutrality In India, TRAI Goes To Bat For Data Privacy (Gopal Sathe; Huffington Post; July 16, 2018).
TRAI recommendations on data privacy raises eyebrows (Surabhi Agarwal and Gulveen Aulakh; Economic Times; July 18, 2018).
Srikrishna panel upset at timing of Trai suggestions (Megha Mandavia; Economic Times; July 19, 2018).
Firms find wealth in your data (Rajitha Menon; Deccan Herald; July 20, 2018).
WhatsApp races against time to fix fake news mess ahead of 2019 general elections (Venkat Ananth; Economic Times; July 24, 2018).
The crown of thorns that awaits Facebook’s India MD hire (Sunny Sen and Jayadevan PK; Factory Daily; July 25, 2018).
Bit by byte protecting her privacy (Mihir Dalal and Anirban Sen; Livemint; July 26, 2018).
Govt asks CBI to probe Cambridge Analytica in data breach case (Komal Gupta; Livemint; July 27, 2018).
Data localisation may pinch startups, payments firms (Mugdha Variyar and Pratik Bhakta; Economic Times; July 28, 2018).

Access to Knowledge

Our Access to Knowledge programme currently consists of two projects. The Pervasive Technologies project, conducted under a grant from the International Development Research Centre (IDRC), aims to conduct research on the complex interplay between low-cost pervasive technologies and intellectual property, in order to encourage the proliferation and development of such technologies as a social good. The Wikipedia project, which is under a grant from the Wikimedia Foundation, is for the growth of Indic language communities and projects by designing community collaborations and partnerships that recruit and cultivate new editors and explore innovative approaches to building projects.

Wikipedia

Blog Entries

ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯ ತರಬೇತಿ ೨೦೧೮ @ ರಾಂಚಿ (Vikas Hegde; July 4, 2018).
How to write differently for different Telugu digital platforms - awareness session to Indu Gnana Vedika (Pavan Santosh; July 19, 2018).
వాట్సాప్ సాహిత్య వేదిక నుంచి వికీసోర్సుకు (Pavan Santosh; July 31, 2018).

Events Organized

Partnership activity in Annamayya Library (Guntur; July 10, 2014).
Partnership discussions with Misimi Telugu Monthly Magazine (July 24, 2018).
Tumakur University Workshop (Tumkur; July 25, 2018).
Workshop of River activists for building Jal Bodh - Knowledge resource on Water (Pune; July 25, 2018).
Workshop of Publishers and Writers on Unicode, Open Source and Wikimedia Projects (Pune; July 25, 2018).

Internet Governance

As part of its research on privacy and free speech, CIS is engaged with two different projects. The first one (under a grant from Privacy International and IDRC) is on surveillance and freedom of expression (SAFEGUARDS). The second one (under a grant from MacArthur Foundation) is on restrictions that the Indian government has placed on freedom of expression online.

Privacy

Submissions

Response to a Notice of Enquiry by the US Government on International Internet Policy Priorities (Swagam Dasgupta; July 18, 2018).
The Centre for Internet and Society’s Comments and Recommendations to the: Indian Privacy Code, 2018 (Shweta Mohandas, Elonnai Hickok, Amber Sinha and Shruti Trikanand; July 20, 2018).

Blog Entry

The AI Task Force Report - The first steps towards India’s AI framework (Elonnai Hickok, Shweta Mohandas and Swaraj Paul Barooah; June 27, 2018). The blog post was edited by Swagam Dasgupta.

Participation in Events

IETF 102 Montreal (Organized by Internet Engineering Task Force; Fairmont Queen Elizabeth Montreal in Canada; July 14 - 20, 2018). Gurshabad Grover presented a review of the human rights considerations in the drafts of the Software Update for IoT Devices (SUIT) Working Group in the meeting of the HRPC research group.
Ethical Data Design Practices in the AI (Artificial Intelligence) Age (Organized by Startup Grind, Bangalore at NUMA Bangalore; July 28, 2018). Shweta Mohandas was a panelist.

Cyberspace and Cyber Security

Analysis

The Potential for the Normative Regulation of Cyberspace: Implications for India (Arindrajit Basu; July 30, 2018). The report was edited by Elonnai Hickok, Sunil Abraham and Udbhav Tiwari with research assistance from Tejas Bharadwaj.

Blog Entry

CIS contributes to the Research and Advisory Group of the Global Commission on the Stability of Cyberspace (GCSC) (Arindrajit Basu; July 5, 2018).

Participation in Event

IEEE-SA InDITA Conference 2018 (Organized by IEEE Standards Association; IIIT-Bangalore; July 10 - 11, 2018). Gurshabad Grover gave a brief presentation on how we could apply or reject 'Trust Through Technology' principles in the design of public biometric authentication.

Free Speech & Expression

Blog Entries

ICANN Diversity Analysis (Paul Kurian and Akriti Bopanna; July 16, 2018).
DIDP #31 Diversity of employees at ICANN (Akash Sriram; July 19, 2018).

Participation in Event

26th AMIC Annual Conference – India 2018 (Organized by Manipal Academy of Higher Education; Fortune Inn Valley View, Manipal, Karnataka; June 7 - 9, 2018). Swaraj Paul Barooah was a speaker. An article announcing the event by Kevin Mendonsa was published in the Times of India on June 5, 2018.

Telecom

Newspaper Column

The Problems That Should Occupy Our Electioneers (Shyam Ponappa; Business Standard; July 5, 2018 and Organizing India Blogspot; July 6, 2018).

About CIS

► Follow us elsewhere

Twitter: http://twitter.com/cis_india
Twitter - Access to Knowledge: https://twitter.com/CISA2K
Twitter - Information Policy: https://twitter.com/CIS_InfoPolicy
Facebook - Access to Knowledge: https://www.facebook.com/cisa2k
E-Mail - Access to Knowledge: a2k@cis-india.org
E-Mail - Researchers at Work: raw@cis-india.org
List - Researchers at Work: https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/researchers

► Support Us

► Request for Collaboration

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/about/newsletters/july-2018-newsletter

After Securing Net Neutrality In India, TRAI Goes To Bat For Data Privacy

Admin — 2018-07-29T05:28:20Z

This will be a stop-gap measure before the creation of a privacy bill.

The article by Gopal Sathe was published in Huffington Post on July 16, 2018. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.

Last week, the Department of Telecom gave the nod to net neutrality regulations, ensuring that there would be no discrimination of data at a time when the US is moving in the opposite direction. The net neutrality norms were based on the recommendations from the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) - which the BBC in November described as the world's strongest - but the regulator isn't celebrating right now - it's moved on to another equally important topic - privacy and data protection.

On Monday, TRAI announced its recommendations on privacy, security, and ownership of data in the telecom sector, and the 77 page document serves as the first major public guidelines on privacy and data protection in India.

TRAI has outlined a consent based framework, where users have to clearly choose what data is being used, which bears some similarities to Europes GDPR. TRAI noted that while the right to privacy should not be treated solely as a property right, it must be noted that the controllers of personal data are mere custodians without any primary right over the same. In other words, your data should belong to you, and not to Google, or Facebook, or any other company which holds your data.

"The Right to Choice, Notice, Consent, Data Portability, and Right to be Forgotten should be conferred upon the telecommunication consumers," TRAI recommended

In section 2.3, it also notes that meta-data is personal information and as such should be given the same protections. This is an important point given that even metadata can be used to track and identify people accurately. It also noted that there needs to be a right to be forgotten, and once you stop using a service it should not store your data beyond what's mandated by the law, according to section 2.46. Section 2.49 also allows users the right to withdraw consent, which means that even if people have given consent to gathering your data, users will be able to stop tracking on demand.

At the same time, TRAI also noted the stop-gap nature of its recommendations, and said, "till such time a general data protection law is notified by the government, the existing Rules/ License conditions applicable to the Telecom Service Providers for protection of users should be made applicable to all the entities in the digital eco-system."

Good, with some caveats

Early reactions to the recommendations are largely positive. On Twitter, lawyer Apar Gupta, who is one of the founding members of the Internet Freedom Foundation shared some quick thoughts about the recommendations. Describing this as a substantive document he called it "partly positive since it calls for interim safeguards", but added that the "form of some seems problematic."

On the plus side, he noted that many of the protections in the recommendations "focus on a user rights model, which includes notice, choice, consent, portability, deletion and erasure." He also praised the recommendations for not taking a view on data localisation, and that the protections need to apply to private as well as state entities.

However, he criticized the fact that TRAI is planning to impose license conditions on all OTT providers - that is to say, all third party services. He also noted that the recommendations did not directly address state surveillance. He also pointed out that an Electronic Consent Framework as described in the recommendations may "centralise consent requests thereby may end up generating more personal data and unifying them into a single portal managed by the govt/regulators."

"We are happy with the TRAI's recommendations on Privacy, Security and Ownership of Data as the regulator is calling for all digital entities to be brought under data protection framework. This would include all devices, operating systems, browsers, and applications and would be welcome stop-gap measure till rules and regulations of the telecom services providers are applicable to them," said Rajan Matthews, DG Cellular Operators Association of India.

"This will ensure, in prevailing circumstances, that the privacy of users is protected and maintained. National security and privacy issues are of paramount importance. Accordingly, the regulator by making this recommendation, is ensuring that no exception is made for any service provider, while subjecting them to the rules to meet the national security and privacy norms. However, this is our preliminary view and we will need to review the other recommendations to determine their implications."

Speaking in a television interview, Pranesh Prakash, Policy Director at the Centre for Internet and Society, said he's still processing the document, but "on the face of it it seems good."

"There are still certain concerns I have which haven't been addressed. The telecom licenses themselves, which are issued by the Government of India, require a whole lot of data to be collected, metadata to be collected, by telecom companies. So I'm not sure how that requirement by the Government of India squares off with what is now being recommended by TRAI."

"Let me also point out that one of the things that TRAI says, and it might be exceeding its brief a little bit, is that it says this should not only cover telecom operators, but also device manufacturers, operating systems, application creators, and other kinds of software. What TRAI seems to want to do is actually quite a bit more than what I think the DoT has, or really ought to be doing. I really don't understand whether this will find any favour in the interim before the government decides to take up the Justice Srikrishna Committee report."

Justice Srikrishna committee report still due

Although TRAI's recommendations are an important document, and will serve as stopgap privacy rules, India is also on the verge of a data protection and privacy bill, which will be based on the recommendations of the Justice BN Srikrishna committee on the subject. The committee was formed in August and was expected to deliver its report in June, but sources say that disagreements over the Aadhaar have caused some delays.

The committee is expected to send its recommendations to the government soon, at which point things could change, but for now, TRAI's recommendations are an important development as India moves to secure the privacy of its people.

Ahead of that though, you can read the full TRAI recommendations here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/huffington-post-gopal-sathe-july-16-2018-after-securing-net-neutrality-in-india-trai-goes-to-bat-for-data-privacy

Response to TRAI Consultation Paper on Regulatory Framework for Over-the-Top (OTT) Services

pranesh — 2015-05-09T11:27:15Z

The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) sent a joint response to the TRAI Consultation Paper on Regulatory Framework for Over-the-top (OTT) Services with scholars from Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad. The response was sent on March 27, 2015.

Executive Summary

The principle objective of net neutrality is that “all the Internet traffic has to be treated equally without any discrimination”; but this has had different interpretations over varied contexts. While the discourse in India has often treated net neutrality as a singular policy construct, we break down net neutrality to its various components. We then individually contextualise each component to the unique characteristics of the Indian telecommunications industry such as dependence on wireless internet access, the fragmented and non-contiguous distribution of spectrum, high competition between TEL-SPs and low digital literacy. The evolving nature of markets and networks are also considered while taking into account various public policy perspectives.

In this submission, we also argue for the need to introduce reasonable regulatory parity between functionally equivalent communications services provided by OTT-SPs and TEL-SPs. We compare the regulations for OTT-SPs under the Information Technology Act 2000 (as amended) with the regulations for TEL-SPs under the Telegraph Act 1885 (as amended), the license agreements (UL, UASL, ISP-L) and TRAI Regulations. Based on an analysis of the current laws and regulations, we suggest how TRAI needs to intervene to create this regulatory parity (for example in areas such as privacy, spam/UCC, interception etc.).

Through the above analysis, we recommend an overall regulatory framework that should be adopted by the Government. The framework takes a nuanced approach to various components of net neutrality, contextualised to India, and also attempts to bring reasonable regulatory parity. Instead of compartmentalising TEL-SPs and OTT-SPs as two distinct actors, the recommended framework considers a two-layered approach which recognises that there is an overlap between TEL-SPs and OTT-SPs. The first layer comprises of network and infrastructure (collectively called the network layer) and the second layer comprises of services and applications (collectively called the service layer).

The framework further divides the service layer into “Non-IP Services”, “Specialised Services” and “Internet Based Services”. The concept of “Specialised Services”, which is borrowed from the European Union, refers to traditional services that have migrated to an IP architecture such as facilities-based VoIP calls to PSTN and IPTV, and are either logically distinct from the Internet or have special needs which the “best efforts” delivery of the general Internet cannot satisfy. This concept helps in applying different evaluation criteria to functionally equivalent “Non-IP Services”, “Specialised Services” and “Internet Based Services”. In the framework, “Specialised Services” are also recognised as an exception to net neutrality. The concept of “Specialised Services” also helps to create an incentive for continued investment in underlying infrastructure by TEL-SPs.

This framework has helped us to bring a more balanced approach from the perspective of both TEL-SPs and OTT-SPs, while also taking into account technological convergence. It has also helped us to bring a more nuanced approach to various issues comprising net neutrality such as zero rating, paid prioritisation etc. We have considered best practices from different international regimes and the pros and cons during implementation in order to determine the exceptions and boundaries of net neutrality that should be adopted in India.

Download the full text of the Response

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/telecom/blog/joint-response-to-trai-consultation-paper-on-regulatory-framework-for-over-the-top-services

TRAI and the Disclosure of Personal Information

Nehaa Chaudhari and Vidushi Marda — 2015-05-10T09:16:28Z

The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), in March 2015 invited comments on its Consultation Paper for the regulation of over-the-top (OTT) services. In an unprecedented wave of public participation, TRAI received over a million e-mails in support of net neutrality.

This note sets out the law in relation to the unauthorized disclosure of personal information. Many thanks to Bhairav Acharya for his inputs on this.

Subsequently, on April 27, 2015, TRAI made all responses received by it public, including personal information like email addresses along with any information contained in email signatures, which invariably include a phone number or address. While disclosure of names was needed to ensure transparency in the consultation process, disclosure of personal information gave rise to criticism and questions around the legality of such disclosure.

This note sets out the law in relation to the unauthorized disclosure of personal information:
Section 43A of the IT Act provides for subordinate legislation to govern the manner in which sensitive personal data is collected and processed. The governance of personal information is dealt with under the Information Technology (Reasonable security practices and procedures and sensitive personal data or information) Rules, 2011 (“2011 Rules”). The 2011 Rules are made to give effect to Section 43A of the IT Act.

TRAI is a body corporate as per Section 3(2) of the TRAI Act. Hence, TRAI’s collection, storage, and disclosure of personal information is governed by the 2011 Rules. Rule 5(8) requires personal information collected to be held securely. TRAIs publishing of email addresses is a violation of Rule 5(8).

Rule 4 of the 2011 rules requires a body corporate to have a privacy policy. On its website, TRAI publishes a Privacy Policy. However, the Policy speaks of information gathered from the TRAI- Website. Even the wording on the Home Page of the TRAI website (that links to these policies) says “Website Policies”. It is unclear therefore, whether the Privacy Policy applies ONLY to the collection of information over the TRAI- Website or whether the Privacy Policy applies to TRAI overall.

Either way there is an argument to be made. TRAI has failed to draft and publicize a privacy policy for the personal information it collects directly. Without prejudice to the above, if the privacy policy on the TRAI website governs this collection of email addresses, then its unauthorized disclosure is a contravention of its own Privacy Policy, specifically paragraph 2.

Since the IT Act does not enact a specific penalty for contravention of section 43A in respect of personal information, TRAI’s unauthorized disclosure will be penalized through the residuary penalty contained in section 45 of the IT Act.

Hence TRAI is liable under Section 45 of the IT Act read with Rules 4 and 5(8) of the 2011 Rules. Section 45 provides a “residuary penalty”; for those provisions under the IT Act or Rules for whose contravention no other penalty has been prescribed. For this contravention, TRAI would have to pay a compensation of 25,000/- to the affected persons or a penalty of 25,000/- rupees.

TRAI may argue that it disclosed that personal information would be disclosed/published. However, the Call for Comments Press Release says that Comments will be published. Email addresses are not comments, and therefore TRAI did not issue a prior disclaimer for the publication of this personal information – hence the disclosure of e-mail addresses is still a violation.

The remedy for violation of Section 43A of the IT Act is the Adjudicating Authority appointed under Section 46(1), which requires a person not below the rank of Director in the appropriate government to receive complaints. Since TRAI is a body corporate as per the Act, it is unclear as to who the adjudicating officer in the present case should be; and is the matter of a separate research question.

The Appellate authority is the Cyber Appellate Tribunal constituted under Section 48 of the IT Act . It is not known if the tribunal has been constituted, and if it has; it is unknown whether it is staffed.

In the absence of clarity with regard to statutory authorities, a citizen whose personal information has been disclosed by TRAI without authorization may file a writ petition in the Delhi High Court under Article 226, or in the Supreme Court under Article 32 for issue of a writ of mandamus or prohibition, for appointment of the first adjudicating officer and also for issuance of directions in lieu of such an officer.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/telecom/blog/trai-and-the-disclosure-of-personal-information

Stranded Capacities & Greater Expectations

Shyam Ponappa — 2015-06-22T01:56:34Z

India's infrastructure is in a shambles because of stranded capacities that don't connect with unmet needs. Every aspect of infrastructure, such as electricity or broadband for communications, needs to be designed and executed to flow through from end to end.

The post was published in Organizing India Blogspot on May 8, 2015. It was earlier published on May 6 in the Business Standard.

The remarkable change in expectations from last May that the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government achieved appears to be giving way to closer scrutiny based on actual performance. Meanwhile, the wait for significant economic reforms is excruciating.

A couple of indicators of uneasiness: foreign institutional investors (FIIs) have turned watchful, with investments in equity and debt slowing after sustained inflows. (See Chart 1).

Also, while some leading businessmen have been saying everything is on track, industry credit growth is slowing relentlessly, as is to be expected when demand is muted, infrastructure is dysfunctional and credit is expensive. (See Chart 2).

The flurry of claims, accusations, rebuttals and counter-claims about earlier growth rates dwell on reclaiming the past, with little evidence of seeking clues to generate momentum and confidence. This may be attributable partly to the curse of our times: a penchant for headline-grabbing or headline-making. There is scarce interest in less flamboyant, fact-based presentation - whether it is politicians, TV and print media, or the audience, the general public. This may also be partly attributable to inept communication, a malady that seems to plague this regime despite its vaunted communication skills as much as it did the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) before it. Perhaps the Web can be better used to not only organise and coordinate within and across ministries, but also to disclose information while building convergence and confidence.

Consider some points that stand out from the clamour. One is that insufficient attention is directed towards cohesive policies, processes and institutions. On the face of it, there do appear to be several efforts at policy reform, for instance, in land and labour legislation, as well as in judicial reforms. There are critiques, however, suggesting that these stand-alone efforts suffer from insufficient resource allocation and ineffective implementation. The implication is that there is an absence of overarching vision and flowing from that, a lack of direction and integration.

Are constructive alternatives possible?

Last week's observations by former NDA minister Arun Shourie highlighted this apparent lack of vision, and how the government seemed to be dealing with the many problems like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle without an appreciation of the big picture. For example, the government's actions relating to coal and spectrum auctions are merely in line with court orders. There is no apparent effort to develop constructive alternatives in the public interest.

From a societal perspective, surely the government, the courts and the public need to ask: for whose benefit and at what cost? For instance, how are upfront government revenues from auctions beneficial to the public if they result in non-delivery or a slowdown of requisite services, compared with much larger collections over time from enterprises that deliver services after criteria-based allocations?

Note: revenue sharing can also be transparent. For transparent allocations, one alternative is to draw up technical and financial shortlists with integrity, followed by a lottery (with equal integrity). Another possibility is merit-based, open criteria judged by individuals with understanding and integrity - as was done to affect a breakthrough for land acquisition for the Calcutta Metro in 1982 and for part of the Bengaluru Metro in 2006. Both were achieved effectively without controversy by officials (or, to use the customary pejorative, "bureaucrats") entrusted with the responsibility. These individuals could be consulted.

Cohesive Leadership

An elephant in the room is the NDA's socially divisive stance. If the goal is high achievement, the need for convergent effort from our diverse, vast population is a no-brainer. Strong leadership resulting in cohesive effort is essential. The misgivings created so far must be addressed and reversed. If not attempted now, it will be a tremendous opportunity squandered.

There will be, of course, many impediments to achieving convergent efforts. And the dissonant legacy structures - such as realigning the judiciary and executive to constructive engagement, a constructive welfare net in place of Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, formulating truly beneficial policies for our needs instead of aping detrimental auction models - will be difficult to replace.

It is likely that we will continue in our shambolic ways, depriving ourselves of the gains of organisation and productivity. Yet there is the tantalising possibility of great gains if we were to have the right leadership, and if we could ourselves rise to the occasion.

Infrastructure

Another elephant in the room is our atrocious infrastructure. Successive governments and all parties have foundered on this. Empty talk of "second-round" reforms and so on betray a complete lack of understanding of the elements of essential, enabling infrastructure. At the most basic level, electricity, communications, transport and logistics, water and sewerage/waste disposal are fundamental requirements for productive living. These must be the relentless focus of end-to-end delivery systems.

The reforms in power and communications since 1991 were encapsulated sub-processes, as in Chart 3. Each of the boxes is a complex process in itself, and each has its position in the process flow as shown. Electricity reforms relate to fuel, generation, transmission, distribution and cash collection. Unless all steps in the chain are completed, we will be left with stranded capacities in one or more of these "boxes", like stranded generation plants, as we have been so far.

For broadband communications, the areas are the access, aggregation and the core or backbone networks. The most difficult are the last-mile links in access networks. Elements like the National Optical Fibre Network (NOFN) backbone are stranded unless they are connected with aggregation networks that lead to last-mile access, which could be a wireless, cable, telephone wire, or an electricity link. The system must be designed in its entirety to deliver.

What began the information technology services revolution was facilitating every link in the chain from one end to the other, with permissions, incentives and tax cuts, even if it was only a "thin pipe", 64 kbps link that bypassed initial hurdles for a start. The government could consider variants that could work for each infrastructure sector.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/telecom/blog/business-standard-op-ed-may-6-2015-shyam-ponappa-stranded-capacities-and-greater-expectations

Unfettering Stranded Capacity

Shyam Ponappa — 2015-07-11T16:00:11Z

Government can't control market forces, but can and must fix regulatory issues. First, the good news: the government does appear to be making serious efforts to tackle stranded capacity and stalled projects, as in the instances below. Such issues need to be resolved because of their effect on future investment and employment. Now, the bad news: one part is that some problems need solutions which are fraught with political risk.

The article was published in the Business Standard on June 3, 2015 mirrored in Organizing India Blogspot on June 4, 2015.

We want reforms, but don't want to pay for them. For instance, coal-based power needs additional investment to lower emissions. While beneficial, it will not be popular. Worse, sometimes even the path to resolution may not be clear, yet new ways have to be found, because business-as-usual along the paths taken is unsustainable going forward. This becomes evident in considering issues such as electricity distribution, where states have key responsibility and authority for some of what needs to be done. Concerning spectrum and coal allocation, there's widespread mistrust about operators getting something for nothing, sort of an East-India-Company syndrome, despite user benefits from lower rates and better services if there is appropriate regulation. We'll have to get over this mindset to stop doing ourselves in. This holds regardless of which party rules and at what level - the Centre, state or local government - or what their philosophy might be: rightist, leftist, something in between, or simply pragmatist.

The most prominent category of stranded capacity is where capital has been invested, but the capacity is unusable for some reason. Examples abound in infrastructure, in manufacturing, and in residential and commercial development, as detailed in the Economic Survey. But there are other categories of stranded capacity which are more difficult to address, because they are in the nature of opportunity costs rather than invested capital. They deserve equal attention because an opportunity loss, or benefit foregone from paths not taken, can result in as much detriment as from a stalled investment. But before we get into examples of opportunity costs, consider the more straightforward case of investments in power generation that are infructuous.

Stranded Power Generation

An estimated Rs 60,000 crore is unproductive in stranded power generation projects which stopped operating because fuel was unavailable. About a quarter of this relates to 31 gas-based plants of over 14,300 MW, nearly 60 per cent of the total gas-based capacity of 24,150 MW. Another 23 per cent or 5,500 MW is operating at below the 30 per cent plant load factor required to just cover costs. The government has devised a scheme using the Power System Development Fund to import liquefied natural gas to run some of these projects at 30 per cent capacity. Operators must compete through reverse-bids with a fixed tariff of Rs 5.50 per unit. The lowest bidders win PSDF support, which will be paid to distributors. There is a ceiling of Rs 3,500 crore to gas-based projects, and plants aggregating 8,000 MW had submitted bids by early May.[1]

Regarding electricity distribution, press reports suggest that states buy only 20-30 per cent of their requirement at the prevailing low spot rates in the last three months,ranging from Rs 2.56 to Rs 2.82 per unit. This is because of the distributors' committed power purchase agreements as well as their weaker finances. In some cases as in Delhi, some old plants incur highoperating costs, and power from clean, gas-based plants costs more.[2]

Another serious problem is that of "regulatory assets" in Delhi. This euphemism covers under-recoveries because tariffs were set too low for years in response to popular demand. There was a crisis last year when NTPC refused to supply power until the distributors paid their dues, while the state owed the distributors Rs 20,000 crore. The problem is ongoing; meanwhile, the regulator has increased tariffs, but not enough to recover past losses. While a number of states have begun transmission and distribution reforms,[3] it's already evident with rising generation that unless financial and distribution capacity are built on sound principles, electricity supply cannot stabilise for users. We must grasp the nettle of a disciplined, responsible approach.

On a broader front, the government has been coordinating meetings between government officials, banks, and the RBI, seeking to resolve problems affecting some Rs 3.51-lakh crore in stressed projects in steel, cement, power and transport.

Opportunity Losses (or The Road Not Taken)

The regulations on radio frequency spectrum show how administrative rules can deprive us of readily available benefits. The most glaring example is the prevention of roaming using 3G spectrum. The resource was available, and was allocated to operators for various locations, but their roaming agreements were disallowed. This doesn't help us, whether from the perspective of government's increased share of revenues from greater usage, or the denial of user benefits from a better service offering. Instead, this approach constrains capacity by an arbitrary rule. Such issues need to be reviewed and rationalised to unfetter latent capacity towards attaining Digital India.

Another instance is that of limitations imposed on spectrum sharing which have nothing to do with technology. The reason exclusive spectrum allocations were introduced years ago was to prevent radio frequency interference. Now, imposing arbitrary limitations on spectrum usage results in denying ourselves available capacity. More radical and complex alternatives like pooling spectrum and facilities, and common carrier access for certain services, deserve consideration for exactly the same reasons: increased productivity and benefits from investments already made. Otherwise, it is like stranded capacity in stalled projects.

The same issues apply to the auction of mineral rights for core industries in domestic manufacturing. Any ingenuous fascination with free-market principles in allocating resources that overlook the fundamental requirements of a strong manufacturing base in a large country, or that don't comprehend the realpolitik of how free-market dogma is selectively argued, will leave us farther behind on the road to prosperity.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/telecom/blog/organizing-india-blogspot-shyam-ponappa-june-4-2015-unfettering-stranded-capacity

Response to TRAI Consultation Paper on Broadband Connectivity and Speed

Shyam Ponappa — 2020-12-20T08:43:20Z

CIS comments on Telecom Regulatory Authority of India’s Consultation Paper on Roadmap to Promote Broadband Connectivity and Enhanced Broadband Speed

This submission presents a response by individuals working at the Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) to the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India’s Consultation Paper on Roadmap to Promote Broadband Connectivity and Enhanced Broadband Speed (hereinafter, the “TRAI Consultation Paper”) released on 20 August, 2020 for comments.

CIS appreciates the continual efforts of Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) to have consultations, and is grateful for the opportunity to put forth its views and comments.

Read the response here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/telecom/blog/response-to-trai-consultation-paper-on-broadband-connectivity-and-speed

How the Telecom Act undermines personal liberties

Rajat Kathuria and Isha Suri — 2024-02-20T00:54:29Z

In this article, Prof. Rajat Kathuria and Isha Suri analyse whether the law has enough safeguards and an independent regulatory architecture to protect the rights of citizens. The authors posit that the current version leaves the door open for an overenthusiastic enforcement machinery to suppress fundamental rights without any meaningful checks and balances.

The Telecommunications Act cements government’s power to suspend internet services, does not establish independent oversight mechanism for interception, suspension orders. The article originally published in the Indian Express can be read here.

“Is Big Brother watching you? At the press of a button a civil servant can inspect just about every detail of your life your tax, your medical record and periods of unemployment. That civil servant could be your neighbour. There is mounting concern over this powerful weapon that the computer revolution has put in the government’s hand. But no civil servant will be allowed to examine personal files from another department, without written authority from a Minister. I shall be announcing legislation enabling citizens to take action against any civil servant who gains unauthorised access to his file.” (Yes Minister). The year is 1980, the computer revolution is just about beginning and questions of surveillance have become pertinent; safeguards in the form of separation of powers between the executive and legislative are announced by the Minister for the protection of citizens.

Although theatrical, Yes Minister can yet be invoked to characterise governments in most parliamentary democracies especially India’s.

More than four decades on, the Indian Parliament witnessed the smooth passage of several pieces of legislation, including the Telecommunications Act (TA) 2023, which justifiably seeks to bury remnants of colonial-era laws. While the modern digital age creates conditions for unprecedented surveillance reflecting the Benthamite tenet of maximum monitoring at minimum cost, the question on everyone’s minds is whether the law has enough safeguards and an independent regulatory architecture to protect the rights of citizens.

Before contemplating this weighty query, let us set the narrative in context with a quick recap of the major markers in digital governance in India that have concluded, at least for the moment, in the passing of TA 2023.

The institutional regime for telecommunications dates back to the late 1990s and was created more by accident and less by design. The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) became necessary because private sector investment came in when the public sector operator was both player and referee. Massive litigation followed, leading to the setting up of TRAI. Within a few years, the Telecom Dispute Settlement Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) was carved from TRAI to fast-track excessive litigation. In between, there was the dissolution of the first TRAI, only confirming who the “boss” was.

The desire to serve in regulatory regimes has surely been tainted by the goal of securing sinecures. This is not just an Indian phenomenon. For example, the Biden administrators wish they continue in office for long. It is in the nature of such positions that many of those appointed will never again be in a position of authority. There have been few instances after its dissolution that TRAI has taken on the government. The relationship between the legislature and the executive is complex but suffice it to say that such a separation in telecom is met much more in the breach.

The regulatory regime for telecom described above notifies subordinate legislation, enforces and adjudicates disputes — it performs the role of the executive and the adjudicator. One key safeguard for the protection of ordinary citizens is, therefore, already undermined. The separation of powers remains on paper and the exercise of authority through delegated rule-making ensures the government can intervene with little resistance.

In this background, TA 2023 poses challenges. Although undoing colonial-era laws is one of the stated goals, the re-purposing of some existing provisions and ambiguous drafting does little justice to that aim. For example, the definition of telecommunication services has been left open to interpretation. Internet-based services like WhatsApp and Gmail are, therefore, likely to fall under the Act’s ambit. Provisions empowering the government to notify standards and conformity measures or ask for alternatives to end-to-end encryption such as client-side scanning could undermine privacy. Further requiring messages to be disclosed in an “intelligible format” is irreconcilable with end-to-end privacy engineering. Tinkering with end-to-end encryption for compliance could create potential points of vulnerability.

The grounds on which such information may be sought, outlined in Section 20 (2) include sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the state and public order. Prima facie these appear reasonable. However, the current phrasing leaves room for expansive interpretation by overenthusiastic enforcement machinery — it could go beyond the letter of the law to please political masters. Research conducted in 2021 by Vrinda Bhandari and others found that many orders issued under the guise of public order restrictions would not qualify as legal per se. The Act cements the government’s power to suspend internet services (Section 20(2)(b)) and does not include procedural safeguards envisaged in the Supreme Court’s Anuradha Bhasin judgment such as the proportionality test, exploration of suitable alternatives and the adoption of least intrusive measures.

The Act also does not establish an independent oversight mechanism for interception and suspension orders related to telecommunications. These rules, framed in 1996 in line with the directions of the Supreme Court in PUCL v. Union of India and requiring a committee consisting exclusively of senior government officials, reflect inadequate separation. In the UK the law mandates approval of interception warrants by judicial commissioners. Separation of powers is however not a panacea; it is just a necessary condition for the effective functioning of institutions. We must also observe the counsel of John Stuart Mill for the maintenance of institutional integrity namely, not “to lay [their] liberties at the feet of even a great man, or to trust him with powers which enable him to subvert [their] institutions” — JS Mill, quoted by BR Ambedkar on November 25 1949, requoted by sitting Chief Justice of India on Constitution Day (November 26, 2018).

Kathuria is Dean, School of Humanities and Social Sciences and Professor of Economics at the Shiv Nadar Institution of Eminence and Suri is Research Lead, CIS.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/telecom/blog/indian-express-january-25-2024-how-the-telecom-act-undermines-personal-liberties

Telecom Path-Breaker?

Shyam Ponappa — 2011-11-18T05:42:00Z

Does the draft National Telecom Policy-2011 reflect true brilliance or smoke-and-mirrors? It will be a game-changer if a shared network is implemented effectively, writes Shyam Ponappa in this article published in the Business Standard on November 3, 2011.

There’s much to criticise the government about for not initiating systematic reforms. Yet, the draft National Telecom Policy 2011 (NTP-2011), announced three weeks ago, is a stunner.[1] It begins with a solid, integrated-systems preamble to IT, Communications and Electronics, followed by an excellent vision statement: “[to provide] secure, reliable, affordable and high quality... telecommunication services anytime, anywhere.” A sound beginning, although open-ended in terms of how the details could evolve.

There are potential problems with such high-level pronouncements, of course. A number of commentators castigate the motherhoods in the draft. With a lofty perspective and few details, much depends on how the open-ended possibilities develop, including the difficulties of execution in dealing with ground realities and obstacles.

An Assessment

NTP-2011 addresses six major areas: spectrum, licensing, broadband, convergence, roaming, and manufacturing. Focusing on the first two, there are sweeping proposals:

licences will not be linked to spectrum; and
spectrum sharing will be permitted.

Some view the separation of licences and spectrum as retrograde, because spectrum is essential for service delivery. Others suggest that transgressions that led to the scams are now being inducted as new policies, e.g., operators accessing networks they do not own, which is characterised as being against the public interest. Some heap opprobrium, alleging that like the previous policy, NTP-99, which they call retrograde (although it led to the phenomenal growth in mobile telephony), its main purpose is to allow companies to avoid paying licence/auction fees to the government.

The last expostulation is the most ludicrous, because revenue collections after NTP-99 far exceeded estimated fees foregone: Rs 20,000 crore estimated “loss” by March 2007, but Rs 40,000 crore actually collected, and Rs 80,000 crore collected by March 2010.[2]Add tax collections on exponential growth with increased profits, and the result is even higher total government revenues.
Opposing operator access to networks arises from confused objectives; blocking access is like cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face. The purpose of the sector is to provide services and access to users for legitimate activities. The public interest lies in facilitating access on appropriate terms.
To evaluate licensing and spectrum, begin with the premise of shared spectrum. Spectrum is essential for effective service provision, particularly in the rural and semi-urban areas with about 70 per cent of the population. An aspect not commonly known is that larger bands of spectrum enable more efficient throughput. For example, 1 MHz of a 12 MHz band carries 50 per cent more traffic than 1 MHz of a 6 MHz band. An estimate of the benefit to Indian operators of more bandwidth at international norms is a reduction of 20 per cent in operating costs.

Spectrum Occupancy

In practice, assigned spectrum is idle much of the time, except during the busy hours in India’s heavy-traffic metros, for extraneous reasons: too many operators, with too little spectrum, in too- narrow bands. This aspect becomes clear from spectrum utilisation or occupancy studies. For instance, the chart shows spectrum occupancy in Bangalore, Edinburgh and Stony Brook (New York) sometime in 2011.

The low readings (250 to 850 MHz in Bangalore, 600 to 950 MHz in Edinburgh, and 500 to 850 MHz in Stony Brook, NY) indicate available “white spaces” that can be better utilised.

High-traffic cities like Delhi and Mumbai have much higher utilisation than cities elsewhere in the world. It comes at increased costs to operators, because of advanced equipment and the closer spacing of towers, as well as having negative environmental effects. If a system with on-demand access to centralised, more efficient spectrum bandwidth were available, the capacity would be much higher, while operators would gain tremendous savings.

Another aspect has to do with the structuring and pricing of shared spectrum. One scenario for sharing is to enable operators to share assigned bands on mutually acceptable terms, leaving the onus of structuring and deployment on the respective operators, as for mobile telephony towers. As with the towers, there are likely to be coalitions of operators/independent entities who are able to work out arrangements among themselves, while not attaining the ultimate efficiency of unified coordination. For instance, participants who share towers in India share passive but not active infrastructure, and a critical element of active infrastructure is spectrum.

An alternative scenario would be mandated spectrum sharing. Spectrum on demand could be made available to any operator/counterparties for the duration of every communication “transaction”. This would need a database-driven Dynamic Spectrum Assignment facility, as deployed by Spectrum Bridge in the US. The more efficient throughput would mean higher traffic capacity for a given investment through better utilisation.

The distributed processing alternative through cognitive radio in every user device is (a) much less efficient, and (b) far more expensive. The market consolidation-through-acquisition approach, with more auctions, is the least efficient and most expensive.

Common-Access Networks

There would be further efficiencies if the entire network (and not just the spectrum) were accessed on-demand for payment per use. Another benefit from a public perspective would be much lower collective investment in resources, because of better utilisation. A third benefit would be the reduced environmental impact because of a lower carbon footprint and radiation from two or three common-access national networks (assuming competition is essential for effectiveness and efficiency).

In other words, database-driven, shared spectrum and networks have to be organised and managed as a coordinated unit if the potential benefits are to be realised. America is doing this with TV white spaces/the digital dividend, through the appointment of 10 database administrators (including Spectrum Bridge, Google and Microsoft). This should elicit our interest.

Once the government and stakeholders accept these concepts, the next major task is structuring the networks as consortiums to align the interests of operators and network providers, with state-of-the-art lead partners. In this process, incorporating and reorienting BSNL and MTNL as guardians of national interests with oversight by an adequately empowered regulator will be the remaining major tasks.

[1].http://www.dot.gov.in/NTP-2011/NTP2011.htm

[2].TRAI, 2005: http://www.trai.gov.in/trai/upload/StudyPapers/2/ir30june.pdf
CAG: http://cag.gov.in/html/reports/civil/2010-11_19PA/Telecommunication%20Report.pdf

Shyam's article was originally published in the Business Standard. It can be read here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/telecom/telecom-path-breaker

22 nieuwe leden voor Partnership on AI

praskrishna — 2017-05-19T06:54:20Z

Partnership on AI, een non-profit organisatie ter bevordering van het algemeen begrip van kunstmatige intelligentie en de ontwikkeling van best practices, heeft 22 nieuwe leden aangekondigd.

The news was published by Telecom Paper on May 17, 2017.

Tot de nieuwe leden behoren eBay, Intel, McKinsey & Company, Salesforce, SAP, Sony, Zalando, Cogitai, Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence, AI Forum of New Zealand, Center for Democracy & Technology, Centre for Internet and Society – India, Data & Society Research Institute, Digital Asia Hub, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Future of Humanity Institute, Future of Privacy Forum, Human Rights Watch, Leverhulme Centre for the Future of Intelligence, UNICEF, Upturn, en de XPRIZE Foundation. Partnership on AI werd vorig jaar september opgericht. Tot de oprichters behoren onder meer Amazon, Facebook, IBM, Microsoft, Google DeepMind en Apple.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/telecom-paper-may-17-2017-22-nieuwe-leden-voor-partnership-on-ai