Centre for Internet and Society

Bhuvana Meenakshi elected Mozilla Rep for July 2019

Admin — 2019-09-25T16:33:55Z

Bhuvana Meenakshi was selected as a Rep of the Month (July 2019) by Mozilla for my active contributions.

Reps are community coordinators interested in:

finding and connecting new talent with Mozilla projects they are contributing to
developing communities on a functional or local level
supporting local communities and Mozilla to have an effective and decentralized environment for contribution
creating collaborations with adjacent communities to spread Mozilla’s mission and expand Mozilla’s outreach in the open source ecosystem
collecting local knowledge from Mozilla communities to inform and inspire Mozilla’s strategy, activities and priorities

How is the Rep of the Month nominated?

Every Rep can be nominated by any Reps Mentor to receive this recognition. Therefore it's possible to nominate other Reps, not just the mentor's mentees. This nomination is meant as a recognition for outstanding contributions to Mozilla through the Reps program. Mentors are encouraged to nominate any Reps that have stood out in the past month.

For more see here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/bhuvana-meenakshi-elected-mozilla-rep-for-july-2019-1

CIS joins the Christchurch Call Advisory Network

Admin — 2019-09-25T13:57:49Z

Centre for Internet & Society's application for membership of the Christchurch Call Advisory Network has been accepted! As a part of this network, we, along with other civil society groups based out of various jurisdictions, would be providing inputs on making the Call a robust, human rights-centred initiative.

The Christchurch Call Advisory Network membership has been drawn from interested civil society groups, who represent a range of perspectives, including human rights, freedom of expression, digital rights, counter-radicalization, victim support and public policy. Many of the Advisory Network members have been engaged on the Christchurch Call since its launch and are committed to continuing to share their expertise.

The Christchurch Call Advisory Network

Access Now
Africa Digital Policy Project
Annenberg Public Policy Center, University of Pennsylvania
Article 19
Association for Progressive Communications
Brookings Institution
Center for Humane Technology
Centre for Internet and Society, India
Chicago Project on Security and Threats, University of Chicago
Committee to Protect Journalists
Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)
Dangerous Speech Project
Data & Society
Electronic Frontier Foundation
French National Bar Council
Global Disinformation Index
Global Forum for Media Development (GFMD)
Global Partners Digital
Global Network Initiative
Hedayah Center
Human Rights Centre, UC, Berkeley School of Law
ICT for Peace Foundation
Institute for Strategic Dialogue
International Cyber Policy Centre (Australian Strategic Policy Institute)
Internet Governance Project, Georgia Tech
Internet NZ
Internet Sans Frontières
Islamic Women's Council of New Zealand
Life After Hate
Netsafe
New America's Open Technology Institute (New America Foundation)
NZ Council for Civil Liberties
Reporters Without Borders (RSF)
Social Media Governance Initiative, Yale Law School
Syrian Archive
Tech Against Terrorism
The International Muslim Association of New Zealand
The Internet Society
Tony Blair Institute for Global Change
Wellington Abrahamic Council of Jews, Christians, and Muslims (NZ)
WITNESS
Women’s Organisation of the Waikato Muslim Association
Elina Noor (Visiting Fellow, Institute of Strategic and International Studies Malaysia)
Matthew Shears (Internet and telecommunications policy consultant)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/cis-joins-the-christchurch-call-advisory-network

CIS Team

praskrishna — 2025-05-01T04:45:58Z

CIS undertakes policy-focused, applied, and academic research on topics at the intersection of internet and society, driven by concerns of human rights and public interest. CIS is based in Bengaluru and New Delhi.

Senior Staff

Tanveer Hasan A K

Administration and Finance

Senior Staff

Tanveer Hasan A K
	Tanveer Hasan A K is the Executive Director of the Centre for Internet and Society. Previously, Tanveer worked at the Wikimedia Foundation leading global alliances for the Free and Open knowledge movement, and resource allocation in South Asia. In the past, Tanveer was also the Program Manager for CIS's Access to Knowledge project, and an Assistant Professor at the Centre for Indian Languages in Higher Education at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences TISS.

Administration and Finance

Ajoy Kumar
	Ajoy is an Administrator at the CIS. He manages all the events organised by CIS including hotel and travel bookings, does the liasoning with government offices and Members of Parliament, etc. Ajoy also works as a part-time lawyer doing property documentation. Email: ajoy@cis-india.org Resume: Download (PDF)

Ajoy Kumar

Ajoy is an Administrator at the CIS. He manages all the events organised by CIS including hotel and travel bookings, does the liasoning with government offices and Members of Parliament, etc. Ajoy also works as a part-time lawyer doing property documentation.

Email: ajoy@cis-india.org
Resume: Download (PDF)

Nagaraj MP
	Nagaraj has a background in Advanced Accountancy with a specialisation in NGO Accounting and Practices. As Manager - Finance and Operations, he handles the preparation of accounts statements, statuary compliance, budget and monitoring, and accounts for all research projects at CIS. He has previously worked at Centre for the Study of Culture and Society (CSCS), ‘Kalike’ associate organisation of TATA Trusts, India Foundation for the Arts (IFA), Ramaiah Public Policy Centre, and CIS in its early days. Email: nagaraj@cis-india.org

Nagaraj MP

Nagaraj has a background in Advanced Accountancy with a specialisation in NGO Accounting and Practices. As Manager - Finance and Operations, he handles the preparation of accounts statements, statuary compliance, budget and monitoring, and accounts for all research projects at CIS. He has previously worked at Centre for the Study of Culture and Society (CSCS), ‘Kalike’ associate organisation of TATA Trusts, India Foundation for the Arts (IFA), Ramaiah Public Policy Centre, and CIS in its early days.

Email: nagaraj@cis-india.org

Velankanni Royson

Royson is the Office Assistant in the Bangalore office. He assists the administration department in organising events, takes videos of the events, uploads them to the CIS website, Blip TV, YouTube, etc.

Email: royson@cis-india.org

Chandra Bhushan

Chandra has been working as an Accounts Officer with CIS since 2018 with specialties in Accounts and Banking, managing accounting software like Tally, bank accounts, bookkeeping, different types of financials for projects, utilisation certificates, etc. Earlier, he was an Officer at a nationalised bank, and thereafter was associated with a Chartered Accountant.

Email: chandraa@cis-india.org

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/about/people/cis-team-members

Responsible AI

Admin — 2019-09-20T14:50:05Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/responsible-ai

GCSC Response

Admin — 2019-09-11T01:30:47Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/gcsc-response

Essays on #List — Selected Abstracts

sneha-pp — 2019-09-03T13:38:12Z

In response to a recent call for essays that social, economic, cultural, political, infrastructural, or aesthetic dimensions of the #List, we received 11 abstracts. Out of these, we have selected 4 pieces to be published as part of a series titled #List on the r@w blog. Please find below the details of the selected abstracts. The call for essays on #List remains open, and we are accepting and assessing the incoming abstracts on a rolling basis.

1. Manisha Chachra

2. Meghna Yadav

3. Sarita Bose

4. Shambhavi Madan

Manisha Chachra

MeToo in Indian journalism: Questioning access to internet among intersectional women and idea of rehabilitative justice in digital spaces

The advent of LoSHA and MeToo era witnessed an intriguing intersection of technology, politics and gender. The list and name-shame culture of social media has not only displayed changing power dynamics in digital space but an increasing movement towards engendering of internet spaces. The social, political and economic matrix defined by power relationships -- a patriarchy reflected in internet spaces, percolating in our interactions confronted a major challenge when women rose up to claim the same space. Internet space cannot be called a virtual reality as it is a sharp mirror into what is going in the power dynamics of society and politics. My paper broadly seeks to examine this engendering of spatial reality of digital space by looking at various conversations that took place on Twitter around MeToo in Indian journalism. MeToo has been widely understood as narration of one’s tale and how that experiential reality is connected with other women. However, a universalisation of such an experience often neglects intersectional reality attached to women’s experiences -- belonging to different caste, class, ethnicity and other kinds of differences. My paper attempts to question how far MeToo in digital space accommodated the differential aspects of woman as a heterogeneous category. The spatial realities of technological spaces function like a double edged sword-- liberating as well as mobility paralysing. I use the term mobility paralysis to denote a contradiction in digital space-- which might be equally available to all sections of women but not fairly accessible. The accessibility is often a reflection of deep rooted patriarchies and kinship relationships that bind women in same voiceless zone. MeToo in Indian journalism is a case study of how women of different backgrounds access digital spaces in questioning this mobility paralysis and inch towards a certain kind of emancipatory politics. Examining MeToo from the perspective of a social movement emerging on Twitter and Facebook, I aim to scrutinise scope of rehabilitative justice for the accused. The emergence of lists, and claiming of spaces is attached to the question of justice and being guilty or innocent of allegations. Online spaces in the recent times have also emerged as platforms of e-khaps (online khap panchayats with certain gatekeepers of the movement) where screenshot circulation, photoshop technology could be used to garner a public response against a particular person. It is interesting how after MeToo the question was not whether the person is guilty or accused rather how they should abandon their social media accounts and probably go absent virtually. In such a context, it is crucial to question the relationship between justice, one’s digital identity and who owns this identity. If rehabilitative justice is not an option, and apology-seeking is not available, what are we hoping from MeToo? The aim of any name-shame movement must be to reclaim digital space, narrate experiences and also to leave scope for others to respond, and seek justice. The question of justice is also closely linked with how women from intersectional backgrounds access internet, and emancipate themselves.

Meghna Yadav

For most people, the Internet is now synonymous with social media. Likewise, consumption of content on the Internet has shifted. We’ve moved from an earlier design of explicitly going to content-specific websites, to now, simply “logging in” and being presented with curated content spanning multiple areas. The infrastructure for consuming this content, however, remains predominantly screen based, implying a space constraint. Websites must, hence, decide what content users are to be presented with and in what order. In other words, social media must generate itself as a ranked list of content.

In the classical theory of social choice, a set of voters is called to rank a set of alternatives and a social ranking of the alternatives is generated. In this essay, I propose to look at ranking of content as a social choice problem. Ranking rules of different social media platforms can be studied as social welfare functions for how they aggregate the preferences of their voters (i.e. users). Current listings of content could be modelled as the results of previously held rounds of voting. Taking examples, Reddit is built on a structure of outward voting, visceral through ‘upvotes’ and ‘downvotes’, constantly displaying to users the choice they have to alter content ranks on the website. TikTok, on the other hand, relies on taking away most of the voting power of its users.

As the Internet tends towards centralisation, studying how different list ranking rules aggregate our choices and in turn, alter the choices presented to us, becomes important to design a more democratic Internet.

Sarita Bose

Mapping goes local: A study of how Google Maps tracks user’s footprints and creates a ‘For You’ list

The ‘Explore Nearby’ feature in Google Maps has three sections – Explore, Commute and For You. Of this, ‘For You’ section contains ‘Lists based on your local history’ as mentioned by Google itself. The Google Maps auto tracks a user’s movements and creates a digital footprint map and lists up events, programmes, restaurants, shops etc for the user. This research will focus on the ‘For You’ feature of Google Maps and its cultural and social dimensions. The work will focus on how the mapping is done and the logic behind drawing up the list. It will try to find out how the economy of Google Maps works. Why some lists shows up while some doesn’t. What kind of ‘algorithm – economy – user’ matrix is used to make up the list? The work will also try to understand cultural dimensions based on mind mapping techniques of Google. This research will follow three dimensions. The first is the mapping of user’s footprints itself and how the distance covered by a user becomes the user’s own digital existence. The Google Maps automatically asks for reviews of places the user might have visited or passed. The question is what algorithm is Google using to ask for the review? Is it pre-pointed or post-pointed? Thus, we come to the second part. Is Google only listing places that paid it or is it trying to digitally map a user’s area of geographical reach in general. If so, why? This brings us to the third dimension of the research work. What kind of cultural mapping is done of the user? The list the user gets is based on his own history and as more data is added, the more mapping is done. These three dimensions are intricately woven with each other and the work will try to establish this relationship.

Shambhavi Madan

List of lists of lists: Technologies of power, infrastructures of memory

Lists make infinities comprehensible, and thus controllable. By virtue of the ubiquity of cyberspace and the digitized information infrastructures curating reality within these infinities, we are increasingly subjected to curatorial efforts of individuals as well as codes – algorithmic and architectural.

Statistical lists are Foucauldian technologies of power in modern societies; tools for the functioning of governmentality – not just in terms of state control over population phenomena but the governmentality of groups or individuals over themselves. The framework of biopolitics identifies a bureaucracy imposed by determining social classifications through listing and categorizing, within which people must situate themselves and their actions (Foucault, 2008). Thus, the authorship of lists is often reflective of power that allows for the perpetuation of hegemonic constructions of social reality, making the lists themselves sites of struggle.

This paper seeks to contextualize (public-oriented) lists as forms of biopolitical curation that often lie at points of intersection between collective consciousness and social order, through an approach that problematizes the socio-technics of agency and the subjective objectivity of authorship. Although list-making acts such as the National Population Register, NRC, #LoSHA, the electoral roll, the census, and Vivek Agnihotri’s call for a list of “Urban Naxals” all differ in terms of content, intent, and impact, and contain different asymmetries of power, the lowest common denominator lies in their role as producers of public knowledge and consequently, infrastructures of public memory. This approach allows for a reinterpretation of the fundamental duality of lists of and within publics: the functionality of enforcing/maintaining social order, and the phenomenological practise of publicly self-presenting with a (semi-material) manifestation of a collective identity. The former sees the use of lists as tools of population management, enacting citizenship and belonging through forms of inclusion and exclusion; the latter is reflective of the workings of self-autonomy – redefining the authorship of justice and punishment – in networked societies. Thus, a secondary theme in this paper would be to question the change and significance in the role of authorship through a phenomenological comparative of lists that are institutionalised practice versus those that are open and collaborative.

Both the act of list-making and the lists themselves are framed as coalescences of material and imaginary, by juxtaposing the idea of infrastructures as primarily relationalities – i.e. they can’t be theorized in terms of the object alone (Larkin, 2013) – with Latour’s relational ontology of human and non-human actors. The list itself is a non-human object/actant that after emerging as a product of co-construction, takes on an agential role of its own (Latour, 2005). Each of these lists can be considered as a quasi-object, a complex convergence of the technological and the social. Both #LoSHA and the NRC are not mere placeholders being ‘acted upon’, but real and meaningful actors acting as cultural mediators and not intermediaries. The integration of a socio-technical, infrastructural approach with one that emphasizes upon the aesthetics of authorship and public memory allows the subject to be seen as constitutive of an embodied, relational experience as opposed to just existing as a dissociative (re)presentation.

References:

Foucault, M. 2008. The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France 1978-1979. Trans. G. Burchell. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Larkin, B. 2013. "The Politics and Poetics of Infrastructural." Annual Review of Anthropology. 42:327-343.

Latour, B. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/raw/essays-on-list-selected-abstracts

Future of Work in ASEAN

aayush — 2019-09-02T04:16:36Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/future-of-work-in-asean

August 2019 Newsletter

praskrishna — 2019-12-06T04:54:20Z

Centre for Internet & Society newsletter for the month of August 2019.

Highlights for August 2019
The Oxford Internet Institute and CIS are creating a State of the Internet’s Languages report, as baseline research with both numbers and stories, to demonstrate how far we are from making the internet multilingual. The call is available in Arabic, Brazilian Portuguese, English, IsiZulu, Spanish, and Tamil. CIS invites friends and communities to translate the call into other languages. CIS's Access to Knowledge (A2K) team is conducting a free knowledge movement and as part of this initiative it is inviting contributions from the Wikipedia community. Photos, media, content or archives donated by community members would be used worldwide to disseminate information. The content you are donating must be under Creative Commons Share-like content. You must have the copyright of the content under CC licenses. Over the last few years, several digital identity schemes have been initiated in different countries across the world. There has been significant momentum on digital ID, especially after the adoption of UN Sustainable Development Goal 16.9, which calls for legal identity for all by 2030. Authors, Amber Sinha and Pooja Saxena, explore about the uses and design of digital identity systems and ask two core questions a) What are appropriate uses of ID?, and b) How should we think about the technological design of ID? Together with the Institute of Technology & Society (ITS), Brazil, and the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Technology Law(CIPIT), Kenya, CIS participated at a side event in RightsCon 2019 held in Tunisia, titled Holding ID Issuers Accountable, What Works?, organised by the Omidyar Network. A report of the event is published here. As governments across the globe implement new, foundational, digital identification systems (“Digital ID”), or modernize existing ID programs, there is dire need for greater research and discussion about appropriate uses of Digital ID systems. At RightsCon 2019 in Tunis, we presented working drafts on appropriate use of Digital ID by the partner organisations of this three-region research alliance - ITS from Brazil, CIPIT from Kenya, and CIS from India. CIS gave its comments to the ID4D Practitioners’ Guide: Draft For Consultation released by ID4D in June, 2019. The submission is divided into three main parts. The first part (General Comments) contains the high-level comments on the Practitioners’ Guide, while the second part (Specific Comments) addresses individual sections in the Guide. The third and final part (Additional Comments) does not relate to particulars in the Practitioners' Guide but other documents that it relies upon. The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare had released the National Digital Health Blueprint on 15 July 2019 for comments. CIS submitted its comments. CIS notes that the nature of data which would be subject to processing in the proposed digital framework pre-supposes a robust data protection regime in India, one which is currently absent. Accordingly, it urges the ministry to cease the implementation of the framework until the Personal Data Protection Bill is passed by the Parliament. Aayush Rathi , Vedika Pareek , Divij Joshi and Pranav Bidare co-authored a research paper 'Future of Work in the ASEAN'. The authors reveal that the future of work will be mediated through region and country specific factors such as socioeconomic,geopolitical and demographic change. The report was edited by Elonnai Hickok and Ambika Tandon with research assistance by Sankalp Srivastava and Anjanaa Aravindan. The research is supported by Tides Foundation.

CIS and the News

The following articles were authored by CIS secretariat during the month:

The Knowledge Base is Liberated (Subodh Kulkarni and Madhav Gadgil; Loksatta; August 3, 2019).
Private Sector and the cultivation of cyber norms in India (Arindrajit Basu; Nextrends India; August 5, 2019).
Rethinking the intermediary liability regime in India (Torsha Sarkar; CyberBRICS; August 16, 2019).
Digital Native: How free is the internet? (Nishant Shah; Indian Express; August 18, 2019).
Linking Aadhaar with social media or ending encryption is counterproductive (Sunil Abraham; Prime Time; August 26, 2019).
A judicial overreach into matters of regulation (Gurshabad Grover; The Hindu; August 28, 2019).
Kashmir’s information vacuum (Aayush Rathi and Akriti Bopanna; The Hindu; August 29, 2019).

CIS in the News

CIS secretariat was consulted for the following articles published during the month in various publications:

Will Modi govt move on Kashmir’s Article 370 stand the scrutiny of Supreme Court? (The Print; August 6, 2019).
‘I’m just helpless’: Concern about Kashmir mounts as communication blackout continues (Niha Masih; Washington Post; August 6, 2019).
Why the Madras HC case on WhatsApp traceability could have wider ramifications (Haripriya Suresh; The News Minute; August 8, 2019).
Ministry of Health's public consultation on National Digital Health Blueprint: Legal issues around telemedicine, consent, and 'egosystems' in healthcare (Trisha Jalan; Medianama; August 8, 2019).
Abuse linked to Net fixation (Nina C. George; Deccan Herald; August 13, 2019).
India Shut Down Kashmir’s Internet Access. Now, ‘We Cannot Do Anything.’ (Vindu Goel, Karan Deep Singh and Sameer; New York Times; August 14, 2019).
India’s top science institution is trying hard to fix its “manel” problem (Quartz India; August 16, 2019). This piece was originally published on Connect under the headline, “We Learned (The Hard Way) Not to Have Manels.”
Perché l'India ha tagliato internet al Kashmir (Raffaele Angius; WIRED.IT; August 19, 2019).
US pressure threatens to weaken data - localisation mandate in India's landmark data-protection bill (Sandhya Sharma; ET Prime; August 19, 2019).
Linking Aadhaar to Facebook, WhatsApp won't curb fake news, but may undermine its legislation: Experts (Swathy Moorthy; Moneycontrol; August 20, 2019).
Linking Aadhaar to Facebook, Twitter: Possible witch-hunt or key to curb crime & fake news? (Taran Deol and Revathi Krishanan; The Print; August 21, 2019).
AI is biased, you’ll see if you Google ‘hands’ (Rajmohan Sudhakar; Deccan Herald; August 25, 2019).
Government plans tighter rules for social media brands like Facebook, TikTok, ShareChat (Sunny Sen; CNBC TV 18; August 28, 2019).
What Centre will tell Supreme Court on Aadhaar and social media account linkage (Amrita Madhukalya; Hindustan Times; August 28, 2019).

Access to Knowledge

Access to Knowledge 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.

Wikipedia

Under a grant from Wikimedia Foundation we are doing a project 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.

Blog Entry

Call for joining the Free Knowledge movement #Wikipedia #Wikimedia (Bhuvana Meenakshi; August 19, 2019).

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 programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet. As part of internet governance work we work on policy issues relating to freedom of expression primarily focusing on the Information Technology Act and issues of liability of intermediaries for unlawful speech and simultaneously ensuring that the right to privacy is safeguarded as well.

Freedom of Speech & Expression

Under a grant from the MacArthur Foundation, CIS is doing research on the restrictions placed on freedom of expression online by the Indian government and contribute studies, reports and policy briefs to feed into the ongoing debates at the national as well as international level. As part of the project we bring you the following outputs:

Participation in Events

Packets, net neutrality and gaming public policy outcomes (Organized by Has Geek; Bangalore; August 15, 2019). Gurshabad Grover attended Prof. Vishal Misra's lecture on net neutrality.

Privacy

Under a grant from Privacy International and IDRC we are doing a project on surveillance. CIS is researching the history of privacy in India and how it shapes the contemporary debates around technology mediated identity projects like Aadhar. As part of our ongoing research, we bring you the following outputs:

Submission

Comments on the National Digital Health Blueprint (Samyukta Prabhu, Ambika Tandon, Torsha Sarkar and Aayush Rathi; August 7, 2019).

Participation in Events

Digital ID Forum 2019 (Organized by UNDP; Chulalongkorn University, Thailand; July 3, 2019). Sunil Abraham was one of the panelists at this event.
BIS LITD 17 meeting (Organized by Bureau of Indian Standards; New Delhi; July 3, 2019). Gurshabad Grover attended the sixteenth meeting of the Information Systems Security and Biometrics Section Committee (LITD17).
Facebook Data for Good in Bangalore (Organized by Facebook; Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore; July 25, 2019).
Roundtable with the WhatsApp leadership (Organized by WhatsApp; Mountbatten, The Oberoi, New Delhi; July 26, 2019). Will Cathcart, WhatsApp's new global head, visited India and invited Sunil Abraham for a discussion.
Facebook Data for Good in New Delhi (Organized by Facebook; University of Chicago Center, New Delhi; July 29, 2019).

IT / Information Technology

A research on the usage of systems (computers and telecommunications) for storing, retrieving and sending information as well as the IT Act:

Research Paper

Future of Work in the ASEAN (Aayush Rathi , Vedika Pareek , Divij Joshi and Pranav Bidare; edited by Elonnai Hickok and Ambika Tandon with research assistance from Sankalp Srivastava and Anjanaa Aravindan; August 31, 2019).

Participation in Event

Cyber Policy 2.0 (Organized by National Law University; Bangalore; August 17, 2019). Arindrajit Basu was a speaker.

Artificial Intelligence

With origins dating back to the 1950s Artificial Intelligence (AI) is not necessarily new. However, interest in AI has been rekindled over the recent years due to advancements of technology and its applications to real-world scenarios. We conduct research on the existing legal and regulatory parameters:

Participation in Events

Emergence of Chinese Technology:Rising stakes for innovation, competition and governance (Organized by Omidyar Network in partnership with the Esya Centre; New Delhi; August 12, 2019). Arindrajit Basu attended the event.
Impact of Industrial Revolution 4.0 - IT and Automotive Sector in India (Organized by the Dialogue and Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung; Bangalore; August 21, 2019). Aayush Rathi attended the event.
Policies for the Platform Economy (Organized by IT for Change; India Habitat Centre; New Delhi; August 30, 2019). Amber Sinha and Anubha Sinha were panelists.

Digital Identity

Omidyar Network is investing in establishment of a three-region research alliance — to be co-led by the Institute for Technology & Society (ITS), Brazil, the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Technology Law (CIPIT) , Kenya, and CIS. As part of this Alliance, we at the CIS will look at the policy objectives of digital identity projects, how technological policy choices can be thought through to meet the objectives, and how legitimate uses of a digital identity framework may be evaluated.

Research Paper

Design and Uses of Digital Identities - Research Plan (Amber Sinha and Pooja Saxena; August 8, 2019).

Submissions

The Appropriate Use of Digital Identity (Amber Sinha; August 8, 2019).
Comments to the ID4D Practitioners’ Guide (Amber Sinha; August 8, 2019).

Participation in Event

Holding ID Issuers Accountable, What Works? (Organized by Omidyar Network; RightsCon 2019; August 8, 2019).

Researchers@Work

The researchers@work programme at CIS produces and supports pioneering and sustained trans-disciplinary research on key thematics at the intersections of internet and society; organise and incubate networks of and fora for researchers and practitioners studying and making internet in India; and contribute to development of critical digital pedagogy, research methodology, and creative practice.

Participation in Event

Workshop on Archival Standards and Digitisation Workflow (Organized by British Library; NCBS; Bangalore; August 19 - 20, 2019). P.P. Sneha attended the event.

Blog Entries

#HookingUp (Akhil Kang, Christina Thomas Dhanraj, Dhrubo Jyoti, and Gowthaman Ranganathan; August 1, 2019).
Call for Contributions and Reflections: Your experiences in Decolonizing the Internet’s Languages! (P.P. Sneha; August 7, 2019).
Simiran Lalvani - Workers’ fictive kinship relations in Mumbai app-based food delivery (Sumandro Chattapadhyay; August 16, 2019).

About CIS

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 CIS on:

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 CIS:

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.

Collaborate with CIS:

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/august-2019-newsletter

Analysis on the strategies of Mozilla and Wiki communities on gender gap aspects

bhuvana — 2019-08-28T13:27:08Z

There is a need for research on how Open Source communities are trying to balance the gender ratio and how they provide the safe space environment to its contributors. With this in mind I have come up with this blog as I am an active contributor of Mozilla since 5 years and also got myself recently introduced to Wikimedia and its sister projects, have interacted with few Indian women contributors in both of these communities and came out with a few observations on how I see them in India and what could be improved in both communities.

Opening note

Wikipedia community

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of articles where many users can edit it freely and it has become so large that you run across it all the time in Google. It is so popular that it is now one of the Top 5 websites in the world! The reason behind the growth is because the articles are simple and useful.

Wikipedians are the contributors who do a communal work to improve the content by editing bits of text and cluster them to the large database. Beyond this there are other sister projects of Wikimedia which interest the audience on whichever they are expertise about. The main motivation for these contributors is their freedom to contribute in their own native language which they are more passionate about. This is a great social cause they are contributing towards.

Mozilla community

Mozilla makes browsers, apps, code and tools that put people before profit. In fact, there’s a non-profit Foundation at the heart of the enterprise.Their mission is to keep the internet open and accessible to all. Hope everyone uses or had at least at some point seen Firefox browser/logo, so this is the prime product of Mozilla. There are various projects to support the Firefox browser and they are mostly Open Source.

Mozillians are the volunteers who contribute in the improvement of these projects thus helping the world to access the internet and the Open web.Mozilla Volunteers are passionate to learn,collaborate and knowledge share among a large world-wide community and the crew is a mix of coder, non-coders, policy makers and anyone who supports Open Web. The point that drives everyone to contribute is that the community creates a vibe to contribute and to create a safe and better experience in accessing the digital world.

WikiProject Women

This a group of editors who aim to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women's topics. It brings Wikipedia users of all genders, sexual orientations, geographic locations, and personal backgrounds together to discuss and collaborate on coverage of women's content across Wikipedia.There are various streams in which women can be part of the larger mission for instance:

Art and Feminism

Women in Red

Wiki loves women

Womoz

Women & Mozilla ("WoMoz") a community composed of members from different Open Source projects.It is mainly dedicated to improving women's visibility and involvement in Free/Open Source and Mozilla, and to increase the number of women contributors. Anyone can participate in this project, regardless of sex, age, job, etc. We are united by the common goal of promoting women's visibility and involvement in open source communities. They also believe that the Internet, FLOSS projects and computing must remain open and participatory. This also means accessible in the same way to all - women and men alike.

It also believe solutions should continuously be proposed in order to improve the visibility of all minorities, who for various reasons might not have equal access to computers or the Internet. This project is an example of this, as it aims at ameliorating women's presence and participation in Mozilla and open source. But currently this group is not very active, except for a few regional contributors where they find massive necessity to focus on the women participation.

Overview of the strategies used for increasing women participation

Methodologies used

Both the communities are great supporters of the Free Softwares and licenses and so the methods that is used in addressing the gender gap issues is as follows:

Conduct gender neutral events like hack-a-thons/ edit-a-thons where the tutor is a woman or there is a large ratio of under represented community in the event.
Host monthly offline/online meetups.
Work on projects which are gender neutral based.
Following up special protocols like CoCs strictly at these events.
Days like “International Women’s Day” and on similar significant occasions some unique events will be hosted and contributors will be appreciated.

Impact on Indian communities

The WikiProject woman and WoMoz programs play a very important role among the Indian communities. Although I do not see a single or uniform progress there is always a good scale-up among the regional communities. For a country like India where there is still necessity for uplifting the presence and awareness of these type of FOSS programs I feel that most of these programs are extensively hosted in urban or developed phases of the country. Recently, the internet access has spread across but then the basic knowledge of contributing to Open Source is still abandoned. The end result and the what the contributors shall get on contributing to these communities must be emphasised more.

Closing note

My study and analysis on these two communities is drawn from personal interest and engagement with these communities since I have been contributing and interacting with the contributors for the last few years. The objective of this post is basically to bring about an awareness on the accessible resources on bridging the digital divide , and how these resources can be modified and taken further for a country like India. The efforts taken to improve the gender neutrality by the above communities is laudable but more light has to be thrown on improving the measures taken to sustain women contributors

References:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedians

https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/contribute/

http://www.womoz.org/

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/analysis-on-the-strategies-of-mozilla-and-wiki-communities-on-gender-gap-aspects

Linking Aadhaar with social media or ending encryption is counterproductive

sunil — 2019-08-28T01:39:47Z

Should Aadhaar be used as KYC for social media accounts? We have recently seen a debate on this question with even the courts hearing arguments in favour and against such a move.

The article was published in Prime Time on August 26, 2019.

The case began in Madras High Court and later Facebook moved the SC seeking transfer of the petition to the Apex court. The original petition was filed in July, 2018 and sought linking of Aadhaar numbers with user accounts to further traceability of messages.

Before we try and answer this question, we need to first understand the differences between the different types of data on social media and messaging platforms. If a crime happens on an end to end cryptographically secure channel like WhatsApp the police may request the following from the provider to help solve the case:

Identity data: Phone numbers of the accused. Names and addresses of the accused.
Metadata: Sender, receiver(s), time, size of message, flag identifying a forwarded messages, delivery status, read status, etc.
Payload Data: Actual content of the text and multimedia messages.

Different countries have taken different approaches to solving different layers of the surveillance problem. Let us start with identity data. Some like India require KYC for sale of SIM cards while others like the UK allow anonymous purchases. Corporations also have policies when it comes to anonymous speech on their platforms – Facebook for instance enforces a soft real ID policy while Twitter does not crack down on anonymous speech. The trouble with KYC the old fashioned way is that it exposes citizens to further risk. Every possessor of your identity documents is a potential attack surface. Indian regulation should not result in Indian identity documents being available in the millions to foreign corporations. Technical innovations are possible, like tokenisation, Aadhaar paperless local e-KYC or Aadhaar offline QR code along with one time passwords. These privacy protective alternatives must be mandatory for all and the Aadhaar numbers must be deleted from previously seeded databases. Countries that don’t require KYC have an alternative approach to security and law enforcement. They know that if someone like me commits a crime, it would be easy to catch me because I have been using the same telecom provider for the last fifteen years. This is true of long term customers regardless if they are pre-paid or post-paid. The security risk lies in the new numbers without this history that confirms identity. These countries use targeted big data analytics to determine risk and direct surveillance operations to target new SIM cards. My current understanding is that when it comes to basic user data – all the internet giants in India comply with what they consider as legitimate law enforcement requests. Some proprietary and free and open source [FOSS] alternatives to services offered by the giants don’t provide such direct cooperation in India.

When it comes to payload data – it is almost impossible (meaning you will need supercomputers) to access the data unless the service/software provider breaks end-to-end cryptography. It is unwise, like some policy-makers are proposing, to prohibit end-to-end cryptography or mandate back doors because our national sovereignty and our capacity for technological self-determination depends on strong cryptography. A targeted ban or prohibition against proprietary providers might have a counterproductive consequence with users migrating to FOSS alternatives like Signal which won’t even give the police identity data. As a supporter of the free software movement, I would see this as a positive development but as a citizen I am aware that the fight against crime and terror will become harder. So government must pursue other strategies to getting payload data such as a comprehensive government hacking programme.

Meta-data is critical when it comes to separating the guilty from the innocent and apportioning blame during an investigation. For example, who was the originator of a message? Who got it and read it last? WhatsApp claims that it has implemented the Signal protocol faithfully meaning that they hold no meta-data when it comes to the messages and calls. Currently there is no regulation which mandates data retention for over the top providers but such requirements do exist for telecom providers. Just like access to meta-data provides some visibility into illegal activities it also provides visibility into legal activities. Therefore those using end-to-end cryptography on platforms with comprehensive meta-data retention policies will have their privacy compromised even though the payload data remains secure. Here is a parallel example to understand why this is important. Early last year, the Internet Engineering Task Force chose a version of TLS 1.3 that revealed less meta-data over one that provided greater visibility into the communications. This hardening of global open standards, through the elimination of availability of meta-data for middle-boxes, makes it harder for foreign governments to intercept Indian military and diplomatic communications via imported telecom infrastructure. Courts and policy makers across the world have to grapple with the following question: Are meta-data retention mandates for the entire population of users a “necessary and proportionate” legal measure to combat crime and terror. For me, it should not be illegal for a provider who voluntarily wishes to retain data, provided it is within legally sanctioned limits but it should not be requirement under law.

There are technical solutions that are yet to be properly discussed and developed as an alternative to blanket meta-data retention measures. For example, Dr. V Kamakoti has made a traceability proposal at the Madras High Court. This proposal has been critiqued by Anand Venkatanarayanan as being violative in spirit of the principles of end-to-end cryptography. Other technical solutions are required for those seeking justice and for those who wish to serve as informers for terror plots. I have proposed client side metadata retention. If a person who has been subjected to financial fraud wishes to provide all the evidence from their client, it should be possible for them to create a digital signed archive of messages for the police. This could be signed by the sender, the provider and also the receiver so that technical non-repudiation raises the evidentiary quality of the digital evidence. However, there may be other legal requirements such as the provision of notice to the sender so that they know that client side data retention has been turned on.

The need of the hour is sustained research and development of privacy protecting surveillance mechanisms. These solutions need to be debated thoroughly amongst mathematicians, cryptographers, scientists, technologists, lawyers, social scientists and designers so that solutions with the least negative impact can be rolled out either voluntarily by providers or as a result of regulation.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/prime-time-august-26-2019-sunil-abraham-linking-aadhaar-with-social-media-or-ending-encryption-is-counterproductive

US pressure threatens to weaken data - localisation mandate in India's landmark data-protection bill

Sandhya Sharma — 2019-08-22T01:41:21Z

Sources say the bill may have to concede vital ground to technology companies.

The article by Sandhya Sharma was published by ET Prime on August 19, 2019. Arindrajit Basu was quoted.

Indian law-enforcement agencies have repeatedly expressed their unhappiness with America’s reticence on the sharing of critical data — whether it was around the 26/11 Mumbai attacks or procuring electronic evidence under the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) from technology companies.

Top cybersecurity sources in the government tell ET prime that India’s own Personal Data Protection (PDP) Bill 2019 is in response to this. Cabinet nod to the bill is expected anytime, and it is likely to be tabled in the next session of Parliament. However, thanks to diplomatic pulls and pressures, a vital provision of the bill could end up markedly diluted. Sources in the Indian government say the US has conveyed it does not want the bill at all.

“We expect it will be a better mechanism than MLAT” for procuring data from technology companies, says a person aware of the development, while adding that the thorny question of data localisation is now a very small part of the bill. Across key bilateral engagements — US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s June visit to India, G20 meetings between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Donald Trump, and a US trade representative delegation visiting India for talks — American unease with the growing “protectionism” in Indian policy has remained a key talking point.

"Forum members oppose data localisation policies, and we look forward to sharing our concerns when the data protection bill gets introduced in Parliament,” says Susan Ritchie, vice-president of technology, media, and telecommunications at lobby group U.S. India Strategic Partnership Forum (USISPF).

“An environment where regulatory coherence is a governmental priority provides industry with greater predictability and stability resulting in increased investment." A toothless treaty? According to policy experts, MLATs have been the most widely used method for cross-border data sharing. India has signed MLATs with 39 countries, including the US. These treaties give India access to data stored on the cloud and call for data stored by multinational service providers within the jurisdiction of the partner country. However, MLATs are time consuming and have failed in their basic function in the past, sources say, and hence the government was keen to hold the data of Indians back in India, including data pertaining to e-commerce transactions, banking, healthcare, etc.

According to the Justice Srikrishna Committee report, eight of the 10 most accessed websites by Indians are owned by US entities. If data is exclusively processed in India, it will potentially cut off foreign surveillance, the report also notes, while highlighting a three-pronged approach to Indian data to reduce dependence on MLATs.

Talking exclusively to ET Prime, Justice BN Srikrishna says, “MLAT is a long-drawn process and hence the process goes through several diplomatic and judicial channels. It takes anywhere between 18 months to two years to get the information from the foreign technology companies for any investigation [and] much more time for extracting information on taxation and other financial matters…. Once the data of Indian citizens is in India, it will be much easier for law enforcement agencies to take the data for investigation purposes. In the past, the technology companies have dilly-dallied on the information requests of Indian law enforcement agencies.” To be sure, the report does not claim "perfect compliance" through data localisation and it clarifies that for data owned by companies like Google a "conflict of law" might arise if the country of registration — in this case the US — also asserts jurisdiction.

According to the report, between January and June 2017, Google received 3,843 user data-disclosure requests by Indian governmental agencies. Google refused to provide data in 46% of the cases. Now with the PDP Bill, Indian officials can easily get their hands on the data of Indian citizens not residing in India, says Justice Srikrishna. US resistance US tech-industry insiders tell ET Prime on condition of anonymity that no law-enforcement agency should be allowed 100% unfettered access to information. They claim MLATs have been successful in most cases of intelligence sharing around terrorism and national security.

“National security” is a very wide concept in India, unlike in the US where it generally refers to international activities, they say. Jacob Gullish, senior director for digital economy at the lobby group US India Business Council (USIBC), says the term MLAT is often used incorrectly as a catch-all. MLATs are designed for a very narrow and a specific purpose: where the transmitted information is admissible in the foreign country’s judicial system, he says. “In these cases, information has to be handled carefully to ensure the request complies with domestic laws and the transmission is certified for authenticity and a chain of custody, as well as packaged to allow its use as evidence in a foreign court. This process takes time, and the business community supports MLAT reform.

“Just like in the physical world, due process rights for the citizens of the world’s largest and the world’s oldest democracies must be respected in the digital domain. Companies also need legal certainty when operating between different jurisdictions. The bottom line is that law enforcement agencies (LEAs) on both sides need to develop clear processes and procedures, as well as trusted relationships, which will facilitate information exchange during an investigation.” A Google spokesperson echoes Gullish. “On urging from us and other Internet companies, MLAT processes have improved and in most cases responses are provided in a week or two,” the spokesperson says.

“In addition, we are also advocating for MLAT reform, including supporting calls to invest over [USD20 million] to address insufficient staffing, and helping investigators around the world better understand the MLAT process, to help expedite requests.” Other industry insiders claim that US companies field a high volume of requests and respond quickly for the most part, and that ultimately all of this goes back to trust. In December 2011, a Delhi court had issued summons to 21 companies, including Facebook, Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, and YouTube, to face trial for allegedly hosting objectionable content promoting hatred or communal disharmony.

The then IT Minister Kapil Sibal had asked Google and Facebook to ensure prompt removal of offensive material, complaining that the companies had not cooperated in the past. Concerns with data-localisation norms in the present state 1. Diplomatic and political: Data-localisation mandates could impact India’s trade relationships with partners like the US. 2. Security risks (“Regulatory stretching of the attack surface”): Storing data in multiple physical centres increases the exposure to exploitation by malicious actors. 3. Economic impact: Restrictions on cross-border data flow may harm economic growth by increasing compliance costs and entry barriers for foreign service providers, thereby reducing investment or forcing businesses to pass on these costs to the consumers. The major cost pertains to setting up data centres in India.

Further, for startups looking to attain global stature, reciprocal restrictions slapped by other countries can be a serious hurdle. “Data localisation would be most effective if it is — (a) done after India updates its privacy and security standards by passing the Personal Data Protection Bill 2019; (b) done sectorally, after considering how critical it is to store the data in India; (c) done conditionally in (i) the country where data is transferred having equivalent privacy and security safeguards, both de jure and de facto and (ii) the presence of an executive data sharing agreement,” says Arindrajit Basu, senior policy officer at New Delhi-based think tank Centre for Internet and Society. This is essentially what the international community describes as “free flow of data with trust” — the G20 mandate which India recently rejected. Can the US CLOUD Act solve for the lack of information access? A section of policy experts argues that the localisation mandate proposed in India’s new bill does not solve an important problem: What happens when law-enforcement agencies need access to data relating to a foreigner stored in a server located in another jurisdiction by a company incorporated in the US? Will the Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act (CLOUD Act) passed in the US last year help?

The US has recently amended the CLOUD Act after a dispute between Microsoft and the US government. The law now ensures two things: American law-enforcement agencies will get access to data held by US cloud service providers (CSPs) regardless of jurisdiction, and allow “qualified foreign governments” to access data stored by US CSPs. This has given rise to a view that the CLOUD Act could be the silver bullet countries like India need to push US tech companies to share data in a timely fashion. Basu of the Centre for Internet and Society says, “India should use the threat of data localisation to negotiate an executive arrangement under the CLOUD Act. India would fare better if it were to use the language of international law to articulate its position in the MLAT reform process, or to propel itself to a better position under the CLOUD Act (which requires countries to demonstrate a commitment to a free and open Internet) or potentially pursue negotiations for a multilateral data sharing treaty.” Siddharth Jain, assistant commissioner in Delhi Police and an expert in investigating cyber-crime issues, says Indian technology firms do provide adequate and timely information about suspicious transactions; however, US firms are lax in sharing information.

Telangana IPS officer Rema Rajeshwari concurs that it’s a problem for law-enforcement agencies to cull out information from some US technology companies. Data-protection bill already diluted? ET Prime has learned that the net result of the pulls and pressures exerted by US commercial and diplomatic interests is that data localisation now remains just a small part of India’s data-protection bill. The Ministry of External Affairs maintains that the US-India relationship is “extremely important”. After President Trump’s controversial comments on offering mediation on the Kashmir issue, ministry spokesperson Raveesh Kumar said, “We are very strong strategic partners and we have brought in deep convergences across a range of issues.

We have excellent trade and investment linkages and are moving toward high defence and technology tie-up.” It’s not just political posturing by India to maintain the tricky relationship at a time when the Trump administration is coming up with reports one after the other criticising the country’s proposed data-protection policies. The PDP Bill was listed to be tabled in Parliament in the first session of the Modi 2.0 government but is yet to see the light of the day. If India tables the draft bill without making concessions that ease the demands on US technology companies, it will severely harm the India-US technology relationship, according to some US policy lobbyists. However, government sources tell ET Prime that the bill now has “data localisation as a very small part”, meaning that it is already likely diluted due to US pressure tactics. Sources say the non-critical data of an individual like height, weight, bank-account number, etc., will not need to be mandatorily stored in India. However, biometric data will have to be stored locally.

Top policymakers who were consulted for the Justice Srikrishna Committee report say should the bill be diluted under duress, it will be a sorry statement for India’s data-protection regime. Meanwhile, with nationalistic sentiments in full flourish during the new Modi government’s first Parliament session, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology issued a note that “the bill being prepared will address India’s sovereign data concerns and provide a framework to boost innovation in India while complying with the directives contained in the judgment of [the Honourable Supreme Court]”.

India and EU: a potential template In contrast to the Indo-US friction, India’s understanding with the European Union (EU) on the issue of data protection offers a potential template. India is looking at dialing EU to seek ‘adequacy’ status with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) once it passes the PDP Bill. Tomasz Kozlowski, EU Ambassador to India, said at the recent ET 5G Congress, “Data protection is an important element of EU-India cooperation.

With such a law in place, India will be joining the global trend of global convergence toward a modern data-protection law, and take a leadership role in the region and globally, at a time when the need to address challenges to data privacy and security requires a common approach.” Kozlowski added that the “adoption of strong data protection law will also pave way for EU-India discussions and further facilitate data flows.” Top cybersecurity sources in the Indian government point out that the US has agreed to GDPR, which is far more stringent than the Indian Bill. If so, why make noise about India’s data-localisation demands?

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/et-prime-sandhya-sharma-august-19-2019-us-pressure-threatens-to-weaken-data-localisation-mandate-in-indias-landmark-data-protection-bill

India’s top science institution is trying hard to fix its “manel” problem

Admin — 2019-08-19T13:58:51Z

B Chagun Basha is a science, technology and innovation policy fellow at Bengaluru’s Indian Institute of Science’s (IISc) Centre for Policy Research established by the department of science & technology (DST-CPR).

The blog post was published in Quartz India on August 16, 2019. Sunil Abraham was quoted. This piece was originally published on Connect under the headline, “We Learned (The Hard Way) Not to Have Manels.”

While organising an event at IISc, he and his colleagues realised they hadn’t paid much thought to gender inclusivity until it was explicitly pointed out to them that there were no women in their event. That sparked some introspection, as well as actions to ensure that this wasn’t repeated. In this interview, he talks about the incident and important lessons from it.

How did you first hear of the term manel?

It was when I was organising my first event of an academic nature. Every year, DST-CPR marks International Open Access Week by planning activities for the entire week, and having a panel discussion is a major part of it. We bring in experts to sensitise people about topics related to open access and how we can incorporate it in our institute through a bottom-up approach.

In October 2017, when International Open Access Week came round, we collaborated with six other groups to organise it. We had a poster competition, a panel discussion, and a few other activities like engaging with the student community about open access and how they could play a role in promoting it.

A week before the panel discussion was scheduled, we had confirmed the participation of all our speakers—five male speakers and one female speaker. The female speaker had not been included out of a conscious effort to ensure gender diversity—she happened to be on the list of names we came up with, we had written to all of them, and they had agreed to come. But a few days before the panel discussion, we received an email from her saying that she would not be able to join us.

We didn’t think it was a big deal. Instead of six participants we would have five, one of whom would be the moderator. Sunil Abraham of the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) had already confirmed that he would be the moderator. He sent us an email asking for details of the panelists, so that he could communicate with them and plan and structure the discussion. But when we sent him the details, he immediately got back to us saying that he wouldn’t be able to participate in this panel discussion.

I was a little shocked—you can replace a panelist at the last minute, but finding a new moderator to curate a discussion is harder as doing so requires in-depth knowledge of this space and familiarity with open access policies at different levels. I asked Sunil what had happened—why did he have to pull out? He said that CIS had a written policy that was followed strictly: members could not participate in “manels”—a word I was hearing for the very first time. I didn’t even catch it properly when we spoke on the phone. Then he explained to me that if there was a panel on which there were only men and no women panelists—which are called “manels”—then people from his organisation avoided them completely.

What happened next?

I realised that as an organiser of an event, I wasn’t even thinking about being inclusive.

I realised that as an organiser of an event, I wasn’t even thinking about being inclusive. So we requested Sunil to suggest names of women speakers whom we could approach. I realise now that it was not a good thing to do—when somebody points out that there are no women on your panel, and for those reasons they are not going to participate, you should try harder to rectify this at your end, and not dump the responsibility for this on the person who pointed it out in the first place.

We should have put in genuine effort from our end to learn more about other women in the field whom we could approach for the panel. But at the time Sunil generously agreed and gave us a list with 12 names. We contacted all of them: two people responded, one of whom—Padmini Ray Murray, who was a faculty member at the Srishti Institute of Art, Design and Technology—happened to be in Bengaluru and agreed to participate at short notice. We were really thankful for that.

The panel discussion went off smoothly, and at the end we gave a vote of thanks, where we acknowledged our goof-up, thanked Sunil for bringing it to our notice, and we promised the audience sitting in Faculty Hall, which included the Director of NCBS and the Deputy Director of IISc, that we wouldn’t run any more manels. We said we would consciously include more women in all events we organised from then on—not just panel discussions but talks, workshops and so on. That’s more or less an official decision we took for CPR.

Did you feel like you were being put on the spot at the time?

We would often ask our superiors to suggest names for events or scout for people on our own, but actively thinking about including people of all genders was something we never really did. Now it feels like something that is really important.

And an interesting thing happened after the vote of thanks that year: other people who had been in the audience and worked in other institutes or other departments at IISc came up to talk to us during the tea break. Like us, previously they thought it wasn’t important to think about who was being invited as panelists, but they began to see it was important too.

Has that changed how you planned subsequent events?

Two months after that panel discussion, we organised a workshop. On the final day of the workshop, we presented information on how many male and female participants applied, and how many of each we selected (women formed a little over 50% of those selected). That was our indirect way of letting people know that we took gender into consideration during our selection process.

In October 2018, when International Open Access Week came around again, we organised a panel discussion as well as an event called the Global Equity Forum for librarians, because they play a key role in making open access a reality at the institutional level. We consciously included women for both events, and not just because they were women. We realised that if you put in a little effort, you can easily find competent people of all genders without having to select people only for representation’s sake.

What about the people you mentioned earlier, who came up after the panel to ask you about including more women—do you know if they ever followed up on it?

Since the 2017 panel, others have made an effort to have equal numbers on men and women in panels too. It’s been like a chain reaction—some of those who attended our panel discussion took notice and kept it in mind when they organised events themselves. For now, though, ensuring gender diversity has depended on the efforts of the individual organisers. What happens when they leave and others take their place?

I think we need to put forth a policy at an IISc-wide level for events organised on campus so that we can ensure balanced representation of women—not just on stage, but among participants of events like seminars and workshops as well. Leaving it up to personal decisions means that it may not be a sustained process, and that’s why we need to work towards having it as a departmental policy or as an institutional policy. Of course we need to push for this as individuals, but we also need the leadership on board in order for this to materialise.

Ensuring equal representation for men and women in public events may seem like a small issue, but it drives bigger issues.

Ensuring equal representation for men and women in public events may seem like a small issue, but it drives bigger issues. Everybody is supportive of gender equality and inclusion of women at some abstract level, but if we really want that to happen, it has to start at small levels and at different stages. That’s a key thing we learned from organising the 2017 panel—that it had to start with us. Inclusion in panel discussions and events is just one of the stages at which it can happen.

In an academic set-up, dialogue is one way of engaging with a larger audience. You also have events, exams, student participation, and many other such avenues at which it happens, right? We have to address inclusion at all levels. If we have a policy about gender inclusion in events on campus, it could pave the way for policies on gender inclusion in other areas like intake of students, picking members of faculty, picking members of decision-making committees, and so on.

We have to start somewhere, and we can’t rely on easy excuses not to act. It’s a fundamental issue that really needs to be addressed—and maybe then it will become the norm, and open our eyes to the need for other kinds of inclusion as well.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/news/quartz-india-august-16-2019-india-s-top-science-institution-is-trying-hard-to-fix-its-manel-problem

Call for joining the Free Knowledge movement #Wikipedia #Wikimedia

bhuvana — 2019-08-20T07:15:30Z

Every little drop makes a Mighty ocean! Join us in this Free Knowledge movement where your contributions will be used world-wide.

Access to Knowledge team of the Centre for Internet and Society is the partner of the Wikimedia Foundations and the Wikimedia movement. Our work is to support Wikipedia/ Wikimedia projects in India. We conduct and support a series of skill building initiative such as workshops, meetups, photo walks, contest, edit-a-thon etc. We also attend to build sustainable partnerships with institutions, organizations, groups and communities which support the Wikimedia communities to build and improve the content in Wikipedia and other projects.

Are you an individual or do you represent any organisation, institution, groups or enterprises? You can actually help the ‘Free Knowledge’ movement by donating photos, media, content or archives. Let us tell you how.

Wikipedia is a widely read website in the current world. According to Alexa’s rating, Wikipedia is the 5th most highly rated in the world. Also certainly we can say that after searching your query on Google (or any other search engine you use) you should have found Wikipedia as a preferable suggestion or result. We find it astonishing that all content of Wikipedia and its sister projects are created, modified and maintained by volunteers, here we need your support. There are many articles on Wikipedia which are being read by thousands of people but do not have relevant images. The problem is simple there is not any free image available. On Wikimedia/Wikipedia we take copyright very seriously and cannot use any content unless it is on public domain/ under free license/ copyright owner donates it under free license.

For example, there is an article on 2019 Kerala floods which is read by 2000 unique readers at this moment but we do not have sufficient photo coverage. Similarly, we have an article on a famous writer say, Ruskin Bond here also we do not have many photos on him or his works.

Wikimedia community is an independent community. Community decides by itself the content, its style including the media files to be included after detailed instructions. Although we cannot instruct the community we can provide resources which will definitely be of help for the free knowledge movement.

This article is an open call to “YOU” to support the free knowledge movement and Wikimedia movement by donating useful content. The content might be video, useful photos, database and audio. The content you are donating must be under Creative Commons Share-like content. You must have the copyright of the content under CC licenses,a CC license is used when an author wants to give other people the right to share, use, and build upon the work that they (the author) have created. Attributions will be given under every file details.

Think of a world where your content can also be part of the larger free knowledge movement?

This is the overall idea in a nutshell. We are eager to discuss every aspect of the process and your questions in detail. Please feel free to contact Tito Dutta(tito@cis-india.org). Let's schedule a call or meet in person.

[Currently the A2K is conducting a content donation drive and awareness campaign. This blog post was written as a part of this initiative ]

Ministry of Health's public consultation on National Digital Health Blueprint: Legal issues around telemedicine, consent, and 'egosystems' in healthcare Trisha Jalan

Trisha Jalan — 2019-08-09T14:05:14Z

“The patient should be centric to every intervention,” declared Preeti Sudan, special secretary at the Ministry of Health, at the ministry’s public consultation on the National Digital Health Blueprint 2019, held at the Constitution Club of India in New Delhi on August 6.

The article by Trisha Jalan was published by Medianama on August 8, 2019. Aayush Rathi was quoted.

The venue was packed with representatives from the government, major hospitals chains, health start-ups, associations, and civil society organisations. The blueprint — which is an evolved document of the National Health Stack 2018 (NHS) — was put in the public domain on July 15, and comments were closed on August 4. After holding consultation on the NHS, the ministry formed a committee under the chairmanship of former UIDAI head and former MeitY secretary J. Satyanarayana to create an implementation document for the NHS.

Health is a complex and interwoven subject, and deals with people’s lives, said Sudan. “The patient should be centric to every intervention,” she said. Clearly stated during the discussion was that private sector participation is important and necessary. Sudan opened the consultation by mentioning that the ministry is in the process of forming the e-pharmacy rules, “we’ve had extensive consultations on it”:

“There are issues which require assistance from all of you. We don’t have e-prescriptions on a large scale, you can’t expect government to lead e-prescriptions, we have hospitals all the country. So what can industry do, to make this application cheap and user-friendly, and have it across the system so epharmacy actually becomes possible. E-precriptions have been the norm wherever e-pharmacies have been successful.”

J. Satyanarayana, chairman of the committee (also a former UIDAI chair), wasn’t present at the consultation. Here’s a list of representatives from the government present at the consultation, some of whom were also members of the committee:

Preeti Sudan, Secretary, Ministry of Health
Sanjeeva Kumar, Special Secretary, Ministry of Health
Lav Agrawal, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Health
Gaur Sunder, Centre for Development of Advanced Computing, Pune
Sunil Kumar, National e-Governance Division
J Rama Krishna Rao, CEO, National Institute for Smart Governance
Pallab Saha, chief architect, The Open Group

(A non-exhaustive list of stakeholders present at the consultation is available at the end of the article.)

Electronic Health Records (EHR)

Non-financial incentives for adoption of EHR: “What are the incentives that could really make for early adoption for various players? There are many different approaches that it can happen to incentivize each and every player, for example, maybe let’s build a national license for actionable guidelines, define it, and set standards for that, like the government has done for SNOMED CT,” Krish Dutta from Relx Group said.

“US has shown us that throwing money at the problem doesn’t solve it,” Dutta said. “It’s the the largest investment healthcare, but there are still problems.”
One small step [we could do] would be how do you get doctors or hospitals to adopt EHR — for example, [requiring that] a copy or electronic subset of the EHR should be immediately recorded, and payments and reimbursements are made on the basis of this. “Maybe that’s can be the only document that you send to the insurer,” Dutta said.

Patient agency in ensuring EHR: Talking about his experience of working in hospitals in the US, Dr Surajit Nandy, CEO of Raxa Health, asked “What power will the citizens have to ensure that their data is pushed to the NHS? When the citizen accesses a health service, they don’t have the power to ensure that their health records are digitised and centralised, he said.

“Having practiced in the US, we often had many problems getting the data from other medical institutes — even with interoperability and other laws on the books — and this had catastrophic consequences. At Massachusetts General, we had to ensure that your data was pushed to the digital records within 24 hours of seeing the patient.” — Dr Surajit Nandy

Data privacy: legal issues, absence of Data Protection Law, and use of Aadhaar

Multiple stakeholders raised the point that Personal Data Protection Bill is still in the works, and that the blueprint, in the current form, is designed amidst the absence of a law dealing with data protection and citizen privacy.

According to Dr Vivek Gupta of AIIMS, the data privacy law is a (or should be a) mandatory prerequisite before this regulation comes into place.
According to another doctor, who has been at AIIMS and also been an IAS officer, if DISHA and/or PDP Bill don’t come into effect, then the patient won’t be established as the owner of the data, this is especially important given that legal issues have not been integrated into the NDHB document.

“We need to think through the question of data ownership, and what implications it has for things already in the NDHB, but may not be viable, said Ayush Rathi from Centre for Internet & Society. “One of the things is the de-identification of anonymised data, the PDP bill (in its current form, already criminalizes this without the consent of the data fiduciary.”

Talking about consent, he said, the NDHB does a lot in terms of seeking consent, “but a crucial component of consent is already the ease with which it can be withdrawn. It’s unclear how deletion or right to be forgotten can be included in the NDHB, a critical principle of how the PDP Bill was built. And this can deal with not just how your entire health record can be deleted, but also how specific parts of it can be deleted.” He said there has a very “solid legal assessment of the NDHB”, with what the PDP will prospectively look at.

The use of Aadhaar

The NDHB document suggests the use of Aadhaar as a possible Personal Health Identifier, since it “assures uniqueness of identity” and provides an online mechanism for authentication. Although the document defers the final decision and says that Ministry of Health may decide this in consultation of MeitY and UIDAI (FYI, the committee which drafted this blueprint was chaired a former chairman of the UIDAI), it will be no surprise if Aadhaar is indeed a preferred PHI, given its mission creep.

The only stakeholder to raise issues around Aadhaar was Aditi Chaturvedi from Software Freedom Law Centre (SFLC). “The ministry should provide clarity on the use of Aadhaar, the system links very sensitive personal data with public and private, while the Act permits the use of Aadhaar only in some ccases, we aren’t able to understand where the line will stop,” she said.

Data collection and gathering, and data disclosure

Dr Vivek Gupta from AIIMS said that there needs to be clarity on whether data is going to be collected at both IPD and OPD. 5 out of the 8 mandatory data elements in Table 3.3 (see below) of the document deal with clinical data to be collected at the time of doc-patient interaction. “There are very broad terms and encompasses the entire encounter — history, observations, complaints etc. In a high load set-up such as AIIMS, where the average interaction time is very less, how does this [kind of] data gathering work out?” “Again, data is collected also for design purposes and not just for clinical purposes. Is all this data or only a part of it also supposed to flow into a central repository, only a part of it?”

Aditi Chaturvedi from SFLC, said the its concerning that we don’t know the amount of patient data that will be disclosed to private players in the system, such as insurers, pharmacies, and hospitals, among others.

Use of telemedicine and lack of legal framework around it

Telemedicine is one of the answers to the skewed doctor-patient ratio, and two areas of telemedicine need a little more stress in the document, according to Dr Karanvir Singh, Chief Medical Information Officer at Apollo Hospitals. One is the business model, a large number of organisations which started telemedicine projects have gone down because their business model doesn’t address their local concerns.

“They’re treating or giving consultation to patients in different parts of India, but the income — it does come down to income — is actually not coming to them. Because if a patient comes in via telemedicine, the consult is supposed to be free.” — Dr Karanvir Singh

Legal framework and issues surrounding telemedicine

Dr. Singh flagged another issue — the legality of telemedicine consults, whether it is telemedicine or via WhatsApp. “Karnataka has made it illegal,” he said, “so it’s an area that needs to be addressed.” Preeti Sudan, Union Health Secretary, agreed that there are ethical issues surrounding telemedicine.

She explained that the ministry had asked if the Medical Council of India (MCI) could act on it. The body, however, has been dissolved with the passage of the National Medical Commission Bill, 2019 (which has been passed in both houses of Parliament). For context, once the NMC Bill becomes an Act, it will replace the MCI as the regulatory body for medical colleges and institutions in the country.
“We need actually need some kind of policy document or legal framework as to the extent of telemedicine we can do,” said Sudan.

Sudan also pointed out that there isn’t yet a data privacy law in India, the Srikrishna Report is under consideration, and “we are eagerly awaiting it”. Elaborating on the government’s work in telemedicine, she said the ministry is forming an e-learning network in medical colleges. Teleradiology works very well in government, because because you will have that X-ray know in front of you and the doctor [can consult].

“Then there are legal issues around teleconsultation. Is there a country with a legal framework for telemedicine?” — Preeti Sudan

Colonel (Retd) Dr Ashvini Goel, vice-president of the Telemedicine Society of India, pointed out that Texas had passed its own Telemedicine Act. The society had presented a white paper on a proposed Tele-health Act to the NITI Aayog, but hasn’t heard anything on it, he said.

Tele-monitoring as a form of tele-health

Although questions were being raised about the legal issues surrounding telemedicine, Dr. Monica Thomas, a neurologist at Holy Family Hospital, pointed out that a variation of tele-health is tele-mentoring, which the hospital has been doing through extension of community health care outcomes started by Indian origin hematologist Dr Sanjeev Arora.

Tele-mentoring, she explained, takes away the risks of advising the patient directly, since “you are advising the community physician who takes care of the patient. And I would suggest that that should be multiplied much more.”
Sudan once again pointed out that tele-mentoring has indeed worked, and the government is using Dr Arora’s platform on a large scale. “The question raised that if we’re going for tele-medicine, the legal liabilities need to be defined. Only Texas has a law now.”

“We are using this echo platform of Sanjeev Arora on a very large scale now. And you’re right, this tele mentoring has worked. And we do use this platform. And it’s a good thing. But you know, I understand that and it’s being used in US also.We are extending it to our TV also now. We have a Digital Academy for Mental Health in NIMHANS. The question raised that if we’re going for telemedicine, the legal liabilities need to be defined. Only Texas has a law now.” — Preeti Sudan

‘Patient consent is paramount’, illiterate patients, and consent frameworks

The document says that data will not be available to any care provider without explicit consent of the patient, Dr Karanvir Singh from Apollo Hospitals reminded everyone. But, he said, “we have a large number of illiterate patients, patients can be unconscious, or can be children.”

There are two solutions for this:
1. All data becomes available to the current care provider, as long as it is not explicitly marked as confidential by the patient. This is the less preferable option.
2. Break the ceiling, break the glass: So a patient is brought in unconscious, there should be a mechanism defined by which the doctors in the casualty or emergency can access the data even if it’s not explicit consent by the patient.

“The issues of consent is paramount,” said Anuvinda Varkey from Christian Coalition for Health. “We should have some kind of communication measures to the public about what consent means. And in case the patient has no identifier like Aadhaar, it should be mandatory to give them care.”

EHR standards need more clarity

Aditi Chaturvedi from SFLC said that the document provides MeitY’s electronic consent framework guidelines, and the EHR standards in another section. “Although the [EHR] standards are backed by law, they’re not very clear, they lack of lot of comprehensive consent requirements present under the MeitY’s consent framwork.”

“It’ll good to learn from the data breaches happening despite there being HIPAA in the US. It’s interesting to note how the US is highlighted difficulty patients have in accessing data.” — Aditi Chaturvedi

Consent from illiterate patients, doctors wary of technologies

An audience member, who identified himself as Raghuram from the life sciences and healthcare practices at NASSCOM, said that there’s need for clarity on [obtaining] consent from illiterate citizens.

Speaking about standards, he queried if India can make an ICD-10 similar to the SNOMED standards, for which India already has a license. The standards can be adopted and the government can release it to all the techology houses, he suggested. “Or maybe India is a large enough country to have its own standards,” he said.
He also said that many of the doctors they [NASSCOM] spoke to were wary of using digital technologies for diagnostics, and so there should be some representation on the legal aspects of using digital technologies.

“The document talks about creating various registries and directories, but do we know the digital landscape of our country?” asked Antony Vipin Das, an eye surgeon at LV Prasad Eye Institute, which has been working with Microsoft India on a AI model for diagnostics. “While we’re listing registries, we need to understand where we stand at the govt and private sector,” he said. Sundar agreed that states are at various levels of development in health.

Standardisation and interoperability

“The decision support system should not be in silos, but should be interoperable.” according to Dr Prashant Mathur, director of ICMR’s National Centre for Disease Informatics and Research (NCRID) in Bangalore, which also runs the National Cancer Registry programme. “There’s a little ambiguity between repositories and registries. In the cancer registry, besides collecting incidence and trend data, we also study patterns of disease and survival studies for cancer, we have been publishing data for in breast, oral, cervical cancer.” This, he says, needs repeated contacts, information, and follow-up treatment, “does the document have clarity on whether all these events should be taken in longitudinally?” he asked.

Ministry of Health representatives also emphasisized on the need and benefits of interoperability. In cool sarkaari parlance, they said, currently the health sector has ‘egosystems‘ and not ‘ecosystems’, meaning all existing systems are siloed and don’t speak with one another, and that it’s important to do that. Stakeholders present in the meeting said. “There are already existing systems and programmes in place, so how do we knit the entire system together?” asked Sudan.

Other issues raised around standards and interoperability:

Ayush Rathi, from Centre for Internet and Society, said that the terms ‘open standards’ and ‘interoperability’ are being used as synonyms. “Open standards may be instituted but they may not be interoperable themselves.” he said.
Abhijeet, sale enablement leader at Philips, said interoperability is a low-hanging fruit, and the benefits can be seen easily and instantly. He also said the action plan is “quite” aggresive, and more specifities and details need to made visible.
Sudeep Dey, Associate VP for IT operations for India for Fortis Healthcare, said data retention has been a challenge. “We have e-precription shops coming up as mom-and-pop stores. A lot of data is getting generated, we need some kind of standards, so everyone can access the system. Fortis gets 20 requests everyday that we have a new e-prescription solution.”

Private sector setting standards?

“One of the major roles of the government will be setting standards,” said Krish Dutta of Relx Group. “Private sector can come up with solutions, but they will not be able to agree on it, because we will all have different opinions. But standard setting is very important, and should be a goal in all domains of digital health.”

Dealing with EHR standards in primary hospitals:

Talking about EHR standards in primary care hospitals, Dr Rajesh Kumar, a dean at PGI-MER, Chandigarh, said most standards like SNOMED are for tertiary care hospitals, but there are many primary care hospitals, which don’t need many elaborate standards. “So can the government some open standards for primary care centres and hospitals, which is not very demanding on softwares.”

“Secondly, we have lot of silos, can we begin within the Health Ministry where APIs can be shared to make existing softwares interoperable. Once this platform starts working, there will be great need for storage space. Our data centre is totally full, we’re looking forward to if the government can bring in guidilines for data storage?” — Dr Rajesh Kumar

To the above query, Preeti Sudan said the guidelines are available, and cloud storage can be bought on GeM platform.

We should draw inspiration from UPI, ecocystem should be ‘rich’, with private and public players:Reliance Jio

Also present in the consultation was a representative from Reliance Jio, Ganesh Kathirasen, VP for digital healthcare. He said the NDHB should be a “rich ecosystem” with both private and public players. The talk of federated architecture shouln’t be limited to just the states, but should include any provider of healthcare data and system in the country.

“People can largely be put in two buckets, providers like hospitals and clinics or consumers who are patients. Both stakeholders should be able to choose any application to enter the system, as long as the software or app adheres to certian minimum regulations by the ministry.”
He said “we can all draw inspiration from UPI, and how its been implemented”. It created a level playing field and its important to mirror something similar in the digital health domain, he said.

Issues surrounding Outcome measures in blueprint

Talking about the outcomes measures defined in the document, Dr Karanvir Singh of Apollo Hospitals, said the outcome measures aren’t clearly defined – and they will be ultimately used to make KPIs. He suggested that the outcome measures be laid out at three levels — ecosystem level, platform, and another level that we didn’t catch.

“For instance, on the ecosystem level, one KPI could the percentage of patients who have managed have a longitudinal record pulled in from various places. Another could be the percentage of doctors who are able to access this longitudinal record. The current KPIs aren’t covering all the three areas, which we can ensure by breaking them up.” — Dr Karanvir Singh

He laid out another two outcomes measures, which according to him, are flawed. “Firstly, that the test is not to be repeated,” referring to the requirement that a patient should be tested “ONCE ONLY”. “But clinically, there are many reasons for repeating a test. So rather than saying once only, which is in caps in the document, it should be to minimize duplications.”

Another outcome measure is that the patient should be treated only at one at one point of care. Based on the capacity and capability of hospitals, patients do get referred from one place to the other. If these are the KPIs, we’re going to get wrong values that the system has failed when it actually hasn’t failed.

Artificial intelligence is brought up

There wasn’t much representation or discussion around artificial intelligence in healthcare. P. Anandan, from Wadhwani Institute for AI, said AI can augment human capacity. AI, data science, and data analytics are all relevant, “however there is some myth and mystery surrounding this technology. Its important to have clarifications around how AI can help, how it should be implemented, and the regulatory aspects around AI, such that privacy and quality of care is assured.” Raghuram from NASSCOM also said AI is also “taking shape in a big way across the continent, and we should have some policies around use of AI in the digital health.”

AYUSH Ministry says it should be involved

A representative from the Ministry of AYUSH, who identified herself as Leena Chattrey, said AYUSH should be part of this document, in a sense wherein “AYUSH can use the data of UID or something similar, and share our data through common APIs. We also want the names of applications or portals developed by AYUSH to be in the document. We want complete or partial integration with building blocks, complete integration can be in patient care and other common interest areas, and partial integration can be done in AYUSH-specific activities.”

COAI marks its attendance, and other comments

Rajan Mathews, Director-General of telecom lobby COAI (Cellular Operators Association of India), expressed concern over the “minimal role operators are asked to play in this,” “you have MeitY, but not DoT”.

We have all these uncovered villages, we know about scope and scale, and even Aadhaar. Aadhaar did not become successful until you involved the operators. So their should be greater inclusion.

Mathews also recommended that there should be an international focus, particularly considering BPO businesses. “Having our requirements that comply with the EU requirements of data privacy and data control, and the American requirements on medical records and documentation, we should have that international focus in terms of the standards of the integration, because otherwise our BPO services will become subject of risk.”

Rahul Pandey from World Bank said that although he’s aware that health is a state subject, and the centre cannot dictate policies, “Many of the state government trying to innovate and thinking of various tools and processes in IT; there could be some kind of guidance to the states to make sure that there is some alignment with the centre.”

Participants in the consultation

Startups: Raxa Health, Relx Group, Wadhwani Institute for AI, mFine
Hospitals: Fortis Healthcare, Apollo Hospitals, AIIMS, PGIMER Chandigarh,
Associations in health: Telemedicine Society of India,
Other associations: NASSCOM, COAI (Cellular Operators Association of India)
Civil society: Centre for Internet & Society, SFLC (Software Freedom Law Centre)
Doctors and medical professions from: Holy Family Hospital, LV Prasad Eyecare Institute
MNCs: Philips, Johnson & Johnson
Others: Ministry of AYUSH, World Bank, ICMR (Indian Council of Medical Research), Access Health

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/medianama-trisha-jalan-august-8-2019-ministry-of-health-public-consultation-on-national-digital-health-blueprint

CIS Comments on NDHB

Admin — 2019-08-07T13:11:55Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/cis-comments-on-ndhb

Centre for Internet and Society

Bhuvana Meenakshi elected Mozilla Rep for July 2019

CIS joins the Christchurch Call Advisory Network

The Christchurch Call Advisory Network

CIS Team

Senior Staff

Administration and Finance

Responsible AI

GCSC Response

Essays on #List — Selected Abstracts

1. Manisha Chachra

2. Meghna Yadav

3. Sarita Bose

4. Shambhavi Madan

Manisha Chachra

MeToo in Indian journalism: Questioning access to internet among intersectional women and idea of rehabilitative justice in digital spaces

Meghna Yadav

Sarita Bose

Mapping goes local: A study of how Google Maps tracks user’s footprints and creates a ‘For You’ list

Shambhavi Madan

List of lists of lists: Technologies of power, infrastructures of memory

Future of Work in ASEAN

August 2019 Newsletter

CIS and the News

CIS in the News

Access to Knowledge

Wikipedia

Internet Governance

Freedom of Speech & Expression

Privacy

IT / Information Technology

Artificial Intelligence

Digital Identity

Researchers@Work

About CIS

Analysis on the strategies of Mozilla and Wiki communities on gender gap aspects

Linking Aadhaar with social media or ending encryption is counterproductive

US pressure threatens to weaken data - localisation mandate in India's landmark data-protection bill

India’s top science institution is trying hard to fix its “manel” problem

How did you first hear of the term manel?

What happened next?

Did you feel like you were being put on the spot at the time?

Has that changed how you planned subsequent events?

What about the people you mentioned earlier, who came up after the panel to ask you about including more women—do you know if they ever followed up on it?

Call for joining the Free Knowledge movement #Wikipedia #Wikimedia

See also

Ministry of Health's public consultation on National Digital Health Blueprint: Legal issues around telemedicine, consent, and 'egosystems' in healthcare Trisha Jalan

Electronic Health Records (EHR)

Data privacy: legal issues, absence of Data Protection Law, and use of Aadhaar

Use of telemedicine and lack of legal framework around it

‘Patient consent is paramount’, illiterate patients, and consent frameworks

Standardisation and interoperability

Issues surrounding Outcome measures in blueprint

Artificial intelligence is brought up

AYUSH Ministry says it should be involved

COAI marks its attendance, and other comments

Participants in the consultation

CIS Comments on NDHB