Centre for Internet and Society

The AI Task Force Report - The first steps towards India’s AI framework

Elonnai Hickok, Shweta Mohandas and Swaraj Paul Barooah — 2018-06-27T14:32:56Z

The Task Force on Artificial Intelligence was established by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry to leverage AI for economic benefits, and provide policy recommendations on the deployment of AI for India.

The blog post was edited by Swagam Dasgupta. Download PDF here

The Task Force’s Report, released on March 21st 2018, is a result of the combined expertise of members from different sectors and examines how AI will benefit India. It sheds light on the Task Force’s perception of AI, the sectors in which AI can be leveraged in India, the challenges endemic to India and certain ethical considerations. It concludes with a set of policy recommendations for the government to leverage AI for the next five years. While acknowledging AI as a social and economic problem solver, the Report attempts to answer three policy questions:

What are the areas where government should play a role?
How can AI improve quality of life and solve problems at scale for Indian citizens?
What are the sectors that can generate employment and growth by the use of AI technology?

This blog will look at how the Task Force answered these three policy questions. In doing so, it gives an overview of salient aspects and reflects on the strengths and weaknesses of the Report.

Sectors of Relevance and Challenges

In order to navigate the outlined questions, the Report looks at ten sectors that it refers to as ‘domains of relevance to India’. Furthermore, it examines the use of AI along with its major challenges, and possible solutions for each sector. These sectors include: Manufacturing, FinTech, Agriculture, Healthcare, Technology for the Differently-abled, National Security, Environment, Public Utility Services, Retail and Customer Relationship, and Education. While these ten domains are part of the 16 domains of focus listed in the AITF’s web page, it would have been useful to know the basis on which these sectors were identified. A particular strength of the identified sectors is the consideration of technology for the differently abled as well as the recognition to the development of AI systems in spoken and sign languages in the Indian context.

Some of the problems endemic to India that were recognized include infrastructural barriers, managing scale and innovation, and the collection, validation and distribution of data. The Task Force also noted the lack of consumer awareness, and inability of technology providers to explain benefits to end users as further challenges. The Task Force — by putting the onus on the individual — seems to hint that the impediment to the uptake of technology is the inability of individuals to understand the benefits of the technology, rather than aspects such as poor design, opacity, or misuse of data and insights. Furthermore, although the Report recognizes the challenges associated to data in India and highlights the importance of quality and quantity of data; it overlooks the importance of data curation in creatinge reliable AI systems.

Although the Report examines challenges to AI in each sector, it fails to include all challenges that require addressal. For example, the report fails to acknowledge challenges such as the lack of appropriate certification systems for AI driven health systems and technologies. In the manufacturing sector, the Report fails to highlight contextual challenges associated with the use of AI. This includes the deployment of autonomous vehicles compared to the use of industrial robots.

On the use of AI in retail, the Report while examining consumer data and its respective regulatory policies, identified the issues to be related to the definition, discrimination, data breaches, digital products and safety awareness and reporting standards. In this, the Report is limited in its understanding of what categories of data can lead to discrimination and restricts mechanisms for transparency and accountability to data breaches. The Report could have also been more forward looking in its position on security — including security by design and security by default. Furthermore, these issues were noted only in the context of the retail sector and ideally should have been discussed across all sectors.

The challenges for utilizing AI for national security could have been examined beyond cost and capacity to include associated ethical and legal challenges such as the need for legal backing. The use of AI in national security demands clear accountability and oversight as it is a ground for legitimate state interference with fundamental rights such as privacy and freedom of expression. As such, there is a need for human rights impact assessments, as well as a need for such uses to be aligned with international human rights norms. Government initiatives that allow country wide surveillance and AI decisions based on such data should ideally be implemented only after a comprehensive privacy law is in place and India’s surveillance regime has been revisited.

Recognizing the potential of AI for the benefit of the differently abled is one of the key takeaways from this section of the Report. Furthermore, it also brings in the need for AI inclusivity. AI in natural language generation and translation systems have the potential to help the large number of youth that are disabled or deprived. Therefore, AI could have a large positive impact through inclusive growth and empowerment.

Although the Report examines each of the ten domains in an attempt to provide an insight into the role the government can play, there seems to be a lack of clarity in terms of the role that each department will and is playing with respect to AI. Even the section which lays down the relevant ministries for each of the ten domains failed to include key ministries and departments. For example, the Report does not identify the Ministry of Education, nor does it list the Ministry of Law for national security. The Report could have also identified government departments which would be responsible for regulation and standardization. This could include the Medical Council of India (healthcare), CII (manufacture and retail), RBI (Fintech) etc. The Report also does not recognize other developments around AI emerging out the government. For example, the Draft National Digital Communications Policy (published on May 1, 2018) seeks to empower the Department of Telecommunication to provide a roadmap for AI and robotics. Along similar lines, the Department of Defence Production has also created a task force earlier this year to study the use of AI to accelerate military technology and economic growth. The government should look at building a cohesive AI government body, or clearly delineating the role of each ministry, in order to ensure harmonization going forward.

Areas in need of Government Intervention

The Report also lists out the grand challenges where government intervention is required. This includes data collection and management and the need for widespread expertise contributing to research, innovation, and response. However, while highlighting the need for AI experts from diverse backgrounds, it fails to include experts from law and policy into the discussion. While identifying manufacturing, agriculture, healthcare and public utility to be places where government intervention is needed, the Report failed to examine national security beyond an important domain to India and as a sector where government intervention is needed.

Participation in International Forums

Another relevant concern that the Report underscores is India’s scarce participation as researchers, AI developers and government engagement in global discussions around AI. The Report states that although efforts were being made by Indian universities to increase their presence in international AI conferences, they were lagging behind other nations. On the subject of participation by the government it recommends regular presence in International AI policy forums. Hence, emphasising the need for India’s active participation in global conversations around AI and international rulemaking.

Key Enablers to AI

The Report while analysing the key enablers for AI deployment in India states that positive societal attitudes will be the driving force behind the proliferation of AI. Although relying on positive social attitudes alone will not help in increasing the trust on AI, steps such as making algorithms that are used by public bodies public, enacting a data protection law etc. will be important in enabling trust beyond highlighting success stories.

Data and Data Marketplaces

While the Report identifies data as a challenge where government intervention is needed, it also points to the Aadhaar ecosystem as an enabler. It states that Aadhaar will help in the proliferation of AI in three ways: one as a creator of jobs as related to the collection and digitization of data, two as a collector of reliable data, and three as a repository of Indian data. However, since the very constitutionality of Aadhaar is yet to be determined by the Supreme Court, the task force should have used caution in identifying Aadhaar as a definitive solution. Especially while making statements that the Aadhaar along with the SC judgement has created adequate frameworks to protect consumer data. Additionally, the Task Force should have recognized the various concerns that have been voiced about Aadhaar, particularly in the context of the case before the Supreme Court.

This section also proposes the creation of a Digital Data Marketplace. A data marketplace needs to be framed carefully so as to not create a situation where privacy becomes a right available to only those who can afford it. It is concerning that the discussion on data protection and privacy in the Report is limited to policies and guidelines for businesses and not centered around the individual.

Innovation and Patents

The Report states that the Indian startups working in the field of AI must be encouraged, and industry collaborations and funding must be taken up as a policy measure. One of the ways in which this could be achieved is by encouraging innovations, and one of the ways to do so is by adding a commercial incentive to it, such as through IP rights. Although the Report calls for a stronger IP regime that protects and incentivises innovation, it remains ambiguous as to which aspect of IP rights — patents, trade secrets and copyrights — need significant changes. If the Report is specifically advocating for stronger patent rights in order to match those of China and US, then it shows that the the task force fails to understand the finer aspects of Indian patent law and the history behind India’s stance on patenting. This includes the fact that Indian patent law excludes algorithms from being patented. Indian patent law, by providing a higher threshold for patenting computer related inventions (CRIs), ensures that only truly innovative patents are granted. Given the controversies over CRIs that have dotted the Indian patent landscape, the task force would have done well to provide more clarity on the ‘how’ and ‘why’ of patenting in this sector, if that is their intent with this suggestion.

Ethical AI framework

Responsible AI

In terms of establishing an ethical AI framework, the Task Force suggests measures such as making AI explainable, transparent, and auditable for biases. The Report addresses the fact that currently with the increase in human and AI interaction there is a need to have new standards set for the deployment of AI as well as industrial standards for robots. However, the Report does not go into details of how AI could cause further bias based on various identifiers such as gender and caste, as well as the myriad concerns around privacy and security. This is especially a concern given that the Report envisions widespread use of AI in all major sectors. In this way, the Report looks at data as both a challenge and an enabler, but fails to dedicate time towards explaining the various ethical considerations behind the collection and use of data in the context of privacy, security and surveillance as well as account for unintended consequences. In laying out the ethical considerations associated with AI, the report does not make a distinction between the use of AI by the public sector and private sector. As the government is responsible for ensuring the rights of citizens and holds more power than the citizenry, the public sector needs to be more accountable in their use of AI. This is especially so in cases where AI is proposed to be used for sovereign functions such as national security.

Privacy and Data

The Report also recognises the significance of the implementation of the Aadhaar Act, the privacy judgement and the proposed data protection laws, on the development and use of AI for India. Yet, the Report does not seem to recognize the importance of a robust and multi-faceted privacy framework as it assumes that the Aadhaar Act and the Supreme Court Judgement on privacy and potential privacy law have already created a basis for safe and secure utilization and sharing of customer data. Although the Report has tried to be an expansive examination of various aspects of AI for India, it unfortunately has not looked in depth at the current issues and debates around AI privacy and ethics and makes policy recommendations without appearing to fully reflect on the implementation and potential impact of the same. Similar to the discussion paper by the Niti Aayog, this Report does not consider the emerging principles of data protection such as right to explanation and right to opt-out of automated processing, which directly relate to AI. Furthermore, there is a lack of discussion on issues such as data minimisation and purpose limitation which some big data and AI proponents argue against.

Liability

On the question of liability, the Report only states that specific liability mechanisms need to be worked out for certain categories of machines. The Report does not address the questions of liability that should be applicable to all AI systems, and on whom the duty of care lies, not only in case of robots but also in the case of automated decision making etc. Thus, there is a need for further thinking on mechanisms for determining liability and how these could apply to different types of AI (deep learning models and other machine learning models) and AI systems.

AI and Employment

On the topic of jobs and employment, the Report states that AI will create more jobs than it takes as a result of an increase in the number of companies and avenues created by AI technologies. Additionally, the Report provides examples of jobs where AI could replace the human (autonomous drivers, industrial robots etc,) but does not go as far as envisioning what jobs could be created directly from this replacement. Though the Report recognizes emerging forms of work such as crowdsourcing platforms like Mturk, it fails to examine the impact of such models of work on workers and traditional labour market structures and processes. Going forward, it will be important that the government and the private sector undertake the necessary steps to ensure that fair, protected, and fulfilling jobs are created simultaneously with the adoption of AI. This will include revisiting national and organizational skilling programmes, labor laws, social benefit schemes, relevant economic policies, and exploring best practices with respect to the adoption and integration of AI in work.

Education and Re-skilling

The task force emphasised the need for a change in the education curriculum as well as the need to reskill the labour force to ensure an AI ready future. This level of reskilling will be a massive effort, and a thorough review and audit of existing skilling programmes in India is needed before new skilling programmes are established and financed. The Report also clarifies that the statistics used were based on a study on the IT component of the industry, and that a similar study was required to analyse AI’s effect on the automation component. Going forward, there is the need for a comprehensive study of the labour intensive sectors and formal and informal sectors to develop evidence based policy responses.

Policy Recommendations

The Task Force_, in its policy recommendations, notes that the successful adoption of AI in India will depend on three factors: people, process and technology. However, it does not explain these three factors any further.

National Artificial Intelligence Mission

The most significant suggestion made in the Report is for the establishment of the National Artificial Intelligence Mission (N-AIM) — a centralised nodal agency for coordinating and facilitating research, collaboration and providing economic impetuous to AI startups. The mission with a budget allocation of Rs 1,200 crore over five years aims, among other things, to look at various ways to encourage AI research and deployment. Some of the suggestions include targeting and prototyping AI systems and setting up of a generic AI test bed. These suggestions seems to draw inspiration from other countries such as the US DARPA Challenge and Japan’s sandbox for self driving trucks. The establishment of N-AIM is a welcome step to encourage both AI research and development on a national scale. The availability of public funds will encourage more AI research and development.Additionally, government engagement in AI projects has thus far been fragmentedand a centralised body will presumably bring about better coordination and harmonization. Some of the initiatives such as Capture the flag competition that seeks to centre around the provision for real datasets to catalyze innovation will need to be implemented with appropriate safeguards in place.

Other recommendations

There are other suggestions that are problematic — particularly that of funding “an inter-disciplinary large data integration center in pilot mode to develop an autonomous AI Machine that can work on multiple data streams in real time and provide relevant information and predictions to public across all domains.” Before such a project is developed and implemented there are a number of factors where legal clarity is required; a few being: data collection and use, accuracy and quality of the AI system. There is also a need to ensure that bias and discrimination have been accounted for and fairness, responsibility and liability have been defined with consideration that this will be a government driven AI system. Additionally, such systems should be transparent by design and should include redress mechanisms for potential harms that may arise. This can be through the presence of a human in the loop, or the existence of a kill switch. These should be addressed through ethical principles, standards, and regulatory frameworks.

The recommendations propose establishing operation standards for data storage and privacy, communication standards for autonomous systems, and standards to allow for interoperability between AI based systems. A significant lacuna in this list is the development of safety, accuracy, and quality standards for AI algorithms and systems.

Similarly, although the proposed public private partnership model for research and startups is a good idea, this initiative should be undertaken only after questions such as the implications of liability, ownership of IP and data, and the exclusion of critical sectors are thought through.

Furthermore, the suggestion to ‘fund a national level survey on identification of cluster of clean annotated data necessary for building effective AI systems’ needs to recognize the existing initiatives around open data or use this as a starting place. The Report does not clarify if this survey would involve identifying data.

Conclusion

The inconspicuous release of the Report as well as the lack of a call for public comments results in the fact that the Report does not incorporate or reflect on the sentiments of the public or draw upon the expertise that exists in India on the topic or policies around emerging technologies, which will have a pervasive and wide effect on society. The need for multi stakeholder engagement and input cannot be understated. Nonetheless, the Report of the Task Force is a welcome step towards understanding the movement towards an definitive AI policy. The task force has attempted answering the three policy questions keeping people, process and technology in mind. However, it could have provided greater details about these indices. The Report, which is meant for a wider audience, would have done well to provide greater detail, while also providing clarity on technical terms. On a definitional plane, a list of technologies that the task force perceived as AI for this Report, could have also helped keep it grounded on possible and plausible 5 year recommendations.

Compared to the recent Niti Aayog Discussion Paper, this Report misses out on a detailed explanation on AI and ethics, however, it does spend some considerable amount of time on education and the use of AI for the differently abled. Additionally, the Report’s statement on the democratization of development and equal access as well as assigning ownership and framing transparent rules for usage of the infrastructure is a positive step towards making AI inclusive. Overall, the Report is a progressive step towards laying down India’s path forward in the field of Artificial Intelligence. The emphasis on India’s involvement in International rulemaking gives India an opportunity to be a leader of best practice in international forums by adopting forward looking and human rights respecting practices. Whether India will also become a strong contender in the AI race, with policies favouring the development of a socio-economically beneficial, and ethical-AI backed industries and services is yet to be seen.

The Task Force consists of 18 members in total. Of these, 11 members are from the field of AI technology both research and industry, three from the civil services, one from healthcare research, one with and Intellectual property law background, and two from a finance background. The specializations of the members are not limited to one area as the members have experience or education in various areas relevant to AI. https://www.aitf.org.in// There is a notable lack of members from Civil Society. It may also be noted that only 2 of the 18 members are women

The Report on the Artificial Intelligence Task Force, Pg. 1,http://dipp.nic.in/sites/default/files/Report_of_Task_Force_on_ArtificialIntelligence_20March2018_2.pdf

ibid.

The Artificial Intelligence Task Force https://www.aitf.org.in/

The Report on the Artificial Intelligence Task Force, Pg. 8

The Report on the Artificial Intelligence Task Force, Pg. 9,10.

The Report on the Artificial Intelligence Task Force, Pg. 9

ibid.

Artificial Intelligence in the Healthcare Industry in India https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/ai-and-healtchare-report

Artificial Intelligence in the Manufacturing and Services Sector https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/AIManufacturingandServices_Report _02.pdf

The Report on the Artificial Intelligence Task Force, Pg. 21.

Submission to the Committee of Experts on a Data Protection Framework for India, Centre for Internet and Society https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/data-protection-submission

The Report on the Artificial Intelligence Task Force, Pg. 22

Draft National Digital Communications Policy-2018, http://www.dot.gov.in/relatedlinks/draft-national-digital-communications-policy-2018

Task force set up to study AI application in military,https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/tech-news-technology/task-force-set-up-to-study-ai-application-in-military-5049568/

It is not just technical experts that are needed, ethical, technical, and legal experts as well as domain experts need to be part of the decision making process.

The Report on the Artificial Intelligence Task Force, Pg. 31

Constitutional validity of Aadhaar: the arguments in Supreme Court so far, http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/constitutional-validity-of-aadhaar-the-arguments-in-supreme-court-so-far/article22752084.ece

ibid.

CIS Submission to TRAI Consultation on Free Data http://trai.gov.in/Comments_FreeData/Companies_n_Organizations/Center_For_Internet_and_Society.pdf

The Report on the Artificial Intelligence Task Force, Pg. 30

Section 3(k) of the patent act describes that a mere mathematical or business method or a computer programme or algorithm cannot be patented.

Patent Office Reboots CRI Guidelines Yet Again: Removes “novel hardware” Requirement

https://spicyip.com/2017/07/patent-office-reboots-cri-guidelines-yet-again-removes-novel-hardware-requirement.html

The Report on the Artificial Intelligence Task Force, Pg. 37

The Report on the Artificial Intelligence Task Force, Pg. 7

ibid.

The Report on the Artificial Intelligence Task Force, Pg. 8

National Strategy for Artificial Intelligence: http://niti.gov.in/writereaddata/files/document_publication/NationalStrategy-for-AI-Discussion-Paper.pdf

Meaningful information and the right to explanation,Andrew D Selbst Julia Powles, International Data Privacy Law, Volume 7, Issue 4, 1 November 2017, Pages 233–242

The Principle of Purpose Limitation and Big Data, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319467399_The_Principle_of_Purpose_Limitation_and_Big_Data

M-Turk https://www.mturk.com/

For example a lesser threshold of minimum wages, no job secuirity etc, https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guilty-planet/httpblogsscientificamericancomguilty-planet20110707the-pros-cons-of-amazon-mechanical-turk-for-scientific-surveys/

The Report on the Artificial Intelligence Task Force, Pg. 41

Report of Artificial Intelligence Task Force Pg, 46, 47

ibid.

The DARPAChallenge https://www.darpa.mil/program/darpa-robotics-challenge

Japan may set regulatory sandboxes to test drones and self driving vehicles http://techwireasia.com/2017/10/japan-may-set-regulatory-sandboxes-test-drones-self-driving-vehicles/

Mariana Mazzucato in her 2013 book The Entrepreneurial State, argued that it was the government that drives technological innovation. In her book she stated that high-risk discovery and development were made possible by government spending, which the private enterprises capitalised once the difficult work was done.

https://tech.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/technology/govt-of-karnataka-launches-centre-of-excellence-for-data-science-and-artificial-intelligence/61689977,https://analyticsindiamag.com/amaravati-world-centre-for-ai-data/

The Report on the Artificial Intelligence Task Force, Pg. 47

Report of Artificial Intelligence Task Force Pg. 49

The Report on the Artificial Intelligence Task Force, Pg. 47

The AI task force website has a provision for public comments although it is only for the vision and mission and the domains mentioned in the website.

National Strategy for Artificial Intelligence: http://niti.gov.in/writereaddata/files/document_publication/NationalStrategy-for-AI-Discussion-Paper.pdf

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-ai-task-force-report-the-first-steps-towards-indias-ai-framework

AI Task Force Report

Admin — 2018-06-27T14:22:11Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/ai-task-force-report.pdf

Data Privacy: Footprints on the Web

Admin — 2018-06-25T16:48:34Z

Technology has made data protection a hot button issue. Now, a group of eminent citizens, mostly lawyers, have formulated a draft privacy bill, a legal framework that protects the individual’s right to privacy, but it faces legal jurisdiction issues

The blog post by Sujit Bhar was published in IndiaLegal on June 21, 2018.

Lack of data privacy is a modern day peril. Quite like the individual’s right to privacy—one that has been raised to the level of a Fundamental Right by the Supreme Court—data privacy today is prime, because technology has made our lives fully dependant on associated data. Hence, by extension of the same logic and arguments that the top court used for personal privacy, data privacy should be protected.

The methodology to be adopted, though, is not as easy to determine given the lack of legislation in the field, the improbability of existing technology to ensure complete privacy and because of legal jurisdiction issues.

Also, to what extent data privacy can and should be allowed is a legal argument that needs to be supported by other fields of knowledge. The Supreme Court decision to award privacy as a Fundamental Right will act as a plinth in determining this.

To that end a group of eminent citizens, mostly lawyers, came together and formulated a draft privacy bill with the objective of slicing through banal arguments that would ensue if this was to wait for public re-reference/debate.

The proponents—Apar Gupta, Gautam Bhatia, Kritika Bhardwaj, Maansi Verma, Naman M Aggarwal, Praavita Kashyap, Prasanna S, Raman Jit Singh Chima, Ujwala Uppaluri and Vrinda Bhandari—have tried to develop their own privacy bill, based on the foundation of the Privacy (Protection) Bill, 2013, “which was drafted over a series of roundtables and inputs conducted by the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore”.

In doing so the group started from what it calls “seven privacy principles”, derived from various constitutional and expert texts.

Principle 1: Individual rights are at the centre of privacy and data protection.

This says that “the individual and her rights are primary. The law on privacy must empower you by advancing your right to privacy…”including “your right to autonomy and dignity.

Principle 2: A data protection law must be based on privacy principles.

Here reference is made to the report of the Justice AP Shah Committee of Experts. It’s a method that has been left flexible, to accommodate fast developing technology. There is a reference to Moore’s Law in this. Moore’s Law has remained one of the most overwhelmingly true laws of the IT industry. Originating in 1970, it says that processor speeds, or overall processing power for computers “will double every two years”. While that has remained true till now, with the development of multiple core processors, this law too has seemingly run its course. With the world changing at such a fast pace, if the data privacy bill/law does not remain flexible, it would also be quickly consigned to a museum of laws. Hence this flexible approach will be crucial.

Principle 3: A strong privacy commission must be created to enforce the privacy principles.

This is the part of establishing an oversight authority, “a strong body to ensure that the data protection rights are put into practice and enforced”. This structure has been treated for something “that works in principle and in practice.”

There is one part that says that this proposed “Privacy Commission”, has been “provided wide powers of investigation, adjudication, rule-making and enforcement. The Commission should adopt an approach that builds accountability for the rights of users by having powers to impose penalties that are proportionate to the harm and build deterrence.” This, obviously, means that it will be stepping onto the toes of other laws and that would be a rough road to navigate. However, as the group’s own philosophy says that the problem with technology oriented legislation is that it takes catching up with the progress of technology. To overcome this, the group wants to “make sure that the Privacy Code is not outdated” and hence wants to make sure that the “Privacy Commission can exercise rule making powers to give effect to the data protection principles under the regulation”.

The other part of the philosophy is of acknowledging and addressing public complaints. Hence the legal rigidity of regular acts would be dismissed. How this can work with enforcement agencies, though, will remain a matter of debate. The draft bill says that the “Privacy Commission must serve as the forum for the redressal of the general public’s grievances”, and that “Privacy Commissions should have the ability to investigate (independently through the office of a Director General), hold hearings and pass orders with directions and fines”.

That could be legal nightmare, because unlike a simple code, the bill has to pass through parliament to become an act, and legislators are the ones who have final say in remodelling an existing law. How much power they would agree to delegate is anybody’s guess.

Of course, the draft also calls for the courts to welcome public opinion. There seems to be a slight hitch in the wording, which says that “…while the Privacy Commission serves as the forum for redressal, the public should retain the remedies of approaching the civil courts (even in instances where harm is suffered by a group of people) and of filing police complaints directly”. That questions even the oversight authority of the commission. There is another objective—a hope, one would say—that the Privacy Commission must have jurisdiction over the government, as it does over the private sector. The Privacy Commission should have overriding power and superintendence over all legal entities in matter of data protection and privacy”. While this sounds good on paper, the issue of national security can override all. At this point, according to a cyber security expert, there is talk within the Indian government on how to deal with the social media messaging app WhatsApp. Technically, as the company points out, messaging through an app is encrypted (military grade encryption, it is said) end-to-end. Hence terrorist groups have zeroed in on this as a common idea exchange platform. There could possibly be restrictive legislation on this. That could strike at the heart of data privacy.

The government’s reaction, though, could become counter-productive. This could be visible in what the Justice Srikrishna-led Committee of Experts possibly could recommend.

Principle 4: The government should respect user privacy. Technically, if this bill, in its current form, has to go through parliament, members of both houses should be willing to accept that it will have no snooping powers, ever. The way the government fought tooth and nail against personal privacy in court—and the Aadhaar verdict is still awaited—this proposal seems unlikely to have an easy passage. The draft says: “It is imperative that the government, its arms, bodies and programmes be compliant with the privacy protection principles through a data protection law.”

There is a caveat within this, saying: “We support the use of digital technologies for public benefit. However, they should not be privileged over fundamental rights.” The proposal also says: “The government is responsible for the delivery of many essential services to the public of India. These services must not be withheld from an individual, due to such individual not sharing data with the government. Withholding services on the pretext of requirement of collection of data effectively amounts to extortion of consent. Individuals cannot be forced to trade away their data and citizenship at the altar of being permitted to use government services and access legal entitlements on welfare.” This will have to wait its validation or dismissal through the Aadhaar verdict.

Principle 5: A complete privacy code comes with surveillance reform

This is another tricky issue for any government. It talks about how the Snowden revelations “brought to public knowledge that our personal data is collected in an indiscriminate manner by governments”. The draft calls this collection procedure “dragnet surveillance”, because it “contravenes the principles of necessity, proportionality and purpose limitation”. Necessity and proportionality have been argued in detail during the Aadhaar debate in court and till that verdict is out, it would, possibly, not be right to delve into this, though a recommendation for procedural safeguards might run into the same wall as in the case of encrypted software in social media apps. The draft accepts the possibility of “individual interception and surveillance”, but says “this should be severely limited in substance and practice through procedural safeguards”.

Principle 6: The right to information needs to be strengthened and protected

This basically refers to the Right to Information Act and seems completely justified, with Information Commissioners being “exempted from interference or control by the Privacy Commissioner”.

Principle 7: International protections and harmonisation to protect the open internet must be incorporated

Another contentious issue, being fuelled by the loss of face by Facebook in its effort to introduce graded access (with paywalls).

The group widens its scope in stating that “we need to be guided by the Supreme Court’s Right to Privacy decision and make reference to the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation”. More interestingly, the group admits that every law will have certain exceptions. It says: “…but without clear wording sometimes exceptions swallow up the rule. We adopted a three part test in our drafting process in which any exceptions to these privacy principles should be: (a) worded clearly; (b) limited in purpose, necessary and proportionate to the aim; and (c) accompanied by sufficient procedural safeguards”.

On the face of it, the overall draft represents a novel and upright way of thinking, and if some of this is accepted while the government mulls the Justice Srikrishna Committee’s recommendations (expected late this month), it would be a good beginning.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/india-legal-live-june-21-2018-data-privacy

Comments on the Telecom Commercial Communications Customer Preference Regulations

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

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

Preliminary

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

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

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

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

General Comments

Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our recommendations are three-fold in this regard:

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

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

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

Broadening the scope of the Regulations to non-commercial communication

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

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

Technical challenges in combating Robocalls

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

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

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

Registration of content-template

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

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

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

‘Safe and Secure Manner’

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

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

Bulk Registration

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

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

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

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

Specific Comments

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

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

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

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

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional Suggestions

Consumer and subscriber

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

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

Drafting misnumbering

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

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

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

Ambiguous terms

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

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

NITI Aayog Discussion Paper: An aspirational step towards India’s AI policy

2018-06-13T13:08:47Z

The National Strategy for Artificial Intelligence — a discussion paper on India’s path forward in AI, is a welcome step towards a comprehensive document that reflects the government's AI ambitions. The 115-page discussion paper attempts to be an all encompassing document looking at a host of AI related issues including privacy, security, ethics, fairness, transparency and accountability.

Download the Report

The 115-page discussion paper attempts to be an all encompassing document looking at a host of AI related issues including privacy, security, ethics, fairness, transparency and accountability. The paper identifies five focus areas where AI could have a positive impact in India. It also focuses on reskilling as a response to the potential problem of job loss due the future large-scale adoption of AI in the job market. This blog is a follow up to the comments made by CIS on Twitter on the paper and seeks to reflect on the National Strategy as a well researched AI roadmap for India. In doing so, it identifies areas that can be strengthened and built upon.

Identified Focus Areas for AI Intervention

The paper identifies five focus areas—Healthcare, Agriculture, Education, Smart Cities and Infrastructure, Smart Mobility and Transportation, which Niti Aayog believes will benefit most from the use of AI in bringing about social welfare for the people of India. Although these sectors are essential in the development of a nation, the failure to include manufacturing and services sectors is an oversight. Focussing on manufacturing is fundamental not only in terms of economic development and user base, but also regarding questions of safety and the impact of AI on jobs and economic security. The same holds true for the service sector particularly since AI products are being made for the use of consumers, not just businesses. Use of AI in the services sector also raises critical questions about user privacy and ethics. Another sector the paper fails to include is defense, this is worrying since India is chairing the Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (LAWS) in 2018. Across sectors, the report fails to look at how AI could be utilised to ensure accessibility and inclusion for the disabled. This is surprising, as aid for the differently abled and accessibility technology was one of the 10 domains identified in the Task Force Report on AI published earlier this year. This should have been a focus point in the paper as it aims to identify applications with maximum social impact and inclusion.

In its vision for the use of AI in smart cities, the paper suggests the adoption of a sophisticated surveillance system as well as the use of social media intelligence platforms to check and monitor people’s movement both online and offline to maintain public safety. This is at variance with constitutional standards of due process and criminal law principles of reasonable ground and reasonable suspicion. Further, use of such methods will pose issues of judicial inscrutability. From a rights perspective, state surveillance can directly interfere with fundamental rights including privacy, freedom of expression, and freedom of assembly. Privacy organizations around the world have raised concerns regarding the increased public surveillance through the use of AI. Though the paper recognized the impact on privacy that such uses would have, it failed to set a strong and forward looking position on the issue - such as advocating that such surveillance must be lawful and inline with international human rights norms.

Harnessing the Power of AI and Accelerating Research

One of the ways suggested for the proliferation of AI in India was to increase research, both core and applied, to bring about innovation that can be commercialised. In order to attain this goal the paper proposes a two-tier integrated approach: the establishment of COREs (Centres of Research Excellence in Artificial Intelligence) and ICTAI (International Centre for Transformational Artificial Intelligence). However the roadmap to increase research in AI fails to acknowledge the principles of public funded research such as free and open source software (FOSS), open standards and open data. The report also blames the current Indian Intellectual Property regime for being “unattractive” and averse to incentivising research and adoption of AI. Section 3(k) of Patents Act exempts algorithms from being patented, and the Computer Related Inventions (CRI) Guidelines have faced much controversy over the patentability of mere software without a novel hardware component. The paper provides no concrete answers to the question of whether it should be permissible to patent algorithms, and if yes, to to what extent. Furthermore, there needs to be a standard either in the CRI Guidelines or the Patent Act, that distinguishes between AI algorithms and non-AI algorithms. Additionally, given that there is no historical precedence on the requirement of patent rights to incentivise creation of AI, innovative investment protection mechanisms that have lesser negative externalities, such as compensatory liability regimes would be more desirable. The report further failed to look at the issue holistically and recognize that facilitating rampant patenting can form a barrier to smaller companies from using or developing AI. This is important to be cognizant of given the central role of startups to the AI ecosystem in India and because it can work against the larger goal of inclusion articulated by the report.

Ethics, Privacy, Security and Safety

In a positive step forward, the paper addresses a broader range of ethical issues concerning AI including transparency, fairness, privacy and security and safety in more detail when compared to the earlier report of the Task Force. Yet despite a dedicated section covering these issues, a number of concerns still remain unanswered.

Transparency

The section on transparency and opening the Black Box has several lacunae. First, AI that is used by the government, to an acceptable extent, must be available in the public domain for audit, if not under Free and Open Source Software (FOSS). This should hold true in particular for uses that impinge on fundamental rights. Second, if the AI is utilised in the private sector, there currently exists a right to reverse engineer within the Indian Copyright Act, which is not accounted for in the paper. Furthermore, if the AI was involved both in the commission of a crime or the violation of human rights, or in the investigations of such transgressions, questions with regard to judicial scrutability of the AI remain. In addition to explainability, the source code must be made circumstantially available, since explainable AI alone cannot solve all the problems of transparency. In addition to availability of source code and explainability, a greater discussion is needed about the tradeoff between a complex and potentially more accurate AI system (with more layers and nodes) vs. an AI system which is potentially not as accurate but is able to provide a human readable explanation. It is interesting to note that transparency within human-AI interaction is absent in the paper. Key questions on transparency, such as whether an AI should disclose its identity to a human have not been answered.

Fairness

With regards to fairness, the paper mentions how AI can amplify bias in data and create unfair outcomes. However, the paper neither suggests detailed or satisfactory solutions nor does it deal with biased historical data in an Indian context. More specifically, there seems to be no mention of regulatory tools to tackle the problem of fairness, such as:

Self-certification
Certification by a self-regulatory body
Discrimination impact assessments
Investigations by the privacy regulator

Such tools will proactively need to ensure inclusion, diversity, and equity in composition and decisions.

Additionally, with reference to correcting bias in AI, it should be noted that the technocratic view that as an AI solution continues to be trained on larger amounts of data , systems will self correct, does not fully recognize the importance of data quality and data curation, and is inconsistent with fundamental rights. Policy objectives of AI innovation must be technologically nuanced and cannot be at the cost of intermediary denial of rights and services.

Further, the paper does not deal with issues of multiple definitions and principles of fairness, and that building definitions into AI systems may often involve choosing one definition over the other. For instance, it can be argued that the set of AI ethical principles articulated by Google are more consequentialist in nature involving a a cost-benefit analysis, whereas a human rights approach may be more deontological in nature. In this regard, there is a need for interdisciplinary research involving computer scientists, statisticians, ethicists and lawyers.

Privacy

Though the paper underscores the importance of privacy and the need for a privacy legislation in India - the paper limits the potential privacy concerns arising from AI to collection, inappropriate use of data, personal discrimination, unfair gain from insights derived from consumer data (the solution being to explain to consumers about the value they as consumers gain from this), and unfair competitive advantage by collecting mass amounts of data (which is not directly related to privacy). In this way the paper fails to discuss the full implications on privacy that AI might have and fails to address the data rights necessary to enable the right to privacy in a society where AI is pervasive. The paper fails to engage with emerging principles from data protection such as right to explanation and right to opt-out of automated processing, which directly relate to AI. Further, there is no discussion on the issues such as data minimisation and purpose limitation which some big data and AI proponents argue against. To that extent, there is a lack of appreciation of the difficult policy questions concerning privacy and AI. The paper is also completely silent on redress and remedy. Further the paper endorses the seven data protection principles postulated by the Justice Srikrishna Committee. However CIS has pointed out that these principles are generic and not specific to data protection. Moreover, the law chapter of IEEE’s ‘Global Initiative on Ethics of Autonomous and Intelligent Systems’ has been ignored in favor of the chapter on ‘Personal Data and Individual Access Control in Ethically Aligned Design’ as the recommended international standard. Ideally, both chapters should be recommended for a holistic approach to the issue of ethics and privacy with respect to AI.

AI Regulation and Sectoral Standards

The discussion paper’s approach towards sectoral regulation advocates collaboration with industry to formulate regulatory frameworks for each sector. However, the paper is silent on the possibility of reviewing existing sectoral regulation to understand if they require amending. We believe that this is an important solution to consider since amending existing regulation and standards often takes less time than formulating and implementing new regulatory frameworks. Furthermore, although the emphasis on awareness in the paper is welcome, it must complement regulation and be driven by all stakeholders, especially given India’s limited regulatory budget. The over reliance on industry self-regulation, by itself, is not advisable, as there is an absence of robust industry governance bodies in India and self-regulation raises questions about the strength and enforceability of such practices. The privacy debate in India has recognized this and reports, like the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy, recommend a co-regulatory framework with industry developing binding standards that are inline with the national privacy law and that are approved and enforced by the Privacy Commissioner. That said, the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and its “protect, respect, and remedy” framework should guide any self regulatory action.

Security and Safety of AI Systems

In terms of security and safety of AI systems the paper seeks to shift the discussion of accountability being primarily about liability, to that of one about the explainability of AI. Furthermore, there is no recommendation of immunities or incentives for whistleblowers or researchers to report on privacy breaches and vulnerabilities. The report also does not recognize certain uses of AI as being more critical than others because of their potential harm to the human. This would include uses in healthcare and autonomous transportation. A key component of accountability in these sectors will be the evolution of appropriate testing and quality assurance standards. Only then, should safe harbours be discussed as an extension of the negligence test for damages caused by AI software. Additionally, the paper fails to recommend kill switches, which should be mandatory for all kinetic AI systems. Finally, there is no mention of mandatory human-in-the-loop in all systems where there are significant risks to safety and human rights. Autonomous AI is only viewed as an economic boost, but its potential risks have not been explored sufficiently. A welcome recommendation would be for all autonomous AI to go through human rights impact assessments.

Research and Education

Being a government think-tank, the NITI Aayog could have dealt in detail with the AI policies of the government and looked at how different arms of the government are aiming to leverage AI and tackle the problems arising out of the use of AI. Instead of tabulating the government’s role in each area and especially research, the report could have also listed out the various areas where each department could play a role in the AI ecosystem through regulation, education, funding research etc. In terms of the recommendations for introducing AI curriculums in schools, and colleges, the government could also ensure that ethics and rights are part of the curriculum - especially in technical institutions. A possible course of action could include corporations paying for a pan-Indian AI education campaign.This would also require the government to formulate the required academic curriculum that is updated to include rights and ethics.

Data Standards and Data Sharing

Based on the amount of data the Government of India collects through its numerous schemes, it has the potential to be the largest aggregator of data specific to India. However the paper does not consider the use of this data with enough gravity. For example, the paper recommends Corporate Data Sharing for “social good” and making government datasets from the social sector available publicly. Yet this section does not mention privacy enhancing technologies/standards such as pseudonymization, anonymization standards, differential privacy etc. Additionally there should be provisions that allow the government to prevent the formation of monopolies by regulating companies from hoarding user data. The open data standards could also be applicable to the private companies, so that they can also share their data in compliance with the privacy enhancing technologies mentioned above. The paper also acknowledges that AI Marketplaces require monitoring and maintenance of quality. It recognises the need for “continuous scrutiny of products, sellers and buyers”, and proposes that the government enable these regulations in a manner that private players could set up the marketplace. This is a welcome suggestion, but the legal and ethical framework of the AI Marketplace requires further discussion and clarification.

An AI Garage for Emerging Economies

The discussion paper also qualifies India as an “ideal test-bed” for trying out AI related solutions. This is problematic since questions of regulation in India with respect to AI have yet to be legally clarified and defined and India does not have a comprehensive privacy law. Without a strong ethical and regulatory framework, the use of new and possibly untested technologies in India could lead to unintended and possibly harmful outcomes.The government's ambition to position India as a leader amongst developing countries on AI related issues should not be achieved by using Indians as test subjects for technologies whose effects are unknown.

Conclusion

In conclusion, NITI Aayog’s discussion paper represents a welcome step towards a comprehensive AI strategy for India. However, the trend of inconspicuously releasing reports (this and the AI Task Force) as well as the lack of a call for public comments, seems to be the wrong way to foster discussion on emerging technologies that will be as pervasive as AI.

The blanket recommendations were provided without looking at its viability in each sector. Furthermore, the discussion paper does not sufficiently explore or, at times, completely omits key areas. It barely touched upon societal, cultural and sectoral challenges to the adoption of AI — research that CIS is currently in the process of undertaking.Future reports on Indian AI strategy should pay more attention to the country’s unique legal context and to possible defense applications and take the opportunity to establish a forward looking, human rights respecting, and holistic position in global discourse and developments. Reports should also consider infrastructure investment as an important prerequisite for AI development and deployment. Digitised data and connectivity as well as more basic infrastructure, such as rural electricity and well-maintained roads, require more funding to more successfully leverage AI for inclusive economic growth. Although there are important concerns, the discussion paper is an aspirational step toward India’s AI strategy.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/niti-aayog-discussion-paper-an-aspirational-step-towards-india2019s-ai-policy

Why NPCI and Facebook need urgent regulatory attention

sunil — 2018-06-12T02:07:42Z

The world’s oldest networked infrastructure, money, is increasingly dematerialising and fusing with the world’s latest networked infrastructure, the Internet.

The article was published in the Economic Times on June 10, 2018.

As the network effects compound, disruptive acceleration hurtle us towards financial utopia, or dystopia. Our fate depends on what we get right and what we get wrong with the law, code and architecture, and the market.

The Internet, unfortunately, has completely transformed from how it was first architected. From a federated, generative network based on free software and open standards, into a centralised, environment with an increasing dependency on proprietary technologies.

In countries like Myanmar, some citizens misconstrue a single social media website, Facebook, for the internet, according to LirneAsia research. India is another market where Facebook could still get its brand mistaken for access itself by some users coming online. This is Facebook put so many resources into the battle over Basics, in the run-up to India’s network neutrality regulation. an odd corporation.

On hand, its business model is what some term surveillance capitalism. On the other hand, by acquiring WhatsApp and by keeping end-toend (E2E) encryption “on”, it has ensured that one and a half billion users can concretely exercise their right to privacy. At the time of the acquisition, WhatsApp founders believed Facebook’s promise that it would never compromise on their high standards of privacy and security. But 18 months later, Facebook started harvesting data and diluting E2E.

In April this year, my colleague Ayush Rathi and I wrote in Asia Times that WhatsApp no longer deletes multimedia on download but continues to store it on its servers. Theoretically, using the very same mechanism, Facebook could also be retaining encrypted text messages and comprehensive metadata from WhatsApp users indefinitely without making this obvious.

My friend, Srikanth Lakshmanan, founder of the CashlessConsumer collective, is a keen observer of this space. He says in India, “we are seeing an increasing push towards a bank-led model, thanks to National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI) and its control over Unified Payments Interface (UPI), which is also known as the cashless layer of the India Stack.”

NPCI is best understood as a shape shifter. Arundhati Ramanathan puts it best when she says “depending on the time and context, NPCI is a competitor. It is a platform. It is a regulator. It is an industry association. It is a profitable non-profit. It is a rule maker. It is a judge. It is a bystander.”

This results in UPI becoming, what Lakshmanan calls, a NPCI-club-good rather than a new generation digital public good. He also points out that NPCI has an additional challenge of opacity — “it doesn’t provide any metrics on transaction failures, and being a private body, is not subject to proactive or reactive disclosure requirements under the RTI.”

Technically, he says, UPI increases fragility in our financial ecosystem since it “is a centralised data maximisation network where NPCI will always have the superset of data.” Given that NPCI has opted for a bank-led model in India, it is very unlikely that Facebook able to leverage its monopoly the social media market duopoly it shares with in the digital advertising market to become a digital payments monopoly.

However, NCPI and Facebook both share the following traits — one, an insatiable appetite for personal information; two, a fetish for hypercentralisation; three, a marginal commitment to transparency, and four, poor track record as a custodian of consumer trust. The marriage between these like-minded entities has already had a dubious beginning.

Previously, every financial technology wanting direct access to the NPCI infrastructure had to have a tie-up with a bank. But for Facebook and Google, as they are large players, it was decided to introduce a multi-bank model. This was definitely the right thing to do from a competition perspective. But, unfortunately, the marriage between the banks and the internet giant was arranged by NPCI in an opaque process and WhatsApp was exempted from the full NPCI certification process for its beta launch.

Both NPCI and Facebook need urgent regulatory attention. A modern data protection law and a more proactive competition regulator is required for Facebook. The NPCI will hopefully also be subjected to the upcoming data protection law. But it also requires a range of design, policy and governance fixes to ensure greater privacy and security via data minimisation and decentralisation; greater accountability and transparency to the public; separation of powers for better governance and open access policies to prevent anti-competitive behaviour.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/economic-times-june-10-2018-sunil-abraham-why-npci-and-facebook-need-urgent-regulatory-attention

NITI Aayog Discussion Paper

Admin — 2018-06-12T01:52:04Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/niti-aayog-discussion-paper

Disconnected Network Disruptions

Admin — 2018-06-12T01:23:02Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/disconnected-network-disruptions

Comments on the Draft National Policy on Official Statistics

Gurshabad Grover and Sandeep Kumar — 2018-06-07T02:54:18Z

This submission presents comments by the Centre for Internet & Society, India (“CIS”) on the Draft National Policy on Official Statistics which was released to the public by the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation on 17th May 2018 for comments and views.

Edited by Swaraj Barooah. Download a PDF of the submission here

Preliminary

CIS appreciates the Government’s efforts in realising the importance of the need for high quality statistical information enshrined in the Fundamental Principles of Official Statistics as adopted by the UN General Assembly in January 2014. CIS is grateful for the opportunity to put forth its views on the draft policy. This submission was made on 31st May, 2018.

First, this submission highlights some general defects in the draft policy: there is lack of principles guiding data dissemination policies; there are virtually no positive mandates set for Government bodies for secure storage and transmission of data; and while privacy is mentioned as a concern, it has been overlooked in designing the principles of the implementation of surveys. Then, this submission puts forward specific comments suggesting improvements to various sections in the draft policy.

CIS would also like to point out the short timeline between the publication of the draft policy (18th May, 2018), and the deadline set for the stakeholders to submit their comments (31st May, 2018). Considering that the policy has widespread implications for all Ministries, citizens, and State legislation rights (proposed changes include a Constitutional Amendment), it is necessary that such call-for-comments are publicised widely, and enough time is given to the public so that the Government can receive well-researched comments.

General Comments

Data dissemination

For data dissemination, the draft policy does not stress upon a general principle or set of principles, and often disregards principles specified in the Fundamental Principles of Official Statistics, which are the very principles the Government intends to draw its policies on official statistics from. Rather it relies on context-specific provisions that fail to summarise and articulate a general philosophy for the dissemination of official statistics, and fails to practically embody some stated goals. The first principle on Official Statistics, as realised by the United Nations General Assembly, clearly states that: “[...] official statistics that meet the test of practical utility are to be compiled and made available on an impartial basis by official statistical agencies to honour citizens’ entitlement to public information.”

Let us compare this with Section 5.1.7 (9) of the draft policy, which refers to policies regarding core statistics: it mentions a data “warehouse” to be maintained by the NSO which should be accessible to private and public bodies. While this does point towards an open data policy, such a vision has not been articulated in any part thereof.

The draft policy, at the outset, should have general guiding principles of publishing data openly and freely (once it meets the utility test, and it has been ensured that individual privacy will not be violated by the publishing of such statistics). This should serve well to inform further regulations and related policies governing the use and publishing of statistics, like the Statistical Disclosure Control Report.

A general commitment to a well-articulated policy on data dissemination will ensure easy-to-follow principles for the various Ministries that will refer to the document. The additional principles that come with open data principles should also be described by the policy document: a commitment to publishing data in a machine-readable format, making it available in multiple data formats (.txt, .csv, etc.), and including its metadata.

Data storage and usage

In the absence of a regime for data protection, it is absolutely necessary that a national policy on statistics provide positive mandates for the encryption of all digitally-stored personal and sensitive information collected through surveys. Even though the current draft of the policy mentions the need to protect confidential information, it sets no mandatory requirements on the Government to ensure the security of such information, especially on digital platforms.

Additionally, all transmission of potentially sensitive information should be done with the digital signatures of the employee/Department/Ministry authorising said transmission. This will ensure the integrity and authenticity of the information, and provide with an auditable trail of the information flowing between entities in the various bodies.

Data privacy

It is appreciable that Section 5.7.9 of the draft policy notes, “[a]ll statistical surveys represent a degree of privacy invasion, which is justified by the need for an alternative public good, namely information.” However, all statistical surveys may not be proportionate in their invasiveness, even if they might serve a legitimate public goal in the future.

The draft policy does not address how privacy concerns can be taken into account while designing the survey itself. A necessary outcome of the realisation of the possible privacy violations that may arise due to surveys is that all data collection be “minimally intrusive”, the data be securely stored (see previous comment section, ‘Data storage and usage’), and the surveyed users have control over the data even after they have parted with their information.

Since the policy deals extensively with the implementation of surveys, the following should details should be clearly laid out in the policy:

The extent to which an individual has control over the data they have provided to the surveying agency.
The means of redressal available to an individual who feels that his/her privacy has been violated through the publication of certain statistical information

Specific Comments

Section 5.1: Dichotomising official statistics as core statistics and other official statistics

Comments

The reasons for dichotomising official statistics has not been appropriately substantiated with evidence, considering the wide implications of policy proposals that arise from the definition of “core statistics.”

Firstly, the descriptions of what constitutes “core statistics” casts too wide a net by only having a single vague qualitative criterion, i.e. “national importance.” All the other characteristics of the “core statistics” are either recommendations or requirements as to how the data will be handled and thus, pose no filter to what can constitute “core statistics.” The wide net is apparent in the fact that even the initially-proposed list of “core statistics”, given in Annex-II of the policy, has 120 categories of statistics.

Secondly, the policy does not provide reasons for why the characteristics of “core statistics”, highlighted in Section 5.1.5, should not apply to all official statistics at the various levels of Government. Therefore, the utility of the proposed dichotomy has also not been appropriately substantiated with illustrative examples of how “core statistics” should be considered qualitatively different from all official statistics.

This definition may lead to widespread disagreement between the States and the Centre, because Section 5.2 proposes that “core statistics” be added to the Union List of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. How the proposal may affect Centre-State responsibilities and relations pertaining to the collection and dissemination of statistics is elaborated in the next section.

Recommendations

The policy should not make a forced dichotomy between “core” and (ipso facto) non-core statistics. If a distinction is to be made for any reason(s) (such as for the purposes of delineating administrative roles) then such reason must be clearly defined, along with a clear explanation for why such a dichotomy would alleviate the described problem. The definitions should have tangible and unambiguous qualitative criteria.

Section 5.2: Constitutional amendment in respect of core statistics

Comments

The main proposal in the section is that the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution be amended to include “core statistics” in the Union List. This would give the Parliament the legislative competence to regulate the collection, storage, publication and sharing of such statistics, and the Central Government the power to enforce such legislation. Annex-II provides a tentative list of what would constitute “core statistics”; as is apparent, this list is wide-ranging and consists over 120 items which span the gamut of administrative responsibilities.

The list includes items such as “Landholdings Number, area, tenancy, land utilisation [...]” (S. No. 21), and “Statistics on land records” (S. No. 111) while most responsibilities of land regulation currently lie with the States. Similarly, items in Annex-II venture into statistics related to petroleum, water, agriculture, electricity, and industry; some of which are in the Concurrent or State List.

Statistics are metadata. There is no reason for why the administration of a particular subject lie with the State, and the regulation of data about such subject should lie with solely with the Central Government. It is important to recognise that adding the vaguely defined “core statistics” to the Union List, while enabling the Central Government to execute and plan such statistical exercises, will also prevent the States from enacting any legislation that regulates the management of statistics regarding its own administrative responsibilities.

The regulation of State Government records in general has been a contentious issue, and its place in our federal structure has been debated several times in the Parliament: the enactment of Public Records Act, 1993; the Right to Information Act, 2005; and the Collection of Statistics Act, 2008 are predicated on an assumption of such competence lying with the Parliament. However, it is equally important to recognise the role States have played in advancing transparency of Government records. For example, State-level Acts analogous to the Right to Information Act existed in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka before the Central Government enactment.

Recommendations

We strongly recommend that “statistics” be included in the Concurrent List, so that States are free to enact progressive legislation which advances transparency and accountability, and is not in derogation of Parliamentary legislation.

The Ministry should view this statistical policy document as a venue to set the minimum standards for the collection, handling and publication of statistics regarding its various functions. If the item is added to the Concurrent List, the States, through local legislation, will only have the power to improve on the Central standards since in a case of conflict, State-levels laws will be superseded by Parliamentary ones.

Section 5.3: Mechanism for regulating core statistics including auditing

Comments

The draft policy in Section 5.3.2 says, “[...] The Committee will be assisted by a Search Committee headed by the Vice-Chairperson of the NITI Aayog, in which a few technical experts could be included as Members.” The non-commital nature of the word ‘could’ in this statement detracts from the importance of having technical experts on this committee, by making their inclusion optional. The policy also does not specify who has the power to include technical experts as Members in the Search Committee. The statement should include either a minimum number of a specific number or members, and not use the non-committal word “could”

The National Statistical Development Council, as mentioned in 5.3.9, is supposed to “handle Centre-State relations in the areas of official statistics, the Council should be represented by Chief Ministers of six States to be nominated by the Centre” (Section 5.3.10). The draft does not elaborate on the rationale behind including just six states in the Council. It does not recommend any mechanism on the basis of which Centre will nominate states in the council.

Recommendations

The policy should recommend a minimum number of technical experts who must be included in the search committee, along with a clear process for how such members are to be appointed.

Additionally, the policy appropriately recognises the great diversity in India and the unique challenges faced by each State. Thus, each State has its unique requirements. Since in Section 5.3.11, the policy recommends that council meet at a low frequency of at least once in a year, all States should be represented in the Council.

Section 5.4: Official Machinery to implement directions on core statistics

Comments

The functions of Statistics Wing in the MOSPI, laid out in Section 5.4.7, include advisory functions which overlap with functions of National Statistical Commission (NSC) mentioned in Section 5.3.5. Some regulatory functions of Statistics Wing, like “conducting quality checks and auditing of statistical surveys/data sets”, overlap with the regulatory functions of NSC mentioned in Section 5.3.7.

In section 5.3.1, the draft policy explicitly mentions that “what is feasible and desirable is that production of official statistics should continue with the Government, whereas the related regulatory and advisory functions could be kept outside the Government”. But Statistics Wing is a part of the government and it also has regulatory and advisory functions. It will adversely affect the power of NSC as an autonomous body.

There are inconsistencies in the draft-policy regarding the importance and need of a decentralized statistical system. In section 3 [Objectives], it has been emphasized that the Indian Statistical System shall function within decentralized structure of the system. But, in section 5.4.15, the draft says that decentralized statistical system poses a variety of problems, and advocates for a unified statistical system. Again, in section 5.15, draft emphasizes the development of sub-national statistical systems. These views are inconsistent and create confusion regarding the nature of statistical system that policy wants to pursue.

Recommendations

The functions of the NSC should be kept in its exclusive domain. Any such overlapping functions should be allocated to one agency taking into consideration the Fundamental Principles on Official Statistics.

The inconsistencies regarding the decentralisation philosophy of the statistical system should be addressed.

Section 5.5: Identifying statistical products required through committees

Comments

While Section 5.5.2 recognises data confidentiality as a goal for statistical coordination, it does not take into account the violation of privacy that might occur due to the sharing of data. For example, a certain individual might agree to share personal information with a particular Ministry, but have apprehensions about it being shared with other Ministries or private parties.

Recommendations

We recommend that point 4 in Section 5.5.2 be read as, “enabling sharing of data without compromising the privacy of individuals and the confidentiality/security of data.”The value of of the individual privacy stems from both the recent Supreme Court judgment that affirmed privacy as a Fundamental Right, and also Principle 6 of the of the Fundamental Principles of Official Statistics. Realising privacy as a goal in this section will add a realm of individual control that is already articulated in Section 5.7.9.

Annex-VII: Guidelines on Outsourcing statistical activities

Comments

Section 6 defines “sensitive information” in an all-inclusive manner and does not leave space for further inclusion of any information that may be interpreted as sensitive. For example, biometric data has not been listed as “sensitive information”.

Section 9.1, draft says, “[t]he identity of the Government agency and the Contractor may be made available to informants at the time of collection of data”. It is imperative that informants have the right to verify the identity of the Government agency and the Contractor before parting with their personal information.

Recommendations

The definition of “sensitive information” should be broad-based with scope for further inclusion of any kind of data that may be deemed “sensitive.”

Section 9.1 must mandate that the identity of the Government agency and the Contractor be made available to informants at the time of collection of data.

Section 9.6 can be redrafted to state that each informant must be informed of the manner in which the informant could access the data collected from the informant in a statistical project, as also of the measures taken to deny access on that information to others, except in the cases specified by the policy.

Section 10.2 can be improved to state that if information exists in a physical form that makes the removal of the identity of informants impracticable (e.g. on paper), the information should be recorded in another medium and the original records must be destroyed.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/comments-on-the-draft-national-policy-on-official-statistics

Draft Digital Communications Policy

Gurshabad Grover — 2018-06-07T02:02:29Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/draft-digital-communications-policy

Comments on Draft National Policy on Official Statistics

Gurshabad Grover — 2018-06-07T01:58:22Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/comments-on-draft-national-policy-on-official-statistics

DP Compendium

Admin — 2018-05-31T16:00:24Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/dp-compendium

May 2018 Newsletter

praskrishna — 2018-06-12T14:03:24Z

CIS newsletter for the month of May 2018.

Dear readers,

Previous issues of the newsletters can be accessed here.

Highlights
The Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) has published a collection of stories of the impact of internet shutdowns on people's lives in the country. The stories were provided by 101 Reporters. The project was funded by Facebook and MacArthur Foundation. The report edited by Debasmita Haldar, Ambika Tandon and Swaraj Barooah can be accessed here. Anubha Sinha on behalf of CIS participated in the 36th Session of WIPO SCCR at Geneva from May 28 to June 1, 2018. CIS made statements on Draft Action Plan for Educational and Research Institutions and Persons with Other Disabilities, Draft Action Plan for Libraries, Archives and Museums, Limitations and Exceptions Agenda, and Proposed Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations. CIS was one among the 14 NGOs which circulated a letter that raised concerns about the draft Broadcasting Treaty. India's Department of Telecommunications released a draft new telecom policy, titled ‘Draft National Digital Communications Policy 2018’. Anubha Sinha wrote an analysis on this in the Wire on May 6, 2018. Singapore based Asian Business Law Institute published a compendium on “Regulation of cross-border transfer of personal data in Asia”. The compendium contains 14 detailed reports. The chapter titled Jurisdictional Report India was authored by Amber Sinha and Elonnai Hickok. The purpose of privacy notices and choice mechanisms is to notify users of the data practices of a system, so they can make informed privacy decisions, wrote Saumyaa Naidu in a blog post which was edited by Elonnai Hickok. Divij Joshi wrote a report that assesses the compliance of the Indian intermediary liability framework with the Manila Principles on Intermediary Liability, and recommends substantive legislative changes to bring the legal framework in line with the Manila Principles. The report was edited by Elonnai Hickok and Swaraj Barooah. Data is potentially a toxic asset, if it is not collected, processed, secured and shared in the appropriate way wrote Amber Sinha in an article published in the Economic & Political Weekly. Saman Goudarzi, Elonnai Hickok and Amber Sinha wrote a report titled AI in the Banking and Finance Industry in India which seeks to map the present state of use of AI in the banking and financial sector in India. The report was edited by Shyam Ponappa. Mapping was done by Shweta Mohandas. Pranav M Bidare, Sidharth Ray, and Aayush Rathi provided research assistance in preparing this report. The National Register of Citizens (NRC) exercise in Assam focuses on updating the list of Indian citizens in the state. Khetrimayum Monish Singh and Nazifa Ahmed wrote a research paper that has provided a discourse analysis of media content and user opinions on Facebook, and media responses on the NRC official website. All posts related to this study can be found here.

Highlights

The Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) has published a collection of stories of the impact of internet shutdowns on people's lives in the country. The stories were provided by 101 Reporters. The project was funded by Facebook and MacArthur Foundation. The report edited by Debasmita Haldar, Ambika Tandon and Swaraj Barooah can be accessed here.
Anubha Sinha on behalf of CIS participated in the 36th Session of WIPO SCCR at Geneva from May 28 to June 1, 2018. CIS made statements on Draft Action Plan for Educational and Research Institutions and Persons with Other Disabilities, Draft Action Plan for Libraries, Archives and Museums, Limitations and Exceptions Agenda, and Proposed Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations. CIS was one among the 14 NGOs which circulated a letter that raised concerns about the draft Broadcasting Treaty.
India's Department of Telecommunications released a draft new telecom policy, titled ‘Draft National Digital Communications Policy 2018’. Anubha Sinha wrote an analysis on this in the Wire on May 6, 2018.
Singapore based Asian Business Law Institute published a compendium on “Regulation of cross-border transfer of personal data in Asia”. The compendium contains 14 detailed reports. The chapter titled Jurisdictional Report India was authored by Amber Sinha and Elonnai Hickok.
The purpose of privacy notices and choice mechanisms is to notify users of the data practices of a system, so they can make informed privacy decisions, wrote Saumyaa Naidu in a blog post which was edited by Elonnai Hickok.
Divij Joshi wrote a report that assesses the compliance of the Indian intermediary liability framework with the Manila Principles on Intermediary Liability, and recommends substantive legislative changes to bring the legal framework in line with the Manila Principles. The report was edited by Elonnai Hickok and Swaraj Barooah.
Data is potentially a toxic asset, if it is not collected, processed, secured and shared in the appropriate way wrote Amber Sinha in an article published in the Economic & Political Weekly.
Saman Goudarzi, Elonnai Hickok and Amber Sinha wrote a report titled AI in the Banking and Finance Industry in India which seeks to map the present state of use of AI in the banking and financial sector in India. The report was edited by Shyam Ponappa. Mapping was done by Shweta Mohandas. Pranav M Bidare, Sidharth Ray, and Aayush Rathi provided research assistance in preparing this report.
The National Register of Citizens (NRC) exercise in Assam focuses on updating the list of Indian citizens in the state. Khetrimayum Monish Singh and Nazifa Ahmed wrote a research paper that has provided a discourse analysis of media content and user opinions on Facebook, and media responses on the NRC official website. All posts related to this study can be found here.

Articles:

The Huawei pointer (Shyam Ponappa; Business Standard and Organizing India Blogspot; May 3, 2018).

India's Draft Telecom Policy Needs to Bridge the Gap Between Intent and Execution (Anubha Sinha; Wire; May 6, 2018).
India's Data Protection Framework Will Need to Treat Privacy as a Social and Not Just an Individual Good (Amber Sinha; Economic & Political Weekly, Volume 53, Issue No. 18, 05 May, 2018).
Digital Native: Web of Wander (Nishant Shah; Indian Express; May 20, 2018).

CIS in the News:

India's National ID Project Brings Pain to Those it Aims to Help (Aayush Soni; Ozy.com; May 11, 2018).
Aadhaar Remains an Unending Security Nightmare for a Billion Indians (Karan Saini; Wire; May 11, 2018).
More errors in Aadhaar data in Andhra Pradesh than in voter database (U Sudhakar Reddy; Times of India; May 18, 2018).
Putting women human rights activists on the world map (Sarumathi K.; Hindu; May 19, 2018).
An open data ecosystem can boost India's GDP by $22 B and double farmer income (Sohini Mitter; Your Story; May 23, 2018).
Complying with Europe’s GDPR will be a “matter of survival” for Indian IT firms (Ananya Bhattacharya; Quartz India; May 24, 2018).
Don't blindly forward WhatsApp messages. You could be sued (Rajitha Menon and Surupasree Sarmmah; Deccan Herald; May 29, 2018).
Alexa’s recording leak in US ‘echoes’ privacy issues here (Mugdha Variyar; Economic Times; May 29, 2018).
Election Experiment Proves Facebook Just Doesn't Care About Fake News In India (Visvak; Huffington Post; May 30, 2018).
India Proposes Law to Give Indians Complete Control of their Digital Health Data (Madhur Singh; India Spend; May 31, 2018).
Patanjali's Kimbho swiftly retreats over security scare, ripped on Twitter (Alnoor Peermohamed and Manavi Kapur; Business Standard; May 31, 2018).

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

►Copyright and Patent

Blog Entries

CIS participated in the 36th SCCR held in Geneva from May 28 to June 1, 2018 and made the following statements:

Statement on the Proposed Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations (Anubha Sinha; May 28, 2018).
NGOs circulate letter at WIPO SCCR/36 raising serious concerns about draft Broadcasting Treaty (Anubha Sinha; May 29, 2018).
Draft Action Plan for Educational and Research Institutions and Persons with Other Disabilities (Anubha Sinha; May 31, 2018).
Statement on the Draft Action Plan for Libraries, Archives and Museums (Anubha Sinha; May 31, 2018).
Statement on Limitations and Exceptions Agenda (Anubha Sinha; May 31, 2018).

Participation in Event

RightsCon Toronto 2018 (Organized by RightsCon; Beanfield Centre at Exhibition Place, Toronto; May 17, 2018). Maggie Huang, Amba Kak, Rohini Lakshané, Vidushi Marda, Elonnai Hickok and Anubha Sinha were among the speakers at the event. Amber Sinha remotely participated in a private meeting on 'Strategizing Civil Society Roles in the Artificial Intelligence Debate'. Anubha Sinha, Maggie Huang, Rohini Lakshané and Vidushi Marda presented their findings from the Pervasive Technologies project in a panel titled "Cheap and Chipper: IP in India's Affordable Smartphones". Prof Michael Geist moderated the session. Anubha Sinha and Vidushi Marda participated remotely. Elonnai Hickok participated in these sessions: IDRC cyber policy meeting; GNI board meeting; GNI learning session on MLATs; FOC-AN meeting; GNI session on Intermediary Liability.

-----------------------------------

Internet Governance
-----------------------------------

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

►Privacy

Reports

Methods workshop on researching Future of Work in India (Natallia Khaniejo and Aayush Rathi; May 10, 2018).
AI in the Banking and Finance Industry in India (Saman Goudarzi, Elonnai Hickok and Amber Sinha; May 14, 2018)
Indian Intermediary Liability Regime: Compliance with the Manila Principles on Intermediary Liability (Divij Joshi; May 20, 2018). The report was edited by Elonnai Hickok and Swaraj Barooah.
Jurisdictional Report India (Compendium on Regulation of Cross-Border Transfers of Personal Data in Asia; Amber Sinha and Elonnai Hickok; May 31, 2018).

Blog Entry

Design Concerns in Creating Privacy Notices (Saumyaa Naidu; May 29, 2018). The blog post was edited by Elonnai Hickok.

Participation in Events

Meeting of Coalition for an Inclusive Approach on the Trafficking Bill (Organized by Alternative Law Forum; Bengaluru; May 3, 2018).
Fairness, Transparency and Accountable AI (Organized by DeepMind; London; May 10, 2018). Amber Sinha participated remotely in the inaugural meeting.
Rootconf 2018 (Organized by HasGeek; Bengaluru; May 11 - 12, 2018). Gurshabad Grover, Natallia Khaniejo and Aayush Rathi attended the event.
Inter Movements Open Forum: Trafficking Bill (Organized by Sangram, Naz Foundation, NNSW, Tarshi and VAMP; India International Centre, New Delhi; May 18, 2018).
IETF Indian Community Meetup: RFCs We Love (IoT edition) (Organized by Indian IETF Community; Zoomcar's office; Bengaluru; May 19, 2018). Gurshabad Grover and Sandeep Kumar attended 'RFCs We Love Meetup'.
Emerging Technologies: Issues & Way Forward (Organized by Technology Policy team at the National Institute of Public Finance and Policy; Bengaluru; May 23 - 24, 2018).
Privacy in the Digital Age: Addressing Common Challenges, Seizing Opportunities (Organized by DG Justice and Consumers and European Union; New Delhi; May 25, 2018).

►Free Speech and Expression

Report

Internet Shutdown Stories (Edited by Debasmita Haldar, Ambika Tandon and Swaraj Barooah; Foreword by Sunil Abraham; May 17, 2018). Case studies from the states of Jammu & Kashmir, Haryana, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Telangana, West Bengal, Tripura, Manipur, Nagaland, and Uttar Pradesh have been highlighted in this compilation.

Blog Entry

DIDP Request #30 - Enquiry about the employee pay structure at ICANN (Paul Kurian and Akriti Bopanna; May 26, 2018).

-----------------------------------
Telecom
-----------------------------------

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

Articles

The Huawei pointer (Shyam Ponappa; Business Standard and Organizing India Blogspot; May 3, 2018).
India's Draft Telecom Policy Needs to Bridge the Gap Between Intent and Execution (Anubha Sinha; Wire; May 6, 2018).

-----------------------------------
Researchers at Work
-----------------------------------

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

Draft Research Paper

Infrastructure as Digital Politics: Media Practices and the Assam NRC Citizen Identification Project (Khetrimayum Monish Singh and Nafiza Ahmed; May 15, 2018).

-----------------------------------

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

► Follow us elsewhere

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

► Support Us

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

► Request for Collaboration

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

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

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/about/newsletters/may-2018-newsletter-1

36th SCCR: CIS Statement on Draft Action Plan for Educational and Research Institutions and Persons with Other Disabilities

sinha — 2018-05-31T09:46:45Z

Anubha Sinha, attending the 36th Session of the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (“SCCR”) at Geneva from May 28, 2018 to June 1, 2018, made this statement on the Proposed Treaty for the Protection of Broadcasting Organizations on behalf of CIS on Day 4, May 31.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I’m speaking on behalf of the Centre for Internet and Society, India.

We have concerns about the plan’s focus on MOOCs and distance learning initiatives. Although they are related to increasing access to education, these initiatives are hardly a substitute for classroom learning – and the primary objective of the treaty should be to improve such classroom teaching, especially for developing countries where ICT penetration remains quite low. Unless the plan also chooses to develop Open Educational Resources as a priority in connection with MOOCs and distance learning initiatives, we suggest that this item in the plan be re-examined in light of other more beneficial action items.

Thank you.

Note: Please find the Draft Action Plan here (SCCR/36/3).

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/36th-sccr-cis-statement-on-draft-action-plan-for-educational-and-research-institutions-and-persons-with-other-disabilities

36th SCCR: CIS Statement on Limitations and Exceptions Agenda

sinha — 2018-05-31T09:43:08Z

Anubha Sinha, attending the 36th Session of the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (“SCCR”) at Geneva from May 28, 2018 to June 1, 2018, made this statement on the Limitations and Exceptions agenda on behalf of CIS on Day 3, May 30.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I’m speaking on behalf of the Centre for Internet and Society, India.

As we move forward on this agenda, we believe that for a true balance to be realised, the rights of all users of copyrighted works will have to be treated on par with those of the rightholders for purposes of access to knowledge. We are disappointed with the state of the limitations and exceptions in the broadcast treaty, that made some progress yesterday (in terms of increasing rights).

Further, as we have submitted earlier, it is our belief that the present international legal framework does not sufficiently address the opportunities presented by new information and communication technologies. We reiterate the need for open ended exceptions and limitations in this area - which should also facilitate smooth cross border exchange of knowledge.

Thank you.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/36th-sccr-cis-statement-on-limitations-and-exceptions-agenda