Centre for Internet and Society

Big Brother is here: Amid snooping row, govt report says monitoring system 'practically complete'

Admin — 2018-12-26T15:22:27Z

The recently released 2017-18 annual report of the Centre for Development of Telematics (C-DOT) says that surveillance equipment is being rolled out in 21 service areas across the country.

The article by Keerthana Sankaran was published in New Indian Express on December 26, 2018.

While last week's government order on snooping caused an uproar, the Centre's plans for a far-reaching monitoring system have been in the making for almost a decade -- with the groundwork being done by the previous UPA regime. The recently released 2017-18 annual report of the Centre for Development of Telematics (C-DOT) says that India’s ‘Central Monitoring System’ (CMS) is “practically complete”, confirming that the Orwellian ‘Big Brother’ is here.

The report says that surveillance equipment is being rolled out in 21 service areas across the country and operations have commenced in 12 service areas. The system will monitor and intercept calls and messages.

The government claims the CMS is based on the Telegraph Act of 1885 which states that the central or state government may intercept messages if the government is “satisfied that it is necessary or expedient to do so in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of an offence.”

Even though the surveillance system was publicly announced in 2009, C-DOT’s annual report of 2007-2008 had hinted at a testing phase for a “lawful interception, monitoring” system.

A post from the website of the Centre for Internet and Society describes how the CMS could work. Network providers are all required to give interconnected Regional Monitoring Centres access to their network servers. The article also points out that there is no law that describes the CMS.

The CMS was approved by the Cabinet Committee on Security during the UPA government in 2011, receiving flak from experts and the press for not safeguarding the citizen’s right to privacy. However, in a Lok Sabha session in May 2016, Telecom Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad said that the system is for the “process of lawful interception”, adding that regional monitoring centres in Delhi and Mumbai had been operationalised.

The latest C-DOT report also talks about a Centre of Excellence for Lawful Interception being set up, which would use high-end technologies - such as open source intelligence, image processing and search engine tools to scan Twitter and Facebook - for surveillance.

On Thursday, the Ministry of Home Affairs released a notification, authorising 10 central agencies to intercept, monitor and decrypt any "information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer." While the public and opposition parties expressed alarm over the new order, the C-DOT report clearly shows that state surveillance plans are already in an advanced stage.

These government moves are taking place despite the August 2017 landmark judgement by the Supreme Court, which declared the right to privacy as a fundamental right which will protect citizens from intrusive activities by the state.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/new-indian-express-keerthana-sankaran-december-26-2018-big-brother-is-here-amid-snooping-row-govt-report-says-monitoring-system-practically-complete

Bhuvana Meenakshi elected Mozilla Rep for July 2019

Admin — 2019-09-25T16:33:55Z

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

Reps are community coordinators interested in:

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

How is the Rep of the Month nominated?

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

For more see here

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

Bhutan's Google Apps

praskrishna — 2014-01-30T12:17:53Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/bhutan-google.pdf

BHASHA - Indian Languages Digital Festival

praskrishna — 2016-06-18T17:14:37Z

Subhashish Panigrahi gave a talk at the Bhasha- India Languages Digital Festival a conference organized by news media YourStory, at New Delhi on March 11, 2016. In the panel "The challenges of making regional language content available on the Web and on mobiles" Panigrahi spoke about some of the challenges in growing the Indian-language Wikipedia projects and the communities.

The notes for the talk are below:

Wikipedia, that exists in many Indian languages are not known to masses. I personally did not know about the Odia Wikipedia until 2011 when a friend told me about its existence. Back then the project was completely inactive. And then a couple of friends and I started contributing, more contributors joined and the project grew up to what it is today. The site now has over 300,000 visitors every month and it is the largest visited site in Odia language on the Internet. This could probably be the same case for your language.

It has been quite challenging in the past to grow the Indian-language Wikipedia projects. There are many challenges and I would talk about eight of them:

1. Language communities

The language communities of many of the Indian languages are such that many of them even do no know how to search any information online in their language typed in their script. Some even share that because Google's home page does not have their script means that their language does not exist on the Internet. There exist a large gap of ignorance.

2. Wikipedia's editor community

Wikipedia, as you all know, is written by people like you and me. And from writing to editing everything happens voluntarily. As many people do not probably know or do not try to learn that they themselves can correct the mistakes and inaccuracy that exist in many Wikipedia articles. The Wikipedia editor communities for several Indian languages are really small. When these languages are spoken by millions of people, only a handful editors contribute in editing the Wikipedia in these languages.

3. Language input

There is a vast majority of people in this country that do not know how to type in their own language.

4. Low availability of Indian-language content on the Internet

There are two stages to the lack of Open Access to information. First, lack of native language content on the Internet bars many to access knowledge. Take the example of my state. When the Kerala government's official tourism portal is available in Odia and other Indian languages, my state, the Odisha government's tourism portal has no information in Odia-language. Our languages are neglected largely in our own states.

5. Mismatch of conventional and new media

Many conventional have still been using non-standard variants of ASCII/ISCII script encoding systems instead of adopting the Unicode standard. Unicode being a global standard and having the advantage of unifying the world has been available for Indian languages about 25 years now.^[1] But many of our traditional media has failed to adopt this. Malayala Manorama, one of the most circulated dailies in Malayalam languages and one of the oldest Indian newspaper still has not started using Unicode on their website. Same is the case for many other newspapers in India.

6. Lack of Open Access

The information produced on the Internet in general and by the government, in particular, are mostly copyrighted. The paywalled garden of copyright restrictions keeps the information closed and stop people from sharing and learning more. On the contrary, Wikipedia is available under a Creative Commons Share-Alike license which allows anyone to make use of the content and even distribute commercial copies of its content. The idea of opening up information for masses in a free license could make the information reach to millions of people.

7. Mobile input

With over 1 billion people with mobile phones, the 15% internet penetration rate will soon grow meaning lot many Indians will have access to the Internet. If these people are not educated about native language input then they will be victims of the English-centric Internet rather than being able to enjoy the virtue of the same. Many Indians that have smartphones need pre-built input methods to be able to contribute in their own language Wikipedia.

8. People with disabilities

Many cannot read, speak and write. India has over 60 million people with hearing impairment.^[2] There is a need for good quality text to and speech to text engine for these languages. Also, these software products have to be free software so common people, that cannot afford to buy expensive proprietary software like JAWS, can contribute to Wikipedia in their language. Many text-to-speech engines that are available today for Indian languages sound so mechanical that it is way hard for common speakers to use them.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/bhasha-indian-languages-digital-festival

Bharat Majhi Writings Now Available Under a Creative Commons License

subha — 2014-11-07T15:34:38Z

Before the advent of Odia Wikisource becoming live, Centre for Internet and Society's Access to Knowledge (CIS-A2K) got in touch with notable Odia author Bharat Majhi for bringing his writings on the Internet.

Dr. Sailen Routray, Director, Kalinga Institute of Social Sciences (KISS) (also an institutional partner of CIS-A2K) played a key role in initiating a dialog with Mr. Majhi. Five of his books are now available under Creative Commons Share Alike 4.0 (CC-by-SA 4.0) license:

Agadhu Duari
Saralarekhaa
Murtikaara
Mahanagara Padya
Highwayre Kuhudi

Bharat Majhi is a known name in Odia literary circle. His writings on societal structures in rural Odisha, the people, their life, aspiration and suffering have been critically acclaimed. These books also become the first Odia modern poetry books to be available under a CC-by-SA license and Mr. Majhi takes another leap of being the first Odia poet to release his literary work under CC-by-SA 4.0 license.

Video

In this video, Odia-language poet Bharat Majhi reciting a poem from his first book Agadhu Duari. He recently released 5 of his books under CC-by-SA 4.0 license by the efforts of Centre for Internet and Society's Access To Knowledge (CIS-A2K) and Kalinga Institute of Social Sciences (KISS).He also tells Subhashish Panigrahi about his dreams of poetry becoming a performing art coming true by it becoming more open. After other Odia author and poet Dr Jagannath Mohanty, Majhi is the first Odia poet to release poem online under CC-by-SA license and his poetry earn the title of the first Odia modern poetry under the same license.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/bharat-majhi-writings-now-available-under-cc-license

Beyond Sharing: Towards our Digital Futures

nishant — 2012-06-01T04:39:12Z

The battle is not about file sharing and a petty film producer wanting to rake in the box office earnings. It is about the law’s incapacity to deal with post-analogue practices and processes.

Down to Earth published Nishant Shah's Op-ed on May 31, 2012

Unless you have been hiding under an analogue rock, wearing a tin-foil hat and staying away from electricity, chances are you have heard about the recent court order that bans access to a massive number of file-sharing websites from India. A John Doe order by the Madras High Court, following a complaint by the producers of the movie 3, has meant Internet Service Providers across the country have had to deny access to a number of websites that have been listed as providing free access to copyrighted material. In an attempt to ensure box-office collections for their movie, whose claim to fame, ironically, is the viral ‘Kolaveri Di’ song that had captured the country’s pulse last year, the producers have now denied access to something that is the basic function of anybody immersed in Web 2.0 environments–sharing of information.

Much has been written about this ban. The battlelines are clearly drawn and from both sides we have strong arguments being made for and against piracy. Various media and culture industry people are supporting this ban, recounting losses that they have made because of people accessing pirated material online. Hacker and civil liberties groups are decrying this heavy censorship, providing numerous instances of how piracy has actually helped cultural productions gain more fame and money than they would have otherwise. There are yet others, who, while they respect the rights of the right-holders to protect themselves against copyright infringement, are furious that this blanket ban also disallows them to access material which was under a public license and material that they had produced and shared through these networks.

International Hacker groups like Anonymous are mobilising people in large numbers to come to the streets as a sign of protest against such draconian measures.

Most of these debates eventually are at loggerheads, with each side becoming louder and shriller, their positions attaining cult-like devotion and faith. In this cacophony there are some other points which get missed out. This issuance of the John Doe order has betrayed some startling flaws in how the Internet is governed in India and the alarming implications it has to the future of free, open and inclusive information societies.

One thing that this court order has made excruciatingly clear is how the Internet is not the utopian space of exchange, collaboration, crowd sourcing and sharing it was meant to be. Despite the government’s own investments in building digital infrastructure, and its rhetoric of becoming more accountable, transparent and accessible by granting digital access to the citizens, it is obvious that this is still a space that is looked at with great suspicion.

It comes as a shock to many of us that a high court issued an order which does not only impinge on freedom of speech and expression, but also fails to understand the nature of the Internet. In all reality, this ban is a farce. Everybody who has been used to the shared cultures of the online world, has found proxy servers and Internet anonymisers which allow them to hide their identity and continue with their everyday practice online. The cool kids are already doing this anyway. All we have is a stark realisation that the state might be investing heavily in digital technologies but it still has not been able to get out of the centralised broadcast ways of thinking about it.

All sharing is not piracy. Some of it is just actually sharing. All debates seem to centre only around the copyrighted material being accessed through the file sharing websites. It is a concern which is legitimate. What about all the material that is in the public domain, in the commons and available for free? The user generated content, content which might not have direct economic value but is valuable to the people who created and shared it, is also now inaccessible. In order to protect some people from piracy we have also violated the rights of many more to share. And that is a distinction that is worth preserving, as we increasingly move into becoming an information society.

In the Web 2.0 world, we are all producers of data. We not only leave traces but also put out material of cultural significance–from videos of dancing babies to knowledge that we want to share–through these peer-2-peer networks. A sudden collapse of this infrastructure almost seems to show how it is only the money-making material that is important to the state and not the other.

There is not going to be a clear, correct position in this case against file-sharing. The legal technicalities will always be hollow in the face of ideologies of openness and inclusion. The moral indignation will always be countered by facts and numbers. But in the middle of all the fights and discussions, it is also good to pay attention to what is at stake. This battle is not merely about file sharing, though there is nothing “mere” about file sharing. This battle is not about a petty film producer wanting to rake in the box office earnings. This battle is about the law’s incapacity to deal with post-analogue practices and processes.

The way we resolve these differences is going to determine the future of what it means to be public, open, free, and inclusive. Those of us who are fighting to get the word out, are not doing it only because the access to our favourite cultural products has become cumbersome, but because scared that this might well be the beginning of the end of all that we had dreamt of our digital futures.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/beyond-sharing

Beyond Public Squares, Dumb Conduits, and Gatekeepers: The Need for a New Legal Metaphor for Social Media

amber — 2021-05-31T10:19:33Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/beyond-public-squares-dumb-conduits-and-gatekeepers.pdf

Beyond Property Rights: Thinking About Moral Definitions of Openness

praskrishna — 2013-08-07T09:43:35Z

It is hard for Westerners to realize just how much we take for granted about intellectual property, and in particular, how much the property owner’s perspective--be it a corporation, government or creative artist--is embedded in our view of the world as the natural order of things.

This blog post by David Eaves was published in TECH President on August 6, 2013. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

While sharing and copying technologies are disrupting some of the ways we understanding “content,” when you visit a non-Western country like India, the spectrum of choices become broader. There is less timidity wrestling with questions like: should poor farmers pay inflated prices for patented genetically-engineered seeds? How long should patents be given for life-saving medicines that cost more than many make in a year? Should Indian universities spend millions on academic journals and articles? In the United States or other rich countries we may weigh both sides of these questions--the rights of the owner vs. the moral rights of the user--but there’s no question people elsewhere, such as in India, weigh them different given the questions of life and death or of poverty and development.

Consequently, conversations about open knowledge outside the supposedly settled lands of the “rich” often stretch beyond permission-based “fair use” and “creative commons” approaches. There is a desire to explore potential moral rights to use “content” in addition to just property rights that may be granted under statutes.

A couple of months ago I sat down in Bangalore with Sunil Abraham, the founder and executive director of the Center for Internet & Society (CIS) there, to talk about the center, and his views on the role of technology and openness in politics and society. One part of our conversation led to this WeGov column on “I Paid a Bribe” and the challenge of fighting corruption in India using technology. Here I want to reflect further on how Sunil and his counterparts may be radically challenging how we should think about open information more generally.

As we talked, Sunil outlined how people and organizations were using “open” methodologies to advance social movements or create counter power. To explain his view he sketched out the following “map” of IP rights and freedoms to show people use and view the different “permissions” (some legal, some illegal).

As a high-level overview this map offers a general list of the tools at the disposal of citizens interested in playing with intellectual property, particularly as they pursue social justice issues.

At the top of the chart are the various forms of “permissions” that a property owner may (or may not) grant you. Thus at the far left sits the most restrictive IP regime and, as you move right, the user gets more and more freedoms (or, if you take the perspective of property owners, property loses more and more of its formal legal protections and a different notion, of “moral rights,” arises).

The second row divides the permissions and the actors along what Sunil believes is one of the most important permissions - the requirement to attribute (or the freedom not to).

Finally, at the bottom, I’ve placed various actors along the spectrum to both show where they might be positioned in the access debate and/or how they use these tools to advance their aims. Thus someone like Lawrence Lessig, the intellectual father of Creative Commons, might support many uses of information as long as the owner gives permission; whereas groups like the Pirate Party or the Yes Men edge further out into uses that may not appear legitimate to a property owner.

Particularly interesting is Sunil’s decision to include non-legal “permissions” such as ignoring the property holders rights in his spectrum of openness. He sees this as the position of the Pirate Party, which he suggests advocates that people should have the right to do what they want with intellectual property even if they don’t have permission, with the exception, interestingly, of ignoring attribution.

He also includes two even more radical “permissions” – counterfeiting, that is claiming that you created the work – and false attribution – assigning your work to someone else! Sunil sees Anonymous as often using the former and the Yes Men as using the latter. “They (the Yes Men) are playing with the attribution layer,” he says, by conducting actions such as their fake DOW press release about the Bhopal disaster.

Pushing the identity envelope
To Sunil, the big dividing line is less about legal vs. illegal but around this issue of attribution. “This is the most exciting area because this (the non-attribution area) is where you escape surveillance,” he declares.

“All the modern day regulation over IP is trying to pin an individual against their actions and then trying to attach responsibility so as to prosecute them,” Sunil says. “All that is circumvented when you play with the attribution layer.”

This matters a great deal for individuals and organizations trying to create counter power – particularly against the state or large corporate interests. In this regard Sunil is actually linking the tools (or permissions) along the open spectrum to civil disobedience. Of course, such “permissions” are also used by states all the time, such as pretending that a covert action was the responsibility of someone else, or simply denying responsibility for some action.

This, in turn, has some interesting implications.

The first is, that it allows Sunil to weave together a number of groups that might not normally be seen as connected because he can map their strategies or tools against a common axis. Thus Lawrence Lessig, the Yes Man, companies and journalists can all be organized based on what “permissions” they believe are legitimate. For example, journalists and new publishers are often seen as fairly pro-copyright (it protects their work) but they are quite happy to ignore the proprietary rights of a government or corporate document and publish its contents, if they believe that action is in the public interest. Hence their position on the spectrum as “willing to ignore proprietary rights.” (Leave aside government arguments that publishing such documents is “stealing” when, at least in the US, they are technically already not subject to copyright.) However, a credible newspaper or journalist would never knowingly attribute a quote or document to a different person. Attribution remains sacred, even when legal proprietary rights are not.

It also tests the notions of who is actually an IP radical. As Sunil notes: “The more you move to the right the more radical you are. Because everywhere on the left you actually have to educate people about the law, which is currently unfair to the user, before you even introduce them to the alternatives. You aren’t even challenging the injustice in the law! On the right you are operating at a level that is liberated from identity and accountability. You are hacking identity.”

Sunil is thus justifying how the use of “illegal” permissions may actually be a form of civil disobedience that can be recognized as legitimate. This is something journalists confront regularly as well. Many are willing to publish “illegally” obtained leaked documents when they believe that may serve the public good. What is ethical is not always legal and so there position on this chart is more nuanced than one might initially suspect.

This is not to say that Sunil doesn’t believe in the effectiveness of legal approaches. For him this map represents a more complete range of choices an activist can choose from as they try to develop their strategy.

“So what you do, and the specific change you are trying to precipitate, you’ll have to determine what strategy you need. Sometimes working within the left hand group is sufficient. Having a non-derivative, non-commercial license to enable students to access academic works, in India, is good enough… But then, to do what the Yes Men did to DOW Chemicals? You have to be over on the right side.”

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/tech-president-august-6-2013-david-eaves-beyond-property-rights-thinking-about-moral-definitions-openness

Beyond Editor Count: Assessing Quality on Wikipedia

teju — 2016-06-12T16:00:13Z

Since Wikipedia is considered as the go-to source for different kinds of knowledge by anyone starting off in a particular field of study, and since Indian languages (IL) are often the default languages of the classroom in India, strengthening the quality of the material available on IL Wikipedias is certain to have widespread tangible and intangible impact.

While there is a need to improve the editor count on IL Wikipedias, it cannot substitute for efforts aimed at enhancing the quality of Wikipedia contributions. Here is an account of an initiative geared towards enriching the IL digital domain and in particular Wikipedia through partnerships with universities.

In collaboration with CIS-A2K, the Centre for Indian Languages in Higher Education (CILHE) at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS), Mumbai, has been conducting workshops with post graduate and undergraduate students in humanities and social sciences on developing digital open knowledge resources using IL Wikipedias.

These workshops, which are conducted by a resource person from CILHE and anchored by faculty members in partner institutions, are aimed at (a) integrating open knowledge resources into classroom teaching, (b) involving students in developing content relevant to their research interests, and (c) developing the skills to produce well-referenced academic writing.

Besides Wikipedia editing, the workshop process involves exercises that allow students to engage closely with major social science concepts and their meanings. The workshops also include collaborative digital annotation exercises.

This effort is the only one of its kind in the country where both students and teachers participate in creating open knowledge resources that are of use to them and the larger academic and non-academic audience.

Achievements thus far

Workshops are conducted bilingually, across several geographies, with English being the common factor. The Indian languages in question are Marathi, Hindi, Telugu, Malayalam, Bangla and Kannada.

Here is a brief account of two such partnerships. The first is with Krantijyoti Savitribai Phule Women’s Studies Centre (KSPWSC) at Pune University, Pune, and the second with the Departments of Cultural Studies and Comparative Literature at English and Foreign Languages University (EFLU) in Hyderabad.

At KSPWSC, around 20 researchers since 2015 have collaboratively annotated 100 key women’s studies texts in Marathi and have written articles on these texts on the Marathi Wikipedia. This is the first part of a larger project called Sau Dhuni Teen (100 x 3), which aims to also cover 100 notable persons and 100 key concepts in women’s studies in addition to the 100 key texts.

This has been a year-long process involving, prior to the workshop,

(a) selection of 100 key texts through a survey of existing women’s studies curricula across the state of Maharashtra in the universities of all 6 major areas of the state;

(b) close reading and analysis of the texts led by faculty.

During the workshop, students learn how to

(a) annotate digitally and for an encyclopedia; how to create concept clusters and clouds of annotation;

(b) overcome translation challenges (English into Marathi, and Marathi into English) through the cultivation of linguistic attentiveness and sensitivity to the cultural contexts involved; and through the use of online and offline dictionaries and other writings on the subjects covered in the 100 key texts. The exposure to the existing literature helps students absorb the necessary vocabulary which is already in use and familiar to readers.

At EFLU, Hyderabad, 25 students speaking a number of Indian languages -Telugu, Malayalam, Tamil, and Hindi - have come together to create articles of relevance to social sciences and humanities teaching and learning. The entries include: the concept of the public sphere, movements for political autonomy, leading Indian scholars, and major contemporary academic and literary works.

Ensuring success and sustainability: Key Factors

Consistent faculty participation coupled with regular meet-ups to develop existing articles and create new ones ensures the success and sustainability of these workshops. Prior to the workshops, the faculty members engage intensively with students in identifying concepts or texts about which writing in Indian languages is limited or inadequate.

Finding a thematic focus has been crucial for retaining interest and participation of the students in different locations, for example - women’s studies in Pune University, rural development at TISS Tuljapur, literary and cultural studies at EFLU.

Measurable outputs for student assessment are important for those faculty seeking to make Wikipedia editing part of internal assessment. These outputs include articles written, information added, references used, and links made, which can be easily computed from the View History pages.

Understanding Quality Enhancement

Participatory knowledge production: The Indian language articles on notable academicians, theorists, phenomena, events, and places written as part of the workshop are accessed, used, and further developed by students as well as Wikipedians other than the original authors.

Changing the pedagogic culture through open access resources: The articles become a strong pedagogic resource in Indian languages which is publicly accessible, generated by users themselves, used to supplement classroom teaching, and open to editing and revision.

Context sensitivity: The success of these workshops may also be assessed in terms of the variety of concept descriptions generated, the relevance of articles to context, and the integration of local experience onto digital knowledge platforms.

In addition to Wikipedia’s criteria for a good article, which include clarity, coherence, focussed development of the article, comprehensive references, use of inter-links and hyperlinks, the Indian language resources developed through our initiative have the significant additional feature of being contextually and culturally sensitive. We believe this is a crucial criterion for Wikipedia to be able to take root in the Indian knowledge domain.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/beyond-editor-count-assessing-quality-on-wikipedia

Beyond Access as Inclusion

anja — 2011-08-02T07:29:03Z

On 13 September, the day before the fifth Internet Governance Forum opens, CIS is coorganising in Vilnius a meeting on Internet governance and human rights. One of the main aims of this meeting is to call attention to the crucial, yet in Internet governance often neglected, indivisibility of rights. In this blog post, Anja Kovacs uses this lens to illustrate how it can broaden as well reinvigorate our understanding of what remains one of the most pressing issues in Internet governance in developing countries to this day: that of access to the Internet.

One of the most attractive characteristics of the Internet – and perhaps also one of the most debated ones – is its empowering, democratising potential. In expositions in favour of access to the Internet for all, this potential certainly often plays a central role: as the Internet can help us to make our societies more open, more inclusive, and more democratic, everybody should be able to reap the fruits of this technology, it is argued. In other words, in debates on access to the Internet, most of us take as our starting point the desirability of such access, for the above reasons. But how justified is such a stance? Is an Internet-induced democratic transformation of our societies what is actually happening on the ground?

I would like to move away, in this blog post, from the more traditional approaches to the issue of access, where debates mostly veer towards issues of infrastructure (spectrum, backbones, last mile connectivity, …) or, under the banner of “diversity”, towards the needs of specific, disadvantaged communities (especially linguistic minorities and the disabled). To remind us more sharply of the issues at stake and of the wide range of human rights that need our active attention to make our dreams a reality, I would like to take a step back and to ask two fundamental questions regarding access: why might access be important? And what do we actually have access to?

Let me start, then, by exploring the first question: why, actually, is Internet access important? In his canonical work on the information age, and especially in the first volume on the rise of the network society, Manuel Castells (2000) has perhaps provided the most elaborate and erudite description of the ways in which new technologies are restructuring our societies and our lives. We are all all too familiar with the many and deep-seated ways in which the Internet changes the manner in which we learn, play, court, pay, do business, maintain relationships, dream, campaign. And yet, the exact nature of the divide created by the unequal distribution of technical infrastructure and access, despite being so very real, receives relatively little attention: this divide is not simply one of opportunities, it is crucially one of power. If in traditional Marxist analysis the problem was that the oppressed did not have access to the means of production, today, one could well argue, the problem is that they do not have access to the means of communication and information.

Indeed, the Internet is not something that is simply happening to us: there are people who are responsible for these new evolutions. And so it becomes important to ask: who is shaping the Internet? Who is creating this new world? Let us, by way of example, consider some figures relating to Internet use in India. So often hailed as the emerging IT superpower of the world, there are, by the end of 2009, according to official government figures, in this country of 1 billion 250 million people slightly more than 15 million Internet connections. Of these, only slightly more than half, or almost 8 million, are broadband connections – the rest are still dial-up ones (TRAI 2010). The number of Internet users is of course higher – one survey estimates that there are between 52 million and 71 million Internet users in urban areas, where the bulk of users is still located (IAMAI 2010). But while this is a considerable number, it remains a fraction of the population in a country so big. What these figures put in stark relief, then, is that the poor and marginalised are not so much excluded from the information society (in fact, many have to bear the consequences of new evolutions made possible by it in rather excruciating fashion), but rather, that they are fundamentally excluded from shaping the critical ways in which our societies are being transformed.

To have at least the possibility to access the Internet is, then, of central significance in this context for the possibility of participation it signals in the restructuring of our societies at the community, national and global level, and this in two ways: in the creation of visions of where our societies should be going, and in the actual shaping of the architecture of our societies in the information age.

If we agree that access attains great significance in this sense, then a second question poses itself, and that is: in practice, what exactly are we getting access to? This query should be of concern to all of us. With the increasing corporatisation of the Internet and the seemingly growing urges of governments on all continents to survey and control their citizens, new challenges are thrown up of how to nurture the growth of open, inclusive, democratic societies, that all of us are required to take an interest in.

Yet it is in the case of poor and marginalised people that the challenges are most pronounced. Efforts to include them in the information society are disproportionately legitimised on the basis of the contribution these can make to improving their livelihoods. Initiatives, often using mobile technology, that allow farmers to get immediate information about the market prices of the produce they are intending to sell, are perhaps the most well-known and oft-cited examples in this category. Other efforts aim to improve the information flow from the government to citizens: India has set up an ambitious network of Common Service Centres, for example, that aim to greatly facilitate the access of citizens to particular government services, such as obtaining birth or caste certificates – and going by first indications, this also seems to be succeeding in practice. Only rarely, however, do initiatives to “include” the poor in the information society address them as holistic beings who do not only have economic lives, but political, emotional, creative and intellectual existences as well. This is not to say that economic issues are not of importance. But by highlighting only this aspect of poor people's lives, we promote a highly impoverished understanding of their existences.

The focus on a limited aspect of the poor's identity - important as that aspect may be - has a function, however: it makes it possible to hide from view the extremely restrictive terms on which poor people are currently being integrated into the information society. Even initiatives such as the Common Service Centres are in fact based on a public-private-partnership model that explicitly aims to “align [..] social and commercial goals” (DIT 2006: 1), and in effect subordinates government service design to the requirements of the CSC business model (Singh 2008). The point is not simply that we need strong privacy and data protection policies in such a context – although we clearly do. There is a larger issue here, which is that efforts to include the poor in the information society, in the present circumstances, really seem to simply integrate them more closely into a capitalist system over which they have little control, or to submit them to ever greater levels of government and corporate surveillance. Their own capacity to give shape to the system in which they are “included”, despite the oft-heralded capacities of the Internet to allow greater democratic participation and to turn everybody into a producer and distributor, as well as a consumer, remains extremely limited.

Such tendencies have not gone unnoticed. For example, unlike in many other parts of the world, social movements in India fighting against dams, special economic zones or mining operations in forest areas - all initiatives that lead to large-scale displacement – have not embraced technology as enthusiastically as one might have expected. There are various reasons for this. Within Indian nationalism, there have always been strands deeply critical of technology, with Gandhi perhaps their most illustrious proponent. But for many activists, technology often also already comes with an ideological baggage: an application such as Twitter, for example, in so many of its aspects is clearly manufactured by others, for others, drawing on value sets that activists often in many ways are reluctant to embrace. And such connotations only gain greater validity because of the intimate connections that exist in India between the IT boom and neoliberalism: technology has great responsibility for many of the trends and practices these activists are fighting against. While the Internet might have made possible many new publics, most movements do not – as movements – recognise these publics as their own (Kovacs, forthcoming).

To some extent, these are of course questions of the extent of access that people are granted. But they also raise the important issue of the value structure of the Internet. Efforts at inclusion always take for granted a standard that is already set. But what if the needs and desires of the many billions that still need to be included are not served by the Internet as it exists? What if, for it to really work for them, they need to be able to make the Internet a different place than the one we know today? While it is obvious that different people will give different answers in different parts of the world, such debates are complicated tremendously by the fact that it is no longer sufficient to reach a national consensus on the issues under discussion, as was the case in earlier eras. The global nature of the Internet's infrastructure requires that the possibility of differing opinions, too, needs to be facilitated at the global level. What are the consequences of this for the development of democracy?

For access to the Internet to be substantively meaningful from a human rights perspective in the information age, it is crucial, then, that at a minimum, the openness of the Internet is ensured at all levels. Of course, openness can be considered a value in itself. But perhaps more importantly, at the moment, it is the only way in which the possibility of a variety of answers to the pressing question of what shape our societies should take in the information age can emerge. Open standards and the portability of data, for example, are crucial if societies are to continue to decide on the role corporations should play in their public life, rather than having corporations de facto rule the roost. Similarly, under no circumstances should anyone be cut off from the Internet, if people are to participate in the public life of the societies of which they are members. And these are not just concerns for developing countries: if recent incidents from France to Australia are anything to go by, new possibilities facilitated by the Internet have, at least at the level of governments, formed the impetus for a clear shift to the right of the political spectrum in many developed countries. In the developed world, too, the questions of access and what it allows for are thus issues that should concern all. In the information age, human rights will only be respected if such respect is already inscribed in the very architecture of its central infrastructure itself.

List of References

Castells, Manuel (2000). The Rise of the Network Society, 2^nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell.

Department of Information Technology (DIT) (2006). Guidelines for the Implementation of Common Services Centers (CSCs) Scheme in States. New Delhi: Department of Information Technology, Government of India.

Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI) (2010). I-Cube 2009-2010: Internet in India. Mumbai: Internet and Mobile Association of India.

Kovacs, Anja (forthcoming). Inquilab 2.0? Reflections on Online Activism in India (working title). Bangalore: Centre for Internet and Society.

Singh, Parminder Jeet (2008). Recommendations for a Meaningful and Successful e-Governance in India. IT for Change Policy Brief, IT for Change, Bangalore.

Telecom Regulatory Auhority of India (TRAI) (2010). The Indian Telecom Services Performance Indicators, October-December 2009. New Delhi: Telecom Regulatory Auhority of India.

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

Berlin 6 Open Access Conference

sachia — 2011-04-02T16:16:16Z

The Berlin 6 Open Access conference was attended by Subbiah Arunachalam, Centre for Internet and Society Distinguished Fellow.

Subbiah Arunachalam, Centre for Internet and Society Distinguished Fellow, attended the Berlin 6 Open Access conference (www.berlin6.org), held in Dusseldorf from 11 to 13 November 2008. Berlin 6 is the fifth follow-up conference to the drafting sessions for the Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities.

Subbiah Arunachalam is a member of the Programme Committee of the Berlin series of conferences, and this year chaired the session on Open Access for Development, which looked at the status of open access in developing countries and the factors inhibiting progress in this area. The speakers at this session were Dev Kumar Sahu (MedKnow, India), Eve Gray (Eve Gray & Associates/Open Society Institute, South Africa), Solange M Santos (BIREME/PAHO/SciELO, Brazil) and Subbiah Arunachalam himself. Their presentations are available on the conference website (http://www.berlin6.org/?page_id=70).

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/berlin-6-open-access-conference

Bengali eSpeak Aids in Disaster Management

anirudh — 2013-11-07T09:21:07Z

Software developed on the eSpeak was deployed in Bangladesh and helped its citizens for disaster management.

The Bangla e-Speak text to speech synthesizer which was developed as part of a project funded by The Hans Foundation and executed by CIS in partnership with other partner organizations from the Daisy Forum of India was recently deployed in Bangladesh during cyclone Mahasen to read out messages which were sent during the emergency. A lot of organizations are working on TTS and their usefulness has already been established by Mahiti when they developed the Bangla Bol eSpeak. The text-to- speech (TTS) software is a very important technology for the visually impaired in that it gives a voice to text, enabling access to a whole host of information.[1]

Currently, a lot of proprietary TTS programmes are available like Balabolka, and Ultra Hal TTS reader but this TTS is an inexpensive alternative for the visually impaired.[2] This is because eSpeak is an open source compact software speech synthesizer. It is currently not available in many local Indian languages but it is possible to add new languages and even new dialects. The Bangla TTS project converted speech into Bengali.[3]

This programme was used in an innovative and useful way by applying it in disaster situations. In the case of a disaster, whether natural or national security related, the news media do not provide information in an accessible format. It is extremely important in these situations for the visually impaired to have clear access to ongoing events, get updates about things like rescue plans. The main work in order to be useful in these scenarios involved integrating national Geographic Information System (GIS), mobile phone networks and fax for the different stakeholders that need to interact before the disaster and for the responses after the disaster.[4]

The Bangla TTS was also integrated into the National Disaster Response system in Bangladesh, a country that is geographically vulnerable to many natural disasters like floods.

In order to integrate the TTS into the National Disaster Response system of Bangladesh, within the framework of the established philosophy, the entire disaster management system was built on an open-source stack. The automated bulk outward calling provision that was built for alerting people about an impending disaster had to broadcast the messages of which the text-to-voice conversion also had to be automated. During the process, many open source tools were tried but eSpeak was finally tried as it has a really low memory footprint and is very efficient for a large scale of operation. During the cyclone Mahasen, this proved decisive as the call volumes were very high and eSpeak scaled to meet the huge demand. All the pre-emptive alerts that were sent through the disaster management system were sent through this TTS. The programme helped a large size of the population and a diverse demographic. The Entire coastal Bangladeshi population benefited from the system. During the peak load, the system handled 27,000 calls, which shows that it has the capacity to deliver in the most difficult situations.

Mahiti,along with a partner in Bangladesh, was the organization responsible for developing this software. There are currently a few Bangla Text to Speech softwares on the internet like Kathak TTS but the Bangla Bol has some unique features.[5]

It’s an eSpeak Bangla language support which is open-source and is based on the”formant synthesis" method. This method enables the integration of many languages without modifying the underlying framework. It also enables language experts with even no programming knowledge to add or improve the language supported in eSpeak which is the most important feature of eSpeak. eSpeak was not just chosen because of its technical strengths, but also because it’s a part of a project to develop and integrate into a Non-Visual Desktop Access (NVDA) open-source project which aims to enable computer desktop accessibility (screen reader functionality) to the blind. This is so that it can be used in many local Indian languages. Bangla was part of the first set of four languages that was completed by Mahiti (Hindi, Telugu and Malayalam were the remaining three). Therefore, while the far reaching consequences of the development work under this project being carried on in India to benefit its own marginalized populations and that of neighboring countries was never in doubt, this recent usage in Bangladesh adds fresh impetus to the work and underscores the criticality of this work.

[1]. Sen, Prasanjit. "Reading without Seeing: Mahiti's work on eSpeak." Mahiti Blog. Mahiti, 27 08 2013. Web. 2 Oct. 2013.

[2]. Alam, Firoj , and Mumit Khan. "Text To Speech for Bangla Language using Festival." BRAC University, Bangladesh . (2007): n. page. Web. 8 Oct. 2013.

[3]. Sen, Prasanjit. "Mahiti launches 'Bangla Bola' eSpeak (Bengali Speaking eSpeak) ." Mahiti Blog. Mahiti, 28 08 2013. Web. 2 Oct. 2013.

[4]. "Our Work- mproving National Disaster response."Mahiti.org. Mahiti, n.d. Web. 2 Oct 2013.

[5]. See footnote 2.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/accessibility/blog/bengali-e-speak-aids-in-disaster-management

Benefits, Harms, Rights and Regulation: A Survey of Literature on Big Data

praskrishna — 2017-03-23T02:03:07Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/benefits-harms-rights-and-regulation-a-survey-of-literature-on-big-data

Benefits and Harms of "Big Data"

Scott Mason — 2015-12-30T02:48:08Z

Today the quantity of data being generated is expanding at an exponential rate. From smartphones and televisions, trains and airplanes, sensor-equipped buildings and even the infrastructures of our cities, data now streams constantly from almost every sector and function of daily life.

Introduction

In 2011 it was estimated that the quantity of data produced globally would surpass 1.8 zettabyte[1]. By 2013 that had grown to 4 zettabytes[2], and with the nascent development of the so-called 'Internet of Things' gathering pace, these trends are likely to continue. This expansion in the volume, velocity, and variety of data available[3] , together with the development of innovative forms of statistical analytics, is generally referred to as "Big Data"; though there is no single agreed upon definition of the term. Although still in its initial stages, Big Data promises to provide new insights and solutions across a wide range of sectors, many of which would have been unimaginable even 10 years ago.

Despite enormous optimism about the scope and variety of Big Data's potential applications however, many remain concerned about its widespread adoption, with some scholars suggesting it could generate as many harms as benefits[4]. Most notably these have included concerns about the inevitable threats to privacy associated with the generation, collection and use of large quantities of data [5]. However, concerns have also been raised regarding, for example, the lack of transparency around the design of algorithms used to process the data, over-reliance on Big Data analytics as opposed to traditional forms of analysis and the creation of new digital divides to just name a few.

The existing literature on Big Data is vast, however many of the benefits and harms identified by researchers tend to relate to sector specific applications of Big Data analytics, such as predictive policing, or targeted marketing. Whilst these examples can be useful in demonstrating the diversity of Big Data's possible applications, it can nevertheless be difficult to gain an overall perspective of the broader impacts of Big Data as a whole. As such this article will seek to disaggregate the potential benefits and harms of Big Data, organising them into several broad categories, which are reflective of the existing scholarly literature.

What are the potential benefits of Big Data?

From politicians to business leaders, recent years have seen Big Data confidently proclaimed as a potential solution to a diverse range of problems from, world hunger and diseases, to government budget deficits and corruption. But if we look beyond the hyperbole and headlines, what do we really know about the advantages of Big Data? Given the current buzz surrounding it, the existing literature on Big Data is perhaps unsurprisingly vast, providing innumerable examples of the potential applications of Big Data from agriculture to policing. However, rather than try (and fail) to list the many possible applications of Big Data analytics across all sectors and industries, for the purposes of this article we have instead attempted to distil the various advantages of Big Data discussed within literature into the following five broad categories; Decision-Making, Efficiency & Productivity, Research & Development, Personalisation and Transparency, each of which will be discussed separately below.

Decision-Making

Whilst data analytics have always been used to improve the quality and efficiency of decision-making processes, the advent of Big Data means that the areas of our lives in which data driven decision- making plays a role is expanding dramatically; as businesses and governments become better able to exploit new data flows. Furthermore, the real-time and predictive nature of decision-making made possible by Big Data, are increasingly allowing these decisions to be automated. As a result, Big Data is providing governments and business with unprecedented opportunities to create new insights and solutions; becoming more responsive to new opportunities and better able to act quickly - and in some cases preemptively - to deal with emerging threats.

This ability of Big Data to speed up and improve decision-making processes can be applied across all sectors from transport to healthcare and is often cited within the literature as one of the key advantages of Big Data. Joh, for example, highlights the increased use of data driven predictive analysis by police forces to help them to forecast the times and geographical locations in which crimes are most likely to occur. This allows the force to redistribute their officers and resources according to anticipated need, and in certain cities has been highly effective in reducing crime rates [6]. Raghupathi meanwhile cites the case of healthcare, where predictive modelling driven by big data is being used to proactively identify patients who could benefit from preventative care or lifestyle changes[7].

One area in particular where the decision-making capabilities of Big Data are having a significant impact is in the field of risk management [8]. For instance, Big Data can allow companies to map their entire data landscape to help detect sensitive information, such as 16 digit numbers - potentially credit card data - which are not being stored according to regulatory requirements and intervene accordingly. Similarly, detailed analysis of data held about suppliers and customers can help companies to identify those in financial trouble, allowing them to act quickly to minimize their exposure to any potential default[9].

Efficiency and Productivity

In an era when many governments and businesses are facing enormous pressures on their budgets, the desire to reduce waste and inefficiency has never been greater. By providing the information and analysis needed for organisations to better manage and coordinate their operations, Big Data can help to alleviate such problems, leading to the better utilization of scarce resources and a more productive workforce [10].

Within the literature such efficiency savings are most commonly discussed in relation to reductions in energy consumption [11]. For example, a report published by Cisco notes how the city of Olso has managed to reduce the energy consumption of street-lighting by 62 percent through the use of smart solutions driven by Big Data[12]. Increasingly, however, statistical models generated by Big Data analytics are also being utilized to identify potential efficiencies in sourcing, scheduling and routing in a wide range of sectors from agriculture to transport. For example, Newell observes how many local governments are generating large databases of scanned license plates through the use of automated license plate recognition systems (ALPR), which government agencies can then use to help improve local traffic management and ease congestion[13].

Commonly these efficiency savings are only made possible by the often counter-intuitive insights generated by the Big Data models. For example, whilst a human analyst planning a truck route would always tend to avoid 'drive-bys' - bypassing one stop to reach a third before doubling back - Big Data insights can sometimes show such routes to be more efficient. In such cases efficiency saving of this kind would in all likelihood have gone unrecognised by a human analyst, not trained to look for such patterns[14].

Research, Development, and Innovation

Perhaps one of the most intriguing benefits of Big Data is its potential use in the research and development of new products and services. As is highlighted throughout the literature, Big Data can help businesses to gain an understanding of how others perceive their products or identify customer demand and adapt their marketing or indeed the design of their products accordingly[15]. Analysis of social media data, for instance, can provide valuable insights into customers' sentiments towards existing products as well as discover demands for new products and services, allowing businesses to respond more quickly to changes in customer behaviour[16].

In addition to market research, Big Data can also be used during the design and development stage of new products; for example by helping to test thousands of different variations of computer-aided designs in an expedient and cost-effective manner. In doing so, business and designers are able to better assess how minor changes to a products design may affect its cost and performance, thereby improving the cost-effectiveness of the production process and increasing profitability.

Personalisation

For many consumers, perhaps the most familiar application of Big Data is its ability to help tailor products and services to meet their individual preferences. This phenomena is most immediately noticeable on many online services such as Netflix; where data about users activities and preferences is collated and analysed to provide a personalised service, for example by suggesting films or television shows the user may enjoy based upon their previous viewing history[17]. By enabling companies to generate in-depth profiles of their customers, Big Data allows businesses to move past the 'one size fits all' approach to product and services design and instead quickly and cost-effectively adapt their services to better meet customer demand.

In addition to service personalisation, similar profiling techniques are increasingly being utilized in sectors such as healthcare. Here data about a patient's medical history, lifestyle, and even their gene expression patterns are collated, generating a detailed medical profile which can then be used to tailor treatments to meet their specific needs[18]. Targeted care of this sort can not only help to reduce costs for example by helping to avoid over-prescriptions, but may also help to improve the effectiveness of treatments and so ultimately their outcome.

Transparency

If 'knowledge is power', then, - so say Big Data enthusiasts - advances in data analytics and the quantity of data available can give consumers and citizens the knowledge to hold governments and businesses to account, as well as make more informed choices about the products and services they use. Nevertheless, data (even lots of it) does not necessarily equal knowledge. In order for citizens and consumers to be able to fully utilize the vast quantities of data available to them, they must first have some way to make sense of it. For some, Big Data analytics provides just such a solution, allowing users to easily search, compare and analyze available data, thereby helping to challenge existing information asymmetries and make business and government more transparent[19].

In the private sector, Big Data enthusiasts have claimed that Big Data holds the potential to ensure complete transparency of supply chains, enabling concerned consumers to trace the source of their products, for example to ensure that they have been sourced ethically [20]. Furthermore, Big Data is now making accessible information which was previously unavailable to average consumers and challenging companies whose business models rely on the maintenance of information asymmetries.The real-estate industry, for example, relies heavily upon its ability to acquire and control proprietary information, such as transaction data as a competitive asset. In recent years, however, many online services have allowed consumers to effectively bypass agents, by providing alternative sources of real-estate data and enabling prospective buyers and sellers to communicate directly with each other[21]. Therefore, providing consumers with access to large quantities of actionable data . Big Data can help to eliminate established information asymmetries, allowing them to make better and more informed decisions about the products they buy and the services they enlist.

This potential to harness the power of Big Data to improve transparency and accountability can also be seen in the public sector, with many scholars suggesting that greater access to government data could help to stem corruption and make politics more accountable. This view was recently endorsed by the UN who highlighted the potential uses of Big Data to improve policymaking and accountability in a report published by the Independent Expert Advisory Group on the "Data Revolution for Sustainable Development". In the report experts emphasize the potential of what they term the 'data revolution', to help achieve sustainable development goals by for example helping civil society groups and individuals to 'develop data literacy and help communities and individuals to generate and use data, to ensure accountability and make better decisions for themselves' [22].

What are the potential harms of Big Data?

Whilst it is often easy to be seduced by the utopian visions of Big Data evangelists, in order to ensure that Big Data can deliver the types of far-reaching benefits its proponents promise, it is vital that we are also sensitive to its potential harms. Within the existing literature, discussions about the potential harms of Big Data are perhaps understandably dominated by concerns about privacy. Yet as Big Data has begun to play an increasingly central role in our daily lives, a broad range of new threats have begun to emerge including issues related to security and scientific epistemology, as well as problems of marginalisation, discrimination and transparency; each of which will be discussed separately below.

Privacy

By far the biggest concern raised by researchers in relation to Big Data is its risk to privacy. Given that by its very nature Big Data requires extensive and unprecedented access to large quantities of data; it is hardly surprising that many of the benefits outlined above in one way or another exist in tension with considerations of privacy. Although many scholars have called for a broader debate on the effects of Big Data on ethical best practice ^{^[23]}, a comprehensive exploration into the complex debates surrounding the ethical implications of Big Data go far beyond the scope of this article. Instead we will simply attempt to highlight some of the major areas of concern expressed in the literature, including its effects on established principles of privacy and the implication of Big Data on the suitability of existing regulatory frameworks governing privacy and data protection.

1. Re-identification

Traditionally many Big Data enthusiasts have used de-identification - the process of anonymising data by removing personally identifiable information (PII) - as a way of justifying mass collection and use of personal data. By claiming that such measures are sufficient to ensure the privacy of users, data brokers, companies and governments have sought to deflect concerns about the privacy implications of Big Data, and suggest that it can be compliant with existing regulatory and legal frameworks on data protection.

However, many scholars remain concerned about the limits of anonymisation. As Tene and Polonetsky observe 'Once data-such as a clickstream or a cookie number-are linked to an identified individual, they become difficult to disentangle'[24]. They cite the example of University of Texas researchers Narayanan and Shmatikov, who were able to successfully re-identify anonymised Netflix user data by cross referencing it with data stored in a publicly accessible online database. As Narayanan and Shmatikov themselves explained, 'once any piece of data has been linked to a person's real identity, any association between this data and a virtual identity breaks anonymity of the latter' [25]. The quantity and variety of datasets which Big Data analytics has made associable with individuals is therefore expanding the scope of the types of data that can be considered PII, as well as undermining claims that de-identification alone is sufficient to ensure privacy for users.

2. Privacy Frameworks Obsolete?

In recent decades privacy and data protection frameworks based upon a number of so-called 'privacy principles' have formed the basis of most attempts to encourage greater consideration of privacy issues online[26]. For many however, the emergence of Big Data has raised question about the extent to which these 'principles of privacy' are workable in an era of ubiquitous data collection.

Collection Limitation and Data Minimization : Big Data by its very nature requires the collection and processing of very large and very diverse data sets. Unlike other forms scientific research and analysis which utilize various sampling techniques to identify and target the types of data most useful to the research questions, Big Data instead seeks to gather as much data as possible, in order to achieve full resolution of the phenomenon being studied, a task made much easier in recent years as a result of the proliferation of internet enabled devices and the growth of the Internet of Things. This goal of attaining comprehensive coverage exists in tension however with the key privacy principles of collection limitation and data minimization which seek to limit both the quantity and variety of data collected about an individual to the absolute minimum[27].

Purpose Limitation: Since the utility of a given dataset is often not easily identifiable at the time of collection, datasets are increasingly being processed several times for a variety of different purposes. Such practices have significant implications for the principle of purpose limitation, which aims to ensure that organizations are open about their reasons for collecting data, and that they use and process the data for no other purpose than those initially specified [28].

Notice and Consent: The principles of notice and consent have formed the cornerstones of attempts to protect privacy for decades. Nevertheless in an era of ubiquitous data collection, the notion that an individual must be required to provide their explicit consent to allow for the collection and processing of their data seems increasingly antiquated, a relic of an age when it was possible to keep track of your personal data relationships and transactions. Today as data streams become more complex, some have begun to question suitability of consent as a mechanism to protect privacy. In particular commentators have noted how given the complexity of data flows in the digital ecosystem most individuals are not well placed to make truly informed decisions about the management of their data[29]. In one study, researchers demonstrated how by creating the perceptions of control, users were more likely to share their personal information, regardless of whether or not the users had actually gained control [30]. As such, for many, the garnering of consent is increasingly becoming a symbolic box-ticking exercise which achieves little more than to irritate and inconvenience customers whilst providing a burden for companies and a hindrance to growth and innovation [31].

Access and Correction: The principle of 'access and correction' refers to the rights of individuals to obtain personal information being held about them as well as the right to erase, rectify, complete or otherwise amend that data. Aside from the well documented problems with privacy self-management, for many the real-time nature of data generation and analysis in an era of Big Data poses a number of structural challenges to this principle of privacy. As x comments, 'a good amount of data is not pre-processed in a similar fashion as traditional data warehouses. This creates a number of potential compliance problems such as difficulty erasing, retrieving or correcting data. A typical big data system is not built for interactivity, but for batch processing. This also makes the application of changes on a (presumably) static data set difficult'[32].

Opt In-Out: The notion that the provision of data should be a matter of personal choice on the part of the individual and that the individual can, if they chose decide to 'opt-out' of data collection, for example by ceasing use of a particular service, is an important component of privacy and data protection frameworks. The proliferation of internet-enabled devices, their integration into the built environment and the real-time nature of data collection and analysis however are beginning to undermine this concept. For many critics of Big Data the ubiquity of data collection points as well as the compulsory provision of data as a prerequisite for the access and use of many key online services is making opting-out of data collection not only impractical but in some cases impossible. [33]

3. "Chilling Effects"

For many scholars the normalization of large scale data collection is steadily producing a widespread perception of ubiquitous surveillance amongst users. Drawing upon Foucault's analysis of Jeremy Bentham's panopticon and the disciplinary effects of surveillance, they argue that this perception of permanent visibility can cause users to sub-consciously 'discipline' and self- regulate of their own behavior, fearful of being targeted or identified as 'abnormal' [34]. As a result, the pervasive nature of Big Data risks generating a 'chilling effect' on user behavior and free speech.

Although the notion of "chilling effects" is quite prevalent throughout the academic literature on surveillance and security, the difficulty of quantifying the perception and effects of surveillance on online behavior and practices means that there have only been a limited number of empirical studies of this phenomena, and none directly related to the chilling effects of Big Data. One study, conducted by researchers at MIT however, sought to assess the impact of Edward Snowden's revelations about NSA surveillance programs on Google search trends. Nearly 6,000 participants were asked to individually rate certain keywords for their perceived degree of privacy sensitivity along multiple dimensions. Using Google's own publicly available search data, the researchers then analyzed search patterns for these terms before and after the Snowden revelations. In doing so they were able to demonstrate a reduction of around 2.2% in searchers for those terms deemed to be most sensitive in nature. According to the researchers themselves, the results 'suggest that there is a chilling effect on search behaviour from government surveillance on the Internet'[35]. Although this study focussed on the effects on government surveillance, for many privacy advocates the growing pervasiveness of Big Data risks generating similar results. [36]

4. Dignitary Harms of Predictive Decision-Making

In addition to its potentially chilling effects on free speech, the automated nature of Big Data analytics also possess the potential to inflict so-called 'dignitary harms' on individuals, by revealing insights about themselves that they would have preferred to keep private [37].

In an infamous example, following a shopping trip to the retail chain Target, a young girl began to receive mail at her father's house advertising products for babies including, diapers, clothing, and cribs. In response, her father complained to the management of the company, incensed by what he perceived to be the company's attempts to "encourage" pregnancy in teens. A few days later however, the father was forced to contact the store again to apologies, after his daughter had confessed to him that she was indeed pregnant. It was later revealed that Target regularly analyzed the sale of key products such as supplements or unscented lotions in order to generate "pregnancy prediction" scores, which could be used to assess the likelihood that a customer was pregnant and to therefore target them with relevant offers[38]. Such cases, though anecdotal illustrate how Big Data if not adopted sensitively can lead to potential embarrassing information about users being made public.

Security

In relation to cybersecurity Big Data can be viewed to a certain extent as a double-edged sword. On the one hand, the unique capabilities of Big Data analytics can provide organizations with new and innovative methods of enhancing their cybersecurity systems. On the other however, the sheer quantity and diversity of data emanating from a variety of sources creates its own security risks.

5. "Honey-Pot"

The larger the quantities of confidential information stored by companies on their databases the more attractive those databases may appear to potential hackers.

6. Data Redundancy and Dispersion

Inherent to Big Data systems is the duplication of data to many locations in order to optimize query processing. Data is dispersed across a wide range of data repositories in different servers, in different parts of the world. As a result it may be difficult for organizations to accurately locate and secure all items of personal information.

Epistemological and Methodological Implications

In 2008 Chris Anderson infamously proclaimed the 'end of theory'. Writing for Wired Magazine, Anderson predicted that the coming age of Big Data would create a 'deluge of data' so large that the scientific methods of hypothesis, sampling and testing would be rendered 'obsolete' [39]. 'There is now a better way' Anderson insisted, 'Petabytes allow us to say: "Correlation is enough." We can stop looking for models. We can analyze the data without hypotheses about what it might show. We can throw the numbers into the biggest computing clusters the world has ever seen and let statistical algorithms find patterns where science cannot'[40].

In spite of these bold claims however, many theorists remain skeptical of Big Data's methodological benefits and have expressed concern about its potential implications for conventional scientific epistemologies. For them the increased prominence of Big Data analytics in science does not signal a paradigmatic transition to a more enlightened data-driven age, but a hollowing out of the scientific method and an abandonment of casual knowledge in favor of shallow correlative analysis[41].

7. Obfuscation

Although Big Data analytics can be utilized to study almost any phenomena where enough data exists, many theorists have warned that simply because Big Data analytics can be used does not necessarily mean that they should be used[42]. Bigger is not always better and indeed the sheer quantity of data made available to users may in fact act to obscure certain insights. Whereas traditional scientific methods use sampling techniques to identify the most important and relevant data, Big Data by contrast encourages the collection and use of as much data as possible, in an attempt to attain full resolution of the phenomena being studied. However, not all data is equally useful and simply inputting as much data as possible into an algorithm is unlikely to produce accurate results and may instead obscure key insights.

Indeed, whilst the promise of automation is central to a large part of Big Data's appeal, researchers observe that most Big Data analysis still requires an element of human judgement to filter out the 'good' data from the 'bad', and to decide what aspects of the data are relevant to the research objectives. As Boyd and Crawford observe, 'in the case of social media data, there is a 'data cleaning' process: making decisions about what attributes and variables will be counted, and which will be ignored. This process is inherently subjective"^{^[43]}.

Google's Flu Trend project provides an illustrative example of how Big Data's tendency to try to maximise data inputs can produce misleading results. Designed to accurately track flu outbreaks based upon data collected from Google searches, the project was initially proclaimed to be a great success. Gradually however it became apparent that the results being produced were not reflective of the reality on the ground. Later it was discovered that the algorithms used by the project to interpret search terms were insufficiently accurate to filter out anomalies in searches, such as those related to the 2009 H1N1 flu pandemic. As such, despite the great promise of Big Data, scholars insist it remains critical to be mindful of its limitations, remain selective about the types of data included in the analysis and exercise caution and intuition whenever interpreting its results ^{^[44]}.

8. "Apophenia"

In complete contrast to the problem of obfuscation, Boyd and Crawford observe how Big Data may also lead to the practice of 'apophenia', a phenomena whereby analysts interpret patterns where none exist, 'simply because enormous quantities of data can offer connections that radiate in all directions" ^{^[45]}. David Leinweber for example demonstrated that data mining techniques could show strong but ultimately spurious correlations between changes in the S&P 500 stock index and butter production in Bangladesh [46]. Such spurious correlation between disparate and unconnected phenomena are a common feature of Big Data analytics and risks leading to unfounded conclusions being draw from the data.

Although Leinweber's primary focus of analysis was the use of Data-Mining technologies, his observations are equally applicable to Big Data. Indeed the tendency amongst Big Data analysts to marginalise the types of domain specific expertise capable of differentiating between relevant and irrelevant correlations in favour of algorithmic automation can in many ways be seen to exacerbate many of the problems Leinweber identified.

9. From Causation to Correlation

Closely related to the problem of Aphonenia is the concern that Big Data's emphasis on correlative analysis risks leading to an abandonment of the pursuit of causal knowledge in favour of shallow descriptive accounts of scientific phenomena[47].

For many, Big Data enthusiasts 'correlation is enough', producing inherently meaningful results interpretable by anyone without the need for pre-existing theory or hypothesis. Whilst proponents of Big Data claim that such an approach allows them to produce objective knowledge, by cleansing the data of any kind of philosophical or ideological commitment, for others by neglecting the knowledge of domain experts, Big Data risks generating a shallow type of analysis, since it fails to adequately embed observations within a pre-existing body of knowledge.

This commitment to an empiricist epistemology and methodological monism is particularly problematic in the context of studies of human behaviour, where actions cannot be calculated and anticipated using quantifiable data alone. In such instances, a certain degree of qualitative analysis of social, historical and cultural variables may be required in order to make the data meaningful by embedding it within a broader body of knowledge. The abstract and intangible nature of these variables requires a great deal of expert knowledge and interpretive skill to comprehend. It is therefore vital that the knowledge of domain specific experts is properly utilized to help 'evaluate the inputs, guide the process, and evaluate the end products within the context of value and validity'[48].

As such, although Big Data can provide unrivalled accounts of "what" people do, it fundamentally fails to deliver robust explanations of "why" people do it. This problem is especially critical in the case of public policy-making since without any indication of the motivations of individuals, policy-makers can have no basis upon which to intervene to incentivise more positive outcomes.

Digital Divides and Marginalisation

Today data is a highly valuable commodity. The market for data in and of itself has been steadily growing in recent years with the business models of many online services now formulated around the strategy of harvesting data from users^{^[49]}. As with the commodification of anything however, inequalities can easily emerge between the haves and have not's. Whilst the quantity of data currently generated on a daily basis is many times greater than at any other point in human history, the vast majority of this data is owned and tightly controlled by a very small number of technology companies and data brokers. Although in some instances limited access to data may be granted to university researchers or to those willing and able to pay a fee, in many cases data remains jealously guarded by data brokers, who view it as an important competitive asset. As a result these data brokers and companies risk becoming the gatekeepers of the Big Data revolution, adjudicating not only over who can benefit from Big Data, but also in what context and under what terms. For many such inconsistencies and inequalities in access to data raises serious doubts about just how widely distributed the benefits of Big Data will be. Others go even further claiming that far from helping to alleviate inequalities, the advent of Big Data risks exacerbating already significant digital divides that exist as well as creating new ones ^{^[50]}.

10. Anti-Competitive Practices

As a result of the reluctance of large companies to share their data, there increasingly exists a divide in access between small start-ups companies and their larger and more established competitors. Thus, new entrants to the marketplace may be at a competitive disadvantage in relation to large and well established enterprises, being as they are unable to harness the analytical power of the vast quantities of data available to large companies by virtue of their privileged market position. Since the performance of many online services are today often intimately connected with the collation and use of users data, some researchers have suggested that this inequity in access to data could lead to a reduction in competition in the online marketplace, and ultimately therefore to less innovation and choice for consumers[51].

As a result researchers including Nathan Newman of New York University have called for a reassessment and reorientation of anti-trust investigations and regulatory approaches more generally to 'to focus on how control of personal data by corporations can entrench monopoly power and harm consumer welfare in an economy shaped increasingly by the power of "big data"'[52]. Similarly a report produced by the European Data Protection Supervisor concluded that, 'The scope for abuse of market dominance and harm to the consumer through refusal of access to personal information and opaque or misleading privacy policies may justify a new concept of consumer harm for competition enforcement in digital economy' [53].

11. Research

From a research perspective barriers to access to data caused by proprietary control of datasets are problematic, since certain types of research could become restricted to those privileged enough to be granted access to data. Meanwhile those denied access are left not only incapable of conducting similar research projects, but also unable to test, verify or reproduce the findings of those who do. The existence of such gatekeepers may also lead to reluctance on the part of researchers to undertake research critical of the companies, upon whom they rely for access, leading to a chilling effect on the types of research conducted[54].

12. Inequality

Whilst bold claims are regularly made about the potential of Big Data to deliver economic development and generate new innovations, some critics of remain concerned about how equally the benefits of Big Data will be distributed and the effects this could have on already established digital divides [55].

Firstly, whilst the power of Big Data is already being utilized effectively by most economically developed nations, the same cannot necessarily be said for many developing countries. A combination of lower levels of connectivity, poor information infrastructure, underinvestment in information technologies and a lack of skills and trained personnel make it far more difficult for the developing world to fully reap the rewards of Big Data. As a consequence the Big Data revolution risks deepening global economic inequality as developing countries find themselves unable to compete with data rich nations whose governments can more easily exploit the vast quantities of information generated by their technically literate and connected citizens.

Likewise, to the extent that the Big Data analytics is playing a greater role in public policy-making, the capacity of individuals to generate large quantities of data, could potentially impact upon the extent to which they can provide inputs into the policy-making process. In a country such as India for example, where there exist high levels of inequality in access to information and communication technologies and the internet, there remain large discrepancies in the quantities of data produced by individuals. As a result there is a risk that those who lack access to the means of producing data will be disenfranchised, as policy-making processes become configured to accommodate the needs and interests of a privilege minority [56].

Discrimination

13. Injudicious or Discriminatory Outcomes

Big Data presents the opportunity for governments, businesses and individuals to make better, more informed decisions at a much faster pace. Whilst this can evidently provide innumerable opportunities to increase efficiency and mitigate risk, by removing human intervention and oversight from the decision-making process Big Data analysts run the risk of becoming blind to unfair or injudicious results generated by skewed or discriminatory programming of the algorithms.

There currently exists a large number of automated decision-making algorithms in operation across a broad range of sectors including most notably perhaps those used to asses an individual's suitability for insurance or credit. In either of these cases faults in the programming or discriminatory assessment criteria can have potentially damaging implications for the individual, who may as a result be unable to attain credit or insurance. This concern with the potentially discriminatory aspects of Big Data is prevalent throughout the literature and real life examples have been identified by researchers in a large number of major sectors in which Big Data is currently being used[57].

Yu for instance, cites the case of the insurance company Progressive, which required its customers to install 'Snapsnot' - a small monitoring device - into their cars in order to receive their best rates. The device tracked and reported the customers driving habits, and offered discounts to those drivers who drove infrequently, broke smoothly, and avoided driving at night - behaviors that correlate with a lower risk of future accidents. Although this form of price differentiation provided incentives for customers to drive more carefully, it also had the unintended consequence of unfairly penalizing late-night shift workers. As Yu observes, 'for late night shift-workers, who are disproportionately poorer and from minority groups, this differential pricing provides no benefit at all. It categorizes them as similar to late-night party-goers, forcing them to carry more of the cost of the intoxicated and other irresponsible driving that happens disproportionately at night'[58].

In another example, it is noted how Big Data is increasingly being used to evaluate applicants for entry-level service jobs. One method of evaluating applicants is by the length of their commute - the rationale being that employees with shorter commutes are statistically more likely to remain in the job longer. However, since most service jobs are typically located in town centers and since poorer neighborhoods tend to be those on the outskirts of town, such criteria can have the effect of unfairly disadvantaging those living in economically deprived areas. Consequently such metrics of evaluation can therefore also unintentionally act to reinforce existing social inequalities by making it more difficult for economically disadvantaged communities to work their way out of poverty[59].

14. Lack of Algorithmic Transparency.

If data is indeed the 'oil of the 21^st century'[60] then algorithms are very much the engines which are driving innovation and economic development. For many companies the quality of their algorithms is often a crucial factor in providing them with a market advantage over their competitor. Given their importance, the secrets behind the programming of algorithms are often closely guarded by companies, and are typically classified as trade secrets and as such are protected by intellectual property rights. Whilst companies may claim that such secrecy is necessary to encourage market competition and innovation, many scholars are becoming increasingly concerned about the lack of transparency surrounding the design of these most crucial tools.

In particular there is a growing sentiment common amongst many researchers that there currently exists a chronic lack of accountability and transparency in terms of how Big Data algorithms are programmed and what criteria are used to determine outcomes ^{^[61]}. As Frank Pasquale observed,

' hidden algorithms can make (or ruin) reputations, decide the destiny of entrepreneurs, or even devastate an entire economy. Shrouded in secrecy and complexity, decisions at major Silicon Valley and Wall Street firms were long assumed to be neutral and technical. But leaks, whistleblowers, and legal disputes have shed new light on automated judgment. Self-serving and reckless behavior is surprisingly common, and easy to hide in code protected by legal and real secrecy'[62].

As such, without increased transparency in algorithmic design, instances of Big Data discrimination may go unnoticed as analyst are unable to access the information necessary to identify them.

Conclusion

Today Big Data presents us with as many challenges as it does benefits. Whilst Big Data analytics can offer incredible opportunities to reduce inefficiency, improve decision-making, and increase transparency, concerns remain about the effects of these new technologies on issues such as privacy, equality and discrimination. Although the tensions between the competing demands of Big Data advocates and their critics may appear irreconcilable; only by highlighting these points of contestation can we hope to begin to ask the types of important and difficult questions necessary to do so, including; how can we reconcile Big Data's need for massive inputs of personal information with core principles of privacy such as data minimization and collection limitation? What processes and procedures need to be put in place during the design and implementation of Big Data models and algorithms to provide sufficient transparency and accountability so as to avoid instances of discrimination? What measures can be used to help close digital divides and ensure that the benefits of Big Data are shared equitably? Questions such as these are today only just beginning to be addressed; each however, will require careful consideration and reasoned debate, if Big Data is to deliver on its promises and truly fulfil its 'revolutionary' potential.

[1] Gantz, J., &Reinsel, D. Extracting Value from Chaos, IDC, (2011), available at: http://www.emc.com/collateral/analyst-reports/idc-extracting-value-from-chaos-ar.pdf

[2] Meeker, M. & Yu, L. Internet Trends, Kleiner Perkins Caulfield Byers, (2013), http://www.slideshare.net/kleinerperkins/kpcb-internet-trends-2013 .

[3] Douglas, L. "3D Data Management: Controlling Data Volume, Velocity and Variety" . Gartner, (2001)

[4] Boyd, D., and Crawford, K. 'Critical Questions for Big Data: Provocations for a cultural, technological, and scholarly phenomenon', Information, Communication & Society,Vol 15, Issue 5, (2012) http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1369118X.2012.678878, Tene, O., &Polonetsky, J. Big Data for All: Privacy and User Control in the Age of Analytics, 11 Nw. J. Tech. &Intell. Prop. 239 (2013) http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/njtip/vol11/iss5/1

[5] Ibid.,

[6] Joh. E, 'Policing by Numbers: Big Data and the Fourth Amendment', Washington Law Review, Vol. 85: 35, (2014) https://digital.law.washington.edu/dspace-law/bitstream/handle/1773.1/1319/89WLR0035.pdf?sequence=1

[7] Raghupathi, W., &Raghupathi, V. Big data analytics in healthcare: promise and potential. Health Information Science and Systems, (2014)

[8] Anderson, R., & Roberts, D. 'Big Data: Strategic Risks and Opportunities, Crowe Horwarth Global Risk Consulting Limited, (2012) https://www.crowehorwath.net/uploadedfiles/crowe-horwath-global/tabbed_content/big%20data%20strategic%20risks%20and%20opportunities%20white%20paper_risk13905.pdf

[9] Ibid.

[10] Kshetri. N, 'The Emerging role of Big Data in Key development issues: Opportunities, challenges, and concerns'. Big Data & Society (2014)http://bds.sagepub.com/content/1/2/2053951714564227.abstract,

[11] Tene, O., &Polonetsky, J. Big Data for All: Privacy and User Control in the Age of Analytics, 11 Nw. J. Tech. &Intell. Prop. 239 (2013) http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/njtip/vol11/iss5/1

[12] Cisco, 'IoE-Driven Smart Street Lighting Project Allows Oslo to Reduce Costs, Save Energy, Provide Better Service', Cisco, (2014) Available at: http://www.cisco.com/c/dam/m/en_us/ioe/public_sector/pdfs/jurisdictions/Oslo_Jurisdiction_Profile_051214REV.pdf

[13] Newell, B, C. Local Law Enforcement Jumps on the Big Data Bandwagon: Automated License Plate Recognition Systems, Information Privacy, and Access to Government Information. University of Washington - the Information School, (2013) http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2341182

[14] Morris, D. Big data could improve supply chain efficiency-if companies would let it, Fortune, August 5 2015, http://fortune.com/2015/08/05/big-data-supply-chain/

[15] Tucker, Darren S., & Wellford, Hill B., Big Mistakes Regarding Big Data, Antitrust Source, American Bar Association, (2014). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2549044

[16] Davenport, T., Barth., Bean, R. How is Big Data Different, MITSloan Management Review, Fall (2012), Available at, http://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/how-big-data-is-different/

[17] Tucker, Darren S., & Wellford, Hill B., Big Mistakes Regarding Big Data, Antitrust Source, American Bar Association, (2014). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2549044

[18] Raghupathi, W., &Raghupathi, V. Big data analytics in healthcare: promise and potential. Health Information Science and Systems, (2014)

[19] Brown, B., Chui, M., Manyika, J. 'Are you Ready for the Era of Big Data?', McKinsey Quarterly, (2011), Available at, http://www.t-systems.com/solutions/download-mckinsey-quarterly-/1148544_1/blobBinary/Study-McKinsey-Big-data.pdf ; Benady, D., 'Radical transparency will be unlocked by technology and big data', Guardian (2014) Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/radical-transparency-unlocked-technology-big-data

[20] Ibid.

[21] Ibid.

[22] United Nations, A World That Counts: Mobilising the Data Revolution for Sustainable Development, Report prepared at the request of the United Nations Secretary-General,by the Independent Expert Advisory Group on a Data Revolutionfor Sustainable Development. (2014), pg. 18, see also, Hilbert, M. Big Data for Development: From Information- to Knowledge Societies (2013). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2205145

[23] Greenleaf, G. Abandon All Hope? Foreword for Issue 37(2) of the UNSW Law Journal on 'Communications Surveillance, Big Data, and the Law' ,(2014) http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2490425##, Boyd, D., and Crawford, K. 'Critical Questions for Big Data: Provocations for a cultural, technological, and scholarly phenomenon', Information, Communication & Society, Vol. 15, Issue 5, (2012) http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1369118X.2012.678878

[24] Tene, O., &Polonetsky, J. Big Data for All: Privacy and User Control in the Age of Analytics, 11 Nw. J. Tech. &Intell. Prop. 239 (2013) http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/njtip/vol11/iss5/1

[25] Narayanan and Shmatikov quoted in Ibid.,

[26] OECD, Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data, The Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, (1999); The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, EU Data Protection Directive, "Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data," (1995)

[27] Barocas, S., &Selbst, A, D., Big Data's Disparate Impact,California Law Review, Vol. 104, (2015). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2477899

[28] Article 29 Working Group., Opinion 03/2013 on purpose limitation, Article 29 Data Protection Working Party, (2013) available at: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-29/documentation/opinion-recommendation/files/2013/wp203_en.pdf

[29] Solove, D, J. Privacy Self-Management and the Consent Dilemma, 126 Harv. L. Rev. 1880 (2013), Available at: http://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2093&context=faculty_publications

[30] Brandimarte, L., Acquisti, A., & Loewenstein, G., Misplaced Confidences:

Privacy and the Control Paradox, Ninth Annual Workshop on the Economics of Information Security (WEIS) June 7-8 2010, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, (2010), available at: https://fpf.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Misplaced-Confidences-acquisti-FPF.pdf

[31] Solove, D, J., Privacy Self-Management and the Consent Dilemma, 126 Harv. L. Rev. 1880 (2013), Available at: http://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2093&context=faculty_publications

[32] Yu, W, E., Data., Privacy and Big Data-Compliance Issues and Considerations, ISACA Journal, Vol. 3 2014 (2014), available at: http://www.isaca.org/Journal/archives/2014/Volume-3/Pages/Data-Privacy-and-Big-Data-Compliance-Issues-and-Considerations.aspx

[33] Ramirez, E., Brill, J., Ohlhausen, M., Wright, J., & McSweeny, T., Data Brokers: A Call for Transparency and Accountability, Federal Trade Commission (2014) https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/data-brokers-call-transparency-accountability-report-federal-trade-commission-may-2014/140527databrokerreport.pdf

[34] Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Translated by Alan Sheridan, London: Allen Lane, Penguin, (1977)

[35] Marthews, A., & Tucker, C., Government Surveillance and Internet Search Behavior (2015), available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2412564

[36] Boyd, D., and Crawford, K. 'Critical Questions for Big Data: Provocations for a cultural, technological, and scholarly phenomenon', Information, Communication & Society, Vol. 15, Issue 5, (2012)

[37] Hirsch, D., That's Unfair! Or is it? Big Data, Discrimination and the FTC's Unfairness Authority, Kentucky Law Journal, Vol. 103, available at: http://www.kentuckylawjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/103KyLJ345.pdf

[38] Hill, K., How Target Figured Out A Teen Girl Was Pregnant Before Her Father Didhttp://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how-target-figured-out-a-teen-girl-was-pregnant-before-her-father-did/

[39] Anderson, C (2008) "The End of Theory: The Data Deluge Makes the Scientific Method Obsolete", WIRED, June 23 2008, www.wired.com/2008/06/pb-theory/

[40] Ibid.,

[41] Kitchen, R (2014) Big Data, new epistemologies and paradigm shifts, Big Data & Society, April-June 2014: 1-12

[42] Boyd D and Crawford K (2012) Critical questions for big data. Information, Communication and Society 15(5): 662-679

[43] Ibid

[44] Lazer, D., Kennedy, R., King, G., &Vespignani, A. " The Parable of Google Flu: Traps in Big Data Analysis ." Science 343 (2014): 1203-1205. Copy at http://j.mp/1ii4ETo

[45] Boyd, D., and Crawford, K. 'Critical Questions for Big Data: Provocations for a cultural, technological, and scholarly phenomenon', Information, Communication & Society,Vol 15, Issue 5, (2012) http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1369118X.2012.678878

[46] Leinweber, D. (2007) 'Stupid data miner tricks: overfitting the S&P 500', The Journal of Investing, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 15-22. http://m.shookrun.com/documents/stupidmining.pdf

[47] Boyd D and Crawford K (2012) Critical questions for big data. Information, Communication and Society 15(5): 662-679

[48] McCue, C., Data Mining and Predictive Analysis: Intelligence Gathering and Crime Analysis, Butterworth-Heinemann, (2014)

[49] De Zwart, M. J., Humphreys, S., & Van Dissel, B. Surveillance, big data and democracy: lessons for Australia from the US and UK. Http://www.unswlawjournal.unsw.edu.au/issue/volume-37-No-2. (2014) Retrieved from https://digital.library.adelaide.edu.au/dspace/handle/2440/90048

[50] Boyd, D., and Crawford, K. 'Critical Questions for Big Data: Provocations for a cultural, technological, and scholarly phenomenon', Information, Communication & Society,Vol 15, Issue 5, (2012) http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1369118X.2012.678878; Newman, N., Search, Antitrust and the Economics of the Control of User Data, 31 YALE J. ON REG. 401 (2014)

[51] Newman, N., The Cost of Lost Privacy: Search, Antitrust and the Economics of the Control of User Data (2013). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2265026, Newman, N. ,Search, Antitrust and the Economics of the Control of User Data, 31 YALE J. ON REG. 401 (2014)

[52] Ibid.,

[53] European Data Protection Supervisor, Privacy and competitiveness in the age of big data:

The interplay between data protection, competition law and consumer protection in the Digital Economy, (2014), available at: https://secure.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/webdav/shared/Documents/Consultation/Opinions/2014/14-03-26_competitition_law_big_data_EN.pdf

[54] Boyd, D., and Crawford, K. 'Critical Questions for Big Data: Provocations for a cultural, technological, and scholarly phenomenon', Information, Communication & Society,Vol 15, Issue 5, (2012) http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1369118X.2012.678878

[55] Schradie, J., Big Data Not Big Enough? How the Digital Divide Leaves People Out, MediaShift, 31 July 2013, (2013), available at: http://mediashift.org/2013/07/big-data-not-big-enough-how-digital-divide-leaves-people-out/

[56] Crawford, K., The Hidden Biases in Big Data, Harvard Business Review, 1 April 2013 (2013), available at: https://hbr.org/2013/04/the-hidden-biases-in-big-data

[57] Robinson, D., Yu, H., Civil Rights, Big Data, and Our Algorithmic Future, (2014) http://bigdata.fairness.io/introduction/

[58] Ibid.

[59] Ibid

[60] Rotellla, P., Is Data The New Oil? Forbes, 2 April 2012, (2012), available at: http://www.forbes.com/sites/perryrotella/2012/04/02/is-data-the-new-oil/

[61] Barocas, S., &Selbst, A, D., Big Data's Disparate Impact,California Law Review, Vol. 104, (2015). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2477899; Kshetri. N, 'The Emerging role of Big Data in Key development issues: Opportunities, challenges, and concerns'. Big Data & Society(2014) http://bds.sagepub.com/content/1/2/2053951714564227.abstract

[62] Pasquale, F., The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information, Harvard University Press , (2015)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/benefits-and-harms-of-big-data

Battle for the Internet

praskrishna — 2011-04-01T15:28:19Z

In this article written by Latha Jishnu and published by Down to Earth, Issue: March 15 2011, the author reports about the events in the United States in the post WikiLeaks scenario.

As the Internet becomes the public square and the marketplace of our world, it is increasingly becoming a contested terrain. Its potential for diffusing knowledge and subverting the traditional channels of information is tremendous. So it is not surprising that governments, corporations and even seemingly innocuous social networking sites all want to control and influence the way the Internet operates. It’s easy to see why. Close to a third of humanity is linked to this system—and the dramatic growth in Internet usage over the past decade is set to explode in coming years. So is its commercial promise. Latha Jishnu looks at events in the US following the WikiLeaks exposé of its diplomatic cables, and in the hot spots of political turmoil across the world to understand the significance of the Internet in today’s interconnected world and the threats it faces. Arnab Pratim Dutta explains the technology used to block access to the Net.

An opposition supporter holds up a laptop showing images of celebrations in Cairo's Tahrir Square, after Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak resigned (Photo: Reuters)

Ideas and ideologies, images and reports of events, both minor and cataclysmic, fly on the Internet, swirling through cyberspace, gathering resonance, metamorphosing and touching millions of lives in different ways. Many of the ideas—and visuals—could be banal (as they very often are), some dangerous, others bringing promise of change. Some have the power to subvert, helping to stir and stoke the smouldering embers of political and social unrest as recent uprisings in north Africa, West Asia and Asia have shown. To many, the Internet is the rebel hero of our times, subverting conventional media and leaking news and information that governments would like to censor. Even a village in the remote reaches of Odisha’s Malkangiri district which may have no electricity is in some way linked to cyberspace through smart cell phones because mobile operators are increasingly turning Internet service providers (ISPs) and bringing the worldwide web to the conflict-ridden forests of central India.

It is about the power and reach of connection, unprecedented since people first began communicating with each other. The Internet, therefore, is turning into a conflict zone with everyone seeking control of it: governments, corporations and social networking sites, all of whom have different agendas. Social networks may seem innocuous but they are as much a hazard as the others to Internet freedom. Surveillance of “netizens” is becoming commonplace, whether in democracies or in totalitarian regimes, through a host of new laws and regulations ostensibly aimed at strengthening national security, cyber security or protecting business interests.

While most governments are seeking to filter and block specific content, in extreme cases, as in Egypt, the Net has been blacked out using what some experts say is the “kill switch” (see ‘The Egypt shutdown’). This could emerge as the biggest threat to the Internet since other regimes could be tempted to go the Egyptian way. Most governments, however, prefer not to use it, not even the censorship-obsessed Chinese and Saudi regimes because the Internet is also about business—commerce of increasing significance is being routed through its sinews. Take one small example: In January alone, Britons spent a whopping £5.1 billion online, recording a 21 per cent jump in e-commerce revenues over January 2010, according to the latest edition of the IMRG/CapGemini e-Retail Sales Index. It is the kind of figure that stops authorities from reaching for the kill switch.

In the case of China, e-commerce transactions hit 4.5 trillion yuan (US $682.16 billion) in 2010, up 22 per cent year-on-year, according to China e- Business Research Center and CNZZ Data Center. Of this, online B2B or business-to-business deals accounted for the bulk: 3.8 trillion yuan (US

Popular whistleblower website wikileaks.org was unavailable for some time in December 2010

$576.05 billion). And retail sales are expected to zoom, too, pretty soon with e-commerce websites selling directly to customers growing to more than 18,600 last year. Thanks to a dramatic spike in the rate of Net penetration and impressive growth of online business.

But the world has a long way to go before the Internet becomes ubiquitous or an all-encompassing global commons. Currently, just two billion people are linked to the system (see above: ‘Big picture’), which is less than a third of the world’s population. And the reach, as the chart shows, is rather patchy. India may be in the top five Internet user nations with a total of 81 million users but penetration is an abysmal 6.9 per cent, the worst in the list. Blame that on our pathetic education levels and poverty. China, however, is the undisputed leviathan with 420 million users in 2010—some estimates put the figure closer to 500 million now—who account for more than a fifth of the world’s Internet users. No other country’s growth in this sector matches China’s either in speed or drama.

This is one reason Washington frequently raises the issue of China’s policing of the Internet in different fora. The most recent was on February 15 when secretary of state Hillary Clinton made the second of her rousing speeches on safeguarding the Internet from all kinds of government interference. Speaking at George Washington University in Washington DC, Clinton pointed out that the attempts to control the Internet were rife across the world but singled China for repeated attacks.

“In China, the government censors content and redirects search requests to error pages. In Burma, independent news sites have been taken down with distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks. In Cuba, the government is trying to create a national intranet, while not allowing their citizens to access the global internet. In Vietnam, bloggers who criticize the government are arrested and abused. In Iran, the authorities block opposition and media websites, target social media, and steal identifying information about their own people in order to hunt them down. These actions reflect a landscape that is complex and combustible, and sure to become more so in the coming years as billions of more people connect to the Internet.”

That seemed a fair assessment of the trends but the irony is that even as the secretary of state was speaking, the Department of Justice was seeking to enforce a court order to direct Twitter Inc, to provide the US government records of three individuals, including Birgitta Jonsdottir, a member of Iceland's Parliament who had been in touch with others about WikiLeaks and its founder Juan Assange last year when WikiLeaks released its huge cache of US diplomatic cables.

A commentary in China Daily noted with asperity: “The Assange case reveals such rhetoric is just so much hypocrisy. It is apparent that when Internet freedom conflicts with self-declared US national interests, or when Internet freedom exposes lies by the self-proclaimed open and transparent government, it immediately becomes a crime.”

The Assange case more than anything else has exposed how vulnerable the Net is to political meddling and control. In December last year, Amazon said it stopped hosting the WikiLeaks website because it “violated its terms of service” and not because the office of the Senate Homeland Security Committee chaired by Joe Lieberman had questioned Amazon about its relationship with WikiLeaks.

WikiLeaks had turned to Amazon to keep its site available after hackers tried to flood it and prevent users accessing the classified information. Few people were willing to credit Amazon’s feeble explanation for cutting off WikiLeaks and the general surmise was that Lieberman had put some kind of pressure on the webhosting platform. According to one analyst, the simple reason is that the US government is one of the company’s biggest clients. According to a press note issued by the company: “Government adoption of AWS (Amazon Web Services) grew significantly in 2010. Today we have nearly 20 government agencies leveraging AWS, and the US federal government continues to be one of our fastest growing customer segments.”

As Amazon abandoned WikiLeaks, Paypal, Visa and MasterCard had also dumped WikiLeaks. This set off a fullscale cyber war in which a fourth party made its presence felt: Hackers/ ‘hacktivists’ who unleashed operation payback for what they deemed unfair targeting of WikiLeaks and Assange. This involved a series of (DDOS) attacks on Paypal, MasterCard, Swiss Bank PostFinance and Lieberman’s website.

So while governments in many parts of the world block sites, jail or kill dissidents for expressing their views on the Net, threats to the freedom of the Internet come primarily from the paranoia that governments suffer and from badly crafted policies they implement to protect business and other interests.

US enforcement agencies shut down 84,000 sites, falsely accusing them of child pornography

The US, the ultimate symbol of liberal democracy, is no less uneasy about the power of the Internet. A slew of laws are making their way through the Senate, laws that will give the administration sweeping powers to seize domain names and shut down websites, even those outside its territory, and laws that strengthen the powers of the president in the time of a cyber emergency, including the use of a kill switch. In September, the US Senate introduced the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act, which would allow the government to create a blacklist of websites that are suspected to be infringing IP rights and to pressure or require all ISPs to block access to those sites. In these cases, no due process of law protects people before they are disconnected or their sites are blocked.

In India, in the wake of the terrorist attacks in Mumbai in November 2008, Parliament hastily passed amendments to the Information Technology Act, 2000, without any discussion in either House. The December 2008 amendments have some good points but they also allow increased online surveillance. Section 69A permits the Centre to “issue directions for blocking of public access to any information through any computer resource”, which means that the government can block any website.

Pranesh Prakash of the Bengalurubased Centre for Internet and Society notes that while necessity or expediency in terms of certain restricted interests is specified, no guidelines have been specified. “It has to be ensured that they are prescribed first, before any powers of censorship are granted to anybody,” said Prakash in an analysis of the amendments. “In India, it is clear that any law that gives unguided discretion to an administrative authority to exercise censorship is unreasonable.”

Civil rights activists say the section has broadened the scope of surveillance and that there are no legal or procedural safeguards to prevent violation of civil liberties.

As the battle for keeping the Internet is joined by netizens who are aware of the power of connection, governments, too, are ramping up command and control measures. Among the risks to an open, democratic Internet are the following:

Threat to universality

The basic design principle underlying the World Wide Web is universality, and, according to its founder Tim Berners-Lee, several threats are emerging. Among these are: cable companies that sell Internet connectivity wanting to limit their Net users to downloading only the company’s mix of entertainment and social networking sites (see ‘Hidden dangers of Facebook’).

Another is by pricing Net connectivity out of the reach of the poor and allowing differential pricing. Berners- Lee, warned at a recent London conference: “There are a lot of companies who would love to be able to limit what web pages you can see...the moment you let Net neutrality go, you lose the web as it is...You lose something essential—the fact that any innovator can dream up an idea and set up a website at some random place and let it just take off from word of mouth...”

Actions against piracy

The nub of such operations lies in the US Department of Homeland Security, whose Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Department of Justice (DoJ) have been seizing domains because they are suspected of hawking pirated goods. The first seizure was in November last year when 82 websites selling counterfeit goods ranging from handbags to golf clubs were taken out.

Last month, there was another raid on the Internet. According to TorrentFreak and other Internet monitoring sites, the two agencies wrongly shut down 84,000 websites that had not broken the law, falsely accusing them of child pornography crimes. After the mistake was identified, it took about three days for some of the websites to go live again. The domain provider, FreeDNS, was taken aback. “Freedns.afraid.org has never allowed this type of abuse of its DNS service. We are working to get the issue sorted as quickly as possible,” it said.

Earlier, DoJ and ICE had seized the domain of the popular sports streaming and P2P download site Rojadirecta. What is shocking is that the site is based in Spain and is perfectly legal. Two courts in Spain have ruled that the site operates legally, and other than the .org domain the site has no links to the US.

Internet freedom could easily become the biggest casualty in the illconceived and poorly designed procedures adopted by developed countries— France, the UK, South Korea, Taiwan and New Zealand have similar laws—to protect intellectual property from counterfeiters and pirates, primarily at the behest of the film and music recording industries.

There are indications India may be planning to follow suit (see ‘India’s three-strikes policy’), although civil rights groups say it could amount to a form of deprivation of liberty.

Surveillance technology

The problem with the use of technology in keeping the Internet safe cuts both ways. With increasing number of cyber attacks on both official and public websites from an array of hackers and malware, governments are reaching for ever more sophisticated high-tech surveillance systems. For instance, computer systems of the US Congress and the executive branches are under attack an average of 1.8 billion times per month, according to a recent Senate report. The result: more spyware. One such is deep packet inspection technology. It is a tool that protects customers from rampant spam and virus traffic. Experts say the Internet could not survive without this technology and yet, it helps authorities to keep a close watch on what people are doing on the Net. In the US, ISPs are required to have this technology.

So what can be done? Keep close tabs on government involvement in the Internet and ensure that its intrusion in both the content and the engines of this system is kept to the minimum.

Read the original article written by Latha Jishnu in Down to Earth here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/battle-internet