Centre for Internet and Society

An Interview with Suresh Ramasubramanian

elonnai — 2013-09-06T09:37:47Z

Suresh Ramasubramanian is the ICS Quality Representative - IBM SmartCloud at IBM. We from the Centre for Internet and Society conducted an interview on cybersecurity and issues in the Cloud.

You have done a lot of work around cybersecurity and issues in the Cloud. Could you please tell us of your experience in these areas and the challenges facing them?
a. I have been involved in antispam activism from the late 1990s and have worked in ISP / messaging provider antispam teams since 2001. Since 2005, I expanded my focus to include general cyber security and privacy, having written white papers on spam and botnets for the OECD, ITU and UNDP/APDIP. More recently, have become a M3AAWG special advisor for capacity building and outreach in India.

In fact capacity building and outreach has been the focus of my career for a long time now. I have been putting relevant stakeholders from ISPs, government and civil society in India in touch with their counterparts around the world, and, at a small level, enabling an international exchange of ideas and information around antispam and security.

This was a challenge over a decade back when I was a newbie to antispam and it still is. People in India and other emerging economies, with some notable exceptions, are not part of the international communities that have grown in the area of cyber security and privacy.

There is a prevalent lack of knowledge in this area, which combined with gaps in local law and its enforcement. There is a tendency on the part of online criminals to target emerging and fast growing economies as a rich source of potential victims for various forms of online crime, and sometimes as a safe haven against prosecution.
In a recent public statement Google said "Cloud users have no legitimate expectation of privacy. Do you agree with this statement?
a. Let us put it this way. All email received by a cloud or other Internet service provider for its customers is automatically processed and data mined in one form or the other. At one level, this can be done for spam filtering and other security measures that are essential to maintain the security and stability of the service, and to protect users from being targeted by spam, malware and potential account compromises.

The actual intent of automated data mining and processing should be transparently provided to customers of a service, with a clearly defined privacy policy, and the deployment of such processing, and the “end use” to which data mined from this processing is put, are key to agreeing or disagreeing with such a statement.

It goes without saying that such processing must stay within the letter, scope and spirit of a company’s privacy policy, and must actually be structured to be respectful of user privacy.

Especially where mined data is used to provide user advertising or for any other commercial purpose (such as being aggregated and resold), strict adherence to a well written privacy policy and periodic review of this policy and its implementation to examine its compliance to laws in all countries that the company operates in are essential.

There is way too much noise in the media for me to usefully add any more to this issue and so I will restrict myself to the purely general comments above.
What ways can be privacy of an individual be compromised on the cloud? What can be done to prevent such instances of compromise?
a. All the recent headlines about companies mining their own users’ data, and yet more headlines about different countries deploying nationwide or even international lawful intercept and wiretap programs, aside, the single largest threat to individual privacy on the cloud is, and has been for years before the word “cloud” came into general use, the constant targeting of online users by online criminals with a variety of threats including scams, phish campaigns and data / account credential stealing malware.

Poor device security is another threat – one that becomes even more of a serious problem when the long talked about “internet of things” seems set to become reality, with cars, baby monitors, even Bluetooth enabled toilets, and more dangerously, critical national infrastructure such as power plants and water utilities becoming accessible over the Internet but still running software that is basically insecure and architected with assumptions that date back to an era when there was no conception or need to connect these to the Internet.

Someone in Bluetooth range with the appropriate android application being able to automatically flush your toilet and even download a list of the dates and times when you last used it is personally embarrassing. Having your bank account broken into because your computer got infected with a virus is even more damaging. Someone able to access a dam’s control panel over the internet and remotely trigger the dam’s gates to open can cause far more catastrophic damage.

The line between security and privacy, between normal business practice and unacceptable, even illegal behaviour, is sometimes quite thin and in a grey area that may be leveraged to the hilt for commercial and/or national security interests. However, scams, malware, exploits of insecure systems and similar threats are well on the wrong side of the “criminal” spectrum, and are a clear and present danger that cause far more than an embarrassing or personally damaging loss of privacy.
How is the jurisdiction of the data on the cloud determined?
This is a surprisingly thorny question. Normally, a company is based in a particular country and has an end user agreement / terms of service that makes its customers / users accept that country’s jurisdiction.

However, a cloud based provider that does business around the world may, in practice, have to comply to some extent at least, with that country’s local laws – at any rate, in respect to its users who are citizens of that country. And any cloud product sold to a local business or individual by a salesman from the vendor’s branch in the country would possibly fall under a contract executed in the country and therefore, subject to local law.

The level of compliance for data retention and disclosure in response to legal processes will possibly vary from country to country – ranging from flat refusals to cooperate (especially where any law enforcement request for data are for something that is quite legal in the country the cloud provider is based in) to actual compliance.

In practice this may also depend on what is at stake for the cloud vendor in complying or refusing to comply with local laws – regardless of what the terms of use policies or contract assert about jurisdiction. The number of users the cloud vendor has in the country, the extent of its local presence in the country, how vulnerable its resident employees and executives are to legal sanctions or punishment.

In the past, it has been observed that a practical balance [which may be based on business economics as much as it is based on a privacy assessment] may be struck by certain cloud vendors with a global presence, based on the critical mass of users it stands to gain or lose by complying with local law, and the risks it faces if it complies, or conversely, does not comply with local laws – so the decision may be to fight lawsuits or prosecutions on charges of breaking local data privacy laws or not complying with local law enforcement requests for handover of user data in court, or worst case, pulling out of the country altogether.
Currently, big cloud owners are US corps, yet US courts do not extend the same privacy rights to non US citizens. Is it possible for countries to use the cloud and still protect citizen data from being accessed by foreign governments? Do you think a "National Cloud" is a practical solution?
a. The “cloud” in this context is just “the internet”, and keeping local data local and within local jurisdiction is possible in theory at any rate. Peering can be used to keep local traffic local instead of having it do a roundtrip through a foreign country and back [where it might or might not be subject to another country’s intercept activities, no comment on that].

A national cloud demands local infrastructure including bandwidth, datacenters etc. that meet the international standards of most global cloud providers. It then requires cloud based sites that provide an equivalent level of service, functionality and quality to that provided by an international cloud vendor. And then after that, it has to have usable privacy policies and the country needs to have a privacy law and a sizeable amount of practical regulation to bolster the law, a well-defined path for reporting and redress of data breaches. There are a whole lot of other technical and process issues before having a national cloud becomes a reality, and even more before such a reality makes a palpable positive difference to user privacy.
What audit mechanisms of security and standards exist for Cloud Service Providers and Cloud Data Providers?
a. Plenty – some specific to the country and the industry sector / kind of data the cloud handles. The Cloud Security Alliance has been working for quite a while on CloudAudit, a framework developed as part of a cross industry effort to unify and automate Assertion, Assessment and Assurance of their infrastructure and service.

Different standards bodies and government agencies have all come out with their own sets of standards and best practices in this area (this article has a reasonable list - http://www.esecurityplanet.com/network-security/cloud-security-standards-what-youshould-know.html). Some standards you absolutely have to comply with for legal reasons.

Compliance reasons aside, a judicious mix of standards, and considerable amounts of adaptation in your process to make those standards work for you and play well together.

The standards all exist – what varies considerably, and is a major cause of data privacy breaches, are incomplete or ham handed implementations of existing standards, any attempt at “checkbox compliance” to simply implement a set of steps that lead to a required certification, and a lack of continuing initiative to keep the data privacy and securitymomentum going once these standards have been “achieved”, till it is time for the next audit at any rate.
What do you see as the big challenges for privacy in the cloud in the coming years?
a. Not very much more than the exact same challenges for privacy in the cloud over the past decade or more. The only difference is that any threat that existed before has always amplified itself because the complexity of systems and the level of technology and computing power available to implement security, and to attempt to breach security, is exponentially higher than ever before – and set to increase as we go further down the line.
Do you think encryption the answer to the private and public institutions snooping?
a. Encryption of data at rest and in transit is a key recommendation of any data privacy standard and cloud / enterprise security policy. Companies and users are strongly encouraged to deploy and use strong cryptography for personal protection. But to call it “the answer” is sort of like the tale of the blind men and the elephant.

There are multiple ways to circumvent encryption – social engineering to trick people into revealing data (which can be mitigated to some extent, or detected if it is tried on a large cross section of your userbase – it is something that security teams do have to watch for), or just plain coercion, which is much tougher to defend against.

As a very popular XKCD cartoon that has been shared around social media and has been cited in multiple security papers says -

“A crypto nerd’s imagination”

“His laptop’s encrypted. Let us build a million dollar cluster to crack it”
“No good! It is 4096 bit RSA”
“Blast, our evil plan is foiled”

“What would actually happen”
“His laptop’s encrypted. Drug him and hit him with this $5 wrench till he tells us the password”
“Got it”
Spam is now consistently used to get people to divulge their personal data or otherwise compromise a persons financial information and perpetuate illegal activity. Can spam be regulated? If so, how?
a. Spam has been regulated in several countries around the world. The USA has had laws against spam since 2003. So has Australia. Several other countries have laws that specifically target spam or use other statutes in their books to deal with crime (fraud, the sale of counterfeit goods, theft..) that happens to be carried out through the medium of spam.

The problems here are the usual problems that plague international enforcement of any law at all. Spammers (and worse online criminals including those that actively employ malware) tend to pick jurisdictions to operate in where there are no existing laws on their activities, and generally take the precaution not to target residents of the country that they live in. Others send spam but attempt to, in several cases successfully, skate around loopholes in their country’s antispam laws.

Still others fully exploit the anonymity that the Internet provides, with privately registered domain names, anonymizing proxy servers (when they are not using botnets of compromised machines), as well as a string of shell companies and complex international routing of revenue from their spam campaigns, to quickly take money offshore to a more permissible jurisdiction.

Their other advantage is that law enforcement and regulatory bodies are generally short staffed and heavily tasked, so that even a spammer who operates in the open may continue his activities for a very long time before someone manages to prosecute him.

Some antispam laws allow recipients of spam to sue the spammer in small claims courts – which, like regulatory action, has also previously led to judgements being handed out against spammers and their being fined or possibly imprisoned in case their spam has criminal aspects to it, attracting local computer crime laws rather than being mere violations of civil antispam laws.
There has been a lot of talk about the use of malware like FinFisher and its ability to compromise national security and individual security. Do you think regulation is needed for this type of malware - and if so what type - export controls? privacy regulation? Use control?
a. Malware used by nation states as a part of their surveillance activities is a problem. It is further a problem if such malware is used by nation states that are not even nominally democratic and that have long standing records of human rights violations.

Regulating or embargoing their sale is not going to help in such cases. One problem is that export controls on such software are not going to be particularly easy and countries that are on software export blacklists routinely manage to find newer and more creative ways to attempt to get around these and try to purchase embargoed software and computing equipment of all kinds.

Another problem is that such software is not produced just by legitimate vendors of lawful intercept gear. Criminals who write malware that is capable of, say, stealing personal data such as bank account credentials are perfectly capable of writing such software, and there is a thriving underground economy in the sale of malware and of “take” from malware such as personal data, credit cards and bank accounts where any rogue nation state can easily acquire products with an equivalent functionality.

This is going to apply even if legitimate vendors of such products are subject to strict regulations governing their sale and national laws exist regulating the use of such products. So while there is no reason not to regulate / provide judicial and regulatory oversight of their sale and intended use, it should not be seen as any kind of a solution to this problem.

User education in privacy and access to secure computing resources is probably going to be the bedrock of any initiative that looks to protect user privacy – a final backstop to any technical / legal or other measure that is taken to protect them.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/interview-with-suresh-ramasubramanian

An Interview with Stephen Song

Yelena Gyulkhandanyan — 2012-02-29T14:08:54Z

Stephen Song, the founder of Village Telco, an initiative to bring practical and inexpensive communication network infrastructure to rural and remote areas, speaks about factors that catalyzed the initiative, the benefits of the network, some challenges, and the Mesh Potato.

Yelena Gyulkhandanyan: When and how did the Mesh Potato come about?

Stephen Song: It came about after I joined the Shuttleworth foundation in 2008. I was aware of the potential of low cost wireless mesh technologies to create affordable infrastructure, but there seemed to be a challenge in getting these technologies to scale, and we had done some interesting pilot work, but nothing had really taken off. And so I convened a workshop in the middle of 2008 with some of the smartest wireless networking people I knew and so began to explore what were the key barriers.

There seemed to be at least a couple of key barriers – one was that setting up a wireless mesh network was a complex procedure that required expertise. And second was that in many areas where we were interested in providing services, people were as interested in voice services as they were in data. Simply delivering data to a particular community, at least to rural communities anyway, seemed to be only solving half of the problem. So the result of that workshop was that we came to the realization, the conclusion, that what we needed was a hybrid of technologies, something that didn’t exist yet, which was a combination of voice and data technologies together.

We were lucky enough to have a brilliant open hardware designer from Australia attending the workshop almost by coincidence, and he said, “Well, why don’t we build our own?” Up until that point I think our dominant way of looking at the world was by asking what sort of North American or European technologies could we take and repurpose in Sub-Saharan Africa to address this issue of access in a more affordable way. The notion of actually manufacturing our own technology wasn’t on the chart at all and it took a little while for the idea to sink in, because it just seemed infeasible at the time. But sink in it did, which led through my fellowship at the Shuttleworth foundation to the funding of a pilot project to see whether it was feasible to complete at least a prototype design. The created prototype design led to a partnership with the manufacturer in Shenzhen, China, and to a short run of production which led to a bigger run of production. And so one thing led to another and now we have our own device that we manufacture.

Yelena Gyulkhandanyan: And how would you describe this device to a regular consumer?

Stephen Song: Well, it is a wireless networking device that works with similar units of its kind to form an autonomous wireless network that delivers voice and data services. So you can open a box of Mesh Potatoes, plug them all in, and instantly have a voice and data network. It is a network for which you don’t require a special voice technology. All you need to do to be able to start making calls is to plug in an ordinary phone into the Mesh Potato. So it doesn’t require any sort of additional smart VOIP hand set technology or anything like that. We deliberately chose to do that because analog handsets are very cheap and lots of people have them already or they cost less than $10 to buy. So it seemed like a very affordable way of creating a voice network.

Yelena Gyulkhandanyan: And how much does a Mesh Potato cost?

Stephen Song: They are about a $100 each.

Yelena Gyulkhandanyan: And how much does it cost to set up a network and what is the largest distance that it can cover?

Stephen Song: The cost of the network is literally just the cost of the Mesh Potatoes and so once you have them and they are powered up, you have network infrastructure that is yours for as long as the technology lasts, which should be many years. So that’s really the core cost; it’s just the cost of the devices. Then if you connect your network to the Internet or to the public switched telephone network you might have to pay for the access to the Internet or for access to voice services.

Each Mesh Potato has a range of about three to four hundred meters but the way the Mesh Potatoes work is each device acts as a repeater for the next one. So as long as the next house that you can see is less than three to four hundred meters away, you can actually build quite a large network, because if you have two houses that are six or seven hundred meters away, as long as you have one house in the middle that’s got a Mesh Potato, then all three of them are connected. Mesh networking has been around for a while but just hasn’t become as mainstream as WiFi hotspots.

Yelena Gyulkhandanyan: And in what frequency range does this technology operate in?

Stephen Song: It works in the 2.4GHz range which is your standard WiFi technology, which means that for most countries you can use it without requiring a spectrum license.

Yelena Gyulkhandanyan: So in what countries, other than South Africa, has this technology been deployed in?

Stephen Song: Our biggest network is in the capital of East Timor in Dili. There is an NGO there called FONGTIL that has set up a large Village Telco network and there are a number of other smaller networks – one in Brazil, some networks in Nigeria and Cameroon, and then multiple other smaller more informal networks as opposed to formal Village Telcos.

Yelena Gyulkhandanyan: Have there been barriers in terms of deploying this technology?

Stephen Song: A barrier for us is bringing the cost of manufacture down. So one of the downsides of being a very small organization is that in terms of negotiating with manufacturers and arranging deals we have very little leverage. So we will want to bring the cost of the Mesh Potatoes down by another 50 percent, which is completely feasible, but it’s a challenge to actually build the relationships with the manufacturers to get things done quickly.

Yelena Gyulkhandanyan: So what company currently manufactures this technology?

Stephen Song: A company called Atcom.

Yelena Gyulkhandanyan: Can you provide a successful case study of this technology being deployed where it has made a difference in the village or where it helped create other social endeavors because people had access to this technology?

Stephen Song: Yeah, I think Dili in East Timor is probably the most successful example, in that the NGO that is running the network, FONGTIL, is kind of an umbrella organization for other NGOs in the region that need to connect and talk to each other on a regular basis. However mobile communication is quite expensive in Dili. So the NGOs have really valued being able to communicate easily and cheaply with their partner organizations through the Mesh Potato network.

Yelena Gyulkhandanyan: Sounds good. Thank you very much for your time.

Stephen Song: All right, bye for now.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/telecom/interview-with-stephen-song

An Interview with Dr. Francis Jayakanth

praskrishna — 2012-11-24T06:09:54Z

India has been losing out its best talents to the West, however, this trend could be reversed if we create adequate number of world-class institutions and research facilities, and our scientific productivity and quality of research will improve significantly, says Dr. Francis Jayakanth in an email interview with the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore.

First of all congratulations for winning the inaugural EPT Award for Open Access.
Thank you very much.
When did you first take an interest in Open Access and what are your research interests?
I have always been impressed with the electronic pre-print servers like the arXiv, Cogprints, etc. I wanted to do something similar for IISc research publications.

One of the important activities of the National Centre for Science (NCSI), Indian Institute of Science (IISc) has been the training programme. Till recently, NCSI was conducting an 18-month training course called Information and Knowledge Management. This was targeted primarily at students graduating from Indian library schools, with a view to providing them with classroom and practical training in the application of ICT. Essentially, the aim was to train the students in how to provide state-of-the-art, computer-based information services. I have been closely associated with this training programme by offering courses and overseeing projects.

As part of the training programme the students are expected do a project. Around the year 2001, one of our students, Mr. Madhuresh Singhal carried out a project work in implementing GNU Eprints.org software developed by the University of Southampton. Incidentally, ePrints is the first professional software platform for building high quality OAI-compliant repositories. The student project successfully demonstrated the self-archiving concept through institutional repositories. The project work was later implemented to set up the country’s first institutional repository, eprints@IISc . Ever since, I have been an OA practitioner and an OA advocate.

I’m not a hard-core researcher. My work interests lies in using free and open source software for providing web-based information services.
Why Open Access is important to science and particularly India?
When researchers publish their works in journals and conference proceedings, they would want their works to be read, cited, and built upon by as wide an audience as possible. Much of the scientific publications are being published by commercial publishers. Subscription costs of such publications are very high, constantly increasing, and beyond the means of most of the libraries. The high subscription costs create an access barrier to the scientific literature because of which the publications do not get the kind of visibility that the researchers would like to. The lack of adequate visibility will reduce the potential impact of the publications. This in turn could affect the advancement of knowledge. It is therefore imperative that the access barrier to scientific literature created because of high subscription costs should be overcome and this could be achieved through OA publishing.

The problems with respect to research literature that India and other developing countries have always faced are two-fold:
- Not being able to access high quality scientific literature because of the high subscriptions costs, and
- Research reported in the national journals does not reach the global audience because most of the journals published from the country are not indexed by Web of Science (WoS) and/or Scopus databases, which are leading citation indexing databases.
If all the journals that are being published in the country could migrate to open access platform then the visibility of research works reported in the journals published from the country will automatically improve with time. This has been the experience of several of the OA journals published by MedKnow and others.
In terms of the number of papers published in refereed journals, the number of citations to these papers, citations per paper, and the number of international awards and recognitions won, India’s record is poor. What needs to be done to improve this?
For a long time now, our country has been losing out the best of the talents to mostly western and other countries. If this trend could be countered by the creation of adequate number of world-class institutions and research facilities, our country's scientific productivity and also quality of research done in the country will improve significantly. This may also trigger reverse brain-drain.
Indian scientists lack access and visibility. They find it tough to access what other scientists have done, due to the high costs of access and libraries in India can’t afford to subscribe to key journals needed by users. Also other researchers are not able to access what Indian researchers are doing leading to low visibility. How can we overcome these deficits? Will adoption of Open Access within and outside India overcome the aforesaid handicaps?
Access to scientific literature in the country has improved significantly during the last decade or so. This is largely because of the several library consortia that have emerged in the country during that period. However, the existing consortia and the ones that are likely to emerge in the coming years, is not the solution for the access barrier to scientific literature that exists today. There has to be a world-wide adaptation of OA to overcome the access barrier.
Do you support the movement towards making scientific publications as freely accessible as possible and create an institutional repository? What steps are being taken by the Indian Institute of Science to maintain an open access archive?
Yes. Open Access Journals and Open Access Archives or Institutional Repositories (IRs) are the two ways to facilitate OA to scholarly literature. As per the DOAJ statistics, today, there are close to 7500 peer reviewed OA journals and as per the Directory of Open Access Repositories (DOAR) there are more than 2770 institutional repositories across the world.

In a recent study, Bo-Christer Bjork estimated that the overall percentage of scientific literature currently available OA is about 20 per cent. This includes both papers published in OA journals and those deposited in institutional repositories and directly on the Web. So, still a long way to go in achieving 100 per cent OA to scholarly literature! If all the research institutions set up their IRs and ensure that copies of post-prints are placed in the IRs then 100 per cent OA to scholarly literature could be achieved, at least, from now onwards.

ePrints@IISc, the OA institutional repository of IISc was established by NCSI in 2002. The repository holds more than 32,400 publications of IISc making the century-old institute’s research far more globally visible than before. NCSI has also provided technical help and support to several other institutes and universities in setting up their repositories and OA journals.
What are the key challenges of the scholarly publications in India?
Poor visibility and readership of many of the journals published from the country affects the citations of the articles published in such journals. This in turn affects the impact factors (IF) of the journals. No author would like to publish in very low IF journals.
What message would you give to funding agencies, the government and policy makers particularly for implementing a nation-wide mandate for Open Access?
Most of the research projects in the country are being funded by the government agencies. It is therefore imperative that we should have a nation-wide OA mandate for research publications that emerge from research projects funded from tax payers’ money. Such a mandate will not only help in enhancing the visibility of research done in the country; it may also help in avoiding duplication of research projects carried out in the country.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/interview-with-francis-jayakanth

An Interview with David Baines

praskrishna — 2011-11-08T09:33:07Z

Maureen Agena interviewed David Baines, Deputy Director, Mada (Qatar Assistive Technology Center). Maureen asked questions regarding the status of disabled persons in Qatar, the level of ICT accessibility awareness for PWDs in Qatar, efforts of the Qatar Government towards Mada relating to policy measurements, schemes for PWDs, etc.

Following is the transcript of an interview by Maureen, a CIS consultant from Uganda with David Banes, Deputy Director, Mada Assistive Technology Centre, Qatar:

What is the status of disabled persons in Qatar or Mada in terms of number, age and gender and the kind of the work Mada is engaged in?
There are officially some 10,000 disabled people in Qatar across a wide range of needs. This doesn’t include people who are ageing and acquiring moderate disabilities as a result of their age. Mada works with any disability, any age for any purpose, supporting both Qatari citizens and residents. We work with both men and women including the Arabic and non-Arabic speaking visitors.
What is the level of ICT accessibility awareness for PWDs in Qatar?
As more and more people in Qatar use ICT every day so the awareness of barriers is increasing. Mada has been working hard to raise public awareness through cinema, television and radio ads and even video ads in the local shopping malls! More importantly we are working hard to make sure that disabled people are aware of the potential of technology to change their lives, and so we work closely in partnership with other services for people with a disability to integrate accessibility activity.
Are there any efforts of the Qatar Government towards Mada in terms of policy measures, programmes, schemes for PWDs? How about efforts by companies or universities?
IctQatar currently has an e-accessibility policy out for consultation. The policy is wide ranging and offers detailed expectations across the public sector for websites, but also requires accessible ATM’s, telephone and emergency services to be introduced.
What is the situation of copyright law in Qatar?
Copyright and IPR are both respected in Qatar. We are delighted that creative commons is being introduced to the country allowing for alternative formats of documents to be more readily produced.
Do you have an exception in your copyright law permitting conversion into any format for the disabled without permission?
Not yet.
What is the level of development at Mada in terms of assistive technologies? Specifically screen readers in Arabic.
Mada is extremely busy in supporting both commercial and open source development of AT in Arabic. We have eight projects due to announce in the very near future. Screen readers are well developed in Arabic, but we are looking forward to seeing a more basic text to speech tool created to lower the cost of entry point for blind users on a limited budget.
Does Mada have any collaborative development with surrounding Arabic nations?
We welcome collaborations across the region and internationally. We speak regularly to organisations in Dubai, Abu Dhabi and then more widely to Egypt and Tunisia. Collaboration is very much central to our approach.
Approximately how many organizations are working actively in Qatar on accessibility for Persons with Disabilities? (Name any)
Mada is the hub for accessibility in Qatar. But we work closely with the Shafallah Center for Special Needs, Al Noor Institute for the Blind and Hamad Medical Corporation.
Kindly share some details about the different areas of work of Mada centre?
Probably best to look at our new updated website www.mada.org.qa, and http://mada.org ;http://twitter.com/madaQATC or http://facebook.com/madaQATC.
What do you feel are important factors/ resources which are helpful to you in your advocacy?
Maintaining effective networks both within Qatar and beyond. One ambition is to establish an online forum whereby the views of disabled people on priorities for digital inclusion can be gleaned.
And what are the kinds of resources that PWDs would find useful if they had access to?
Great levels of Arabic accessible digital content and Arabic supported assistive technologies.
There is a draft ICT accessibility legislation. What are the highlights of this draft policy?
The policy is wide ranging and identifies targets for government websites, banks and telecoms.
How long do you think it may take to get it adopted and what are the implications for the Government, NGOs, industry and others?
Unable to answer this currently.
Do you at Mada have any digital libraries for the blind? If yes, approximately how many books are there?
No. But we are collaborating with Bookshare internationally to deliver this.
Is Mada, Centre of Assistive Technology able to exchange books with neighbouring countries?
Yes, where licences allow, we choose Bookshare as our partner to encourage international sharing of books for the disabled community.
At Mada, you do focus a lot on training. What are your different target audiences?
Training people with a disability in both accessible IT training and assistive technologies
Professionals including teachers and therapists
Parents and family
IT professionals including Web developers
Human resource professionals and employers.
How many people have you trained to date?
Over 200 including the first accredited AT training in Qatar for 20 participants.
Anything about Mada disability legislation which is relevant to ICT accessibility?
N/A.
Did Qatar sign the UNCRPD? How is implementation going on?
Yes, Mada is a direct response to that action.
Any specific details about web accessibility, audits/ evaluations conducted to look at accessibility of public web sites- details. (Any report which is available in English?)
We are completing an initial benchmarking study currently – no details have yet been made available. We are completing around 2 full site audits a month on major private and govt sector websites and feedback is being provided directly to those organisations to develop an action plan.

Thank you

Maureen Agena

About the Mada Centre

Mada (Qatar Assistive Technology Centre) is committed to using assistive technologies (AT) as a means of creating more accessible workplaces. As part of connecting people with disabilities to the world of information and communication technology, Mada launched a nationwide accessibility initiative with its partners, Qatar Telecom (Qtel) and Vodafone Qatar on 7 December 2010. The purpose of the initiative named "Connected" will ensure that persons with disabilities do not have to pay more than others to use mobile telecommunications technology.

The centre enables adults and children with disabilities to use computers, mobile devices and the Internet at home by offering a full range of services and resources related to assistive technologies. At Mada, people of all ages, with any type of disability are able to visit the interactive resources centre to try out the latest assistive technology and access assessment and training services. The Mada team is able to assist in choosing a suitable solution through impartial and expert advice.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/accessibility/interview-mada-centre

An Interview With Arjen Kamphuis

sachia — 2011-08-18T05:01:53Z

In an email interview with the Centre for Internet and Society, Dutch open source activist Arjen Kamphuis discussed his experience of successfully working with the government for a policy mandating open standards for all government IT in the Netherlands.

In 2002 Arjen Kamphuis co-authored a parliament motion to mandate open standards for all government IT in the Netherlands. The motion was unanimously accepted and, in 2007, became policy. The Netherlands thus became the first western country to make the use of open standards in public sector IT mandatory. Arjen is now working to e xport this set of policies to other European countries with the help of local political parties and business partners.

Arjen discussed his experience of lobbying for this policy change and some other questions related to his work as a consultant on IT strategy and the implications of nanotechnology and biotechnology in an email interview with the Centre for Internet and Society.

The Centre for Internet and Society: What is the Dutch government's policy on FOSS and Open Standards specifically and intellectual property rights in general? Provide some history, name the main lobbying factions in the Netherlands and their policy positions. What was your role in the formulation of these policies?

Arjen Kamphuis: The national action plan 'The Netherlands in Open Connection' is the government's answer to a unanimous vote in parliament in November 2002. The parliament stated that the market for desktop software was not functioning as it should and that significant vendor lock-in effects were harming both individual citizens and society as a whole. It requested maximum efforts from the government to change this situation. The suggested method for changing was mandating open standards in all public sector IT and actively supporting the adoption of open source software wherever functionally and technically feasible.

I was one of the people who got this process started by contacting a member of parliament from the Green Party. This was triggered by my inability to access the website of the national railway on 1 January 2002. The website had been redesigned and only allowed access to visiters with Internet Explorer. As a Linux user, I had previously had comparable problems with local government websites and electronic tax forms (usage of which was mandatory for small businesses like my consulting start-up).

After the unanimous vote in parliament, several people in the Dutch open source community, including me, kept the pressure on the government by monitoring major procurements and writing questions for the Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) to ask the government. In 2004 this led to a breakthrough when the Justice Ministry ran a project to procure 147 million euros' worth of desktop software without going through a proper multi-vendor selection process. They only talked to one vendor, and that is against European Union regulations. Since some of the civil servants working on this project were gagged, we can conclude that some people were aware they were breaking the law, yet went ahead anyway.

When the news broke we made sure the MEPs were armed with the proper questions the next day, and the contract was dropped. In reply to questions asked to the government by the MEPs, the responsible ministers admitted that the government was very dependent on Microsoft for basic functioning of its office environments; that this was a problem; and that the government would take active steps to remedy this situation by moving forward with the requests made in 2002 by parliament.

Two-and-a-half years and an election later, a new under-Minister for Economic Affairs, Frank Heemskerk, took up the challenge and promised a comprehensive policy. I gave input for this plan in mid-2007 and it was formally published and adopted later that year as a national policy for all government and public-sector (i.e. tax funded) organisations.

The policy has three objectives:

improving interoperability between public sector organisations;
lowering the vendor-dependence of the public sector;
improving the functioning of the software market and supporting the Dutch knowledge economy

Some of the practical measures are the mandating of the use of open standards in all public sector organisations. Whenever software is procured, open source should be considered and preferred whenever functionally adequate. These two very basic rules change the entire market for IT in the Dutch public sector (40% of the entire market) and is having a profound effect on the way software vendors offer their products as well as the negotiating power of the client organisations.

I continue to advise both the decision makers and the civil servants overseeing the implementation of the policy.

CIS: What is the current status on the implementation of these policies?

AK: After a slow start the government organisation that is responsable for overseeing the implementation is now up and running. The basic problem is lack of awareness about both the practical value that open standards and open source software can contribute and the underlying political reasons for making it the preferred option for government information processing.

Thus a lot of the work for the next few years will be communicating these ideas to civil servants (be they IT professionals or managers who have other jobs). The policy helps a lot because it puts some serious weight behind the whole process. The fact that government organisations have to support Open Document Format for instance significantly heightens their interest in the technical subject matter!

So the policy gives the drive needed to get things moving and now it is up to us to communicate the how and the why in a way that is understandable for people who are new to these concepts. I have no doubt it will be a long process, we have over 20 years of proprietary legacy built up in our public institutions. Replacing those systems with open alternatives will take many years. All the greater a reason to proceed with some urgency.

The complete policy document has been translated into English and released under Creative Commons Licence:
http://appz.ez.nl/publicaties/pdfs/07ET15.pdf

In December 2007 I gave a talk in Berlin. Here a summary, slides and video are available:
http://events.ccc.de/congress/2007/Fahrplan/events/2387.en.html

CIS: What can a country like India learn from the Dutch government's experience in eGovernance and ICT in Education?

AK: I am not familiar with the Indian political process but these are some of my lessons learned:

- The government will not do anything unless constant and significant pressure is applied by citizens. Politicians and civil servants only act if the pain of acting is less than the pain of not acting. Change is achieved by citizens standing up and working on these problems without guarantee of any reward or even achieving any results (it took us five years to get from a unanimous vote in parliament to an actual policy).

- Big IT companies may be your friend or your enemy. But even if they are your friends they generally will not be at the forefront of political action that could be seen as controversial. Once policies are pushed beyond the controversial stage and have been adopted as official policy some of them will support it. Others, with much to lose, will fight you and the policy every step of the way. The more money or loss of market share is involved the more radical the methods that are employed. Massive lobbying, applying political pressure through foreign governments, bribery and all kinds of other activities are well-funded, well organised and very common.

- In moving forward with these policies it's the lack of knowledge and vision with the the management of institutions that is by far the biggest bottleneck. Without a clear policy from the top it is impossible to get things moving in most organisations.

- Another big problem in switching over local governments and other smaller organisations is the fact that many of the advantages of such a switch is national and/or macro-economic in nature while the initial cost and risk is micro-economic in nature. Hence again the need for a national policy.

- The funding required to make significant improvements is often not that large compared to the existing operational budgets. Investing in the smart use of IT in education for instance is something that can pay for itself very quickly. This is generally also true for adoption of open source and open standards in general. By just reducing the yearly spend on software licences by 1% the entire government program can be funded.

- Simply stopping the procurement of new licences (while continuing the use of those already paid for) can often free up enough money to finance a migration process. This has been the case in the city of Amsterdam and the French Gendarmes.

- The actual value of better government services or education is hard to quantify in monetary terms. How do we value improved responsiveness, transparency, national sovereignty in information processing and supporting local service companies instead of foreign software companies?

- IT education should focus on understanding methods and principles, not products. The product life-cycle is 18-36 months, the educational process takes many years and the length of a career is decades. Any education with a focus on products leads to knowledge that is irrelevant by the time the degree is finished. Teach people to drive a car, not just a Volkswagen or Tata.

- The cost of physical books per student per year in the Netherlands is now greater that the cost of a laptop. This is insane since the content of those books is generally written by teachers who get paid very little for it. Using the funds to pay those teachers instad of the publishers and releasing the content under a free licence will free up resources to develop better educational programs and provide all students with computational tools to use them. All without increasing the total cost compared to our current situation. The financial numbers will be different for India but the basic principle is the same and works even better given the larger scale of India. The cost of producing and distributing electronic educational content will drop practically to zero when compared to physical on a per-student basis. Using funds to support teachers in the use of e-learning with open content is the way forward.

CIS: How can a local support environment for open technologies be created? Can local SMEs ever substitute for the transnational proprietary giants?

AK: Whether SMEs can supplant multinationals depends on the product being replaced. CPU manufacturing requires a very high upfront investment in R&D and manufacturing capability. This is usually far beyond any but a handful of companies. With software development and services things are very different. Software development only requires a human with programming skills, a good idea and a computer. The Free Software Movement has shown clearly that distributed methods of software development can lead to high quality products with excellent local support systems. Local organisations (or communities that are not even organisations) can often understand local needs and respond to local changes much better, faster and cheaper than large, lumbering corporations. If local organisations work together globally to share knowledge (and code) for those parts they all need they can beat any centralised system.

What many senior business and government leaders are struggling with is the realisation that many of the 'truths' they have learned while studying economics or business management or some such subject turn out to be empirically incorrect. For example: it has become clear there is no causal relationship between the cost of software and its quality or utility. This must be a fact that is difficult to truly understand and accept if you have been brought up believing the gospel of the Anglo-Saxon economic worldview. The current economic crisis is a great help in questioning some of those beliefs and opens up room for new ideas about economic vs. societal value of technology and its relationship to businesses trying to earn a living.

CIS: Could you tell us about the Dutch government's rollback on electronic voting machines? What is your opinion on the use of electronic voting machines in the upcoming elections in India?

AK: From the mid '80s onward, voting computers were introduced in the Netherlands. By 2006, the vast majority of all elections were being performed by proprietary computer systems. Citizens would press a button and then go home to watch TV. Some software that no-one could control, monitor or properly audit would spit out a result and that would be it -- new government. Only a handful of engineers (all working for the companies that made the voting computers) actually knew what the software did and could make the computer system say anything they wanted.

When the city of Amsterdam (the last holdout using paper ballots) announced in 2006 that it was moving to voting computers, a group of activists organised a campaign to ban voting computers. We felt that the very nature of democracy was under attack by running the election process in a way that makes it impossible for ordinary citizens to check the validity of the election. It also makes fraud a lot harder to detect. Detectability of fraud is the one of the primary properties any election process should have. We all know election fraud is also possible with non-electronic means but keeping it a secret is much harder in such cases (as we saw in the US and Zimbabwean election over the last years). There was a actual case of suspected voter fraud in a Dutch municipal election and the judge concluded that while the fraud seemed likely it could not be proven. Regrettably for the suspected council member the fraud could also not be disproven. This shows very clearly that such a method is wholly unsuitable for application in real democratic processes.

Through lots of media attention, a few spectacular hacks showing the technical insecurity of the systems, and legal pressure, we forced the government in 2007 to reverse the approval of the voting computers and go back to an all-paper balloting system. This reversal is part of a global backlash against electronic voting systems. Comparable changes have been going on in many US states and all over Europe.

I think India should have voting process that can be understood and monitored by its citizens. This understanding and monitoring should be possible without requiring advanced degrees in computer science, software engineering and electronics. The only way to have such a process is when there is a paper ballot involved. Such a ballot could be printed by a computer to increase the ease of use but all-electronic solutions are ruled out by the basic demands of what a democracy is.

India should move to either all paper systems or voting computer backed-up by a voter-verified paper trail.

Are more extensive telling of the tale can be found here: http://wijvertrouwenstemcomputersniet.nl/English

This is a link to the Berlin CCC conference of Rop Gongrijp's 2007 presentation (with video): http://events.ccc.de/congress/2007/Fahrplan/events/2342.en.html

http://www.blackboxvoting.org has a wealth of information on this subject.

CIS: What are the services provided by Gendo? Could you describe some of the projects that you have undertaken?

AK: My company (gendo.nl) also provides consulting services in the area of IT strategy, development of open IT architectures and implementing those in mixed open source/proprietary environments. We are currently advising both national and local government organisations in the implementation of policies and plans to move to open standards and open source software. We are also involved in projects where we do the actual development and implementation of new systems to enable innovation and lessen the dependance of our client on proprietary systems. Currently we are involved with a healthcare organisation where we are assisting in re-architecting their entire IT environment to allow service innovation, lower cost and increase information security.

We have also been involved in information security work and other auditing in the financial services and government sector. Here our activities focus on the grey area between technology and process.

Outside the field of IT we also do other consulting work such as scenario planning and strategic future studies, mostly for large corporate clients. Most of the big Anglo-Dutch multinationals such as Shell or Unilever are on our client list. We also have a large number of clients in the financial services and insurance sector.

For all of these clients we organise presentations and brainstorming sessions, often preceded by research. This helps the leaders in those organisations think about the nature of rapid, technology-driven changes in their markets and the world in general. These insights are then translated into new products, services and ways of delivering them.

Forgive me if this all sounds a bit vague but with many of these clients there is some confidentiality agreement involved.

CIS: Could you tell us more about yourself? Maybe you would like to share some formative experiences.

AK: Writing my first paper on black holes at age 11 showed me that grown-ups usually also don't know what is going on in the universe either. Despite rumours to the contrary parents, teachers, senior managers and politicians are not all-knowing and are stumbling about just like most two-year-olds where complex issues are concerned.

Over the last quarter century I've had this intuition reconfirmed again and again. In a world that is changing faster and faster experience becomes obsolete rather quickly and wisdom is no longer the sole purview of older, more senior, people. We need young smart-asses who have not yet learned what is impossible, so they go out there and do it.

-----

Arjen Kamphuis (born 1972) studied Science & Policy at Utrecht University and worked for IBM as Unix specialist, Tivoli consultant and software instructor. As IT-strategy consultant at Twynstra Gudde he was involved in starting up Kennisnet, the Dutch educational network. Since 2001 he is operating as an independent adviser of companies and governments. He co-authored, in 2002, a motion in parliament that ultimately turned, in 2007, into a full-fledged policy of the Dutch government mandating the use of open source software in all government and public sector IT operations.

Arjen at present divides his attention between IT-policy and the convergence of IT, biotechnology and nanotechnology and its social and economic implications. His customers include: Shell, Unilever, Pfizer, Stork, and various hospitals, governmental institutions and insurance companies. Arjen guest lectures on technology policy at various universities and colleges.

When not consulting Arjen is actively involved in (digital) civil liberties, the open source movement and criticizing the war on terror.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/an-interview-with-arjen-kamphuis

An Interview of Nirmita Narasimhan on ITU Portal

praskrishna — 2011-11-28T06:36:54Z

ITU Girls in ICT is now online! ITU interviewed Nirmita and published her profile on their website.

Nirmita Narasimhan

Programme Manager
Centre for Internet and Society, India
Centre for Internet and Society, India

Nirmita Narasimhan is a Programme Manager with the Centre for Internet and Society and works on policy research and advocacy related to IP reform and technology access for persons with disabilities. She was awarded the National Award for Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities by the President of India in recognition of her work in December 2010. Her work ranges from research and policy drafting and review to advocacy through campaigns, workshops etc.

Nirmita’s current work focuses on copyright reform, accessibility, engaging in international discussions on IP related instruments at the World Intellectual Property Organisation, working with disability organisations, governments and UN bodies in advocating for digital accessibility, promoting open access with the Government of India and other issues which are part of the policy space in ICT accessibility in India. Certain specific areas on which she has worked are formulation of the draft National Electronic Accessibility Policy (with the Department of Information Technology), reviewing the Indian Copyright Act and working towards amendments to the Act to include exceptions and limitations for the print challenged, working at a national level towards support of the World Blind Union treaty at the WIPO, organising workshops on web accessibility for web developers in different cities around the country, working towards making accessible materials available for the visually challenged, creating advocacy resources for disability organisations and policymakers on implementing different aspects of the UNCRPD related to ICT accessibility etc. Nirmita’s work can be viewed at www.cis-india.org. Nirmita has presented papers in international fora like the IGF and the Asia Pacific conference on mainstreaming ICT technologies which was held in Bangkok in August 2009. Her focus was primarily policy formulation for ICT and electronic accessibility. She has also contributed to the G3ICT -ITU e-accessibility toolkit for policymakers which was published on line in February 2010and was editor of its print handbook version which was released in Delhi in October 2010. Since then, Nirmita is also part of the G3ict editorial team. Nirmita participated in the Right to Read event held in the European parliament in May 2010 and participated in the UN expert committee on implementation of the UNCRPD with respect to ICT and electronic accessibility for persons with disabilities in developing countries in June 2010. Nirmita has prepared reports in the capacity of expert for ITU and UNESCO on accessible mobile telephony and accessible ICT for education in the Asia Pacific region.

Nirmita is also a proficient Karnatic classical music singer and has been giving performances for many years now.

What would you say are the most challenging and the most satisfying aspects of your work?

One of the most challenging aspects of my work has been to make people from diverse backgrounds realise the need for accessibility and take action on it. I often encounter ignorance about the needs of persons with disabilities and a lack of sensitivity to their need for independence and dignity. It is very difficult to remain objective when faced with attitudes that consider dependence on others as an inevitable side affect of disability, instead of trying to see how attitudes and procedures can be improved to encourage and support independence. Dealing with people who are closed to new ideas and bringing them to an intelligent comprehension of disability is a difficult task. Another really challenging aspect of my work has been to try and build consensus amongst different organisations to work together towards a common goal.

The most satisfying aspect of my work is seeing the value it provides to people and how lives will become better because of some change I have worked towards bringing about. For instance as a result of the Right to Read campaign, the parliamentary Standing Committee recognised that the proposed wording in the new draft copyright bill was discriminatory and recommended that the concerns of disability groups be taken on board. This amendment will open up the world of books and knowledge to approximately 70 million persons with disabilities in India. Similarly when the Government comes out with an electronic accessibility policy, it will mean that eventually 7000 government web sites will become accessible to persons using assistive technologies. Another example of satisfaction was when the USOF started a process for including persons with disabilities in their pilot project scheme.

What qualifications or certifications did you attain in order to reach your professional goals?

I have a Bachelors degree in law. But more than just qualifications or certifications, I have learnt and achieved mostly through my experience and interaction with people around me.

If there is one message you would like to convey to young women to encourage them to consider a profession in the ICT sector, what would it be?

ICT can truly be a great equalizer since it opens up limitless opportunities for persons with disabilities and the world to benefit from each other. As a person with a disability myself, I have experienced firsthand the transforming power of ICT in my life. Despite not having an ICT background to start with, today I am working in the field of ICT and Accessibility. One of the lessons I have learnt on my journey is that one should not be afraid of trying new things for fear of failure or be hesitant to ask for help in the course of one’s life. Failures and dependence upon people are a part of every person’s life and should not be construed as a sign of individual weakness or weakness stemming from disability. For many people around the world, ICT has made it possible to live more or less independently and participate on an equal basis with the rest of society. I strongly urge all girls and women to take up a career using ICT as it will prove to be an invaluable tool to live a more independent life.

School and Degree Awarded

Bachelor of Law, University of Delhi
Bachelor (Hons) German, Jawaharlal Nehru University
M.Phil (Karnatic Music), University of Delhi

Featured projects

I have worked on several projects over the past few years. I contributed to the G3ict-ITU e-Accessibility Toolkit for Policymakers and was also editor of the print version. My organisation CIS was one of the champions of the Right to Read campaign.

www.e-accessibilitytoolkit.org
www.cis-india.org
http://usof.gov.in/usof-cms/disabled.htm

On line bio/story

Online bio

Read the original published by ITU here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/interview-with-nirmita

An India Where the Disabled have a Choice

praskrishna — 2016-08-06T17:06:38Z

The Roundtable on Digital Access to the Disabled held in Bangalore brought forward many issues related to the topic. Dr. Nirmita Narasimhan, Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society speaks to Dr. Archana Verma about the problems faced by the disabled while using technology. Being herself partially visually impaired, this is an interview from an expert as well as the personal experiences of a person from the disabled group.

This interview was published in Dataquest on August 5, 2016.

Q-Please throw some light on the issue of the inaccessibility of mobile apps to the disabled, since these have become essential for independent living today.

While mobile apps are fast becoming the preferred and often the only way to access services, these remain unavailable to a large section of the Indian population living with disabilities. This is because they are not designed in a way which conforms to standards of accessibility and cannot be used by persons using assistive technologies such as screen readers. Apps such as Ola, Uber, Big Basket, Make my trip, Flipkart, Myntra and most others are not completely accessible. The inaccessibility varies from total inaccessibility, where the screen reader remains absolutely silent and is unable to give any information to the user opening the app, to partially inaccessible, disallowing persons using screen readers from accessing complete information or from completing transactions. For instance, if one opens Flipkart, one hears a button labelled home page banner and then the screen reader just keeps saying button for whatever is pressed, without being able to give any information on what the buttons are for or what is written there. Similarly, if one opens Myntra, one doesn’t hear any information at all, just a series of clicks, at one point one hears buttons labelled for man, for women, for kids and then when one presses any of those, one is again greeted by complete silence. The Big Basket app also has problems such as unlabelled buttons and fields and makes it difficult to carry out transactions such as changing the quantity, changing the address etc.

It is rather sad that the IT industry fails to realise that persons with disabilities, a group which is the world’s largest minority and account for a very large percentage of our population can potentially be amongst the biggest consumers of these ICT products and services. Consider before the advent of technology, a blind person could not read mainstream books and newspapers, work in routine office environments, shop alone or pay bills, file returns etc. on his/her own. Now, when everything can be done on line and there is technology which can read out and assist blind persons to use computers/ phones themselves, they offer the opportunity to negate the limitations of disability. However, this is not happening because products and services are not designed and developed in compliance with standards of accessibility and universal design, resulting in them being ineffectual or useless for persons using assistive technology. If the apps and websites conform to accessibility standards, Developers need not test their software against each and every disability, which can get understandably complicated, they are automatically accessible to persons with different disabilities in one way or another.

While accessing necessary services and information itself is challenging and often impossible for the disabled, the ability to access and enjoy games like other people is completely beyond imagination, not even something one could dream of said a friend of mine. I asked my friend Dinesh Kaushal, an accessibility expert who heads development of NVDA, an open source screen reader for the blind in India what his experience with the new gaming app Pokemon Go was, which is all the rage nowadays and he said that it was completely inaccessible. There is absolutely no information on the game screen and the Android screen reader Talk Back is absolutely silent. And this according to him this is not uncommon in many gaming apps.

Q- Highlight some of the problems related to the inaccessibility of websites and content to the disabled.

Web site inaccessibility very often hinders a person using assistive technology from accessing information on the internet. A web site can be inaccessible for different persons because of different reasons, depending upon the disability. However, this can be solved by compliance with standards. Inaccessibility of websites also hinders accessing content on mobile phones or affects persons with limited bandwidth or elderly persons.

While progress is being made to make government web sites accessible, this has not yet been completely achieved. In addition, web sites of important services and organisations such as banks, health care, education etc. are often inaccessible. Often a person using a screen reader may come across an important document which is an image file and cannot be read by the screen reader or a deaf person cannot enjoy an audio visual clip because there are no sub titles. Web sites with frequent flashing and flickering, constantly changing pages, images without descriptions and unlabelled form fields and headings, audio visual media content without subtitles, image files of documents without alternate accessible format options continue to populate the Internet. Unless web site accessibility is taken seriously and is treated as a non-negotiable ingredient of a contract for web site development and maintenance, the Internet will continue to be inaccessible.

Q- Can you enumerate the policy and guidelines requiring web site accessibility and the large spread of non-compliance with them?

Although most transactions happen online today, the fact that websites do not conform to universal standards of accessibility render them unusable by persons with disabilities.
The World Wide Web consortium has had accessibility standards for web site accessibility for over a decade now and these have been adopted by many countries around the world. This standard is known as the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0. India also notified the Guidelines for Indian Government Websites (GIGW) which borrows from the WCAG 2.0 to ensure that government websites are accessible. The National policy on universal electronic accessibility was notified in October 2013 and requires conformance to standards of accessibility. It mentions W3C standards such as WCAG 2.0, ARIA and ATAG and identifies procurement as a route to make electronic infrastructure accessible. It also identifies strategies such as awareness raising, training, research and development of assistive technology as vital to implementation of the policy and allocates different roles to different stake holders, including to ministries, departments, private organisations, etc. Other commitments are to be found in the accessible India and digital India campaigns, commitments under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) which requires government to make all ICT and Internet available and accessible to persons with disabilities and encourage private service providers to make their services accessible, Access to ICTs are also covered under the goals of the Incheon Strategy to make the rights real for persons with disabilities.

Q- Give us some information about the work of the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) in the realm of the digital and technological accessibility for the disabled.

We are an eight year old organisation. Our accessibility programme works in multiple ways, which include the following –

(A) Policy research and advocacy (initiating and contributing to new and existing policy discussions to bring digital accessibility on the agenda: We started our work on 3 issues:

(a)Website and electronic accessibility – We produced research on what different countries have in terms of policies, guidelines and measures to promote website and electronic accessibility and worked with the Department of Electronics and information technology (DEITy) to formulate the National Policy on Universal Electronics accessibility which was notified in 2013. We also serve on the Implementation committee.

(b) Getting an exception into the Indian Copyright Act to allow conversion of books and other copyrighted works into accessible formats without the need to get permission from copyright holders. We provided research to MHRD on what other countries have in terms of copyright exceptions to promote access to published works for persons who are blind, have low vision or other print disabilities, we carried out a right to read campaign around India, provided submissions to the standing committee and finally were able to positively influence, along with other NGOs, the amendment to the Copyright Act in 2012.

(c) Aiding the negotiation of a Treaty at the World Intellectual Property Organisation which would facilitate international sharing of books for persons with print disabilities. We attended the negotiations at Geneva from 2010 and are a permanent observer there now, intervening and providing research advice on various issues. The Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for persons who are blind, visually impaired or otherwise print-disabled was concluded in 2014 and India was the first country to ratify it. The 20 ratifications required to bring the treaty into force just got concluded on June 30th 2016 and the treaty will come into force from 1st September 2016.

(d) We also worked with the Universal Service Obligation Fund of India to launch a pilot scheme to fund projects for persons with disabilities in rural areas.

(e) Apart from the above, we have produced global reports with international partners like the International Telecommunication Union and G3ict on topics such as mobile accessibility and produced research which we sent to relevant government agencies on topics such as banking and financial inclusion, emergency and disaster management for persons with disabilities, accessible broadcasting and so on.

(f) We are implementing a project to develop text to speech for several Indian languages using an open source speak synthesiser called e-Speak and enhanced working of NVDA an open source screen reader which works with English and other Indian languages. We have also carried out several trainings on this software around the country.
We also provide advice to governments and organisations in other countries on ICT accessibility related issues. We have also organised trainings on web accessibility and other topics as may be required.

Q- What kinds of challenges are faced by the CIS in its work?

Limited resources – very few donors fund the kind of work we do although no one denies the criticality and usefulness of it. Neither do we fall within the bracket of a traditional organisation serving persons with disabilities, nor is accessibility as marketable a topic as say something like privacy and cyber security, hence to have a team which can actively carry on this work of research and advocacy, constantly responding to policy developments, attending meetings is very difficult and we are not able to do the kind of work we want.

Q- What kind of vision of empowerment would you propose for the disabled through digital accessibility? How can this vision be achieved?

My Vision- Every person with a disability in India is able to access the Internet, content and facilities through an ICT enabled device, be it computers or phones; where this access is unhindered by barriers and is instantaneous, not retrospective. Further, I speak for an India which is inclusive in the complete sense, i.e. accessibility standards are part of mainstream standards and Universal Design is the standard approach to creations and developments of all kind and not where separate considerations need to be made for the disabled on specific products and services. Where a person with a disability has a choice, as do the other citizens and not where they are given an option; they have access to the world at the same time on the same terms; where there is true equality and we live a life with dignity and pride.

How Can We Achieve It?

India has already taken certain steps to show her commitment to accessibility –

We have ratified the UNCRPD, are part of the Incheon Strategy to make the rights real for persons with disabilities and are in the process of passing a new Rights of Persons with disabilities legislation. We also have a National Policy on Universal Electronics Accessibility, Guidelines on Government Websites, the Accessible India and Digital India campaigns and the Smart Cities Mission. There is ample opportunity and scope for ensuring accessibility is implemented to give complete effect to these. Some of the areas where action can be taken include:

1. Web site accessibility should be taken up immediately since it affects access for all on using different platforms. The plan can identify number of web sites and different stakeholders and the time lines by which they are required to make their web sites compliant. Both self-certification as well as regular audits should be carried out to check for compliance.

2. Public Procurement is another critical tool in the hands of the government to ensure that all public infrastructure and all facilities/ resources/ products/ services procured out of public money or for the consumption/ use of the public should be made accessible. This is increasingly being adopted in countries around the world. India has a draft procurement bill, several organisations serving the disabled have given a request for the inclusion of accessibility considerations within the procurement bill, we hope they will be taken seriously. By including compliance with accessibility standards as part of performance criteria in all government contracts and calls for proposals and contracts for development and maintenance of products and services, we can ensure not only that web sites etc. become accessible, but that competence is generated in the market to create and market accessible products and increase choice in the market for persons with disabilities.

3. Government ensuring that accessibility requirements are integrated in all government schemes and programmes and accessibility should be considered no longer a matter of choice, but of necessity. There are budgets for different ministries and agencies, there should be a mechanism to evaluate that all the budget set aside for meeting the needs of persons with disabilities are expended meaningfully and not accumulated or go back to the main kitty unspent. There should be proactive disclosure on the part of all government agencies on their spending on accessibility/ disability and they should solicit advice from persons with disabilities and accessibility experts who are part of the committee to review budget spending.

4. Development of appropriate technologies- we need to ensure that enough resources are pumped towards creating our own research and development community to support development and maintenance of assistive technology that caters to needs of specific groups. Open source solutions are desirable for a country like India because of the opportunity they offer for deployment, customisation and improvements.

5. Accessible Smart Cities- The Smart Cities Mission should immediately ensure that their advisory panel includes accessibility experts and that the smart cities which emerge as part of this initiative are inclusive- this is the ideal opportunity to build an accessible city, universal design should be the basic principle on which these smart cities are developed; if this is not done, then there will always remain two worlds- one for the world at large and one for persons with disabilities, and the disparity between the two will always continue.

6. Finally the most important advice I would reiterate is the inclusion of persons with disabilities across all work of the government – only then will the accessibility perspective be represented and taken into account everywhere. Otherwise we may have a situation where accessibility is either missing, or where projects are being implemented to aid the disabled, which are totally meaningless or inappropriate and only serve to waste precious resources, time and effort.

Q- What measures do you suggest for making digital accessibility available to the disabled people across the divides of class, gender and more developed and less developed regions?

Digital accessibility should be implemented at the levels of content, user interface and end user device. Hence accessibility of documents and information on the Internet should conform to standards of accessibility, such as EPUB 3.0, html etc.

User interface-WCAG 2.0 for websites is a must for any device to function effectively. Assistive software must be completely accessible. For instance, it is not uncommon to find that an ATm which is termed ‘accessible’ actually needs the input of a sighted person at some stages of the transaction while some other points are completely prompted through audio. In such a case, the blind still cannot use this.

Schemes under the USOF and others may be used to provide devices and connectivity to persons with disabilities in rural and far flung areas and also targeting specific user groups such as women. For instance a project under the USOF to promote women entrepreneurship in rural areas by providing them with a mobile phone can easily be replicated for disabled women. They could be funded for initiatives such as operating public internet kiosks or public phone booths etc. Schools in villages could be provided with computers fitted with assistive technology (hardware and software as may be required) s that disabled children and teachers have access and exposure to technology.

Providing mobile phones to all persons with disabilities will go a long way to open up the world of books, information, communication and access to emergency services to persons with disabilities.

Common Services Centres throughout the country are an excellent way of reaching persons with disabilities and providing them access to technology. By providing assistive technology on computers there, which is not at all inexpensive if one were to use free and open source software such as the NVDA screen reader and one trained person to impart training to the disabled, who can also be a person with a disability, we can make a lot of progress in terms of both building trained capacity and providing access to technology for persons with disabilities. Private employers and organisations also have a critical role to play in promoting accessibility for the disabled.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/accessibility/news/dataquest-august-5-2016-an-india-where-the-disabled-have-a-choice

An all-nighter for hackers

praskrishna — 2012-08-06T10:59:09Z

Tech event management firm HasGeek is back with its Hacknight for hackers and developers willing to burn the proverbial midnight oil writing some competitive code.

An all-nighter for hackers

Tech event management firm HasGeek is back with its Hacknight for hackers and developers willing to burn the proverbial midnight oil writing some competitive code.

The Hacknight will be held between July 14 and 15, from 2 p.m. to 8 a.m. at the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), in Bangalore, and simultaneously in Pune, at AmiWorks.

The Data Hacknight was open to geeks, enthusiasts, designers, mathematicians and statisticians to work with different datasets on projects ranging from discovering unknown patterns in data to representing data in various visual forms. This event was being held in the run-up to a larger conference on big data, analytics and applications called The Fifth Elephant.

The Hacknight was also open to individuals who want to work with tools such as R, Pig, Excel or even Hadoop to discover the possibilities and challenges of working with data, a release from HasGeek stated.

To register for the Hacknight, visit http://beta.hacknight.in/fifthelephant/bangalore2012

Yahoo sets up Grid Computing Lab

Yahoo India’s Research and Development wing and the Indian Institute of Technology, Madras announced the launch of a Grid Computing Lab set up by the Internet major on the institute campus.

This cluster of high-end servers at the lab would allow researchers to access Web-scale data and conduct research on big data and cloud computing systems, a release from Yahoo stated. The lab would focus on this emerging field and encourage more researchers to take up research in the field, as well as process and analyse huge volumes of structured and unstructured data which, to date, has been limited due to significant cost barriers in getting large computing systems operational.

D. Janakiram, Department of Computer Science, IIT-Madras, said in a release: “This opens up a new arena of exciting opportunities for our students. We are hopeful such partnerships will allow students to conduct truly breakthrough work on cloud computing and data storage systems, ultimately leading to Web innovations coming to the marketplace.”

World Class Award for iGate

iGATE, an integrated technology and operations company, announced that it has won the ‘World Class Award’ under the ‘large service organisations’ category at the Global Performance Excellence Awards (GPEA).

The awards were administered by the Asia Pacific Quality Organisation, a non-profit group, a release from iGate stated. Ravi Mani, senior vice-president, Organisational Excellence Group, iGATE, said the award was a testimony to the persistent effort the teams have put in to achieve the high-quality standards and processes at iGATE.

Cloud and growth: a survey

Over the last two years, the public cloud market in India has rapidly evolved with focus on software and payments as a service, a survey by Zinnov, a consulting firm, has found.

A study titled ‘Public Cloud Opportunity in India’ found that the overall Indian market for cloud (both public and private) grew steadily in 2011. The Software as a Service (SaaS) market, largely dominated by email, collaboration tools and enterprise resource products grew by 46 per cent, a release on the survey stated.

The public cloud market was expected to grow 55 per cent in the near future and become a default choice for new IT investments, especially in the small and medium businesses segment, the study observed.

The article was published in the Hindu on July 11, 2012

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/all-night-for-hackers

Alliance aimed at reducing internet cost launched

praskrishna — 2013-10-29T09:08:10Z

A number of government bodies, non-government organizations and private players have joined hands to create a coalition aimed at reducing the cost of internet access worldwide. The coalition -- Alliance for Affordable Internet (A4AI) -- will advocate policy and regulatory reforms to push down the cost of bandwidth in developing and poor countries, where cost of internet access remains very high.

This article was published in the Times of India on October 7, 2013. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

"By advocating for open, competitive and innovative broadband markets, A4AI aims to help access prices fall to below 5% of monthly income worldwide, a target set by the UN Broadband Commission. Reaching this goal can help to connect the two-thirds of the world that is presently not connected to the internet and make universal access a reality," the alliance said in a press note, citing figures provided International Telecommunication Union (ITU).

According to ITU, by 2012, fixed-broadband prices represented 1.7% of monthly gross national income in developed countries. In developing countries, the cost of broadband connection accounts for 30.1% of average monthly income.

The A4AI has the backing of World Wide Web Foundation, which was started by the inventor of the web, Tim Berners-Lee. Sonia Jorge, executive director of the Alliance for Affordable Internet told TOI, "The Web Foundation hosts the A4AI's secretariat and both teams collaborate to benefit from natural synergies among the programmes."

Berners-Lee explained, "The reason for the alliance is simple - the majority of the world's people are still not online, usually because they can't afford to be. In Mozambique, for example, a recent study showed that using just 1GB of data can cost well over two months' wages for the average citizen... The real bottleneck now is anti-competitive policies that keep prices unaffordable. The alliance is about removing that barrier and helping as many as possible get online at reasonable cost."

The global sponsors of the A4AI are Google, UK Department for International Development, US Agency for International Development and Omidyar Network, an firm that often invests in non-profit entities. But Intel, Microsoft, Facebook, Cisco, Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation, the US State Department and several other regional and international bodies are also members of A4AI.

From India, Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) is part of the alliance. Sunil Abraham, director of CIS, told TOI his group "hopes to learn from policy work carried out by the alliance and apply the lessons in India where access to good quality broadband services remains prohibitively expensive".

For now there are not many details on how the A4AI is going to achieve its goals. Sonia said it had two telecom companies -- Digicel and Main One - as its members and talks were going on with some other telecom firms for their involvement.

The alliance will begin in-country engagements with three to four countries by the end of 2013, expanding to at least 12 countries by the end of 2015. "We would be very glad to have the opportunity to engage and work in collaboration with the government of India," said Sonia.

A4AI will also produce an annual 'affordability report'. The first edition is expected to come out in December 2013.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/times-of-india-october-7-2013-alliance-aimed-at-reducing-internet-cost-launched

All India Privacy Symposium (File)

praskrishna — 2012-04-30T05:13:14Z

This is the file of the event organised in Delhi in February 2012.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/all-privacy-symposium.pdf

ALF's Note before 2005 Amendment

pranesh — 2008-09-30T15:19:30Z

Briefing note on the impact of software patents on the software industry in India

Prepared by

Lawrence Liang

Anuranjan Sethi

Prashant Iyengar

Background

While there has been a lot of discussion on the impact that the latest amendment to the Indian Patent Act will have on public health and the pharmaceutical sector in India, there has been a disturbing silence about the impact that the amendment has on the software industry.

After the patents (second amendment) in 2002, the scope of non patentable subject matter in the Act was amended to include the following: “a mathematical method or a business method or a computer programme per se or algorithms”.

The important phrase that was added was ‘per se’, and with the amendment we effectively included Software patents into Indian Law. The latest amendment seeks to expand the scope of software patents, and states “a computer programme per se other than its technical application to industry or a combination with hardware; a mathematical method or a business method or algorithms”.

This briefing note will not address the technical and legal implication of this amendment but instead pose the larger question of why we should be concerned about software patents, and the impact that it will have on the software industry in India.

I. Conceptual difference between Copyright and Patent

The first thing to note is that software is already protected under Copyright law, so what then is the motivation and the implication of a move from copyright protection to patent protection?

Software has traditionally been protected under copyright law since code fits quite easily into the description of a literary work. Software Patenting has recently emerged (if only in the US, Japan and Europe) as an alternative that software companies are increasingly employing to, in order to protect their products.

The issues involved in conferring patent rights to software are, however, a lot more complex than taking out copyrights on them. Specifically, there are two challenges that one encounters when dealing with software patents. The first is about the instrument of patent itself and whether the manner of protection it confers is suited to the software industry. The second is the nature of software, and whether it should be subject to patenting.

a) Different Subject Matters

Copyright protection extends to all original literary works (among them, computer programs), dramatic, musical and artistic works, including films. Under copyright, protection is given only to the particular expression of an idea that was adopted and not the idea itself. (For instance, a program to add numbers written in two different computer languages would count as two different expressions of one idea) Effectively, independent rendering of a copyrighted work by a third party would not infringe the copyright.

Generally patents are conferred on any ‘new’ and ‘useful’ art, process, method or manner of manufacture, machines, appliances or other articles or substances produced by manufacture. Worldwide, the attitude towards patentability of software has been skeptical. The Indian Patent Act, as modified in 2002 had made non-patentable the following:

“…a mathematical method or a business method or a computer programme per se or algorithms”.

However, the recent amendment ordnance states instead:

“…a computer programme per se other than its technical application to industry or a combination with hardware;

a mathematical method or a business method or algorithms.”

b) Who may claim the right to a patent/copyright?

Generally, the author of a literary, artistic, musical or dramatic work automatically becomes the owner of its copyright.

Software developers are perfectly protected without patents. Everyone who writes a computer program automatically owns the copyright in it. It's copyright law that made Microsoft, Oracle, SAP and the entire software industry so very big. It's the same legal concept that also protects books, music, movies, paintings, even architecture.

Many of the world's richest people owe their wealth to copyright law. Some examples are: Bill Gates, Paul Allen and Steve Ballmer (Microsoft); Larry Ellison (Oracle); Hasso Plattner and the other founders of SAP; Paul McCartney (Beatles); JK Rowling (Harry Potter).

The patent, on the other hand is granted to the first to apply for it, regardless of who the first to invent it was. Patents cost a lot of money. They cost even more paying the lawyers to write the application than they cost to actually apply. It takes typically some years for the application to get considered, even though patent offices do an extremely sloppy job of considering.

c) Rights conferred

Copyright law gives the owner the exclusive right to reproduce the material, issue copies, perform, adapt and translate the work. However, these rights are tempered by the rights of fair use which are available to the public. Under “fair use”, certain uses of copyright material would not be infringing, such as use for academic purposes, news reporting etc. Further, independent recreation of a copyrighted work would not constitute infringement. Thus if the same piece of code were independently developed by two different companies, neither would have a claim against the other.

A patent confers on the owner an absoulte monopoly which is the the right to prevent others from marking, using, offering for sale without his/her consent. In general, patent protection is a far stronger method of protection than copyright because the protection extends to the level of the idea embodied by a software and injuncts ancillary uses of an invention as well. It would weaken copyright in software that is the base of all European software development, because independent creations protected by copyright would be attackable by patents

Many patent applications cover very small and specific algorithms or techniques that are used in a wide variety of programs. Frequently the "inventions" mentioned in a patent application have been independently formulated and are already in use by other programmers when the application is filed.

d) Duration of protection

The TRIPS agreement mandates a period of at least 20 years for a product patent and 15 years in the case of a process patent.

For Copyright, the agreement prescribes a minimum period of the lifetime of the author plus seventy years.

II. Nature of Software and Indian Software Industry

Software is complex: The complexity of computer programs makes it difficult to be understood by any one person. This capacity for complexity allows for the creation of highly sophisticated products but also means that they are dependent on a vast range of technologies.

Software is free from the constraints of the real world that ensure a product does not become too complex. Major software may comprise up to 10 million lines of code - potentially thousands of inventions, any of which might be patented

For example, Apple was sued because its HyperCard program allegedly violates patent number 4,736,308, which covers a specific technique that, in simplified terms, entails scrolling through a database displaying selected parts of each line of text. Separately, the scrolling and display functions are ubiquitous fixtures of computer programming, but combining them without a license from the holder of patent 4,736,308 is now apparently illegal.

In its complexity, software is different from other engineering and mechanical inventions for which patent protection was devised. The latter are often characterized by large "building block" inventions that can revolutionize a given mechanical process. Software, especially a complex program, seldom includes substantial leaps in technology, but rather consists of adept combinations of many ideas. Whether a software program is a good one does not generally depend as much on the newness of a specific technique, but instead depends on the unique combination of known algorithms and methods. Patents should not protect such methods of innovation.

Software Technology evolves rapidly: Software technology is evolving much faster than other industries, even with its own hardware industry. Against this light, a patent that lasts upto 17 years is extremely alarming. Microprocessors double in speed every 2 years.

Research in software is galloping ahead of developments. In most industries, researching new ideas often costs more money than bringing them to the market. The software industry is, on the other hand, loaded with ideas.

The idea behind most software patents can be coded in just 20 lines of code, but any program incorporating that idea - along with many others - will be a thousand times larger. It is the writing of a program that takes all the time, not coming up with ideas.

What this means is that on an average of every two years, a product will have to be replaced in the market. The idea underlying it will remain the same although the particular means and variants of its applications may have changed radically.

Coming out with a full-featured product, every two years is costly especially in relation to the inexpensive idea that backs it. There’s more novelty in the development and application of the same idea to new technology than with coming up with the original raw idea.

The objective of granting patent rights should be to foster the growth and evolution of the industry. Granting a patent at this stage would be akin to unreasonably prolonging the life of a product.

It is generally found that those who are investing time creating and lodging patents are vastly outpacing those who are investing effort bringing such ideas to market. By the time an immature technology develops to the point where it can be incorporated into products, it has a dozen or more patents on it that render it commercially intractable.

Software doesn't wear out: In other industries, research continues up to a point where further research costs too much to be feasible. At this stage, the industry's output merely consists of replacing parts that have worn out.

However, in the software sector, a computer program that is fully debugged will perform its function forever without requiring maintenance or modification. “What this means is that unlike socks that wear out, and breakfast cereal that is eaten, a particular software product can be sold to a particular customer at most once. If it is to be sold to that customer again, it must be enhanced with new features and functionality.” This inevitably means that even if the industry were to approach maturity, any software company that does not produce new and innovative products will simply run out of customers! Thus, the industry will remain innovative whether or not software patents exist.

Software has different economics: Most other major industries have medium to high research and development costs and very high production costs. Most often, the production costs dwarf the other two areas (because of the physicality that they involve) so that these costs can be added on to the cost of the final product without any relatively major difference in the price.

Software is unique in this aspect because

-The research costs very little because “ideas are as abundant as air”

-The development of an idea into a marketable product costs far more than the research.

-The production costs are minimal, often just a little more than the price of the medium, which is typically a floppy or a CDROM.

Patents affect the ‘development’ stage of the process of ‘manufacture’ of software. Thus the threat exists that the price of software could be singularly determined by the number of patented innovations that it incorporates.

III. Patent and Innovation in Software Industry

As argued before the process of software development by its very nature is ‘incremental’ i.e. developing of new software majorly consists of building upon existing ideas and rearranging the processes devised by others, and hence has an inbuilt need for using existing algorithms and mathematical formulae. Patent protection over software or over a set of algorithms within patented software would inevitably create a thicket of patents which the subsequent software developer might need to obtain clearance from before he can begin to work on it. The costs involved in obtaining these clearances and those involved in case one finds oneself having infringed a patent are usually very high, as in the case of biomedical patents. This would act as a disincentive for an aspiring software developer and would adversely affect the growth of the Indian software industry. Introduction of two bills- ‘Genomic Research and Diagnostic Accessibility Bill, 2002’ and ‘Genomic Science and Technology Innovation Act of 2002’ though still pending before the US Congress show the real concerns involved for a ‘patent and innovation policy’ within genomics. Similar concerns are exist in the software and innovation policy and need to be addressed adequately by the each national legislature.

Further there are substantial costs involved in verifying which patents one must obtain clearance for as skimming through the huge patent databases has become a very costly exercise. Unfortunately, conducting a patent search is a slow, deliberative process that, when harnessed to software development, could stop innovation in its tracks. And because patent applications are confidential, there is simply no way for computer programmers to ensure that what they write will not violate some patent that is yet to be issued making survival a very important issue for smaller player in the market.

Various large companies in US have obtained exemptions from going through patent searches for standard work due to huge costs. In such a scenario in a small player software industry like India, it would be unwise to allow ‘software patents’ as they may have negative impact upon the innovation within the industry.

By its nature software industry is ‘innovation driven’ i.e. the only way a software company can compete and improve its sales or grip over market is by making better and more useful features available. This innovation which is the driving force behind the Indian software industry is bound to get affected if a patent protection is provided to software patents. If a company can easily sustain itself on its ‘invention’ (by obtaining patents upon its software) and need not remain innovation driven, which would mean that a patent monopoly would inversely impact innovation and competition in software industry. It would further give rise to monopolistic tendencies and a practice of quoting arbitrary price for the grant of ‘voluntary license’. This lesson can be learnt by looking west where the idea of Public Key Encryption was patented in the US. The patent expired in 1997 and until then, it largely blocked the use of Public Key Encryption in the US. Similar instances can be found w.r.t. ‘data compression software’ and ‘single click software’ patented by Amazon.com. A number of programs that people started to develop got crushed. They were never really available because the patent holders threatened them. This led to a lot of unrest in the software community which culminated into the public outrage against software patents. Similar pressures have prevailed in European community where software patents found public opposition too immense to mount for a long time.

A look at India's own development of its software industry would be of immense help as India started its software industry only after IBM was driven out of country. Before that, there was no software industry worth the name, with software and hardware being imported from IBM. Once IBM left, Indian computer companies developed computers using the UNIX operating system, which was in the public domain. This led to the presence of a large number of skilled software professionals with experience of UNIX were also writing high-level applications for making the entire computer system work.

IV. Political economy of software patents

While understanding the issue of software patents, it’s important to look at its political economy and the implications involved for India. If one were to study the trends of software patenting in US and Europe one would witness that the IBM owns a majority of patents along with other giant software companies and has been topping the list of maximum patents granted in US in the private sector. This fact must be seen in the light of the opposition faced from small business organisations, leading scientists and economists in Europe and the unprecedented delay in passing the Software Patent Directive of 2002 by the European parliament. It should be noted that the directive does not aim to make it possible to patent pure computer programs: it would only apply to computer software integrated into an appliance. This makes it much more restrictive than the amended Indian Patent Act, which opens out any technical application of a programme to industry or its realisation in hardware for patenting. Even with this restriction, the critics of the EU directive have pointed out that a patent on software is in effect a patent on an idea, while traditionally patents have been restricted to concrete physical inventions only. By making this amendment, it is possible to implement algorithms in hardware and then claim patent protection for this. Once an idea can be patented if it is burnt in to hardware, the argument for extending it to a software implementation gains ground. In fact, the first breach in the US for making software patentable came through this route. If one were to study the trends in the scope of patentable subject matter granted in software patents by US courts, one would observe that from Diamond v. Diehr onwards court has been granting patents on much more abstract components, which has slowly transformed into patenting the central idea underlying the software. This trend indicates the easy malleability of legal terminology which has brought US courts’ stand on software patents to a full circle from Gottschalk v. Benson where the court found a patent upon software as a patent upon the underlying algorithms which is nothing more than a mathematical formula, unpatentable by its very definition.

The concerns regarding the weaker relative position of these small players is much more relevant in India. Among the primary reasons for large corporations like IBM lobbying for software patents is due to their stronger hold over the software market and ownership of the largest number of patents in this market. Large corporations use their patents, apart from making royalty upon them, to getting access benefit to the patents of other companies. This would close the option of cross-licensing for a majority of Indian companies which have no patents upon software. License though may be obtained are usually available at exorbitantly high prices which would most likely be unaffordable for Indian companies which operate on a small scale and have restricted budget options. The multinational corporations would use software patents as a defensive strategy for preventing smaller Indian companies from gaining any grounds in the market, which would eventually drive them out of business hence destroying the existing Indian software industry.

Software industry has a very characteristic nature which makes it extremely vulnerable to being easily monopolized. Among these characteristics are Network effects (the fact that a program becomes more useful if more people use it), interoperability and compatibility problems, the low cost of massive reproduction of software, the difficulty of inspecting software distributed without the source code, the learning curve and the rapid evolution of the market. Taking the instance of Microsoft Windows (the most popular operating system in use in India today) which enjoys a perpetual monopoly over the operating system market in India, many a larger institutions find Windows extremely costly and desperately needed an alternative to it in order to do business profitably. The recent success of Linux operating systems is demonstrative of this, but this must be understood in the light that India follows a copyright regime for software which allows many of the above mentioned characteristics of compatibility and interoperability to be resolved which would be totally impossible in a software patent regime. This then means that software patents have a potential to hamper the growth of open software movement in India which has begun to play central role in Indian Government’s ‘e-governance’ initiative. Hence it’s extremely urgent to ensure that patents in software do not cause any harm to the fine balance that copyright has achieved.

While understanding a political economy argument of software patents the adverse impact of monopolization upon public interest which has been held to be of utmost importance by the apex court in India, even above one’s legitimate commercial interests.

V. Procedural Issues

There are a certain procedural issues involved which are of determinative nature as to the allowance of a software patent regime in India. India doesn’t have a well laid out or even a well practiced software patent practice to guide Indian patent office. In the absence of any such policy, examining software patent application becomes a very daunting task, coupled with which the complicated and highly technical nature of software, Indian patent office is quite incapable to evaluate complicated and technically trivial claims which software patent often present. Imposing a software patent regime in such a scenario would impact the quality of such patents which might then prove counter-productive in the development of Indian software industry.

To be able to tackle this situation more personnel and experts would have to be employed in the patent office that can then ensure maintenance of a certain quality standards while granting software patents. But this in turn may not produce increased innovation in the software industry for the human capital which would be invested into processing the claims and preventing and tackling with the patent infringements rather than being invested in developing new software and hence benefit the software industry and economy of the country in general.

The difficulty in reaching a policy to grant software patents and the impacts of granting these patents in the absence of policy are indeed far reaching. In the absence of a policy which classifies patents on algorithms, techniques etc. it would take an awfully long time for the patent office to process a claim, searching the ‘prior art’ which makes the system inefficient and unworkable. Long delays in processing patent applications and subsequent challenge procedure often makes filing for a patent an unwise option for small companies and individual software developer, which form the backbone of Indian software industry. For instance, IBM was granted a patent on the same data-compression algorithm that Unisys supposedly owned. Such an error which could prove lethal for a developing company which has planned its budget meticulously and in consequence of this error would be greatly disincentivized to develop new software. The Patent Office was probably not aware of granting two patents for the same algorithm because the descriptions in the patents themselves are quite different even though the formulas are mathematically equivalent. Even when patents are known in advance, software publishers have generally not licensed the algorithms or techniques; instead, they try to rewrite their programs to avoid using the particular procedure that the patent describes. Sometimes this isn't possible, in which case companies have often chosen to avoid implementing new features altogether. It seems clear from the evidence of the last few years that software patents are actually preventing the adoption of new technology, rather than encouraging it.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/publications/software-patents/alfs-note-before-2005-amendment

Airtel Open Network

Harsh Gupta and Aditya Tejas — 2016-06-17T11:58:31Z

Today, Airtel launched its Open Network platform. The web page displays visualization data on network coverage and signal strength across the country, as well as a detailed breakdown of cell tower placement, including towers that are shutdown or still being planned.

Airtel also reportedly promises that its call centres and physical stores have been upgraded with tools based on the new interface to allow for easy reporting of network coverage issues.[1] Users can report issues or request new cell towers directly through the platform.

This is part of Airtel’s wider ‘Project Leap’, a Rs. 60,000 crore overhaul of the operator’s network, which claims to include a bevy of technological solutions aimed at improving service. Airtel claims that these include smaller cells, indoor solutions, Wi-Fi hotspots and upgraded base stations.

This is a praiseworthy move on Airtel’s part. No other major telecoms company has undertaken a similar initiative. There exist private alternatives such as OpenSignal[2][3] that provide cell coverage map, among others. However, these services make use of crowdsourced data collection from users to create their maps.

While the portal is very convenient, it is worth pointing out that the website itself contains no links to any open data -- merely the visualization of data. At the time of writing, there was no indication of any way to request access to raw data on network coverage. While OpenSignal and other alternatives provide APIs[4] or direct access to their database, we saw no similar services on the Open Network website. Without access to raw data the Open Network initiative isn’t really open, as citizens cannot make use of data in any way other than what is provided in the visualization. Raw network coverage data would be immensely valuable to public and private actors, researchers, and the general public alike.

Furthermore, while the portal indicates the quality of coverage in an area (including separate indicators for voice and data quality) it gives no indications as to how these categories were arrived at, or what a ‘Moderate’ level of data quality means empirically. It is also unclear how often the visualization is refreshed, or how old the data currently on display are.

In addition, the provisions for reporting issues through the platform seem to be lacking, and it is unclear how open Airtel will be with these. Expressing interest in hosting a cell tower takes you to an online form and a promise that ‘we will get in touch with you.’ By contrast, trying to report an issue takes you to a ‘network troubleshooting guide’ with some basic tech support information and a number to call an advisor.

The Open Network website promises that “the more open questions you ask, the more open answers we can give.” But the platform contains no fundamentally new or different mechanisms for reporting issues which take advantage of the crowdsourced ethos that Airtel lays claim to. While this is a very promising first step for the company, we hope that they continue to refine their website and display a meaningful commitment to the principles they have espoused here.Furthermore, while the portal indicates the quality of coverage in an area (including separate indicators for voice and data quality) it gives no indications as to how these categories were arrived at, or what a ‘Moderate’ level of data quality means empirically. It is also unclear how often the visualization is refreshed, or how old the data currently on display are. In addition, the provisions for reporting issues through the platform seem to be lacking, and it is unclear how open Airtel will be with these.

Expressing interest in hosting a cell tower takes you to an online form and a promise that ‘we will get in touch with you.’ By contrast, trying to report an issue takes you to a ‘network troubleshooting guide’ with some basic tech support information and a number to call an advisor.

http://gadgets.ndtv.com/telecom/news/airtels-open-network-launched-on-app-to-show-coverage-quality-across-india-849280

opensignal.com

https://radiocells.org/

http://developer.opensignal.com/networkrank/

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/telecom/blog/airtel-open-network

AI Task Force Report

Admin — 2018-06-27T14:22:11Z

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

AI Manufacturing and Services Report

Admin — 2018-03-11T14:43:00Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/AIManufacturingandServices_Report_02.pdf

AI in India: A Policy Agenda

Amber Sinha, Elonnai Hickok and Arindrajit Basu — 2018-09-05T15:39:59Z

Click to download the file

Background

Over the last few months, the Centre for Internet and Society has been engaged in the mapping of use and impact of artificial intelligence in health, banking, manufacturing, and governance sectors in India through the development of a case study compendium.^{^[1]} Alongside this research, we are examining the impact of Industry 4.0 on jobs and employment and questions related to the future of work in India. We have also been a part of several global conversations on artificial intelligence and autonomous systems. The Centre for Internet and Society is part of the Partnership on Artificial Intelligence, a consortium which has representation from some of most important companies and civil society organisations involved in developments and research on artificial intelligence. We have contributed to the The IEEE Global Initiative on Ethics of Autonomous and Intelligent Systems, and are also a part of a Big Data for Development Global Network, where we are undertaking research towards evolving ethical principles for use of computational techniques. The following are a set of recommendations we have arrived out of our research into artificial intelligence, particularly the sectoral case studies focussed on the development and use of artificial intelligence in India.

National AI Strategies: A Brief Global Overview

Artificial Intelligence is emerging as a central policy issue in several countries. In October 2016, the Obama White House released a report titled, “Preparing for the Future of Artificial Intelligence”^{^[2]} delving into a range of issues including application for public goods, regulation, economic impact, global security and fairness issues. The White House also released a companion document called the “National Artificial Intelligence Research and Development Strategic Plan”^{^[3]} which laid out a strategic plan for Federally-funded research and development in AI. These were the first of a series of policy documents released by the US towards the role of AI. The United Kingdom announced its 2020 national development strategy and issued a government report to accelerate the application of AI by government agencies while in 2018 the Department for Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy released the Policy Paper - AI Sector Deal.^{^[4]} The Japanese government released it paper on Artificial Intelligence Technology Strategy in 2017.^{^[5]} The European Union launched "SPARC," the world’s largest civilian robotics R&D program, back in 2014.^{^[6]}

Over the last year and a half, Canada,^{^[7]} China,^{^[8]} the UAE,^{^[9]} Singapore,^{^[10]} South Korea^{^[11]}, and France^{^[12]} have announced national AI strategy documents while 24 member States in the EU have committed to develop national AI policies that reflect a “European” approach to AI ^{^[13]}. Other countries such as Mexico and Malaysia are in the process of evolving their national AI strategies. What this suggests is that AI is quickly emerging as central to national plans around the development of science and technology as well as economic and national security and development. There is also a focus on investments enabling AI innovation in critical national domains as a means of addressing key challenges facing nations. India has followed this trend and in 2018 the government published two AI roadmaps - the Report of Task Force on Artificial Intelligence by the AI Task Force constituted by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry^{^[14]} and the National Strategy for Artificial Intelligence by Niti Aayog.^{^[15]} Some of the key themes running across the National AI strategies globally are spelt out below.

Economic Impact of AI

A common thread that runs across the different national approaches to AI is the belief in the significant economic impact of AI, that it will likely increase productivity and create wealth. The British government estimated that AI could add $814 billion to the UK economy by 2035. The UAE report states that by 2031, AI will help boost the country’s GDP by 35 per cent, reduce government costs by 50 per cent. Similarly, China estimates that the core AI market will be worth 150 billion RMB ($25bn) by 2020, 400 billion RMB ($65bn) and one trillion RMB ($160bn) by 2030. The impact of adoption of AI and automation of labour and employment is also a key theme touched upon across the strategies. For instance, the White House Report of October 2016 states the US workforce is unprepared – and that a serious education programme, through online courses and in-house schemes, will be required.^{^[16]}

State Funding

Another key trend exhibited in all national strategies towards AI has been a commitment by the respective governments towards supporting research and development in AI. The French government has stated that it intends to invest €1.5 billion ($1.85 billion) in AI research in the period through to 2022. The British government’s recommendations, in late 2017, were followed swiftly by a promise in the autumn budget of new funds, including at least £75 million for AI. Similarly, the the Canadian government put together a $125-million ‘pan-Canadian AI strategy’ last year.

AI for Public Good

The use of AI for Public Good is a significant focus of most AI policies. The biggest justification for AI innovation as a legitimate objective of public policy is its promised impact towards improvement of people’s lives by helping to solve some of the world’s greatest challenges and inefficiencies, and emerge as a transformative technology, much like mobile computing. These public good uses of AI are emerging across sectors such as transportation, migration, law enforcement and justice system, education, and agriculture..

National Institutions leading AI research

Another important trend which was key to the implementation of national AI strategies is the creation or development of well-funded centres of excellence which would serve as drivers of research and development and leverage synergies with the private sector. The French Institute for Research in Computer Science and Automation (INRIA) plans to create a national AI research program with five industrial partners. In UK, The Alan Turing Institute is likely to emerge as the national institute for data science, and an AI Council would be set up to manage inter-sector initiatives and training. In Canada, Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIFAR) has been tasked with implementing their AI strategy. Countries like Japan has a less centralised structure with the creation of strategic council for AI technology’ to promote research and development in the field, and manage a number of key academic institutions, including NEDO and its national ICT (NICT) and science and tech (JST) agencies. These institutions are key to successful implementation of national agendas and policies around AI.

AI, Ethics and Regulation

Across the AI strategies — ethical dimensions and regulation of AI were highlighted as concerns that needed to be addressed. Algorithmic transparency and explainability, clarity on liability, accountability and oversight, bias and discrimination, and privacy are ethical and regulatory questions that have been raised. Employment and the future of work is another area of focus that has been identified by countries. For example, the US 2016 Report reflected on if existing regulation is adequate to address risk or if adaption is needed by examining the use of AI in automated vehicles. In the policy paper - AI Sector Deal - the UK proposes four grand challenges: AI and Data Economy, Future Mobility, Clean Growth, and Ageing Society. The Pan Canadian Artificial Intelligence Strategy focuses on developing global thought leadership on the economic, ethical, policy, and legal implications of advances in artificial intelligence.^{^[17]}

The above are important factors and trends to take into account and to different extents have been reflected in the two national roadmaps for AI. Without adequate institutional planning, there is a risk of national strategies being too monolithic in nature. Without sufficient supporting mechanisms in the form of national institutions which would drive the AI research and innovation, capacity building and re-skilling of workforce to adapt to changing technological trends, building regulatory capacity to address new and emerging issues which may disrupt traditional forms of regulation and finally, creation of an environment of monetary support both from the public and private sector it becomes difficult to implement a national strategy and actualize the potentials of AI . As stated above, there is also a need for identification of key national policy problems which can be addressed by the use of AI, and the creation of a framework with institutional actors to articulate the appropriate plan of action to address the problems using AI. There are several ongoing global initiatives which are in the process of trying to articulate key principles for ethical AI. These discussions also feature in some of the national strategy documents.

Key considerations for AI policymaking in India

As mentioned above, India has published two national AI strategies. We have responded to both of these here^{^[18]} and here.^{^[19]} Beyond these two roadmaps, this policy brief reflects on a number of factors that need to come together for India to leverage and adopt AI across sectors, communities, and technologies successfully.

Resources, Infrastructure, Markets, and Funding

Ensure adequate government funding and investment in R&D

As mentioned above, a survey of all major national strategies on AI reveals a significant financial commitment from governments towards research and development surrounding AI. Most strategy documents speak of the need to safeguard national ambitions in the race for AI development. In order to do so it is imperative to have a national strategy for AI research and development, identification of nodal agencies to enable the process, and creation of institutional capacity to carry out cutting edge research.

Most jurisdictions such as Japan, UK and China have discussed collaborations between the industry and government to ensure greater investment into AI research and development. The European Union has spoken using the existing public-private partnerships, particularly in robotics and big data to boost investment by over one and half times.^{^[20]} To some extent, this step has been initiated by the Niti Aayog strategy paper. The paper lists out enabling factors for the widespread adoption of AI and maps out specific government agencies and ministries that could promote such growth. In February 2018, the Ministry of Electronics and IT also set up four committees to prepare a roadmap for a national AI programme. The four committees are presently studying AI in context of citizen centric services; data platforms; skilling, reskilling and R&D; and legal, regulatory and cybersecurity perspectives.^{^[21]}

Democratize AI technologies and data

Clean, accurate, and appropriately curated data is essential for training algorithms. Importantly, large quantities of data alone does not translate into better results. Accuracy and curation of data should be prerequisites to quantity of data. Frameworks to generate and access larger quantity of data should not hinge on models of centralized data stores. The government and the private sector are generally gatekeepers to vast amounts of data and technologies. Ryan Calo has called this an issue of data parity,^{^[22]} where only a few well established leaders in the field have the ability to acquire data and build datasets. Gaining access to data comes with its own questions of ownership, privacy, security, accuracy, and completeness. There are a number of different approaches and techniques that can be adopted to enable access to data.

Open Government Data

Robust open data sets is one way in which access can be enabled. Open data is particularly important for small start-ups as they build prototypes. Even though India is a data dense country and has in place a National Data and Accessibility Policy India does not yet have robust and comprehensive open data sets across sectors and fields. Our research found that this is standing as an obstacle to innovation in the Indian context as startups often turn to open datasets in the US and Europe for developing prototypes. Yet, this is problematic because the demography represented in the data set is significantly different resulting in the development of solutions that are trained to a specific demographic, and thus need to be re-trained on Indian data. Although AI is technology agnostic, in the cases of different use cases of data analysis, demographically different training data is not ideal. This is particularly true for certain categories such as health, employment, and financial data.

The government can play a key role in providing access to datasets that will help the functioning and performance of AI technologies. The Indian government has already made a move towards accessible datasets through the Open Government Data Platform which provides access to a range of data collected by various ministries. Telangana has developed its own Open Data Policy which has stood out for its transparency and the quality of data collected and helps build AI based solutions.

In order to encourage and facilitate innovation, the central and state governments need to actively pursue and implement the National Data and Accessibility Policy.

Access to Private Sector Data

The private sector is the gatekeeper to large amounts of data. There is a need to explore different models of enabling access to private sector data while ensuring and protecting users rights and company IP. This data is often considered as a company asset and not shared with other stakeholders. Yet, this data is essential in enabling innovation in AI.

Amanda Levendowski states that ML practitioners have essentially three options in securing sufficient data— build the databases themselves, buy the data, or use data in the public domain. The first two alternatives are largely available to big firms or institutions. Smaller firms often end resorting to the third option but it carries greater risks of bias.

A solution could be federated access, with companies allowing access to researchers and developers to encrypted data without sharing the actual data. Another solution that has been proposed is ‘watermarking’ data sets.

Data sandboxes have been promoted as tools for enabling innovation while protecting privacy, security etc. Data sandboxes allow companies access to large anonymized data sets under controlled circumstances. A regulatory sandbox is a controlled environment with relaxed regulations that allow the product to be tested thoroughly before it is launched to the public. By providing certification and safe spaces for testing, the government will encourage innovation in this sphere. This system has already been adopted in Japan where there are AI specific regulatory sandboxes to drive society 5.0.160 data sandboxes are tools that can be considered within specific sectors to enable innovation. A sector wide data sandbox was also contemplated by TRAI.^{^[23]} A sector specific governance structure can establish a system of ethical reviews of underlying data used to feed the AI technology along with data collected in order to ensure that this data is complete, accurate and has integrity. A similar system has been developed by Statistics Norway and the Norwegian Centre for Research Data.^{^[24]}

AI Marketplaces

The National Roadmap for Artificial Intelligence by NITI Aayog proposes the creation of a National AI marketplace that is comprised of a data marketplace, data annotation marketplace, and deployable model marketplace/solutions marketplace.^{^[25]} In particular, it is envisioned that the data marketplace would be based on blockchain technology and have the features of: traceability, access controls, compliance with local and international regulations, and robust price discovery mechanism for data. Other questions that will need to be answered center around pricing and ensuring equal access. It will also be interesting how the government incentivises the provision of data by private sector companies. Most data marketplaces that are emerging are initiated by the private sector.^{^[26]} A government initiated marketplace has the potential to bring parity to some of the questions raised above, but it should be strictly limited to private sector data in order to not replace open government data.

Open Source Technology

A number of companies are now offering open source AI technologies. For example, TensorFlow, Keras, Scikit-learn, Microsoft Cognitive Toolkit, Theano, Caffe, Torch, and Accord.NET.^{^[27]} The government should incentivise and promote open source AI technologies towards harnessing and accelerating research in AI.

Re-thinking Intellectual Property Regimes

Going forward it will be important for the government to develop an intellectual property framework that encourages innovation. AI systems are trained by reading, viewing, and listening to copies of human-created works. These resources such as books, articles, photographs, films, videos, and audio recordings are all key subjects of copyright protection. Copyright law grants exclusive rights to copyright owners, including the right to reproduce their works in copies, and one who violates one of those exclusive rights “is an infringer of copyright.^{^[28]}

The enterprise of AI is, to this extent, designed to conflict with tenets of copyright law, and after the attempted ‘democratization’ of copyrighted content by the advent of the Internet, AI poses the latest challenge to copyright law. At the centre of this challenge is the fact that it remains an open question whether a copy made to train AI is a “copy” under copyright law, and consequently whether such a copy is an infringement.^{^[29]} The fractured jurisprudence on copyright law is likely to pose interesting legal questions with newer use cases of AI. For instance, Google has developed a technique called federated learning, popularly referred to as on-device ML, in which training data is localised to the originating mobile device rather than copying data to a centralized server.^{^[30]} The key copyright questions here is whether decentralized training data stored in random access memory (RAM) would be considered as “copies”.^{^[31]} There are also suggestions that copies made for the purpose of training of machine learning systems may be so trivial or de minimis that they may not qualify as infringement.^{^[32]} For any industry to flourish, there needs to be legal and regulatory clarity and it is imperative that these copyright questions emerging out of use of AI be addressed soon.

As noted in our response to the Niti Aayog national AI strategy “The report also blames the current Indian Intellectual Property regime for being “unattractive” and averse to incentivising research and adoption of AI. Section 3(k) of Patents Act exempts algorithms from being patented, and the Computer Related Inventions (CRI) Guidelines have faced much controversy over the patentability of mere software without a novel hardware component. The paper provides no concrete answers to the question of whether it should be permissible to patent algorithms, and if yes, to to what extent. Furthermore, there needs to be a standard either in the CRI Guidelines or the Patent Act, that distinguishes between AI algorithms and non-AI algorithms. Additionally, given that there is no historical precedence on the requirement of patent rights to incentivise creation of AI, innovative investment protection mechanisms that have lesser negative externalities, such as compensatory liability regimes would be more desirable. The report further failed to look at the issue holistically and recognize that facilitating rampant patenting can form a barrier to smaller companies from using or developing AI. This is important to be cognizant of given the central role of startups to the AI ecosystem in India and because it can work against the larger goal of inclusion articulated by the report.”^{^[33]}

National infrastructure to support domestic development

Building a robust national Artificial Intelligence solution requires establishing adequate indigenous infrastructural capacity for data storage and processing. While this should not necessarily extend to mandating data localisation as the draft privacy bill has done, capacity should be developed to store data sets generated by indigenous nodal points.

AI Data Storage

Capacity needs to increase as the volume of data that needs to be processed in India increases. This includes ensuring effective storage capacity, IOPS (Input/Output per second) and ability to process massive amounts of data.

AI Networking Infrastructure

Organizations will need to upgrade their networks in a bid to upgrade and optimize efficiencies of scale. Scalability must be undertaken on a high priority which will require a high-bandwidth, low latency and creative architecture, which requires appropriate last mile data curation enforcement.

Conceptualization and Implementation

Awareness, Education, and Reskilling

Encouraging AI research

This can be achieved by collaborations between the government and large companies to promote accessibility and encourage innovation through greater R&D spending. The Government of Karnataka, for instance, is collaborating with NASSCOM to set up a Centre of Excellence for Data Science and Artificial Intelligence (CoE-DS&AI) on a public-private partnership model to “accelerate the ecosystem in Karnataka by providing the impetus for the development of data science and artificial intelligence across the country.” Similar centres could be incubated in hospitals and medical colleges in India. Principles of public funded research such as FOSS, open standards, and open data should be core to government initiatives to encourage research. The Niti Aaayog report proposes a two tier integrated approach towards accelerating research, but is currently silent on these principles.^{^[34]}

Therefore,as suggested by the NITI AAYOG Report, the government needs to set up ‘centres of excellence’. Building upon the stakeholders identified in the NITI AAYOG Report, the centers of excellence should involve a wide range of experts including lawyers, political philosophers, software developers, sociologists and gender studies from diverse organizations including government, civil society,the private sector and research institutions to ensure the fair and efficient roll out of the technology.^{^[35]} An example is the Leverhulme Centre for the Future of Intelligence set up by the Leverhulme Foundation at the University of Cambridge^{^[36]} and the AI Now Institute at New York University (NYU)^{^[37]} These research centres bring together a wide range of experts from all over the globe.^{^[38]}

Skill sets to successfully adopt AI

Educational institutions should provide opportunities for students to skill themselves to adapt to adoption of AI, and also push for academic programmes around AI. It is also important to introduce computing technologies such as AI in medical schools in order to equip doctors to adopt the technical skill sets and ethics required to use integrate AI in their practices. Similarly, IT institutes could include courses on ethics, privacy, accountability etc. to equip engineers and developers with an understanding of the questions surrounding the technology and services they are developing.

Societal Awareness Building

Much of the discussion around skilling for AI is in the context of the workplace, but there is a need for awareness to be developed across society for a broader adaptation to AI. The Niti Aayog report takes the first steps towards this - noting the importance of highlighting the benefits of AI to the public. The conversation needs to go beyond this towards enabling individuals to recognize and adapt to changes that might be brought about - directly and indirectly - by AI - inside and outside of the workplace. This could include catalyzing a shift in mindset to life long learning and discussion around potential implications of human-machine interactions.

Early Childhood Awareness and Education

It is important that awareness around AI begins in early childhood. This is in part because children already interact with AI and increasingly will do so and thus awareness is needed in how AI works and can be safely and ethically used. It is also important to start building the skills that will be necessary in an AI driven society from a young age.

Focus on marginalised groups

Awareness, skills, and education should be targeted at national minorities including rural communities, the disabled, and women. Further, there should be a concerted focus on communities that are under-represented in the tech sector-such as women and sexual minorities-to ensure that the algorithms themselves and the community working on AI driven solutions are holistic and cohesive. For example, Iridescent focuses on girls, children, and families to enable them to adapt to changes like artificial intelligence through promoting curiosity, creativity, and perseverance to become lifelong learners.^{^[39]} This will be important towards ensuring that AI does not deepen societal and global inequalities including digital divides. Widespread use of AI will undoubtedly require re-skilling various stakeholders in order to make them aware of the prospects of AI.^{^[40]} Artificial Intelligence itself can be used as a resource in the re-skilling process itself-as it would be used in the education sector to gauge people’s comfort with the technology and plug necessary gaps.

Improved access to and awareness of Internet of Things

The development of smart content or Intelligent Tutoring Systems in the education can only be done on a large scale if both the teacher and the student has access to and feel comfortable with using basic IoT devices . A U.K. government report has suggested that any skilled workforce using AI should be a mix of those with a basic understanding responsible for implementation at the grassroots level , more informed users and specialists with advanced development and implementation skills.^{^[41]}The same logic applies to the agriculture sector, where the government is looking to develop smart weather-pattern tracking applications. A potential short-term solution may lie in ensuring that key actors have access to an IoT device so that he/she may access digital and then impart the benefits of access to proximate individuals. In the education sector, this would involve ensuring that all teachers have access to and are competent in using an IoT device. In the agricultural sector, this may involve equipping each village with a set of IoT devices so that the information can be shared among concerned individuals. Such an approach recognizes that AI is not the only technology catalyzing change - for example industry 4.0 is understood as comprising of a suite of technologies including but not limited to AI.

Public Discourse

As solutions bring together and process vast amounts of granular data, this data can be from a variety of public and private sources - from third party sources or generated by the AI and its interaction with its environment. This means that very granular and non traditional data points are now going into decision making processes. Public discussion is needed to understand social and cultural norms and standards and how these might translate into acceptable use norms for data in various sectors.

Coordination and collaboration across stakeholders

Development of Contextually Nuanced and Appropriate AI Solutions

Towards ensuring effectiveness and accuracy it is important that solutions used in India are developed to account for cultural nuances and diversity. From our research this could be done in a number of ways ranging from: training AI solutions used in health on data from Indian patients to account for differences in demographics^{^[42]}, focussing on natural language voice recognition to account for the diversity in languages and digital skills in the Indian context,^{^[43]} and developing and applying AI to reflect societal norms and understandings.^{^[44]}

Continuing, deepening, and expanding partnerships for innovation

Continued innovation while holistically accounting for the challenges that AI poses will be key for actors in the different sectors to remain competitive. As noted across case study reports partnerships is key in facilitating this innovation and filling capacity gaps. These partnerships can be across sectors, institutions, domains, geographies, and stakeholder groups. For example: finance/ telecom, public/private, national/international, ethics/software development/law, and academia/civil society/industry/government. We would emphasize collaboration between actors across different domains and stakeholder groups as developing holistics AI solutions demands multiple understandings and perspectives.

Coordinated Implementation

Key sectors in India need to begin to take steps to consider sector wide coordination in implementing AI. Potential stress and system wide vulnerabilities would need to be considered when undertaking this. Sectoral regulators such as RBI, TRAI, and the Medical Council of India are ideally placed to lead this coordination.

Develop contextual standard benchmarks to assess quality of algorithms

In part because of the nacency of the development and implementation of AI, towards enabling effective assessments of algorithms to understand impact and informing selection by institutions adopting solutions, standard benchmarks can help in assessing quality and appropriateness of algorithms. It may be most effective to define such benchmarks at a sectoral level (finance etc.) or by technology and solution (facial recognition etc.). Ideally, these efforts would be led by the government in collaboration with multiple stakeholders.

Developing a framework for working with the private sector for use-cases by the government

There are various potential use cases the government could adopt in order to use AI as a tool for augmenting public service delivery in India by the government. However, given lack of capacity -both human resource and technological-means that entering into partnerships with the private sector may enable more fruitful harnessing of AI- as has been seen with existing MOUs in the agricultural^{^[45]} and healthcare sectors.^{^[46]} However, the partnership must be used as a means to build capacity within the various nodes in the set-up rather than relying only on the private sector partner to continue delivering sustainable solutions.

Particularly, in the case of use of AI for governance, there is a need to evolve a clear parameter to do impact assessment prior to the deployment of the technology that clearly tries to map estimated impact of the technology of clearly defined objectives, which must also include the due process, procedural fairness and human rights considerations . As per Article 12 of the Indian Constitution, whenever the government is exercising a public function, it is bound by the entire gamut of fundamental rights articulated in Part III of the Constitution. This is a crucial consideration the government will have to bear in mind whenever it uses AI-regardless of the sector. In all cases of public service delivery, primary accountability for the use of AI should lie with the government itself, which means that a cohesive and uniform framework which regulates these partnerships must be conceptualised. This framework should incorporate : (a) Uniformity in the wording and content of contracts that the government signs, (b) Imposition of obligations of transparency and accountability on the developer to ensure that the solutions developed are in conjunction with constitutional standards and (c) Continuous evaluation of private sector developers by the government and experts to ensure that they are complying with their obligations.

Defining Safety Critical AI

The implications of AI differs according to use. Some countries, such as the EU, are beginning to define sectors where AI should play the role of augmenting jobs as opposed to functioning autonomously. The Global Partnership on AI is has termed sectors where AI tools supplement or replace human decision making in areas such as health and transportation as ‘safety critical AI’ and is researching best practices for application of AI in these areas. India will need to think through if there is a threshold that needs to be set and more stringent regulation applied. In addition to uses in health and transportation, defense and law enforcement would be another sector where certain use would require more stringent regulation.

Appropriate certification mechanisms

Appropriate certificate mechanisms will be important in ensuring the quality of AI solutions. A significant barrier to the adoption of AI in some sectors in India is acceptability of results, which include direct results arrived at using AI technologies as well as opinions provided by practitioners that are influenced/aided by AI technologies. For instance, start-ups in the healthcare sectors often find that they are asked to show proof of a clinical trial when presenting their products to doctors and hospitals, yet clinical trials are expensive, time consuming and inappropriate forms of certification for medical devices and digital health platforms. Startups also face difficulty in conducting clinical trials as there is lack of a clear regulation to adhere to. They believe that while clinical trials are a necessity with respect to drugs, the process often results in obsolescence of the technology by the time it is approved in the context of AI. Yet, medical practitioners are less trusting towards startups who do not have approval from a national or international authority. A possible and partial solution suggested by these startups is to enable doctors to partner with them to conduct clinical trials together. However, such partnerships cannot be at the expense of rigour, and adequate protections need to be built in the enabling regulation.

Serving as a voice for emerging economies in the global debate on AI

While India should utilise Artificial Intelligence in the economy as a means of occupying a driving role in the global debate around AI, it must be cautious before allowing the use of Indian territory and infrastructure as a test bed for other emerging economies without considering the ramifications that the utilisation of AI may have for Indian citizens. The NITI AAYOG Report envisions India as leverage AI as a ‘garage’ for emerging economies.^{^[47]} While there are certain positive connotations of this suggestion in so far as this propels India to occupy a leadership position-both technically and normatively in determining future use cases for AI in India,, in order to ensure that Indian citizens are not used as test subjects in this process, guiding principles could be developed such as requiring that projects have clear benefits for India.

Frameworks for Regulation

National legislation

Data Protection Law

India is a data-dense country, and the lack of a robust privacy regime, allows the public and private sector easier access to large amounts of data than might be found in other contexts with stringent privacy laws. India also lacks a formal regulatory regime around anonymization. In our research we found that this gap does not always translate into a gap in practice, as some start up companies have adopted self-regulatory practices towards protecting privacy such as of anonymising data they receive before using it further, but it does result in unclear and unharmonized practice..

In order to ensure rights and address emerging challenges to the same posed by artificial intelligence, India needs to enact a comprehensive privacy legislation applicable to the private and public sector to regulate the use of data, including use in artificial intelligence. A privacy legislation will also have to address more complicated questions such as the use of publicly available data for training algorithms, how traditional data categories (PI vs. SPDI - meta data vs. content data etc.) need to be revisited in light of AI, and how can a privacy legislation be applied to autonomous decision making. Similarly, surveillance laws may need to be revisited in light of AI driven technologies such as facial recognition, UAS, and self driving cars as they provide new means of surveillance to the state and have potential implications for other rights such as the right to freedom of expression and the right to assembly. Sectoral protections can compliment and build upon the baseline protections articulated in a national privacy legislation.^{^[48]} In August 2018 the Srikrishna Committee released a draft data protection bill for India. We have reflected on how the Bill addresses AI. Though the Bill brings under its scope companies deploying emerging technologies and subjects them to the principles of privacy by design and data impact assessments, the Bill is silent on key rights and responsibilities, namely the responsibility of the data controller to explain the logic and impact of automated decision making including profiling to data subjects and the right to opt out of automated decision making in defined circumstances.^{^[49]} Further, the development of technological solutions to address the dilemma between AI and the need for access to larger quantities of data for multiple purposes and privacy should be emphasized.

Discrimination Law

A growing area of research globally is the social consequences of AI with a particular focus on its tendency to replicate or amplify existing and structural inequalities. Problems such as data invisibility of certain excluded groups,^{^[50]} the myth of data objectivity and neutrality,^{^[51]} and data monopolization^{^[52]} contribute to the disparate impacts of big data and AI. So far much of the research on this subject has not moved beyond the exploratory phase as is reflected in the reports released by the White House^{^[53]} and Federal Trade Commission^{^[54]} in the United States. The biggest challenge in addressing discriminatory and disparate impacts of AI is ascertaining “where value-added personalization and segmentation ends and where harmful discrimination begins.”^{^[55]}

Some prominent cases where AI can have discriminatory impact are denial of loans based on attributes such as neighbourhood of residence as a proxies which can be used to circumvent anti-discrimination laws which prevent adverse determination on the grounds of race, religion, caste or gender, or adverse findings by predictive policing against persons who are unfavorably represented in the structurally biased datasets used by the law enforcement agencies. There is a dire need for disparate impact regulation in sectors which see the emerging use of AI.

Similar to disparate impact regulation, developments in AI, and its utilisation, especially in credit rating, or risk assessment processes could create complex problems that cannot be solved only by the principle based regulation. Instead, regulation intended specifically to avoid outcomes that the regulators feel are completely against the consumer, could be an additional tool that increases the fairness, and effectiveness of the system.

Competition Law

The conversation of use of competition or antitrust laws to govern AI is still at an early stage. However, the emergence of numerous data driven mergers or acquisitions such as Yahoo-Verizon, Microsoft-LinkedIn and Facebook-WhatsApp have made it difficult to ignore the potential role of competition law in the governance of data collection and processing practices. It is important to note that the impact of Big Data goes far beyond digital markets and the mergers of companies such as Bayer, Climate Corp and Monsanto shows that data driven business models can also lead to the convergence of companies from completely different sectors as well. So far, courts in Europe have looked at questions such as the impact of combination of databases on competition^{^[56]} and have held that in the context of merger control, data can be a relevant question if an undertaking achieves a dominant position through a merger, making it capable of gaining further market power through increased amounts of customer data. The evaluation of the market advantages of specific datasets has already been done in the past, and factors which have been deemed to be relevant have included whether the dataset could be replicated under reasonable conditions by competitors and whether the use of the dataset was likely to result in a significant competitive advantage.^{^[57]} However, there are limited circumstances in which big data meets the four traditional criteria for being a barrier to entry or a source of sustainable competitive advantage — inimitability, rarity, value, and non-substitutability.^{^[58]}

Any use of competition law to curb data-exclusionary or data-exploitative practices will first have to meet the threshold of establishing capacity for a firm to derive market power from its ability to sustain datasets unavailable to its competitors. In this context the peculiar ways in which network effects, multi-homing practices and how dynamic the digital markets are, are all relevant factors which could have both positive and negative impacts on competition. There is a need for greater discussion on data as a sources of market power in both digital and non-digital markets, and how this legal position can used to curb data monopolies, especially in light of government backed monopolies for identity verification and payments in India.

Consumer Protection Law

The Consumer Protection Bill, 2015, tabled in the Parliament towards the end of the monsoon session has introduced an expansive definition of the term “unfair trade practices.” The definition as per the Bill includes the disclosure “to any other person any personal information given in confidence by the consumer.” This clause excludes from the scope of unfair trade practices, disclosures under provisions of any law in force or in public interest. This provision could have significant impact on the personal data protection law in India. Alongside, there is also a need to ensure that principles such as safeguarding consumers personal information in order to ensure that the same is not used to their detriment are included within the definition of unfair trade practices. This would provide consumers an efficient and relatively speedy forum to contest adverse impacts on them of data driven decision-making.

Sectoral Regulation

Our research into sectoral case studies revealed that there are a number of existing sectoral laws and policies that are applicable to aspects of AI. For example, in the health sector there is the Medical Council Professional Conduct, Etiquette, and Ethics Regulations 2002, the Electronic Health Records Standards 2016, the draft Medical Devices Rules 2017, the draft Digital Information Security in Healthcare Act. In the finance sector there is the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act 2005 and 2006, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Investment Advisers) Regulations, 2013, the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007, the Banking Regulations Act 1949, SEBI guidelines on robo advisors etc. Before new regulations, guidelines etc are developed - a comprehensive exercise needs to be undertaken at a sectoral level to understand if 1. sectoral policy adequately addresses the changes being brought about by AI 2. If it does not - is an amendment possible and if not - what form of policy would fill the gap.

Principled approach

Transparency

Audits

Internal and external audits can be mechanisms towards creating transparency about the processes and results of AI solutions as they are implemented in a specific context. Audits can take place while a solution is still in ‘pilot’ mode and on a regular basis during implementation. For example, in the Payment Card Industry (PCI) tool, transparency is achieved through frequent audits, the results of which are simultaneously and instantly transmitted to the regulator and the developer. Ideally parts of the results of the audit are also made available to the public, even if the entire results are not shared.

Tiered Levels of Transparency

There are different levels and forms of transparency as well as different ways of achieving the same. The type and form of transparency can be tiered and dependent on factors such as criticality of function, potential direct and indirect harm, sensitivity of data involved, actor using the solution . The audience can also be tiered and could range from an individual user to senior level positions, to oversight bodies.

Human Facing Transparency

It will be important for India to define standards around human-machine interaction including the level of transparency that will be required. Will chatbots need to disclose that they are chatbots? Will a notice need to be posted that facial recognition technology is used in a CCTV camera? Will a company need to disclose in terms of service and privacy policies that data is processed via an AI driven solution? Will there be a distinction if the AI takes the decision autonomously vs. if the AI played an augmenting role? Presently, the Niti Aayog paper has been silent on this question.

Explainability

An explanation is not equivalent to complete transparency. The obligation of providing an explanation does not mean that the developer should necessarily know the flow of bits through the AI system. Instead, the legal requirement of providing an explanation requires an ability to explain how certain parameters may be utilised to arrive at an outcome in a certain situation.

Doshi-Velez and Kortz have highlighted two technical ideas that may enhance a developer's ability to explain the functioning of AI systems:^{^[59]}

1) Differentiation and processing: AI systems are designed to have the inputs differentiated and processed through various forms of computation-in a reproducible and robust manner. Therefore, developers should be able to explain a particular decision by examining the inputs in an attempt to determine which of them have the greatest impact on the outcome.

2) Counterfactual faithfulness: The second property of counterfactual faithfulness enables the developer to consider which factors caused a difference in the outcomes. Both these solutions can be deployed without necessarily knowing the contents of black boxes. As per Pasquale, ‘Explainability matters because the process of reason-giving is intrinsic to juridical determinations – not simply one modular characteristic jettisoned as anachronistic once automated prediction is sufficiently advanced.”^{^[60]}

Rules based system applied contextually

Oswald et al have suggested two proposals that might mitigate algorithmic opacity.by designing a broad rules-based system, whose implementation need to be applied in a context-specific manner which thoroughly evaluates the key enablers and challengers in each specific use case.^{^[61]}

Experimental proportionality was designed to enable the courts to make proportionality determinations of an algorithm at the experimental stage even before the impacts are fully realised in a manner that would enable them to ensure that appropriate metrics for performance evaluation and cohesive principles of design have been adopted. In such cases they recommend that the courts give the benefit of the doubt to the public sector body subject to another hearing within a stipulated period of time once data on the impacts of the algorithm become more readily available.
‘ALGO-CARE' calls for the design of a rules-based system which ensures that the algorithms^{^[62]} are:

(1) Advisory: Algorithms must retain an advisory capacity that augments existing human capability rather than replacing human discretion outright;

(2) Lawful: Algorithm's proposed function, application, individual effect and use of datasets should be considered in symbiosis with necessity, proportionality and data minimisation principles;

(3) Granularity: Issues such as data analysis issues such as meaning of data, challenges stemming from disparate tracts of data, omitted data and inferences should be key points in the implementation process;

(4) Ownership: Due regard should be given to intellectual property ownership but in the case of algorithms used for governance, it may be better to have open source algorithms at the default. Regardless of the sector,the developer must ensure that the algorithm works in a manner that enables a third party to investigate the workings of the algorithm in an adversarial judicial context.

(5)Challengeable:The results of algorithmic analysis should be applied with regard to professional codes and regulations and be challengeable. In a report evaluating the NITI AAYOG Discussion Paper, CIS has argued that AI that is used for governance , must be made auditable in the public domain,if not under Free and Open Source Software (FOSS)-particularly in the case of AI that has implications for fundamental rights.^{^[63]}

(6) Accuracy: The design of the algorithm should check for accuracy;

(7) Responsible: Should consider a wider set of ethical and moral principles and the foundations of human rights as a guarantor of human dignity at all levels and

(8) Explainable: Machine Learning should be interpretable and accountable.

A rules based system like ALGO-CARE can enable predictability in use frameworks for AI. Predictability compliments and strengthens transparency.

Accountability

Conduct Impact Assessment

There is a need to evolve Algorithmic Impact Assessment frameworks for the different sectors in India, which should address issues of bias, unfairness and other harmful impacts of use of automated decision making. AI is a nascent field and the impact of the technology on the economy, society, etc. is still yet to be fully understood. Impact assessment standards will be important in identifying and addressing potential or existing harms and could potentially be more important in sectors or uses where there is direct human interaction with AI or power dimensions - such as in healthcare or use by the government. A 2018 Report by the AI Now Institute lists methods that should be adopted by the government for conducting his holistic assessment^{^[64]}: These should include: (1) Self-assessment by the government department in charge of implementing the technology, (2)Development of meaningful inter-disciplinary external researcher review mechanisms, (3) Notice to the public regarding self-assessment and external review, (4)Soliciting of public comments for clarification or concerns, (5) Special regard to vulnerable communities who may not be able to exercise their voice in public proceedings. An adequate review mechanism which holistically evaluates the impact of AI would ideally include all five of these components in conjunction with each other.

Regulation of Algorithms

Experts have voiced concerns about AI mimicking human prejudices due to the biases present in the Machine Learning algorithms. Scientists have revealed through their research that machine learning algorithms can imbibe gender and racial prejudices which are ingrained in language patterns or data collection processes. Since AI and machine algorithms are data driven, they arrive at results and solutions based on available
and historical data. When this data itself is biased, the solutions presented by the AI will also be biased. While this is inherently discriminatory, scientists have provided solutions to rectify these biases which can occur at various stages by introducing a counter bias at another stage. It has also been suggested that data samples should be shaped in such a manner so as to minimise the chances of algorithmic bias. Ideally regulation of algorithms could be tailored - explainability, traceability, scrutability. We recommend that the national strategy on AI policy must take these factors into account and combination of a central agency driving the agenda, and sectoral actors framing regulations around specific uses of AI that are problematic and implementation is required.

As the government begins to adopt AI into governance - the extent to which and the circumstances autonomous decision making capabilities can be delegated to AI need to be questioned. Questions on whether AI should be autonomous, should always have a human in the loop, and should have a ‘kill-switch’ when used in such contexts also need to be answered. A framework or high level principles can help to guide these determinations. For example:

Modeling Human Behaviour: An AI solution trying to model human behaviour, as in the case of judicial decision-making or predictive policing may need to be more regulated, adhere to stricter standards, and need more oversight than an algorithm that is trying to predict ‘natural’ phenomenon such as traffic congestion or weather patterns.
Human Impact: An AI solution which could cause greater harm if applied erroneously-such as a robot soldier that mistakenly targets a civilian requires a different level and framework of regulation than an AI solution designed to create a learning path for a student in the education sector and errs in making an appropriate assessment..
Primary User: AI solutions whose primary users are state agents attempting to discharge duties in the public interest such as policemen, should be approached with more caution than those used by individuals such as farmers getting weather alerts

Fairness

It is possible to incorporate broad definitions of fairness into a wide range of data analysis and classification systems.^{^[65]} While there can be no bright-line rules that will necessarily enable the operator or designer of a Machine Learning System to arrive at an ex ante determination of fairness, from a public policy perspective, there must be a set of rules or best practices that explain how notions of fairness should be utilised in the real world applications of AI-driven solutions.^{^[66]} While broad parameters should be encoded by the developer to ensure compliance with constitutional standards, it is also crucial that the functioning of the algorithm allows for an ex-post determination of fairness by an independent oversight body if the impact of the AI driven solution is challenged.

Further, while there is no precedent on this anywhere in the world, India could consider establishing a Committee entrusted with the specific task of continuously evaluating the operation of AI-driven algorithms. Questions that the government would need to answer with regard to this body include:

What should the composition of the body be?
What should be the procedural mechanisms that govern the operation of the body?
When should the review committee step in? This is crucial because excessive review may re-entrench the bureaucracy that the AI driven solution was looking to eliminate.
What information will be necessary for the review committee to carry out its determination? Will there be conflicts with IP, and if so how will these be resolved?
To what degree will the findings of the committee be made public?
What powers will the committee have? Beyond making determinations, how will these be enforced?

Market incentives

Standards as a means to address data issues

With digitisation of legacy records and the ability to capture more granular data digitally, one of the biggest challenges facing Big Data is a lack of standardised data and interoperability frameworks. This is particularly true in the healthcare and medicine sector where medical records do not follow a clear standard, which poses a challenge to their datafication and analysis. The presence of developed standards in data management and exchange, interoperable Distributed Application Platform and Services, Semantic related standards for markup, structure, query, semantics, Information access and exchange have been spoken of as essential to address the issues of lack of standards in Big Data.^{^[67]}

Towards enabling usability of data, it is important that clear data standards are established. This has been recognized by Niti Aayog in its National Strategy for AI. On one hand, there can operational issues with allowing each organisation to choose their own specific standards to operate under, while on the other hand, non-uniform digitisation of data will also cause several practical problems, most primarily to do with interoperability of the individual services, as well as their usability. For instance, in the healthcare sector, though India has adopted an EHR policy, implementation of this policy is not yet harmonized - leading to different interpretations of ‘digitizing records (i.e taking snapshots of doctor notes), retention methods and periods, and comprehensive implementation across all hospital data. Similarly, while independent banks and other financial organisations are already following, or in the process of developing internal practices,there exist no uniform standards for digitisation of financial data. As AI development, and application becomes more mainstream in the financial sector, the lack of a fixed standard could create significant problems.

Better Design Principles in Data Collection

An enduring criticism of the existing notice and consent framework has been that long, verbose and unintelligible privacy notices are not efficient in informing individuals and helping them make rational choices. While this problem predates Big Data, it has only become more pronounced in recent times, given the ubiquity of data collection and implicit ways in which data is being collected and harvested. Further, constrained interfaces on mobile devices, wearables, and smart home devices connected in an Internet of Things amplify the usability issues of the privacy notices. Some of the issues with privacy notices include Notice complexity, lack of real choices, notices decoupled from the system collecting data etc. An industry standard for a design approach to privacy notices which includes looking at factors such as the timing of the notice, the channels used for communicating the notices, the modality (written, audio, machine readable, visual) of the notice and whether the notice only provides information or also include choices within its framework, would be of great help. Further, use of privacy by design principles can be done not just at the level of privacy notices but at each step of the information flow, and the architecture of the system can be geared towards more privacy enhanced choices.

^{^[1]} https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/artificial-intelligence-in-india-a-compendium

^{^[2]} https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/whitehouse_files/microsites/ostp/NSTC/preparing_for_the_future_of_ai.pdf

^{^[3]} https://www.nitrd.gov/PUBS/national_ai_rd_strategic_plan.pdf

^{^[4]} https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/artificial-intelligence-sector-deal/ai-sector-deal

^{^[5]} http://www.nedo.go.jp/content/100865202.pdf

^{^[6]} https://www.eu-robotics.net/sparc/10-success-stories/european-robotics-creating-new-markets.html?changelang=2

^{^[7]} https://www.cifar.ca/ai/pan-canadian-artificial-intelligence-strategy

^{^[8]} https://www.newamerica.org/cybersecurity-initiative/blog/chinas-plan-lead-ai-purpose-prospects-and-problems/

^{^[9]} http://www.uaeai.ae/en/

^{^[10]} https://www.aisingapore.org/

^{^[11]} https://news.joins.com/article/22625271

^{^[12]} https://www.aiforhumanity.fr/pdfs/MissionVillani_Report_ENG-VF.pdf

^{^[13]} https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/communication-artificial-intelligence-europe https://www.euractiv.com/section/digital/news/twenty-four-eu-countries-sign-artificial-intelligence-pact-in-bid-to-compete-with-us-china/

^{^[14]} https://www.aitf.org.in/

^{^[15]} http://www.niti.gov.in/writereaddata/files/document_publication/NationalStrategy-for-AI-Discussion-Paper.pdf

^{^[16]} https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/whitehouse_files/microsites/ostp/NSTC/preparing_for_the_future_of_ai.pdf

^{^[17]} https://www.cifar.ca/ai/pan-canadian-artificial-intelligence-strategy

^{^[18]} https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-ai-task-force-report-the-first-steps-towards-indias-ai-framework

^{^[19]} https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/niti-aayog-discussion-paper-an-aspirational-step-towards-india2019s-ai-policy

^{^[20]} https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/communication-artificial-intelligence-europe

^{^[21]} http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=181007

^{^[22]} Ryan Calo, 2017 Artificial Intelligence Policy: A Primer and Roadmap. U.C. Davis L. Review,

Vol. 51, pp. 398 - 435.

^{^[23]} https://trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/CIS_07_11_2017.pdf

^{^[24]} https://www.datatilsynet.no/globalassets/global/english/ai-and-privacy.pdf

^{^[25]} http://www.niti.gov.in/writereaddata/files/document_publication/NationalStrategy-for-AI-Discussion-Paper.pdf

^{^[26]} https://martechtoday.com/bottos-launches-a-marketplace-for-data-to-train-ai-models-214265

^{^[27]} https://opensource.com/article/18/5/top-8-open-source-ai-technologies-machine-learning

^{^[28]} Amanda Levendowski, How Copyright Law Can Fix Artificial Intelligence’s

Implicit Bias Problem, 93 WASH. L. REV. (forthcoming 2018) (manuscript at 23, 27-32),

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3024938.

^{^[29]} Id.

^{^[30]} H. Brendan McMahan, et al., Communication-Efficient Learning of Deep Networks

from Decentralized Data, arXiv:1602.05629 (Feb. 17, 2016), https://arxiv.org/abs/1602.05629.

^{^[31]} Id.

^{^[32]} Pierre N. Leval, Nimmer Lecture: Fair Use Rescued, 44 UCLA L. REV. 1449, 1457 (1997).

^{^[33]} https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/niti-aayog-discussion-paper-an-aspirational-step-towards-india2019s-ai-policy

^{^[34]} https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/niti-aayog-discussion-paper-an-aspirational-step-towards-india2019s-ai-policy

^{^[35]} Discussion Paper on National Strategy for Artificial Intelligence | NITI Aayog | National Institution for Transforming India. (n.d.) p. 54. Retrieved from http://niti.gov.in/content/national-strategy-ai-discussion-paper.

^{^[36]} Leverhulme Centre for the Future of Intelligence, http://lcfi.ac.uk/.

^{^[37]} AI Now, https://ainowinstitute.org/.

^{^[38]} https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/ai-and-governance-case-study-pdf

^{^[39]} http://iridescentlearning.org/

^{^[40]} https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/ai-and-governance-case-study-pdf

^{^[41]} Points, L., & Potton, E. (2017). Artificial intelligence and automation in the UK.

^{^[42]} Paul, Y., Hickok, E., Sinha, A. and Tiwari, U., Artificial Intelligence in the Healthcare Industry in India, Centre for Internet and Society. Available at https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/ai-and-healtchare-report.

^{^[43]} Goudarzi, S., Hickok, E., and Sinha, A., AI in the Banking and Finance Industry in India, Centre for Internet and Society. Available at https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/ai-in-banking-and-finance.

^{^[44]} Paul, Y., Hickok, E., Sinha, A. and Tiwari, U., Artificial Intelligence in the Healthcare Industry in India, Centre for Internet and Society. Available at https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/ai-and-healtchare-report.

^{^[45]} https://news.microsoft.com/en-in/government-karnataka-inks-mou-microsoft-use-ai-digital-agriculture/

^{^[46]} https://news.microsoft.com/en-in/government-telangana-adopts-microsoft-cloud-becomes-first-state-use-artificial-intelligence-eye-care-screening-children/

^{^[47]} NITI Aayog. (2018). Discussion Paper on National Strategy for Artificial Intelligence. Retrieved from http://niti.gov.in/content/national-strategy-ai-discussion-paper. 18

^{^[48]} https://edps.europa.eu/sites/edp/files/publication/16-10-19_marrakesh_ai_paper_en.pdf

^{^[49]} https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-srikrishna-committee-data-protection-bill-and-artificial-intelligence-in-india

^{^[50]} J. Schradie, The Digital Production Gap: The Digital Divide and Web 2.0 Collide. Elsevier Poetics, 39 (1).

^{^[51]} D Lazer, et al., The Parable of Google Flu: Traps in Big Data Analysis. Science. 343 (1).

^{^[52]} Danah Boyd and Kate Crawford, Critical Questions for Big Data. Information, Communication & Society. 15 (5).

^{^[53]} John Podesta, (2014) Big Data: Seizing Opportunities, Preserving Values, available at

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/big_data_privacy_report_may_1_2014.pdf

^{^[54]} E. Ramirez, (2014) FTC to Examine Effects of Big Data on Low Income and Underserved Consumers at September Workshop, available at http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2014/04/ftc-examine-effects-big-data-lowincome-underserved-consumers

^{^[55]} M. Schrage, Big Data’s Dangerous New Era of Discrimination, available at http://blogs.hbr.org/2014/01/bigdatas-dangerous-new-era-of-discrimination/.

^{^[56]} Google/DoubleClick Merger case

^{^[57]} French Competition Authority, Opinion n°10-A-13 of 1406.2010,

http://www.autoritedelaconcurrence.fr/pdf/avis/10a13.pdf. That opinion of the Authority aimed at

giving general guidance on that subject. It did not focus on any particular market or industry

although it described a possible application of its analysis to the telecom industry.

^{^[58]} http://www.analysisgroup.com/is-big-data-a-true-source-of-market-power/#sthash.5ZHmrD1m.dpuf

^{^[59]} Doshi-Velez, F., Kortz, M., Budish, R., Bavitz, C., Gershman, S., O'Brien, D., ... & Wood, A. (2017). Accountability of AI under the law: The role of explanation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.01134.

^{^[60]} Frank A. Pasquale ‘Toward a Fourth Law of Robotics: Preserving Attribution, Responsibility, and Explainability in an Algorithmic Society’ (July 14, 2017). Ohio State Law Journal, Vol. 78, 2017; U of Maryland Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2017-21, 7.

^{^[61]} Oswald, M., Grace, J., Urwin, S., & Barnes, G. C. (2018). Algorithmic risk assessment policing models: lessons from the Durham HART model and ‘Experimental’ proportionality. Information & Communications Technology Law, 27(2), 223-250.

^{^[62]} Ibid.

^{^[63]} Abraham S., Hickok E., Sinha A., Barooah S., Mohandas S., Bidare P. M., Dasgupta S., Ramachandran V., and Kumar S., NITI Aayog Discussion Paper: An aspirational step towards India’s AI policy. Retrieved from https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/niti-aayog-discussion-paper.

^{^[64]} Reisman D., Schultz J., Crawford K., Whittaker M., (2018, April) Algorithmic Impact Assessments: A Practical Framework For Public Agency Accountability. Retrieved from https://ainowinstitute.org/aiareport2018.pdf.

^{^[65]} Sample I., (2017, November 5) Computer says no: why making AIs fair, accountable and transparent is crucial. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/nov/05/computer-says-no-why-making-ais-fair-accountable-and-transparent-is-crucial.

^{^[66]} Kroll, J. A., Barocas, S., Felten, E. W., Reidenberg, J. R., Robinson, D. G., & Yu, H. (2016). Accountable algorithms. U. Pa. L. Rev., 165, 633.

^{^[67]} http://www.iso.org/iso/big_data_report-jtc1.pdf

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/ai-in-india-a-policy-agenda