Centre for Internet and Society

Rethinking Privacy Principles

elonnai — 2017-09-11T02:17:02Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/rethinking-privacy-principles

Rethinking DNA Profiling in India

elonnai — 2012-10-29T08:00:01Z

DNA profile databases can be useful tools in solving crime, but given that the DNA profile of a person can reveal very personal information about the individual, including medical history, family history and so on, a more comprehensive legislation regulating the collection, use, analysis and storage of DNA samples needs included in the draft Human DNA Profiling Bill.

Elonnai Hickok's article was published in Economic & Political Weekly, Vol - XLVII No. 43, October 27, 2012

DNA evidence was first accepted by the courts in India in 1985,[1] and in 2005 the Criminal Code of Procedure was amended to allow for medical practitioners, after authorisation from a police officer who is not below the rank of sub-inspector, to examine a person arrested on the charge of committing an offence and with reasonable grounds that an examination of the individual will bring to light evidence regarding the offence. This can include

"the examination of blood, blood stains, semen, swabs in case of sexual offences, sputum and sweat, hair samples, and finger nail clippings, by the use of modern and scientific techniques including DNA profiling and such other tests which the registered medical practitioner thinks necessary in a particular case."[2]

Though this provision establishes that authorisation is needed for collection of DNA samples, defines who can collect samples, creates permitted circumstances for collection, and lists material that can be collected, among other things, it does not address how the collected DNA evidence should be handled, and what will happen to the evidence after it is collected and analysed. These gaps in the provision indicate the need for a more comprehensive legislation regulating the collection, use, analysis and storage of DNA samples, including for crime-related purposes in India.

The initiative to draft a Bill regulating the use of DNA samples for crime-related reasons began in 2003, when the Department of Biotechnology (DoB) established a committee known as the DNA Profiling Advisory Committee to make recommendations for the drafting of the DNA profiling Bill 2006, which eventually became the Human DNA Profiling Bill 2007.[3] The 2007 draft Bill was prepared by the DoB along with the Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics (CDFD).[4]

The CDFD is an autonomous institution supported by the DoB. In addition to the CDFD, there are multiple Central Forensic Science Laboratories in India under the control of the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Central Bureau of Investigation,[5], along with a number of private labs [6] which analyse DNA samples for crime-related purposes.

In 2007, the draft Human DNA Profiling Bill was made public, but was never introduced in Parliament. In February 2012, a new version of the Bill was leaked. If passed, the Bill will establish state-level DNA databases which will feed into a national-level DNA database, and proposes to regulate the use of DNA for the purposes of

"enhancing protection of people in the society and the administration of justice."[7]

The Bill will also establish a DNA Profiling Board responsible for 24 functions, including specifying the list of instances for human DNA profiling and the sources of collection, enumerating guidelines for storage and destruction of biological samples, and laying down standards and procedures for establishment and functioning of DNA laboratories and DNA Data Banks.[8] The lack of harmonisation and clear policy indicates that there is a need in India for standardising the collection and use of DNA samples. Although DNA evidence can be useful for solving crimes, the current 2012 draft Bill is missing critical safeguards and technical standards essential to preventing the misuse of DNA and protecting individual rights.

Concerns that have been raised with regards to the Bill are both intrinsic, including problems with effectiveness of achieving the set objectives, and extrinsic, including concerns with the fundamental principles of the Bill. For example, the use of DNA material as evidence and the subsequent creation of a DNA database can be useful for solving crimes when the database contains DNA profiles from[9] from DNA samples[10] only from crime scenes, and is restricted to DNA profiles from individuals who might be repeat offenders. If a wide range of DNA profiles are added to the database, the effectiveness of the database decreases, and the likelihood of a false match increases as the ability to correctly identify a criminal depends on the number of crime scene DNA profiles on the database, and the number of false matches that occur is proportional to the number of comparisons made (more comparisons = more false matches).[11] This inverse relationship between the effectiveness of the DNA database and the size of the database was found in the UK when it was proven that the expansion of the UK DNA database did not help to solve more crimes, despite millions of profiles being added to the database.[12]

The current scope of the draft 2012 Bill is not limited to crimes for which samples can be taken and placed in the database. Instead the Bill creates indexes within every databank including: crime scene indexes, suspects index, offender’s index, missing persons index, unknown deceased persons’ index, volunteers’ index, and such other DNA indices as may be specified by regulations made by the Board.[13] How independent each of these indices are, is unclear. For example, the Bill does not specify when a profile is searched for in the database – if all indices are searched, or if only the relevant indices are searched, and the Bill requires that when a DNA profile is added to the databank, it must be compared with all the existing profiles.[14] The Bill also lists a range of offences for which DNA profiling will be applicable and DNA samples collected, and used for the identification of the perpetrator including, unnatural offences, individual identification, issues relating to assisted reproductive technologies, adultery, outraging the modesty of women etc.[15] Though the Bill is not incorrect in its list of offences where DNA profiling could be applicable, it is unclear if DNA profiles from all the listed offenses will be stored on the database. If it is the case that the DNA profiles will be stored, it would make the scope of the database too broad.

Unlike other types of identifiers, such as fingerprints, DNA can reveal very personal information about an individual, including medical history, family history and location.[16] Thus, having a DNA database with a broad scope and adding more DNA profiles onto a database, increases the potential for misuse of information stored on the database, because there is more opportunity for profiling, tracking of individuals, and access to private data. In its current form, the Bill protects against such misuse to a certain extent by limiting the information that will be stored with a DNA profile and in the indices,[17] but the Bill does not make it clear if the DNA profiles of individuals convicted for a crime will be stored and searched independently from other profiles. Additionally, though the Bill limits the use of DNA profiles and DNA samples to identification of perpetrators,[18] it allows for DNA profiles/DNA samples and related information related to be shared for creation and maintenance of a population statistics database that is to be used, as prescribed, for the purpose of identification research, protocol development, or quality control provided that it does not contain any personally identifiable information and does not violate ethical norms.”[19]

An indication of the possibility of how a DNA database could be misused in India can be seen in the CDFD’s stated objectives, where it lists "to create DNA marker databases of different caste populations of India."[20] CDFD appears to be collecting this data by requiring caste and origin of state to be filled in on the identification form that is submitted with any DNA sample.[21] Though an argument could be made that this information could be used for research purposes, there appears to be no framework over the use of this information and this objective. Is the information stored along with the DNA sample? Is it used in criminal cases? Is it revealed during court cases or at other points of time?

Similarly, in the Report of the Working Group for the Eleventh Five Year Plan, it lists the following as a possible use of DNA profiling technology:

"Human population analysis with a view to elicit profiling of different caste populations of India to use them in forensic DNA fingerprinting and develop DNA databases."[22]

This objective is based on the assumption that caste is an immutable genetic trait and seems to ignore the fact that individuals change their caste and that caste is not uniformly passed on in marriage. Furthermore, using caste for forensic purposes and to develop DNA databases could far too easily be abused and result in the profiling of individuals, and identification errors. For example, in 2011 the UK police, in an attempt to catch the night stalker Delroy Grant, used DNA to (incorrectly) predict that he originated from the Winward Islands. The police then used mass DNA screenings of black men. The police initially eliminated Delroy Grant as a suspect because another Delroy Grant was on the DNA database, and the real Delroy Grant was eventually caught when the police pursued more traditional forms of investigation.[23]

Other uses for DNA databases and DNA samples in India have been envisioned over the years. For example, in 2010 the state of Tamil Nadu sought to amend the Prisoners Identification Act 1920 to allow for the establishment of a prisoners’ DNA database – which would require that any prisoner’s DNA be collected and stored.[24] In another example, the home page of BioAxis DNA Research Centre (P) Limited, a private DNA laboratory offering forensic services states,

"In a country like India which is densely populated there is huge requirement for these type of databases which may help in stopping different types of fraud like Ration card fraud, Voter ID Card fraud, Driving license fraud etc. The database may help the Indian police to differentiate the criminals and non criminals."[25] Not only is this statement incorrect in stating that a DNA database will differentiate between criminals and non-criminals, but DNA evidence is not useful in stopping ration card fraud etc. as it would require that DNA be extracted and authenticated for every instance of service. In 2012, the Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology at AFMC Pune proposed to establish a DNA data bank containing profiles of armed forces personnel.[26] And in Uttar Pradesh, the government ordered mandatory sampling for DNA fingerprinting of dead bodies.[27] These examples raise important questions about the scope of use, collection and storage of DNA profiles in databases that the Bill is silent on.

The assumption in the Bill that DNA evidence is infallible is another point of contention. The preamble of the Bill states that, "DNA analysis of body substances is a powerful technology that makes it possible to determine whether the source of origin of one body substance is identical to that of another, and further to establish the biological relationship, if any, between two individuals, living or dead with any doubt."[28]

This statement ignores the possibility of false matches, cross-contamination, and laboratory error[29] as DNA evidence is only as infallible as the humans collecting, analysing, and marshalling the evidence. These mistakes are not purely speculative, as cases that have relied on DNA as evidence in India demonstrate that the reliability of DNA evidence is questionable due to collection, analysis, and chain of custody errors. For example, in the Aarushi murder case the forensic expert who testified failed to remember which samples were collected at the scene of the crime[30] in the French diplomat rape case, the DNA report came out with both negative and positive results;[31] and in the Abhishek rape case the DNA sample had to be reanalysed after initial analysis did not prove conclusive.[32] Yet the Bill does not mandate a set of best practices that could help in minimising these errors, such as defining what profiling system will be used nationally, and defining specific security measures that must be taken by DNA laboratories – all of which are currently left to be determined by the DNA board.[33]

The assumption in the preamble that DNA can establish if a relationship exists between two individuals without a doubt is also misleading as it implies that the use of DNA samples and the creation of a database will increase the conviction rate, when in actuality the exact number of accurate convictions resulting purely from DNA evidence is unknown, as is the number of innocent people who are falsely accused of a crime based on DNA evidence in India. This misconception is reflected on the website of the Department of Biotechnology’s information page for CDFD where it states:

"…The DNA fingerprinting service, given the fact that it has been shown to bring about dramatic increase in the conviction rate, will continue to be in much demand. With the crime burden on the society increasing, more and more requests for DNA fingerprinting are naturally anticipated. For example, starting from just a few cases of DNA fingerprinting per month, CDFD is now handling similar number of cases every day."[34]

In addition to the claim that the DNA fingerprinting service has shown a dramatic increase in the conviction rate, is not supported by evidence in this article, according to the CDFD 2010-2011 annual report, the centre analysed DNA from 57 cases of deceased persons, 40 maternity/paternity cases, four rape and murder cases, eight sexual assault cases, and three kidney transplantation cases.[35] This is in comparison to the 2006 – 2007 annual report, which quoted 83 paternity/maternity dispute cases, 68 identification of deceased, 11 cases of sexual assault, eight cases of murder, and two cases of wildlife poaching.[36] From the numbers quoted in the CDFD annual report, it appears that paternity/maternity cases and identification of the deceased are the most frequent types of cases using DNA evidence.

Other concerns with the Bill include access controls to the database and rights of the individual. For example, the Bill does not require that a court order be issued for access to a DNA profile, and instead leaves it in the hand of the DNA bank manager to determine if communication of information relating to a match to a court, tribunal, law enforcement agency, or DNA laboratory is appropriate.[37]

Additionally, the Data Bank Manager is empowered to grant access to any information on the database to any person or class of persons that he/she considers appropriate for the purposes of proper operation and maintenance or for training purposes.[38] The low standards for access that are found in the Bill are worrisome as the possibility for tampering of evidence and analysis is increased.

The Bill is also missing important provisions that would be necessary to protect the rights of the individual. For example, individuals are not permitted a private cause of action for the unlawful collection, use, or retention of DNA, and individuals do not have the right to access their own information stored on the database.[39] These are significant gaps in the proposed legislation as it restricts the rights of the individual.

In conclusion, India could benefit from having a legislation regulating, standardising, and harmonising the use, collection, analysis, and retention of DNA samples for crime-related purposes. The current 2012 draft of the Bill is a step in the right direction, and an improvement from the 2007 DNA Profiling Bill. The 2012 draft draws upon best practices from the US and Canada, but could also benefit from drawing upon best practices from countries like Scotland. Safeguards missing from the current draft that would strengthen the Bill include: limiting the scope of the DNA database to include only samples from a crime scene for serious crimes and not minor offenses, requiring the destruction of DNA samples once a DNA profile is created, clearly defining when a court order is needed to collect DNA samples, defining when consent is required and is not required from the individual for a DNA sample to be taken, and ensuring that the individual has a right of appeal.

[1]. Law Commission of India. Review of the Indian Evidence Act 1872. Pg. 43 Available at: http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports/185thReport-PartII.pdf. Last accessed: October 9th 2012.
[2]. Section 53. The Criminal Code of Procedure, 1973. Available at: http://www.vakilno1.com/bareacts/crpc/s53.htm. Last accessed October 9th 2012.
[3]. Department of Biotechnology. Ministry of Science & Technology GOI. Annual Report 2009 – 2010. pg. 189. Available at: http://dbtindia.nic.in/annualreports/DBT-An-Re-2009-10.pdf. Last Accessed October 9th 2012.
[4]. Chhibber, M. Govt Crawling on DNA Profiling Bill, CBI urges it to hurry, cites China. The Indian Express. July 12 2010. Available at: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/govt-crawling-on-dna-profiling-bill-cbi-urges-it-to-hurry-cites-china/645247/0. Last accessed: October 9th 2012.
[5]. Perspective Plan for Indian Forensics. Final report 2010. Table 64.1 -64.3 pg. 264-267. Available at: http://mha.nic.in/pdfs/IFS%282010%29-FinalRpt.pdf. Last accessed: October 9th 2012. And CBI Manual. Chapter 27. Available at: http://mha.nic.in/pdfs/IFS%282010%29-FinalRpt.pdf. Last accessed: October 9th 2012.
[6]. For example: International Forensic Sciences, DNA Labs India (DLI), Truth Labs and Bio-Axis DNA Research Centre (P) Limited.
[7]. Draft Human DNA Profiling Bill 2012. Introduction.
[8]. Id. section 12(a-z)
[9]. Id. Definition l. “DNA Profile” means results of analysis of a DNA sample with respect to human identification.
[10]. Id. Definition m. “DNA sample” means biological specimen of any nature that is utilized to conduct CAN analysis, collected in such manner as specified in Part II of the Schedule.
[11]. The UK DNA database and the European Court of Human Rights: Lessons India can learn from UK mistakes. PowerPoint Presentation. Dr. Helen Wallace, Genewatch UK. September 2012.
[12]. Hope, C. Crimes solved by DNA evidence fall despite millions being added to database. The Telegraph. November 12th 2008. Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/3418649/Crimes-solved-by-DNA-evidence-fall-despite-millions-being-added-to-database.html. Last accessed: October 9th 2012
[13]. Draft Human DNA Profiling Bill 2012. Section 32 (4(a-g))
[14]. Id. Section 35
[15]. Id. Schedule: List of applicable instances of Human DNA Profiling and Sources of Collection of Samples for DNA Test.
[16]. Gruber J. Forensic DNA Databases. Council for Responsible Genetics. September 2012. Powerpoint presentation.
[17]. Draft Human DNA Profiling Bill 2012. Section 32 (5)- 6)(a)-(b^[+] . Indices will only contain DNA identification records and analysis prepared by the laboratory and approved by the DNA Board, while profiles in the offenders index will contain only the identity of the person, and other profiles will contain only the case reference number.
[18]. Id. Section 39
[19]. Id. Section 40(c)
[20]. CDFD. Annual Report 2010-2011. Pg19. Available at: http://www.cdfd.org.in/images/AR_2010_11.pdf. Last accessed: October 9th 2012.
[21]. Caste and origin of state is a field of information that is required to be completed when an ‘identification form’ is sent to the CDFD along with a DNA sample for analysis. Form available at: http://www.cdfd.org.in/servicespages/dnafingerprinting.html
[22]. Report of the Working Group for the Eleventh Five Year Plan (2007 – 2012). October 2006. Pg. 152. Section: R&D Relating Services. Available at: http://planningcommission.nic.in/aboutus/committee/wrkgrp11/wg11_subdbt.pdf. Last accessed: October 9th 2012
[23]. Evans. M. Night Stalker: police blunders delayed arrest of Delroy Grant. March 24th 2011. The Telegraph. Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8397585/Night-Stalker-police-blunders-delayed-arrest-of-Delroy-Grant.html. Last accessed: October 10th 2012.
[24]. Narayan, P. A prisoner DNA database: Tamil Nadu shows the way. May 17th 2012. Available at: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/A-prisoner-DNA-database-Tamil-Nadu-shows-the-way/iplarticleshow/5938522.cms. Last accessed: October 9th 2012.
[25]. BioAxis DNA Research Centre (P) Limited. Website Available at: http://www.dnares.in/dna-databank-database-of-india.php. Last accessed: October 10th 2012.
[26]. Times of India. AFMC to open DNA profiling centre today. February 2012. Available at:http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-02-08/pune/31037108_1_dna-profile-dna-fingerprinting-data-bank. Last accessed: October 10th 2012.
[27]. Siddiqui, P. UP makes DNA sampling mandatory with postmortem. Times of India. September 4th 2012. Available at:http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-09-04/lucknow/33581061_1_dead-bodies-postmortem-house-postmortem-report. Last accessed: October 10th 2012.
[28]. Draft DNA Human Profiling Bill 2012. Introduction
[29]. Council for Responsible Genetics. Overview and Concerns Regarding the Indian Draft DNA Profiling Bill. September 2012. Pg. 2. Available at: http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/indian-draft-dna-profiling-act.pdf/view. Last accessed: October 9th 2012.
[30]. DNA. Aarushi case: Expert forgets samples collected from murder spot. August 28th 2012. Available at: http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_aarushi-case-expert-forgets-samples-collected-from-murder-spot_1733957. Last accessed: October 10th 2012.
[31]. India Today. Daughter rape case: French diplomat’s DNA test is inconclusive. July 7th 2012. Available at: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/french-diplomat-father-rapes-daughter-dna-test-bangalore/1/204270.html. Last accessed: October 10th 2012.
[32]. The Times of India. DNA tests indicate Abhishek raped woman. May 30th 2006. Available at: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2006-05-30/india/27826225_1_abhishek-kasliwal-dna-fingerprinting-dna-tests. Last accessed: October 10th 2012.
[33]. Draft Human DNA Profiling Bill 2012. Section 18-27.
[34]. Department of Biotechnology. DNA Fingerprinting & Diagnostics, Hyderabad. Available at: http://dbtindia.nic.in/uniquepage.asp?id_pk=124. Last accessed: October 10 2012.
[35]. CDFD Annual Report 2010 – 2011.Pg.19. Available at: http://www.cdfd.org.in/images/AR_2010_11.pdf. Last accessed: October 10th 2012.
[36]. CDFD Annual Report 2006-2007.Pg. 13. Available at: http://www.cdfd.org.in/images/AR_2006_07.pdf. Last accessed: October 10th 2012.
[37]. Draft Human DNA Profiling Bill 2012. Section 35
[38]. Id. Section 41.
[39].Council for Responsible Genetics. Overview and Concerns Regarding the Indian Draft DNA Profiling Bill. September 2012. Pg. 9 Available at: http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/indian-draft-dna-profiling-act.pdf/view. Last accessed: October 9th 2012.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/epw-web-exclusives-oct-27-2012-elonnai-hickok-rethinking-dna-profiling-india

Rethinking Conditions of Access

sneha — 2015-11-13T05:35:00Z

P. P. Sneha explores the possibilities of redefining the idea of access through the channels of education and learning.

The advent and pervasive growth of the internet and digital technologies in the last couple of decades have caused several changes in the way we now imagine education and processes of learning, both within and outside the classroom. The increasing use of digital tools, platforms and methods in classroom pedagogy, and the access for students to resources through online and collaborative repositories such as Wikipedia have led to a change in not just teaching practices, but also in the learning environment, which has now become more open, iterative and participatory in nature. While increased access to the internet may be one factor contributing to this change, the conditions of such access – how it is made available, to whom and for what purpose – still remain contentious. As per recent statistics, India has more than 200 million internet users, but as several studies on online users have illustrated, the numbers are hardly indicative of the nature of online engagement. The problem of the ‘digital divide’, though much debated and addressed, still persists in India, as in several other countries, with lack of infrastructure and low broadband speed being two among several reasons for the slow move in bridging this gap.

Last year, the Digital Inclusion Index map indicated India as only BRICS country ‘at extreme risk’ on the ‘digital divide’

The problem of the digital divide itself has largely been understood as one of access to the internet and/or broadly digital technologies, but the conditions of this access, in terms of the nature of its use and adaptability to a dynamic and ever-changing technological landscape is something that needs to be looked at critically, in order to provide a more nuanced understanding of the problem itself, and its inherent conflicts. The technological landscape we inhabit today is quite diverse, and rather multi-layered, as a result of which conditions of access also differ across spaces and in degrees. The problematisation, therefore, will need to be more qualitative and nuanced, to take into account several variables spread over social, cultural and economic categories.

The assumption of the internet, as an open and accessible, therefore neutral space, has also been questioned time and again, with the latest debates around net neutrality being illustrative of this conflict. Though there is a growing interest in exploring and using the democratic potential that the internet offers, as demonstrated by several forms of online social activism and the growth of open access digital knowledge repositories and public archival spaces, there are also pertinent concerns about privacy, accessibility and the quality of online interaction and content. A large part of this uncertainty and the conflicts we see around access and regulation may be attributed to the fact that the nature of the internet, or the digital itself as concept, method or space has not been adequately explored or theorised. As a public sphere, it often reprises certain systemic forms of injustice and marginalisation seen offline, and conflates them with notions pertaining to the personal. As such, social, economic and linguistic barriers mediate the access we have to certain kinds and forms of discourse online, thereby making physical access the first step towards being part of the labyrinthian world that is the internet.

How can e-learning start, when the general access is very fragmented?

These conflicts are present in the classroom and other spaces and processes of learning as well, where traditionally there has been resistance to the use of technology, and particularly the internet as it is seen as a disturbance or a deterrent to learning. But technology has always been a part of the classroom, and now with the mobile phone becoming ubiquitous, it is indeed difficult to imagine that a student who has access to such a device would be disconnected from the internet, or not look toward other digital tools and methods to engage with, for educational or recreational purposes. However, indeed, how much of this engagement is effectively connected to learning is still a bone of contention, and is yet to be explored adequately.

What are the changes in the learning environment that the advent of digital technologies has produced? What challenges do they pose for both teachers and students? And what are the possible solutions that these areas of research are opening up? A more integrated and inclusive approach in designing methods and tools for use in the classroom could be one way of making issues and conflicts in this space more transparent. Several efforts in education technology and experiments in digital learning have focused precisely on this aspect. The sheer visibility and vastness of the internet offers several possibilities in terms of access to materials, tools and resources online. Several large-scale efforts in digitisation made by both the state and public organisations are attempts to utilise this potential, and they speak of the growing interest in making material available online for both classroom teaching and research.

The MOOCs are slowly challenging the universities. See the image full screen

The growth of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) is an example of the fervour of online platforms of learning, which provide students across the world with an access to teaching and course material from some of the best institutions. However, there have been, at least in their earlier versions, several critiques of these platforms, as well, precisely because they replicate a certain classroom teaching model that is not accessible to students everywhere. This urges us to revisit the premise of such structures.

The ‘digital turn’ in the last couple of decades has engendered several changes in the way knowledge is now produced, disseminated and consumed by people located in different areas. It has also created a need to constantly rethink existing systems of learning we have in place, to plug the gaps that develop between people, skills and resources. It is only through more attempts to problematise the notion of access qualitatively, and to better understand the role of digital technologies and the internet in terms of changes in learning environments, that we may be able to understand and utilise its potential to the best.

P.P. Sneha works with the Researchers at Work (RAW) programme at the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore. She has a Master’s degree in English, and has previously worked in the area of higher education. This essay is a reflection on some of the learnings from projects on the quality of access to higher education and a mapping of the digital landscape and the growth of Digital Humanities in India, conducted by the Higher Education Innovation and Research Applications (HEIRA) programme at the Centre for the Study of Culture and Society (with support from the Ford Foundation), and the CIS. The original post can be read here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/raw/lila-inter-actions-october-14-2014-rethinking-conditions-of-access

Rethinking Data Exchange & Delivery Models pdf

pranav — 2021-04-08T05:06:10Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/rethinking-data-exchange-delivery-models-pdf

Responsible AI

Admin — 2019-09-20T14:50:05Z

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

Responses to Trai’s consultation paper on free data contain some good suggestions

praskrishna — 2016-08-17T03:05:57Z

Trai has announced that it will come up with a final consultation paper on ‘Free Data’, and also a pre-consultation paper on Net Neutrality by the end of this month.

The blog post by Asheeta Regidi was published by FirstPost's Tech 2 on August 15, 2016.

The pre-consultation paper on Free Data (the Consultation Paper), which was issued in May 2016, asked for options where free data could be provided for accessing certain websites or apps without violating the Discriminatory Tariff Regulations issued earlier in February. The objective of the paper is to maximise internet penetration, and make internet available even to the poorest.

The models suggested in the Consultation Paper are a reward of free data for certain internet uses, zero data charges for accessing certain content, and refunding data charges in a manner similar to refund of LPG subsidies. These models are very similar to plans like Facebook’s Free Basics and Airtel Zero, which were banned by the Discriminatory Tariff Regulations.

While it is clear that Trai has no intention of withdrawing the Discriminatory Tariff Regulations, the Consultation Paper does appear to open up the doors to net neutrality violations again. Here’s a look at the comments and counter-comments that have come in response to this paper.

A motorist rides past a hoarding advertising Facebook’s Free Basics. Image: Reuters

Large TSPs and TSP associations want content-based free data schemes
The response of large TSPs like Vodafone, Idea and so on are quite predictable. They, alongwith most of the TSP associations such as ACTO, COAI and AUSPI, are in support of the idea of free access to certain sites. They, in fact, point out the similarities between the proposed models and the similar models brought out by them, such as Airtel’s One Touch Internet and Reliance’s Facebook Tap. They have also asked for a withdrawal of the Discriminatory Tariff Regulations, on the grounds that they hamper the innovation and forbearance capabilities of the TSPs.

They do, however, take issue with the fact that a TSP agnostic platform, or a platform which is completely independent of the TSPs, is to be given the power to decide how the lower prices or discounts are to be provided. They allege that there is nothing to prevent such a platform from acting as a gatekeeper in itself. They argue that TSPs are in a better position to perform this function, since they are subject to strict regulatory and licensing requirements from Trai.

Employees at an outsourcing centre in Bengaluru Image: Reuters

Smaller TSPs and other companies fear net neutrality violations
Smaller TSPs like Atria, Citicom and MTS are against content based free data proposal, mostly on the grounds that the models suggested violate net neutrality. They point out that allowing content based free data in any form will give an unfair advantage to large TSPs and content providers. Smaller companies and start-ups will be left in the lurch since they will not have the financial capabilities to effectively compete with such schemes. These entities also share the fear of the TSPs that there is nothing to stop a TSP agnostic platform from also acting as a gatekeeper.

Commuters with their smartphones in a Mumbai local. Image: Reuters

Some alternative suggestions for free data schemes which do not violate net neutrality
The approach suggested by Trai will, to a large extent, only benefit existing users of the internet, since a basic internet access of some sort is required before the users can enjoy the benefits of a rewards or a refund. Software Freedom Law Centre (SFLC), in its comments, points to research that found that only 12 percent of the users of zero rating services abroad (no data charges for certain websites), started using it because of the zero rating. Clearly, these schemes are not achieving the objective of increasing internet usage, and an alternative solution is required.

Many of the responses came up with alternative suggestions for free data schemes which can increase internet usage without violating net neutrality. Some of these suggestions are listed below:

The Digital Empowerment Foundation suggests the provision of free data quotas or packs, which would give a limited amount of data free of charge to all consumers. Any data usage above the basic pack will be charged at normal rates. It also suggests making such packs mandatory as a part of the TSP licensing terms or alternatively subsidising the cost of these packs through other benefits to the TSPs.
MTS suggests that content providers be allowed free internet access for a limited time or quantity, such as 30 minutes per day, or 100MB per day, to certain groups, like low income groups.
Mozilla and SFLC suggest the ‘equal rating’ system, where a small amount of data per day is made available free of charge to all internet users, over and above whatever other packs they may have purchased.
The Centre for Internet and Society suggests that the government allow TSPs to provide free internet to all, at a lower speed, and in return exempt the TSPs from the USO contributions in their license fees. This will ensure free data to all without differentiating based on content.
SFLC also suggests an increase in free public Wi-Fi hotspots, like the kind being made available in Indian railway stations, to increase internet accessibility without content-based discrimination.
MTNL suggests that if content-based free data is to be allowed, the government should determine what constitutes the basic services to be allowed for free, such as railway booking services, and not leave this to the understanding of the TSPs.
MTS also suggests that content providers be allowed to give data-based rewards for certain activity, such as watching associated advertisements.
Atria suggests that if free data is to be allowed, first establish a negative list of what cannot be done, such as no throttling of speeds.

Anonymous protests against Internet laws in Mumbai. Image: Reuters

First establish ground rules of net neturality
One common aspect of most of the comments to the Consultation Paper was the confusion regarding Trai’s stance on net neutrality. Many entities, including the large TSPs, pointed out the contradiction between this Consultation Paper and the Discriminatory Tariff Regulations.

This paper gives the impression that the Discriminatory Tariff Regulations were issued not to prevent content based discrimination, but to prevent telecom service providers from becoming ‘gatekeepers’. In reality, that is not the main fear of the people, but the fear that net neutrality will be affected. The culprits might be anyone, whether it is the TSP, the content provider or the TSP agnostic platform suggested by Trai. It needs to modify its approach, and first lay down the fundamental rules on net neutrality. Any other regulations must first comply with these rules.

While the motives of Trai are laudible, it is hoped that Trai will look into the several suggestions made that will achieve the dual targets of maximum internet penetration as well as securing net neutrality.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/first-post-tech-2-august-15-2016-asheeta-regidi-responses-to-trai-consultation-paper-on-free-data-contain-some-good-suggestions

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

Gurshabad Grover, Nikhil Srinath and Aayush Rathi — 2019-01-11T15:59:59Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/response-to-the-consultation-paper-on-regulatory-framework-for-over-the-top-ott-communication-services

Response to the ‘Call for Comments’ on The Santa Clara Principles on Transparency and Accountability

Torsha Sarkar and Suhan S — 2020-07-01T05:56:03Z

The Santa Clara Principles on Transparency and Accountability, proposed in 2018, provided a robust framework of transparency reporting for online companies dealing with user-generated content. In 2020, the framework underwent a period of consultation "to determine whether the Santa Clara Principles should be updated for the ever-changing content moderation landscape." In lieu of this, we presented our responses, which are in-line with our previous research and findings on transparency reporting of online companies, especially in context of the Indian digital space.

The authors would like to thank Gurshabad Grover for his editorial suggestions. A PDF version of the responses is also available here.

-------

1. Currently the Santa Clara Principles focus on the need for numbers, notice, and appeals around content moderation. This set of questions will address whether these categories should be expanded, fleshed out further, or revisited.

a. The first category sets the standard that companies should publish the numbers of posts removed and accounts permanently or temporarily suspended due to violations of their content guidelines. Please indicate any specific recommendations or components of this category that should be revisited or expanded.

While the Principles provide a robust framework for content moderation practices carried out by the companies itself, we believe that the framework could be expanded significantly to include more detailed metrics on government requests for content takedown, as well as for third-party requests. For government requests, this information should include the number of takedown requests received, the number of requests granted (and the nature of compliance - including full, partial or none), the number of items identified in these requests for takedown, and the branch of the government that the request originated from (either from an executive agency or court-sanctioned).

Information regarding account restrictions, with similar levels of granularity, must also form a part of this vertical. These numbers must be backed with further details on the reasons ascertained by the government for demanding takedowns, i.e. the broad category under which content was flagged. For third party requests, similar metrics should be applied wherever appropriate.

Additionally, for companies owning multiple platforms, information regarding both internal content moderation and moderation at the behest of external requests (either by the state or third-parties), must be broken down platform-wise. Alternatively, they should publish separate transparency reports for each platform they own.

b. The second category sets the standard that companies should provide notice to each user whose content is taken down or account is suspended about the reason for the removal or suspension. Please indicate any specific recommendations or components of this category that should be revisited or expanded.

While this category envisages companies to provide notice to its users across removals related to all categories of content, additional research reveals that oftentimes, companies create further categorization of ‘exceptional circumstances’, where it may hold the discretion for not sending a notice, including for CSAM or threats to life. While the intent behind such categorization might be understandable, we believe that any list of exceptional circumstances should not be ideally left to company discretions, and must be prepared in a collaborative fashion. Accordingly, we recommend that the Principles be expanded to identify a limited set of exceptional circumstances, where not sending a notice to a user would be permissible, and would not count as a violation of the Principles.

Additionally, while the current framework provides requirements for granular details in the notice in case of content flagged by the company’s internal moderation standards, we believe a similar model should also be emulated for content removals at the behest of the state. When a piece of content has been identified as illegal by a government takedown request, then the notice issued by the company to the user should be as granular as possible, within the permissible limits of the law under which the takedown request was issued in the first place. Such granularity must include, among other things, the exact legal provision under which the content has been flagged, and the reasons that the government has given in implementing this flagging.

c. The third category sets the standard that companies should provide a meaningful opportunity for timely appeal of any content removal or account suspension. Please indicate any specific recommendations or components of this category that should be revisited or expanded.

Currently, the category of ‘appeals’ in the Santa Clara Principles is focussed on having accountability processes in places, and emphasize on the need of having meaningful review. The framework of the Principles also currently envisage only internal review processes carried out by the company. However, in light of Facebook unveiling its plans for an Oversight Board, a structurally independent body, which would arbitrate select appeal cases of content moderation, these pre-existing principles might need revisiting.

While the Oversight Board is a relatively novel concept, given the important precedence it sets, setting certain fundamental principles of transparent disclosures and accountable conduct around it, might allow researchers and regulators alike to gauge the efficacy of this initiative. Accordingly, the Principles should consider some base-level disclosures that the company must make when it is referring a select category of cases for independent external review. This might include a statement of reasons explaining why certain cases were prioritized for independent review, and in the instance that the decision hinges on a public interest question, then the proceedings of the independent review might also be required to be made public (with due recourse paid to security issues and the confidentiality of the parties involved).

2. Do you think the Santa Clara Principles should be expanded or amended to include specific recommendations for transparency around the use of automated tools and decision-making (including, for example, the context in which such tools are used, and the extent to which decisions are made with or without a human in the loop), in any of the following areas:

Content moderation (the use of artificial intelligence to review content and accounts and determine whether to remove the content or accounts; processes used to conduct reviews when content is flagged by users or others)

Companies have begun to rely on a variety of automated tools to aid their content removal processes, across a variety of content, including revenge porn, terrorist content and CSAM. Research however, has shown that the tools deployed often have their limitations, which include over-removal, and censorship of perfectly legitimate speech.

We recommend that the Principles should accordingly be expanded to include content removed by automatic flagging, the error rates encountered by the tools, and the rate at which wrongly taken down content is being reinstated. There should also be a qualitative aspect to the information presented by these companies, and therefore, there should be a clearer disclosure of the kind of automated tools they use. Such disclosure must, of course, be balanced against interests of the security of the platform and the necessity to ensure that information disclosed is not used by malicious third-party actors to circumvent legitimate moderation.

Additionally, with specific reference to ‘extremist content’, several online companies have collaborated to form the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism (GIFCT), with the intent of facilitating better moderation. The GIFCT uses a hash-based technology of a shared database of ‘terrorist’ content for filtering content on their platforms. However, as it has already been noted, this initiative provides very little information regarding how it functions, and operates without any collaboration with civil society or human rights groups, and without any law enforcement oversight.

Such similar collaborative measures going forward, for deployment of varied forms of automated tools to filter out various forms of content, without any transparency or accountability, can be problematic, since it makes information regarding the efficacy of these tools scarce, research into the processes difficult, and ultimately, any reformative suggestions impossible.

Accordingly, the Principles must emphasize that collaborative efforts to the effect of using automated tools in content moderation must be done with sufficient consideration to the basic principles of transparency and accountability. This might include sharing information about processes with a select list of civil society and human rights groups, and in the transparency reports, separately presenting information about the accuracy rates of the tools.

Content ranking and downranking (the use of artificial intelligence to promote certain content over others such as in search result rankings, and to downrank certain content such as misinformation or clickbait)

Ranking and downranking algorithms have been deployed by companies for various purposes and across different services they offer. For the purposes of our discussion, we would restrict ourselves to two chief use-cases of these processes: search engines and internet platforms.

Search engines

The algorithms that have been developed to find accurate results for query are oftentimes not perfect, and they have been accused of being biased, including being politically non-partisan and burying certain ideologies. Similarly, in the case of automated systems to downrank misinformation, accuracy is not guaranteed as such systems can identify accurate information as misinformation. Since the algorithm is constantly learning and updating, it becomes difficult to know exactly why certain content may be made less visible.

As case-studies of several search engines indicate, a company’s ranking processes often use a combination of algorithms and human moderators. Requirement for transparency therefore, can mandate disclosure of the training materials for these human moderators. For instance, Google has a scheme of ‘Search Quality Raters’, which comprises a group of third-party individuals responsible for giving feedback regarding search results. The guidelines on which their feedback is based on, are publicly available. The Principles can therefore call for similar disclosure of other companies that deploy human help for their ranking processes.

Internet platforms

For social media platforms, ranking algorithms are utilized for curation of news-feeds: dashboards showing content to the user that the algorithm thinks are relevant. The algorithm makes these decisions based on different signals that it is trained with. Information around these algorithms is hard to come by, and even if it is, the algorithms are often blackboxes, with their decisions not explainable.

There are however, ways by which transparency around these algorithms can be improved without compromising the security and integrity of the platform. This might include companies informing users, in an accessible manner, “(i) how they rank, organize and present user generated content.”, and updating the data in a timely manner, allowing researchers and regulators the appropriate opportunity to utilize this information while it is still relevant.

Companies should also have an easy-to-access policy that outlines how it plans to manage the human rights risks arising out of the system(s) it deploys. The human rights impacts assessment must additionally consider the broad social contexts within which the algorithm system is used.

Ad targeting and delivery (the use of artificial intelligence to segment and target specific groups of users and deliver ads to them)

Companies such as Facebook and Google collect a wide variety of data from its audience, using a variety of data points (including age, location, race) which is used to deliver personalised advertisements by the advertisers affiliated with the company. Methods like activity tracking and browser-fingerprinting are employed to track users, with or without explicit notice. Since a user’s privacy is greatly affected by such tracking, more transparency is needed where user data is collected by companies and where they are processed using the company’s algorithms to target and deliver ads. Additionally, targeted advertising, especially in the context of political advertising, result in segmenting groups of people and subjecting them to advertising campaigns. This, in turn may have drastic consequences, since they seem to deepen divisiveness over critical issues.

Notice

The Principles should identify metrics of a meaningful notice that companies must give users when their data is collected for delivering advertisements. Among others, such notice should specify all kinds of data the company is collecting regarding the user, and the categories across which they have been segmented or categorized for advertising.

Disclosure

Companies should also strive to disclose how data is collected and processed, specifically to segment users and deliver advertisements, in detail. This might include disclosing all the categories made available to advertisers by the company, and the names and identities of third parties (both advertisers and data-brokers) with whom such data is shared. CNBC, for instance, in 2019 reported that Facebook selectively shared user data with select partners while denying rival companies from accessing the data. Additionally, companies that allow users to opt out of their data being wholly or partly should disclose this option and make it easy to access. For Example, Facebook lets users turn off data being used for advertising in three different categories. Facebook Ad Preferences menu hidden in a user’s settings is detailed. However, barring a public post that attempts to explain how and why users see certain ads on Facebook, which has one line at the end that directs users to their Ad Preference settings to “View and use” their controls, the company does not have any public document explaining users their choices. Amazon, on the other hand allows users to turn off personalized ads completely and has a dedicated page that explains how a user’s data is used for personalizing advertisements and options to disable it.

Content recommendations and auto-complete (the use of artificial intelligence to recommend content such as videos, posts, and keywords to users based on their user profiles and past behavior)

Algorithms and recommendation systems are designed to suggest content that a user is likely to interact with, on the basis of their browsing behaviour and interaction on the platform. These algorithms are constantly updated to be more accurate. Popular examples include Instagram and YouTube. It is interesting to note that these systems have been documented to often suggest radical content to users, and upon user-interaction with such content, continuously amplify them. YouTube’s algorithm, for instance, has been previously accused of pushing users towards extremist or inflammatory ideologies.

Studying how recommendation algorithms function however, and why certain extremist content are being recommended to users, have been difficult, due to one, the complexity of the current information ecosystem, and two, because of the lack of information around these algorithms. The Santa Clara Principles can, by way of an expansion of scope, look to address the second difficulty, by urging companies to be more transparent with their internal processes.

Sharing of data or open-sourcing algorithms

With due recourse paid to the security and integrity of the platform, we recommend that the code for the algorithm used for recommendations should be open-source and publicly available online. Reddit, for instance, publishes its code for curation of news feeds in an open-source format.

Another way of doing this, as has been studied, is to consider a two-pronged method of sharing data. In the first count, datasets identified as ‘sensitive’, are shared in partnerships with certain institutions, under non-disclosure agreements. In the second count, more non-sensitive data is shared in an anonymized format publicly, and made available for any researcher to access.

This idea, however, must be taken with a few caveats. One, sharing of datasets may not always fulfill the public-facing model of transparency and accountability that the Santa Clara Principles envisage. Two, this might be a particularly onerous obligation for smaller and medium enterprises, and without sufficient economic data, it might be difficult to implement this. And three, any framework adopting this must consider the privacy aspect of such sharing. At this juncture, therefore, we do not recommend this as a compulsory binding obligation that any company adopting the Principles must abide by. Rather, we hope and encourage for more conversations to be held around this concept, so that the aforementioned competing interests are accommodated optimally.

Qualitative transparency

The other mode of ensuring more clarity into the recommendation system should be by asking companies to publish user-facing, clearly accessible policies and explainers that outline how the company uses algorithms to recommend content to users. This can also include creation of a visible list of topics, which the company has chosen ‘not to amplify’ (for instance, topics such as self-harm, eating disorders), and updated regularly.

3. Do you feel that the current Santa Clara Principles provide the correct framework for or could be applied to intermediate restrictions (such as age-gating, adding warnings to content, and adding qualifying information to content). If not, should we seek to include these categories in a revision of the principles or would a separate set of principles to cover these issues be better?

The Santa Clara Principles, as they had been originally envisaged, adhered to the commonly adopted binary of take down/leave up in content moderation, where a piece of unlawful, or problematic content (or an account), was either censored from public view or allowed to continue. However, since then, platforms dealing with user-generated content have resorted to a variety of novel and intermediate techniques to moderate and regulate speech which fall outside the aforementioned binary. With adoption of such steps therefore, it is also important for the Principles to evolve and take into consideration the expanded scope of content moderation. In light of that, we recommend the following steps to be taken in the intermediate areas of regulation:

Adding warnings, qualifying information to content

As mentioned above, in recent past, online intermediaries have resorted to more intermediate restrictions to deal with ‘harmful’ content online. These measures have seen an added boost in light of the Covid-19 outbreak, where there has been a massive increase in misleading information and conspiracy theories online. These measures have included, among others, connecting users who have interacted with misinformation to verified, debunked information and introducing a spectrum of actions based on the degree of harm posed by the content, which includes adding labels, warning, and finally, removal. Such intermediate measures currently are not accommodated within the framework of the Santa Clara Principles, for reasons enumerated above, and going forward, it may become important for the Principles to look at the learnings from these measures and adopt them, wherever appropriate, into the framework.

Additionally, as conversations around the instance of Twitter adding a fact-check to Donald Trump’s tweet show, the application of these intermediate measures are often ad-hoc, since there is often no explanation why certain items receive the moderation treatment, while other, similarly misleading content from same sources, continue to stay online. Accordingly, it is difficult to ascertain the exact reasoning process behind these steps. Therefore, adoption of principles related to measures of adding labels or warnings to information online must also require companies to be transparent with their decision-making processes.

Fact-checking

In recent years, with the proliferation of misinformation on online platforms, several companies have either begun to collaborate with fact-checkers, or deploy their own in-house teams. While these initiatives should be appreciated, it should also be noted that the term ‘fact checking’ assumes a partisan meaning in certain circumstances, including when sources of misinformation themselves offer this service. Accordingly, it becomes important that the fact-checking initiatives adopted by companies adhere to some standards of international best practices, and the decisions made are not riddled with biases, either political or ideological.

The Santa Clara Principles are useful to ascertain the transparency of any fact-checking initiatives, and can be applied across both collaborations between companies and fact-checkers, as well as for in-house fact checking initiatives.

For any manner of collaborations, companies must disclose, in clear terms, the names and identities of the fact-checking organizations that they are teaming up with (this example from Facebook divides this list of names country-wise) and the nature of this collaboration, which must include details of whether the organization stands to any monetary gains, and what is the level of access to the platform and its dashboards given by the company to the fact-checking organization.

For in-house initiatives, the Santa Clara Principles must require companies to disclose information regarding any training programs carried out and the background of the fact-checkers, and this might also include a statement regarding the objectivity and non-partisanship of the initiative.

Lastly, comprehensive information about fact-checking must be presented in a clearly accessible format in the company’s regular transparency reports, which should include data on how many pieces of content got fact-checked in the reporting period, the nature of the content (text, photos, videos, multimedia), the nature of misinformation that was being perpetuated (health, communal etc.), and the number of times the said piece of content was shared before it could be fact-checked.

Age-gating

The Digital Economy Act of 2017, proposed by the UK Government (and since dropped in 2019) serves as an early model of the legislature around the world to regulate the process of putting in place age-restrictions. By the application of that law, any websites offering pornography would have to show a landing page to any user with an UK IP address, which would not go away till the user is able to show that they are over the age of eighteen years. However, the government had left the exact technical method of implementing the age-gate upto the website, which meant that websites were free to adopt any methods they deem fit for verifying age, which might also include facial recognition.

However, learnings from the UK Model, and several other models of attempted age-gating have shown that there are often easy methods of circumvention and the information collected in lieu of implementation of these methods goes on to raise privacy concerns. It is our understanding that the regulation of age-restrictions is currently in a flux, and setting principled guidelines at this stage may not be completely evidence-based. In such light, it is our recommendation that the Santa Clara Principles should not be expanded to include age-gates. Separate consultations and discussions on the merits of the various forms of age-gating should precede any principles in this subject.

4. How have you used the Santa Clara Principles as an advocacy tool or resource in the past? In what ways? If you are comfortable with sharing, please include links to any resources or examples you may have.

In 2019, we developed specific methodologies to analyse information relating to government requests for content takedown and user information, from transparency reports made available by online companies for India. For creating our methodology for government requests for content takedown, we relied significantly on some of the metrics of the Santa Clara Principles, and utilized them to expand our scope of analysis. Our methodology comprised of the following metrics adopted from the Principles:

Numbers: We utilized this metric, and further clarified that the numbers should include a numerical breakdown of the requests received under different laws on content takedown.
Sources: The Santa Clara Principles recommend that the intermediary identify the source of the flagging. Under the intermediary liability regime in India, content takedown requests can be sent by the executive, the courts, or third parties. We accordingly argued that transparency reports must classify the received requests into these three categories.
Notice: We also utilized this metric for our methodology.

The full version of our methodology and the results from our analysis can be found here.

5. How can the Santa Clara Principles be more useful in your advocacy around these issues going forward?

We intend to apply this methodology for future editions of the report as well, and build up a considerable body of work on transparency reporting practices in the Indian context.

6. Do you think that the Santa Clara Principles should apply to the moderation of advertisements, in addition to the moderation of unpaid user-generated content? If so, do you think that all or only some of them should apply?

Moderation of advertisements in the recent years have become an interesting point of contention, be it advertisements that violate the companies policies on disruptive ads policies, or advertisements with more nefarious undertones, including racist language and associations to Nazi symbols.

Several companies already have various moderation policies for these kinds of harmful advertisements and other content that advertisers can promote, and these are often public. Based on this, we think that the Santa Clara Principles can be expanded to include the moderation of advertisements, and the metrics contained within would be applicable across this vertical, wherever appropriate.

7. Is there any part of the Santa Clara Principles which you find unclear or hard to understand?

N/A.

8. Are there any specific risks to human rights which the Santa Clara Principles could better help mitigate by encouraging companies to provide specific additional types of data? (For example, is there a particular type of malicious flagging campaign which would not be visible in the data currently called for by the SCPs, but would be visible were the data to include an additional column.)

N/A.

9. Are there any regional, national, or cultural considerations that are not currently reflected in the Santa Clara Principles, but should be?

While utilizing the Principles for the purposes of our research, we found that the nature of information that some of these online companies make available for users residing in the USA, is very different from the information they make available for users residing in other countries, including in India. For instance, Amazon’s transparency reports regarding government requests for content removal, till the first half of 2018, was restricted only to the US, despite the company having a considerably large presence in India (during our research, Alexa Rank showed Amazon.com to be the 14th most visited website in India).

A public commitment to uphold Santa Clara Principles (as several companies have undertaken, see EFF’s recent Who Has Your Back? report) would mean nothing if these commitments do not extend to all the markets in which the company is operating. Accordingly, we believe that it must be emphasized that the adoption of these Principles into the transparency reporting practices of the company must be consistent across markets, and the information made available should be as uniform as it is legally permissible.

10. Are there considerations for small and medium enterprises that are not currently reflected in the Santa Clara Principles, but should be?

Our understanding at this current juncture is that not enough data exists around the economic costs of setting up the transparency and accountability structures. Accordingly, at the end of this Consultation period, should the Principles be expanded to include more intermediate restrictions and develop accountability structures around algorithmic use, we recommend that a separate consultation be held with small and medium enterprises to identify a) whether or not there would be any economic costs of adoption and how best the Principles can accommodate them, and b) what are the basic minimum guidelines that these enterprises would be able to adopt as a starting point.

11. What recommendations do you have to ensure that the Santa Clara Principles remain viable, feasible, and relevant in the long term?

Given the dynamic nature of developments in the realm of content moderation, periodical consultations, in the vein of the current one, would ensure that the stakeholders are able to raise novel issues at the end of each period, allow the Principles to take stock of the same, and incorporate changes to that effect. We believe that this would allow for the Principles to continue to be aware of the realities of content moderation, and allow for evidence-based policy-making.

12. Who would you recommend to take part in further consultation about the Santa Clara Principles? If possible, please share their names and email addresses.

N/A.

13. If the Santa Clara Principles were to call for a disclosure about the training or cultural background of the content moderators employed by a platform, what would you want the platforms to say in that disclosure? (For example: Disclosing what percentage of the moderators had passed a language test for the language(s) they were moderating or disclosing that all moderators had gone through a specific type of training.)

By now, there have been well documented accounts of human moderators, by independent investigations or admissions by companies. For instance, this blogpost authored in 2018 by Mark Zuckerberg documented the percentage of human moderators who were trained in the Burmese language, in reference to moderating content on the platform in Myanmar. Comprehensive information about linguistic and cultural backgrounds of human moderators is a useful tool to contextualize the decisions made by the platform, and also useful in pushing more effective reforms.

Additionally, it has also been seen that a company’s public facing moderation norms often differ from its internal guidelines, which are shared with its team of human moderators. For instance, TikTok’s internal norms had asked its moderators to ‘suppress’ content from users perceived to be ‘poor’ and ‘ugly’. The gaps in these norms means that there are surreptitious forms of censorship behind-the-scenes, and it is difficult to ascertain the reasonableness and appropriateness of these decisions.

We would also like to emphasize more stringent disclosure requirements from companies regarding the nature of engagement with which they employ their human moderators. As investigations have revealed, the task of human moderation is often outsourced by these companies to third-party firms, and the working conditions in which the moderators make their decisions are inhospitable. Additionally, more often than not, there are no publicly available methods to ascertain whether the company in question is doing enough to ensure the well-being and safety of these moderators.

Therefore, alongside disclosure regarding the nature of training given to the human moderators and their internal moderation norms, we also recommend that the Principles recognize certain fundamental ethical guidelines with relation to their human moderators that companies must adopt. This might include providing identifying information of the third-party firms to which the company outsources its moderation and assurances of sufficient number of counsellors for the moderators.

14. Do you have any additional suggestions?

While the Santa Clara Principles provide a granular and robust framework of reporting, currently it stands to only cover aspects of quantitative transparency - concerning numbers and items. As we have indicated throughout this submission, and in our previous research, there are also need for companies to adhere to more norms focussing on qualitative transparency - in the form of material disclosure of the policies, processes and structures they associate with, or make use of. Aside from the suggestions in the previous sections, in this section we highlight two additional recommendations that we think can help achieve this.

Material regarding local laws

One of our preliminary findings regarding the way these intermediaries report data for other regions (including India) has been that most of the time, the information is incomplete, especially with regards to material regarding the local laws. Compared to the US, for which most of these companies dedicate separate sections, other regions feature relatively fewer times in their reports. Each country in which the company functions, there would be various laws governing content removal, different authorities empowered to issue orders, and varied procedural and substantive requirements of a valid request. For the empowerment of users, we believe that the exact metrics and requirements of these laws must be presented by the intermediaries, in a clear and readable format.

Accessibility of policies

On the topic of empowerment of users, we also believe that the basic information and policies regarding these requests should be placed at one place, for maximum accessibility by users. During our research, we discovered that the disclosures made in lieu of the Principles were spread over different policies, some of which were not easily accessible. While it is not possible at this juncture to predict a comprehensively objective way of making all this information accessible, we believe it would be a useful step if the basic information regarding the intermediary's transparency reporting policies were presented in the same manner as the company's Terms and Services and Privacy Policy. Additionally, we believe that these disclosures should be translated into major languages in which the company operates, for further accessibility.

15. Have current events like COVID-19 increased your awareness of specific transparency and accountability needs, or of shortcomings of the Santa Clara Principles?

The Covid-19 pandemic proves to be a watershed moment for the history of the internet, inasmuch in the manner of proliferation of various forms of misinformation and conspiracy theories, as well as the way in which companies have stepped up to remove said content from their platforms. This has included companies like Google, Twitter and Facebook, who have sought to increasingly rely on automated tools for rapid moderation of harmful content related to the pandemic.

These practices reaffirm the need for having strong requirements for transparency disclosures, both qualitative and quantitative, especially around the use of automated tools for content takedown. This is because of two main reasons.

One, the speed of removal would never tell us anything about the accuracy of the measure. A platform can say that in one reporting period, it took down 1000 pieces of content; this would not mean that its actions were always accurate, or fair or reasonable, since there is no publicly available information to ascertain so. This phenomenon, aggregated with the heightened pressure to remove misinformation related to the pandemic, may contribute to firstly, erroneous removals (as YouTube has warned in blogs), and secondly, towards deepening the information asymmetry regarding accurate data around removals.

Two, given the novel and diverse forms of misleading information related to the pandemic, this offers a critical time to study the relation between online information and the outcomes of a public health crisis. However, these efforts would be thwarted if reliable information around removals relating to the pandemic continue to be unavailable.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/response-to-the-2018call-for-submissions2019-on-the-santa-clara-principles-on-transparency-and-accountability

Response to Suggestions and Comments Sent on GIGW by Committee Members

Admin — 2017-11-26T06:55:12Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/accessibility/files/response-to-suggestions-and-comments-sent-on-gigw-by-committee-members

Response to RTI on Decisions of the Cyber Regulation Advisory Committee

pranesh — 2013-01-09T15:26:26Z

The Department of Electronics & Information Technology, Ministry of Communications & Information Technology responded to a right to information (RTI) application filed by Saket Bisani on behalf of the Centre for Internet & Society on July 13, 2012 through notification No. 14(110)/2012-ESD, dated October 3, 2010.

No. 14(110)/2012-ESD
M/o Communiciations & Information Technology
Department of Electronics & Information Technology
Electronics Niketan, 6, CGO Complex
New Delhi-110003

Dated:3.10.2012

Subject: RTI application received from Shri Saket Biswani

With reference to your RTI application dated 13.7.12 requesting for the following information.

Question

a) Please provide me a list of the dates of each meeting of the CRAC held from October 18, 2000 till July 13, 2012?

b) Please provide me copies of the minutes of every meeting held by the Cyber Regulation Advisory Committee from October 18, 2000 till July 13, 2012.

c) Provide me the list of all policy decisions that the CRAC has advised the Central Government on under section 88(3) (a) of the Information Technology.

d) Provide me a list of all policy decisions that the CRAC has advised the Central Government on under section 88(3)(a) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The information as received from the custodian of the information is placed below:

Answer

a) The meetings of CRAC were held on 6^th March, 2001 and 17-18 March, 2001.

b) Minutes of these two meetings of CRAC are attached.

c) No such advice was given by CRAC to DeitY under section 88(3)(a).

d) Information is attached.

(A.K. Kaushik)
Additional Director & CPIO
(E-Security & Cyber Laws)

To: Shri Saket Bisani
No. 194, 2^nd 'C' Cross,
Domlur 2^nd Stage
Bangalore-560 071

Minutes of the First Meeting of the Cyber Regulation Advisory Committee (CRAC) held on March 6, 2001, at Electronics Niketan, under the Chairmanship of Hon’ble Minister* (IT) Shri Pramod Mahajan.

(List of Participants enclosed as Annexure-A)

The chairman welcomed the participants to the First Meeting of the Committee. In his opening remarks he hoped that the Committee would play a constructive role in the implementation of the Information Technology Act.
While introducing the Agenda (circulated ahead of the meeting), Controller of Certifying Authorities (CCA) made a short presentation on proposed "Regulation.; under section 89 of the IT Act" consisting of 18 proposed Regulations, Smart Card as token carrying Keys, and various suggested Amendments to the IT ACT 2000.
During the ensuing discussions, participants sought some time to study and collate associated inputs from their respective colleagues/specialists before offering any concrete suggestions/recommendations. Chairman agreed to the suggestions and postponed the meeting to 11:00 AM on the March 17, 2001 at the same venue. Based on the recommendation of Secretary (IT), members were requested to forward their inputs, if any, through e-mail within a weeks time to the following:

For Regulations wider section 89 of IT Act	For amendments to IT Act 2000
Shri K.N. Gupta (CCA) Room No. 4006, Electronics Niketan 6 CGO Complex New Delhi 110003 e-mail:kgupta@mit.gov.in Tele: 436 3073 Fax: 439 5982	Shri A.B. Saha (Member Secretary) Room No. 2055, Electronics Niketan 6 CGO Complex New Delhi 110003 e-mail:saha@mit.gov.in Tele: 436 0958 Fax: 436 2924

Meeting ended with a vote of thanks to the Chair.

Minutes of the Second Meeting of the Cyber Regulation Advisory Committee (CRAC) held on 17-18 March, 2001 at Electronics Niketan, New Delhi under the Chairmanship of Hon'ble Minister (IT), Shri Pramod Mahajan.

(List of Participants enclosed as Annexure-A)

The chairman welcomed the participants to the second meeting of the Committee to consider further the draft regulations proposed by the Controller of Certifying Authority (CCA). ' " ~
During the ensuing discussions, following general recommendations/decisions were arrived at governing the overall formulation of the regulations that are necessary to bring about infrastructure facilitating activities envisaged under the IT Act 2000:

a) Any regulation to be framed by the Controller draws its authority only from Section 89(2) of the Act. Moreover, such regulations should complement the Rules already framed under the Section 87 of the Act.

b) To keep pace with the changing technology and standards, CCA may publicly notify/modify necessary specifications of technology, standards and procedures at regular interval (say, January of every year). Moreover, to adhere to the "principles of minimal governance", if any particular necessity emerges for inclusion of newer manifestations of any existing standard/technology/procedure, Controller should respond within ninety (90) days after receiving any specific request in writing, failing which it will deemed to have obtained his concurrence.

c) The commercial practices/interests may form the essential pedestal for the certification process. Aspects of cross-certification may preferably be left to the purview of the concerned market forces. However, the necessary interoperability will essentially be "market-driven" and not "authority-driven". This will also ensure that formulated rules and regulations stay in tune with market realities.

d) Strict adherence to open standards should be ensured to avoid emergence of monopoly of any kind.

e) Considering cost sensitiveness of the requisite digital signature certificate, families of technologies varying in convenience, reliability, availability, robustness, etc. may be allowed to inter-operate. However, CCA may undertake public awareness campaign to promote desirable best practices from time to time.

f) The minimal regulations facilitating activities envisaged in the Act is desirable. Some of the proposed provisions can also be ensured in the form of "terms & conditions" governing the operations of Certifying Authorities.

g) Emergence of guidelines governing smooth functioning may be better left to publications brought out by industry associations, public-minded professionals etc. Formulating rules and regulations in these regards should be minimal.

3. After framing the draft compilation of the requisite regulations in accordance with the conventional legal form in terms of content as well as structure with the assistance of the Ministry of Law, the regulations may be brought to the Ministry of Information Technology for approval.

4 The Committee considered the 18 regulations proposed in Agenda Item No.1 and the statement reproduced below contains the decision taken against each proposal.

SI	Item	Conclusions
1	Regulation 1 Standardising on two key-pairs for PKI in the country. Key-pair generation for subscribers by CAs.	Regulation not required. Encryption Key pair not part of the IT Act. Already covered under Rule 3, 4 & 5 of notified CA Rules. Subscriber should be at liberty to bring his key pair that CA may verify before acceptance. (Section 40 of the Act)
2	Regulation 2 Encryption key-pair of subscribers to be maintained by CAs in a database and made available to enforcement and law agencies under directions of the Controller.	Regulation not required. IT Act is silent regarding encryption.
3	Regulation 3 Disclosure Record of CA.	Disclosure may be done every six months. Necessary format for disclosure may be notified from time to time. (Para 2(f) above)
4	Regulation 4 Encryption Key Pair of CA to be made available to the Controller.	Regulation not required in accordance to conclusions against 1 & 2 above.
5	Regulation 5 Cross-Certification with foreign CAs.	As per recommendation 2(c) above.
6	Regulation 6 Terms and Conditions subject to which license shall be issued by the Controller to the prospective CAs.	Can be merged with regulation 11. As per the recommendation mentioned in 2(c) above.
7	Regulation 7 Standards that may be considered for different activities associated with the CAs functions including standardization of contents of the Certificates to be issued by CAs and standardization of the Certificate Revocation List.	As per the recommendation 2(b) above.
8	Regulation 8 Information to be made publicly available by a CA on its website. Notice of suspension or revocation of license.	CA must harness all form of networks and other practical media, and not only Internet, for disclosure to its subscriber and other interested parties.
9	Regulation 9 Standardisation of Certificate Practice Statement.	Agreed.
10	Regulation 10 Compromise of subscribers Digital Signature Key-Pair	Agreed.
11	Regulation 11 Description of classes of Certificates.	Shall be merged with regulation 6 above. In addition to 3 classes of certificates as identified by international bodies, the regulation should be open to additional classes of certificates, if required.
12	Regulation 12 Cross-Certification of CAs.	It should be market-driven. (Recommendation 2(c) above).
13	Regulation 13 Incorporation of Controllers Public Key Certificate as the "root” in all web browsers in the country.	Regulation not required. Need for integrating Controller's root key in the browsers may not be feasible.
14	Regulation 14 Minimum key length for CAs and subscribers.	Agreed for the provision of 1024 bits for subscriber/end-user and 2048 bits for CAs key pair.
15	Regulation 15 Audit of applicants to include manpower audit as well. Liability of CAs towards subscribers on account of their negligence.	Regulation not required. Audit provision has already been covered under Rule 31 of CA rules notified by MIT.
16	Regulation 16 Storage of Key-Pairs of CAs. Distribution of Key-Pairs / Certificates of subscribers by CAs.	Not to be regulated. Recommendation 2(e) above shall be followed.
17	Regulation 17 Documents to be submitted to the Controller along with the application for obtaining license to operate as CA.	Already covered under rule 10 of CA rules notified by MIT. Any additional information can be sought through the recourse of public notices from time to time.
18	Regulation 18 Upon acceptance of PKC by a subscriber, the PKC shall be published by the CA as required under the IT Act for access by the subscribers and relying parties. The CA will ensure the transmission of PKC and CRLs to the National Repository to be maintained by the Controller.	Agreed.

Meeting ended with a vote of thanks to the Chair.

Annexure - A

First sitting of the second meeting of the “Cyber Regulation Advisory Committee” held on 17th March 2001 to consider adjourned agenda of the first meeting held on 6ft March 2001

List of Participants

Sh Pramod Mahajan, Minister, Information Technology - Chairman
Sh.S.C Jain , Secretary, Legislative Department
Sh Vinay Kohli, Secretary, Ministry of Information Technology
Sh. N. Parameswaran, DDG(LR), Department of Telecommunications
Dr. Jaimini Bhagwati, Ministry of Finance
Maj.Gen. M. G. Datar, Addl.D.G, IT, Army HQ, Ministry of Defence
Sh Mukesh Mittal, Dy Secy, Ministry of Home Affairs
Sh T A Khan, Sr. Dir, NIC, Ministry of Commerce
Sh. K.R Ganapathy,CGM-IC,RBI

10. Sh.S.R-Mittal,Adviser,DIT, Reserve Bank of India

11. Sh Dewang Mehta, President, NASSCOM

12. Sh Amitabh Singhal, President, Internet Service Providers Association

13. Sh LN Behra, DIG, Director, Central Bureau of Investigation

14. Sh K N Gupta, Controller of Certifying Authority

15. Sh. Qamar Ahmed. Addl.C.P/Crime, DG Police by rotation from the States

16. Prof. R S Sirohi. I1T Delhi, Director, IIT Delhi

17. Sh.Sanjay Dhawan, ExecDirector,KPMG, Representing CII

18. Sh. M.A.J.Jeyaseelan, Secretary, FICCI

19. Sh. Subimal Bhattacharjee, Vice President ARGUS, Representing ASSOCHAM

20. Sh A B Saha, Senior Director, Ministry of IT - Member Convener

First sitting of the second meeting of the “Cyber Regulation Advisory Committee” held on 18th March 2001 to consider adjourned agenda of the first meeting held on 6ft March 2001

List of Participants

Sh Pramod Mahajan, Minister, Information Technology - Chairman
Sh.N.L. Meenu, Jt. Secretary, Legislative Department
Sh Vinay Kohli, Secretary, Ministry of Information Technology
Sh. N. Parameswaran, DDG(LR), Department of Telecommunications
Dr. Jaimoni Bhagwati, Ministry of Finance
Maj.Gen. M G Datar, Ministry of Defence
Sh Mukesh Mittal, Dy Secy, Ministry of Home Affairs
Sh T A Khan, Sr. Dir, NIC, Ministry of Commerce
Sh. K.R Ganapathy,CGM-IC,RBI

10. Sh Dewang Mehta, President, NASSCOM

11. Sh Amitabh Singhal, President, Internet Service Providers Association

12. Sh LN Behra, DIG, Director, Central Bureau of Investigation

13. Sh K N Gupta, Controller of Certifying Authority

14. Sh. Dinesh Bhatt, Dy. Police Commissioner, Delhi

15. Prof. R S Sirohi. I1T Delhi, Director, IIT Delhi

16. Sh.Sanjay Dhawan, ExecDirector,KPMG, Representing CII

17. Sh. M.A.J.Jeyaseelan, Secretary, FICCI

18. Sh. Subimal Bhattacharjee, Vice President ARGUS, Representing ASSOCHAM

19. Sh A B Saha, Senior Director, Ministry of IT - Member Convener

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/deity-response-to-rti-on-decisions-of-crac

Response by Knowledge Commons

pranesh — 2008-09-30T15:07:50Z

Arguments on why section 4.11 of the Patents Manual needs to be modified.

1. A patent is a state granted monopoly on an invention. As with any other monopoly, a patent must be treated with great discretion, especially since this particular monopoly is bestowed by the state itself. The original intent of the patent system was to encourage disclosure by the inventor, in exchange for exclusive rights to the invention. This ensured that inventors did not take their inventions to the grave and that society could build on existing knowledge rather than re-invent the wheel. As with any other policy instrument, we need to examine whether patents meet their intended objectives.

2. In this context, the degree of patent protection in India should be seen with the following in mind:

The desirable form of IPR protection is very much a function of development. Currently, the developed economies feel they should protect their IPR and restrict their dissemination. But these same countries have historically had much more lax IPR regimes that have allowed imitation to promote more rapid industrialization. For example, the US actively encouraged copying of European innovation in the 19th century and even “nationalised” wireless patents - claiming national interest. Even late 20th century rapid developers such as Japan and South Korea benefited greatly from relatively lax patent regimes. So there is a strong case for providing less IPR protection in the development phase, especially in those areas where domestic innovation is less advanced.

There is no clear correlation between high IPR protection and innovation[1], and much historical evidence to the contrary. A significant number of studies have shown that patents are important primarily in chemicals, chemical materials and pharmaceuticals, where patents can protect specific molecules or well defined but small slices of technology. In other areas, patents tend to be relatively less important in promoting innovation.

This means that India should first identify what are its national interests and then calibrate the IPR protection accordingly. For example, in pharmaceuticals, the current national interest lies clearly in restricting patents. This is also why the Indian Parliament has taken advantage of the flexibility of TRIPs to raise the bar of what is patentable. Indeed, other countries including the US are now copying some of these measures.[2]

An important example is in the area of software where India has a major interest, and where patents are being opposed by all Small and Medium sized companies. In Europe, this opposition led to the proposed directive on software patents to be defeated overwhelmingly in the European Parliament.

3. There are now attempts being made in India to bring in software patents using either the EPO or the USPTO practice. This attempt is being supported by a small number of large international software companies, who had earlier benefited from software being free from patents and are now trying to obstruct others who are entering the field. It is not in the interest of India's software industry to have restrictive patent regime, particularly as they switch from being service providers to product developers.

4. The EPO in fact has followed much of the USPTO practice, the only area that it differs with USPTO being in the business method patenting. However, as a number of observers have pointed out, this means drafting a business method patent as a technical application: it is the form of the patent rather than its content that changes with the EPO approach. Therefore, both EPO and USPTO have erred in accepting patents that are either algorithms or methods, dressed up as software patents.

5. The crisis of the US Patent Office is well known and many critics have pointed out that the US is facing effectively a broken patent system. They have pointed out that granting patents to objects that have existed for years, or patents that are patently ridiculous, does not serve any purpose whatsoever. A case in point is US Patent 20060071122, granted for a ‘full body teleportation system’. The abstract for this reads, ‘A pulsed gravitational wave wormhole generator system that teleports a human being through hyperspace from one location to another.’ Of course, there is no functional version of this. There are innumerable examples of this kind of patent being granted. Another kind of patent that serves no useful purpose is where the patented product or process is something that has been used for years and years, and is known to the whole world, such as the wheel, or swinging on a swing.[3] This undermines the entire basis of the patent system and has the potential to cause havoc. The rapid dilution of the tripartite test of novelty, non-obviousness and utility that led to such patents being granted is finally being halted in the USA, with the US Supreme Court ruling recently that obviousness cannot be constrained by a legal formulation, and the use of common sense is necessary in determining whether a patent be granted or not.[4]

6. Courts in all parts of the world have held that subject matter which would have the practical effect of pre-empting laws of nature, abstract ideas or mathematical algorithms is ineligible for patent protection. This age-old and time-tested precedent effectively establishes the ineligibility for patent protection to laws of nature, abstract ideas and mathematical algorithms. If these could be patented, then in effect one would be patenting the tools of scientific enquiry itself, something no patent law allows as it would lead to halting scientific progress.

7. In the past, the courts have also held that regarding patentable subject that the inquiry into whether subject matter is eligible for patenting is one of substance, not form. This requires that the patent office look, not simply at the language of the patent claim to see if it recites a structure of multiple steps or components, but also at the practical effect of the claim to see if it in fact covers -- or otherwise would restrict the public’s access to -- a principle, law of nature, abstract idea, mathematical formula, mental process, algorithm or other abstract intellectual concept. Otherwise, it would make the determination of patentable subject matter depend simply on the draftsman’s art and would ill serve the principles underlying the prohibition against patents for 'ideas' or phenomena of nature. By skilled patent drafting, one should not be able to start patenting essentially abstract ideas, mental processes and newly discovered laws of nature or mathematical algorithms.

8. However, a number of patent offices, particularly the USPTO and the EPO have been granting patents recently for software also. This is without taking into consideration that all software is ultimately the expression of algorithms or mathematical methods. This has already created a situation which Tim Berners-Lee, one of the founders of the World Wide Web and director of the World Wide Web Consortium that sets global standards for the Internet, calls the biggest threat to software development.

All companies developing emerging technology are threatened by the prospect of patent licensing royalties. You could never find out what patent could possibly apply to what technology. You could never guess what things people might have the gall to say they have patented already. It really is a universal fear.’ (Tim Berners-Lee at Emerging Technologies Conference at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, September 29, 2004.)

9. In the US, recent studies have shown that the only sector of the economy in which royalties are more than legal costs are pharmaceuticals[5]. In their recently published book, Bessen and Meurer have analysed the numbers in terms of revenues generated from patents as against cost of filing, maintaining and defending patents in courts. In their view, the data shows that except in the case of pharmaceuticals, patents generate far more litigation costs than revenue. The numbers are clear: domestic litigation costs --16 billion dollars in 1999 alone -- was about twice the revenue for patents. Even in this, almost two thirds of the revenue was from pharmaceuticals and chemicals. Worse, the more innovative the company, more was the likelihood of it being sued. The software and business method patents fared the worst, with costs far outstripping the benefits of patenting. The sector with the worst royalty to costs record is software, with most high technology firms being opposed now to software patents.

10. Apart from the reasons given above, the software patents have the problem of being ill defined and capable of very broad scope. It is difficult to build around as is possible in other areas of technology, precisely because of the vagueness of the claims. Novelty and inventive step is again much more difficult to disprove unlike pharmaceuticals, where it is the molecule with a clearly defined structure which is being patented. No company in the world can conduct patent searches for software, given the number of such patents being filed and the inability to identify the defining characteristic of the product being patented. Therefore, the provision of copyright is more than adequate for protecting IPR in software.

11. The other problem with software patents is that any large software project uses a large number of software components. Any one of them can be subjected litigation claiming patent violations. This would open the company to costly lawsuits and against the interests of all but the biggest global corporations who have deep pockets.

12. Today, even companies such as IBM, Sun, Texas Instruments, CISCO have joined the growing Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) community opposing software patents. Most of these companies have publicly stated that they are filing patents only for defensive purposes. Indian law also bars software patents. With regards to proprietary versus FOSS, India needs to analyse and define what should be its trajectory. There is enough grounds to believe that if Indian companies want to move from services model to a product model, software patents and proprietary software will not be the route to take instead, India should promote FOSS, as Brazil and China are doing.

13. Apart from the lack of natural reason for granting software patents, there are potential adverse consequences to the Indian economy in other areas should such patents are granted. The current explosion in bio-pharmaceutical development is increasingly dependent on the ability to perform large-scale data mining from huge amounts of genetic-genomic data. Highly specialised software is developed from pre-existing 'generic' software by bio-informatic technologists for this purpose. Allowing the patenting of the generic basic software will increase the costs of data mining substantially, and will have an extremely adverse impact on the competitive ability of small, knowledge-based entrepreneurial ventures of the kind that India excels in.

14. In India, it has been considered patents should be granted only when public good demands granting of such state protected monopolies. This was the practice also in the UK and the US. It is still the basis of the practice in most countries. It is only in the last few decades that the US, followed by the UK, Japan and now the European Patent Office has tried to change the interpretation of their Patents Acts to expand the scope of patentability. This attempt to enlarge the scope is from their national interest as they hold the largest number of patents. Therefore, their belief that strengthening the patent regime internationally will help their companies to build worldwide monopolies.

15. It is not in India’s national interest or in the interests of its people to expand the scope of state protected monopolies through expanding the patent scope. India’s national interest is best served by restricting the scope of such monopolies. Therefore, the patent regime in India should work on the presumption that patents are to be given only when there is a decisive case for patents. This has been the basis of the Indian Patents Act and is in tune with fundamentals of such legislation world over. It is only the deviation in patent interpretation that has produced a scenario where business methods, software and also mathematical methods are also being patented.

16. The US Supreme Court has now been correcting some of the excesses that has occurred in the US patents interpretation by the Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit (CAFC). We see no reason why India should change it understanding of patentability following in the footsteps of the US and the EPO and subsequently need to correct such excesses.

17. The US Supreme Court had ruled earlier that Supreme Court has held that patent protection may not be granted for “laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 185 (1981). The case has frequently been misread as a basis for patenting subject matter that is abstract and intangible. In fact, however, Diehr confirms that intangible subject matter may not be patented, whether directly or indirectly through artful claim drafting.

18. Diehr also re-affirmed its holding in Gottschalk v.Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (1972), that algorithms, or procedures for solving mathematical problems—the building blocks of computer programs—cannot be patented. Likewise, it reaffirmed its holding in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1984), that an algorithm for computing a number that served as an alarm limit was not patentable by adding insignificant post-solution activity added to a unpatentable principle to a patenable process. Diehr reaffirmed that only tangible processes – in this case vulcanizing rubber-- and not abstract ideas are patentable.

19. In alignment with Benson and Flook, the US Supreme Court in Diehr held that structures or processes must, when considered as a whole, perform functions intended to be covered by patent law in order to be eligible for patent protection. Diehr followed and upheld the core holdings of both Benson and Flook.

20. The US Supreme Court therefore has not pronounced on software patents after Diehr and therefore Diehr still remains the definitive interpretation of software patents in the US.

21. The CAFC deviated from the Supreme Court ruling in Diehr in At&T vs Excel Communications and in State Street Bank. There, CAFC held that though abstract ideas were not patentable, they could be patented if they produced “a useful, concrete and tangible result.” This was inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s earlier rulings on this matter.

22. In a number of recent cases, the US Supreme Court has overruled the CAFC. In all these cases, the US Supreme Court has narrowed the definition of what is patentable. We have already quoted the KSR Vs Teleflex case in this context.

23. It is in this context that the CAFC is revisiting the State Street and AT&T Vs Excel Communications sitting in en banc. Significantly, it has posed the following questions on which it wants to re-examine the two cases. These are:

(1) Whether claim 1 of the [Bilski] patent application claims patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101?

(2) What standard should govern in determining whether a process is patent-eligible subject matter under section 101?

(3) Whether the claimed subject matter is not patent-eligible because it constitutes an abstract idea or mental process; when does a claim that contains both mental and physical steps create patent-eligible subject matter?

(4) Whether a method or process must result in a physical transformation of an article or be tied to a machine to be patent-eligible subject matter under section 101?

(5) Whether it is appropriate to reconsider State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc., 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998), and AT&T Corp. v. Excel Communications, Inc., 172 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1999), in this case and, if so, whether those cases should be overruled in any respect?

24. Obviously, the US Courts are re-thinking software patents in the light of its difficulty in establishing clear boundaries and tying all future innovation in a morass of litigation. With patent trolls entering the picture, it has become clear to the industry as well as the larger public in the US that the patent system is not being well served by software patents. The CAFC en banc review is only one such indication. Patent reforms are also being discussed in US Congress to address such issues.

25. Therefore, we would urge the patent office to take cognizance off the above and reconsider the paras in the Draft Patent Manual that allows software patents if they are seen to have technical applications.

26. We believe that the lawmakers have done their job and have defined clearly that software patents per se are not admissible in India. It is now incumbent on the patent office to make this clear and not admit such patents.

----

US CASES

Diamond v. Diehr,

450 U.S. 175 (1981)

Gottschalk v. Benson,

409 U.S. 63 (1972)

Parker v. Flook,

437 U.S. 584 (1984)

Alappat,

33 F.3d 1526 (Fed. Cir. 1994)

State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc.,

149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998), 525 U.S. 1093 (1999)

AT&T Corp. v. Excel Communications, Inc.,

172 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1999),

KSR International v. Teleflex

127 US 1727 (2007)

----

[1] Against Intellectual Monopoly, Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine, http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstnew.htm)

[2] Thus, while the US Trade Representative calls for Indian Patent Law to conform to US practices, patent reform is now being pushed aggressively within the US by the high tech industries that are complaining of grant opposition and post grant opposition (as exist in Indian Law) are being put forward as patent reforms in the US Congress. The US Supreme Court has now made combining two existing innovations into a “new” one invalid for patenting (again already barred under Indian Law). The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has now ruled in what is not patentable virtually in the same language for what is not patentable a broken patent system. Both pre according to the Indian Patent Act (Section 3 d, challenged by Novartis in Chennai High Court).

[3] US Patent 6368227, “Method for swinging on a swing”, filed by a five year old child; http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1418165.stm, How an Australian lawyer patented the wheel. There are many other examples.

[4] "We build and create by bringing to the tangible and palpable reality around us new works based on instinct, simple logic, ordinary inferences, extraordinary ideas, and sometimes even genius. These advances, once part of our shared knowledge, define a new threshold from which innovation starts once more. And as progress beginning from higher levels of achievement is expected in the normal course, the results of ordinary innovation are not the subject of exclusive rights under the patent laws. Were it otherwise patents might stifle, rather than promote, the progress of useful arts. See U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 8. These premises led to the bar on patents claiming obvious subject matter established in Hotchkiss and codified in §103. Application of the bar must not be confined within a test or formulation too constrained to serve its purpose." KSR International v Telefax US Supreme Court

[5] James Bessen and Michael J. Meurer, Patent Failure: How Judges, Bureaucrats, and Lawyers

Put Innovators at Risk, Princeton University Press, March 2008.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/publications/software-patents/response-by-knowledge-commons-1

Responding to govt requests is a challenge for online firms: Colin Maclay

praskrishna — 2013-03-15T05:07:10Z

Colin M. Maclay, MD of Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard, on challenges in cyberspace.

Colin M. Maclay, MD of Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard mentions about the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore in his interview done by LiveMint. The article was published in LiveMint on March 13, 2013.

Mumbai: Colin M. Maclay, managing director of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University, says that companies such as Google Inc. and Facebook Inc. are facing their greatest challenge in responding appropriately to governments that demand user information from them as part of regular practice or to abuse power. In an email interview to Mint on Wednesday, Maclay underscored the policy gaps on the Internet, differences in cyber laws across nations and the forces transforming education, media and technology companies online. He hopes to elaborate on some of these views in Mumbai on Thursday, the concluding day of Ficci Frames,a conclave on the media and entertainment industry that began on Tuesday. Edited excerpts:

How vulnerable are we because of the information shared on email platforms such as Gmail or Yahoomail or on social networks like Facebook?

We are vulnerable in many ways as we share information about ourselves and our friends, sometimes wisely and other times indiscriminately. But this information is later shared with many third-party tracking networks so that the highest bidder can advertise to us the product they think we want. That information is also sold to other interested parties, from businesses to governments. Other business offerings like facial recognition software only make the proposition spookier. Many of them want to responsibly monetize our data typically for advertising or improving their service offerings although we may not all agree on what that means in practice.

Are any laws being considered in the US to protect people’s privacy online?

Privacy around telephony, wiretaps for instance, is much better than Internet-related government requests. There are a host of laws and regulations around privacy in the US, but many of my colleagues would likely say that they are inadequate—not keeping up with the technology, actual use or business practice. They are also in conflict with European laws, which suggests the need to resolve these differences. In this gap, practices like the Google and Twitter Transparency Reports are significant steps forward in telling what governments are actually doing around the world with respect to online privacy and expression. India’s government has a noteworthy presence in these reports, as does the US.

Is it easier for the government to get personal information of suspects’ activity online from Google or Facebook than it would be through an offline search warrant?

There are questionable requests made to companies to provide user information, censor content or other such action by law enforcement agencies in various jurisdictions. Often it is legitimate, and companies should respond accordingly, while at other times, companies may overreach unintentionally, requesting much more information than they need or broader censorship due to their own lack of understanding. In other cases, as part of regular practice or in an informal abuse of power, governments will make requests that do not hold up scrutiny to the rule of law and due process. They may have political or economic motivations, for instance. It’s in discerning between these cases, and figuring out how to respond appropriately, that the companies face their greatest challenge.

Has the freedom of expression been limited by the governments?

The OpenNet initiative, a research collaboration between the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto and the Berkman Center at Harvard, has documented the rise of state-sponsored Internet censorship from a handful of countries a decade ago to over 40 countries today. Beyond technical control, there is a massive increase in copyright-related takedowns that include legitimate takedowns, plus many attempts at economic and political control. There are informal legal and process controls on content. There is also a wide range of self-censorship that’s difficult to document.

How are these companies addressing the issue?

In recognition of the difficult situation, companies such as Google, Microsoft Corp., Yahoo Inc. (Facebook is an observer at present), non-government organizations like Human Rights Watch, Center for Democracy and Technology (CDSA) and the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore and investors like Calvert Investments Inc. and F&C Asset Management Plc, founded the Global Network Initiative (GNI) in October 2008 to protect and advance privacy and freedom of expression online.

Cybercrimes like credit card frauds surface time and again...why is the Internet still not secure enough?

It goes back to beginnings of the Internet, it was built to be open rather than secure. That said, there are a variety of different concerns, including organizations doing an inadequate job of securing the credit card data they hold. That’s their fault and it seems there should be policy solutions that require better security and exact penalties for lapses and bad practice to encourage better behaviour. Credit card fraud online and offline is a problem, and unfortunately it sometimes effectively punishes countries with risk by automatically denying cards—effectively leaving users in those countries without access to e-commerce.

On the good side, top universities around the world now offer online education, How is it transforming the education system?

Like many analog institutions that are adopting digital resources, it’s unclear what will happen. Hopefully it will lower prices, increase learning opportunities, and improve learning all in a sustainable way. We can’t deny, however, the role of in-person interaction whether it’s while seeing friends, dating or doing business and learning is no different.

Looking at trends, laptops began replacing desktops and now tablets are becoming a preferred personal computing device. What’s next?

A decade ago it was laptops or mobiles, and the price of laptops came down, but the mobile network proliferated even faster. Smartphones continued to drop in price and increase in potential, laptops are lighter than ever, tablets have come up, even operating systems are beginning to converge. Now, immersive experiences like Google Glass are coming. It’s hard to know what’s next, but I hope that device convergence will serve as an enabler rather than a limiter.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/livemint-ruchita-saxena-march-13-2013-responding-to-govt-requests-is-a-challenge-for-online-firms

Respite from Internet Censorship?

praskrishna — 2012-08-10T15:51:30Z

Of late, a lot of the blocked websites have started reappearing. So should we sit back and relax? We take a look at how it's not really the start of something beautiful...writes Nimish Sawant. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

Published in thinkdigit on June 2, 2012

In April, Chennai based Copyrights Labs got a John Doe order (An order against no one in particular) from Madras High Court which ordered ISPs to block several video hosting websites such as Vimeo and Dailymotion along with a string of torrent sites such as Isohunt and Pirate Bay. The motive was to prevent illegal sharing of the movies 3 and Dhammu. The ISPs went on this whole website blocking spree welcoming users with messages such as, “This website has been blocked as per instructions from the Department of Telecom (DoT)”.

In June, the Madras High Court issued an order which made it mandatory for complainants to provide exact URLs where they find illegal content, such that ISPs could block only that content and not the entire site.

This order is definitely a relief for Indian internet users, who were facing a variety of blocked websites for a couple of months. In the May-June period there was a lot of media coverage around Internet censorship and then there was the much-hyped Anonymous protest (http://goo.gl/YCQod) that saw a not-so-great participation. Just like most media stories, it is slowly departing from the public conciousness. So does this mean our censorship woes are behind us?

Far from it.

The dark cloud of Intermediaries Guidelines
The Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules 2011 were added to the IT Act 2000. According to it, the intermediaries (website, domain registrar, blog owner and so on) guidelines allows the government to pull up any website that hosts “objectionable” content. It gives anyone the right to send “content removal notice” to an intermediary, asking it to be removed within 36 hours. Terms describing such content - grossly harmful, harassing, blasphemous, defamatory, obscene - are those that are open to interpretation. So, Facebook can be hauled up for derogatory content or pages on its site. Hell, even if you own a blog and someone else posts a derogatory comment, you can be pulled up.

This is a rather smart move by the government to force self-censorship down our throats. Just try imagining - Every 60 seconds: on YouTube there are 48 hours worth of videos uploaded; Wordpress users publish 347 blogs; Twitter users send over 100,000 tweets among others. (Source: http://goo.gl/U7qT8) How on earth is monitoring such a vast amount of data even possible?

Karnika Seth, Cyberlaw Expert	"Any content which is illegal can be blocked by ISP or on directions of a court.A person who uploads illegal content does not have a right to claim that it should not be blocked. But if harmless content is blocked arbitrarily by government or by an ISP, a person can approach the court for a direction that content should not be blocked from public access. No specific section in IT Act entitles a person to sue in such cases . However freedom of speech and expression is our fundamental right guaranteed under Art.19 of the Constitution of India and it is our constitutional right to seek legal redress for its protection by approaching the court."

Karnika Seth, Cyberlaw Expert

"Any content which is illegal can be blocked by ISP or on directions of a court.A person who uploads illegal content does not have a right to claim that it should not be blocked. But if harmless content is blocked arbitrarily by government or by an ISP, a person can approach the court for a direction that content should not be blocked from public access. No specific section in IT Act entitles a person to sue in such cases . However freedom of speech and expression is our fundamental right guaranteed under Art.19 of the Constitution of India and it is our constitutional right to seek legal redress for its protection by approaching the court."

Every site has internal checks and balances in the form of a 'Report Abuse' option, where users raise flags against content which they may find objectionable and the site takes a call. But with the intermediary rules, the content has to be removed within 36 hours. And here's the kicker – the content can be removed without informing the owner or giving him or her a chance to defend. A political cartoon website cartoonsagainstcorruption.com was a victim of such rules. In March this year, Rajya Sabha MP, P. Rajeeve, had moved a motion calling for the annulment of the intermediaries rules sometime in April. This motion, as would be expected, was defeated by a voice vote.

“Any content which is illegal can be blocked by the ISP or on directions of a court. A person who uploads illegal content does not have a right to claim that it should not be blocked. But if harmless content is blocked arbitrarily by government or by an ISP, a person can approach the court for a direction that content should not be blocked from public access,” said cyberlaw expert Karnika Seth. When asked if there is a clause in the IT Act which enables a person to drag the government or the ISP for blocking access to their harmless content on the web, Seth said, “No specific section in the IT Act entitles a person to sue in such cases . However, freedom of speech and expression is our fundamental right guaranteed under Art.19 of the Constitution of India and it is our constitutional right to seek legal redress for its protection by approaching the court.”

So what should one do if his or her content is blocked due to the blanket ban on websites? “If I am blocked access to my content on the web (say by blocking sites such as Vimeo or Blogspot for instance) I should file an appeal against the John Doe order in the higher court or to the division bench of High court if earlier order has been passed by single bench of the same High court. These provisions are there for any citizen in Procedural Law of India. The IT Act, 2000 need not be invoked,” says Advocate Prashant Mali, President, Cyber Law Consulting.

Google Transparency report clearly established a link between internet censorship and the government. According to the report, between January and June 2011 Google received 1739 requests for disclosure of user data from the Indian government whereas from July to December 2011, the number of requests by the government went up to 2207. Thankfully Google's compliance rate has come down, but the requests will keep increasing. And this is just Google products we are talking about. Is it then right for just the government to go ahead and draft the rules regarding internet usage? Are there provisions for you, the user to play a part in drafting of these rules. According to Advocate Mali, laws are generally put up for debate on various Government websites. But in the case of the Intermediaries Guidelines, the government used the two-thirds majority to pass the rules.

According to Sunil Abraham, Director, Centre for Internet and Society – a Bangalore-based internet advocacy group, we are very far in terms of Internet policies. “Dr. Gulshan Rai of CERT-IN has not taken even the public feedback process seriously and does not hold public consultations. This is very unlike TRAI, the telecoms regulator that has a very sophisticated approach towards transparent and participatory policy formulation.” He says that in India there is little transparency in some areas of policy articulation and our representatives do not seem sufficiently interested in protecting the public interest.

Also according to Adv. Mali, the recent Madras High Court directive asking the ISPs to block only the ‘pirated content’ and not the entire website, is just half the battle won for the ISPs. “If ISP's feel they have won, then that's just half the victory, because if they don't implement the order with full might and even if one copyright gets infringed because of there weak enforcement, then it would amount to Contempt of Court which will land ISP's into soup,” he says.

“The Madras High Court judgement which essentially directs ISPs to block “pirated content”, and not the website as a whole, is a good judgment with respect to Internet users, but implementing it selectively would be a mammoth task for ISP's. If ISP's feel they have won, then it's just half the battle won, because if they don't implement the order with full might and even if one copyright gets infringed because of weak enforcement, then it would amount to Contempt of Court which will land ISP's into soup."

Advocate Prashant Mali, President, Cyber Law Consulting

Is the Anonymous way, the right way?
In June, we saw the global hactivist organisation - Anonymous attacking a string of Government websites and that of ISPs such as Reliance communications, which had blocked access to websites. On June 9, there was a street protest across various metros in India. While the participation was not very encouraging, the sympathy for what Anonymous hackers were doing to those opposing Internet censorship was immense.

According to Advocate Mali, though the agenda of Anonymous was good, their means of achieving that end were wrong. “One cannot put a gun on the Government’s head in a democracy. If they keep doing this, they will be outlawed. If Anonymous really wants to work for the netizens, they should find better ways to protest instead of those which are cognizable cyber crimes in India.” said Mali.

According to Abraham, Anonymous are embracing the civil disobedience movement to protest against unjust laws. He feels that it is pertinent for Anonymous to retain the moral high ground. “Breaking into servers, leaks of personal information and defacement of websites is both illegal and also unlikely to win them more supporters from within the policy formulation space,” concurs Abraham.

Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, Centre for Internet & Society

“The government ie. the government in power, does only frame subsidiary rules. For example – the draconian rules related to reasonable security measures, cyber cafes and intermediaries were drafted in April last year. The main Act in this case the Information Technology Act is framed in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. Even though the elected government may dominate the proceedings, if they have a clear majority, the opposition parties must debate every detail especially in laws that affect our civil liberties. Unfortunately, since the Internet is not used by the majority of the population it is politically still an insignificant issue. The private sector cannot frame laws that regulate itself – that would be a contradiction in terms. Citizens cannot be asked to vote in referendums each time laws have to be passed, that would just be too slow. Transparency representative democracy is the online option – unfortunately in India there is little transparency in some areas of policy articulation and our representatives don't seem to be sufficiently interested in protecting the public interest.”

Where do we go from here?
So it is safe to say that even though the issue of censorship is not making headlines everyday, it will never will be behind us. “This is just a temporary lull in the storm. Governments are always keen to crack down on free speech and privacy online,” feels Abraham. According to him, projects such as Unique Identification (UID) and National Intelligence Grid (NATGRID) means the death of anonymity and pseudonymity for Internet and mobile users in the country.

On the other hand, Adv. Mali says that so long as the Intermediaries guidelines are part of the IT Act, it will only mean bad news for regular netizens. “Till the rules are effective, censorship and blocking would be a weapon in the hands of the Government, even though it may violate certain Fundamental Rights enshrined by Indian Constitution to Indian Citizens,” he said.

“Indian Internet users have to be very vigilant – if not, we will loose all our rights and freedoms one by one,” warns Abraham.

We can just hope that the issue does not get completely out of hand.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/www-thinkdigit-com-nimish-sawant-02-06-2012-respite-from-internet-censorship

Resources

pranesh — 2009-10-20T03:29:16Z

A collection of resources that will help one navigate through the arguments and evidence for and against the Indian "Bayh-Dole" bill.

PUPFIP

Bayh-Dole

Technology Transfer

Innovation's Golden Goose (The Economist)

Improving Innovation(The Economist)

Scientific Culture

Patents and America's Universities(The Economist)

When Academia Puts Profits Ahead of Wonder(The New York Times)

Bayhing for blood or Doling out cash?(The Economist)

Evaluative Pieces

University Licensing under Bayh-Dole: What are the Issues and Evidence?(Thursby and Thursby)

Is Bayh-Dole Good for Developing Countries? Lessons from the US Experience(So et al.)

The Law of Unintended Consequences(Fortune Magazine)

The Growth of patenting and licensing by U.S. universities and the Bayh-Dole Act (Mowery et al.)

Overall Assessment of the Bayh-Dole Act (Nelson, Mowery, et al.)

General Resources

Joint Ventures and Intellectual Property(Andreas Panagopoulos)

Patents vs. Other Knowledge Transfer(Agrawal and Henderson)

Incentives Structure and Licensing Success(Dan Elfenbein)

University Licensing and Research Behavior(Lach and Schankerman)

Open Science and Private Property(Paul David)

IP Alternatives

New Approaches to Filling the Gap in TB Drug Discovery (Casenghi, Cole and Nathan)

The Role of Prizes in Developing Low-Cost Point-of-Care Rapid Diagnostic Tests and Better Drugs for TB(James Love)

How to boost R&D for essential drugs and diagnostics

Scrooge and intellectual property rights (BMJ January 2006)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/publications/pupfip/resources

Resisting Revolutions

praskrishna — 2012-05-29T10:28:17Z

Nishant Shah's peer reviewed journal article was published in Democracy, Volume 55, Issue 2.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/digital-natives/resisting-revolutions.pdf

Centre for Internet and Society

Rethinking Privacy Principles

Rethinking DNA Profiling in India

Rethinking Conditions of Access

Rethinking Data Exchange & Delivery Models pdf

Responsible AI

Responses to Trai’s consultation paper on free data contain some good suggestions

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

Response to the ‘Call for Comments’ on The Santa Clara Principles on Transparency and Accountability

Response to Suggestions and Comments Sent on GIGW by Committee Members

Response to RTI on Decisions of the Cyber Regulation Advisory Committee

Response by Knowledge Commons

Responding to govt requests is a challenge for online firms: Colin Maclay

Respite from Internet Censorship?

Resources

PUPFIP

News-related/General Coverage

Scientific Culture

Analytical Pieces

Bayh-Dole

Technology Transfer

Scientific Culture

Evaluative Pieces

General Resources

IP Alternatives

Resisting Revolutions