Centre for Internet and Society

More Than 40 Million People Await the Launch of Odia Wikisource

subha — 2014-11-04T13:58:48Z

Speakers of Odia will soon have mountains of books to read online in their mother tongue, following the launch of the Odia Wikisource, which will make accessible many rare books that have entered the public domain.

The article by Subhashish Panigrahi was published in Global Voices on October 18, 2014 and thereafter mirrored on the Wikimedia Blog on October 21, 2014.

Authors and publishers are also invited to donate their copyrighted work, possibly bringing open access to large volumes of books and manuscripts, creating a vast archive of educational resources. And everything will be in Odia.

One of the biggest advantages of Wikisource is that all its books are available in Unicode, meaning that Google's search engine indexes the texts’ entirety, and readers are able to copy easily what they wish. (Most conventional archival systems lack this feature.) A volunteer community administers Wikisource. To upload a book's content, volunteers either retype the books word-for-word, or, when possible, use Optical Character Recognition (commonly known as “OCR“), which converts scanned images into editable text. Available at or.wikisource.org, Odia is Wikisource's eleventh Indic language.

There are more than 40 million native Odia speakers in the world. Most live in the Indian state of Odisha and its neighboring states, but there is a large diaspora in countries like the US, UK, UAE, and across South and East Asia. Despite being spoken by so many people, Odia's online presence is relatively small.

As of October 2014, Odia Wikipedia hosted 8,441 articles. The state government's websites have Odia-language content, naturally, but none of the text is in Unicode, making the materials invisible to search engines and difficult to share. Thanks to individual and organizational efforts, some Odia-language websites have recently emerged with Unicode content.

With support from the non-profit organization Pragati Utkal Sangha and the National Institute of Technology Rourkela, a Bhubaneswar-based outfit has digitized about 740 books through the Open Access to Oriya Books (OAOB) project. Most of these texts were published between 1850 and 1950. The OAOB project is the largest existing digital archive of Odia literature, but the archived books are only available as scanned PDFs, restricting readers’ ability to search within the texts.

As a Wikimedia project, Odia Wikisource underwent a long approval process, after running as an active incubator project for nearly two years. Both the Language Committee and the Wikimedia Foundation's Board reviewed and endorsed the project.

Odia Wikisource has already digitized and proofread three books entirely. In collaboration with the Wikimedia-funded Centre for Internet and Society‘s Access to Knowledge, the Kalinga Institute of Social Sciences (KISS) has partially digitized another book, as well. KISS is also busy digitizing another Nine books by Odia-language author Dr. Jagannath Mohanty that were relicensed to CC-BY-SA 3.0 earlier this year.

In response to posts on Twitter and Facebook, four new contributors recently joined Wikisource to help digitize “The Odia Bhagabata,” a literary classic compiled in the 14th century. “Content that have already been typed with fonts of non-Unicode encoding systems could be converted by converters which was the case of Odia Bhagabata. New contributors did not face the problem of retyping the text, as the book was already available on a website Odia.org and is out of copyright”, says Manoj Sahukar, who (along with yours truly) designed a converter that helped to transcribe “Bhagabata”.

Rising Voices contacted some of those whose efforts made this happen.

Mrutyunjaya Kar (MK), Long time Wikimedian who has proof-read the books on Odia Wikisource
Rising Voices (RV): Youre there with Odia Wikisource since its inception. How you think it will help other Odias?
MK: Odias around the globe will have access to a vast amount of old as well as new books and manuscripts online in the tip of their finger. Knowing more about the long and glorious history of Odisha will become easier.

Nihar Kumar Dalai (NKD), Wikisource writer
RV: How does it feel to be one of the few contributors to digitize Odia Bhagabata. How you want to get involved in future?
NKD: This is a proud opportunity for me to be a part of digitization of such old literature. I, at times, think if I could get involved with this full time!

Nasim Ali (NA), Oldest active Odia Wikimedian and Wikisource writer
RV: Do you think any particular section of the society is going to be benefited by this?
NA: Books contain the gist of all human knowledge. The ease of access and spread of books are the markers of the intellectual status of a society. And in this e-age Wikisource can be helpful by not just providing easy access to a plethora of books under free licenses but also aiding the spread of basic education in developing economies. Together with Wikisource and cheaper internet this could catalyze a Renaissance of 21st century.

Pankajmala Sarangi (PS), Wikisource writer
RV: You have digitized almost two books, are the highest contributor to the project and also one of the main reasons for Odia Wikisource getting approved. What are your plans next to grow it and take to masses?
PS: I would be happy to contribute by typing more books on Odia so that they can be stored and available to all. We can take this to masses through social, print and audio & visual media and organizing meetings/discussions.

Amir Aharoni (AA), Wikimedia Language Committee member and Software Engineer at the Language Engineering team at the Wikimedia Foundation
RV: What you feel Wikisource could do to a language like Odia with more than 40 million speakers?
AA: In schools in Odisha, are there lessons of Odia literature? If the answer is yes, then it can do a very simple thing – make these lessons more fun and help children learn more! Everybody says that in Kerala this worked very well with Malayalam literature.

Clearly, strong passions motivate Odia Wikisource's volunteers, like Nihar Kumar Dalai, who writes on Facebook:

Hindi and English are fine, but our native language it bit more special! Who of us does not now about the art, culture, noted personalities, tourist spots and festivals of Odisha? But if you search online about all of these then there is very little available. There comes a simple and easy solution Odia Wikipedia. Like Odia Wikipedia, Odia Wikisource is another great place and this is my small contribution to bring Odia Bhagabata on Odia Wikisource.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/global-voices-subhashish-panigrahi-october-18-2014-more-than-400-million-people-await-launch-of-odia-wikisource

Monitoring Sustainable Development Goals in India: Availability and Openness of Data (Part II)

sumandro — 2016-04-12T04:14:27Z

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are an internationally agreed upon set of developmental targets to be achieved by 2030. There are 17 SDGs with 169 targets, and each target is mapped to one or more indicators as a measure of evaluation. In this and the next blog post, Kiran AB is documenting the availability and openness of data sets in India that are relevant for monitoring the targets under the SDGs. This post offers the findings for the last 10 Goals. The first 7 has already been discussed in the earlier post.

The first part of the post can be accessed here.

Goal #08: Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all

There are fourteen indicators to monitor the goal 8 and the data is available for all the indicators mapped to their respective targets. For most of the indicators, the data availability is not what the indicator demands, but has to be derived from the available dataset.

The data can be accessed freely in the public domain for all the indicators. However, for the subparts in some of the indicators, the data is not accessible freely. There is a cross agency dependency over the data, to arrive at the required indicator.

Data is collected annually for most of the indicators, while the indicators, viz., Indicator 8.3.1.: Share of informal employment in non-agriculture employment by sex; Indicator 8.5.2: Unemployment rate by sex, age-group and persons with disabilities, which are measured by the Census or the planning commission the frequency of data collection becomes decennial or quinquennial. And the Indicator 8.8.2 : Number of ILO conventions ratified by type of convention, which lists the number of conventions the frequency cannot be determined as it's just a list updated whenever there is a ratification of any ILO conventions. Some of the available data are restricted to particular years and most of them are not till date.

Two indicators, i.e., Indicator 8.5.2 and Indicator 8.10.1: Number of commercial bank branches and ATMs per 100,000 adults, which are measured at the level of districts, whereas Indicator 8.7.1: Percentage and number of children aged 5-17 years engaged in child labour, per sex and age group; Indicator 8.8.1: Frequency rates of fatal and non-fatal occupational injuries by sex and migrant status, are measured at the state level. The remaining are measured only at the national level.

Most of the data are collected from the international organisations like ILO, UNEP, UNWTO, etc., from whose source the data are not updated regularly. There is also a need to disaggregate according to the indicator.

Goal #09: Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation

When development is through industrialization, sustainable and inclusiveness should be the necessary conditions to attain it. Having said this, the data is available for all the indicators, i.e., twelve indicators, corresponding to the targets as defined for the goal 9. For most of the indicators, the data have to be derived for the required measure to monitor the goal.

From among these indicators, the data is collected annually for most of the indicators, while for the two indicators, Indicator 9.3.1: Percentage share of small scale industries in total industry value added; Indicator 9.3.2: Percentage of small scale industries with a loan or line of credit, the frequency of data collection is once in five years.

Excluding two indicators, i.e., Indicator 9.2.2: Manufacturing employment as a percentage of total employment; Indicator 9.1.1: Share of the rural population who live within 2km of an all season road, for which the data is available at the state level and district level respectively, for the remaining indicators the data is available only at the national level.

The data pertaining to eleven indicators are freely accessible in the public domain, however, for the Indicator 9.b.1: Percentage share of medium and high-tech (MHT) industry value added in total value added, the data is not freely accessible. Most of the freely available data are obtained from the international organisations, along with the official data from the government in India.

Goal #10: Reduce inequality within and among countries

Bridging the gap between the global north-south divide through co-operation – social, economical, political, etc., would promote equality. There are twelve indicators for measuring this goal, of which the data is not available for one of the indicators and are available for the remaining indicators.

From the data available, for six of the indicators the data is accessible freely in the public domain, whereas for the five of the indicators – Indicator 10.2.1; Indicator 10.3.1; Indicator 10.4.1; Indicator 10.7.3; Indicator 10.a.1, the data is closed.

Most of the data available are of the national level and for the Indicator 10.7.3: Number of detected and non-detected victims of human trafficking per 100,000, the data includes from the states as well. However, since the goal refers to inequalities within the country as well, the granularity of the data should have been from the state/district level as well.

And, the frequency of data collected are annually for some of the indicators and for some the details cannot be determined or not valid. For most of the indicators the data has to be derived from the available dataset and disaggregated as needed. Also, for some indicators the data is partially available.

Data Not Available:

Indicator 10.7.1: Recruitment cost borne by employee as percentage of yearly income earned in country of destination

Goal #11: Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable

Housing and the type of settlements determines the human development and the progress of development of a nation. Therefore for monitoring the goal 11 is implicit to human development. There are thirteen indicators to monitor this goal and out of which the data is available for ten indicators and for the three indicators the data is not available.

For three of the indicators the available data is not freely accessible, while for the remaining ones the data is accessible. And for most of the indicators the data has to be derived as needed.

The data is collected annually for most of the indicators and quinquennially for the Indicator 11.5.1, and for some data the data pertains to particular year and there lacks a sequence of data availability.

For four of the indicators – Indicator 11.2.1; Indicator 11.3.1; Indicator 11.6.1; Indicator 11.a.1, the data is available at the state/city level along with national level. And for the remaining indicators the data is available at the national level alone. Also, some of the data are not up-to-date and refers to data more than 3 or years old.

Data Not Available:

Indicator 11.3.2: Percentage of cities with direct participation structure of civil society in urban planning and management, which operate regularly and democratically
Indicator 11.7.1: The average share of the built-up areas of cities that is open space in public use for all, disaggregated by age, sex, and persons with disabilities
Indicator 11.b.1: Percentage of cities implementing risk reduction and resilience strategies aligned with accepted international frameworks (such as the successor to the Hyogo Framework for Action on Disaster Risk Reduction) that include vulnerable and marginalised groups in their design, implementation and monitoring

Goal #12: Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns

Production and consumption should go hand in hand, but over consumption or over production would only lead to destruction of the environment. Therefore goal 12 seeks to ensure a sustainability in both. The data is available for ten indicators out of twelve indicators, and for the two indicators the data is not available, so as to monitor the respective goals. Some of the data are partially available and using the available data the indicators can be derived.

Moreover, the data for six of the indicators which are available are freely accessible in the public domain whereas for the remaining four indicators – Indicator 12.4.1; Indicator 12.4.2; Indicator 12.5.1; Indicator 12.b.1, the data is not open.

While for most of the indicators say, Indicator 12.2.1; Indicator 12.3.1; Indicator 12.5.1; Indicator 12.a.1; Indicator 12.c.1, the data is collected annually, whereas for the others, the data which are available are for particular years or cannot be determined. Except for the Indicator 12.5.1, for which the data is available at the city level, the data for the remaining are of the national order. The data is collected from both the national institutions, ministries and also from the international organisations.

Data Not Available:

Indicator 12.1.1: Number of countries with SCP National Actions Plans or SCP mainstreamed as a priority or target into national policies.
Indicator 12.8.1: Percentage of educational institutions with formal and informal education curricula on sustainable development and lifestyle topics

Goal #13: Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts

The impact of climate change is severe, therefore taking an urgent action ensures could reduce the impact. The data is available for four of the indicators out of five, and for one of indicators the data is not available.

The data for three indicators are freely accessible in the public domain, whereas for the Indicator 13.3.1: Number of countries that have integrated mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction and early warning into primary, secondary and tertiary curricula, the data is not open and also not specific to the indicator. The data for some of the indicators are partially available and have to be derived.

The frequency of the data is not uniform and cannot be determined, by the virtue of the indicator itself. For example, the occurrence of a disaster event is random. However, for some of the indicators the reporting is either annual or quadrennial.

The data availability is at the national level and in case of the Indicator 13.3.1., the data is available for two states – Orissa and Tamil Nadu. Data for almost all the indicators are obtained from international organizations and very less data availability from the national databases.

Data Not Available:

Indicator 13.2.1.: Number of countries that have formally communicated the establishment of integrated low-carbon, climate-resilient, disaster risk reduction development strategies

Goal #14: Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development

Oceans are the torchbearers for all the countries. Therefore everything related to oceans, seas and marine resources have an impact on the human life. There are ten indicators corresponding to the targets, of which the data is available for nine indicators and for one indicator the data is not available. The data for some of the indicators are not direct, but need to be derived, while for some indicators the data is partially available. To derive some indicators we need to rely on cross agency data.

For the Indicator 14.a.1: Budget allocation to research in the field of marine technology as a percentage of total budget to research, the data on budgetary allocation doesn't specify to marine technology.

The frequency of data collected for most of the indicators are not available or cannot be determined or not applicable, whereas for some the data is collected annually. And for most of the indicators the data is available at the national level and for the Indicator 14.5.1: Coverage of protected areas in relation to marine areas, the data is available for the states also.

Data Not Available:

Indicator 14.6.1: Dollar value of negative fishery subsidies against 2015 baseline

Goal #15: Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss

This goal on restoring, promoting ecosystem and stopping biodiversity loss, etc., has fifteen indicators mapped to twelve corresponding targets. Of which, the data is available for fourteen of the indicators and the data is not available for the one of the indicators. Data for some of the indicators exist partially and for some the data has to be derived to match the indicators. To arrive at the indicators, the data has to be derived from different datasets available.

Most of the data which are available are closed and only five are accessible in the public platform – Indicator 15.1.1 : Forest area as a percentage of total land area; Indicator 15.4.2: Mountain Green Cover Index; Indicator 15.8.1: Adoption of national legislation relevant to the prevention or control of invasive alien species; Indicator 15.9.1: Number of national development plans and processes integrating biodiversity and ecosystem services values; Indicator 15.a.1: Official development assistance and public expenditure on conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystems.

The frequency of data collected is not available or cannot be determined for majority of the indicators, while the data is annually collected for the ones which can be determined. Furthermore, the data is available at the national level for all the indicators, except the Indicator 15.b.1: Forestry official development assistance and forestry FDI, for which the data is available at the level of states as well.

The data available are collected by international organisations like OECD, FAO, Convention on Biological Diversity, etc., as well as by the national institutions and ministries like Planning Commission, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, etc.

Data Not Available:

Indicator 15.2.2: Net permanent forest loss

Goal #16: Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels

A society which is inclusive, peaceful, provides justice and accountable in all its forms would ensure sustainable development, therefore to promote the aforementioned parameters one has to monitor them through an established measure. There are twenty-one indicators for this goal mapped to the respective targets and out of which the data is not available for five indicators to monitor the goal. From the available dataset, the values need to be derived for some of the indicators and for some indicators the data is directly/partially available.

From among the data which are available, for nine indicators the data is not freely accessible in the public platform, while the remaining six data set are open to access. They are available both from national and international agencies and most of the data are not up to the date.

The data which are available are collected/reported annually. And, excluding four indicators. i.e.; Indicator 16.1.3, Indicator 16.3.1, Indicator 16.4.2, Indicator 16.b.1, the data is available at the state level, while for the remaining indicators the data is available only at the national level. Most of the indicators require data from past 12 months, but the available dataset does not cater the needs, as they are not updated regularly. Finally, the indicators seeks disaggregated data for monitoring the goal.

Data Not Available:

Indicator 16.1.4: Proportion of people that feel safe walking alone around the area they live
Indicator 16.2.3. Percentage of young women and men aged 18-24 years who experienced sexual violence by age 18
Indicator 16.6.2: Percentage of population satisfied with their last experience of public services
Indicator 16.7.2: Proportion of countries that address young people's multisectoral needs with their national development plans and poverty reduction strategies
Indicator 16.a.1: Percentage of victims who report physical and/or sexual crime to law enforcement agencies during past 12 months disaggregated by age, sex, region and population group

Goal #17: Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development

Moving towards achieving SDGs in the global scenario requires support – financial, technological, etc. This support can be strengthened the relationship between the developing and the developed countries. There are twenty-four indicators to monitor the goal 17, out of which the data is available for twenty-three of the indicators and for one of the indicators the data does not exist.

The data which are available are direct as per the indicators, whereas for most of the indicators the data need to be derived. Data is partially available for the Indicator 17.16.1: Indicator 7 from Global Partnership Monitoring Exercise: Mutual accountability among development co-operation actors is strengthened through inclusive reviews.

From the data available for twenty-three indicators, fourteen of the data set are freely accessible and the nine are not open. Also, some of the data which are open are not up to date or the latest data is not open.

The data is collected annually for most of the indicators and for some the data is available for particular year. Also for some of the indicators like Indicator 17.5.1: Number of national & investment policy reforms adopted that incorporate sustainable development objectives or safeguards x country; Indicator 17.6.1: Access to patent information and use of the international intellectual property (IP) system; Indicator 17.18.2: Number of countries that have national statistical legislation that complies with the Fundamental Principles of Official statistics, the frequency cannot be determined or not valid.

Since this indicator speaks at the national level, the granularity of the data pertains to the nation. Most of the data are obtained from the international organisations say UN, World Bank, IMF, OECD, etc., and some are from the national institutions/ministries like Planning Commission, Finance Ministry, etc.

Data Not Available:

Indicator 17.17.1: Amount of US$ committed to public-private partnerships and civil society partnerships

Conclusion

Decision making depends on data, a data should be representative, with high quality and has to be timely collected, which ensures precise assessment of the decision being made. From the analysis it was found that, most of the data which are available are either not freely accessible, outdated and not precise to the need. Most of the SDG indicators are based on disaggregation. The disaggregation is a key to measure to the precision, especially incidences like poverty, food security, health, etc. Therefore, to monitor different parameters we need to identify the different levels prevailing in the parameter to ensure inclusivity.

Said above, the frequency of data collection is either annual, quinquennial and decennial. To enable real time evaluation, the data should be up-to-date. Moreover, for most of the indicators the data availability is at the national level or at the state level and sometimes at the district level. The granularity of data ensures geographic inclusiveness.

In a country like India for close monitoring of progress/development of any sort the data availability should be;

at a granular level of district/block,
collected and updated regularly,
disaggregated by age, sex, and also by social group, and
the data should be open to be able to access in the public domain freely.

Open data will be a crucial tool for governments to meet the transparency and efficiency challenges. For this reason, government data should be open – freely accessible, presented in a format that is comparable and reusable and, ideally, released in a timely manner.

Author

Kiran A B, is a student of Master of Public Policy (MPP) at the National Law School of India University, Bengaluru. Kiran has an undergraduate degree in electronics and communications engineering, and he has three years full-time work experience as a software engineer, working in different technological platforms. His research interest includes interdisciplinary linkages between policy, law and technology.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/monitoring-sustainable-development-goals-in-india-availability-and-openness-02

Monitoring Sustainable Development Goals in India: Availability and Openness of Data (Part I)

Kiran AB — 2017-01-02T14:12:58Z

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are an internationally agreed upon set of developmental targets to be achieved by 2030. There are 17 SDGs with 169 targets, and each target is mapped to one or more indicators as a measure of evaluation. In this and the next blog post, Kiran AB is documenting the availability and openness of data sets in India that are relevant for monitoring the targets under the SDGs. This post offers the findings for the first 7 Goals, while the next post will cover the last 10.

The second part of the post can be accessed here.

Monitoring Sustainable Development Goals

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are an internationally agreed upon set of developmental targets to be achieved by 2030. These are universal goals and targets which involve the entire world, developed and developing countries alike. They aim at integrating and balancing the three dimensions of the sustainable development – economic development, social inclusion, and environmental sustainability. There are 17 SDGs with 169 targets, and each target is mapped to one or more indicators as a measure of evaluation, covering a broad range of sustainable development issues [1].

To initiate the visioning process for the SDGs, the United Nations established a High Level Panel in the year 2012, comprising of 27 members. The notion of "data revolution for sustainable development" has been one of the most remarkable categories of imagination and operational requirement to emerge from the final report of this High Level Panel. It identified a significant need for massive restructuring of infrastructures for generating global, reliable, comparable, and timely data. The Independent Expert Advisory Group (IEAG) on "data revolution for sustainable development" has also raised the need for opening up development data. It proposes that open data must be considered as an instrument of ensuring transparency and accountability of the government [2]. Further, in a recent post from the World Economic Forum meeting, Stephen Walker and Jose Alonso have noted that "Not only will governments that embrace open data improve their public accountability and efficiency, they will also reap the social and economic benefits of opening up data for citizens" [3]. Opening up of government data is expected to transform the relationship between the government and the various stakeholders.

Currently the data is used by the governmental institutions for self-monitoring and making only a limited data available for public access and usage. But SDGs are not only for the government to monitor and realise, the responsibility lies with various other actors as well.

Open data has a major role to play in transforming the vision of the SDGs into reality, by enabling the informed participation of multiple actors – private companies, non-government organisations, academic and research institutes, civic activists, etc. To plan, monitor, and actualise the path being traversed by a country, open data becomes essential. Also to facilitate public participation in the governance.

In this and the next blog post, I am documenting the availability and openness of data sets in India, which are relevant for the indicators identified for monitoring of targets under the 17 SDGs. This post offers the findings for the first 7 Goals, while the next post will cover the last 10. Along with questions of availability and openness, I have also documented the technical format of the available data, the level of granularity, and also the frequency of its collection, when applicable. The chart below describe the overall situation of availability and openness of data for monitoring SDGs in India.

Goal #01: End poverty in all its forms everywhere

The data is available for most of the indicators either directly or need to be derived, however, data doesn't exist for one of the indicators.

The data exists at the national level and at the state level or both, but data availability at the district/city level would give a better picture. Though NSSO sample survey data includes representative data at the state/UT level, such data is often not made freely accessible. Not all data which have been collected, i.e., from agencies like NSSO, National Family Health Survey, etc., are open in the public domain.

Also, the frequency of data collected for most of the indicators are either decennial or quinquennial, rather an annual survey would facilitate better/close monitoring. Health is an important measure associated with poverty, but the data is decennially collected. There is a need for regular data updation, while considering those data which are supposed to be collected annually.

In this context, to derive certain indicators, say Indicator 1.3.1., there is a cross agency dependency on data, and lacks disaggregation of data. The disaggregation is a key to measure inequality, especially incidences like poverty. So to monitor poverty we need to identify the different strata of poverty and policy can be formulated accordingly.

Data Not Available:

Indicator 1.3.1. Percentage of population covered by social protection floors /systems disaggregated by sex, and distinguishing children, unemployed, old age, people with disabilities, pregnant women/new-borns, work injury victims, poor and vulnerable

Goal #02: End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture

Indicators and the data corresponding to them reflects two things, what has been done and what has to be done. The data for fifteen indicators mapped to the targets in goal 2 are available for thirteen of the indicators. The data which are available are likely to match the indicator directly or the data has to be derived for most of the indicators. And for the remaining two indicators the data is not available.

For most of the indicators that have to be derived, there is a strong dependency on the dataset from NSSO sample survey for arriving at the requirement. This dependency comes at a cost, as NSSO sample data are not freely available in the public domain, thus making the overall monitoring dependent on closed data. There is a cross agency reliance on data, for arriving at the indicator, and the data on public platform are not up to date.

Also, the data for majority of the indicators are measured at the national as well as state level, but a goal like ending hunger – providing food security, would definitely require data in the order of district/village level. Though data is available for the Indicator 2.2.1: Prevalence of stunting (height for age <-2 SD from the median of the WHO Child Growth Standards) among children under five years of age, but, the data is from eight states only and the national data is derived from it, too small sample size to extrapolate as the nation's data.

On the frequency of data collection, Indicator 2.c.1: Indicator of (food) Price Anomalies (IPA), are collected monthly and some of the data are quinquennial or decennial. However, most of them are annually collected, enabling better accountability and close monitoring of the goals and to frame actionable policy steps.

Data Not Available:

Indicator 2.5.1: Ex Situ Crop Collections Enrichment index
b. Indicator 2.5.2: Percentage of local crops and breeds and their wild relatives, classified as being at risk, not-at-risk or unknown level of risk of extinction

Goal #03: Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages

Data is available for all the twenty-five indicators corresponding to the thirteen targets set to measure goal 3 on health and well-being. Some of the data are direct to the indicator, while some have to be derived from various data set to arrive at the indicator.

Data is open and accessible freely in the public domain for all the indicators, most of the data are from World Health Organisation (WHO) database. However, for finer tunings and up to date data there is dependency on National Family Health Survey (NFHS) which is collected decennially.

The WHO data lacks updation and ones which are available are pertaining to an year, thus making the analysis of the annual trend difficult. While the frequency of data collected for most of the data are annual.

The dataset available are at the national and state level, and two of the data set is measured in the order of cities. Most of the WHO dataset provides data at the national level, whereas NFHS, District Family Health Surveys and other agencies provide data at the lowest order, but such dataset are not freely accessible on the public domain. The updated data on health are not made available freely accessible in the public domain which are derived through health surveys.

Goal #04: Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all

Education in India is a fundamental right of every citizen, therefore achieving inclusive, equitable and quality education for all becomes necessary. Said this, to monitor goal 4, data is available for nine indicators out of eleven indicators, and for the remaining two indicators, the data is not accessible or in public domain for free access, and for the sub-part of the indicator on proficiency level. Though data exists for all the indicators, however, for most of the indicators we need to derive from multiple sources. Data does not exist for subparts like psychosocial wellbeing, in the Indicator 4.2.1 and proficiency in functional literacy and numeracy skills as in the Indicator 4.6.1.

The data are collected annually for seven indicators and for the two indicators Indicator 4.3.1 and Indicator 4.6.1, which relies on NFHS and Census data respectively, the data is collected decennially. Also, for some of the indicators the data availability is restricted to particular years or are not up to date.

The data which exists are collected at the national and state level for some of them and for some data set the data exists at the national level only, whereas for the Indicator 4.6.1, the data set is of the order of city. And the disaggregation issue prevails here as well, so to sort data based on the given parameter one has to consult NSSO sample survey or derive from the existing data.

Data Not Available:

Indicator 4.7.1: Percentage of 15-year old students enrolled in secondary school demonstrating at least a fixed level of knowledge across a selection of topics in environmental science and geo science. The exact choice/range of topics will depend on the survey or assessment in which the indicator is collected. Disaggregation: sex and location
Indicator 4.a.1: Percentage of schools with access to (i) electricity; (ii) Internet for pedagogical purposes; (iii) computers for pedagogical purposes; (iv) adapted infrastructure and materials for students with disabilities; (v) single-sex basic sanitation facilities; (vi) basic hand washing facilities

Goal #05: Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls

Gender as a social construct has been deprived of equality and equity, therefore, achieving equality and empowering women and girls lays down the path for an inclusive development. In this direction, to monitor the goal 5, data is available for eleven indicators and do not exist for three indicators out of fourteen indicators. However, the Indicator 5.3.2, is not relevant as India does not acknowledge FGM/C. Also, for most of the indicators, the data need to be derived from the given dataset.

For most of the data, the data is collected at the National or state level. Whereas for the Indicator 5.a.1, the data is available at the district/tehasil level and it is based on Agricultural census of India, carried out once in five years.

The collection of data is annual in most cases, decennial in the cases of NFHS data, quinquennial with regard to data on land ownership and rights based on gender. Also, in cases of proportion of women in parliament or number of legal framework – domestic/international, the frequency cannot be determined as its subject to change.

Regarding openness, though data exists, the data is not available to access freely. These data are either from NSSO sample survey and NFHS. For most of the indicators the data exists in general without disaggregation, but, as the goal demands sex based disaggregation, we need to derive from the existing data.

Data Not Available:

Indicator 5.3.2: Percentage of girls and women aged 15-49 who have undergone female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C), by age group (for relevant countries only)
Indicator 5.6.2. Number of countries with laws and regulations that guarantee women aged 15-49 access to sexual and reproductive health care, information and education
Indicator 5.c.1: Percentage of countries with systems to track and make public allocations for gender equality and women’s empowerment

Goal #06: Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all

Water is a life giving source, but ensuring water and sanitation in a sustainable way is a challenge indeed. Data is available for all the ten indicators to monitor the goal 6. While for most of the indicators the data has to be derived from the given data set or from other data set. The data set available are in absolute numbers, need to modify as per the indicators.

The data is collected annually for most of the indicators, however, for the indicators, Indicator 6.3.2: Percentage of water bodies with good ambient water quality; Indicator 6.4.1: Percentage change in water use efficiency over time, the data pertains to the specific year, without a time series.

Three of the data are measured at the state level, one at the district level – Indicator 6.2.1, and another at the level of cities – Indicator 6.3.1. For most of the indicators, the data are from international agencies like WHO, UNEP, FAO, etc.

The data for four of the indicators are not freely accessible on the public domain, though data exists. Also, for the Indicator 6.a.1, the available data is not specific to it, but gives an overview. Overall, for the close monitoring of the goal 6, the granularity of the data should be at the district/block level, and must be freely accessible.

Goal #07: Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all

Energy is considered one of the basic needs of human life, therefore, providing energy which is reliable and affordable has to ensure sustainability and the kind of energy being produced. The data exists for five of the indicators out of six indicators, however, the data does not exist for one of the indicators. The data for two of the indicators – Indicator 7.2.1, Indicator 7.3.1, have to be derived from the given data set.

For most of the data, the data is collected annually and the data is collected at the national level. However, as to the data availability for the Indicator 7.2.1, the data is available at the state level.

To arrive at the required indicator, there is a dependency over other dataset. Though most of the data are available, for three of the indicators – Indicator 7.2.1: Renewable energy share in the total final energy consumption (%); Indicator 7.3.1. Energy intensity (%) measured in terms of primary energy and GDP; Indicator 7.a.1: Mobilized amount of USD per year starting in 2020 accountable towards the US 100 billion commitment, the data is not freely accessible.

Data Not Available:

Indicator 7.b.1. Ratio of value added to net domestic energy use, by industry

References

[1] "Indicators and a Monitoring Framework for the Sustainable Development Goals." Sustainable Development Solutions Network. March 20, 2015. Accessed February 16, 2016. http://unsdsn.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/150320-SDSN-Indicator-Report.pdf.

[2] "A World That Counts - Mobilising the Data Revolution for Sustainable Development." Report. Independent Expert Advisory Group Secretariat, 2014. Accessed February 19, 2016. http://www.undatarevolution.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/A-World-That-Counts.pdf.

[3] Walker, Stephen, and Jose M. Alonso. "Data Will Only Get Us so Far. We Need It to Be Open." World Economic Forum. January 29, 2016. Accessed February 16, 2016. http://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/data-will-only-get-us-so-far-we-need-it-to-be-open.

Author

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/monitoring-sustainable-development-goals-in-india-availability-and-openness-01

MongoDB startup hired by Aadhaar got funds from CIA VC arm

praskrishna — 2013-12-13T11:53:32Z

Two weeks ago, Max Schireson, chief executive of MongoDB, a New York-based technology startup, was in New Delhi to sew up a very important contract for his company — with the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI).

The article by Lison Joseph was published in the Economic Times on December 3, 2013. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

The contract is yet to be announced but what could raise eyebrows is the fact that MongoDB is part-funded by the US' Central Intelligence Agency.

The company is expected to help in capturing and analysing data related to the ambitious plan to issue a unique identity number — Aadhaar — to over a billion citizens.

MongoDB, which makes software that helps manage large databases, especially unstructured data, has raised $231 million (Rs1,400 crore) since being founded in 2007. Some of its funding is from In-Q-Tel, the not-for-profit venture capital arm of CIA.

While MongoDB lists In-Q-Tel as one of its investors on its website, the company has not disclosed the quantum of funding received from it. The fund's stated mission is to identify, adapt and deliver innovative technology solutions to support the missions of CIA and the broader US intelligence community.

Besides CIA, In-Q-Tel works with National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency and Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Directorate.

"Once an investment is made, IQT (the fund) works with the company and the intelligence community partner agency to complete a work program and facilitate solution delivery," the fund's website said. The quote describes IQT's relationship with any company in which it invests in and is not specific to MongoDB.

Neither UIDAI nor MongoDB responded to queries from ET on whether the CIA link was considered before entering into a partnership. UIDAI Chairman Nandan Nilekani did not respond to emails, messages and phone calls.

A senior UIDAI official confirmed the agency has entered into an agreement with MongoDB and that the company's database software is already being used for analysing the pace at which registration of new beneficiaries is taking place.

It is not clear if MongoDB's vendor relationship would be with UID directly or with one of the system integrators that UID works with. Schireson, the CEO, was also one of the national co-chairs for Technology for Obama, an interest group that campaigned for the reelection of President Barack Obama after his first term.

There is no evidence in the public domain that the firm is controlled or significantly influenced by the CIA in any manner.

But the revelations of Edward Snowden, a former NSA contractor-turned-whistleblower that US intelligence agencies routinely intercepted communication in Europe and Asia, including in India has raised concerns. Experts said the UID's centralised design could pose a risk, where even a single mistake can make the whole system disproportionately vulnerable.

"The risk exposure because of CIA involvement (could be that) if MongoDB is a data controller, then secret courts and secret court orders could be used to get access to the UID data," said Sunil Abraham, executive director at the Centre for Internet and Society.

He added that even if UIDAI is only using the source code without getting into a commercial relationship with MongoDB, they should audit the source code to check if CIA has introduced any back doors. "This is because Snowden has told us that the army of mathematicians working for the US government has compromised some standards even though they were developed in an open, participatory and transparent fashion." MongoDB, whose name is a play on the word humongous, competes with Oracle, IBM and Microsoft. It has around 320 employees and some 600 customers. At its latest round of $150 million in fund-raising in October, the company was valued at about $1.2 billion, according to Bloomberg. Other investors include Intel Capital, Salesforce-.com, Red Hat and Sequoia.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/economic-times-december-30-2013-lison-joseph-mongo-db-startup-hired-by-aadhar-got-funds-from-cia-vc-arm

Modi’s New Intellectual Property Rights Policy Will Only Benefit Players with Deep Pockets

sinha — 2016-05-28T16:02:54Z

The new policy fails to enact a balanced regime and instead is tilted in favour of rights-holders.

The article was published in Wire on May 21, 2016

In November 2014, five national governments wrote to the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) to inform the policy-making process of India’s first national intellectual property rights policy (IPR policy). The DIPP received 300 submissions from various other stakeholders, including NGOs and civil society, multinational companies, businesses and trade associations, cutting across various sectors. The policy-making process itself was marred by bizarre, unfair and unexplained steps such as the sudden disbanding of the first think tank put in charge for producing a draft policy, an opaque and long-drawn process of releasing a first draft, the leak of a near-complete final draft and no publication of responses (yet) of the 300 odd submissions that were made by stakeholders. Finally, the DIPP released the policy last week.

Despite the long and extensive drafting process, the policy is tilted in favour of right-holders, and places undue reliance on IPRs to stimulate innovation and growth. It obviously claims otherwise, but there are some fundamental flaws in the policy’s premise which render the DIPP’s claims meaningless. Delving briefly into the subject of IPRs, it is a matter of principle that a balanced intellectual property (IP) regime, i.e. a model that balances rights with adequate limitations/exceptions, contributes optimally to the holistic development and growth of the nation. Limitations or exceptions are flexibilities in the law, which cut down absolute monopoly conferred by IPRs, and ensure that use and sharing of knowledge for purposes such as research, education and access to medicines are not overridden by IP rightholders’ claims. The Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights agreement (TRIPS), which is the largest international agreement governing countries’ IPR regimes also promotes the use of these flexibilities to build balanced regimes. The policy does occasionally state its commitment to the TRIPS agreement and the Doha Declaration, but does not commit or spell out any new concrete steps. Thus, it fails to show any seriousness about upholding and promoting a ‘balanced’ regime – in stark comparison to the detailed and surgical manner in which it aims to raise awareness about IPRs and commercialise them.

Unfortunately for the policy, a myopic rationale captures the ambition of the document. The policy document states that, “The rationale… lies in the need to create awareness about the importance of IPRs as a marketable financial asset and economic tool.” As such, the policy fails to recognise the philosophy of welfare and balance embedded in IPRs: to ensure innovation, social, scientific and cultural progress and furtherance of access to knowledge. In all fairness, while the document pays a salutary tribute to objectives such as “achieve economic growth and socio-cultural development, while protecting public interest; also of advancing science and technology, arts and culture, traditional knowledge and biodiversity, transforming knowledge-owned into knowledge shared,” it never rises above its treatment of IPR as a tool to solely serve the interests of rights-holders.

The policy’s attempts to ‘create awareness’ about IPRs through massive outreach and promotion would perhaps be justified, if the singular aim was not the glorification of IPRs. This section implements several steps to induce positivity around IPRs in society to the extent of teaching young students about the benefits of IPRs, which is excessive. While I am of the opinion that awareness building may be important at research centres and industries, a lopsided rights-centric positive view of IPRs should not pass off for ‘awareness’. This is a dangerous view, and will only create a mad race to generate IP and acquire rights.

Chinese copycat?

Unfortunately, it appears that the government is indeed on board with this. I say this because the lopsided view was endorsed by senior Indian Patent Office and DIPP officials at a recent national conference. It is likely that the idea to use the IPR policy as a tool for ‘IPR indoctrination’ to result in staggering IPR generation came to the Indian government from their Chinese counterparts. In 1995, China started conducting elaborate training of its officers, researchers and students to popularise a generation of IPRs and last year the country received 10 lakh patent filings – an international record. At the conference, the officials were in awe of the Chinese statistics, and they were confident of catching up in the next few years. This despite the fact that in China, the race to patent innovations has only led to a proliferation of low value innovations in high numbers. Less than 1% of China’s patents are of intermediate or high value. Thus, China despite its high patent filings shows only a weak innovative performance. Globally, there is enough evidence to show that there is no positive correlation between patent filings and cumulative innovative performance of a country.

Further, the policy in its bid to maximise IPR generation goes to the extent of encumbering public-funded research by IPRs. It suggests that R&D institutions and academia reward researchers based on the degree of IPR creation, which would obviously lead to IPR-driven research. Such an approach would mean that research on less profiteering sectors in terms of IPR revenues would be neglected. Is this how we want our fledgling research and development sector to shape up?

It is disappointing to see how the DIPP has used the policy to strengthen administrative, enforcement and adjudicatory mechanisms for only trade protectionist purposes. The policy is also in contrast with steps taken by other government departments to foster access to knowledge and openness in domains traditionally encumbered by various barriers, including IPRs. For instance, the Department of Biotechnology, Department of Science and Technology has adopted an open access policy applicable to all researchers – this policy ensures that all publications resulting from publicly funded research will be made freely accessible. The Ministry of Law and Justice is in the process of finalising a suitable licence to enable the distribution and sharing of government data. This policy seems at odds, therefore, with other commons-oriented approaches adopted within the government itself.

Next up, pharma

India’s generic drug industry has been a saviour for providing affordable drugs worldwide. The most critical provision to ensure a check on ‘evergreening’ of patents is section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970. This provision along with compulsory licensing mechanism has been regularly attacked by big pharma. However, the policy does not mention or affirm its commitment to using such tools effectively. Moreover, the policy also misses an opportunity to stress on enforcement of form 27 filings by patent-holders. Form 27 filings demonstrate if a patent is being ‘worked’ in a territory or not, and if it is not worked adequately, a third party can apply for a compulsory licence. Both the Indian Patent Office and patent holders have largely neglected providing form 27 in a timely manner. The policy also over-reaches in certain areas. It mandates the creation of a separate offence for illegal duplication of films – which is completely unwarranted and redundant. The creation of a new criminal penalty for what essentially is infringement and already punishable (under Indian Copyright Act, 1957) comes directly from lobbying by movie studios.

Finally, while it is laudable that the policy aims to step up the efficiency of all concerned IPR offices, there is little to suggest that the policy is capable of nurturing and protecting a balanced IP regime. The flawed assumption of a linkage between IPR generation and cumulative innovation underpins the document, which should have no place in any national IPR policy. It is common knowledge that India had been under pressure from western governments and industry lobbies to ‘strengthen’ its IPR regime to the likes of matured economies and societies. India, a fast developing country, could have secured its unique developmental needs through a more balanced and nuanced IPR policy. But the changes that have taken place will largely benefit a small fraction of the ecosystem, one with deep pockets and great power.

Anubha Sinha is a programme officer at CIS. She works primarily on the Pervasive Technologies Project, and on other issues involving intellectual property law and openness.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/modi2019s-new-intellectual-property-rights-policy-will-only-benefit-players-with-deep-pockets

Mobilizing Online Consensus: Net Neutrality and the India Subreddit

Sujeet George — 2016-09-27T04:52:35Z

This essay by Sujeet George is part of the 'Studying Internet in India' series. The author offers a preliminary gesture towards understanding reddit’s usage and breadth in the Indian context. Through an analysis of the “India” subreddit and examining the manner and context in which information and ideas are shared, proposed, and debunked, the paper aspires to formulate a methodology for interrogating sites like reddit that offer the possibilities of social mediation, even as users maintain a limited amount of privacy. At the same time, to what extent can such news aggregator sites direct the ways in which opinions and news flows change course as a true marker of information generation responding to user inputs.

Introduction

It is almost an Internet truism that the comments section on any website is the cesspool that festers the basest of human instincts. Insults and abuses abound, users ‘call out’ each other’s opinions, their choice of words and, on a ~~bad~~ regular day, even each other’s parentage. The spectre of online anonymity, it has been suggested, affords the possibility of channelling opinion without being accountable for it. This is the more cynical outlook on how online opinion forums function; a viewpoint which although credible is limited as it sidelines the more engaging aspects of these forums. Such an interface dynamic has historically offered two modes of checks and balances: the original content to which users commented on was determined (and often written) by the administrators of the website, and in many cases the comments were moderated by those who ran the website.

Social news websites in the age of Web 2.0 have radically altered the means of production of content. By handing over to web-users the keys to the content generation storehouse, news aggregator websites like 4chan and Reddit have supposedly democratized the volume and direction of news flow. Users create (and recycle) content on which other users comment and add more content through memes, sharing of links, pictures and videos. Somewhere along the line, the original post (op) may trigger more specific discussions.

The content generated on a news aggregating website like Reddit can thus, theoretically, range across a broad spectrum. From discussions on current technology and sharing of world news to more specific conversations on gardening or anime, the website brings together diverse interests under a singular platform. Topic-based posts and discussions are categorised into subreddits, subcommunities which converge around similar interests. Thus, a subreddit like /r/cricket may serve as a platform for cricket enthusiasts to share news and views on the game. These subreddits together constitute Reddit as a whole. Only registered users can post submissions or comment on other posts, although unregistered users can access the submissions without being able to comment on them. Registered users can upvote and downvote both the posts submitted and the comments posted by other users.

Any registered Reddit user can create a subreddit to initiate submissions and discussions on a particular area of interest. Reddit has a series of default subreddits, including /r/AskReddit, /r/books, /r/history among others. When an unregistered user accesses the website they are likely to see the current top-voted posts from a combination of the default subreddits. The voting system is inextricably linked to visibility: the more the upvotes a post receives, the more likely it is to be top of the list on the self-proclaimed front page of the internet. The posts are thus sorted as a combination of top-voted submissions from an assortment of default subreddits. Comments on specific posts also follow a similar voting logic whereby users can upvote/downvote a specific comment based on how useful or relevant they find it to the original post. Registered users can curate their own page by subscribing to subreddits of their own interest, and unsubscribing from the default ones.

Being a registered user entails choosing a username under which a user’s submissions and comments are collated. Every user comment receives an aggregate score which is the sum of the upvotes and downvotes the comment has received. The cumulative comment scores for every user, called karma, is visible to every other user, and is often an indicator of the level of (in)activity of a specific user. Karma scores are the veritable fiat currency of the reddit space, with prolific users being visible on multiple popular threads attempting to scale their karma aggregate through comments that employ a combination of wit, hyperbole, cliché and outrage.

Reddit with its two-way dynamism—the users are the creators of content and the very people who comment on it—seemingly throws open the spectrum for content to be self-generated and moderated. Every subreddit has a set of moderators who attempt to maintain a modicum of direction amidst the chaos. Moderators are often users who are active on that particular subreddit, or have volunteered (or have been chosen by the subreddit community) to take up the task of maintaining the decorum and coherence of the subreddit. Reddit’s voting system, where users upvote and downvote submitted content, purports to ensure that the cream can constantly float above the morass. The infrastructural logic of Reddit—an algorithm that ensures that posts do not stagnate on the front page and get regularly refreshed by newer content—seeks to instill a participatory ethos where content created/submitted by users gains traction based on the extent of discussion that it generates among other users [1].

A characteristic of the reddit platform is the Ask Me Anything feature where notable individuals set a pre-determined time slot to answer questions raised by users of a subreddit community. The AMA format offers an interesting take on the possibilities of public engagement and publicity in the virtual domain. A unique feature of reddit, the popular AMAs are held on the default /r/IAMA subreddit. The earliest AMAs were coordinated by the founders as well as employees of the website; to an extent this is true even today although in recent times the public relations team of various celebrities have coordinated AMAs for their clients. It remains one of the most popular modes of user engagement, ironically functioning through external, mediated mechanisms. Most AMAs serve a dual purpose: celebrities offer to answer questions when they are ‘in the news’ or when they wish to publicize a new venture, which also serves as an endorsement of the popularity of the reddit platform in reaching out to a wide, primarily North American, audience. An early instance of an acknowledgement of the reach of the reddit platform was an AMA conducted by/for Barack Obama as he sought to be re-elected during the 2012 U.S. Presidential elections. Other notable ‘celebrity’ AMA sessions include those by Bill Gates, Madonna, and Edward Snowden. While celebrity AMAs remain a popular feature, the AMA format itself is utilised even by relatively less established personalities who have their own unique story to share. While /r/IAMA remains the default subreddit used to reach out to the reddit community, specific subreddits often conduct their own AMAs with personalities relevant to the group.

The India subreddit /r/India, the forum for content “directly about India and Indians,” has been a part of Reddit since 2008. At the time of writing this essay there are over 55000 registered Reddit users (including this writer) who subscribe to submissions posted on /r/India. Of course, there may be many more who ‘lurk’ around, a term for those who may not have subscribed but view submissions posted on the subreddit by visiting the subreddit page. /r/India typically draws in over 2 million page views every month. Over time the community has developed a vocabulary of its own, which is often self-referential and draws on submissions and comments that have been made at an earlier time. Many prolific users with characteristic usernames are recognized by fellow users, the sociality perhaps further strengthened through the annual city-based meet-ups that are planned as part of a larger Reddit tradition.

This essay looks at the mobilization of community opinion on /r/India on the issue of net neutrality, the efforts made by some of the users to raise awareness about it, and the ways in which the community responded and reacted to a wider online movement that sought to maintain a more egalitarian approach to Internet access and availability. Drawing on an analysis of a few posts submitted during a period that witnessed a flurry of activity in connection with the debates around net neutrality in India, the essay attempts to sketch out the contours of the debate around the axis of online activity and participation. It seeks to ponder on the extent to which a forum like the India subreddit offers the possibilities of a civic participation, of mobilizing public opinion and contributing to the decisions undertaken by policy makers. How do purportedly diverse online communities interact, draw consensus and stake a claim to the decision-making processes that involve multiple stakeholders often with conflicting interests?

The Social in the Virtual Rear-view Mirror

The form of any subreddit, with its defined purpose and rules of submission, ensures a certain coherence even amidst the cornucopia of memes, images and other web links that may be shared and commented upon. The governing logic of a particular subreddit accords it a certain hue, which most users attempt to conform to or occasionally subvert. The specificity of any subreddit, thus, is a mutually constitutive process where the original tech-interface guidelines are negotiated by the content submitted by users of the subreddit.

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/4s5bpn/tragedy_of_india/.

User behaviour on new media platforms can be understood as a virtual manifestation of traits that are exhibited in the domain of the social in real life. Consider the discussion sparked off by a post that was submitted about 4 weeks back, and which has catapulted to the top of the all time top voted submissions on the subreddit [2]. It contrasts the shoddy construction by the Maharashtra government in 2013 of a section of a fort staircase, with the more stable lasting section built by Shivaji in the 17th century. The user who posted the image commented on the dubious nature of infrastructural work in the present day, blaming corruption for the disparity in the quality of work. Juxtaposing historical nostalgia with an apathy about the present state-of-affairs, the comments and discussions around the post veered from questions of the feasibility of implementing older construction methods, to the widespread nepotism and corruption prevalent in public work contracts in the present day. One user remarked, “I'm guessing Shivaji didn't hand out the contracts for building his forts to the lowest bidder.” Another chimed in that “[no] tender is clean. It's often created, mapped, prepared and executed by the company and middleman willing to shell out the most to the bureaucrats and politicians.”

A popular motif on many submissions on /r/India is a lamentation on the tangled mess between the bureaucracy and legislature. It extends the generic urban middle class antipathy towards governance and its deep suspicion of the probity of the administrative processes of the Indian State. One user-comment tried to explain the popularity of the submitted post—a common indicator of content popularity on Reddit is the number of upvotes it receives and the extent of user participation through comments—to the highly ‘relatable’ nature of the submission.

The character of an online forum, while being shaped by diverse user behaviour, is invariably crystallized by the more dominant modes of representation. The anonymity afforded by the online medium and the potential infinitude of the range of submissions should theoretically stretch the spectrum of representations. Yet user behaviour often conforms in a bid to confirm its own shared identity within the group. What is then understood as relatable is not necessarily a universal, but merely an accommodation of difference through consensus. In the following sections I attempt to make sense of the processes through which such a consensus is drawn by considering the trajectory of discussions on posts pertaining to debates on net neutrality [3].

The Anatomy of an Online Mobilization

The discussions around questions of net neutrality, Facebook’s Free Basics, differential data pricing, and restricted access to OTT services have captured the Indian public imagination in the last 18-odd months. Multiple consultation papers shared by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) have served as a rallying point for domain experts, media policy analysts and the general public. The series of consultation papers and the questions that have arisen over specific practices of telecom companies are imagined through the essay as a single event punctuated by temporal fissures. It has its own prehistory, a call to arms, and the eventual (fleeting) redemption. The differing discourse around the issue is contextually singular even if separated by chronology.

On February 8 this year, an /r/India user shared a news report about TRAI declaring zero-rated products as illegal [4]. Months of collaboration among faceless internet users had managed a key victory in what was repeatedly termed a battle to save the Internet. User comments highlighted the scale of the task accomplished as “a bunch of folks on the Internet [stopped] a $300 billion market cap corporation [Facebook] and a bunch of telecoms with strong lobbying capabilities.” Some users could not see past the irony of the Internet itself serving as a means for the public to halt rapacious tech companies in their stride. The David v/s Goliath analogy seemed apt. The task, though, had just begun, as one user presciently noted: “Mobilizing people is hard. Mobilizing people against a better funded lobby, and on a dry technical topic ? really hard. We are probably going to need a dedicated NGO, mailing lists, donations and members for this and similar issues.”

The debates surrounding net neutrality have sparked a diverse range of questions related to Internet access, differential pricing, restraints on technology, impediments to freedom of expression and questions of consumer choice. The range of issues and stakeholders encompassed within the policy regulation has simultaneously atomised and collectivised the problematic of Internet. As an increasingly everyday technology for many urban Indians, Internet usage has carried the possibility of innovative and easy access to a range of services and information while circumventing hitherto static structures of the administrative machinery. Internet usage in the Indian context can be regarded as both a symbol of egalitarianism and privilege; a conflation of the larger ideal of enterprise espoused by the technological boom and a reluctantly understated reflection of the very technology being of limited wider accessibility. The debates on Internet usage through the very medium thus contains some of the tensions that were echoed in the responses to the questions on net neutrality that were raised on the Indian subreddit.

These debates, circulating across news mediums both print and digital, found their way into the /r/India cosmos through efforts to raise awareness about the issue and to bring about a greater collective bargaining momentum to the efforts in the digital space. A post on December 25, 2014 announced the efforts being undertaken by various media practitioners through the creation of the website http://netneutrality.in/ which later became http://www.savetheinternet.in/ [5]. As a submission in the early life of the net neutrality event the post garnered enough attention to find its way into the vocabulary of the subreddit.

It was, however, not until three months later that perhaps the most comprehensive early exhortation came through a post titled Let's fight for Net Neutrality before it becomes necessary. E-Mail the TRAI now [6]. submitted on March 28, 2015 by one of the subreddit moderators. The post called for users to mail the TRAI and join in the efforts to influence upon policy makers on the need for a neutral Internet. User comments ranged from a creating email templates to a brief primer on the meaning and scope of net neutrality. That the public counter fight was still in the planning stage is evident in the numerous user comments volunteering to craft an email template to be sent.

The possibilities of a collaborative enterprise were much more evident in another mod-post, submitted on April 8, 2015 titled Fight for Net Neutrality: The way forward [7]. The post assembled the increasing momentum that the net neutrality movement had garnered in the Indian virtual space. Varying email templates to be shared among peer groups were presented, enterprising users created memes and infographics, while more sinister minds listed out companies that openly flouted net neutrality rules. The aim was not just to organise, but to also synchronize the efforts of a purportedly disparate group of users.

Even as user efforts were directed towards raising awareness about net neutrality among a wider audience, the sheer scale of the task and improbable hurdles on the road where highlighted by some. One post speculated on the connection between the timing of TRAI’s consultation paper and the fact that the Director of TRAI was due to retire in May 2015 [8]. The user feared that “the decision on TRAI proposal has already been made. The public is asked to comment on the OTT proposal because it is required by norm (not sure about law). They are waiting for Mr Khullar to retire, so they can blame him for the colossal backlash that will happen when the proposal is ratified.”

In the next few months the momentum of the movement ebbed and flowed, with diligent users posting regular updates on the progress. Even as the Internet rights discourse on the forum sought to be balanced with the logic of the market, there emerged a series of reactionary submissions that seemed to combine a distrust of large telecoms with the emancipatory spirit of a virtual civil disobedience.

Zero Rating the Zero-Rated Apps

Concurrent with the efforts at the level of governance, /r/India users employed creative means to show their displeasure towards companies who seemed to oppose the tenets of net neutrality. One such instance was when a user galvanised forum opinion to down-rate the Flipkart and Airtel apps on their phones. Flipkart CEO Sachin Bansal’s justification for zero-rated apps as sound business practice was turned inside-out as users gave a zero rating to the Flipkart app on their phones. The impact was ostensibly evident as the daily average ratings for the app saw a sharp fall [9].

Diatribes against telecom companies and their profit-driven enterprise have now become a regular feature on the forum. The mobile network Airtel, which has been at the forefront of the anti-net neutrality lobby, has faced its share of the community ire. Branded Chortel—an (un)imaginative coinage characterizing the supposed thieving policies of the company—the company along with Flipkart has been subject to a series of memes that invoke ridicule and hint at the sense of disconnect between consumers and the products on offer. The image shown above contrasts a popular biscuit brand Parle-G with the recently launched Airtel 4G Internet [10]. It employs Parle’s long unblemished reputation as a brand of reliability; its iconicity a signifier of a purported business of ethics that feels anachronistic in comparison to the business practices of the telecom companies.

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/3r25gr/chortel_four_g/.

The movement to generate awareness about Internet policy also sought to initiate dialogues with administrators who are in a position to ensure that the community’s voices are heard. Thus Independent Rajya Sabha member Rajeev Chandrasekhar did an AMA at the height of the net neutrality discussions [11]. Since the person doing the AMA can choose to answer or ignore from the range of questions posed by the community, the supposed mutuality of participation is often minimal. Nevertheless, Chandrasekhar’s AMA not just points to the interactive (propagandist) possibilities of reddit or any other social media platform but it also asserts the relevance of the medium as a significant domain where policy regulation impacts people whose voices need to be acknowledged. As an entrepreneur who has previously worked in the technology sector, Chandrasekhar symbolizes /r/India’s imagined ideal scenario of a ‘rule of experts’ in matters of governance. That a sitting MP would seek a dialogue with an online forum also hints at the relevance of such mobilizations, where enterprising tech-savvy politicians understand the potential to stir public action through the domain of the virtual.

Consensus in/and New Media

At one level, it could be suggested that the discussions which emerged on the India subreddit around the debates on net neutrality hint at the potentials of virtual mobilization of the public. Social media, the Internet and social networking forums like Reddit could potentially widen the level of information access and dissemination where the early groundwork has been laid by the RTI Act. But at stake in the whole discussion is not merely the extent to which an online community can modify the direction of a policy discourse. Even as the development of a ‘networked public sphere’ has transformed the means of consensus building, the elements of its discontent are difficult to ignore. The formation of a public sphere in a virtual environment presents the possibilities of conformity as much as of consensus.

The discourse around net neutrality on /r/India forum is notable for the wide-ranging consensus that it managed to appropriate from the community. Such a consensus could be interpreted in at least two ways. The form of any subreddit as a forum for all things related to a specific context—be it a common activity, nationality, gender identity—contains within itself the language of adequate acceptance and rebuttal. At the same time, the algorithmic technique of determining the visibility of a post through upvotes and downvotes renders real the possibility of consensus through conformity.

It is more interesting to look beyond the veneer of consensus and question the supposed diversity of the group and its implications, rather than infer collective action as a signifier of the rightness of the action. One could suggest that the terms of the debate, of limiting the control that mega-telecos wield over internet policy in India, offered an easy medium to galvanise opinion on the subreddit. Any nuanced stance will however need to read collective action in relation to the (im)possibility of individual opinion-making in a structured environment of an online forum.

An online platform with a voting system linked to visibility offers a peculiar type of consensus. A majority of the top-voted submissions and comments pertaining to the net neutrality debate on /r/India fall within a broad overlap of consensus linked to a participatory, egalitarian technological ethos which is characteristic of the post-liberalization Indian milieu. The possibility of dissent, or even voicing differing viewpoints, is structured in a limited spectrum since what will be shared/read is inextricably linked to what users understand as acceptable within the forum. Such an understanding can inadvertently suggest a consensus, or worse offer a monochromatic presentation of an issue. This is not to discount the possibility of informed discussion, or exaggerate the ‘hive mind’ of reddit. But the link between visibility and popularity of content often ensures that the nuances of a debate get sidelined and unidimensional. Thus, even though aspects of differential pricing may be understood as a means to wider access, or as a way to open Internet services to the vagaries of the market rather than State whims, such viewpoints find less credibility when articulated within a forum like /r/India [12]. While discussions may emerge which consider the issue beyond the limited rhetoric of free speech and consumer choice, they often get presented in the ‘anti net neutrality’ garb or as afterthoughts to a debate the terms of which have ostensibly been settled [13].

Communicative technologies, as Lisa Gitelman notes, often converge around an overlapping mental landscape that seeks to make sense of an act/event through synchronized ontologies of representation. Consensus in such an instance is not to be seen as a final validation of the community’s stance on an issue. It should prompt us to be wary of the pitfalls of online mobilization that could be travelling in an echo chamber. The task then would not be to debunk actions drawn on consensus, but to be aware of the limits of inclusivity of such online forums [14]. Further research has to consider ways in which individual users negotiate the possibility of presenting an individual stance to the community within interface-induced limitations to the possibility of such an enunciation. This would involve interviews with a pool of /r/India users, examine the types of news outlets and viewpoints that gain credence within the community, look at voting patterns, and perhaps undertake a more thorough examination of a wider range of concerns relevant to the community. This essay has attempted a preliminary gesture towards such an endeavour by picking a particular event and the community’s response to it. Reddit, in contrast to Facebook for instance, offers the possibility of peering into an online space where anonymity commingles with community enterprise and the meaning of accountability is extended beyond individual motive of mere sociality or recognition. As such, it could potentially offer an understanding of online behaviour beyond the limits of the individual-liberal paradigm of action orientation and widen the debate on the functioning of social news websites by being acutely aware of the thin line between the individual and the social.

Disclaimer

The writer has been a frequent lurker on Reddit, and the India subreddit since 2011. Beyond voraciously consuming the submissions on /r/India he does not claim to have contributed in any meaningful manner to the online discussions referred to in the essay.

Endnotes

[1] The literature on reddit is a fast growing domain, with innovative research looking at Reddit’s voting patterns, user behaviour, and news outlets linked to glean an understanding of the news aggregating website. For an examination of questions of identity and anonymity on Reddit see, Shelton, M., Lo, K., Nardi, B. (2015). Online Media Forums as Separate Social Lives: A Qualitative Study of Disclosure Within and Beyond Reddit. In iConference 2015 Proceedings. For an engagement with questions on what motivates Reddit user to contribute see, Bogers, T., & Nordenhoff Wernersen, R. (2014). How 'Social' are Social News Sites? Exploring the Motivations for Using Reddit.com. In Proceedings of the iConference 2014. (pp. 329-344). IDEALS: iSchools.

[2] See: https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/4s5bpn/tragedy_of_india/. Last accessed on August 2, 2016. Unless stated otherwise, all links posted hereafter have also been accessed on the same day.

[3] My understanding of social media and the social dimension of new media has been shaped from my reading of Dijck, José Van. The Culture of Connectivity: A Critical History of Social Media. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. For an examination of social media practices see, Ellison, N. B. & boyd, d. (2013). Sociality through Social Network Sites. In Dutton, W. H. (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Internet Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 151–172.

[4] See: https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/44qddb/trai_to_make_zero_rated_products_illegal/.

[5] See: https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/2qcvhp/i_created_a_site_to_educate_people_about_airtel/.

[6] See: https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/30lz1p/lets_fight_for_net_neutrality_before_it_becomes/.

[7] See: https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/31vvf2/fight_for_net_neutrality_the_way_forward/.

[8] See: https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/322iv8/trai_asking_for_feedback_on_their_proposal_is_a/. For Kullar’s own views on the issue, see: http://thewire.in/1624/lets-be-practical-about-net-neutrality/.

[9] See: https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/31ykxj/flipkart_and_airtel_are_fucking_with_your/.

[10] See: https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/3r25gr/chortel_four_g/.

[11] See: https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/387req/hi_rindia_i_am_rajeev_chandrasekhar_member_of/.

[12] CIS’s note on its position on net neutrality points to the multilayered nature of the policy: http://www.hindustantimes.com/columns/net-neutrality-war-is-not-just-facebook-versus-internet-mullahs/story-s9eZpZnomaaiz4De8fYfaK.html. Last accessed on September 9, 2016.

[13] Consider the discussions that emerged in two separate posts: https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/31peb4/lets_respond_to_this_anti_net_neutrality_piece/ and https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/336u8f/woke_up_to_this_pro_internetorg_article_in/.

[14] Gitelman, Lisa. Always Already New: Media, History and the Data of Culture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2006. Especially chapter 3.

Author Profile

Sujeet George has an M.Phil from the Centre for Studies in Social Sciences, Calcutta. His research interests are in histories of science and commodities, and new media and digital humanities. He has previously worked with the Mumbai City Museum and The Southasia Trust.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/raw/blog_mobilizing-online-consensus-net-neutrality-and-the-india-subreddit

Mobile education comes to villages

praskrishna — 2011-05-30T05:49:27Z

PEOPLE living in remote villages, trekking many miles to schools and colleges before dropping out, can now look forward to a tech option — mobile education. Education over mobile phones is vital in India, where the literacy rate according to 2011 census is 74.04 per cent, observers note. This article by Shayan Ghosh was published in Mail Today on May 27, 2011.

India has 791 million mobile subscribers according to regulatory body TRAI with a significant share in villages. That is the target group several start- ups and educational institutions are looking at.

Indira Gandhi National Open University ( IGNOU) based in New Delhi, is taking a lead in the matter. “ The technology is pretty new in India and we are planning to implement things like SMS alerts to students and coursespecific databases,” K. R. Srivathsan, pro vice- chancellor, IGNOU, said.

"It will definitely change the scenario of education in rural India," noted Srivathsan.

"All possible components required in a learning cycle including auditory, visual, reading, writing, collaboration, interaction, recording and computing," Amit Zaveri, CEO, EnableM, a company that delivers education through mobile devices, said.

"In rural areas the challenges for delivery of learning content & services are many including physical distances ( to institutes etc.), lack of teachers, no or limited access to standardised & branded content, time & cost constraints, limited capability for peer assessments, lack of skills development facilities for employability," Zaveri added.

Mig33, a Singapore- based mobile social network is hopeful that the mobile revolution could actually mean impart education to all.

"Mobile phones have moved from being phone devices to communication devices. With the advent of 3G, this is going to become bigger and better.

Also tablets are expected to play very effective role in this," Mohit Gundecha, India operations head, Mig33, said.

"With 3G the video clips can help educate, smart apps can help people learn, good sms apps can engage audiences about education concepts. We already see a host of companies coming in to take care of the hardware aspects and digital content to match the need," Gundecha explained.

According to Vikram Nagaich, director and founder, InnovateEdu, on one side, with mobile phones the content the reach of the content could be very wide. However, the efficacy would have to be delivered through extremely innovative and sophisticated content.

"Mobiles can penetrate better as they have things in favour like better battery life and people do not need any training to operate it. This gives it an upper hand over computers," Sunil Abraham, ED, Center for Internet and Society, said.

The Tech Option

Education over mobile phones is vital in India, where the literacy rate according to the 2011 census is 74.04 per cent, observers note.

With a significant share in villages, this is the target group several start- ups and educational institutions are looking at Indira Gandhi National Open University ( IGNOU) based in New Delhi, is taking a lead in the matter.

In rural areas, challenges regarding delivery of learning content & services are many and include physical distances, lack of teachers, limited access to standardised content.

Mobile phones have moved from being phone devices to communication devices. With 3G, this is going to become better.

Read the original story here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/mobile-education-villages

Mobile Broadband: Leveraging for Business Transformation

praskrishna — 2013-01-15T08:40:21Z

Mobile India 2013 is being held at the Chancery Pavillion, Bangalore on 9 January 2013. Sunil Abraham is speaking at this event.

Mobile India 2013 is the one of the first premier conferences and will be the curtain raiser for Mobile Broadband revolution in the country. It is associated with The Fifth International Conference on COMmunication Systems NETworkS (COMSNETS), the world’s premier international conference on networking and communications technology innovation.

Keynote Speeches

Keynote - 1: Prof. Bhaskar Ramamurthi , Director, IIT Madras will deliver the joint keynote speech for COMSNETS 2013 and Mobile India 2013.
Keynote - 2 : Sanjay Nayak , Chief Executive Officer & Managing Director, Tejas Networks. Tejas Networks.

Mobile India 2013 will try to unravel the mysteries in the following sessions.

Session 1: Enterprises on the move

"For a preview, read http://yourstory.in/2012/12/enterprises-on-the-move/ "

Enterprises are exploring ways to leverage the power of smart devices, the cloud, and broadband to be agile, flexible, and productive. The IT managers in organizations are challenged to support variety of devices (viz. BYOD) within the organization, at the same time providing the required organizational security and performance support to the employees. This session will deliberate on the challenges and opportunities of today's networked world for enterprises on the move.

Panelists: Ashvin Vellody , Director - Management Consulting, KPMG India; Dr. K.K. Ramakrishnan , Distinguished Member of the Technical Staff, AT&T Labs Research, USA; Puneet Gupta , AVP and Head of Mobility Research, Infosys SET Labs; Sai Pratyush, Head-Enterprise Products, Tata Teleservices; E. Manikandan , Head-Channels and Alliances, Ramco Systems; Umesh Sachdev , Co-founder and CEO, Uniphore ; Yathish, L, N. , CTO, Huawei Technologies

Moderator: Swami Krishnan , VP and Head-Marketing, Sasken Communication Technologies

Session 2: Massively Open Online Education

"For a preview, read http://yourstory.in/2012/12/massively-open-online-education/ ".

Online and Internet based education has permeated in to schools and colleges today. Massively Open On-line Course (MOOC) initiatives such as National Programme on Technology Enhanced Learning (NPTEL) in India and those by leading institutions such as MIT and Stanford in the US are democratizing education and making it available globally over the Internet. In India, the Government has been an early adopter and both academia and industry have begun taking this initiative further. However, limited access to wired broadband and computers have restricted reach for providing online education. Can the ubiquitous mobile solve this problem?
In this session, experts will deliberate in detail on the opportunities and challenges in providing education through mobile networks and wireless devices. Are these scalable and monetizable? What are the implications for traditional educational methodologies? What are the transformations this will bring to the publishing industry?

Panelists: Dr. Gautam Shroff , VP and Chief Scientist, TCS; Srikanth B. Iyer , COO, Pearson Education Services; Rohit Kumar , MD, Elsevier India; Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, Centre for Internet and Civil Society; Arun Prabhudesai , CTO, myopencourses.com

Moderator: Prof. D. Manjunath , Professor, IIT Bombay

Session 3: Innovation Workshop

In the concluding session of the day, a workshop on mobile innovations will be conducted wherein several start-up firms will show case their unique innovations in the mobile space and share their experiences on ideation, fund mobilization, monetization models, and scale-up for sustainability.

Panelists: MintM ( Sachin Garg , Founder); Robots Alive ( Abheek Bose , Founder); Twaang
( Vishnu Raned , Founder); JanaCare , ( Sidhant Jena , Co-founder), AstralPad (Rahul Singh)
Moderator: Madanmohan Rao , Director-Research, Yourstory.in

Event Chairs

Dr. V. Sridhar (sridhar.varadharajan@sasken.com), Sasken Communication Technologies, India
S.R. Raja (rajaraghavan.setlur@sasken.com)

Register here for Mobile India 2013

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/mobile-india-2013

Mobile Apps Are Excluding Millions Of Indians Who Want To Use Them

nirmita — 2016-09-24T16:01:45Z

If someone were to ask you how many apps you use in a day, you might need to stop and count. You use apps to book cabs, to order groceries, make payments online, buy diapers, connect with friends... the list goes on. In fact apps, are becoming so intrinsic to daily life that without one handy you may have to think twice about how to complete a transaction.

The article was published in the Huffington Post on September 22, 2016.

Apps are uncomplicated, easy to use, at your finger tips and quick. So logically, everyone who has a smartphone should be using them, right? Unfortunately, that is not the case. Much as they would like to, millions of persons living with disabilities are unable to use apps to fulfil their daily living needs. This is because most apps are not accessible to users with a visual disability.

With about 30% of the blind population of the world living in India, it's imperative for service providers to give more thought to universal design and accessibility standards.

In order for an app to be accessible for a blind user, it should be readable by a screen reader -- software which reads out whatever appears on the screen. For it to function effectively, elements on web pages and applications should be properly labelled, otherwise the software will be unable to decipher what it is, not having any cognitive abilities like human beings. It will merely read out the element out as "button" or "graphic".

Here I will look at five very popular apps relating to food, groceries, transportation and mobile bill payment and banking to see how accessible they are for people with disabilities. These apps were tested using Talk Back, an open source Android screen reader.

1. Swiggy

The first app we looked at was Swiggy, which is used to order food from nearby restaurants. Here, the first screen, which shows the discounts/offers available, uses a graphics banner without alternative text, which cannot be deciphered by a screen reader. Another issue is inaccessible navigation. For instance, though we can select a food category like "soup", choosing a particular type of soup is not possible as the focus simply stays on the main category. This means a screen reader cannot read the rest of the information, making it impossible for a visually challenged person to order food.

2. Big Basket

Then we tried Big Basket to order some groceries. One of the issues we found included unlabelled banners; also, the continuous scrolling of the banner, which makes the screen reader try to constantly read the next unlabelled graphic, renders the app practically unusable. When we navigated to the list of products available, only their names were readable and the focus could not be shifted to information like price and quantity. This means the user can add items to the basket, but has no way of knowing the price or deciding the quantity, which obviously makes the app a no-go.

3. Ola

The taxi-hailing app Ola is fairly accessible, with some scope for improvement. The button to pinpoint the location is not labelled, and while trying to select a cab category the focus moves away automatically if there is no action in a few seconds. Hence, a person with vision impairments may need some assistance to use the app.

4. MyAirTel

This app for Airtel customers was found to have limited usability, with several accessibility issues. Many buttons, including Settings and Information are not labelled and hence are not readable by screen readers. The offers and discounts banner is also not labelled and keeps on moving, sending the screen reader into a loop saying "graphic". However, viewing unbilled/billed amounts and paying bills is easy, as those screens are well labelled and use minimal graphic controls.

5. ICICI - Pockets

This digital wallet app from ICICI bank was tested using an ICICI bank internet banking login and unfortunately found to be completely inaccessible for a person using a screen reader. There is no screen reader support and consequently no auditory feedback when using slides or touching the screen. One can tap and access the menus/options but they are not focusable and are not announced by the screen reader.

Over the past few years we have seen how corporates have embraced technological innovations and helped better the lives of common Indians. However, a more inclusive approach will help people with disabilities to enjoy the best technology has to offer, and lead a more independent life. It would be pertinent to mention at this point that the inaccessibility of apps is not a phenomenon which is particular to the ones reviewed above, but a common feature across stakeholder groups, including private and government agencies. With about 30% of the blind population of the world living in India, it's imperative for service providers engaging consumers through information and communication technologies to give more thought to universal design and accessibility standards. It would truly make a difference in the lives of many Indians.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/accessibility/blog/huffington-post-september-22-2016-nirmita-narasimhan-mobile-apps-are-excluding-millions-of-indians-who-want-to-use-them

Mobile App Developer Series: Terms of Agreement – Part IV

samantha — 2015-04-03T08:26:27Z

The following is Part Four in a series reporting on interviews conducted with 10 of Bangalore's mobile app developers and other industry stakeholders. Through this research, CIS attempts to understand how the developers interviewed engage with the law within their practice, particularly with respect to IP. Here we examine different attitudes and work practices related to contracts agreements and developer culture in the legal realm.

We left off in our blog series considering the reported reasons why one would protect their mobile app by intellectual property means and how they relate back to (or contradict) their values as a mobile app developer in India. Here, we would like to get into more of the nitty gritty of contracts—which clauses are most important to mobile app developers, and what they think of them—followed by a cultural interpretation of the dynamics of this developer community with respect to contracts, and then lastly, a look at copyright, more generally.

Contracts in mobile app developing services

Previously, we shed light on the tendency for mobile app developers, in India particularly, to create mobile apps or mobile app components for clients, often overseas, within a work-for-hire agreement. Within such an agreement, the rights to (or ownership over) one's work is generally handed over to the client the moment the code comes into creation. Simply put, if paid to carry out a particular project, whatever is created within the project belongs to the client.

This is not the only instance where we encounter contract agreements in the mobile app ecosystem, however. For startups where team players are small in number, it is likely that all will have access to any contract agreements entered into with clients. For larger corporate software developer firms, there may be a specialized department for legal-related matters. In such cases, the mobile app developers themselves would seldom lay eyes on the legalese of contracts, for the primary reason being that it doesn't concern them. Instead, the terms of agreement more familiar to them would be those that they obliged to upon working for their employer.

However, after conversing with multiple stakeholders within India's mobile app space, what we came into understanding is that the importance of contract agreements for mobile app developers may be generally underestimated by the developers—both from within the startup to the corporate employer.

Clauses of caution

Within a work-for-hire agreement, it is commonplace for developers to enter into restrictive agreements that obstruct the freedoms of what they can do with the code created for the client. Across interviews with developers in startups and SMEs working for clients, this seemed to be a prevalent problem. Problematic areas proved to be those related to the time periods in which the developer was not allowed to take up future work for competing clients (i.e. the non-compete clause), or could not talk about their work for the client at all (the “quiet period”).

Designer, Rahul Gonsalves explains how these areas of their contracts with clients may impact his team at Uncommon: “The non-compete and the quiet periods are the two bits which are most germane to us, because if I can’t do work for a year in the same area, that impacts my ability to run my company.” Fortunately, Gonsalves says that less frequently are they obliged into quiet periods—in which they would not be able to talk about the work they do for their clients—as this poses an even bigger problem when trying to keep a portfolio for prospective clients, or when writing or speaking on behalf of their experience at conferences.

On several occasions Gonsalves and his team have tried to license their work to clients while retaining ownership... without much luck. “Clients typically do not want a perpetual license, but complete ownership.” Gonsalves goes on in explaining that, “this means they could make a derivative work or use it for another project. Depending on how bad we want the project, we'll work out some middle ground.” But it does not seem to be so easy for he and his SME to do so: “The thing about contracts is it’s all about a sort of differential bargaining power that the two parties have... you’ll have very little control about what happens once you’ve got paid.”

“The thing about contracts is it’s all about a sort of differential bargaining power that the two parties have... you’ll have very little control about what happens once you’ve got paid.”

Contract confusion

To have any sort of bargaining power within a work-for-hire arrangement requires a lot of time for negotiating, and the space for communication to begin with. In many cases, contracts may not even be introduced into a work agreement, leaving a lot of intricacies to the unknown.

“Getting these things down in a legal document is a big deal. It matters,” says Aravind Krishnaswamy of Levitum. The topic came up while speaking about the process of creating the content for one of his startup's apps, which entailed arranging contracts with several third parties involved in. Krishnaswamy and his team did so to ensure that they retained ownership (or co-ownership) over all of the content featured within their app, which features instructional videos on Indian music.

Another developer interviewed, Naveen*, shared with us his experience coming out of college and into employment. Upon joining his first employer, who happened to be a large company, he along with the new “batch” of employees attended a legal session within their training, “but that was Greek and Latin to us then,” he jokes. “We were fresh out of college and had no idea what a software license was... and it was after lunch, so everyone was sleeping.”

Lucky for Naveen, he didn't need to deal with that area too much, as his employer had a legal team to take care of such matters when it came to transactions with clients or third parties. For his current employer, on the other hand, Naveen explained that he could not recall the terms of his employment, as it had been a very long time ago when he signed his employment contract.

Not a contract culture?

Naveen suggests that the problem is one of contract-illiteracy, or simply not having the background knowledge to truly understand the legal facets of the industry, especially as you move away from India's entrepreneurial hubs: “In tier 1 cities, like Bangalore or Chennai, the colleges and students do have some knowledge about open source, licensing and terms, but when you go to tier 2 cities, that's where the problem is.”

But is anyone contract-literate anyway? With the exception of lawyers or legal departments, of course, don't we all have the immediate impulse to click “Next” or sign our signature as soon as we see the words “User Agreements” followed by infinite paragraphs in the smallest font?

However, for the developer in the increasingly-complex mobile app space with numerous parties and transactions involved, terms of contractual agreements may dictate everything from whether one can develop for competing clients, to whether an employee can contribute to open source projects on their own time. Still think that reading those clauses are a waste of time?

We are not arguing that the fact that the developer community seems to be far removed from “contract culture” is in itself a bad thing. As Jayant Tewari of Outsourced CFO & Business Advisory Services asserts: “How mobile app developers regard IP laws—or better yet, disregard—is fine for their sake.” What they must instead learn is to maneuver the landscape to avoid troubles as best as possible.

A good way of going about it, however, may be to begin with the agreements that a developer is already committed to—with clients, employers, and third parties, alike. One should be able to articulate: What is expected of me? Within what limitations? What am I not allowed to do?

Better familiarizing oneself with one's own responsibilities and commitments may be the first step for a mobile app developer to educating him- or herself and become aware of what sort of choices could stir about conflicts in the future, potentially threatening their relationships, reputation, or even livelihood.

But is it even possible to comply to all of the rules of the game?

Within such an overcrowded industry, creation and innovation does not occur in a vacuum, and as a result, many may adjust their own creations as they see fit, according to whatever ways are most convenient and carry out the best function. But at what cost—or more appropriately, what risk?

The next, and final of this blog series will shed light on responses given across interviews to the question of infringement. Here, we intend to connect the dots between the legal practices of mobile app developers and cases of infringement. We hope that after examining such numerous and wide sweeping—yet interconnected—facets of how mobile app developers in India engage with the law within their work, we will be able to comprehensively illustrate the role that these developers play in this economy, and ultimately, pass judgement on the laws that govern this space.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/mobile-app-developer-series-terms-of-agreement-iv

Mobile Accessibility Practices

praskrishna — 2017-04-11T14:50:48Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/accessibility/files/mobile-accessibility-practices.pdf

MLATs and the proposed Amendments to the US Electronic Communications Privacy Act

Vipul Kharbanda and Elonnai Hickok — 2016-12-28T01:09:34Z

In continuance of our blog post on mutual legal assistance treaties (MLATs), we examine a new approach to international bilateral cooperation being suggested in the United States, by creating a mechanism for certain foreign governments to directly approach the data controllers.

Published under Creative Commons License CC BY-SA. Anyone can distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon this document, even for commercial purposes, as long as they credit the creator of this document and license their new creations under the terms identical to the license governing this document.

In the previous article on MLATs we discussed, in some detail, what MLATs are and why they are needed. One area which was briefly focused upon in that article was the limitations and criticisms of the MLAT mechanism, of which one of the main criticisms being the problems caused due to different legal standards in various jurisdictions as well as the time taken to process a request for information sent from one country to another. Talking specifically about the United States, where most internet companies are headquartered and hold large amounts of data, it typically takes months to process requests under MLATs and foreign governments often struggle to comprehend and comply with the legal standards in the United States for obtaining data for use in their investigations.[1] The requirement that a foreign government should take permission from, and comply with the requirements of a foreign government simply because the data needed happens to be controlled by a service provider based in a foreign country strikes many foreign law enforcement officials as damaging to security and law enforcement efforts, especially when they are requesting data pertaining to a crime between two of their own citizens that primarily took place on their soil.[2]

These inefficiencies of the MLAT process lead to further problems of foreign governments attempting to apply their search and surveillance laws in an extraterritorial manner for example in 2014 the UK passed the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act, 2014 with gives the government the power to directly access data from foreign service providers if sought for specific purposes and the request is approved by the Secretary of State or other specified executive branch official.[3] Another response that may occur is if, frustrated by such inefficiencies of the existing systems, courts in foreign states start assuming extra territorial jurisdiction, as happened when a District Court in Vishakhapatnam restrained Google from complying with a subpoena issued by the Superior Court of California, ordering Google to share the password of the Gmail account belonging to an Indian citizen residing in Vishakhapatnam.[4]

Solution proposed in the United States

In order to overcome these inefficiencies, at least in the American context, the Department of Justice has proposed a legislation which seeks to make the process of foreign governments getting information from US based entities more streamlined by amending the provisions of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) of the United States (the “Amendment”). These amendments have been proposed primarily for the US and UK to effectuate a proposed bilateral agreement whereby the UK government will be able to approach US companies directly with requests for information without going through the MLAT process or getting an order from a US court.

The Amendment seeks to ensure that requests from foreign governments for information from US entities get answered in a smooth manner by including those requests in the process for seeking information under the ECPA itself. This move would no doubt, make it easier for foreign governments to access data in the US, but such a move can be criticized on the ground that it would then allow all states, irrespective of their legal standards of privacy, etc. to get access to such information. This problem has been overcome in the amendment by adding a new section to Title 18 which would allow the Attorney General, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State to certify to the Congress that the legal standards in the contracting state which is being given access to the mechanism under the ECPA satisfies certain requirements specified in the chapter (and discussed below). Only after such a certification has been received by the Congress, a contracting state would be able to receive the benefits sought to be granted under the Amendment.

It is important to note that the US administration is looking to use the US-UK Agreement as a standard to be followed for similar potential agreements with a number of other countries wherein the agencies in those countries could request information from US based entities through court orders through a properly specified legal framework. Though to our knowledge India has not been formally approached by the US government to enter into such an agreement, it is important to ask the question viz. if approached:

Does India's present legal system meet the standards laid down in the amendment to the ECPA?
And if they do, should India also seek to enter into such an Agreement with the United States?
And if India does, what could be the implications for citizens and for countries in a similar position as India?

We hope to be able to answer the above three questions, or at least throw some light on them, in the conclusion of this paper by relying upon the discussions contained herein.

Criticisms of the Amendment

While such a mechanism may be very effective in addressing the needs of security agencies in investigation and prevention of criminal activities, one cannot accept such an overarching change in cross border enforcement without analyzing the consequences that such a proposal will have on the right to privacy. Some of these consequences have been highlighted by experts responding to the amendment:

Lack of Judicial Authorisation: The Amendment requires that the foreign governments have a process whereby a person could seek post-disclosure review by an independent entity instead of a warrant by a court.[5] Although a court order is not the norm for interception even in Indian law, however under American law such protection is given to data held by American companies even though the data may belong to Indian citizens and this protection will no longer be available if the Amendment is passed.

Vague Standard for requests: Under the domestic law of any state there is usually a large amount of jurisprudence regarding when search orders can be issued, such as the “probable cause” standard that is followed in the United States or similar standards that may be followed in other jurisdictions. This ensures that even when the wording of the law is not precise, which it cannot be for such a subjective issue, there is still some amount of clarity around when and under what circumstances such warrants may be issued. In contrast, the Amendment requires that the orders be based on “requirements for a reasonable justification based on articulable and credible facts, particularity, legality, and severity regarding the conduct under investigation.” Although the language here may seem reasonable but in the absence of any jurisprudence backing it, it becomes very vague and susceptible to misuse. Disclosure without a Warrant: Under the current MLAT process as followed in the United States, a judge in the U.S. must issue a warrant based on probable cause in order for a U.S. company to turn over content to a foreign government. This requirement protects individuals abroad by requiring their governments to meet certain standards when seeking information held by U.S. companies. The Amendment seeks to remove this essential safeguard for a judicial warrant. The Amendment does not require requests from foreign governments to be based on a prior judicial authorization, since a large number of countries (including India) do not always require judicial orders for such orders.[6]

Allows Real Time Surveillance by Foreign Governments: American privacy rights activists have raised the concern that the Amendment would allow foreign governments to conduct ongoing surveillance by asking American companies to turn over data in real time. The requirements that the foreign governments would have to fulfill to execute such an order are less stringent than those which have to be fulfilled by the American security agencies if they want to indulge in similar activities. When the U.S. government wants to conduct real-time surveillance, it must comply with the Wiretap Act, which imposes heightened privacy protections.[7] The court orders for this purpose also require minimization of irrelevant information, are strictly time-limited, only available for certain serious crimes, etc.[8] In Indian law any such request, apart from being time limited and being available only for certain specified purposes, also has to satisfy that interception is the only reasonable option to acquire such information.

Process to determine which countries can make demands is not credible: Under the Amendment, the Attorney General and the Secretary of State, would decide whether the laws and practices of the foreign government adequately meet the standards set forth in the legislation for entering into a bilateral agreement. Their decisions would not be liable to be reviewed by a court or in any administrative procedure. They could make their determinations based on information which is not available to the public and the criteria for making the decision are vague and flexible. Further these criteria have been described as “factors” and not “requirements”[9] so that even if some of them are not satisfied, the certification process can still be completed.

Companies do not have the resources to determine if a request complies with the terms of the agreement: The Amendment does not provide any oversight to ensure that technology companies are only turning over information permitted in a specific bilateral agreement. For example, a bilateral agreement may permit disclosure of information only in response to orders that do not discriminate on the basis of religion, however, it may not be possible for the companies receiving the request to determine whether a particular request complies with that condition or not. The Amendment does not require that individual companies put in place requisite processes to weed out requests that may be non compliant with the provisions of the agreement; nor are there periodic audits to ensure that companies are properly responding to foreign government information requests.[10]

Non compliance with Human Rights Standards: Under international human rights law, governments are allowed to conduct surveillance only based on individualized and sufficient suspicion; authorized by an independent and impartial decision-maker; necessary and proportionate to achieve a legitimate aim, including by being the least intrusive means possible.[11] However the mechanism proposed by the Amendment falls woefully short of these standards.[12]

One must not lose sight of the fact that most of the criticisms of the proposal that have been discussed above have been made in the context of, and based on the standards of privacy protection that are available to American citizens. If we look at it from an Indian perspective most of those protections are not available to Indian citizens in any case since independent judicial oversight is not a sine qua non for access to information by the security agencies in India. Although the Amendment leaves open the question of how a request would be made by the foreign government to the individual Agreements, it may be safe to assume that were India to enter into such an Agreement with the United States, it would require the orders for access to comply with the standards laid down under Indian law before the relevant authorities send the request to the US based data controllers. At the least, this would ensure that the rights of Indian citizens currently guaranteed under Indian law, howsoever flawed they might be, would in all likelihood be safeguarded as per Indian law.

Certification from the Attorney General to the US Congress

In the above background if India were to enter into the agreement with the U.S Government apart from actually negotiating and signing that Agreement, the Indian government will also have to ensure (if the Amendment is passed) that the Attorney General of the United States, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State gives a certificate to the Congress that Indian law satisfies the requirements set forth in the proposed section XXXX of Title 18.

It must be kept in mind that if the negotiations between India and the United States in this regard reach such a mature stage that the certification from the Attorney General is required, then that would mean that there is enough political will on both sides to ensure that such an arrangement actually comes to fruition. In this context it would not be unfair to assume that the Attorney General may have a slight bias towards opining that Indian laws do conform to the requirements of the Amendment, as the Attorney General would want to support the decision taken by the administration, and our analysis shall have a similar bias in order to be more contextual.

The certification would, inter alia, contain the determination of the Attorney General:

That the domestic law of India affords robust substantive and procedural protections for privacy and civil liberties in light of the data collection and activities of the Indian government that will be subject to the agreement.It should be noted that the Amendment specifies various factors that should be taken into account to reach such a determination, which include whether the Indian government:

(i) has adequate substantive and procedural laws on cybercrime and electronic evidence, as demonstrated through accession to the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, or through domestic laws that are consistent with definitions and the requirements set forth in Chapters I and II of that Convention; Although India is not a signatory to the Budapest Convention the Information Technology Act, 2000 (which is the main legislation dealing with cybercrime) has penal provisions which have borrowed heavily from the provisions of the Budapest Convention.

demonstrates respect for the rule of law and principles of nondiscrimination;

The provisions of Article 14 as well as Article 21 of the Constitution of India demonstrates that the legal regime in India is committed to the rule of law and principles of non discrimination.

adheres to applicable international human rights obligations and commitments or demonstrates respect for international universal human rights (including but not limited to protection from arbitrary and unlawful interference with privacy; fair trial rights; freedoms of expression, association and peaceful assembly; prohibitions on arbitrary arrest and detention; and prohibitions against torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment);

India is a signatory to a number of international human rights conventions and treaties, it has acceded to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), 1966, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), 1966, ratified the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), 1965, with certain reservations, signed the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), 1979 with certain reservations, Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), 1989 and signed the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), 1984. Further the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution takes within its fold a number of human rights such as the right to privacy. Freedom of expression, right to fair trial, freedom of assembly, right against arbitrary arrest and detention are all fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India.

has clear legal mandates and procedures governing those entities of the foreign government that are authorized to seek data under the executive agreement, including procedures through which those authorities collect, retain, use, and share data, and effective of oversight of these activities;

India has a number of legislations which govern the interception and request for information such as the Information Technology Act, 2000, the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, etc. which put in place mechanisms governing the authorities and entities which can ask for information.

has sufficient mechanisms to provide accountability and appropriate transparency regarding the government’s collection and use of electronic data; and

The Right to Information Act, 2005 provides the citizens the right to access any public document unless access to the same is prohibited due to the specific exemptions provided in the Act. It may be noted here that the provisions of the Right to Information Act are often frustrated by the bureaucracy by using exceptions such as “national security”, but for the purposes of this write up we are already assuming a bias towards fulfillment of these factors/conditions and therefore as long as there is even some evidence of compliance, the conditions will be considered as fulfilled by the Attorney General for the purposes of his certificate.

demonstrates a commitment to promote and protect the global free flow of information and the open, distributed, and interconnected nature of the Internet.

The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, which regulates telecom services in India has also issued the Prohibition of Discriminatory Tariffs for Data Services Regulations, 2016 which prohibits service providers from charging discriminatory tariffs for data services on the basis of content.

Other than Indian law, the certificate from the Attorney General will also have to certify certain issues which would have to be addressed in the bilateral agreement itself, viz.:

That the Indian government has adopted appropriate procedures to minimize the acquisition, retention, and dissemination of information concerning United States persons subject to the agreement.
That the agreement requires the following with respect to orders subject to the agreement:

(i) The Indian government may not intentionally target a United States person or a person located in the United States, and must adopt targeting procedures designed to meet this requirement;

(ii) The Indian government may not target a non–United States person located outside the United States if the purpose is to obtain information concerning a United States person or a person located in the United States;

(iii) The Indian government may not issue an order at the request of or to obtain information to provide to the United States government or a third-party government, nor shall the Indian government be required to share any information produced with the United States government or a third-party government;

(iv) Orders issued by the Indian government must be for the purpose of obtaining information relating to the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of serious crime, including terrorism;

(v) Orders issued by the Indian government must identify a specific person, account, address, or personal device, or any other specific identifier as the object of the Order;

(vi) Orders issued by the Indian government must be in compliance with the domestic laws of India, and any obligation for a provider of an electronic communications service or a remote computing service to produce data shall derive solely from Indian law;

(vii) Orders issued by the Indian government must be based on requirements for a reasonable justification based on articulable and credible facts, particularity, legality, and severity regarding the conduct under investigation;

(viii) Orders issued by the Indian government must be subject to review or oversight by a court, judge, magistrate, or other independent authority;

(ix) Orders issued by the Indian government for the interception of wire or electronic communications, and any extensions thereof, must be for a fixed, limited duration; interception may last no longer than is reasonably necessary to accomplish the approved purposes of the order; and orders may only be issued where that same information could not reasonably be obtained by another less intrusive method;

(x) Orders issued by the Indian government may not be used to infringe freedom of speech;

(xi) The Indian government must promptly review all material collected pursuant to the agreement and store any unreviewed communications on a secure system accessible only to those trained in applicable procedures;

(xii) The Indian government must segregate, seal, or delete, and not disseminate material found not to be information that is, or is necessary to understand or assess the importance of information that is, relevant to the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of serious crime, including terrorism, or necessary to protect against a threat of death or seriously bodily harm to any person;

(xiii) The Indian government may not disseminate the content of a communication of a U.S. person to U.S. authorities unless the communication (a) may be disseminated pursuant to Section 4(a)(3)(xii) and (b) relates to significant harm, or the threat thereof, to the United States or U.S. persons, including but not limited to crimes involving national security such as terrorism, significant violent crime, child exploitation, transnational organized crime, or significant financial fraud;

(xiv) The Indian government must afford reciprocal rights of data access to the United States government;

(xv) The Indian government must agree to periodic review of its compliance with the terms of the agreement by the United States government; and

(xvi) The United States government must reserve the right to render the agreement inapplicable as to any order for which it concludes the agreement may not properly be invoked.

Conclusion

It is clear from the discussion above that the proposed Amendment is a controversial piece of legislation which will affect the way law enforcement is carried out in the internet. While there is no doubt that proposing an alternate mechanism to the existing inefficient MLAT structure is definitely the need of the hour, whether the mechanism proposed in the proposed Amendment, with all the negative implications on privacy, is the right way forward is far from certain.

As for the three questions that we had sought out to answer in the beginning of this paper, we would not like to say that Indian law definitely conforms to all the requirements listed in the Amendments, but it can safely be said that it appears that if the governments of India and the United States so wish, it would not be difficult for the Attorney General of the United States to be able to give a certification to the Congress as required in the proposed Amendment.

The other two questions as to whether India should try to opt for such an arrangement if given a chance and what would be the consequence for its people are somewhat related, in the sense that it is only by examining the consequences on its citizens that we will arrive at an answer as to whether India should opt for such an arrangement or not. The level of protections offered to Indian citizens under India law in terms of protection of their private data from government surveillance is lower than that which is offered to American citizens under American law. The growing influence of the internet is changing the citizen-state dynamic giving rise to increasing incidents where the government has to approach private actors for permission in order to carry out their governmental functions of providing security. This is because more and more private data of individual citizens is being uploaded on to the internet and controlled by private actors such as telecom companies, social media sites, etc. and the governments have to approach these private actors in case they want access to this information. The fact that the government has to approach private actors to get access to data gives private citizens some leverage to ask for better privacy protections in the context of state surveillance.

Although this proposed Amendment may not affect the local surveillance laws in India, however it would definitely have an effect on the way that citizens’ data is protected and accessed by the government.

[1] Explanation by the Assistant Attorney General attached to the proposed Amendment.

[2] https://www.justsecurity.org/24145/u-s-u-k-data-sharing-treaty/

[3] https://www.justsecurity.org/24145/u-s-u-k-data-sharing-treaty/

[4] http://spicyip.com/2012/04/clash-of-courts-indian-district-court.html

[5] https://www.justsecurity.org/32529/foreign-governments-tech-companies-data-response-jennifer-daskal-andrew-woods/

[6] https://www.aclu.org/letter/aclu-amnesty-international-usa-and-hrw-letter-opposing-doj-proposal-cross-border-data-sharing

[7] https://www.aclu.org/letter/aclu-amnesty-international-usa-and-hrw-letter-opposing-doj-proposal-cross-border-data-sharing

[8] https://www.justsecurity.org/32529/foreign-governments-tech-companies-data-response-jennifer-daskal-andrew-woods/

[9] https://www.justsecurity.org/32529/foreign-governments-tech-companies-data-response-jennifer-daskal-andrew-woods/

[10] https://www.aclu.org/letter/aclu-amnesty-international-usa-and-hrw-letter-opposing-doj-proposal-cross-border-data-sharing

[11] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art. 17, Dec. 19, 1966, U.N.T.S 999, cf. https://www.aclu.org/letter/aclu-amnesty-international-usa-and-hrw-letter-opposing-doj-proposal-cross-border-data-sharing

[12] https://www.aclu.org/letter/aclu-amnesty-international-usa-and-hrw-letter-opposing-doj-proposal-cross-border-data-sharing

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/mlats-and-the-proposed-amendments-to-the-us-electronic-communications-privacy-act

MLAT Report

Admin — 2018-09-27T15:53:24Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/mlat-report

Ministry of Science makes open access to research mandatory

praskrishna — 2014-07-28T09:12:49Z

Researchers who fail to meet the requirements would not considered for promotions, fellowships, future grants or appointments.

The article by Aprajita Singh was published in Down to Earth magazine on July 16, 2014. T. Vishnu Vardhan gave his inputs.

The Centre has made it mandatory for the researchers who receive funds from the Centre to submit a copy of their final research papers to open access journals or online open access repositories.

Stating this, the Department of Biotechnology (DBT) and the Department of Science and Technology (DST), both under the Ministry of Science, recently released a draft of their Open Access policy. The departments have also invited comments and suggestions on the same. The document is open for comments till July 25th.

In the draft, DBT and DST have stated that since this research is funded by the public, it is necessary that the knowledge be made accessible to the public as soon as possible, so that it can be read and built upon. This will promote research culture in India.

In the past, Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) and Council of Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR) have also released similar open access policies that encourage authors to make their work easily available to the public.

Traditional journals such as Nature impose a heavy subscription fee for access to their articles, thus limiting the viewers that these papers can reach. In some cases, authors may also be required to sign over their copyright of the paper to the publisher. Scientists consider it to be a matter of prestige to publish their research in these journals as it is believed that the quality of papers published here is superior to that of papers in open access journals.

But the trend slowly changing. According to T Vishnu Vardhan of Bengaluru-based Centre for Internet and Society, “For open access journals like PLoS ONE, a scientist or an author has to pay less than one-third of the cost of publishing that he would pay to traditional models. The publishers have for long been holding forth on the editorial quality that their commercial operations assure, which no more holds ground as the open access journals have historically demonstrated same level of efficiency.” He adds that this is primarily because most of the peer reviewing of scientific scholarly publication is done for free.

The policy proposes that a copy of the paper be submitted to the repository within a week of being accepted by a journal. If the journal imposes an embargo, the paper will remain in the repository, but be made open access only once the embargo ends. Journals can thus charge a subscription fee for the duration of the embargo period. However, the policy asks the authors to suggest that the embargo period be no longer than year.

The departments maintain that while they do expect the authors to publish their work in quality, peer-reviewed journals, the research work done by them should be judged on the basis of the merit of the work and not the journal it is published in.

It also states that authors must submit the deposit ID of the work in question along with the final work, and also while applying for any future funding, or their proposals will not be considered. For authors of research conducted in institutions that come under the control of DBT/DST which do not carry the deposit ID, the penalty proposed is severe. These authors will not be eligible for promotions, fellowships, future grants or appointments.

The policy also provides a copyright addendum which states that the author retains all rights to reproduce and distribute the article, as long as it is not done for monetary purposes.

It is hoped that this policy will encourage other departments to make open access research mandatory too. Senior scientist at ICAR Research Centre for Eastern Region and a member of Open Access India, Sridhar Gutam says that there is a lack of clarity amongst researchers in India over open access policies. He hopes that now that CSIR, ICAR, DBT and DST have rolled out open access policies, this will encourage discussion on the issue and once this policy is finalized, other departments and institutes of higher education and research will follow suit and introduce their own policies.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/down-to-earth-july-16-2014-aparajita-singh-ministry-of-science-makes-open-access-to-research-mandatory

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

Trisha Jalan — 2019-08-09T14:05:14Z

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Electronic Health Records (EHR)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The use of Aadhaar

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

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

Data collection and gathering, and data disclosure

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

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

Use of telemedicine and lack of legal framework around it

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

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

Legal framework and issues surrounding telemedicine

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

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

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

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

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

Tele-monitoring as a form of tele-health

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EHR standards need more clarity

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

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

Consent from illiterate patients, doctors wary of technologies

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

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

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

Standardisation and interoperability

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

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

Other issues raised around standards and interoperability:

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

Private sector setting standards?

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

Dealing with EHR standards in primary hospitals:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Issues surrounding Outcome measures in blueprint

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

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

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

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

Artificial intelligence is brought up

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

AYUSH Ministry says it should be involved

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

COAI marks its attendance, and other comments

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

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

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

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

Participants in the consultation

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

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