Centre for Internet and Society

Emerging Technologies: Issues & Way Forward

Admin — 2018-05-26T00:39:11Z

Aayush Rathi and Gurshabad Grover attended a two day conference on 'Emerging Technologies: Issues & Way Forward' organised by the Technology Policy team at the National Institute of Public Finance and Policy (NIPFP), held on 23rd and 24th May in Bangalore.

The themes for discussion included:

Privacy, surveillance and data protection
Regulation of emerging technologies
Building sound regulators for technology policy, and
Fintech regulation

Click here to read the agenda

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/emerging-technologies-issues-way-forward

NIPFP Bangalore Agenda

Admin — 2018-05-26T00:38:16Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/nipfp-bangalore-agenda

Indian Intermediary Liability Regime

Admin — 2018-05-20T15:03:25Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/indian-intermediary-liability-regime

March 2018 Newsletter

praskrishna — 2018-05-20T14:55:25Z

March 2018 newsletter

Dear readers,

Previous issues of the newsletters can be accessed here.

Highlights
CIS in partnership with DataMeet and Arghyam is exploring the early steps for making open data and tools to plan for water resources accessible to all. As a move to celebrate World Water Day 2018 we are sharing a paper that we had been working on titled Open Data for Water Studies in India and a web app to make open water data easily explorable and usable. Disability rights activist Javed Abidi, former Director of the National Centre for Promotion of Employment for Disabled People who was instrumental in bringing issues pertaining to various disabilities under an umbrella organisation, and ensuring greater visibility in mainstream media passed away recently. Remembering Abidi, Dr. Nirmita Narasimhan spoke to Ambika Tandon about how they worked together to push National Policy on Universal Electronics Accessibility. CIS, Wikimedia Foundation, Wikimedia India and other affiliates of India have initiated Chromebook for the Project Tiger to enable writers from various Indic languages to create quality content in Indic languages. The project will also help Wikipedia editors by supporting them with internet charges for 6 months and laptops to 50 volunteers to address content gaps. Sunil Abraham in an article in the Business Standard has thrown light on the Cambridge Analytica Scandal and explained how India needs to save democracy from hegemonic incumbents with open source alternatives. For this the government should use its procurement powers. CIS has been instrumental in having ICANN become transparent about their revenue with our persistent requests for their sources of revenue. In our latest analysis we have presented a picture of ICANN financials from 2012 to 2016. In an article published in the Business Standard Shyam Ponappa wrote about correcting misinformed impressions about NPAs, and the Swedish model for setting up a bad bank. In an initial literature survey CIS has focused on how scholars in a diversity of fields, ranging from Information Science and Science and Technology Studies to Anthropology and Political Science, have engaged with how state infrastructures mediate the state-citizen relationship.

Highlights

CIS in partnership with DataMeet and Arghyam is exploring the early steps for making open data and tools to plan for water resources accessible to all. As a move to celebrate World Water Day 2018 we are sharing a paper that we had been working on titled Open Data for Water Studies in India and a web app to make open water data easily explorable and usable.
Disability rights activist Javed Abidi, former Director of the National Centre for Promotion of Employment for Disabled People who was instrumental in bringing issues pertaining to various disabilities under an umbrella organisation, and ensuring greater visibility in mainstream media passed away recently. Remembering Abidi, Dr. Nirmita Narasimhan spoke to Ambika Tandon about how they worked together to push National Policy on Universal Electronics Accessibility.
CIS, Wikimedia Foundation, Wikimedia India and other affiliates of India have initiated Chromebook for the Project Tiger to enable writers from various Indic languages to create quality content in Indic languages. The project will also help Wikipedia editors by supporting them with internet charges for 6 months and laptops to 50 volunteers to address content gaps.
Sunil Abraham in an article in the Business Standard has thrown light on the Cambridge Analytica Scandal and explained how India needs to save democracy from hegemonic incumbents with open source alternatives. For this the government should use its procurement powers.
CIS has been instrumental in having ICANN become transparent about their revenue with our persistent requests for their sources of revenue. In our latest analysis we have presented a picture of ICANN financials from 2012 to 2016.
In an article published in the Business Standard Shyam Ponappa wrote about correcting misinformed impressions about NPAs, and the Swedish model for setting up a bad bank.
In an initial literature survey CIS has focused on how scholars in a diversity of fields, ranging from Information Science and Science and Technology Studies to Anthropology and Political Science, have engaged with how state infrastructures mediate the state-citizen relationship.

Articles:

NPAs & Bad Banks (Shyam Ponappa; Business Standard and Organizing India Blogspot; March 1, 2018).
Digital native: Our lonely connected lives (Nishant Shah; Indian Express; March 11, 2018).
Cambridge Analytica scandal: How India can save democracy from Facebook (Sunil Abraham; Business Standard; March 28, 2018).

CIS in the News:

CIS ranks amongst top think tanks for public policy in the region (March 2, 2018). Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program featured Centre for Internet & Society in its annual report.
Is there a case for penalizing fake news? (Nilesh Christopher; ET Tech; March 7, 2018).

Supreme Court extends Aadhaar linking deadline till it passes verdict (Priyanka Mittal and Komal Gupta; Livemint; March 13, 2018).

Aadhaar unique IDs in India: a qualified success? (Web Fraud Prevention and Online Authentication Market Guide 2017/2018 and Paypers; March 16, 2018).

Facebook breach: Privacy advocates in India seek stronger data laws (Surabhi Agarwal and Devina Sengupta; March 20, 2018).

Govt warns Facebook of stringent legal action if found misusing data (Komal Gupta; Livemint; March 21, 2018).

Without stringent law, threats to Mark Zuckerberg are hollow: Experts (Alnoor Peermohamed and Karan Choudhury; Business Standard; March 23, 2018).

‘If an Indian party acted like Cambridge Analytica, it will not be guilty under current laws’ (Amit Bhardwaj; Newslaundry; March 24, 2018).

Is Facebook too powerful without legal safeguards? (Vidhi Choudhary; Hindustan Times; March 24, 2018).

Digital Native: A new road to justice (Nishant Shah; Indian Express; March 25, 2018).

Aadhaar safety (Asian Age; March 25, 2018).

PM’s app also susceptible (Free Press Journal; March 25, 2018).

New Lock For EU’s Digital Mines (Arindam Mukherjee; Outlook; March 26; 2018).

Security experts say need to secure Aadhaar ecosystem, warn about third party leaks (Nilesh Christopher; March 26, 2018).

Data Breach: How will the biggest scandal that Facebook is mired in affect its credibility in India? (G. Seetharaman and Shephali Bhatt; Economic Times; March 26, 2018).

UIDAI servers or third parties, Aadhaar leaks are dangerous: Experts (Mayank Jain; Business Standard; March 27, 2018).

Narendra Modi’s personal app sparks India data privacy row (Financial Times; March 28, 2018).

The Narendra Modi app: The secret weapon in BJP’s elections arsenal (Jayadevan PK and Pankaj Mishra; Factor Daily; March 29, 2018).
Your mobile apps have the permission to spy on you (Economic Times; March 30, 2018).
Parties seek social media influencers to go viral (Ipsita Basu; Economic Times; March 31, 2018).
If data is the new oil, how much does an Indian citizen lose? (Saurya Sengpupta; Hindu; March 31, 2018).

Accessibility

India has an estimated 70 million disabled persons who are unable to read printed materials due to some form of physical, sensory, cognitive or other disability. The disabled need accessible content, devices and interfaces facilitated via copyright law and accessibility policies. CIS works to facilitate this.

Blog Entry

Groundbreaking disability rights activist Javed Abidi dies at 53 (Ambika Tandon; March 6, 2018).

Access to Knowledge

Access to Knowledge (A2K) is a campaign to promote the fundamental principles of justice, freedom, and economic development. It deals with issues like copyrights, patents and trademarks, which are an important part of the digital landscape. Our A2K program comprises 2 projects: Pervasive Technologies done under a grant from International Development Research Centre examining interplay between cost-effective pervasive technologies and intellectual property and encouraging development of such technologies for social good, and Wikipedia under a grant from Wikimedia Foundation to enable the growth of Indic language communities and cultivate new editors in different Indian languages.

Wikipedia

Events Organized

The reports for the events were published in March 2018:

Marathi Language Day events (February 27, 2018). Marathi Language day is celebrated all over world on February 27. Various events and activities were conducted by CIS-A2K in collaboration with community, institutions and government departments. A guest editorial was published in Sakal newspaper on February 10, 2018. There was a radio interview Tomato FM 94.3 Kolhapur on February 27, 2018 for which promotion was made through Facebook. News on the events was also covered in Pudhari, Lokmat and Samana.
Mini Train the Trainer 2018 (Organized by CIS-A2K; Jnana Prabodhini & Bhave High School; Sadashiv Peth, Pune; February 24 - 25, 2018).

Blog Entry

Chromebook for the Project Tiger- How it is helping me to contribute actively on Wikimedia project! (Sangram Keshari Senapati; March 26, 2018).

Openness

Innovation and creativity are fostered through openness and collaboration. Our work in the Openness program focuses on open data, especially open government data, open access, open education resources, open knowledge in Indic languages, open media, and open technologies and standards - hardware and software.

Note: We missed carrying our updates in our Openness program in previous newsletter, hence reproducing them here.

Open Data

Open Data and Land Ownership - Environment Scan (Sumandro Chattapadhyay; February 12, 2018).
On World Water Day - Open Data for Water Resources (Craig Dsouza; March 22, 2018).

Open Access

Open Access India recently released a statement to promote openness in science and research communities. CIS contributed to the text and introduced it to the participants of OpenCon 2018, Delhi.

Delhi Declaration on Open Access (Open Access India; February 14, 2018).

Internet Governance

The Tunis Agenda of the second World Summit on the Information Society has defined internet governance as the development and application by governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles of shared principles, norms, rules, decision making procedures and programs that shape the evolution and use of the internet. CIS is engaged in two different projects. The first one (under a grant from Privacy International and IDRC) is on surveillance and freedom of expression (SAFEGUARDS). The second one (under a grant from MacArthur Foundation) is on restrictions that the Indian government has placed on freedom of expression online.

Free Speech & Expression

Blog Entry

Analysis of ICANN financials from 2012-2016 (Sunil Abraham, Arjun Venkatraman and Akriti Bopanna; March 15, 2018).

Cyber Security

Blog Entry

People Driven and Tech Enabled – How AI and ML are Changing the Future of Cyber Security in India (Shweta Mohandas; March 11, 2018).

Participation in Event

Cybersecurity: The Intersection of Policy and Technology (Organized by Synergia Foundation; Bengaluru; March 15, 2018).

Privacy

Events Organized

Roundtable on A.I. and Governance in India (Organized by CIS; India Islamic Centre, New Delhi; March 16, 2018).
A Methods Workshop for Researching Future of Work in India (Co-organized by CIS and the Department of Management Studies, IIT-Delhi; New Delhi; March 28, 2018).

Participation in Events

Siri, did you hear me? Adapting Privacy to New Technologies, Automated Decision-making, and Cloud Computing (Organized by USIBC; New Delhi; March 6, 2018). Amber Sinha was a panelist.
White Paper on Data Protection and Privacy (Organized by National Institute of Public Finance and Policy; New Delhi; March 8, 2018). Sunil Abraham was a moderator in the session on Rights and Protections and Amber Sinha was a panelist.
Listening Machines - New interfaces for Art-Science and Technology Policy (Organized by National Academy of Sciences, Washington D.C; Arthur M Sackler Colloquia; March 12, 2018). Sharath Chandra presented his work "Listening Machines - New interfaces for Art-Science and Technology Policy".
Quantified identities as a global phenomenon: analyzing the impact of biometric systems in our societies (Internet Freedom Festival; Valencia, Spain; March 2018). Amber Sinha made a presentation.

Telecom

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

Newspaper Column

NPAs & Bad Banks (Shyam Ponappa; Business Standard; February 28, 2018 and Organizing India Blogspot; March 1, 2018).

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

Blog Entry

Information Infrastructures, State, and Citizens: An Initial Literature Survey (Khetrimayum Monish Singh, Ranjit Singh, Palashi Vaghela, and Nazifa Ahmed; March 28, 2018).

Event Organized

Designing Urban Nervous Systems (Organized by CIS; Bengaluru; March 27, 2018). Dr. Anupam Saraph, a future designer and an expert on complex systems gave a talk on looking at cities as living organisms, with nervous systems at the center of their being.

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

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

► Follow us elsewhere

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

► Support Us

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

► Request for Collaboration

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

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

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

Internet Shutdown Stories

Ambika Tandon — 2018-05-17T10:45:20Z

A collection of stories of the impact of internet shutdowns on the lives of Indian citizens.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-shutdown-stories

AI in Banking and Finance

Saman Goudarzi, Elonnai Hickok and Amber Sinha — 2018-06-19T11:38:06Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/ai-in-banking-and-finance

India's National ID Project Brings Pain to Those it Aims to Help

Admin — 2018-05-12T00:53:39Z

Poor management, corruption and fraud are threatening to derail the world’s largest national identity project.

The blog post by Aayush Soni was published in Ozy.com on May 11, 2018.

For Phoolmati, a resident of the Kusumpur Pahari slum in south Delhi, standing every month in a queue at the neighborhood fair-price shop was a trusted routine. When her turn came up, she would place her thumb on a scanning machine that confirmed her identity. But on a biting-cold morning this past January, she had to return home empty-handed because, the shopkeeper told her, the “server was down.”

The next day, it happened again. On her third try, Phoolmati thought she had gotten lucky when the machine scanned her thumb successfully. But she was in for a shock. “The shopkeeper told me that, according to the computer records, I’ve already taken my quota of wheat flour for the month,” she says. When she protested and showed her ration card, another form of identification, the shopkeeper wouldn’t accept it.

Left with no choice, Phoolmati had to buy wheat flour from the open market at 25 rupees per kilogram — more than 12 times the amount she usually paid at fair-price shops. She wasn’t alone. At a weekly meeting of slum residents in a temple courtyard in April, many women complained about the difficulty of buying subsidized food grains to the Satark Nagrik Sangathan (Alert Citizens Organization), a nonprofit that seeks accountability from government agencies. Nanno Devi, a 67-year-old homemaker whose fingers are wrinkled with age, said that she didn’t receive her quota of wheat flour for January because a fingerprint-scanning machine couldn’t detect her thumb impression.

Nor are the urban poor, like Phoolmati, the only ones with such complaints. Students with government scholarships, senior citizens with pensions, farmers entitled to subsidies, religious minorities and backward castes eligible for benefits, patients at public hospitals, young couples trying to get married and professionals updating their bank details are all on the front line of an unparalleled experiment that was meant to help them but is hurting them instead.

Theirs is the lived experience of Aadhaar, a unique 12-digit identity system that includes an individual’s biometrics and demographic data — and that must verify an individual’s identity for the government, increasingly, to even recognize their existence. First rolled out in 2010, it is modeled on America’s Social Security number system, with the aim that government subsidies and welfare programs reach the intended beneficiaries and aren’t siphoned off by middlemen.

But over the past three years, India’s Narendra Modi government has cajoled, pressured and often effectively forced people into enrolling for this ID, even though it isn’t required by law. Today, a person’s bank account risks being frozen if it isn’t linked to her Aadhaar number. Her PAN (permanent account number) card, used to file income tax, could be declared invalid. Mobile phone companies can disconnect her number if it isn’t authenticated through biometrics. An Aadhaar number (or an enrollment number, in case someone has already applied for it) is mandatory to open a new bank account, get a new passport, invest in mutual funds or register a marriage. A joke making the rounds on Twitter is that very soon, Aadhaar will be mandatory for a person to swipe right on Tinder.

In the absence of any privacy law, much of the concern within sections of India’s educated middle class has focused on questions about personal freedom, data security and mass surveillance. But a parallel tide of complaints is rising from those the program was meant to help, rooted in complications it has instead imposed upon them. This growing frustration is threatening to derail the initiative in a manner privacy can’t, in a nation where millions live in cramped city apartments with strangers, and the distinction between personal and public is often blurred.

Cases of fraud, mismanagement and corruption hurting Aadhaar beneficiaries are tumbling out into the public domain almost every week. In late March, hackers used weaknesses in the Aadhaar database to steal data from a government organization that manages more than $120 billion in the pensions and savings of millions of Indians. In January, a 10-year-old girl from the Dalit community — historically at the bottom of India’s caste ladder — was denied a school scholarship because officials had misnamed her on her Aadhaar card. Last October, a farm loan waiver program in Maharashtra state ran into trouble after officials discovered that 100 farmers had the same Aadhaar identity number.

The Modi government maintains that it takes both the security of personal data and the concerns of Aadhaar beneficiaries seriously. But it is reluctant to answer any questions about identity theft, corruption, privacy or misappropriated benefits. Neither Ajay Bhushan Pandey, the current CEO of the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), which runs Aadhaar, nor Vikas Shukla, its spokesperson, responded to multiple requests for comment.

At a public rally in early May, Modi — who had himself opposed the program before he came to power in 2014 — called critics of Aadhaar “opponents of technology” unwilling to evolve with the times. Increasingly, though, many are questioning whether it’s Aadhaar’s own identity that has changed the most from when the idea first came up. “From a project of inclusion, it has become a project of exclusion,” says Usha Ramanathan, a lawyer who focuses on issues of development and poverty. Just ask Phoolmati.

Aadhaar was the brainchild of Nandan Nilekani, a former CEO of tech giant Infosys, who in a 2009 book argued that multiple forms of identification made it “difficult” to establish a “definitive identity” for India’s citizens.

A single identity linked to passports, PAN cards and other national databases, Nilekani argued, would not only solve this problem but also help eliminate the exasperating processes that India’s bureaucracy is notorious for — mountains of paper, proof of identity in triplicate and a glacial pace of work. It would help citizens avail government benefits that are rightfully theirs. Such a system would reduce a citizen’s dependence on distribution mechanisms susceptible to leakages and make “the moral scruples of our bureaucrats redundant,” Nilekani wrote. “An IT-enabled, accessible national ID system would be nothing less than revolutionary in how we distribute state benefits and welfare handouts.”

That same year, the Congress Party–led United Progressive Alliance government offered Nilekani a chance to translate his idea into reality, appointing him UIDAI chairman. Under Nilekani the UIDAI hired people from within the Indian bureaucracy as well as those outside it. The initial team of 50 included software engineers, designers and entrepreneurs from Silicon Valley as well as lawyers and policy wonks who worked at the head office in New Delhi. Each of the eight regional offices had a staff of 20.

In its early-stage avatar, the team had thought out solutions to problems such as the ones the residents of Kusumpur Pahari faced, says a policy consultant who worked with the UIDAI in 2010 and spoke on condition of anonymity. “You can use old methods and physically verify a person’s name and address [by going to their house] if biometrics aren’t working,” the consultant says. “It’s built into the architecture [of Aadhaar].” In his view, the current government under Modi — whose Bharatiya Janata Party defeated the Congress Party and came to power in 2014 — and the UIDAI setup have made a “mess” of the program. He also believes that the goal has shifted from inclusion to mass enrollment. Nilekani did not respond to a request for comment.

For sure, Aadhaar has staunch supporters too, who argue that it has helped reduce the misuse of government subsidies. In July 2017, India’s junior minister for consumer affairs, food and public distribution, C.R. Chaudhary, told the country’s Parliament that Aadhaar had helped the government delete nearly 25 million fake ration cards that the poor use to access subsidized food ingredients.

“This unnecessary fearmongering around Aadhaar is uncalled for,” says Sanjay Anandaram of iSpirit, a software industry think tank. In his view, it’s “last-mile deployment challenges” like fingerprint authentication, one-time-password systems and server glitches that need to be fixed, not Aadhaar. He juxtaposes anecdotal examples of people struggling to gain benefits with the “larger purpose” he believes Aadhaar serves. “It is a revolutionary system to ensure governance improves — especially for centrally administered programs,” he says.

The UIDAI has made some efforts too, if not to improve security of personal data then at least to allow citizens to check whether their Aadhaar identity has been misused. They can go online and view any occasions when their Aadhaar identity was used to access benefits.

But for millions of Indians dependent on subsidies, pensions, scholarships and other benefits, the concerns go well beyond privacy. Getting an Aadhaar identity can be a struggle. Earlier this year, the Punjab government conceded that it can’t process nearly 200,000 farm loan waiver claims either because intended beneficiaries don’t have Aadhaar cards or because the UIDAI is still processing their applications. At the same time, not signing on to Aadhaar is increasingly not an option. In February 2017, Chaudhary’s ministry made it mandatory for individuals to have an Aadhaar card to access subsidized food grains. Then, in October, an 11-year-old girl died of starvation in the central state of Jharkhand because the local ration dealer refused to give her family food grains for six months, as they had not linked their ration cards to Aadhaar. Facing criticism, the government asked states not to deny the poor the food grains they are entitled to, but the incident underscored how the Aadhaar initiative is cutting the needy off from subsidy access, rather than helping them, suggests Ramanathan, the lawyer. “People are dying because of Aadhaar,” she says.

But the Modi government has shown no signs of rethinking either the ways in which Aadhaar appears to hurt the poorest in Indian society or its data security protocols. Instead, it has appeared keener to target whistle-blowers pointing out weaknesses in the initiative.

It cost Rachna Khaira, a reporter, only 500 rupees ($7.50) to access the entire Aadhaar database — the names, addresses, fingerprint scans, iris scans, mobile phone numbers, email addresses, postal index numbers (PINs) and Aadhaar numbers of 830 million Indians. She “purchased” the service offered by anonymous sellers on WhatsApp and transferred the money via Paytm, a popular digital wallet company, to an “agent,” who created a “gateway” for Khaira. He then gave her a log-in ID and a password to that gateway, which allowed Khaira unrestricted access to the Aadhaar database. Her report, published in January in The Tribune, one of India’s oldest English dailies, created a national stir. Instead of trying to plug the holes the report had revealed, the UIDAI filed criminal cases against Khaira and the newspaper, accusing them of breaching privacy.

Khaira’s wasn’t the first piece of evidence to expose the vulnerability of the Aadhaar database. In May 2017, a report by the Centre for Internet and Society, a nonprofit organization, claimed that 130 million to 135 million Aadhaar numbers were published on four websites: the National Social Assistance Programme, the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme and two projects run by Andhra Pradesh state. “This is the largest exercise in the world of the conversion of public information into an asset and then its privatization,” says Nikhil Pahwa, editor of MediaNama and a critic of Aadhaar.

These breaches of security highlight corruption and mismanagement that belie claims the government continues to peddle. In April 2017, Ravi Shankar Prasad, India’s minister of information and technology, told Parliament that “Aadhaar is robust. Aadhaar is safe. Aadhaar is secure, and totally accountable.” The government hasn’t appeared too perturbed by privacy concerns. On July 22, 2015, Mukul Rohatgi, the then attorney general, argued before the country’s Supreme Court that “the right of privacy is not a guaranteed right under our constitution.” That set off a two-year-long hearing before a nine-judge bench of the court, which unanimously ruled in 2017 that the right to privacy was indeed a fundamental right.

The criticism from social groups Aadhaar was meant to benefit, though, has left the Modi administration on the defensive. Since the passage of the 2016 Aadhaar law, civil society activists have filed 12 petitions in the Supreme Court challenging its legality. In January, the All India Kisan Sabha, one of India’s largest farmer organizations with millions of members, petitioned the top court against government moves to link subsidies to Aadhaar identities. Some leaders from Modi’s party, the BJP, have also started questioning their own government in Parliament about cases of beneficiaries denied their due because of the Aadhaar program. The Supreme Court, which is holding regular hearings on the case, has extended indefinitely the date by which citizens must link all identity documents to their Aadhaar number, until it rules on the validity of the legislation. At stake is the trust the Indian people can place in their government.

Back in Kusumpur Pahari, much of that trust has already eroded. In his 2014 election campaign, Modi had promised to stand guard as a chaukidaar (watchman) over the country’s resources, to prevent corruption. But when someone illegally withdrew Phoolmati’s grains by using her Aadhaar identity, the watchman wasn’t able to stop the theft.

For Phoolmati and other residents of Kusumpur Pahari, their ration cards guaranteed them food, and were a rare pillar of certainty in an unstable life. The Aadhaar-linked fingerprint authentication system is a source of frustration, and they don’t want it, they make clear at their weekly meeting. They now get their ration some months, and other months they don’t. Life on the fringes of society was already tough. Aadhaar, they say, has made it harder still.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/ozy-aayush-soni-may-11-2018-indias-national-id-project-brings-pain-to-those-it-aims-to-help

April 2018 Newsletter

praskrishna — 2018-05-20T14:57:47Z

Dear readers,

Previous issues of the newsletters can be accessed here.

Highlights
In 2016, WhatsApp Inc announced it was rolling out end-to-end encryption, but is the company doing what it claims to be doing? Sunil Abraham and Aayush Rathi explores this in an article which was published in Asia Times on April 20, 2018. CIS submitted comments to the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India on the draft Digital Information Security in Healthcare Act on April 21, 2018. CIS had conducted research on the issues of privacy, data protection and data security since 2010 and is thankful for the opportunity to put forth its views. A blog post by Swaraj Paul Barooah examines two badly drafted provisions of the new Anti-Trafficking bill that have the potential to severely impinge upon the Freedom of Expression, including through a misunderstanding of intermediary liability. A chapter by P.P. Sneha was published in 'Making Things and Drawing Boundaries: Experiments in the Digital Humanities' edited by Jentery Sayers. The chapter throws light on some of the questions that arise around the processes by which digital objects are ‘made’ and made available for arts and humanities research and practice, by drawing on recent work in text and film archival initiatives in India. CIS made a submission to the Indian Patent Office on the issue of Statement of Working as per Form 27 under the Patents Act, 1970. Select stakeholders were invited to the consultation meeting held on April 6, 2018. Anubha Sinha attended it along with a few other public-spirited stakeholders. She made a statement stressing on the requirement of the patent system to serve the welfare-purpose and not create mere non-working/ blocking monopolies; and that the argument of representatives of patentees about non-working of patents being the existing norm, and that they cannot be questioned about this, is absolutely against the central tenets of patent law.

Highlights

In 2016, WhatsApp Inc announced it was rolling out end-to-end encryption, but is the company doing what it claims to be doing? Sunil Abraham and Aayush Rathi explores this in an article which was published in Asia Times on April 20, 2018.
CIS submitted comments to the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India on the draft Digital Information Security in Healthcare Act on April 21, 2018. CIS had conducted research on the issues of privacy, data protection and data security since 2010 and is thankful for the opportunity to put forth its views.

A blog post by Swaraj Paul Barooah examines two badly drafted provisions of the new Anti-Trafficking bill that have the potential to severely impinge upon the Freedom of Expression, including through a misunderstanding of intermediary liability.

A chapter by P.P. Sneha was published in 'Making Things and Drawing Boundaries: Experiments in the Digital Humanities' edited by Jentery Sayers. The chapter throws light on some of the questions that arise around the processes by which digital objects are ‘made’ and made available for arts and humanities research and practice, by drawing on recent work in text and film archival initiatives in India.
CIS made a submission to the Indian Patent Office on the issue of Statement of Working as per Form 27 under the Patents Act, 1970. Select stakeholders were invited to the consultation meeting held on April 6, 2018. Anubha Sinha attended it along with a few other public-spirited stakeholders. She made a statement stressing on the requirement of the patent system to serve the welfare-purpose and not create mere non-working/ blocking monopolies; and that the argument of representatives of patentees about non-working of patents being the existing norm, and that they cannot be questioned about this, is absolutely against the central tenets of patent law.

Articles:

Digital Native: Delete Facebook? (Nishant Shah; Indian Express; April 8, 2018).

Digital Native: The e-wasteland of our times (Nishant Shah; Indian Express; April 22, 2018).
What’s up with WhatsApp? (Aayush Rathi and Sunil Abraham; Asia Times; April 23, 2018).

CIS in the News:

Cambridge Analytica row: Facebook data breach hit 560K Indian users (Vidhi Choudhury and Yashwant Raj; Hindustan Times; April 5, 2018).
Govt websites face major outage; hacking ruled out (Hindu Businessline; April 6, 2018).
After data leak row, Facebook imposes restrictions on user data access (Romita Majumdar and Kiran Rathee; Business Standard; April 6, 2018).
It Took Just 355 Indians to Mine the Data of 5.6 Lakh Facebook Users. Here's How (CNN-News 18; April 7, 2018).
It feeds on you! (Anita Babu; The Week; April 8, 2018).
Pension won’t be denied for want of Aadhaar, says EPFO (Prashant K. Nanda and Komal Gupta; Livemint; April 11, 2018).
Facebook’s fake news clean-up hits language barrier (Nilesh Christopher; Economic Times; April 13, 2018).
Is This The Beginning Of The End For Facebook? (Bloomberg Quint; April 15, 2018).
Metrolife: Brutality porn has sadly many takers in India (Nina C. George; Deccan Herald; April 18, 2018).
Aadhaar data of over 89 lakh MNREGA workers in Andhra Pradesh leaked online (New Indian Express; April 27, 2018).
You Are Not the Only One: India stares at a loneliness epidemic (Asad Ali and Tabassum Barnagarwala; Indian Express; April 29, 2018).
Now, Twitter too caught up in Cambridge Analytica controversy (Prasun Sonwalkar and Vidhi Choudhury; Hindustan Times; April 30, 2018).

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

►Copyright and Patent

Submission

CIS' Submission on Statement of Working of Patents (Anubha Sinha; April 10, 2018).

►Wikipedia

Event Organized

Sambad Health and Women Edit-a-thon (April 15, 2018).

Blog Entries

Telugu Wikisource Feature Book in Pustakam.net (Pavan Santhosh; April 17, 2018).
Institutional Partnership with Tribal Research & Training Institute (Subodh Kulkarni; April 18, 2018).
Exploring Wikimedia platforms in Dialogue on the Urban Rivers of Maharashtra (Subodh Kulkarni; April 22, 2018).

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

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

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

►Privacy

Submission

Comments on the Draft Digital Information Security in Healthcare Act (Amber Sinha and Shweta Mohandas; April 22, 2018).

Analysis

Revenge Porn Laws across the World (Shradha Nigam; April 25, 2018).

Blog Entries

Government gives free publicity worth 40k to Twitter and Facebook (Akriti Bopanna; April 10, 2018).

Artificial Intelligence in Governance: A Report of the Roundtable held in New Delhi (Saman Goudarzi and Natallia Khaniejo; April 19, 2018).

►Free Speech and Expression

Blog Entries

A look at two problematic provisions of the draft Anti-trafficking bill (Swaraj Paul Barooah; April 21, 2018).

DIDP Request #29 - Revenue breakdown by source for FY 2017 (Akriti Bopanna; April 26, 2018).

►Cyber Security

Event Organized

Workshop on Python (April 14, 2018; CIS, Bengaluru).

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

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

Article

Making Humanities in the Digital: Embodiment and Framing in Bichitra and Indiancine.ma (P.P. Sneha; Making Things and Drawing Boundaries: Experiments in the Digital Humanities (2017), edited by Jentery Sayers, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, London April 1, 2018).

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

► Follow us elsewhere

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

► Support Us

► Request for Collaboration

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

Artificial Intelligence in Governance: A Report of the Roundtable held in New Delhi

Saman Goudarzi and Natallia Khaniejo — 2018-05-03T15:49:40Z

This Report provides an overview of the proceedings of the Roundtable on Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Governance, conducted at the Indian Islamic Cultural Centre, in New Delhi on March 16, 2018. The main purpose of the Roundtable was to discuss the deployment and implementation of AI in various aspects of governance within the Indian context. This report summarises the discussions on the development and implementation of AI in various aspects of governance in India. The event was attended by participants from academia, civil society, the legal sector, the finance sector, and the government.

Event Report: Download (PDF)

This report provides a summary of the proceedings of the Roundtable on Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Governance (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Roundtable’). The Roundtable took place at the India Islamic Cultural Centre in New Delhi on March 16, 2018 and included participation from academia, civil society, law, finance, and government. The main purpose of the Roundtable was to discuss the deployment and implementation of AI in various aspects of governance within the Indian context.

The Roundtable began with a presentation by Amber Sinha (Centre for Internet and Society - CIS) providing an overview of the CIS’s research objectives and findings thus far. During this presentation, he defined both AI and the scope of CIS’s research, outlining the areas of law enforcement, defense, education, judicial decision making, and the discharging of administrative functions as the main areas of concerns for the study. The presentation then outlined the key AI deployments and implementations that have been identified by the research in each of these areas. Lastly, the presentation raised some of the ethical and legal concerns related to this phenomenon.

The presentation was followed by the Roundtable discussion that saw various topics in regards to the usages, challenges, ethical considerations and implications of AI in the sector being discussed. This report has identified a number of key themes of importance evident throughout these discussions.These themes include: (1) the meaning and scope of AI, (2) AI’s sectoral applications, (3) human involvement with automated decision making, (4) social and power relations surrounding AI, (5) regulatory approaches to AI and, (6) challenges to adopting AI. These themes in relation to the Roundtable are explored further below.

Meaning and Scope of AI

One of the first tasks recommended by the group of participants was to define the meaning and scope of AI and the way those terms are used and adopted today. These concerns included the need to establish a distinction between the use of algorithms, machine learning, automation and artificial intelligence. Several participants believed that establishing consensus around these terms was essential before proceeding towards a stage of developing regulatory frameworks around them.

The general fact agreed to was that AI as we understand it does not necessarily extend to complete independence in terms of automated decision making but it refers instead to the varying levels of machine learning (ML), and the automation of certain processes that has already been achieved. Several concerns that emerged during the course of the discussion centred around the question of autonomy and transparency in the process of ML and algorithmic processing. Stakeholders recommended that over and above the debates of humans in the loop [1] on the loop [2] and out of the loop, [3] there were several other gaps with respect to AI and its usage in the industry today which also need to be considered before building a roadmap for future usage. Key issues like information asymmetries, communication lags, a lack of transparency, the increased mystification of the coding process and the centralization of power all needed to be examined and analysed under the rubric of developing regulatory frameworks.

Takeaway Point: The group brought out the need for standardization of terminology as well as the establishment of globally replicable standards surrounding the usage, control and proliferation of AI. The discussion also brought up the problems with universal applicability of norms. One of the participants brought up an issue regarding the lack of normative frameworks around the usage and proliferation of AI. Another participant responded to the concern by alluding to the Asilomar AI principles.[4] The Asilomar AI principles are a set of 23 principles aimed at directing and shaping AI research in the future. The discussion brought out further issues regarding the enforceability as well universal applicability of the principles and their global relevance as well. Participants recommended the development of a shorter, more universally applicable regulatory framework that could address various contextual limitations as well.

AI Sectoral Applications

Participants mentioned a number of both current and potential applications of AI technologies, referencing the defence sector, the financial sector, and the agriculture sector. There are several developments taking place on the Indian military front with the Committee on AI and National Security being established by the Ministry of Defence. Through the course of the discussion it was also stated that the Indian Armed Forces were very interested in the possibilities of using AI for their own strategic and tactical purposes. From a technological standpoint, however, there has been limited progress in India in researching and developing AI.

While India does deploy some Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), they are mostly bought from Israel, and often are not autonomous. It was also pointed out that contrary to reportage in the media, the defence establishment in India is extremely cautious about the adoption of autonomous weapons systems, and that the autonomous technology being rolled out by the CAIR is not yet considered trustworthy enough for deployment.

Discussions further revealed that the few technologies that have a relative degree of autonomy are primarily loitering ammunitions and are used to target radar insulations for reconnaissance purposes. One participant mentioned that while most militaries are interested in deploying AI, it is primarily from an Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) perspective. The only exception to this generalization is China where the military ethos and command structure would work better with increased reliance on independent AI systems. One major AI system rolled out by the US is Project Maven which is primarily an ISR system. The aim of using these systems is to improve decision making and enhance data analysis particularly since battlefields generate a lot of data that isn’t used anywhere.

Another sector discussed was the securities market where algorithms were used from an analytical and data collection perspective. A participant referred to the fact that machine learning was being used for processes like credit and trade scoring -- all with humans on the loop. The participant further suggested that while trade scoring was increasingly automated, the overall predictive nature of such technologies remained within a self limiting capacity wherein statistical models, collected data and pattern analysis were used to predict future trends. The participant questioned whether these algorithms could be considered as AI in the truest sense of the term since they primarily performed statistical functions and data analysis.

One participant also recommended the application of AI to sectors like agriculture with the intention of gradually acclimatizing users to the technology itself. Respondents also stated that while AI technologies were being used in the agricultural space it was primarily from the standpoint of data collection and analysis as opposed to predictive methods. It was mentioned that a challenge to the broad adoption of AI in this sector is the core problem of adopting AI as a methodology – namely information asymmetries, excessive data collection, limited control/centralization and the obfuscatory nature of code – would not be addressed/modified. Lastly, participants also suggested that within the Indian framework not much was being done aside from addressing farmers’ queries and analysing the data from those concerns.

Takeaway Point: The discussion drew attention to the various sectors where AI was currently being used -- such as the military space, agricultural development and the securities market -- as well as potential spaces of application -- such as healthcare and manual scavenging. The key challenges that emerged were information asymmetries with respect to the usage of these technologies as well as limited capacity in terms of technological advancement.

Human Involvement with Automated Decision Making

Large parts of discussions throughout the Roundtable event were preoccupied with automated decision making and specifically, the involvement of humans (human on and in the loop) or lack thereof (human out of the loop) in this process. These discussions often took place with considerations of AI for prescriptive and descriptive uses.

Participants expressed that human involvement was not needed when AI was being used for descriptive uses, such as determining relationships between various variables in large data sets. Many agreed to the superior ability of ML and similar AI technologies in describing large and unorganized datasets. It was the prescriptive uses of AI where participants saw the need for human involvement, with many questioning the technology making more important decisions by itself.

The need for human involvement in automated decision making was further justified by references to various instances of algorithmic bias in the American context. One participant, for example, brought up the use of algorithmic decision making by a school board in the United States for human resource practices (hirings, firing, etc.) based on the standardized test scores of students. In this instance, such practices resulted in the termination of teachers primarily from low income neighbourhoods.[5] The main challenge participants identified in regards to human on the loop automated decision making is the issue of capacity, as significant training would have to be achieved for sectors to have employees actively involved in the automated decision making workflow.

An example in the context of the healthcare field was brought up by one participant arguing for human in the loop in regards to prescriptive scenarios. The participant suggested that AI technology, when given x-ray or MRI data for example, should only be limited to pointing out the correlations of diseases with patients’ scans/x-rays. Analysis of such correlations should be reserved for the medical expertise of doctors who would then determine if any instances of causality can be identified from this data and if it’s appropriate for diagnosing patients.

It was emphasized that, despite a preference for human on/in the loop in regards to automated decision making, there is a need to be cognisant of techno-solutionism due to the human tendency of over reliance on technology when making decisions. A need for command and control structures and protocols was emphasized for various governance sectors in order to avoid potentially disastrous results through a checks and balances system. It was noted that the defense sector has already developed such protocols, having established a chain of command due to its long history of algorithmic decision making (e.g. the Aegis Combat System being used by the US Navy in the 1980s).

One key reason why militaries prefer human in and on the loop systems as opposed to out of the loop systems is because of the protocol associated with human action on the battlefield. International Humanitarian Law has clear indicators of what constitutes a war crime and who is to be held responsible in the scenario but developing such a framework with AI systems would be challenging as it would be difficult to determine which party ought to be held accountable in the case of a transgression or a mistake.

Takeaway Point: It was reiterated by many participants that neither AI technology or India’s regulatory framework is at a point where AI can be trusted to make significant decisions alone -- especially when such decisions are evaluating humans directly. It was recommended that human out of the loop decision making should be reserved for descriptive practices whereas human on and in the loop decision making should be used for prescriptive practices. Lastly, it was also suggested that appropriate protocols be put in place to direct those involved in the automated decision making workflow. Particularly when the process involves judgements and complex decision making in sectors such as jurisprudence and the military.

The Social and Power Relations Surrounding AI

Some participants emphasized the need to contextualize discussions of AI and governance within larger themes of poverty, global capital and power/social relations. Their concerns were that the use of AI technologies would only create and reinforce existing power structures and should instead be utilized towards ameliorating such issues. Manual scavenging, for example, was identified as an area where AI could be used to good effect if coupled with larger socio-political policy changes. There are several hierarchies that could potentially be reinforced through this process and all these failings needed to be examined thoroughly before such a system was adopted and incorporated within the real world.

Furthermore the discussion also revealed that the objectivity attributed to AI and ML tends to gloss over the fact that there are nonetheless implicit biases that exist in the minds of the creators that might work themselves into the code. Fears regarding technology recreating a more exclusionary system were not entirely unfounded as participants pointed out the fact that the knowledge base of the user would determine whether technology was used as a tool of centralization or democratization.

One participant also questioned the concept of governance itself, contrasting the Indian government’s usage of the term in the 1950s (as it appears in the Directive Principle) with that of the World Bank in the 1990s.

Takeaway Point: Discussions of the implementation and deployment of AI within the governance landscape should attempt to take into consideration larger power relations and concepts of equity.

Regulatory Approaches to AI

Many recognized the need for AI-specific regulations across Indian sectors, including governance. These regulations, participants stated, should draw from notions of accountability, algorithmic transparency and efficiency. Furthermore, it was also stated that such regulations should consider the variations across the different legs of the governance sector, especially in regards to defence. One participant, pointing to the larger trends towards automation, recommended the establishment of certain fundamental guidelines aimed at directing the applicability of AI in general. The participant drew attention to the need for a robust evaluation system for various sectors (the criminal justice system, the securities market, etc.) as a way of providing checks on algorithmic biases. Another emphasized for the need of regulations for better quality data as to ensure machine readability and processiblity for various AI systems.

Another key point that emerged was the importance of examining how specific algorithms performed processes like identification or detection. A participant recommended the need to examine the ways in which machines identify humans and what categories/biases could infiltrate machine-judgement. They reiterated that if a new element was introduced in the system, the pre-existing variables would be impacted as well. The participant further recommended that it would be useful to look at these systems in terms of the couplings that get created in order to determine what kinds of relations are fostered within that system.

The roundtable saw some debate regarding the most appropriate approach to developing such regulations. Some participants argued for a harms-based approach, particularly in regards to determining if regulations are needed all together for specific sectors (as opposed to guidelines, best practices, etc.). The need to be cognisant of both individual and structural harms was emphasized, mindful of the possibility of algorithmic biases affecting traditionally marginalized groups.

Others only saw value in a harms based approach insomuch that it could help outline the appropriate penalties in an event of regulations being violated, arguing instead for a rights-based approach as it enabled greater room for technological changes. An approach that kept in mind emerging AI technologies was reiterated by a number of participants as being crucial to any regulatory framework. The need for a regulatory space that allowed for technological experimentation without the fear of constitutional violation was also communicated.

Takeaway Point: The need for a AI-specific regulatory framework cognisant of differentiations across sectors in India was emphasized. There is some debate about the most appropriate approach for such a framework, a harms-based approach being identified by many as providing the best perspective on regulatory need and penalties. Some identified the rights-based approach as providing the most flexibility for an rapidly evolving technological landscape.

Challenges to Adopting AI

Out of all the concerns regarding the adoption of algorithms, ML and AI, the two key points of resistance that emerged, centred around issues of accountability and transparency. Participants suggested that within an AI system, predictability would be a key concern, and in the absence of predictable outcomes, establishing redressal mechanisms would pose key challenges as well.

A discussion was also initiated regarding the problems involved in attributing responsibility within the AI chain as well as the need to demystify the process of using AI in daily life. While reiterating the current landscape, participants spoke about how the usage of AI is currently limited to the automation of certain tasks and processes in certain sectors where algorithmic processing is primarily used as a tool of data collection and analysis as opposed to an independent decision making tool.

One of the suggestions and thought points that emerged during the discussion was whether a gradual adoption of AI on a sectoral basis might be more beneficial as it would provide breathing room in the middle to test the system and establish trust between the developers, providers, and consumers. This prompted a debate about the controllers and the consumers of AI and how the gap between the two would need to be negotiated. The debate also brought up larger concerns regarding the mystification of AI as a process itself and the complications of translating the code into communicable points of intervention.

Another major issue that emerged was the question of attribution of responsibility in the case of mistakes. In the legal process as it currently exists, human imperfections notwithstanding, it would be possible to attribute the blame for decisions taken to certain actants undertaking the action. Similarly in the defence sector, it would be possible to trace the chain of command and identify key points of failure, but in the case of AI based judgements, it would be difficult to place responsibility or blame. This observation led to a debate regarding accountability in the AI chain. It was inconclusive whether the error should be attributed to the developer, the distributor or the consumer.

A suggestion that was offered in order to counter the information asymmetry as well as reduce the mystification of computational method was to make the algorithm and its processes transparent. This sparked a debate, however, as participants stated that while such a state of transparency ought to be sought after and aspired towards, it would be accompanied by certain threats to the system. A key challenge that was pointed out was the fact that if the algorithm was made transparent, and its details were shared, there would be several ways to manipulate it, translate it and misuse it.

Another question that emerged was the distribution of AI technologies and the centralization of the proliferation process particularly in terms of service provision. One participant suggested that given the limited nature of research being undertaken and the paucity of resources, a limited number of companies would end up holding the best tech, the best resources and the best people. They further suggested that these technologies might end up being rolled out as a service on a contractual basis. In which case it would be important to track how the service was being controlled and delivered. Models of transference would become central points of negotiation with alternations between procurement based, lease based, and ownership based models of service delivery. Participants suggested that this was going to be a key factor in determining how to approach these issues from a legal and policy standpoint.

Takeaway Point: The two key points of resistance that emerged during the course of discussion were accountability and transparency. Participants pointed out the various challenges involved in attributing blame within the AI chain and they also spoke about the complexities of opening up AI code, thereby leaving it vulnerable to manipulation. Certain other challenges that were briefly touched upon were the information asymmetry, excessive data collection, centralization of power in the hands of the controllers and complicated service distribution models.

Conclusion

The Roundtable provided some insight into larger debates regarding the deployment and applications of AI in the governance sector of India. The need for a regulatory framework as well as globally replicable standards surrounding AI was emphasized, particularly one mindful of the particular needs of differing fields of the governance sector (especially defence). Furthermore, a need for human on/in the loop practices with regards to automated decision making was highlighted for prescriptive instances, particularly when such decisions are responsible for directly evaluating humans. Contextualising AI within its sociopolitical parameters was another key recommendation as it would help filter out the biases that might work themselves into the code and affect the performance of the algorithm. Further, it is necessary to see the involvement and influence of the private sector in the deployment of AI for governance, it often translating into the delivery of technological services from private actors to public bodies towards discharge of public functions. This has clear implications for requirements of transparency and procedural fairness even in private sector delivery of these services. Defining the meaning and scope of AI while working to demystify algorithms themselves would serve to strengthen regulatory frameworks as well as make AI more accessible for the user / consumer.

[1]. Automated decision making model where final decisions are made by a human operator

[2]. Automated decision making model where decisions can be made without human involvement but a human can override the system.

[3]. A completely autonomous decision making model requiring no human involvement

[4]. https://futureoflife.org/ai-principles/

[5]. The participant was drawing this example from Cathy O’Neil’s Weapons of Math Destruction, (Penguin,2016), at 4-13.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/artificial-intelligence-in-governance-a-report-of-the-roundtable-held-in-new-delhi

Data Protection Submission

amber — 2018-04-18T16:37:05Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/data-protection-submission

CIS Submission to the Committee of Experts on a Data Protection Framework for India

amber — 2018-04-06T08:09:09Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/cis-submission-to-the-committee-of-experts-on-a-data-protection-framework-for-india

If data is the new oil, how much does an Indian citizen lose?

Admin — 2018-04-03T15:42:31Z

Surveillance capitalism is the business model of the Internet, so what exactly are we talking about here?

The article by Saurya Sengupta was published in the Hindu on March 31, 2018. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

“We know where you are. We know where you’ve been. We can more or less know what you’re thinking about.” That was the former executive chairman of Google, Eric Schmidt, trying to convince users that the tech giants did care about their privacy, ironically enough. But that was in 2010.

Fast forward eight years, and a lot has changed. The world has been rattled by revelations that the personally identifiable data of about 50 million Facebook users was breached by an analytics firm. Since then, the skeletons haven’t stopped tumbling out, with the news that the NaMo app asks for as many as 22 permissions from users, and that the official Congress app, since deleted, was vulnerable to data breach.

Bruce Schneier, an American security technologist and fellow at Harvard University’s Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society, in his book Data and Goliath, says: “Google knows what kind of porn each of us searches for, which old lovers we still think about, our shames, our concerns, and our secrets.”

So, what does any of this mean for us, the lay users?

It may be helpful to start by asking what this ‘data’ is. “Whenever you use any service on your phone or browser, you end up giving a lot more information than you consciously recall. This includes not just the content of your interactions, but also metadata and so on,” says Nayantara Ranganathan, manager of the Internet Democracy Project’s Freedom of Expression programme. Metadata is, simply put, data about your data. So, for example, your location information, what time you were home, how many times you made calls to a certain number, and so on.

“This is known as behavioural data,” says Sunil Abraham, executive director of The Centre for Internet & Society, “which includes how fast or slow you scrolled, how long you stayed on a page, how many times you went to a particular part of a website, and so on.”

Bhajan or you?

This is not just data gathered by the large Facebook and Gmail apps, but also by a lot of the smaller ones. An app that plays bhajans, for example, may mine your data and share it. And what do the third parties do with this? Well, the idea is to simply embed you further in a consumerist panopticon.

To FB or not to be

As #DeleteFacebook gets louder, users agonise about leaving Facebook on Facebook, irony be damned
Truth is, quitting FB won't help. Because it's also about Google Photos and Maps and Candy Crush and Which Disney Villain Are You
In the absence of laws, you've no control of what apps can do with your data. Even after you've 'deleted' it
Facebook doesn't take responsibility for data collected by apps, and refers users to app developers instead
Quitting FB and other apps might be a privilege and not an option for most

“Surveillance capitalism is the business model of the Internet, and all social media apps make their money collecting data on users and monetising that,” says Schneier.

“Lots of apps have no revenue generation. Their only benefit is data,” says Manan Shah, founder and CEO of Avalance Global Solutions, a cyber security firm. In fact, he says, apps like WhatsApp are the obvious suspects while the smaller ones, like the bhajan one, slip under the radar.

All of it is part of ‘lead generation’ — the process of identifying potential customers for a service or business. “A call-centre is useless without data,” Shah says. “If I want to sell you an antivirus, for instance, a company will identify filters — who owns a computer, who has already purchased an antivirus, and so on. I can then target that user. This filtered data is often your full name, bank details, data about your debit and credit cards. Abraham says there is another fairly obvious purpose for all this data collection – to get you to spend as much time on the said platform as possible.

This explains why, for example, when you Google something, the suggested searches are often tailored in an eerie manner. If you search for a word, the second search suggestion will offer to get that word translated into the local language. So if you’re in Chennai, Tamil, or into Marathi if you’re in Mumbai.

This a product of profiling your location data as well as behavioural data. “Imagine the kind of insights your location information over the course of a month can expose: your residence, where you spend your mornings, your route to work, your loved one’s residence, and more,” says Ranganathan.

“Users are often not aware that they’ve given their consent to sharing this data,” says Nikhil Pahwa, digital rights activist. “The terms and conditions of every app are so complicated and voluminous that often you have no way of knowing what something is being used for and what you’ve given your permission to. That’s a failure of the kind of consent we have today,” he says. If an app developer, quips Pahwa, puts in a condition saying the user will name their first child after the app, the user is more than likely to click on ‘I agree’.

While the failure to make consent transparent is illegal, data collection in itself is a grey area. And what constitutes ‘misuse’ of data is murky because of the lack of regulations and clear outlines. “What if a salon has your phone number and sends an SMS saying your haircut is due,” asks S. Anand, CEO of data science firm Gramener. “Would you consider that misuse?”

It gets more ominous.

We’ll use it some day

At present, India has no law to stop apps from sharing your data with data brokers or data analytics firms. “The tendency has been to collect as much data as you can, even if it isn't relevant to your business today, because it might be some day or, better still, it might be valuable to others,” says Amba Kak, a Mozilla technology policy fellow. “This is why we need a law to say — collect what you need, not what you want.”

As an Indian citizen, your data today is breached, misused or sold, there is little you can do about it. “At most, users can be more vigilant about the apps they download, what permissions they give, and evaluate whether there are better alternatives,” says Ranganathan.

“One can approach a court and seek redress under the IT Act,” says Abraham, “but only if you have suffered a loss of property or money. If your data has been breached or leaked, and you haven’t suffered a monetary or property loss, there’s nothing you can do.”

The Justice Srikrishna committee, set up in July, is right now working on a draft data protection bill. The committee published a white paper last November, and a final report is expected by end of May. “The white paper itself looks fantastic,” Abraham tells me.

An ideal data protection law, says Kak, “will reflect the Supreme Court’s recent decision that all interference with the right to privacy must be necessary and proportionate.”

If data sharing is inevitable in the digital age, then it could be made illegal, for instance, to share data that can identify individuals. Anand says, “This could be done by replacing all names with a new random name or by aggregating total purchases by store and product rather than by individual purchase.”

So in an era where we have been casually asked to accept that ‘data is the new oil’, who is the biggest loser? “Framing 'data' as the new oil is dangerous,” says Ranganathan. Kak agrees: “This is a tired analogy that doesn't seem to get us anywhere except to recognise that data is a source of profit for the private sector.” She would rather go with Turkish sociologist Zeynep Tufekci’s definition where we think of data privacy like clean air or safe drinking water. “It is a public good that we need to safeguard as a collective through laws that make controllers of data accountable,” says Kak.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-hindu-march-31-2018-saurya-sengupta-if-data-is-new-oil-how-much-an-indian-citizen-lose

Annual Report 2017-2018

praskrishna — 2019-01-29T01:57:43Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/about/reports/annual-report-2017-2018.pdf

Modi Govt compromising privacy of individuals: Cong

Admin — 2018-04-18T01:10:42Z

Charging the Narendra Modi Governemt with compromising the privacy of individuals by leaking user information on the Narendra Modi app, the Congress on Monday said the counter allegations by the BJP that the Opposition party was indulging in 'data theft' were an attempt to divert attention from the issue.

This was published by United News of India on March 26, 2018.

Talking to reporters here, AICC spokesperson Abhishek Manu Singhvi said, 'we have said repeatedly that the biggest assault on individual privacy has occurred under the watch of the Narendra Modi Government. Not only people’s money, but people’s privacy is also in question.

Even as startling revelations that the Narendra Modi app, run by the BJP is sharing data of millions of users with American companies emerge, the Modi Government mocks and flouts the ‘Right to Privacy’ with brazen impunity. While the Prime Minister’s Office, PMO India app, asks users to voluntarily part with their identity on 14 data points, the NaMo app asks for a sweeping access to 22 data points. The NaMo app records audio, video, contacts of your friends and family and even tracks your location via GPS. No wonder, Modi ji is like the ‘Bigg Boss’ who with brazenness likes to spy on Indians. The BJP whose IT (Identity Theft?) Minister does daily press conferences on the issue of data security and democracy, has much to answer to the people of India on the unscrupulous means by which Shri Narendra Modi’s personal app is accessing data and passing on data of more than 50 lakh Indians,' he alleged.

Describing the BJP allegations that the Congress was indulging in 'data theft' through its mobile app, Mr Singhvi said. 'the Modi Government is resorting to deflectionary and diversionary tactics. The Congress application had just 15,000 downloads against the 50 lakh Indians who downloaded the NaMo app. Also, the Congress application was discontinued as most of the users wanted to register offline.'

Accusing Mr Modi of misusing the Prime Minister’s position to build personal database with data on millions of Indians via the NaMo app promoted by the government, Mr Singhvi said, 'Why does Mr Modi, in his own book ‘Exam Warriors’ urge you to download the NaMo app. Is he now planning to snoop in on minors? Mr Modi is misusing the Prime Minister’s position to build personal database with data on millions of Indians via the NaMo app promoted by Government. If as PM he wants to use tech to communicate with India, there is no problem in that. But use the official PMO app for it, not the NaMo app. This data belongs to India, not to Mr Modi.

Shockingly, data of atleast 13 lakh NCC cadets which include personal mobile phone numbers and email ID’s are being given to the Prime Minister’s Office for an interaction.'

Citing in this regard the report of a committee of experts appointed by the government on the issue of data protection, Mr Singhvi said, 'importantly, a Government appointed Committee of Experts (CoE) to look into a framework for data protection, headed by Justice (retd) BN Srikrishna has made scathing observations in a paper released in November 2017, against the Government and has shockingly implied (according to the media reports) that the Modi Government is collecting personal data illegally. The committee, which is currently in the process of conducting consultations, has also considered the SC judgment on privacy, says in its paper “The public and private sector are collecting and using personal data on an unprecedented scale. While data can be put to beneficial use, unregulated and arbitrary use of data, especially personal data, raise concerns relating to centralisation of databases, profiling of individuals, increased surveillance and a consequent erosion of individual autonomy.”

Alleging that under the Modi Government, not only the personal data of citizens was under serious threat, but there were multiple reports of data breaches in banks, Mr Singhvi said, 'astonishingly, under the Modi Government, not only the personal data of citizens is under serious threat, but multiple breaches in the banks. In an atmosphere where every single day there has been a bank fraud worth thousands of crores of rupees being reported, have resulted in one single question - how safe is our money in banks?

Banks and PSU’s have reported multiple breaches in recent past. A newspaper report on Monday said two online security experts have claimed that the Aadhaar database of two public-sector enterprises leaked select data and the vulnerability was fixed only a month after attention was drawn to it. This exposes their names, the 12-digit Aadhaar number and information of the services they have linked their Aadhaar card to. These services include bank details, policy details and other private information. This was corroborated by the UIDAI statement released on Sunday.

“It was left up there for more than a month — even though it had been reported to them directly,” claim the security experts. On February 23, 2018 a report had claimed that there was a data breach which had hit the the Punjab National Bank, whereby sensitive credit, debit card details of 10,000 customers were leaked. Quick Heal, a reputed software company in October 2017 had also claimed that there was a massive data breach in 6,000 government offices including banks. Earlier in 2016, as per media reports -- 32 lakh debit/credit cards of various Indian banks were compromised. The worst-hit was the State Bank of India along with certain private banks.'

He also charged the present Government of breach of Aadhaar data of individuals.

'In April 2014, the then Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi had attacked Aadhaar and the UPA Government on its possible ‘security threat’. Life has now come full circle for the BJP. Just like numerous other issues, their blatant hypocrisy on Aadhaar is exposed. In January, this year, when a reputed newspaper in a sting exposed how 1 crore Aadhaar details can be accessed in just 10 minutes, by paying just Rs 500 in Chandigarh, the UIDAI had then filed an FIR against the reporter. Now the editor of the reputed media house has also been replaced.

We have seen it in May 4, 2017, when the Modi Government is on record in Supreme Court, accepting data breach in the Aadhaar scheme. Now the Attorney General in Supreme Court, while arguing that Aadhaar data remains safe and secure, says that the Aadhaar data remains secure behind a complex that has 13-ft high and five-feet thick walls, which is laughable and ludicrous, to say the least. On November 20, 2017, the UIDAI had accepted on record that –“More than 210 central and state government websites publicly displayed details such as names and addresses of Aadhaar beneficiaries”. Earlier too, ‘Centre for Internet and Society’, a Bengaluru-based organisation (CIS) in a study published on May 1, 2017, had found that data of more than 130 million Aadhaar card holders has been leaked from just four government websites. Therefore this is a serious issue. Clearly, neither our money, nor our Aadhaar details or our personal details are secure under the Modi Government.'

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/united-news-of-india-march-26-2018-modi-govt-compromising-privacy-of-individuals-congress

India Trilateral Forum

Admin — 2018-04-10T15:09:21Z

Sunil Abraham was a panelist in the session "The Promise and Peril of Technology" at the 14th edition of India Trilateral Forum organized by the German Marshall Fund of the United States, Observer Research Foundation and Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of Sweden in Goa from March 22 - 23, 2018.

The Promise and Peril of Technology

The emergence of new technologies create possibilities for change, yet also carry risks of the emergence of “soft wars,” privacy issues, ethical challenges, among others. With global military spending on the rise, we may now be on the cusp of a series of new technological innovations that will fundamentally change the way we conduct warfare. The rise of low-cost real-time satellite surveillance has the potential for privacy violation, intrusive controls, and hacking. Many credit the digital revolution with creating new possibilities for democratic engagement, because information technology has made institutions like mass media less hierarchical. There are hidden costs to the digital revolution and the transformative technologies, which needs to be carefully understood. The panel discussed the deeper layers of opportunities and risks associated with transformative technologies on war and peace and discuss whether the U.S., India, and Europe are falling behind China in this crucial area.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/india-trilateral-forum