Centre for Internet and Society

Draft bill proposes Rs 1 crore fine, 3 year jail for data privacy violation

Admin — 2018-06-29T16:48:48Z

The move comes at a time when user data of Indians is under threat from social media firms accused of data mining and sharing information with private companies for advertising and marketing purposes. There has also been a growing concern over Aadhaar.

The article by Vidhi Choudhury was published in the Hindustan Times on June 8, 2018. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

Even as a 10-member government panel is due to submit its recommendations for a new data privacy bill, a group of lawyers on Friday uploaded a model citizens’ code, which they said could give the panel pointers to what India’s final privacy law should be.

The Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) launched its community project, ‘Save our Privacy’, in what it described as a bid to safeguard individuals’ right to privacy. This model code, titled ‘Indian Privacy Code, 2018’, has been drafted by lawyers such Gautam Bhatia, Apar Gupta and Raman Jit Singh Chima, among others.

Many of these lawyers made a joint submission to the Justice BN Srikrishna Committee in the past. On Friday, they sent him an email with the copy of the code with its seven core principles. The core principles follow what IFF calls a “rights-based approach to protect people from harmful use of their personal data”.

“In a world where personal data has power, people need to be put in charge of their own lives,” said New Delhi-based lawyer Apar Gupta.

The draft bill sets a penalty of up to Rs 1 crore for the violation of privacy of citizens and a prison sentence of up to three years. It also provides for a penalty of up to Rs 10 crore to anyone found to be performing surveillance unlawfully, with a prison term of up to five years.

The move comes at a time when user data of Indians is under potential threat from social media companies that have been accused of data mining and sharing user information with private firms for advertising and marketing purposes.

There has also been a growing concern in India over the validity of the Aadhaar law. A Constitution bench of the Supreme Court has finished hearing a slew of petitions against the unique identity number and has reserved its judgment.

On 31 July, the government constituted the panel headed by Justice Srikrishna to study various issues relating to data protection and suggest a draft data protection bill.

IFF said in a statement that it had concerns over the “composition, lack of diversity and transparency” of the committee. It also said it was concerned about the lack of urgency India had shown about making a privacy law, and that its civil society project was important to build awareness on privacy and data protection in India.

“The Indian Privacy Code, 2018 ensures that right to privacy does not undermine the Right to Information Act. All the other existing laws including the Telegraph Act and the Aadhaar Act should be subject to this law,” Chima said.

“We hope the Justice BN Srikrishna Committee considers and adopts the language we propose,” he added.

According to a senior official at the home ministry who spoke on the condition of anonymity, the privacy bill hasn’t come up for discussion yet. “In any case, the said bill will be taken up by the IT ministry first. The IT ministry will be responsible for piloting the proposed bill on privacy and MHA will, in the later stages, give its opinion on security issues related to the proposed bill,” he said.

A government official on condition of anonymity said that its for the Justice Srikirshna Committee to look at the model privacy code launched today and decide what they want to use from it.

When contacted, Ajay Sawhney, secretary for ministry of electronics and technology said: “The Justice Srikrishna Committee will submit its report shortly.”

“The reason civil society is doing this is because the government is not sharing their draft bills,” said Sunil Abraham, founder of think tank Centre for Internet and Society (CIS). In 2013, CIS had also published a citizen’s draft privacy protection bill.

(With inputs from Azaan Javaid)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/hindustan-times-june-8-2018-vidhi-choudhary-draft-bill-proposes-rs-1-crore-fine-3-year-jail-for-data-privacy-violation

Draft Annual Report (2010-11)

praskrishna — 2014-10-21T23:55:55Z

This is the draft of the 2010-11 Annual Report.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/about/reports/annual-report-2010-2011.pdf

DP Compendium

Admin — 2018-05-31T16:00:24Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/dp-compendium

Does the UID Reflect India?

elonnai — 2012-03-22T05:45:32Z

On December 17th the Campaign for No UID held a press conference and public meeting in Bangalore. Below is a summary and analysis of the events.

Introduction

Scientifically speaking, we are each unique. We have unique bodies and minds, and these give rise to unique understandings, interactions, and perceptions. Despite being unique, we can be put into different categories and classes, one of which is a culture. A culture is defined by its values, which are reflected in its legal system. Consequently legal systems are always changing – bills are constantly being amended, passed, and retracted in order to make the governing legal structure reflect the ethos of that society. Thus, when analyzing a piece of legislation it is important to ask if that bill is meaningful in a way that reflects the ideas, values, attitudes, and expectations that a society has. This is the question that Usha Ramanathan, Mathew Thomas, and others in the Campaign for No UID have been asking about the UID project, and urged the public to ask the same question in the press conference and public meeting held on the 17th of December. According to the Campaign for No UID, the project and Bill fail to reflect and meet the current needs that exist in India. The UID Bill, the proposed legislation for the project, authorizes the creation of a centralized database of unique identification numbers that are to be issued to every resident of India. The numbers will act as identity. Recently, the Bill was sent to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance, and is scheduled to be enacted in early 2011. The UID project is attempting to create a technological solution to the identification problem in India. It is well-known that India faces challenges in identifying its citizens and residents. Individuals either have no identification – restricting their access to society and benefits -- or, in some cases, they have multiple identities, therefore taking advantage of society at the expense of others, or a person does not have any identification – therefore escaping civil duties. The confusing identity system that exists in India has many negative drawbacks including the facilitation of corruption, illegal immigration, and possible security threats. The UID project attempts to provide a system of identity that is based on individuals’ biometrics, and that places the whole of India on a grid through the issuance of 12 digit Aadhaar numbers. The Campaign for NO UID does not deny the need for an efficient identity system, is not against technology, and does not deny that the current identity system has problems. Instead, it believes that the project does not adequately address the issues at hand, while at the same time creating a real prospect of harmful ramifications.

Benefits for the Poor

Though the UID project only gives identity to an individual, it has been envisioned as a means of ensuring the delivery of benefits to the poor. According to the World Bank, within India 41% of the population lives below the poverty line, and targeting the need to ensure benefits for the poor is an appropriate vision. Furthermore, as reflected in the Right to Food Act, there is a cultural understanding and expectation that the State needs to work to bring benefits to the poor. The point that Ms. Ramanathan draws attention to, though, is that the goal of bringing benefits to the poor is just a vision. The project and the Bill are not structured in a way that guarantee benefits to the poor. Instead, by trying to include the perception of this benefit, the language of the Bill has become too broad. The wide-sweeping language allows room for abuse of how information that is collected will be used.

Appropriate Methodology

Ms. Ramanathan also questions the methodology of the UID project. The collection of biometrics is not an absolute insurer of identity, in the way that DNA would be. A person’s biometrics are in fact very public. They are left on anything one touches, and can easily be reproduced for use by others. Identity theft is thus easily accomplished if biometrics are the only safeguard. Realistically, the vast majority of India’s population would not know what to do or how to seek redress if identities were stolen – indeed, many would not even be aware of the fact that their identity had been stolen. Thus, the project establishes a hierarchy of vulnerability. Those who understand and have access to technology and the legal system are better able to protect their identity (or abuse another’s), and the rest of the population is at the mercy of the people who possess that knowledge and those connections.

Legal Questions

Ms. Ramanathan also brought up a few legal issues with the UID Bill. Most importantly she pointed out that the UID project is not legal, yet enrollment of individuals has been taking place. Not only is this action undemocratic, but it is presumptuous of the UIDAI to assume that their project will have legal validity. Another legal issue raised by Ms. Ramanathan was in concern with the compulsory nature of the Aadhaar number. Legally the UID Bill does not make the Aadhaar number compulsory. Instead, the project is structured in such a way that the UID number is socially compulsory. Ms. Ramanathan argues that this is unfair of the UIDAI. If the number were to be truly voluntary, the UID would need to include clauses that prohibit the denial of goods, services, entitlements and benefits for lack of a UID number. An individual would need to be able to access benefits with alternative forms of identification before the Aadhaar number would be truly voluntary.

Does India Comprehend what the UID Could Bring?

Another fear voiced by Mrs. Ramanathan in her presentation was the level of public comprehension. Even though the project will touch the lives of every human being who comes to India, the majority of the Indian population has not thought through why they support or do not support the project, and most do not comprehend the dangerous implications of the UID project. Connections are not being made and clearly publicized about how the project could be used in the future. For example, once everyone has a set of personal data that is uploaded on a centralized database, there is a new concern over that data. What is happening to it, who is using it, what is it being used for, who is seeing it, who is analyzing it, what happens if that data is lost? One of the serious implications of the project is its’ threat to anonymity. Anonymity results when the personal identity, or personally identifiable information of a person is not known. Anonymity already exists today in Indian society by default.. This will change, though, with the UID. One’s body will become a traceable marker that will be readily identifiable to law enforcement and other agencies. By issuing numbers to each person, that will be used for every transaction – it will be possible to create a map of the population and tag information about individuals in a way that changes the relationship between the state and the people. Though it is true India could benefit from a lesser degree of anonymity. For instance corruption might be easier to control. The Bill takes no steps, though, to ensure under what conditions anonymity will be preserved. Thus, the project has the potential to be widely misused for intensive surveillance and the policing of populations – not just for illegal activity but for disfavored or unpopular activity as well.

Conclusion

One way to avoid the misuse of data is through the adherence to privacy standards such as how data should be processed, transferred etc. India does not of yet have such a privacy law, and such principles are not reflected in the text of the Bill itself. The fact that the UID bill and project bring into focus principles that are not yet fully reflected in the social and legal framework of society can be problematic. On one hand this Bill can push India to adopt those principles, in which case a data protection and privacy bill must be enacted, and awareness must be raised. On the other hand, the Bill can simply overshadow the populace, allowing significant violations of privacy and anonymity to take place with no assurance of redress. As Ms. Ramanathan noted, even though the project is not reflective of Indian society, the way in which the project is being marketed is. The project has been tied to the image of Nandan Nilekani, and the message is clear: the project must be good. The Campaign for No UID is asking the public to look beyond the face of the project, and consider whether or not this is the India they imagine.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/privacy/uid-reflects-india

Does the Government want to enter our homes?

sunil — 2012-03-21T10:12:40Z

When rogue politicians and bureaucrats are granted unrestricted access to information then the very future of democracy and free media will be in jeopardy. In an article published in the Pune Mirror on 10 August, 2010, Sunil Abraham examines this in light of the BlackBerry-to-BlackBerry messenger service that the Government of India plans to block if its makers do not allow the monitoring of messages. He says that civil society should rather resist and insist on suitable checks and balances like governmental transparency and a fair judicial oversight instead of allowing the government to intrude into the privacy and civil liberties of its citizens.

What? Me worry about the blackberry imbroglio?
If Pierre Trudeau were alive today, he would feel similarly about the Canadian innovation that is making news these days. But, given the Indian media's objective take on the ongoing BlackBerry tussle, one would assume that the media is unaffected.

Many internet observers say that the very future of democracy and free media is at stake. If rogue politicians and bureaucrats are able to eavesdrop on the communications of media houses, wouldn't that sound the death knell for sting operations, anonymous informants and whistle-blowers?

And, consequently, free press and democracy? How can the media keep its calm when one of the last bastions of electronic privacy in India is being stormed?

Isn’t this a lost cause already?
Perhaps, our reporters and editors have remained complacent, because they do not want to swim against the tide. After all, governments across the world have used excuses like cyber-terrorism, organised crime, pornography, piracy etc. to justify censorship and surveillance regimes.

The priveleged access that the governments of India, Saudi Arabia and UAE are demanding has already been provided to the governments of USA, Canada and Russia, for example.

We don't know how much they know about us!
The average reader might not be aware of the access that the Indian government has to his/her personal information.

To be clear, the Indian government, like most other governments, is able to intercept, decrypt, monitor and record sms and voice call traffic by working in partnership with ISP and Telecom operators.

This is legalised through ISP licence agreements, which requires ISPs to provide monitoring equipment that can be used to by various law enforcement and intelligence agencies. There is no clear policy on data-retention policies.

Industry insiders say that SMS messages, telephone call logs, email headers, and web requests are archived from anywhere between three months and a year.

Do these ISPs and telecom operators then delete, anonymise or obfuscate this data? Or do they they retain it for posterity for market research?

In the absence of a privacy law — the Indian citizen can only make intelligent guesses.

Encryption is our friend
As a student, when I passed a love note to my lady-love in class, I would use a symmetric key encryption scheme.

She would use the same key as I did to unencrypt the machine, ie, substituting the alphabet with the next/previous one.

If someone was able to intercept the key, then all communication between us in both directions would be compromised.

Asymmetric key encryption solves this problem by giving both parties two keys — a public key and a private key. I would use my lady-love’s public key to encrypt a message meant for her.

Only she would be able to unencrypt the message by using her private key. The size of the key — 40bit, 128bit, 256bit etc. determines the strength of the encryption.

The more bits you have, the longer it will take for someone to break through using a brute force method. The brute force method or dictionary method is when you try every single combination —just as you would with an old suitcase.

The time taken also depends on computing resources — whether you are a jealous boyfriend, or the FBI, or a corporation like Google. These days, governments depend on corporations for hardware and network muscle.

How does Blackberry encrypt differently?
Other smart phone providers like IPhone and Nokia make email and Internet traffic transparent to the ISP and telecom operator, making it easy for governments are able to keep track of Internet users on mobile phones just as they monitor dial-up or broadband users.

Most mobile services come with a basic encryption. Blackberry is different because it introduces an additional level of encryption, and then routes traffic either through corporate servers or through its own servers in Canada and other parts of the world.

The fact that information is routed thus can pose a threat to the Indian government, if officials are using Blackberries to exchange highly classified information.

Then, GoI could be worried if western intelligence agencies are eavesdropping.

How will this end? Will Blackberry leave?
Blackberry has never exited a country, because in the end it has prioritised consumer privacy over commercial compulsions. For example Blackberry has now ‘resolved’ security probwith Saudi Arabia.

I don’t think we should worry about deals or compromises. However, this is not to say that Blackberry should not be applauded.

They have taken a public stand against unrestricted governmental access to their clients’ information; one should always applaud corporates who fight hard for privacy and civil liberties.

What the Blackberry dilemma is showing us is the social cost of the electronic Big Brother will be steep, as it should be.

To protect citizens’ rights, civil society must resist and insist on suitable checks and balances like governmental transparency and fair judicial oversight.

Read the article in Pune Mirror

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/government-enter-homes

Does Size Matter? A Tale of Performing Welfare, Producing Bodies and Faking Identity

praskrishna — 2014-06-04T09:45:49Z

Malavika Jayaram gave a talk.

This was published by the website of Berkman Center for Internet and Society

Big Data doesn’t get much bigger than India’s identity project. The world’s largest biometric database - currently consisting of almost 600 million enrolled - seduces with promises of inclusion, legitimacy and visibility. By locating this techno-utopian vision within the larger surveillance state that a unique identifier facilitates, Malavika will describe the ‘welfare industrial complex’ that imagines the poor as the next emerging market. She will highlight the risks of the body as password, of implementing e-governance in a legal vacuum, and of digitization reinforcing existing inequalities. The export of technologies of control - once they have been tested on a massive population that has little agency and limited ability to withhold consent - transforms this project from a site of local activism to one with global repercussions. By offering a perspective that is somewhat different from the traditional western focus of privacy, she hopes to generate a more inclusive discourse about what it means to be autonomous and empowered in the face of paternalistic development projects. She will highlight, in particular, the varied ways in which the project is already being subverted and re-purposed, in ways that are humorous and poignant.

About Malavika

Malavika is a Fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University, focusing on privacy, identity and free expression. She is also a Fellow at the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, and the author of the India chapter for the Data Protection & Privacy volume in the Getting the Deal Done series. Malavika is one of 10 Indian lawyers in The International Who's Who of Internet e-Commerce & Data Protection Lawyers directory. In August 2013, she was voted one of India’s leading lawyers - one of only 8 women to be featured in the “40 under 45” survey conducted by Law Business Research, London. In a different life, she spent 8 years in London, practicing law with global firm Allen & Overy in the Communications, Media & Technology group, and as VP and Technology Counsel at Citigroup. She is working on a PhD about the development of a privacy jurisprudence and discourse in India, viewed partly through the lens of the Indian biometric ID project.

Podcast

Watch the podcast at this link.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/harvard-university-may-13-2014-does-size-matter

Do You Want to be Watched?

sunil — 2012-03-21T09:11:45Z

The new rules under the IT Act are an assault on our freedom, says Sunil Abraham in this article published in Pragati on June 8, 2011.

Privacy is a necessary but not sufficient condition for security. A bank safe is safe only because the keys are held by a trusted few. No one else can access these keys or has the ability to duplicate them. The 2008 Amendment of the Information Technology (IT) Act and their associated rules notified April 2011 proposes to eliminate whatever little privacy Indian netizens have had so far. Already as per the internet service provider (ISP) license, citizens using encryption above 40-bit were expected to deposit the complete decryption key with the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology. This is as intelligent as citizens of a neighbourhood making duplicates of the keys to their homes and handing them over at the local police station. With the IT Act’s latest rules things get from bad to worse. (For an analysis of the new rules under the IT Act, see the In Parliament section of this issue).

Now imagine my daughter visits the neighborhood cybercafe, the manager would now be entitled to scan her ID document and take a photograph of her using his own camera. He would also be authorised to capture her browser history including unencrypted credentials and authentication factors. He would then store this information for a period of one year and provide them to any government entity that sends him a letter. He could continue to hold on to the files as there would be no clear guidelines or penalties around deletion. The ISP that provides connectivity to the cybercafe would store a copy of my daughter’s Internet activities for two years. None of our ISPs publish or provide on request a copy of their data retention policies.

Now suppose my daughter used an online peer-production like Wikipedia or social-media platform like MySpace to commit an act of blasphemy by drawing fan-art for her favorite Swedish symphonic black metal band. A neo-Pentecostal Church sends a takedown notice to the website hosting the artwork. Unfortunately, this is a fringe Web 2.0 platform run by Indian entrepreneur who happens to be a friend of yours. When the notice arrived, our entrepreneur was in the middle of a three-week trek in the Himalayas. Even though he had disabled anonymous contributions and started comprehensive data retention of user activity on the site, unfortunately he was not able to delete the offending piece of content within 36 hours. If the honourable judge is convinced, both your friend and my daughter would be sitting in jail for a maximum of three years for the newly christened offence of blasphemous online speech.

You might dismiss my misgivings by saying “after all we are not China, Saudi Arabia or Myanmar”, and that no matter what the law says we are always weak on implementation. But that is completely missing the point. The IT Act appears to be based on the idea that the the Indian public can be bullied into self-censorship via systemic surveillance. Employ tough language in the law and occasionally make public examples of certain minor infringers. There have been news reports of young men being jailed for using expletives against Indian politicians or referring to a head of state as a “rubber stamp.” The message is clear—you are being watched so watch your tongue.

Surveillance capabilities are not a necessary feature of information systems. They have to be engineered into these systems. Once these features exists, they could potentially serve both the legally authorised official and other undesirable elements. Terrorists, cyber-warriors and criminals will all find systems with surveillance capabilities easier to compromise. In other words, surveillance compromises security at the level of system design. There were no internet connections or phone lines in the bin Laden compound—he was depending on store and forward arrangement based on USB drives. Do we really think that registration of all USB drives, monitoring of their usage and the provision of back doors to these USBs via master key would have lead the investigators to him earlier? Has the ban on public wi-fi and the current ID requirements at cyber-cafes led to the arrest of any terrorists or criminals in India? Where is the evidence that resource hungry blanket surveillance is providing return on investment? Intelligence work cannot be replaced with resource-hungry blanket surveillance. Unnecessary surveillance distracts the security with irrelevance.

Increase in security levels is not directly proportional to increase in levels of surveillance. A certain amount of surveillance is unavoidable and essential. But after the optimum amount of surveillance has been reached, additional surveillance only undermines security. The multiple levels of data retention at the cybercafe, by the ISP and also by the application service provider does not necessarily make Indian cyberspace more secure. On the contrary, redundant storage of personal sensitive information only acts as multiple points of failure and leaks—in the age of Niira Radia and Amar Singh one does not have be reminded of authorised and unauthorised surveillance and their associated leaks.

Finally, there is the question of perception management. Perceptions of security does not only depend on reality but on personal and popular sentiment. There are two possible configurations for information systems—one, where the fundamental organising principle is trust or second, where the principle is suspicion. Systems based on suspicion usually gives rise to criminal and corrupt behavior. If the state were to repeatedly accuse its law-abiding citizens of being terrorists and criminals, it might end up provoking them into living up to these unfortunate expectations. If citizens realise that every moment of their digital lives is being monitored by multiple private and government bodies—they will begin to use anonymisation and encryption technology round the clock even when it is not really necessary. Ordinary citizens will be forced to visit the darker and nastier corners of the internet just to download encryption tools and other privacy enabling software. Like the prohibition, this will only result in further insecurity and break-down in the rule of law.

Read the original here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/want-to-be-watched

Do We Really Need an App for That? Examining the Utility and Privacy Implications of India’s Digital Vaccine Certificates

divyank — 2021-08-03T05:13:28Z

We examine the purported benefits of digital vaccine certificates over regular paper-based ones and analyse the privacy implications of their use.

This blogpost was edited by Gurshabad Grover, Yesha Tshering Paul, and Amber Sinha.
It was originally published on Digital Identities: Design and Uses and is cross-posted here.

In an experiment to streamline its COVID-19 immunisation drive, India has adopted a centralised vaccine administration system called CoWIN (or COVID Vaccine Intelligence Network). In addition to facilitating registration for both online and walk-in vaccine appointments, the system also allows for the digital verification of vaccine certificates, which it issues to people who have received a dose. This development aligns with a global trend, as many countries have adopted or are in the process of adopting “vaccine passports” to facilitate safe movement of people while resuming commercial activity.

Some places, such as the EU, have constrained the scope of use of their vaccine certificates to international travel. The Indian government, however, has so far skirted important questions around where and when this technology should be used. By allowing anyone to use the online CoWIN portal to scan and verify certificates, and even providing a way for the private-sector to incorporate this functionality into their applications, the government has opened up the possibility of these digital certificates being used, and even mandated, for domestic everyday use such as going to a grocery shop, a crowded venue, or a workplace.

In this blog post, we examine the purported benefits of digital vaccine certificates over regular paper-based ones, analyse the privacy implications of their use, and present recommendations to make them more privacy respecting. We hope that such an analysis can help inform policy on appropriate use of this technology and improve its privacy properties in cases where its use is warranted.

We also note that while this post only examines the merits of a technological solution put out by the government, it is more important to consider the effects that placing restrictions on the movement of unvaccinated people has on their civil liberties in the face of a vaccine rollout that is inequitable along many lines, including gender, caste-class, and access to technology.

How do digital vaccine certificates work?

Every vaccine recipient in the country is required to be registered on the CoWIN platform using one of seven existing identity documents. [1] Once a vaccine is administered, CoWIN generates a vaccine certificate which the recipient can access on the CoWIN website. The certificate is a single page document that contains the recipient’s personal information — their name, age, gender, identity document details, unique health ID, a reference ID — and some details about the vaccine given. [2] It also includes a “secure QR code” and a link to CoWIN’s verification portal.

The verification portal allows for the verification of a certificate by scanning the attached QR code. Upon completion, the portal displays a success message along with some of the information printed on the certificate.

Verification is done using a cryptographic mechanism known as digital signatures, which are encoded into the QR code attached to a vaccine certificate. This mechanism allows “offline verification”, which means that the CoWIN verification portal or any private sector app attempting to verify a certificate does not need to contact the CoWIN servers to establish its authenticity. It instead uses a “public key” issued by CoWIN beforehand to verify the digital signature attached to the certificate.

The benefit of this convoluted design is that it protects user privacy. Performing verification offline and not contacting the CoWIN servers, precludes CoWIN from gleaning sensitive metadata about usage of the vaccine certificate. This means that CoWIN does not learn about where and when an individual uses their vaccine certificate, and who is verifying it. This closes off a potential avenue for mass surveillance. [3] However, given how certificate revocation checks are being implemented (detailed in the privacy implications section below), CoWIN ends up learning this information anyway.

Where is digital verification useful?

The primary argument for the adoption of digital verification of vaccine certificates over visual examination of regular paper-based ones is security. In the face of vaccine hesitancy, there are concerns that people may forge vaccine certificates to get around any restrictions that may be put in place on the movement of unvaccinated people. The use of digital signatures serves to allay these fears.

In its current form, however, digital verification of vaccine certificates is no more secure than visually inspecting paper-based ones. While the “secure QR code” attached to digital certificates can be used to verify the authenticity of the certificate itself, the CoWIN verification portal does not provide any mechanism nor does it instruct verifiers to authenticate the identity of the person presenting the certificate. This means that unless an accompanying identity document is also checked, an individual can simply present someone else’s certificate.

There are no simple solutions to this limitation; adding a requirement to inspect identity documents in addition to digital verification of the vaccine certificate would not be a strong enough security measure to prevent the use of duplicate vaccine certificates. People who are motivated enough to forge a vaccine certificate, can also duplicate one of the seven ID documents which can be used to register on CoWIN, some of which are simple paper-based documents. [4] Requiring even stronger identity checks, such as the use of Aadhaar-based biometrics, would make digital verification of vaccine certificates more secure. However, this would be a wildly disproportionate incursion on user privacy — allowing for the mass collection of metadata like when and where a certificate is used — something that digital vaccine certificates were explicitly designed to prevent. Additionally, in Russia, people were found issuing fake certificates by discarding real vaccine doses instead of administering them. No technological solution can prevent such fraud.

As such, the utility of digital certificates is limited to uses such as international travel, where border control agencies already have strong identity checks in place for travellers. Any everyday usage of the digital verification functionality on vaccine certificates would not present any benefit over visually examining a piece of paper or a screen.

Privacy implications of digital certificates

In addition to providing little security utility over manual inspection of certificates, digital certificates also present privacy issues, these are listed below along with recommendations to mitigate them:

(i) The verification portal leaks sensitive metadata to CoWIN’s servers: An analysis of network requests made by the CoWin verification portal reveals that it conducts a ‘revocation check’ each time a certificate is verified. This check was also found in the source code, which is made openly available. [5]

Revocation checks are an important security consideration while using digital signatures. They allow the issuing authority (CoWIN, in this case) to revoke a certificate in case the account associated with it is lost or stolen, or if a certificate requires correction. However, the way they have been implemented here presents a significant privacy issue. Sending certificate details to the server on every verification attempt allows it to learn about where and when an individual is using their vaccine certificate.

We note that the revocation check performed by the CoWIN portal does not necessarily mean that it is storing this information. Nevertheless, sending certificate information to the server directly contradicts claims of an “offline verification” process, which is the basis of the design of these digital certificates.

Recommendations: Implementing privacy-respecting revocation checks such as Certificate Revocation Lists, [6] or Range Queries [7] would mitigate this issue. However, these solutions are either complex or present bandwidth and storage tradeoffs for the verifier.

(ii) Oversharing of personally identifiable information: CoWIN’s vaccine certificates include more personally identifiable information (name, age, gender, identity document details and unique health ID) than is required for the purpose of verifying the certificate. An examination of the vaccine certificates available to us revealed that while the Aadhaar number is appropriately masked, other personal identifiers such as passport number and unique health ID were not masked. Additionally, the inclusion of demographic details, such as age and gender, provides little security benefit by limiting the pool of duplicate certificates that can be used and are not required in light of the security analysis above.

Recommendation: Personal identifiers (such as passport number and unique health ID) should be appropriately masked and demographic details (age, gender) can be removed.

The minimal set of data required for identity-linked usage for digital verification, as described above, is a full name and masked ID document details. All other personally identifying information can be removed. In case of paper-based certificates, which is suggested for domestic usage, only the details about vaccine validity would suffice and no personal information is required.

(iii) Making information available digitally increases the likelihood of collection: All of the personal information printed on the certificate is also encoded into the QR code. This is necessary because the digital signature verification process also verifies the integrity of this information (i.e. it wasn’t modified). A side effect of this is that the personal information is made readily available in digital form to verifiers when it is scanned, making it easy for them to store. This is especially likely in private sector apps who may be interested in collecting demographic information and personal identifiers to track customer behaviour.

Recommendation: Removing extraneous information from the certificate, as suggested above, mitigates this risk as well.

Conclusion

Our analysis reveals that without incorporating strong, privacy-invasive identity checks, digital verification of vaccine certificates does not provide any security benefit over manually inspecting a piece of paper. The utility of digital verification is limited to purposes that already conduct strong identity checks.

In addition to their limited applicability, in their current form, these digital certificates also generate a trail of data and metadata, giving both government and industry an opportunity to infringe upon the privacy of the individuals using them.

Keeping this in mind, the adoption of this technology should be discouraged for everyday use.

References

[1] Exceptions exist for people without state-issued identity documents.

[2] This information was gathered by inspecting three vaccine certificates linked to the author’s CoWIN account, which they were authorised to view, and may not be fully accurate.

[3] This design is similar to Aadhaar’s “offline KYC” process.

[4] “Aadhaar Card: UIDAI says downloaded versions on ordinary paper, mAadhaar perfectly valid”, Zee Business, April 29 2019, https://www.zeebiz.com/india/news-aadhaar-card-uidai-says-downloaded-versions-on-ordinary-paper-maadhaar-perfectly-valid-96790.

[5] This check was also verified to be present in the reference code made available for private-sector applications incorporating this functionality, suggesting that private sector apps will also be affected by this.

[6] Certificate Revocation Lists allow the server to provide a list of revoked certificates to the verifier, instead of the verifier querying the server each time. This, however, can place heavy bandwidth and storage requirements on the verifying app as this list can potentially grow long.

[7] Range Queries are described in this paper. In this method, the verifier requests revocation status from the server by specifying a range of certificate identifiers within which the certificate being verified lies. If there are any revoked certificates within this range, the server will send their identifiers to the verifier, who can then check if the certificate in question is on the list. For this to work, the range selected must be sufficiently large to include enough potential candidates to keep the server from guessing which one is in use.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/do-we-really-need-an-app-for-that-examining-the-utility-and-privacy-implications-of-india2019s-digital-vaccine-certificates

Do we need the Aadhar scheme?

sunil — 2012-02-03T10:11:24Z

"Decentralisation and privacy are preconditions for security. Digital signatures don’t require centralised storage and are much more resilient in terms of security", Sunil Abraham in the Business Standard on 1 February 2012.

We don’t need Aadhar because we already have a much more robust identity management and authentication system based on digital signatures that has a proven track record of working at a “billions-of-users” scale on the internet with reasonable security. The Unique Identification (UID) project based on the so-called “infallibility of biometrics” is deeply flawed in design. These design disasters waiting to happen cannot be permanently thwarted by band-aid policies.

Biometrics are poor authentication factors because once they are compromised they cannot be re-secured unlike digital signatures. Additionally, an individual’s biometrics can be harvested remotely without his or her conscious cooperation. The iris can be captured remotely without a person’s knowledge using a high-res digital camera.

Biometrics are poor identification factors in a country where the registrars have commercial motivation to create ghost identities. For example, bank managers trying to achieve targets for deposits by opening benami accounts. Biometrics for these ghost identities can be imported from other countries or generated endlessly using image processing software. The de-duplication engine at the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) will be fooled into thinking that these are unique residents.

An authentication system does not require a centralised database of authentication factors and transaction details. This is like arguing that the global system of e-commerce needs a centralised database of passwords and logs or, to use an example from the real world, to secure New Delhi, all citizens must deposit duplicate keys to their private property with the police.

Decentralisation and privacy are preconditions for security. The “end-to-end principle” used to design internet security is also in compliance with Gandhian principles of Panchayat Raj. Digital signatures don’t require centralised storage of private keys and are, therefore, much more resilient in terms of security.

Biometrics as authentication factors require the government to store biometrics of all citizens but citizens are not allowed to store biometrics of politicians and bureaucrats. The state authenticates the citizen but the citizen cannot conversely authenticate the state. Digital signatures as an authentication factor, on the other hand, does not require this asymmetry since citizens can store public keys of state actors and authenticate them. The equitable power relationship thus established allows both parties to store a legally non-repudiable audit trail for critical transactions like delivery of welfare services. Biometrics exacerbates the exiting power asymmetry between citizens and state unlike digital signatures, which is peer authentication technology.

Privacy protections should be inversely proportional to power. The transparency demanded of politicians, bureaucrats and large corporations cannot be made mandatory for ordinary citizens. Surveillance must be directed at big-ticket corruption, at the top of the pyramid and not retail fraud at the bottom. Even for retail fraud, the power asymmetry will result in corruption innovating to circumvent technical safeguards. Government officials should be required by law to digitally sign the movement of resources each step of the way till it reaches a citizen. Open data initiatives should make such records available for public scrutiny. With support from civil society and the media, citizens will themselves address retail fraud. To solve corruption, the state should become more transparent to the citizen and not vice versa.

UIDAI’s latest 23-page biometrics report is supposed to dispel the home ministry’s security anxieties. It says “biometric data is collected by software provided by the UIDAI, which immediately encrypts and applies a digital signature.” Surely, what works for UIDAI, that is digital signatures, should work for citizens too. The report does not cover even the most basic attack — for example, the registrar could pretend that UIDAI software is faulty and harvest biometrics again using a parallel set-up. If biometrics are infallible, as the report proclaims, then sections in the draft UID Bill that criminalise attempts to defraud the system should be deleted.

The compromise between UIDAI and the home ministry appears to be a turf battle for states where security concerns trump developmental aspirations. This compromise does nothing to address the issues raised by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance, headed by the Bharatiya Janata Party’s Yashwant Sinha.

Read the original published in the Business Standard on 1 February 2012

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/do-we-need-the-aadhar-scheme

dna exclusive: Geeks have a solution to digital surveillance in India: Cryptography

praskrishna — 2013-07-15T06:24:40Z

While you were thinking of what next to post on Twitter, the government has stealthily put an ambitious surveillance programme in place that tracks your every move in the digital world — through voice calls, SMS and MMS, GPRS, fax communications on landlines, video calls and emails.

The article by Joanna Lobo was published in DNA on July 7, 2013. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

The programme, conceived in 2011, has now been brought under one umbrella referred to as the centralised monitoring system (CMS). It is the death of privacy.

But as concerned citizens argue for the need to formulate policies and laws to protect privacy, there's a simpler solution in sight for now: a CryptoParty.

At this 'party', an informal gathering of people, non-geeks can learn how to legally encrypt their digital communications and how to store data without the fear of anyone snooping in. Encryption is a process of encoding messages so that it can only be read by authorised parties.

What is it?
"A CryptoParty educates people in the domain of cryptography. It's usually about the basics: how to send encrypted email, how to protect your hardware and how to use free and open source software," says Satyakam Goswami, a free software consultant associated with the Software Freedom Law Centre (SFLC), Delhi (remove this). Goswami was one of the 72 participants at the CryptoParty organised on Saturday at Institute of Informatics & Communication (IIC), Delhi University South Campus On June 30, a CryptoParty organised at the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) in Bangalore had 30 people in attendance. "We were taught about the what, how and who is watching us. We were also taught how to encrypt emails, chat, video calls or instant messaging,” says Siddhart Prakash Rao, a computer science graduate and a free software and open source enthusiast who is about to pursue a Masters in Cryptography.

The topics may be a mouthful for non-geeks but CryptoParty advocates maintain that all this is taught in the simplest way possible. The choice of subject depends on the composition of the group — if it is a gathering of geeks, like at the Bangalore event, then the topics are more technical.

How can it help?
CryptoParties started in August 2012 by an Australian woman (who goes by the pseudonym Asher Wolf) after a conversation on Twitter about The Australian Parliament's new cybercrime bill that allowed law enforcement to ask Internet Service Providers to monitor and store data.
Attending a CryptoParty is a good way to learn how to overcome government snooping legally.

“Citizens should use encryption to safeguard their private communications against both corporations and the government. Encryption is one of the best ways to react to CMS along with increased civic vigilance and democratic questioning of our government and parliamentarians,” says Pranesh Prakash, policy director, CIS, and one of the frontrunners in the fight to formulate a policy to safeguard privacy in India.

"In India, people tend to be rather ignorant. They are not aware of the kind of surveillance they are subjected to once online. It's a lack of understanding," says Sumandro Chattapadhyay, a researcher with Sarai, a programme of the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, Delhi.

Bernadette Langle, who also works at CIS has been instrumental in organising the handful of CryptoParties in the country. When dna spoke to her, she was on her way to Delhi after participating in the Bangalore event. Langle will also be part of a CryptoParty being planned for October in Mumbai. "Ten years ago, you had to be a geek to be able to encrypt and protect yourself online. Now, you need software and it's much easier," she says.

The advantage is that the privacy tactics taught at such parties is completely legal. All knowledge is in the public domain. “A government will only deny its citizens basic communications privacy if it is authoritarian,” says Pranesh. “So while it can try social engineering and other means to gain access to what you've encrypted, it simply cannot 'decode' it as long as you have chosen a strong pass phrase and keep that protected, or they create quantum computers capable of breaking your encryption.”

The CIS is currently working on revisions of the Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013 with the objective of contributing to privacy legislation in India. Till that bill becomes an Act and till there's a better way to overcome needless government surveillance, attending a CryptoParty could possibly be the wisest solution for those concerned about privacy.

(For more details on CryptoParties, visit www.cryptoparty.in)

How to encrypt:
SMS: Make content secure by using software like TextSecure (Android) or CryptoSMS (Symbian). However, SMS metadata (who you are sending the message to and at what time) can still be tracked.

Instead of Whatsapp, install Jabbir and add off the record encryption.

For email, you can use OpenPGP in conjunction with Thunderbird to encrypt mails you send from Gmail/Yahoo Mail/Live Mail accounts so that even Google, Yahoo and Microsoft can't read them

For web browsing, use a VPN (which will hide your traffic from your ISP), or Tor (which will help anonymise your traffic, but will slow down your connection slower).

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/report-dna-july-7-2013-joanna-lobo-geeks-have-a-solution-to-digital-surveillance-in-india-cryptography

DNA Databases and Human Rights

praskrishna — 2012-09-17T05:39:06Z

Using DNA to trace people who are suspected of committing a crime has been a major advance in policing.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/dna-databases-and-human-rights.pdf

Divergence between the GDPR and PDP Bill 2019

pallavi — 2020-02-21T13:05:08Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/divergence-between-the-gdpr-and-pdp-bill-2019

Dissent on Aadhaar: New book highlights limitations of ID project, legal and tech opposition to it

Admin — 2019-02-02T13:13:07Z

In 2010, a year after the UIDAI was constituted, three of its functionaries visited internationally-renowned developmental economist Professor Reetika Khera.

The article by Partha P Chakrabartty was published in First Post on February 2, 2019.

They were hoping to get her endorsement on how Aadhaar would prove ‘transformational’ for reducing corruption in social schemes like PDS and NREGA. Khera writes, ‘Upon reading their policy documents on PDS and NREGA, I was aghast because they betrayed a complete lack of understanding of the problem they were trying to address’. What had begun as a PR exercise by the UIDAI ended up creating one of its most acute critics. Professor Khera’s latest salvo, Dissent on Aadhaar: Big Data Meets Big Brother, has just been published by Orient BlackSwan, and is on shelves now.

Dissent on Aadhaar, edited by Professor Khera, brings together in one volume an array of experts commenting on the universal ID project. Given its many facets, she has included Anumeha Yadav, a journalist, who has been tirelessly reporting on Aadhar from the field; economists, including the celebrated Jean Drèze; lawyers, including civil liberties expert Dr Usha Ramanathan; and technologists like Sunil Abraham, of Mozilla Foundation and the Center for Internet and Society. The book is rounded off by international experts comparing Aadhaar to digital/universal ID projects in other countries. The picture they paint is not rosy.

‘Dissent’ on Aadhaar might not seem new to us, the English-speaking population of India. We all remember the storm of tweets and memes when Aadhaar was declared mandatory for everything from bank accounts to a mobile phone connection. We also saw through the September 2018 Supreme Court verdict, where Aadhaar was ruled optional for opening a bank account, but secretly remained mandatory due to its link with the PAN card. While some of the themes mentioned in this book, like concerns over privacy, have filtered down to our conversations, the book reveals that we haven’t even begun to scratch the surface.

Khera debunks the prevailing popular wisdom around Aadhaar in the opening chapters, sometimes even using the Government’s own data. Was Aadhaar necessary to create because there were many Indians without a legal ID? Aadhaar data says, only 0.03 percent of Aadhaar enrollments were by people without existing IDs, using the ‘introducer’ system. Were existing IDs compromised, necessitating an overhaul of our national ID systems? If so, how is it that those very compromised IDs were used to create the Aadhaar database? And what of the loopholes in the Aadhaar system, like cards for dogs and gods? These egregious pranks may have been caught, but what of less obvious aberrations?

Does Aadhaar prevent fraud? Here, Khera points out there are three kinds of fraud: identity fraud, eligibility fraud, and quantity fraud; Aadhaar only provides some measure of protection against the first. Khera’s previous studies have shown that the most prominent kind of fraud in India’s social schemes is quantity fraud. Even eligibility fraud, where citizens claim benefits reserved for others, cannot be checked by Aadhaar, as eligibility depends upon a separate set of documents.

Finally, does Aadhaar ease access to government schemes and benefits for the poorest? Here, what has seemed farcical quickly becomes tragic.

In a country where basic infrastructure in terms of electricity and mobile phone connections is poor, can a digital ID system like Aadhaar really ease the process of disbursement? Anumeha Yadav provides the on-ground reality — in Bhim Block, Rajsamand District, Rajasthan, 1,799 pensioners were declared dead because they failed to open Aadhaar-linked bank accounts in time. A door-to-door campaign conducted by the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sanghatan found that 1,308 of these were actually alive, and had been denied their rightful pensions. Yadav quotes a Dainik Bhaskar estimate that 1 lakh of Rajasthan’s 2.97 lakh pensioners had been inaccurately declared dead.

If these ideas are so far off the mark, how did they come to take root in our minds? How come there was no meaningful opposition to prevent this Himalayan blunder? Khera quotes the father of Aadhaar himself, Nandan Nilekani, who outlined his three-point strategy to overwhelm opposition: Do it quickly, do it quietly, and build a coalition of powerful interests who will overpower any opposition.

Nilekani’s strategy worked beautifully. A damning 2011 Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance Report, which deemed UIDAI categorically unacceptable, was mostly ignored. The Rajya Sabha’s concerns and suggested amendments were circumvented by passing off the Aadhaar bill as a Money bill (requiring passage only in the Lok Sabha), even though its ambit was much wider than just allotment of financial resources. The Supreme Court itself had a lone dissenter, Justice Chandrachud, who published a note to that effect.

Opposition has not come just from activist, legal and parliamentary sources. Sunil Abraham, a technologist, speaks of the many alternatives UIDAI had to its present system of a centralised biometric database, and its many vulnerabilities, including the theft of data, and the difficulty of correcting input errors. An alternative would have been to have smart cards that stored encrypted biometric information on the card itself, instead of in a centralised database; a conjunction of card-and-fingerprint would make the system secure from identity fraud. Abraham warns of high-resolution cameras that can be used by governments and private interests to identify fingerprints even at a distance, for instance of protestors in a marching crowd.

But what happened when Abraham’s Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) published a report stating the Government had inadvertently leaked millions of identification numbers? The Government sent them several legal notices. A researcher from CIS also spoke of visits from officials from the Home Ministry and from the police. One policeman even asked the researcher, ‘How was that trip to Turkey?’, demonstrating the extent of their surveillance.

If Aadhaar was not created for all the things the UIDAI claimed, what was its true intent? We can guess from the way Aadhaar insiders, like ex-Chief Product Manager Vivek Raghavan, who ‘volunteered’ for Aadhaar between October 2010 and June 2013, went on to found Khosla Labs, with its for-profit Aadhaar Bridge product. When the Supreme Court struck down the sharing of Aadhaar data with private companies in its September 2018 judgment, private interests dropped their masks and have started campaigning for a reversal. Dr Usha Ramanathan covers this in her chapter, making sense of the new, hybrid public-private entity that UIDAI represented, and its consequences.

And what did the government get out of it? Considering how it used its existing might to harass CIS, can you imagine what its expanded capabilities with Aadhaar will achieve for anyone who critiques their functioning? And how many critics who see something wrong in policy or execution will hesitate before saying something for fear of persecution? This ‘chilling effect’ is already spreading — just speak to anyone who critiques the government, and how often they have been advised to stop doing so.

Many of the big battles when it comes to Aadhaar have already been lost. 1.2 billion people have yielded up their biometric information; Aadhaar, which had started off as voluntary, has become mandatory to access basic rights of citizenship, and this has been upheld by the Supreme Court; India has ignored best practices from other countries and lessons from other such attempts, and has therefore squandered a historic opportunity to do this digital ID right.

Far though this juggernaut has rolled, the experts in this book are still offering warnings; while there has been substantial harm already, especially to the rural poor and the elderly, the worst damage is yet to occur. While the State has power to gain from defending UIDAI, and private interests have millions in profits to reap, the scholars and activists in this book have no millions to make, and are indeed staking both their personal safety, and their professional reputations in putting forward a narrative that goes so far against the dominant one. I trust readers will give their thoroughly-researched essays a fair hearing.

The writer wishes to acknowledge the contribution of Prasun Chakrabartty in researching and clarifying this piece.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/first-post-partha-p-chakrabartty-february-2-2019-dissent-on-aadhaar

Discrimination in the Age of Artificial Intelligence

Arindrajit Basu — 2018-10-26T14:47:57Z

The dawn of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has been celebrated by both government and industry across the globe. AI offers the potential to augment many existing bureaucratic processes and improve human capacity, if implemented in accordance with principles of the rule of law and international human rights norms. Unfortunately, AI-powered solutions have often been implemented in ways that have resulted in the automation, rather than mitigation, of existing societal inequalities.

This was originally published by Oxford Human Rights Hub on October 23, 2018

Image Credit: Sarla Catt via Flickr, used under a Creative Commons license available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/

In the international human rights law context, AI solutions pose a threat to norms which prohibit discrimination. International Human Rights Law recognizes that discrimination may take place in two possible ways, directly or indirectly. Direct discrimination occurs when an individual is treated less favourably than someone else similarly situated on one of the grounds prohibited in international law, which, as per the Human Rights Committee, includes race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Indirect discrimination occurs when a policy, rule or requirement is ‘outwardly neutral’ but has a disproportionate impact on certain groups that are meant to be protected by one of the prohibited grounds of discrimination. A clear example of indirect discrimination recognized by the European Court of Human Rights arose in the case of DH&Ors v Czech Republic. The ECtHR struck down an apparently neutral set of statutory rules, which implemented a set of tests designed to evaluate the intellectual capability of children but which resulted in an excessively high proportion of minority Roma children scoring poorly and consequently being sent to special schools, possibly because the tests were blind to cultural and linguistic differences. This case acts as a useful analogy for the potential disparate impacts of AI and should serve as useful precedent for future litigation against AI-driven solutions.

Indirect discrimination by AI may occur at two stages. First is the usage of incomplete or inaccurate training data that results in the algorithm processing data that may not accurately reflect reality. Cathy O’Neil explains this using a simple example. There are two types of crimes-those that are ‘reported’ and others that are only ‘found’ if a policeman is patrolling the area. The first category includes serious crimes such as murder or rape while the second includes petty crimes such as vandalism or possession of illicit drugs in small quantities. Increased police surveillance in areas in US cities where Black or Hispanic people reside lead to more crimes being ‘found’ there. Thus, data is likely to suggest that these communities commit a higher proportion of crimes than they actually do – indirect discrimination that has been empirically been shown through research published by Pro Publica.

Discrimination may also occur at the stage of data processing, which is done through a metaphorical ‘black-box’ that accepts inputs and generates outputs without revealing to the human developer how the data was processed. This conundrum is compounded by the fact that the algorithms are often utilised to solve an amorphous problem-which attempts to break down a complex question into a simple answer. An example is the development of ‘risk profiles’ of individuals for the determination of insurance premiums. Data might show that an accident is more likely to take place in inner cities due to more densely packed populations in these areas. Racial and ethnic minorities tend to reside more in these areas, which means that algorithms could learn that minorities are more likely to get into accidents, thereby generating an outcome (‘risk profile’) that indirectly discriminates on grounds of race or ethnicity.

It would be wrong to ignore discrimination, both direct and indirect, that occurs as a result of human prejudice. The key difference between that and discrimination by AI lies in the ability of other individuals to compel the decision-maker to explain the factors that lead to the outcome in question and testing its validity against principles of human rights. The increasing amounts of discretion and, consequently, power being delegated to autonomous systems mean that principles of accountability which audit and check indirect discrimination need to be built into the design of these systems. In the absence of these principles, we risk surrendering core tenets of human rights law to the whims of an algorithmically crafted reality.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/oxford-human-rights-hub-arindrajit-basu-october-23-2018-discrimination-in-the-age-of-artificial-intelligence

Disconnected Network Disruptions

Admin — 2018-06-12T01:23:02Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/disconnected-network-disruptions