Centre for Internet and Society

Checks and balances needed for mass surveillance of citizens, say experts

Admin — 2017-12-16T14:32:23Z

A number of measures are required to protect law-abiding citizens from mass surveillance and misuse of their personal data, according to top technology and legal experts.

The article by Peerzada Abrar was published in the Hindu on December 9, 2017

The measures include issuing of tokens by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) instead of Aadhaar numbers and having an official in the judiciary give permission to vigilance.

The experts were participating in a panel discussion on ‘Navigating Big Data Challenges’ at Carnegie India’s Global Technology Summit here. They also said there was a need to implement ‘de-identification of data’ or preventing a person’s identity from being connected with information.

The moderator of the discussion was Justice B.N. Srikrishna, a former Supreme Court judge, who was also heading a government-appointed committee of experts to identify “key data protection issues” and recommend methods to address them. Justice Srikrishna told the panellists that Aadhaar or the unique identification number had empowered the people. But in situations where the State wants all the information about citizens from different service providers because of its suspicions related to terrorism or criminal activity, he asked, what is the method to create a balance?

“Surveillance is like salt in cooking which is essential in tiny quantities, but counterproductive even if slightly in excess,” responded Sunil Abraham, executive director of Bengaluru-based think tank, Centre for Internet and Society. He said there was a need to make a surveillance system which had privacy by design built into it.

Mr. Abraham said that his organisation had proposed to the UIDAI that it used ‘tokenisation,’ which meant that whenever there was a ‘know your customer’ requirement, the Aadhaar number was not accessed by organisations like telecom firms or the banks. Instead, when the citizens used various services via smart cards or pins, a token got generated, which was controlled by the UIDAI. Organisations like banks and telecom firms can store those token numbers in their database. He said this would make it harder for unauthorised parties to combine databases. But at the same time would enable law enforcement agencies to combine database using the appropriate authorizations and infrastructure.

“UIDAI is considering this, they call it the dummy Aadhaar numbers. We need technical as well as institutional checks and balances,” said Mr. Abraham.

Countries like the U.S also have processes like Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA court) which entertains applications made by the U.S Government for approval of electronic surveillance, physical search, and certain other forms of investigative actions for foreign intelligence purposes.

“My concern is that in the current system, surveillance can be done by the State machinery. I don’t necessarily suggest FISA court.... but some kind of mechanism where (one can’t) be held at the mercy of incestuous State machinery,” said Rahul Matthan, a partner at law firm Trilegal. “But have some second person who is outside the influence of this system (and) who actually says ‘yes this is a terrorist which requires us to do mass surveillance,” he said.

Artificial Intelligence

A large amount of information or Big data ranging from financial, health to political insights of people is being collected by different organisations and service providers which is sitting in different silos. All of this is likely going to be linked through Aadhaar. Mr. Srikrishna asked what if a situation arises where all of this data is aggregated and using artificial intelligence and machine learning, one is able to analyse it and profile individuals. He said “would that be not a terrifying scenario” where the State can act super-monitor for citizens. He asked how can citizens be guarded against it?

Mr.Srikrishna was referring to the ‘Social Credit System’ proposed by the Chinese government for creating a national reputation system to rate the trustworthiness of its citizens including their economic and social status. It works as a mass surveillance tool and uses big data analysis technology.

“It is a possibility. What stands in the way of it becoming a reality (in India) is a robust law,” said Mr.Matthan. “Technology is so powerful that it could equally be used for good as well as bad.”

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-hindu-peerzada-abrar-december-9-2017-checks-and-balances-needed-to-mass-surveillance-of-citizens-say-experts

Chasing fame and fun 15 seconds at a time: Why TikTok has India hooked

Tora Agarwala, Surbhi Gupta, and Karishma Mehrotra — 2019-07-05T02:13:39Z

How TikTok, an app owned by a Chinese firm, has become a playground for India’s young.

The article by Tora Agarwala, Surbhi Gupta, and Karishma Mehrotra appeared in Indian Express on June 23, 2019. Nishant Shah was quoted.

“Kaam nai niki? Do you have no other work?” At a banner printing shop in Nagaon, a town in Assam, the middle-aged shopkeeper was bemused. It was the strangest order he had received in a while.

For one, the banner was for a “TikTok” meetup. He had not the slightest inkling of what that was. Second, the two boys who had introduced themselves as hailing from Jamuguri and Raha, smaller towns in the state, insisted that the text incorporate a spelling mistake. “Instead of M-E-E-T up, please write M-E-A-T up,” he was told. The shopkeeper grudgingly obliged and the boys rode off on their bikes. It would be ready the next day.

“This is going to go viral,” Dhurbajit Medhi said triumphantly to his friend PK Nath. They had only known each other for a month, having “met” on TikTok. In April, they sat face-to-face for the first time at a small restaurant in Raha, in Nagaon district, where Medhi lived. Nath had travelled 110 km to meet him.

Medhi was 23, a singer who had dropped out of college because of a death in the family. Nath, about 30, was known in his neighbourhood in Jamuguri for two things: his gela maal dukaan (grocery store) and his penchant to make people laugh.

On TikTok, both have followers in thousands. Over a few months, they would chat often, appreciating each other’s videos. “On a sad day, I would scroll through Nath da’s feed and it would make me laugh without fail,” says Medhi, who joined TikTok about a year ago. Many comments on his videos are from girls. “Some say ‘cute’ and some say bhaal laagise (You’re looking good),” says Medhi, who is reasonably tall and sports a goatee on his boyish face.

Over the year, Medhi has learnt the tricks of the TikTok trade. “There are two kinds of videos which get attention here in Assam: either you do sad, romantic songs. Or you do fotuami — slapstick humour,” says Medhi, who has made a niche for himself in the former category. He owns an Mi phone, worth Rs 11,000, which he bought a year ago by saving money through his work at his father’s tea shop. “My mother is okay with me making these videos. But she says, ‘Do all this, but think about your life also.’ I get her point but maybe I can make a career out of this,” he says.

After all, TikTok is not as easy as Facebook. It involves an element of skill. “Do you know how difficult it is to get one TikTok like? On Facebook, you just put a photo and the likes pour in. Here, we have to work hard.” Medhi admits he was naïve initially. “I would make photo-collages from my trips to Kaziranga and add some background music.” But that would not have worked. “The viewer takes into account everything: is our lip-sync matching? Are our clothes suited to the mood of the music? Are our expressions accurate?”

Today, Medhi has over 400 videos, many of which feature him mouthing lyrics to the songs sung by Assamese musician Zubeen Garg. Sometimes, he sings in his own voice too — a secret talent he has nurtured but not had the opportunity to explore. “In Upper Assam, there is an appreciation for the arts and music. But here in middle Assam, it is different. People would mock, ‘Eeeh gayok hobo ahise. Look at him trying to be a singer,’” says Medhi.

It is these aspirations, which often get mowed down by the traditionalism that comes with living in small towns and villages that TikTok is giving oxygen to. The short-form video app has seen a phenomenal growth since its rebranding from Musical.ly in 2018, garnering 200 million users in India alone. Its hallmark is simple: it woos your attention with 15-second videos (they make go up to 60 seconds too) of lip-syncing teenage girls, dancing boys, family pranks and other such stylised moments. The mobile app’s owner, a Chinese internet company called ByteDance, was reportedly awarded a round of major investment from Japanese SoftBank last year, making it the world’s most valuable startup.

TikTok’s rapid capture of India — it skyrocketed past traditional social media mammoths, like Facebook, on global download charts in 2018 — is a testament to how quickly Chinese apps have begun to give American tech companies a run for their money in one of the world’s most important markets. TikTok has given a megaphone to rural Indian life in a way that no other app has been able to; American apps such as Facebook have been restricted to a primarily upper-class user base.

“We believe that TikTok filled the gap by bringing people from across the deepest pockets of India online and giving them a platform to express themselves,” said ByteDance’s global public policy director Helena Lersch. Since the company introduced in-feed advertisements and branded editing tools last year, it’s attracted the likes of Pepsi, Myntra, and Dunzo.

If more proof were needed that TikTok has planted itself into the circuitry of desire and aspiration, it came by way of a news report last fortnight. A young man in Delhi, who worked at a restaurant, was arrested for snatching an iPhone XS Max — he wanted to shoot good-quality TikTok videos. Another 19-year-old from Delhi, Salman Zakir, was shot by his neighbour allegedly in the course of making a TikTok video.

But what is the big deal about TikTok? How have 15-second fragments of people being people colonised the attention of so many? Scrolling through the app for the first time, one is struck by how random it is, and how the attention economy has shrunk your mindspan to a quarter of a minute. You could easily tire of teens dancing, making faces and lip-synching in super-tiny skits and video memes. Or, you could watch an entire generation occupy this playground with their energy and creativity, using 15 seconds to mix, mash and play versions of themselves. Preparing a face to meet other excited, silly faces has never been so addictive.

Social media has put the self at the centre, making opinions out of rants, photographers of anyone with a phone camera, and journalists of citizens. TikTok takes the humdrum, turns it into a form of talent and injects into it the velocity of the fast-travelling video.

But, more importantly perhaps, it taps into a confidence in the young — about their lives, abilities and even their humble backgrounds — that was unthinkable a generation ago.

For sure, TikTok could not have spread this way five years ago either. Eighteen-year-old Devanshu Mahajan, an undergraduate student of commerce at Delhi University’s School of Open Learning, agrees. He found himself exploring the internet only after the entry of Reliance Jio in the telecom market. “Before that we used to have 1 GB data for a month. Suddenly, we had 1 GB to spend in a day,” says the Delhi resident. Last year, he started posting videos on TikTok, most of which seemed to disappear into nowhere. “I got so angry that I uploaded a rant about the lack of response, and suddenly it got viral. Then, I started giving my own twist to trending sounds/beats and songs, and these videos started becoming popular,” says Mahajan, who has over eight lakh followers now.

Most of his popular posts are about Indian families (“Indian parents wish for boys only to send them to the market to buy milk and vegetables endless times”), school life and being single. They are not particularly witty, but belong to the tradition of native humour that once would make judges mysteriously ROFL on shows like The Great Indian Laughter Challenge. “I make my videos at home, I have no tripod or light, there is one window where I put my phone and act,” says Mahajan, who uses an Mi Y3 phone. With a spiky haircut and a lean frame, he is the picture of ordinariness. “People either say I’m too thin, or comment about my nose or looks. But I make a story out of those comments too. If I can make fun of myself, nothing can affect me,” he says.

“It may not be like YouTube where one can earn money, but because of this app, I feel like a star now,” says Musaib Bashir Bhat, 27. He joined TikTok seven months ago and his 300 videos in Kashmiri have earned him 73,000 followers already. He is also recognised on the streets of Srinagar.

Fame is the drug that drives TikTok users, but, for now, at least, this is a following rooted in the local. The app is a Babel of many tongues, and each region has its distinct self-expression — in its aesthetic, looks or music. It hasn’t been monopolised by Hindi film music or Punjabi pop.

Ranjan Barman, an 18-year-old living in a small village in Lakhimpur, Assam, loves acting. “I know I can’t be an actor in real life— but at least on TikTok I can,” says the college-goer who joined the app four months ago. He is now nearing his one millionth heart — a commendable feat for someone who is new to the TikTok universe. His popularity, he suspects, could have something to do with the props he uses in his videos. Barman owns 22 gamusa shirts, or shirts fashioned out of the traditional Assamese cloth, and says that whenever he wears them, his videos get more play. “In Assam, people respect the gamusa. It touches sentiments,” he says.

But how substantial is this fame? What kind of recognition do TikTokers seek? Last month, Mahajan called for a meet-and-greet with his “fans” at a west Delhi mall. Thirty people showed up. “I hadn’t expected anyone to turn up. People clicked photos and videos, but I didn’t feel like a celebrity,” he says.

While TikTok fame comes from the number of followers one has, an important barometer is also the number of hearts you receive. For example, Medhi has only 4,000 followers, but his videos have received 74,500 hearts. The heart tally is an aggregate of the number of likes the creator has garnered across every video he has uploaded. “It is just one viral video you need — and then you are set,” says Medhi, who hasn’t hit the jackpot yet, but is optimistic. “Like all things in life, this, too, takes time,” he says.

TikTok has given Aizawl’s Adeline Pach much more than the 5,12,000 followers one sees on her profile. A cancer-survivor, Pach started using it in 2015, when it went by the name Musical.ly, while recovering from her illness. “It was silly, goofy stuff — but it helped take my mind off things,” she says. Even today, she suffers from a number of health issues. But TikTok “distracts her”.

Pach’s skilful “transition” videos (where one frame would blend to another seamlessly), started getting featured on the app’s homepage. “People liked the way I edited my videos. For example, if I was saying and wearing something in one frame, the next would be in another location, with me doing something else in another outfit,” says Pach, adding that earlier TikTok was more about skill, and now people “blindly heart goofy content.”

As Pach, now in her late twenties, kept getting featured, her followers shot up — and for first time in her life, the introvert found herself interacting with people — “and enjoying it. It gave me the confidence I never had.”

In 2017, Pach attended her first TikTok meetup in Mumbai. “That had about 70 people but the next one which took place in Bengaluru had 600,” she says. She performed a rap song by Nicki Minaj in front of a packed auditorium. “Suddenly I was fearless.”

For many, TikTok holds out the hope of bigger things to come — a career in music and acting. When he was a teen, Ambish KB’s acting talents — he mimicked his teachers’ mannerisms and got them to laugh — made him almost famous in school. In college, his obsession with films would make him watch first-day, first-show releases of leading Malayalam superstars like Mammootty and Mohanlal. He also held positions in the Ernakulam district unit of the all-Kerala Mammootty fans association. “It’s safe to assume that I spent more time in theatres than in college,” says Ambish, 27, an accountant with a fashion design firm in Kochi.

He still has not given up on his acting dreams. For three years now, he has been scouring for small roles, approaching directors, producers and scriptwriters, even as he maintains a job on the side. Not surprisingly, he has taken to TikTok like a duck to water. His account doesn’t boast an envious number of followers (572 at last count) but his videos, most of which are comedy re-enactments of popular scenes from Malayalam cinema, have collected thousands of views and a flood of reactions. He says his videos are all home-produced and mostly filmed in the dead of night once his parents are fast asleep. Many of them are also collaborations with his wife; she’s not mad about cinema like he is, but she likes the fun interface of TikTok. To the point that, at weddings, their relatives call them, “Oh look, here come the TikTok people!”

But more than anything, Ambish believes TikTok could hold his ticket to the film industry. “It’s a medium for people like us to display our talent. Who knows, if my video goes viral and if a casting director happens to notice, I might click,” says Ambish, who spends at least eight hours a day on TikTok. His inspiration is a fellow TikTok user, Fukru, who supposedly landed a role in a film after his dance videos went viral. “He would post videos every day, just random ones of him dancing. Now he’s got a role in the next film by director Omar Lulu. You never know,” Ambish says.

Ambish is not prepared to leave his job yet, as he understands the film industry is unpredictable. He doesn’t have the means to travel for auditions to faraway towns. But he knows he has a powerful device at his disposal that could get him there: his Huawei P20 Lite smartphone and the TikTok app on it.

While future sociologists might mine TikTok to understand the changing mores of a new generation, fears of data mining and privacy intrusions of the app have often been voiced. This year, the US Federal Trade Commission fined the company $5.7 million for illegally collecting the personal data of children. In 2018, Indonesia’s government temporarily banned the platform for “negative”, mostly pornographic and blasphemous, content. The government lifted the ban after the company complied with local laws and stepped up local content moderation.

In April, the Madras High Court made a similar interim takedown order, asking Google and Apple to remove TikTok from their app stores, citing pornographic and child exploitation content. Three weeks later, the court lifted the ban after the Supreme Court asked it to address the company’s plea against the takedown, and the app fell from most downloaded to fourth most in India. The company has admittedly decided to “show less skin” here than its other markets. “It’s a bit of a case-to-case basis. There is no clear line I can share with you now. If there is a sexually-explicit video, we take it down. And we are doing this a bit quicker in India,” said Lersch.

Writing in these pages, our columnist Nishant Shah warned about TikTok’s “embrace of artificial intelligence and big data analytics.” “From the minute you sign up for it, giving up your personal information and data to extreme mining which bears the same pitfalls of privacy and surveillance that all other big data apps do, TikTok starts presenting content to you. This is not content created by friends, or colleagues… Instead, this is content created by people you don’t know at all, and brought to you by algorithms that know, even without you telling them what you might like.

The more time you spend … going through complex tutorials to make your own 15-second fun video, the more the machine learning algorithms learn you,” wrote the co-founder of the Centre for Internet and Society. While critics point out that the infantilised world that the app peddles is dangerous to the very personal liberty that it seems to showcase, it’s not an argument that is winning.

But wait, what happened to the “meatup” banner? When Medhi and Nath had met, they rued the little regard their family and friends had for their pursuit. “My friends think I am wasting time,” says Medhi, the only TikToker in Raha. Both knew they had to do something.

They went ahead and organised the first state-wide TikTok meetup in Assam, slated for this Sunday. While there have been meetups before, this is the first time TikTokers from every corner of the state will be in attendance. They expect about 500. How did they manage to do it? “Only negative things go viral on the internet,” says Medhi, “That is why we decided to spell ‘meetup’ as ‘meatup’.”

The day the banner was ready and picked up from Nagaon, both Medhi and Nath took a picture of it and put it on the app. As expected, there was an uproar. “Everyone started sharing it. My phone number was on the banner and I would get 10 calls a day. “They would say: Don’t you know how to spell ‘meetup’? Most made fun of me but I didn’t care. Our job was done. The word had spread.”

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/indian-express-june-23-2019-chasing-fame-and-fun-15-seconds-at-a-time

Centre’s order on computer surveillance threatens right to privacy, experts say

Admin — 2018-12-25T00:50:48Z

The Constitutional validity of the notification allowing ten agencies to intercept information is uncertain.

The blog post by Abhishek Dey was published in Scroll.in on December 22, 2018.

A notification issued by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs on Thursday allowing ten agencies to intercept, monitor and decrypt any information generated from any computer poses a grave threat to the fundamental right to privacy, said lawyers and cyber security experts.

The notification led to a political storm on Friday and criticism from the Opposition forced Parliament to be adjourned. However, Union Finance Minister Arun Jaitley accused the Opposition of “making a mountain where a molehill does not exist”. The government on Friday issued a clarification stating that the directive does not confer any new powers on it and has the legal backing of the Information Technology Act.

Experts agreed that Thursday’s notification lists powers already available to the authorities in the Information Technology Act 2000. The legal provisions to allow interception were introduced in 2008 by the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance government. However, with the fresh directive, experts said that the Bharatiya Janata Party-led government seems to be trying to formalise surveillance through the interception of computer information, they said.

“It is true that such [interception] powers already existed,” said Pavan Duggal, a lawyer with expertise in cyber security. “But neither any such formal directives were issued which I know of, nor any agency were specifically notified to have those powers.”

Privacy test

The Information Technology Act 2000 was amended in 2008 to allow to the monitoring and interception of computer information, while the rules under which this would operate were promulgated in 2009. In 2017, the Supreme Court delivered a judgment establishing privacy as a fundamental right. The legal foundation of the computer interception directive could be still be challenged in court because it has not yet been considered in light of the privacy judgment, said Duggal. “It is now a matter of Constitutional validity,” he said

Thursday’s notification lists the agencies authorised to intercept, monitor and decrypt computer data: the Intelligence Bureau, Narcotics Control Bureau, Enforcement Directorate, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Central Bureau of Investigation, National Investigation Agency, Cabinet Secretariat (RAW), Directorate of Signal Intelligence (for service areas of Jammu and Kashmir, North East and Assam) and the Commissioner of Police, Delhi. The Act provides a jail term of seven years for anyone who refuses to cooperate with these agencies.

On Friday, experts questioned whether a notification listing the 10 agencies had actually been issued earlier, as the Centre claimed.

“It is a fresh notification,” said Apar Gupta, a lawyer who specialises in technology and media issues. “With this, interception of computers has received formal acceptance in the public domain and it can have serious implications on privacy.”

Senior officials of the Delhi Police also said this appeared to be a fresh order. Asked if this meant that the agencies would not need to ask for authorisation in every case since a blanket order has been issued, the officials said that this still needs to be clarified.

Lacking proportionality

The order has raised questions about the validity of the cases of interception of computer information conducted by the state police and other security agencies between 2009 (the year the interception rules were promulgated) and 2018 (the year the notification has been issued), Pranesh Prakash, co-founder of the Centre for Internet and Society.

One possibility, he said, may be that they were all unlawful.

But if they were indeed conducted with legal backing, Prakash said, then permission for this would been sanctioned in the form of an order by a competent authority. This is what Rule 3 of the interception rules mandate. But if so, Rule 4, which deals with the government authorising agencies to conduct such interceptions, is redundant. “How can it not be when any state police or other agency is capable of acquiring an order for interception under Rule 3?” he said

Besides, Prakash said, the new directive does not pass the test of proportionality.

In 2007, the Central government introduced rules to amend the Indian Telegraph Act 1951 to allow for information to be intercepted, Prakash said. However, the rules say that the competent authority should resort to interception only after considering all alternative means to acquire information. Thursday’s directive, though, is silent about the circumstances in which interception will be permitted, he said.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/scroll-abhishek-dey-december-22-2018-centres-order-on-computer-surveillance-threatens-right-to-privacy

Centre’s order on computer surveillance is backed by law – but the law lacks adequate safeguards

Admin — 2018-12-24T17:04:22Z

The Information Technology Act’s surveillance scheme furthers a colonial hangover.

The blog post by Nehaa Chaudhari and Tuhina Joshi was published by Scroll.in on December 23, 2018.

On Thursday, the Ministry of Home Affairs issued a statutory order authorising 10 “security and intelligence agencies” to intercept, monitor and decrypt electronic information and communication. A media frenzy soon ensued, with Opposition political parties seizing the notification as evidence that the government was running a surveillance state. The ministry responded with a press release, clarifying that the order was in keeping with Section 69(1) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Interception, Monitoring and Decryption of Information) Rules, 2009, proving that the order was sound in law.

Several government officials and Bharatiya Janata Party representatives have since defended this order as being in India’s sovereign and national security interest. They say it will bring transparency and accountability into surveillance, and that is is only an extension of the previous Congress-led government’s policy from 2009.

No doubt, Central and state governments have had the power to intercept, monitor and decrypt any information in any computer resource since 2008, when Section 69 of the Information Technology Act was amended to expand the government’s powers of interception. This amendment was one of many changes introduced to India’s surveillance framework to tackle crime and terrorism in the wake of the 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbai.

However, the ministry’s December 20 directive is the first time such an order has been introduced under this section; and in this difference between a legislation being on the statute books versus it being implemented lies the reason for collective public outrage. That said, research by the Centre for Internet and Society and SFLC.in shows that the Indian state has long engaged in surveilling electronic communications, and other kinds of interception and monitoring.

While railing against the ministry’s order is very welcome, it is futile if it does not lead to a conversation around the root of the problem – Section 69(1) of the Information Technology Act and the accompanying Information Technology Rules. This section empowers the Central and state governments to authorise government agencies to intercept, monitor or decrypt “any information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource”. It lays down six grounds on the basis of which such authorisation may be granted. These are:

The preservation of India’s sovereignty or integrity.
The security of the state.
Public order.
Maintaining friendly relations with other countries.
Preventing offences relating to 1. to 4. from being incited or committed.
Criminal investigations.

All authorisation orders issued by the government under Section 69(1) must be reasoned and written, and must be subject to the procedure laid down in the Information Technology Rules. As per these rules, all such orders must be scrutinised by a review committee of the Centre, or the state in question, set up under Rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951. All review committees set up under Rule 419A comprise only of government secretaries. This means that the executive sits in judgment over its own decisions. This goes against one of the most basic principles of justice and fairness – that no person shall be a judge in their own case.

Threat to privacy

State surveillance threatens individual privacy and must be subject to adequate safeguards. Privacy is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution of India, as recognised by nine judges of the Supreme Court in August 2017. Like all other fundamental rights, the right to privacy is not absolute, and can be restricted. According to the Supreme Court, these restrictions must be: (1) backed by law, (2) for a legitimate state aim, and (3) proportionate.

Consequently, any government order under Section 69(1) of the Information Technology Act must fulfil this three-part test to be constitutional. The absence of judicial or legislative oversight over the executive’s decision-making under Section 69(1) is likely to make it a disproportionate restriction on an individual’s fundamental right to privacy and, therefore, unconstitutional.

Even the government-appointed Justice Srikrishna Committee of Experts, which has been given the task of framing India’s data protection law, was concerned about this lack of legislative or judicial review. This committee has cited Germany, the United Kingdom, South Africa and the United States as countries with adequate procedural safeguards over government surveillance actions. On page 125 of its final report, it has noted, “Executive review alone is not in tandem with comparative models in democratic nations which either provide for legislative oversight, judicial approval or both.”

The Information Technology Act and the Information Technology Rules are but one of many means of government surveillance in India. Similar provisions exist in the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, the Telegraph Rules, 1951, and the Indian Post Office Act, 1898. These laws are the extension of a colonial legacy, used by a foreign power to keep tabs on an alien population. Disappointingly, the Information Technology Act’s surveillance scheme only furthers this colonial hangover. Indian privacy thought, especially in the past few years, has reflected the idea that we must evolve an Indian privacy framework, grounded in our constitutional values, and tailored to the Indian context. It is about time that our surveillance laws begin to reflect our constitutional values as well.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/scroll-nehaa-chaudhari-and-tuhina-joshi-december-23-2018-centres-order-on-computer-surveillance-is-backed-by-law-but-the-law-lacks-adequate-safeguards

Centre for Internet&Society ecommerce amendments

aman — 2021-07-27T14:36:57Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/centre-for-internet-society-ecommerce-amendments

Central Monitoring System to make government privy to phone calls, text messages and social media conversations

praskrishna — 2013-06-05T09:17:42Z

The government last month quietly began rolling out a project that gives it access to everything that happens over India's telecommunications network—online activities, phone calls, text messages and even social media conversations. Called the Central Monitoring System, it will be the single window from where government arms such as the National Investigation Agency or the tax authorities will be able to monitor every byte of communication.

This article by Indu Nandakumar was published in the Times of India on May 7, 2013. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

But privacy and Internet freedom advocates are worried that in the name of security, the government could end up snooping on people, possibly abusing a system that does not have enough safeguards to protect ordinary citizens.

"In the absence of a strong privacy law that promotes transparency about surveillance and thus allows us to judge the utility of the surveillance, this kind of development is very worrisome," warned Pranesh Prakash, director of policy at the Centre for Internet and Society. "Further, this has been done with neither public nor parliamentary dialogue, making the government unaccountable to its citizens."

After the Mumbai blasts in November 2008, the government has been arming itself with powers and technology to help it eavesdrop on digital communications. The information technology law, enacted in 2000 and amended twice in 2008 and 2011, gives designated government officials the authority to listen in on phone calls, read SMSes, emails, and monitor websites.

Such access is allowed for purposes of "reasonable security practices and procedures".

However, Pavan Duggal, a Supreme Court advocate specialising in cyber law, said the government has given itself unprecedented powers to monitor private Internet records of citizens. "This system is capable of tremendous abuse," he said. The Central Monitoring System, being set up by the Centre for Development of Telematics, plugs into telecom gear and gives central and state investigative agencies a single point of access to call records, text messages and emails as well as the geographical location of individuals.

Duggal, who closely follows New Delhi's battle with Internet firms, said there hasn't been much details from the government on what exactly the system intends to monitor and under what conditions.

In December 2012, the then information technology minister Milind Deora told Parliament that the monitoring system, on which the government is spending Rs 400 crore, will "lawfully intercept Internet and telephone services".

Work on the system has been kept under wraps for nearly two years. Several government agencies have issued tenders seeking specialised equipment and systems for such monitoring.

As part of modernisation, the home ministry is updating all its offices in state capitals with such gear. C-DOT group head Shikha Srivastava declined comment. Information technology ministry spokeswoman Mamta Verma redirected the queries to Gulshan Rai, director of India's Cyber Emergency Response Team, but Rai declined comment.

With over 100 million users, India is one of the fastest-growing Internet markets in the world. The government has come under criticism from activists for increased censorship and tracking of user records. Internet activist group Anonymous has started raising the pitch against the monitoring system, claiming that security is just a pretext for spying on citizens.

Disclosures by Google show that the number of requests from the government seeking personal information has been on the rise. In the second half of 2012, the government made nearly 2,500 requests, Google said.

"Even legitimate conversations could end up being tracked," cautioned Duggal, the Supreme Court lawyer.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/times-of-india-indu-nandakumar-may-7-2013-cms-to-make-govt-privy-to-phone-calls-text-messages-and-social-media-conversations

Censorship makes India fall two places on global internet freedom chart

praskrishna — 2012-09-27T10:37:47Z

A recently released global report on the internet freedom rated India 39th in 2012, a slip from two places last year.

The article by Dilnaz Boga was published in DNA on September 27, 2012.

The report titled, Freedom on the net 2012 (FOTN): A global assessment of internet and digital media by Freedom House, a Washington-based monitoring group conducted a comprehensive study of internet freedom in 47 countries.

Quoting Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society, the report said 309 specific items (URLs, Twitter accounts, img tags, blog posts, blogs, and a handful of websites) have been blocked by the government. But officially, the government has admitted to blocking 245 web pages for inflammatory content hosting of provocative content.

Ketan Tanna, India analyst for Freedom House told DNA, “A reflection of the downward spiral in the freedom on the net that Indians enjoy is evident in the upward revision of scores for India in the FOTN 2012 report. India was one of the only 4 of the 20 countries that “recently experienced declines” and are democracies. The other three are Mexico, Turkey and South Korea.”

Internet usage in India continues to increase, with tens of millions of new users getting online each year. According to the International Telecommunications Union, internet penetration was 10% — or about 120 million people at the end of 2011. Among internet users, 90 million were ‘active,’ accessing it at least once a month (70 million urban and 20 million rural).

The report has mentioned that in India, “amid several court cases regarding intermediaries’ responsibility for hosting illegal content, much evidence has surfaced that intermediaries are taking down content without fully evaluating or challenging the legality of the request”.

Citing an example, Tanna said in December 2011, the website Cartoons against Corruption was suspended by its hosting company after a complaint filed with the Mumbai police alleged that the site’s cartoons ridiculed parliament and national emblems. “As a result of such dynamics, large swaths of online content are disappearing, and the losses are far more difficult to reverse than the mere blocking of a website,” he added.

More common than website blocking is the removal of content based on judicial orders, government directives, and citizen complaints. This phenomenon that has increased in recent years and in some cases, targeted content on political, social, and religious topics, the report said.

The Indian authorities had submitted 68 removal requests covering 358 items between January and June 2011. According to Google, 255 items related to what it categorised as “government criticism,” while 39 involved defamation and 8 pertained to hate speech.

In January, responding to a freedom of information request, the home ministry reported that the government orders 7,500 to 9,000 phone interceptions per month, the report disclosed. Criticising this practice and the government’s disregard for the Constitution, the data revealed, “Established guidelines regulate the ability of state officials to intercept communications, but India lacks an appropriate legal framework and procedures to ensure proper oversight of Intelligence agencies’ growing surveillance and interception capabilities, opening the possibility of misuse and unconstitutional invasion of citizens’ privacy.”

As another method of controlling speech and activism online, governments have imposed temporary shutdowns of the internet or mobile phone networks during protests or other sensitive times. Localised internet shutdowns and mobile phone shutdowns occurred in India due to security concerns, the report said.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/dna-india-sep-27-2012-dilnaz-boga-censorship-makes-india-fall-two-places-on-global-internet-freedom-chart

CENSORSHIP 2020: The Future of Free Speech Online

praskrishna — 2012-06-28T10:01:00Z

The DC Chapter of the Internet Society, in conjunction with the U.S. Department of State, invite you to an informal discussion on CENSORSHIP 2020: The Future of Free Speech Online on Monday, June 25, 2012.

Published in Communication, Culture & Technology. For more info, visit here.

The Arab Spring demonstrated how Internet technologies such as Twitter, blogs, and Facebook could be used to mobilize protesters, publicize corruption and human rights violations, and connect activists and emigres. But in Iran , Syria , and elsewhere, we have seen repressive governments use the Internet to identify and track dissidents, to spread disinformation, and defame political opponents. Will the technologies of anonymization win out over new digital monitoring tools? Will new wireless data technologies foster democracy--or lead to more effective tracking and surveillance? Join us for an informal discussion with six people fighting for free speech on the Internet in their country--and around the world:

Dlshad Othman (Syria), an activist and IT engineer providing Syrians with digital security tools
Pranesh Prakash (India), a blogger and cyberlaw expert who is promoting a free Internet and online freedom of speech.
Koundjoro Gabriel Kambou (Burkina Faso), a journalist at Lefaso.net, is promoting human rights, democracy particularly among young people.
Sopheap Chak (Cambodia), the Deputy Director of the Cambodian Center for Human Rights (CCHR) and one of Cambodia ’s leading bloggers.
Andres Azpurua (Venezuela) has trained 300 youth on using Web 2.0 tools to publicize human rights violations.
Emin Milli (Azerbaijan), a writer who is using YouTube, Facebook and Twitter to spread information about human rights violations.

Moderator: Ambassador (ret.) Richard Kauzarlich, Deputy Director, Terrorism, Transnational Crime and Corruption Center (TraCCC), George Mason University, http://traccc.gmu.edu/

Hosted by the Communication, Culture and Technology Program of Georgetown University 2nd Floor, Car Barn, 3520 Prospect St., N.W. , Washington , DC (enter from Prospect St.)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/censorship-2020

Celebrating 5 Years of CIS

praskrishna — 2014-02-25T09:15:58Z

The Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) is celebrating 5 years of its existence with an exhibition showcasing its activities and accomplishments. The exhibition will be held at its offices in Bangalore and Delhi from May 20 to 23, 2013.

Download all the posters exhibited during the recent exhibition here.

As a move to promote transparency, CIS is inviting the general public to be its auditors by throwing open its account books and contracts which show how it has spent the Rs. 13.13 crores received from its donors. The four-day event will see renowned artists like Kiran Subbaiah, Tara Kelton, Navin Thomas and Abhishek Hazra featuring their work and also giving live demonstrations.

Agenda

Open exhibition on all the 4 days from 10.00 a.m. to 8.00 p.m., in Bangalore and Delhi. The evening programmes will be held in Bangalore. Dinner will be served right afterwards.

Evening Programmes

May 20, 2013

18.00 19.00	Why did I buy a set-top box?: What we know, don't know and need to know about Digitalisation — A Talk by Vibodh Parthasarathi Why are we being asked to install set-top boxes? How will this change what we want, and pay for, on TV? Grappling with these questions, the talk will evaluate the rationale of the digital migration in cable currently underway, and the less talked about digital migration being planned for the public broadcaster. These scarcely debated and often contentious issues form the core of a recent Country Report on the Media in India, anchored by the speaker. The India Country Report, the first inter-sectoral and policy oriented study of our electronic media landscape, finds the ongoing digitalisation of cable, the infusion of digital tools in the press and the proposed digital switchover of the public broadcaster, posing varied challenges not only to journalism but to public interest at large. This report is part of a global initiative, Mapping Digital Media, examining opportunities and risks amidst the transitions to a digital media ecology across 50 countries. Video
19.00 19.30	Film Screening on Cyber Cafes of Rural India by Video Volunteers Video Volunteers in partnership with CIS have been documenting the cyber cafes of rural India. Kamini Menon and Christy Raj will do the screening of seven 2-minute films: Cyber Cafe Trends Slowly Changing in Imphal by Achungmei Kamei (Manipur) Transgender Interaction with Cyber Cafes by Christy Raj (Karnataka) Cyber Cafes Prevail Over Mobile Phones in Nagaland by Meribeni Kikon (Nagaland) Mobile Technology Threatens Cyber Cafes in HP by Avdhesh Negi (Himachal Pradesh) Cyber Cafe Visit - A Day's Journey by Saroj Paraste (Madhya Pradesh) The Challenges of Establishing Cyber Cafes by Rohini Pawar (Maharashtra) The Community Service Centre - Myth or Reality? by Neeru Rathod (Gujarat) Video
19.30 20.00	Hindustani Classical Performance by Aditya Dipankar
20.00	Dinner
RSVP: Bernadette Längle (bernadette@cis-india.org), Ph: +91 80 4092 6283 Prasad Krishna (prasad@cis-india.org).

May 21, 2013

18.00 19.00	Screening of Sabaka A young elephant trainer in India vows revenge against the cult that killed his family. He seeks help from the local Maharajah who refuses, and he sets out alone to battle the enemy... Sabaka is a 1954 film produced and directed by Frank Ferrin starring Boris Karloff, Reginald Denny, June Foray, et.al.
19.00 20.00	Slouching towards Tlön: An Encyclopedia for the 2nd century of Indian cinema — A Talk by Lawrence Liang Ashish Rajadhyaksha and Paul Willemen’s Encyclopedia of Indian cinema (1994) marked an important moment for the study of Indian film history. In the two decades since its publication we have seen a rise in the academic community working on Indian film history along with the rise of various new archival initiatives online. Materials that were hitherto unavailable have also made their way into the public domain via the efforts of film historians, cinephiles and other enthusiasts. It is perhaps fitting to think about what a collaborative encyclopedia of Indian cinema for the 21st century may look like. Using Rajadhayksha and Willemen’s Encyclopedia as a base, Lawrence has been working on an online version that incorporates moving images, photographs and archival materials and his presentation will open up questions of how one thinks of an online encyclopedia as well as larger conceptual questions of the relationship between the encyclopedias, the internet and moving image archives. Video
20.00	Dinner
RSVP: Bernadette Längle (bernadette@cis-india.org), Ph: +91 80 4092 6283, Prasad Krishna (prasad@cis-india.org).

May 22, 2013

Cybersecurity, Privacy and Surveillance

18.00 18.30	“The Indian Surveillance State”— A Talk by Maria Xynou The Central Monitoring System confirms that, starting from last month ‘Big Brother’ is a reality in India. But how do authorities get the tech to spy on us? Maria has started investigating surveillance technology companies operating in India. So far, 76 companies have been detected which are producing and selling different types of surveillance gear to Indian law enforcement agencies. Join us to see India´s first investigation of who is aiding our watchers! Video
18.30 19.00	Why Privacy and How? A Talk by Bernadette Langle "But I have nothing to hide!" That's what most people think. Are you sure? What about all the services you use for free, don't you think the service provider has to spend money on that, and that he needs to earn it somehow? Bernadette will show some alternatives and also how easy it can be, to put your messages in a virtual private envelope as you use to do with messages on paper. Video
19.00 19.45	Cyber Security Preview — Presentation by Laird Brown and Purba Sarkar CIS in cooperation with Citizen Lab, Munk School of Global Affairs at the University of Toronto, is developing a film project on cyber security in India from a civil society perspective. Laird will show the preview of the project. The preview will include an overview of the project along with a video footage from the first series of interviews. Video
19.45 20.00	Faking of Fingerprints: A Presentation by Bernadette Langle Bernadette will give a brief presentation on how easy it is to fake a fingerprint. Afterwards you can get hands-on. Fake a fingerprint yourself and take it with you to your home. Video Video
20.00	Dinner
RSVP: Bernadette Längle (bernadette@cis-india.org), Ph: +91 80 4092 6283, Prasad Krishna (prasad@cis-india.org).

May 23, 2013

Kannada Language and IT

18.00 18.15	Kannada in Modern Era: A Guest Talk by Dr. Chandrashekhara Kambara Dr. Chandrashekhara will be the chief guest for this session and will give a guest lecture. Video
18.15 19.30	From Palm Leaf to Tablet – Journey of Kannada: A Talk by Dr. U.B. Pavanaja Kannada language which has a history of 2000 years and quite rich in literature started on palm leaves. Kannada advanced with modern times adopting the marvels of Information Technology. This is accomplished by successfully implementing Kannada in various facets of IT. It is being used everywhere from data driven applications to websites to hand held devices like tablets. These aspects will be brought out during the talk. Summary in Kannada: ತಾಳೆಗರಿಯಿಂದ ಟ್ಯಾಬ್ಲೆಟ್ ತನಕ ಕನ್ನಡದ ಪಯಣ ಸುಮಾರು ಎರಡು ಸಾವಿರ ವರ್ಷಗಳ ಭವ್ಯ ಇತಿಹಾಸವಿರುವ ಕನ್ನಡ ಸಾಹಿತ್ಯದ ಉಗಮ ತಾಳೆಗರಿಗಳ ಮೇಲೆ ಆಯಿತು. ಕನ್ನಡ ಭಾಷೆಯು ಆಧುನಿಕ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ತಂತ್ರಜ್ಞಾನದ ಅದ್ಭುತ ಕೊಡುಗೆಗಳನ್ನು ತನ್ನದಾಗಿಸಿಕೊಂಡು ಬೆಳೆಯಿತು. ಮಾಹಿತಿ ತಂತ್ರಜ್ಞಾನದ ಎಲ್ಲ ಅಂಗಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಕನ್ನಡವನ್ನು ಅಳವಡಿಸಿ ಬಳಸಿಕೊಳ್ಳುವುದರ ಮೂಲಕ ಇದು ಸಾಧ್ಯವಾಯಿತು. ಆನ್ವಯಿಕ ತಂತ್ರಾಂಶವಿರಲಿ, ಪ್ರತಿಸ್ಪಂದನಾತ್ಮಕ ಜಾಲತಾಣವಿರಲಿ, ಕೈಯಲ್ಲಿ ಹಿಡಿದು ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡುವ ಟ್ಯಾಬ್ಲೆಟ್ ಇರಲಿ –ಎಲ್ಲ ಕಡೆ ಕನ್ನಡದ ಬಳಕೆ ಆಗುತ್ತಿದೆ. ಈ ಎಲ್ಲ ವಿಷಯಗಳ ಕಡೆ ಒಂದು ಪಕ್ಷಿನೋಟವನ್ನು ಈ ಭಾಷಣದಲ್ಲಿ ನೀಡಲಾಗುವುದು. Video
19.30 20.00	Carnatic Music Performance by Nirmita Narasimhan Video
20.00	Dinner
RSVP: Bernadette Längle (bernadette@cis-india.org), Ph: +91 80 4092 6283 Prasad Krishna (prasad@cis-india.org).

About the Speakers

Vibodh Parthasarathi	Vibodh Parthasarathi works with the Centre for Culture and Media Governance, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi. He is also a Board Member at the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore. He maintains a multidisciplinary interest in media and development policy, business history of creative industries, and governance of media infrastructure. At the Centre for Culture, Media & Governance, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi, his ongoing research addresses media policy literacy, the TV news industry and the digital switchover in India. He is the co-editor of the critically acclaimed tri-series on Communication Process (Sage).
Lawrence Liang	Lawrence Liang is the Chairman of the Board at the Centre for Internet and Society. He is a graduate of the National Law School. He subsequently pursued his Masters degree in Law and Development at Warwick, on a Chevening Scholarship. His key areas of interest are law, technology and culture, the politics of copyright and he has been working closely with Sarai, New Delhi on a joint research project Intellectual Property and the Knowledge/Culture Commons. A keen follower of the open source movement in software, Lawrence has been working on ways of translating the open source ideas into the cultural domain. He has written extensively on these issues and is the author of The Public is Watching: Sex, Laws and Videotape and A Guide to Open Content Licenses. Lawrence has taught at NLS, the Asian College of Journalism, NALSAR, etc., and is currently working on a Ph.D. on the idea of cinematic justice at Jawaharlal Nehru University.
Maria Xynou	Maria Xynou is a Policy Associate on the Privacy Project at the CIS. She has previously interned with Privacy International and with the Parliament of Greece. Maria holds a Master of Science in Security Studies from the University College London (UCL).
Bernadette Langle	Bernadette Längle recently graduated in social and cultural anthropology, philosophy and computer science. She is also a so-called hacktivist together with one of the oldest hacker associations of the world, the Chaos Computer Club, having a lot of influence in German politics. As one of the core-team organizer of Chaos Communication Congress in Germany she also has a lot of experience in organizing events.
Laird Brown	Laird Brown is a strategic planner and writer. His core competencies are brand analysis, public relations, and resource management. Laird has worked at the United Nations in New York; high-tech ventures in North America, Europe, and India; and, is a guest speaker at ICT conferences internationally. He is currently working on a film project for CIS on cyber security in India with Purba Sarkar.
Purba Sarkar	Purba Sarkar is an associate producer with the cyber security film project. She holds a Bachelor in Technology degree from West Bengal University of Technology. Purba worked as a strategic advisor in the field of SAP Retail for 4 years before joining CIS in January, 2013.
Dr.Chandrashekhara Kambara	Dr. Chandrashekhara Kambara is a prominent poet, playwriter, folklorist, film director in Kannada language. He is also the founder-vice-chancellor of Kannada University in Hampi. He is known for his effective usage of North Karnataka dialect of Kannada language in his plays and poems and is often compared with D.R. Bendre. He has been conferred with many prestigious awards including the Jnanpith Award (the highest literary honour conferred in India) in 2011 for the year 2010, the Sahitya Akademi Award, the Padma Shri by Government of India, Kabir Samman, Kalidas Samman and Pampa Award. After his retirement, Kambara was nominated Member of Karnataka Legislative Council, to which he made significant contributions through his interventions.
Dr. U.B. Pavanaja	Dr U B Pavanaja holds a Master’s degree from Mysore University and Ph.D. from Mumbai University. He was a scientist at the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai, for about 15 years. He has done advanced research in Taiwan. He resigned from BARC in 1997 and dedicated himself fully for the cause of Computer and Indian languages. He has to his credit many firsts, viz., first Kannada website, first Kannada online magazine, first Indian language (Kannada) website to receive Golden Web Award, first Indian language (Kannada) editor for Palm OS, first Indian language (Kannada) editor for WinCE device (HP Jornado 720), first Indian language version (Kannada) of universally popular Logo (programming language for children) software, etc. His Kannada logo won the Manthan Award for the year 2006. He was a member of the technical advisory committee setup by the Govt. of Karnataka for Standardization of Kannada on Computers (2000). He is also a member of the Kannada Software Committee of Govt. of Karnataka (2008-current).

The Artists

Kiran Subbaiah	Kiran Subbaiah studied sculpture at Santiniketan, MSU Baroda and the RCA London. He was an artist in residence at the Rijksakademie Amsterdam where he worked on art that incorporated informatics and electro-mechanics. He is also known for making videos using custom-built tools that enable him to perform multi-person film-making tasks single-handed. His art is shown extensively in India and abroad. Subbaiah is based in Bangalore and is represented by the Chatterjee and Lal gallery in Mumbai. Kiran will present the Spectator, a robot that can sense the presence of human beings around it. It tries to appreciate them as works of art.
Tara Kelton	Tara Kelton is an artist and designer. She has been living in Brooklyn, USA and Bangalore, India for the last three years. She received her MFA from the Yale School of Art in 2009. Kelton’s video, print, and web-based works investigate moments in which technology alters our perception of the physical world. Kelton has taught at the Srishti School of Art, Design, and Technology and has recently exhibited her work at Vox Populi (USA), Franklin Street Works (USA), GALLERYSKE (Bangalore) and the India Design Forum (Mumbai). Tara will present Trace, a surveillance camera feed drawn in real-time by anonymous online workers.
Navin Thomas	Navin Thomas is a multimedia artist and a professional scrap market junkie, he spends a good quality of his precious time looking for obscure cultural misfits... after destroying most of himself in the 90's, he now spends his time restoring your mother's brother’s tin space toys and other unusual situations.
Abhishek Hazra	Abhishek Hazra approaches his art with a particular emphasis on the study of the historiography of science. He uses videos and prints that often integrate textual fragments drawn from real and fictional scenarios. He has previously exhibited and performed at Science Gallery, Dublin, HEART Herning Museum of Contemporary Art, Denmark, Astrup Fearnley Museum of Modern Art, Oslo, Casino Luxembourg Forum d’art Contemporain, Experiment Marathon Reykjavik, Reykjavik Art Museum and Kunstmuseum Bern. Abhishek was most recently an artist in residence at SymbioticA, the Centre for Excellence in Biological Arts, University of Western Australia, Perth. It was first performed as part of Beam Me Up, curated by Reinhard Storz and Gitanjali Dang, which was acknowledged by Pro Helvetia, New Delhi and German Book Office, New Delhi. Abhishek will be presenting #cloudrumble56 (attempted to re-animate sections of the Indian parliamentary archives — specifically, the transcripts of the scientist M.N. Saha's (1893-1956) interventions — through a performance that was transmitted only through live tweets on Twitter).
Aditya Dipankar	Aditya Dipankar started fiddling with music at the age of 4 when he started learning the tabla and then went on to play it for a long time. Years later, he discovered his strong inclination towards singing. Now, under the noble guidance of Pandit Vijay Sardeshmukh (Senior disciple of Pandit Kumar Gandharva), he is trying to understand the simplicity and spontaneity in the rich tradition of Hindustani classical music.
Nirmita Narasimhan	Nirmita Narasimhan is a Policy Director at CIS and works on accessibility for persons with disabilities. She was awarded the national award for empowerment of persons with disabilities by the President of India and also received the NIVH Excellence Award. Nirmita Narasimhan is a disciple of Dr. Radha Venkatachalam and renowned maestro Prof. T.R. Subramanyam. She began learning music at the age of 5 and went on to complete her Ph.D. in this subject from the Delhi University. Nirmita has been performing since 1995 and received several accolades such as the Sahitya Kala Parishad Scholarship and prizes in several competitions. She received the Gold medal in MA for standing first in the University and also stood first in MPhil. She has released a CD on Ponnayya Pillai compositions and also sung in an album of varnams. Nirmita has performed in different places in India such as Delhi, Chennai, Tirupathi and Bangalore as well as in Singapore and has also given several thematic concerts such as Eka Raga Sandhya and Pallavi concerts.
Sharath Chandra Ram	Sharath Chandra Ram (Sharathchandra Ramakrishnan) has interests in multimodal art, cognitive science, accessibility, digital humanities and network cultures. He is a faculty at the Centre for Experimental Media Arts at the Srishti School of Art Design and Technology. At the Centre for Internet and Society he helped set up and manage activities at the Metaculture Media Lab : an open hackerspace and alternative platform for research and exchange. His writings and musings at CIS maybe found here: http://cis-india.org/author/sharath He graduated from the University of Edinburgh with a degree in Artificial Intelligence specializing in interactive virtual environments. Previously as a Research Associate at the National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences he received a special mention award at the International Conference on Consciousness (2012) held at the National Institute of Advanced Studies for his work on ‘Cross modal Integration’. As an amateur radio broadcaster, he is a proponent of the free use of airwaves for relief work, education and transmission art. He has also been a development related radio journalist (PANOS @ Nepal, Voices UNDP@Bangalore), speaker at the International Ham Radio Convention (Port Blair, 2006) and as a film enthusiast has been a Press Reviewer for the Edinburgh International Film Festival.

Locations

Bangalore

Centre for Internet and Society
No. 194, Second 'C' Cross, Domlur,
2nd Stage, Bangalore - 560071,
Karnataka, India
Ph: +91 80 4092 6283
Fax: +91 80 2535 0955

Delhi

Centre for Internet and Society
G 15, Top floor
Behind Hauz Khas, G Block Market
Hauz Khas,
New Delhi 110016
Ph: + 91 011 40503285

Event Brochure

Event Flier

Event Posters/Banners and Videos

Accessibility

National Resource Kit (PDF, PNG)
NVDA E-Speak (PDF, PNG)
International Collaborations (PDF, PNG)
Partners (PDF, PNG)
Publications (PDF, PNG)
Timeline (PDF, PNG)
Inclusive Planet (PDF, PNG)

In the below video Anandhi Viswanathan gives a demo of the National Resource Kit project and Rameshwar Nagar gives a demo of the NVDA and ESpeak (Text-to-Speech) project during the exhibition.

Access to Knowledge

Broadcast Treaty (PDF, PNG)
Copyright (PDF, PNG)
Software Patent 1 (PDF, PNG)
Software Patent 2 (PDF, PNG)
Pervasive Technologies (PDF, PNG)

Access to Knowledge (Wikipedia)

Factsheet (PDF, PNG)
Reaching Out (PDF, PNG)
Outreach (PDF, PNG)
Bridging Gender Gap (PDF, PNG)
Press Coverage (PDF, PNG)
Education Programmes (PDF, PNG)
Team Achievements (PDF, PNG)
Visualization (PDF, PNG)

Openness

Open Access to Scholarly Literature (PDF, PNG)
Open Access to Law (PDF, PNG)
Open Standards (PDF, PNG)
Free/Open Source Software (PDF, PNG)

Internet Governance (Free Speech)

Blocking of Websites (PDF, PNG)
Freedom of Speech (PDF, PNG)
Intermediary Liability (PDF, PNG)
Internet Governance Forum (PDF, PNG)

Internet Governance (Privacy)

Privacy Events (PDF, PNG)
Timeline (PDF, PNG)
UID (1) (PDF, PNG)
UID (2) (PDF, PNG)
DNA (1) (PDF, PNG)
DNA (2) (PDF, PNG)

Telecom

Institutional Framework for Indian Telecommunication (PDF, PNG)
Growth of Telecom Industry in India (PDF, PNG)
Delicensed Spectrum (PDF, PNG)
Spectrum Sharing (PDF, PNG)

RAW Monographs

Archives and Access (PDF, PNG)
Internet, Society and Space in Indian Cities (PDF, PNG)
The Last Cultural Mile (PDF, PNG)
Porn, Law, Video Technology (PDF, PNG)
Re:Wiring Bodies (PDF, PNG)
Community Informatics and Open Government Data (Special Issue) (PDF, PNG)

News and Media

Media Coverage (PDF, PNG)
Organizational Chart (PDF)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/celebrating-5-years-of-cis

CCTVs in Public Spaces and the Data Protection Bill, 2021

Anamika Kundu and Digvijay S Chaudhary — 2022-04-28T02:29:42Z

This article has been authored by Ms. Anamika Kundu, Research Assistant at the Centre for Internet and Society, and Digvijay S. Chaudhary, Researcher at the Centre for Internet and Society. This blog is a part of RSRR’s Blog Series on the Right to Privacy and the Legality of Surveillance, in collaboration with the Centre for Internet & Society.

The article by Anamika Kundu and Digvijay S. Chaudhary was originally published by RGNUL Student Research Review on April 20, 2022

Introduction

In recent times, Indian cities have seen an expansion of state deployed CCTV cameras. According to a recent report, in terms of CCTVs deployed, Delhi was considered as the most surveilled city in the world, surpassing even the most surveilled cities in China. Delhi was not the only Indian city in that list, Chennai and Mumbai also made it to the list. In Hyderabad as well, the development of a Command and Control Centre aims to link the city’s surveillance infrastructure in real-time. Even though studies have shown that there is little correlation between CCTVs and crime control, deployment of CCTV cameras has been justified on the basis of national security and crime deterrence. Such an activity brings about the collection and retention of audio-visual/visual information of all individuals frequenting spaces where CCTV cameras are deployed. This information could be used to identify them (directly or indirectly) based on their looks or other attributes. Potential risks associated with the misuse, and processing of such personal data also arise. These risks include large scale profiling, criminal abuse (law enforcement misusing CCTV information for personal gains), and discriminatory targeting (law enforcement disproportionately focusing on a particular group of people). As these devices capture personal data of individuals, this article seeks data protection safeguards available to data principals against CCTV surveillance employed by the State in a public space under the proposed Data Protection Bill, 2021 (the “DPB”).

Safeguards Available Under the Data Protection Bill, 2021

To use CCTV surveillance, the measures and compliance listed under the DPB have to be followed. Obligations of data fiduciaries available under Chapter II, such as consent (clause 11), notice requirement (clause 7), and fair and reasonable processing (clause 5) are common to all data processing entities for a variety of activities. Similarly, as the DPB follows the principles of data minimisation (clause 6), storage limitation (clause 9), purpose limitation (clause 5), lawful and fair processing (clause 4), transparency (clause 23), and privacy by design (clause 22), these safeguards too are common to all data processing entities/activities. If a data fiduciary processes personal data of children, it has to comply with the standards stated under clause 16.

Under the DPB, compliance differs on the basis of grounds and purpose of data processing. As such, if compliance standards differ, so do the availability of safeguards under the DPB. Of relevance to this article, there are three standards of compliance under the DPB wherein the standards of safeguards available to a data principal differ. First, cases which would fall under Chapter III and hence, not require consent. Chapter III lists grounds for processing of personal data without consent. Second, cases which would fall under exemption clauses in Chapter VIII. In such cases, the DPB or some of its provisions would be inapplicable. Clause 35 under Chapter VIII gives power to the Central Government to exempt any agency from the application of the DPB. Similarly, Clause 36 under Chapter VIII, exempts certain provisions for certain processing of personal data. Third, cases which would not fall under either of the above Chapters. In such cases, all safeguards available under the DPB would be available to the data principals. Consequently, safeguards available to data principals in each of these standards are different. We will go through each of these separately.

First, if the grounds of processing of CCTV information is such that it falls under the scope of Chapter III of the DPB, wherein the consent requirement is done away with, then in those cases, the notice requirement has to reflect such purpose, meaning that even if consent is not necessary for certain cases, other requirements under the DPB would still apply. Here, we must note that CCTV deployment by the state on such a large scale may be justified on the basis of conditions stated under clauses 12 and 14 of DPB – specifically, the condition for the performance of state function authorised by law, and public interest. The requirement under clause 12 of “authorised by law” simply means that the state function should have legal backing. Deployment of CCTVs is most likely to fall under clause 12 as various states have enacted legislations providing for CCTV deployment in the name of public safety. As a result, even if section 12 takes away the requirement of consent for certain cases, data principals should be able to exercise all rights accorded to them under the DPB (chapter V) except the right to data portability under clause 19.

Second, processing of personal data via CCTVs by government agencies could be exempted from DPB under clause 35 for certain cases under the clause. Another exemption that is particularly concerning with regard to the use of CCTVs is the exemption provided under clause 36(a). Section 36(a) says that the provisions of chapters II-VII would not apply where the data is processed in the interest of prevention, detection, investigation, and prosecution of any offence under the law. Chapters II-VII govern the obligations of data fiduciaries, grounds where consent would not be required, personal data of children, rights of data principals, transparency and accountability measures, and restrictions on transfer of personal data outside India respectively. In these cases, the requirement of fair and reasonable processing under clause 5 would also not apply. As a broad justification provided for CCTVs deployment by the government is crime control, it is possible that section 36(a) justification can be used to exempt the processing of CCTV footage from the above-mentioned safeguards.

From the above discussion, the following can be concluded. First, if the grounds of processing fall under Chapter III, then standards of fair and reasonable processing, notice requirement, and all rights except the right to data portability u/s 19 would be available to data principals. Second, if the grounds of processing fall under clause 36, then, in that case, consent requirement, notice requirement, and the rights under DPB would be unavailable as that section mandates the non-application of those chapters. In such a case, even the processing requirements of a fair and reasonable manner stand suspended. Third, if the grounds of processing of CCTV information doesn’t fall under Chapter III, then all obligations listed under Chapter II would have to be followed. Moreover, the data principal would be able to exercise all the rights available under Chapter V of the DPB.

Constitutional Standards

When the Supreme Court recognised privacy as a fundamental right in the case of Puttaswamy v. Union of India (“Puttaswamy”), it located the principles of informed consent and purpose limitation as central to informational privacy. It recognised that privacy inheres not in spaces but in an individual. It also recognised that privacy is not an absolute right and certain restrictions may be imposed on the exercise of the right. Before listing the constitutional standards that activities infringing privacy must adhere to, it’s important to answer whether there exists a reasonable expectation of privacy in CCTV footage deployed in a public space by the State?

In Puttaswamy, the court recognised that privacy is not denuded in public spaces. Writing for the plurality judgement, Chandrachud J. recognised that the notion of a reasonable expectation of privacy has elements both of a subjective and objective nature. Defining these concepts, he writes, “Privacy at a subjective level is a reflection of those areas where an individual desire to be left alone. On an objective plane, privacy is defined by those constitutional values which shape the content of the protected zone where the individual ought to be left alone…hence while the individual is entitled to a zone of privacy, its extent is based not only on the subjective expectation of the individual but on an objective principle which defines a reasonable expectation.” Note how in the above sentences, the plurality judgement recognises “a reasonable expectation” to be inherent in “constitutional values”. This is important as the meaning of what’s reasonable is to be constituted according to constitutional values and not societal norms. A second consideration that the phrase “reasonable expectation of privacy” requires is that an individual’s reasonable expectation is allied to the purpose for which the information is provided, as held in the case of Hyderabad v. Canara Bank (“Canara Bank”). Finally, the third consideration in defining the phrase is that it is context dependent. For example, in the case of In the matter of an application by JR38 for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland) 242 (2015) (link here), the UK Supreme Court was faced with a scenario where the police published the CCTV footage of the appellant involved in riotous behaviour. The question before the court was: “Whether the publication of photographs by the police to identify a young person suspected of being involved in riotous behaviour and attempted criminal damage can ever be a necessary and proportionate interference with that person’s article 8 [privacy] rights?” The majority held that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in the case because of the nature of the criminal activity the appellant was involved in. However, the majority’s formulation of this conclusion was based on the reasoning that “expectation of privacy” was dependent on the “identification” purpose of the police. The court stated, “Thus, if the photographs had been published for some reason other than identification, the position would have been different and might well have engaged his rights to respect for his private life within article 8.1”. Therefore, as the purpose of publishing the footage was “identification” of the wrongdoer, the reasonable expectation of privacy stood excluded. The Canara Bank case was relied on by the SC in Puttaswamy. The plurality judgement in Puttaswamy also quoted the above paragraphs from the UK Supreme Court judgement.

Finally, the SC in the Aadhaar case, laid down the factors of “reasonable expectation of privacy.” Relying on those factors, the Supreme Court observed that demographic information and photographs do not raise a reasonable expectation of privacy. It further held that face photographs for the purpose of identification are not covered by a reasonable expectation of privacy. As this author has recognised, the majority in the Aadhaar case misconstrued the “reasonable expectation of privacy” to lie not in constitutional values as held in Puttaswamy but in societal norms. Even with the misapplication of the Puttaswamy principles by the majority in Aadhaar, it is clear that the exclusion of a “reasonable expectation of privacy” in face photographs is valid only for the purpose of “identification”. For purposes other than “identification”, there should exist a reasonable expectation of privacy in CCTV footage. Having recognised the existence of “reasonable expectation of privacy” in CCTV footage, let’s see how the safeguards mentioned under the DPB stand the constitutional standards of privacy laid down in Puttaswamy.

The bench in Puttaswamy located privacy not only in Article 21 but the entirety of part III of the Indian Constitution. Where transgression to privacy relates to different provisions under Part III, the tests evolved under those Articles would apply. Puttaswamy recognised that national security and crime control are legitimate state objectives. However, it also recognised that any limitation on the right must satisfy the proportionality test. The proportionality test requires a legitimate state aim, rational nexus, necessity, and balancing of interests. Infringement on the right to privacy occurs under the first and second standard. The first requirement of proportionality stands justified as national security and crime control have been recognised to be legitimate state objectives. However, it must be noted that the EU Guidelines on Processing of Personal Data through video devices state that the mere purpose of “safety” or “for your safety” is not sufficiently specific and is contrary to the principle that personal data shall be processed lawfully, fairly and in a transparent manner in relation to the data subject. The second requirement is a rational nexus. As stated above, there is little correlation between crime control and surveillance measures. Even if the state justifies a rational nexus between state aim and the action employed, it is the necessity part of the proportionality test where the CCTV surveillance measures fail (as explained by this author). Necessity requires us to draw a list of alternatives and their impact on an individual, and then do a balancing analysis with regard to the alternatives. Here, judicial scrutiny of the exemption order under clause 35 is a viable alternative that respects individual rights while at the same time, not interfering with the state’s aim.

Conclusion

Informed consent and purpose limitation were stated to be central principles of informational privacy in Puttaswamy. Among the three standards we identified, the principles of informed consent and purpose limitation remain available only in the third standard. In the first standard, even though the requirement of consent has become unavailable, the principle of purpose limitation would still be applicable to the processing of such data. The second standard is of particular concern wherein neither of those principles is available to data principals. It is worth mentioning here that in large scale monitoring activities such as CCTV surveillance, the safeguards which the DPB lists out would inevitably have an implementation flaw. The reason is that in scenarios where individuals refuse consent for large scale CCTV monitoring, what alternatives would the government offer to those individuals? Practically, CCTV surveillance would fall under clause 12 standards where consent would not be required. Even in those cases, would the notice requirement safeguard be diminished to “you are under surveillance” notices? When we talk about exercise of rights available under the DPB, how would an individual effectively exercise their right when the data processing is not limited to a particular individual? These questions arise because the safeguards under the DPB (and data protection laws in general) are based on individualistic notions of privacy. Interestingly, individual use cases of CCTVs have also increased with an increase in state use of CCTVs. Deployment of CCTVs for personal or domestic purposes would be exempt from the above-mentioned compliances as that would fall under the exemption provision of clause 36(d). Two additional concerns arise in relation to processing of data concerning CCTVs – the JPC report’s inclusion of Non-Personal Data (“NPD”) within the ambit of DPB, and the government’s plan to develop a National Automated Facial Recognition System (“AFRS”). A significant part of the data collected by CCTVs would fall within the ambit of NPD.With the JPC’s recommendation, it will be interesting to follow the processing standards for NPD under the DPB. AFRS has been imagined as a national database of photographs gathered from various agencies to be used in conjunction with facial recognition technology. The use of facial recognition technology with CCTV cameras raises concerns surrounding biometric data, and risks of large scale profiling. Indeed, section 27 of the DPB reflects this risk and mandates a data protection impact assessment to be undertaken by the data fiduciary with respect to processing involving new technologies or large scale profiling or use of biometric data by such technologies, however the DPB does not define what “new technology” means. Concerns around biometric data are outside the scope of the present article, however, it would be interesting to look at how the use of facial recognition technology with CCTVs could impact the safeguards under DPB.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/rssr-anamika-kundu-digvijay-s-chaudhary-april-20-2022-cctvs-in-public-spaces-and-data-protection-bill-2021

CCTV plays Sherlock

praskrishna — 2016-04-24T04:51:04Z

Whether it's the Mercedes hit-and-run in Delhi or the antics of the chaddi baniyan gang in Mumbai, police are increasingly relying on CCTV footage to solve crimes. Sunday Times looks at how the small picture is getting bigger. .

The article by Raj Shekhar, Arun Dev, V Narayan & A Selvaraj with inputs from Sindhu Kannan and Somreet Bhattacharya was published by the Times of India on April 24, 2016. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.

In case after high-profile case, cameras have been the big stars of Delhi police investigations in recent months. After the Civil Lines hit-and-run case, where a 17-year-old driving a Mercedes was caught on camera speeding away from his victim, reliable witness to the crime came from a nearby CCTV. A few weeks ago, in the Vikaspuri lynching on Holi eve that threatened to take on communal colours, it was CCTV footage that clinched the case.

Across India, police officials reel off cases where CCTVs have made all the difference in identifying offenders and speeding up investigations. "Petty crimes like snatchings have been brought down by 50% in areas like Chandni Chowk since 2014," estimates Madhur Verma, DCP (north), Delhi Police. "Even if the face cannot be fully recognised, the timing shown on the CCTV grabs, and proof of the accused being present at the spot, can be useful corroborating evidence for the court," says DCP Dhananjay Kulkarni, explaining how CCTV helped nail the infamous "chaddi baniyan gang" in Borivli, Mumbai.

CCTV cameras have proliferated across our public spaces in the last few years, mutely observing our movements. It's not just the police; shops, companies and individuals install them too, and these come in handy for law enforcement. For instance, Delhi has about 1,79,000 CCTV cameras installed around the city, out of which 4,000 have been placed by the Delhi government, and the rest by private agencies who collaborate with the Delhi Police under its 'Eyes and Ears' scheme. "Cameras are a fact of life around the world, there's no going back for the police or for anyone else," says N Ramachandran, a former IPS officer, now president of the Indian Police Academy think-tank.

Whether London, Boston or Bengaluru, it is often a terrorist attack that shocks a city into ramping up its CCTV network. After the Church Street attacks, the police got cracking on surveillance, using crime-mapping techniques and shortlisting vantage points. While they currently use 300 cameras, the police believe the figure must be taken up to 2,500 to keep a better eye on the city.

But does CCTV control crime? To that question, there is only one unsatisfying answer — it depends. The debate is torn between those who see CCTVs as the embodiment of an eerie Orwellian warning, and those who believe that the more cameras there are, the less crime there will be. Studies, though, suggest that CCTV has specific and narrow uses.

Obviously, it helps catch people who have committed an offence, after the event. CCTV networks, though, have no noticeable impact on crime rates according to several reviews in the US and UK. The UK is the most monitored nation in the world, but as a Home Office study in 2005 concluded, there was no statistically significant reduction in crime, once other variables like seasonal and national trends, and other police initiatives, were factored in.

While CCTVs are not easy to isolate as a determining factor in crime control, they are demonstrably effective in some contexts. They can reduce some kinds of disorder and petty crime, particularly in car parks and public transit. Micro-level analyses of aspects like environmental features, camera line-of-sight, enforcement activity, and camera design suggest that the power to deter crime depends greatly on how the CCTV sites are chosen, and police operations designed.

The downsides are well known. The more mundane footage there is, the harder it is for police to sift through. There is often a displacement effect — the presence of a camera pushes the crime off-stage into other areas, or prompting criminals to change tactics in pursuit of the same ends (ie, rather than carry out a drug transaction on the street, arrange online and deliver). What's more, CCTVs can be gamed. In Mumbai, the police has found out that criminals apply toothpaste or flash a torchlight at the lens, or cover up with helmets and burqas, or even steal the digital video recorder in the CCTV. These cameras have to be constantly maintained. "Many believe that CCTV installation is a one-time investment, but it needs to be serviced to yield results," says S. David, who runs an electronics shop and sells CCTV cameras in Chennai's Ritchie Street.

If there is no overwhelming impact on crime prevention, why are India's security forces investing so heavily in CCTVs, and is it worth the inevitable tradeoff with privacy? More worryingly, it is doing so without any comprehensive regulation on their use.

Before this technology of databases and recording, "we seldom had situations where a police official or private detective was trailing you all day, recording your movements, which is more or less the situation with CCTVs now," says Pranesh Prakash of the Centre for Internet and Society. "Yes, you're in a public space, but that doesn't denude you of privacy".

But as Farhad Manjoo, a prominent tech blogger in the US, pointed out, the benefits outweigh our fears about privacy. "When you weigh cameras against other security measures, they emerge as the least costly and most effective choice. In the aftermath of 9/11, it's impossible for you to get into tall buildings, airports, many museums, concerts, and even public celebrations without being subjected to pat-downs and metal detectors. When combined with competent law enforcement, surveillance cameras are more effective, less intrusive, less psychologically draining, and much more pleasant than these alternatives," wrote Manjoo in Slate.

What we need is public oversight over the surveillance apparatus — in other words, we need to watch how they watch us. If there is clear respect for the principles of proportionality, accountability and transparency, "there need not be a conflict between ethical and effective use of these cameras," says Ramachandran.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-times-of-india-raj-shekhar-arun-dev-v-narayan-a-selvaraj-cctv-plays-sherlock

CCTV in Universities

merlin — 2011-09-01T09:50:09Z

Basic Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) Infrastructure is used to observe movements from a central room, and consists of one or more video cameras that transmit video and audio images to a set of monitors or video recorders.

A Brief History of CCTV's

Video surveillance as a means of policing gained prominence in the 1950s when the UK police installed two pan-tilt cameras on traffic lights to monitor traffic near the Parliament. Since then the United Kingdom has become the country with the most number of surveillance cameras.[1]

The proliferation of CCTVs has been attributed to the growing radicalization of human behaviour wherein organized groups terrorized entire nations and threatened their internal security. The 1985 terror attack on the then Prime Minister of Britain by the IRA and many such instances thereafter have led many countries to adopt CCTV as a means of policing. In India, terror attacks on the Mumbai stock market and successive instances have pushed the Indian Government to install CCTVs in prominent public areas so that it is possible to monitor suspicious movements.[2]

CCTVs and Public Perspective

Since the 1950'sCCTVs have become ubiquitous and ever present, monitoring our daily movements, and infringing into our personal space. Though governments believe CCTVs are essential security instruments, the public is less convinced. The early anxiety to be safe from an unseen danger has given way to a new unease amongst the people, that of constantly being watched by an unseen eye.

CCTVs in Educational Institutions

CCTVs are typically used by the government or private agencies for surveillance in areas frequented by the public that need monitoring. Recently though, universities across the length and breadth of the country have resorted to the use of CCTVs for policing campus activities and to keep the students in check and under control. Huge budgets are set to wire campuses with CCTV infrastructure, t causing students to protest as well as laud the initiative by the administration. The debate on CCTVs has gained momentum in recent years with students staging huge rallies both in support of and against it.

Example 1:

The most prominent of the agitations against CCTVs was staged by the students of Jadavpur University in Kolkata on the administration’s decision to install 16 CCTVs on the four main exit points of the campus and other strategic locations.[3] The installation cost Rs.20 lakh. The students protested loudly against the decisions and ‘gheraoed’ the office of the vice chancellor for 52 hours. The students claimed that the administration was curbing their individual freedom and robbing the campus of it’s democratic atmosphere. The administration refused to remove the cameras, and claimed that the move was necessitated for the security of the students and to prevent any unforeseen incident.

Example 2:

The girl’s residing in the Women’s Hostel of The University of Pune protested against the setting up of CCTV cameras’ in the entrances of the hostel to check for unauthorized visits from boyfriends and friends. The girl’s vandalized the camera and claimed that they were an infringement to their privacy. The hostel authorities insisted that the cameras did not infringe on the privacy of the women, and were only installed at the entrance gates to keep a tab on visitors.[4] The authorities claimed that this step was taken in congruence with the hostel’s policy of not allowing visitors to stay the night.

Example 3:

The girls of the Churchgate’s Government Law College succeeded in getting the CCTV camera removed from the Girl’s Common Room, as it was seen as an infringement to their privacy. The MNS stepped up the agitation in favor of the students which led the college administration to finally take notice and remove the camera from the common room.[5]

The Flip Side

The issue of CCTVs in campuses takes an interesting turn when the students support the move to install cameras in campuses.

Example 1:

Delhi University installed CCTV cameras in their campuses after the Delhi Police issued an advisory for the same. They claimed that the advisory issued was to monitor the instances of on campus ragging. The Delhi Police also helped fund the setting up of CCTVs in the college. This move was lauded by the students, and the colleges took instant measures to wire their campuses.[6]

Example 2:

Recently, after the murder of a Delhi University student named Radhika Tanwar in broad day light, many student union groups assembled for a candle light vigil. They demanded CCTV cameras near the Satya Niketan bus stop where Radhika was killed which is an isolated stretch of a road. The massive agitation of almost a week brought the National Commission of Women into the foray who seconded the demand put forth by the student body.[7]

Example 3:

The recent instance of an RTI exposing inflated bills for setting up CCTVs in the Punjab University Campus also throws light on an interesting facet to this debate as the students do not mind the CCTVs in their campus. The student’s union of the university demanded the authorities to look into the discrepancies of the budget, and also expressed anger as the CCTVs installed did not work. The students claimed that the rising violence in the campus is because of disinterested security men and non working CCTV cameras.[8]

Conclusion

The decisions to use CCTVs as a means of surveillance evokes mixed responses. On one side of the debate they are seen as a deterrent to crime while on the other side of the debate they are seen as beinggross infringements on privacy. CCTV surveillance remains as a bone of contention amongst students. If they feel that their personal space is being invaded by these cameras then it needs to be addressed by the administration in a manner which appeases their fear. Universities randomly adopt the policy of CCTV surveillance, disregarding any voice of dissent. Kashmir University put up CCTVs in it’s campus to shoo away lovebirds and the Aligarh Muslim University has installed 57 CCTV cameras in it’s campus to keep a check on students. The rise of the CCTVs in colleges relates to not the actual crime but to the fear of crime. Therefore, CCTVs have become a tool of re-assurance [9]which feeds a notion of safety and security to the authority in charge.

There is no black and white regarding the implementation of CCTVs in universities. A policy can only benefit both sides when decisions are taken with the students, and not on behalf of them. Indian Universities have no guidelines and policies regarding the implementation of CCTVs and students remain unaware of any decisions in this regard. The Universities should clearly spell out their take on CCTVs including:

University policy regarding CCTVs policies
The reasons for introducing CCTVs
The proposed uses of CCTV infrastructure
Which areas in the campus will be kept under surveillance
How will the data collected be stored
How long will the data be retained
How will the data be deleted[10]

The Universities should address all these issues to dispel fear from the minds of the students, and the student unions should be included in the discussions regarding the implementation of CCTVs.

Notes

[1].Webster,William; CCTV policy in the UK: Reconsidering the evidence base; sueveillanceandsociety.org.

[2].Norris, Clive;MC Cahill, Mike;Wood, David; The Growth of CCTV: A Global Perspective on the international diffusion of video surveillance in publically accessible space; surveillance-and-society.org.

[3].Timesnow.tv/jadavpuruniversity, www.haata.com.

[4].http://www.ndtv.com/article/cities/female-hostellers-damage-cctv-cameras-to-protect-privacy-83889, http://toostep.com/debate/is-it-right-to-install-a-cctv-in-girls-hostel-to-stop-unauth.

[5].http://www.mumbaimirror.com/index.aspx?page=article§id=2&contentid=201101212011012104560935753ecb888, http://ibnlive.in.com/news/cctv-cameras-in-hostel-rob-pune-women-of-freedom/142681-3.html.

[6].http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/after-delhi-police-advisory-du-to-install-cctv-cameras/761421/.

[7].http://www.indianexpress.com/news/women-constables-cctv-cameras-in-girl-stude/766083/.

[8].http://www.punjabcolleges.com/5526999-itemdisplay-Misappropriation-of-funds-on-CCTV,-RTI-exposed-it-Chandigarh.htm.

[9].www.surveillance-and-society.org/ojs/index.php/journal/article/view/prozac/prozac.

[10].www.ucl.ac.uk/estates/security/documents/cctvpolicy.doc, http://www.wustl.edu/policies/cctv-monitoring-and-recording.html.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/privacy/cctv-in-universities

Capturing Gender and Class Inequities: The CCTVisation of Delhi

Aayush Rathi and Ambika Tandon — 2019-09-27T15:24:10Z

Ambika Tandon and Aayush Rathi generated empirical evidence about the CCTV programme well underway in Delhi. The case study was published by Centre for Development Informatics, Global Development Institute, SEED, in the Development Informatics working paper series housed at the University of Manchester.

Abstract

Cityscapes across the global South, following historical trends in the North, are increasingly being littered by closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras. In this paper, we study the wholesale implementation of CCTV in New Delhi, a city notorious for incredibly high rates of crime against women. The push for CCTV, then, became one of many approaches explored by the state in making the city safer for women.

In this paper, we deconstruct this narrative of greater surveillance equating to greater safety by using empirical evidence to understand the subjective experience of surveilling and being surveilled. By focussing on gender and utilising work from feminist thought, we find that the experience of surveillance is intersectionally mediated along the axes of class and gender.The gaze of CCTV is cast upon those already marginalised to arrive at normative encumbrances placed by private, neoliberal interests on the urban public space. The politicisation of CCTV has happened in this context, and continues unabated in the absence of any concerted policy apparatus regulating it. We frame our findings utilising an analytical data justice framework put forth by Heeks and Shekhar (2019). This comprehensively sets out a social justice agenda that situates CCTV within the socio-political contexts that are intertwined in the development and implementation of the technology itself.

Click to download the full research paper

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/development-informatics-paper-number-81-aayush-rathi-and-ambika-tandon-capturing-gender-and-class-inequities

Can India Trust Its Government on Privacy?

pranesh — 2013-07-15T10:35:33Z

In response to criticisms of the Centralized Monitoring System, India’s new surveillance program, the government could contend that merely having the capability to engage in mass surveillance won’t mean that it will. Officials will argue that they will still abide by the law and will ensure that each instance of interception will be authorized.

Pranesh Prakash's article was published in the New York Times on July 11, 2013.

In fact, they will argue that the program, known as C.M.S., will better safeguard citizens’ privacy: it will cut out the telecommunications companies, which can be sources of privacy leaks; it will ensure that each interception request is tracked and the recorded content duly destroyed within six months as is required under the law; and it will enable quicker interception, which will save more lives. But there are a host of reasons why the citizens of India should be skeptical of those official claims.

Cutting out telecoms will not help protect citizens from electronic snooping since these companies still have the requisite infrastructure to conduct surveillance. As long as the infrastructure exists, telecom employees will misuse it. In a 2010 report, the journalist M.A. Arun noted that “alarmingly, this correspondent also came across several instances of service providers’ employees accessing personal communication of subscribers without authorization.” Some years back, K.K. Paul, a top Delhi Police officer and now the Governor of Meghalaya, drafted a memo in which he noted mobile operators’ complaints that private individuals were misusing police contacts to tap phone calls of “opponents in trade or estranged spouses.”

India does not need to have centralized interception facilities to have centralized tracking of interception requests. To prevent unauthorized access to communications content that has been intercepted, at all points of time, the files should be encrypted using public key infrastructure. Mechanisms also exist to securely allow a chain of custody to be tracked, and to ensure the timely destruction of intercepted material after six months, as required by the law. Such technological means need to be made mandatory to prevent unauthorized access, rather than centralizing all interception capabilities.

At the moment, interception orders are given by the federal Home Secretary of India and by state home secretaries without adequate consideration. Every month at the federal level 7,000 to 9,000 phone taps are authorized or re-authorized. Even if it took just three minutes to evaluate each case, it would take 15 hours each day (without any weekends or holidays) to go through 9,000 requests. The numbers in Indian states could be worse, but one can’t be certain as statistics on surveillance across India are not available. It indicates bureaucratic callousness and indifference toward following the procedure laid down in the Telegraph Act.

In a 1975 case, the Supreme Court held that an “economic emergency” may not amount to a “public emergency.” Yet we find that of the nine central government agencies empowered to conduct interception in India, according to press reports — Central Board of Direct Taxes, Intelligence Bureau, Central Bureau of Investigation, Narcotics Control Bureau, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Enforcement Directorate, Research & Analysis Wing, National Investigation Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency — three are exclusively dedicated to economic offenses.

Suspicion of tax evasion cannot legally justify a wiretap, which is why the government said it had believed that Nira Radia, a corporate lobbyist, was a spy when it defended putting a wiretap on her phone in 2008 and 2009. A 2011 report by the cabinet secretary pointed out that economic offenses might not be counted as “public emergencies,” and that the Central Board of Direct Taxes should not be empowered to intercept communications. Yet the tax department continues to be on the list of agencies empowered to conduct interceptions.

India has arrived at a scary juncture, where the multiple departments of the Indian government don’t even trust each other. India’s Department of Information Technology recently complained to the National Security Advisor that the National Technical Research Organization had hacked into National Informatics Center infrastructure and extracted sensitive data connected to various ministries. The National Technical Research Organization denied it had hacked into the servers but said hundreds of e-mail accounts of top government officials were compromised in 2012, including those of “the home secretary, the naval attaché to Tehran, several Indian missions abroad, top investigators of the Central Bureau of Investigation and the armed forces,” The Mint newspaper reported. Such incidents aggravate the fear that the Indian government might not be willing and able to protect the enormous amounts of information it is about to collect through the C.M.S.

Simply put, government entities have engaged in unofficial and illegal surveillance, and the C.M.S. is not likely to change this. In a 2010 article in Outlook, the journalist Saikat Datta described how various central and state intelligence organizations across India are illegally using off-the-air interception devices. “These systems are frequently deployed in Muslim-dominated areas of cities like Delhi, Lucknow and Hyderabad,” Mr. Datta wrote. “The systems, mounted inside cars, are sent on ‘fishing expeditions,’ randomly tuning into conversations of citizens in a bid to track down terrorists.”

The National Technical Research Organization, which is not even on the list of entities authorized to conduct interception, is one of the largest surveillance organizations in India. The Mint reported last year that the organization’s surveillance devices, “contrary to norms, were deployed more often in the national capital than in border areas” and that under new standard operating procedures issued in early 2012, the organization can only intercept signals at the international borders. The organization runs multiple facilities in Mumbai, Bangalore, Delhi, Hyderabad, Lucknow and Kolkata, in which monumental amounts of Internet traffic are captured. In Mumbai, all the traffic passing through the undersea cables there is captured, Mr. Datta found.

In the western state of Gujarat, a recent investigation by Amitabh Pathak, the director general of police, revealed that in a period of less than six months, more than 90,000 requests were made for call detail records, including for the phones of senior police and civil service officers. This high a number could not possibly have been generated from criminal investigations alone. Again, these do not seem to have led to any criminal charges against any of the people whose records were obtained. The information seems to have been collected for purposes other than national security.

India is struggling to keep track of the location of its proliferating interception devices. More than 73,000 devices to intercept mobile phone calls have been imported into India since 2005. In 2011, the federal government asked various state governments, private corporations, the army and intelligence agencies to surrender these to the government, noting that usage of any such equipment for surveillance was illegal. We don’t know how many devices were actually turned in.

These kinds of violations of privacy can have very dangerous consequences. According to the former Intelligence Bureau head in the western state of Gujarat, R.B. Sreekumar, the call records of a mobile number used by Haren Pandya, the former Gujarat home minister, were used to confirm that it was he who had provided secret testimony to the Citizens’ Tribunal, which was conducting an independent investigation of the 2002 sectarian riots in the state. Mr. Pandya was murdered in 2003.

The limited efforts to make India’s intelligence agencies more accountable have gone nowhere. In 2012, the Planning Commission of India formed a group of experts under Justice A.P. Shah, a retired Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, to look into existing projects of the government and to suggest principles to guide a privacy law in light of international experience. (Centre for Internet and Society, where I work was part of the group). However, the government has yet to introduce a bill to protect citizens’ privacy, even though the governmental and private sector violations of Indian citizens’ privacy is growing at an alarming rate.

In February, after frequent calls by privacy activists and lawyers for greater accountability and parliamentary oversight of intelligence agencies, the Centre for Public Interest Litigation filed a case in the Supreme Court. This would, one hopes, lead to reform.

Citizens must also demand that a strong Privacy Act be enacted. In 1991, the leak of a Central Bureau of Investigation report titled “Tapping of Politicians’ Phones” prompted the rights groups, People’s Union of Civil Liberties to file a writ petition, which eventually led to a Supreme Court of India ruling that recognized the right to privacy of communications for all citizens as part of the fundamental rights of freedom of speech and of life and personal liberty. However, through the 2008 amendments to the Information Technology Act, the IT Rules framed in 2011 and the telecom licenses, the government has greatly weakened the right to privacy as recognized by the Supreme Court. The damage must be undone through a strong privacy law that safeguards the privacy of Indian citizens against both the state and corporations. The law should not only provide legal procedures, but also ensure that the government should not employ technologies that erode legal procedures.

A strong privacy law should provide strong grounds on which to hold the National Security Advisor’s mass surveillance of Indians (over 12.1 billion pieces of intelligence in one month) as unlawful. The law should ensure that Parliament, and Indian citizens, are regularly provided information on the scale of surveillance across India, and the convictions resulting from that surveillance. Individuals whose communications metadata or content is monitored or intercepted should be told about it after the passage of a reasonable amount of time. After all, the data should only be gathered if it is to charge a person of committing a crime. If such charges are not being brought, the person should be told of the incursion into his or her privacy.

The privacy law should ensure that all surveillance follows the following principles: legitimacy (is the surveillance for a legitimate, democratic purpose?), necessity (is this necessary to further that purpose? does a less invasive means exist?), proportionality and harm minimization (is this the minimum level of intrusion into privacy?), specificity (is this surveillance order limited to a specific case?) transparency (is this intrusion into privacy recorded and also eventually revealed to the data subject?), purpose limitation (is the data collected only used for the stated purpose?), and independent oversight (is the surveillance reported to a legislative committee or a privacy commissioner, and are statistics kept on surveillance conducted and criminal prosecution filings?). Constitutional courts such as the Supreme Court of India or the High Courts in the Indian states should make such determinations. Citizens should have a right to civil and criminal remedies for violations of surveillance laws.

Indian citizens should also take greater care of their own privacy and safeguard the security of their communications. The solution is to minimize usage of mobile phones and to use anonymizing technologies and end-to-end encryption while communicating on the Internet. Free and open-source software like OpenPGP can make e-mails secure. Technologies like off-the-record messaging used in apps like ChatSecure and Pidgin chat conversations, TextSecure for text messages, HTTPS Everywhere and Virtual Private Networks can prevent Internet service providers from being able to snoop, and make Internet communications anonymous.

Indian government, and especially our intelligence agencies, violate Indian citizens’ privacy without legal authority on a routine basis. It is time India stops itself from sleepwalking into a surveillance state.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/new-york-times-july-11-2013-can-india-trust-its-government-on-piracy

Call for submissions: The Surveillance Industry and Human Rights.pdf

karan — 2019-02-20T10:46:58Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/the-surveillance-industry-and-human-rights.pdf