Centre for Internet and Society

August 2013 Bulletin

praskrishna — 2013-09-13T06:26:30Z

Our newsletter for the month of August 2013 can be accessed below.

The Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) welcomes you to the eighth issue of its newsletter for the year 2013. In this issue we are glad to bring you the final report on banking and accessibility submitted to the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, a research paper on India’s obligations under bilateral investment treaties, a report from a Wikipedia workshop held at the Konkani Department in Goa University, a report on the sixth privacy roundtable held in New Delhi, recent news coverage, and updates on our upcoming events.

Archives of our newsletters are here. Our policies on Ethical Research Guidelines, Non-Discrimination and Equal Opportunities, Privacy, Terms of Website Use and Travel can be accessed here.

Jobs
CIS is inviting applications for the posts of Developer (NVDA Screen Reader Project). To apply for this post, send in your resume to Nirmita Narasimhan (nirmita@cis-india.org). CIS is also seeking applications for the post of Policy Associate (Internet Governance). To apply send your resume to Sunil Abraham (sunil@cis-india.org) and Pranesh Prakash (pranesh@cis-india.org).

Accessibility

As part of its project on creating a national resource kit of state-wise laws, policies and programmes on issues relating to persons with disabilities in India with the Hans Foundation, we bring you three new draft chapters on Assam, Manipur and Puducherry. With this we have completed compilation of draft chapters for 21 states and 3 union territories. Feedback and comments are invited from readers for the below chapters:

The Assam Chapter (by CLPR, August 28, 2013)
The Manipur Chapter (by CLPR, August 29, 2013)
The Puducherry Chapter (by Anandhi Viswanathan, August 31, 2013)

Note: All the chapters published on the website are early drafts and will be reviewed and updated.

Reports

Banking and Accessibility in India: A Report by CIS (by Vrinda Maheshwari, August 12, 2013). This is the final report submitted to the Ministry of Finance, Government of India.
Opening New Avenues for Empowerment (by UNESCO, August 31, 2013). UNESCO has published a global report on higher education titled “Opening New Avenues for Empowerment”. Nirmita Narasimhan was the coordinating author for the Asia Pacific region.

Access to Knowledge and Openness

As part of its project on developing the growth of Indic language communities with Wikimedia Foundation, CIS-A2K held six Wikipedia workshops. CIS is also doing a project (Pervasive Technologies) on examining the relationship between production of pervasive technologies and intellectual property. CIS also promotes openness including open government data, open standards, open access, and free/libre/open source software through its Openness programme.

Access to Knowledge
Research Paper

India's Obligations under Bilateral Investment Treaties (Part A): “Bilateral Inhibiting Treaty?” — Investigating the Challenges that Bilateral Investment Treaties pose to the Compulsory Licensing of Pervasive Technology Patent Pools (by Gavin Pereira, August 31, 2013).

Column

Copyrights and Copywrongs Why the Government Should Embrace the Public Domain (by Pranesh Prakash, Yojana, Issue: August 2013).

Media Coverage

Dictionary words in software patent guidelines puzzle industry (by C.H. Unnikrishnan, Livemint, August 26, 2013). CIS work on Access to Knowledge is mentioned.

Blog Entries

Are Indian Consumer Laws Ready for the Digital Age? (by Vipul Kharbanda, August 8, 2013).
Do You Have the Right to Unlock Your Smart Phone? (by Puneeth Nagaraj, August 7, 2013).

Access to Knowledge (Wikipedia)

The A2K team consists of four members based in Bangalore: T. Vishnu Vardhan, Dr. U.B. Pavanaja, Subhashish Panigrahi and Syed Muzammiluddin, and one team member Nitika Tandon who works from Delhi.

Event Reports

A Kannada Wikipedia Workshop at Krishnarajapet (by Dr. U.B. Pavanaja, August 14, 2013). The workshop was co-organized by the CIS-A2K team along with Kannada Sahitya Parishat of KR Pet.
An Odia Wikipedia Workshop at Sambalpur (by Gorvachove Pothal, August 27, 2013). This workshop was held at Veer Surendra Sai University of Technology, Burla, Sambalpur on July 26 and 27, 2013. Odia Wikipedian Gorvachove Pothal organized this workshop with financial support from the CIS-A2K programme.

Konkani Wikipedia — Climbing up the Indian Language Ladder? (by Subhashish Panigrahi, August 31, 2013). CIS-A2K team organized this event at the Konkani Department, Goa University from August 21 to 24, 2013.
Konkani Wikipedia Advances in 4 Days — From 90 Articles to 130 Articles! (by Nitika Tandon, August 31, 2013). CIS-A2K team organized this event at the Konkani Department, Goa University from August 21 to 24, 2013. Thirty-eight students took part in the wiki editing workshop.

Events Co-organised

Digitization of Books for Indic Language WikiSource (organised by Wikimedia India and CIS-A2K, CIS, Bangalore, August 18, 2013).
A Workshop on Editing Wikipedia in Mumbai (organised by the Centre for Indian Languages in Higher Education and CIS-A2K, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai, August 24, 2013). The workshop was aimed at assisting students to take part in the Indian Languages Mela at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (September 20-21, 2013) which is hosting a competition for best Indian language entries on Wikipedia.

Event Hosted

Mobile Training Workshop @ CIS (CIS, Bangalore, August 29, 2013). Rachita and Keerthana Chandrashekar gave a talk on mobile campaigns.

Events Participated

Wikimania 2013: The International Wikimedia Conference (organised by Wikimedia Foundation, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, August 7 – 11, 2013). T. Vishnu Vardhan and Subhashish Panigrahi participated in the event.
Wikimedia Asia Meeting (organised by Wikimedia community, Hong Kong, August 10, 2013). T. Vishnu Vardhan and Subhashish Panigrahi participated in the meeting. Unedited transcript of the entire conversation is posted online.
వికీపీడియా:సమావేశం/హైదరాబాద్/ఆగష్టు (Hyderabad, August 25, 2013). T.Vishnu Vardhan participated for the meeting through Skype.

Media Coverage

Wikipedia Gains Massive Traffic Thanks To Vernacular Languages (Before It’s News, August 1, 2013). T. Vishnu Vardhan is quoted.
Wikipedia boom in Marathi, Malayalam and other desi languages (by Sandhya Soman, The Times of India, August 1, 2013). T. Vishnu Vardhan is quoted.
Wikipedia boom in vernacular languages (by Divya Saboo, August 1, 2013). The Centre for Internet and Society is mentioned.
Stress on posting articles on Kannada Wikipedia (by R. Krishna Kumar, Hindu, August 2, 2013). Dr. U.B.Pavanaja is quoted.
India’s Indigenous Languages Drive Wikipedia’s Growth (by Mahesh Sharma, TechCrunch, August 6, 2013). T. Vishnu Vardhan is quoted.
Krishnarajapet Wikipedia Workshop Coverage (Prajavani, August 12, 2013).
Krishnarajapet Wikipedia Workshop Coverage (Vijaya Vani, August 12, 2013).
Krishnarajapet Wikipedia Workshop Coverage (Suvarna Times of Karnataka, August 12, 2013).
Wikipedia writes a new script (by Joyce Dias, August 24, 2013, The Goan). CIS-A2K workshop held in Goa is mentioned extensively. Nitika Tandon and Subhashish Panigrahi are quoted.
Konkani Wikipedia makes headway (by Diana Fernandes, OHeraldO, August 24, 2013). Nitika Tandon is quoted.
Konkani Wikipedians Speak (Goan Voice Daily Newsletter, September 4, 2013). Konkani Wikipedia workshop organized in Goa from August 21 – 24, 2013 is mentioned in this newsletter.

Ongoing / Upcoming Events

Wikipedia Training in Telugu for Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Open University, Hyderabad (Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Open University, Hyderabad, September 5-6, 2013). T. Vishnu Vardhan is teaching a module on "Knowledge and Openness in the Digital Era".
You too can write on Wikipedia! — Orientation Workshop (co-organised by CIS-A2K and the Centre for Contemporary Studies, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, September 15, 2013).

Train the Trainer — Four-day long Residential Training Workshop in Bangalore (organised by CIS-A2K, Bangalore, October 1 – 5, 2013). The programme will be held in the first week of October.

Blog Entries

Voices from Goa: Frania Pereira tells Why She Writes Articles on Konkani Wikipedia (by Subhashish Panigrahi, August 27, 2013).
Voices from Goa: Wikipedia Editor Rusita Paryekar (by Subhashish Panigrahi, August 27, 2013).

Openness

Event Hosted

Open Hardware Lab: Play & Invent + Bonus Film Screening (CIS, Bangalore, August 4, 2013). A hangout was done with CIS Lab Community and with members of the Computer Club of India and Arduino enthusiasts.

Event Participated

e-DIRAP Google+ Hangout on Open Government (organised by Google, July 25, 2013). Sunil Abraham was a panelist.

Media Coverage

Beyond Property Rights: Thinking About Moral Definitions of Openness (by David Eaves, Tech President, August 6, 2013). Sunil Abraham is quoted.
Extending The Spectrum Of Openness To Include The Moral Right To Share (by Glyn Moody, Techdirt, August 19, 2013). Sunil Abraham is quoted.

Internet Governance

CIS began two projects earlier this year. The first one on facilitating research and events on surveillance and freedom of expression is with Privacy International and support from the International Development Research Centre, Canada. The second one on mapping cyber security actors in South Asia and South East Asia is with the Citizen Lab, Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto and support from the International Development Research Centre, Canada:

SAFEGUARDS Project

Event Report

Sixth Privacy Roundtable (co-organised by CIS, FICCI and DSCI, New Delhi, August 24, 2013). Bhairav Acharya and Prachi Arya participated in this event. The discussions and recommendations from the six round table meetings will be presented at the Internet Governance meeting in October 2013.

Newspaper / Magazine Columns

Freedom from Monitoring: India Inc Should Push For Privacy Laws (by Sunil Abraham, Forbes India Magazine, August 21, 2013).
Out of the Bedroom (by Nishant Shah, Indian Express, August 25, 2013).

Blog Entries

'Ethical Hacker' Saket Modi Calls for Stronger Cyber Security Discussions (by Kovey Coles, August 5, 2013).
Ethical Issues in Open Data (by Kovey Coles, August 7, 2013).
FinFisher in India and the Myth of Harmless Metadata (by Maria Xynou, August 13, 2013).

Events Organised

The Hackers Way of Reshaping Policies (CIS, Bangalore, August 2, 2013). Bernadette Langle gave a talk on different ways to reshape policies.
Chennai: Learn to Protect your Online Activities! (Asian College of Journalism, Taramani, Chennai, August 7, 2013). A Crypto Party was organised.
The Phishing Society: Why 'Facebook' is more dangerous than the Government Spying on You - A Talk by Maria Xynou (CIS, Bangalore, August 7, 2013). Maria Xynou gave a talk on phishing society.
Learn to Protect your Online Activities! (ACJ - Asian College of Journalism, Second Main Road (Behind M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation), Taramani, Chennai, August 7, 2013).
Privacy Meeting: Brussels – Bangalore (CIS, Bangalore, August 14, 2013). Gertjan Boulet and Dariusz Kloza gave a talk on privacy.
Learn to Protect your Online Activities! (CIS, Bangalore, August 17, 2013). A Crypto Party was held at CIS.

Events Participated In

Summer School 2013 (organized by the Research Center of Media and Communication at the University of Hamburg, Germany, July 29 – August 2, 2013). Dr. Nishant Shah was a panelist in the session on "Guilty until Proven Innocent: Pirates, Pornographers, Terrorists and the IT Act in India".
Meeting of a Sub-committee on DNA Profiling Bill (Hyderabad, August 6, 2013). Sunil Abraham participated in this meeting for discussing the draft bill.
Surveillance: Privacy Vs Security (organized by the Foundation for Media Professionals, India International Centre, New Delhi, August 17, 2013). Pranesh Prakash was a panelist.

Media Coverage

Crypto Night (by Rahul M., Caravan, August 1, 2013). Pranesh Prakash and Bernadette Langle are quoted.
Facebook: Limiting access to social media can restrict freedom of speech (by Kim Arora, The Times of India, August 1, 2013). Sunil Abraham is quoted.
Token disclosures? (by Deepa Kurup, The Hindu, August 4, 2013). Sunil Abraham is quoted.
Memeâ€™s the word now (by Padmaparna Ghosh, The Times of India, August 4, 2013). Nishant Shah is quoted.
Chinese hackers baiting Indian govt, corporate employees: report (by Moulishree Srivastava and Anirban Sen, Livemint, August 9, 2013). Sunil Abraham is quoted.
Mixed signals? Supreme Court notices to states on Facebook arrests (NDTV, August 16, 2013). Pranesh Prakash, Shreya Singhal and Faizal Farooqui discussed the grey areas of the IT Act.
Balancing vigilance and privacy (by Prashant Jha, The Hindu, August 18, 2013). Pranesh Prakash is quoted.
How Next-Gen Smartphone Users are Being Bought and Sold (by Rohin Dharmakumar, Forbes India Magazine, August 13, 2013, and IBN Live, August 19, 2013). Sunil Abraham is quoted.
Dear Milind Deora, Prakash Javadekar Deserved The Truth (by Rohin Dharmakumar, Forbes India, August 22, 2013). Sunil Abraham is quoted.
Election campaign: parties draw battle lines on media platforms (by Venkatesh Upadhyay, Livemint, August 26, 2013). Sunil Abraham is quoted.
India's Internet Privacy Woes (by Rohin Dharmakumar, Forbes India Magazine, August 26, 2013). Pranesh Prakash is quoted.
Cyberspying: Government may ban Gmail for official communication (The Times of India, August 30, 2013). Sunil Abraham is quoted.
Indian government to bar politicians from using Gmail for official business (by Neil McAllister, The Register, August 30, 2013). Sunil Abraham is quoted.

Cyber Stewards Project
Laird Brown, a strategic planner and writer with core competencies on brand analysis, public relations and resource management and Purba Sarkar who in the past worked as a strategic advisor in the field of SAP Retail are working in this project.

Video Interview

Part 9: Interview with Saikat Datta (August 5, 2013).

Telecom

CIS has published one newspaper column in the Business Standard and also made a submission to TRAI:

Newspaper Column

Breaking into the Closed Circle: Domestic High-Tech Manufacturing Needs Access To Markets (by Shyam Ponappa, originally published in the Business Standard, July 31, 2013 and also mirrored in Organizing India Blogspot, August 1, 2013).

Submission

TRAI Consultation Paper on Spectrum (by Shyam Ponappa and A.B. Beliappa, August 31, 2013). The submission was made to the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India on August 21, 2013.

Digital Humanities

We are building research clusters in the field of Digital Humanities. The Digital will be used as a way of unpacking the debates in humanities and social sciences and look at the new frameworks, concepts and ideas that emerge in our engagement with the digital. The clusters aim to produce and document new conversations and debates that shape the contours of Digital Humanities in Asia.

Blog Entries

Digital Humanities Talk (by Sara Morais, August 1, 2013). Sara wrote about her talk in this blog entry.
Theorizing the Digital Subaltern (by Sara Morais, August 2, 2013).

Event Organised

Digital Humanities for Indian Higher Education (co-organised by CIS-A2K, HEIRA, CSCS, Tumkur University, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai and CCS-Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, July 13, 2013). Errata: We had got the name of one of the co-organisers wrong in our previous newsletter. We have corrected this now.

Event Participated In

South Asia Conference on Higher Education (organised by the Centre for Study of Culture and Society, Ford Foundation Office, New Delhi, August 5 – 7, 2013). Sunil Abraham participated in this conference.

About CIS

The Centre for Internet and Society is a non-profit research organization that works on policy issues relating to freedom of expression, privacy, accessibility for persons with disabilities, access to knowledge and IPR reform, and openness (including open government, FOSS, open standards, etc.), and engages in academic research on digital natives and digital humanities.
Follow us elsewhere

Get short, timely messages from us on Twitter
Join the CIS group on Facebook
Visit us at http://cis-india.org

*Support Us*

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

Request for Collaboration
We invite researchers, practitioners, and theoreticians, both organisationally and as individuals, to collaboratively engage with Internet and society and improve our understanding of this new field. To discuss the research collaborations, write to Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, at sunil@cis-india.org or Nishant Shah, Director – Research, at nishant@cis-india.org

CIS is grateful to its donors, Wikimedia Foundation, Ford Foundation, Privacy International, UK, Hans Foundation and the Kusuma Trust which was founded by Anurag Dikshit and Soma Pujari, philanthropists of Indian origin, for its core funding and support for most of its projects.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/about/newsletters/august-2013-bulletin

August 2012 Bulletin

praskrishna — 2012-09-11T14:53:44Z

Welcome to the newsletter issue of August 2012 from the Centre for Internet & Society (CIS). The present issue features an analysis of the latest list of sites blocked by the Indian government from August 18, 2012 to August 21, 2012, the India Report for Consumers International IP Watchlist 2012, and press coverage related to the recent North East exodus.

Internet Governance

The Internet Governance programme conducts research around the various social, technical, and political underpinnings of global and national Internet governance, and includes online privacy, freedom of speech, and Internet governance mechanisms and processes:

Special Section on Freedom of Expression

We usually cover Freedom of Expression under Internet Governance. However, in the month of August there has been much discussion regarding the North East exodus from Bangalore and the blocking of a number of websites by the Indian government from August 18 to 21, 2012. This special section covers reportage and original content from CIS:

Featured Research

Analysing Latest List of Blocked Sites (Communalism & Rioting Edition) (by Pranesh Prakash): Pranesh Prakash did a preliminary analysis on a leaked list of the websites blocked from August 18, 2012 till August 21, 2012 by the Indian government. There were a total of 309 specific items (those being URLs, Twitter accounts, img tags, blog posts, blogs, and a handful of websites) that were blocked. In this analysis, Pranesh examines why these have been blocked, are the blocks legitimate, are there any egregious mistakes, why the whole list hasn’t been put up, why can one access items that are supposed to be blocked, what should the government have done, etc. The analysis was quoted/cross-posted in the following places: Wall Street Journal (August 25, 2012), The Hindu (August 24, 2012), LiveMint (August 24, 2012), Global Voices (August 24, 2012), Outlook (August 23, 2012), FirstPost.India (August 23, 2012), IBN Live (August 23, 2012), News Click (August 23, 2012), Medianama (August 23, 2012) and KAFILA (August 23, 2012).

Columns

To regulate Net intermediaries or not is the question (by Sunil Abraham, Deccan Herald, August 26, 2012): “Given the disruption to public order caused by the mass exodus of North-Eastern Indians from several cities, the government has had for the first time in many years, a legitimate case to crackdown on Internet intermediaries and their users.”

Social media, SMS are not why NE students left Bangalore (by Nishant Shah, First Post, August 25, 2012): “I woke up one morning to find that I was living in a city of crisis. Bangalore, where the largest public preoccupations to date have been about bad roads, stray dogs, and occasionally, the lack of night-life, the city was suddenly a space that people wanted to flee and occupy simultaneously.”
What lurks beneath the Network (by Nishant Shah, Down to Earth, August 24, 2012): “There is a series of buzzwords that have become a naturalised part of discussions around digital social media—participation, collaboration, peer-2-peer, mobilisation, etc. Especially in the post Arab Spring world (and our own home-grown Anna Hazare spectacles), there is this increasing belief in the innate possibilities of social media as providing ways by which the world as we know it shall change for the better. Young people are getting on to the streets and demanding their rights to the future.”
Censoring the Internet: A brief manual (by Sunil Abraham, Tehelka, August 23, 2012): “Blocking websites on the Internet should be proportionate to harm they intend. However, the government of India's approach is against the principles of natural justice.”
The Perils of 'Hactivism' (by Chinmayi Arun, LiveMint, August 20, 2012): “Civil disobedience includes accepting the penalty for breaking the law. Untraceable hackers are far removed from this ethic.”

Foreign Media Coverage

India blocks more than 250 Web sites for inciting hate, panic (by Rama Lakshmi, Washington Post on August 20, 2012): “A blanket ban does not necessarily lead to a reduction in the circulation of rumors because people become more vulnerable in a communication vacuum.”— Sunil Abraham.
India’s ethnic clashes intensify within social-media maelstrom (by Stephanie Nolen, Globe Mail, August 23, 2012): “Now for a change, the government has legitimate grounds to censor speech...but they’ve cried wolf on so many occasions before.” — Sunil Abraham.
India limits social media after civil unrest (by Mark Magnier, Australian Financial Review, August 24, 2012): “Before, the government’s had no grounds for censorship, it was only acting on the bruised egos of bureaucrats and officials... this time, it’s got a legitimate right given the disruption of public order. But it hasn’t done so very effectively.” — Sunil Abraham.
New Delhi Expands Curbs on Web Content (by R Jai Krishna and Rumman Ahmed, Wall Street Journal, August 23, 2012): “The government's move to block several Twitter handles is a clear case of administrative overreach...This action means citizens are less likely to believe that the government can use its powers responsibly.” — Sunil Abraham.
Govt in line of fire over web censorship (by Surabhi Agarwal, Livemint, August 24, 2012): “Both Kanchan Gupta and Swapan Dasgupta seem to be having a right wing ideology, but while the former’s account is blocked the latter’s is not...The difference is on the kind of content which has been posted.” — Pranesh Prakash.
India's social media crackdown reveals clumsy govt machinery (by David Lalmalsawma, Reuters, August 24, 2012): Pranesh Prakash’s analysis is quoted.
Internet expert criticizes Indian cyber blockades (by Muneeza Naqvi, Associated Press, August 24, 2012): “The government has gone overboard and many of its efforts are legally questionable.” — Pranesh Prakash. This was also covered in Bloomberg Businessweek (August 24, 2012), Khaleej Times (August 24, 2012), ABC News (August 24, 2012), Seattle Times (August 24, 2012), Vancouver Sun (August 24, 2012), Kansas City. (August 24, 2012), Times Colonist (August 24, 2012), Merced Sun-Star (August 24, 2012), Yahoo News (August 24, 2012), SanLuisObispo.com (August 24, 2012), Terrorism Watch (August 25, 2012), Sci-Tech Today (August 26, 2012).
How ISPs block websites and why it doesn’t help (by Gopal Sathe, Livemint, August 24, 2012): “Even though many of the items on that list do deserve (in my opinion) to be removed [...] the people and companies hosting the material should have been asked to remove it, instead of ordering the ISPs to block them.” — Pranesh Prakash.
India’s Internet Curbs Under Legal Cloud (by Rumman Ahmed and R Jai Krishna, Wall Street Journal, August 26, 2012):” The four orders that were sent to the ISPs don’t say under which section or under what power these orders are being sent...They were sent without invoking any statute or without invoking any law.” — Pranesh Prakash.
After Violence in India, a Crackdown Online (by Gardiner Harris, New York Times, August 25, 2012): “I don’t see this as politically motivated censorship...I see this as gross ineptitude by the government.” — Pranesh Prakash.
Inde: la tentative de contrôler l'internet est "illégale" (Agence France Presse, August 24, 2012): Pranesh Prakash is quoted.
India threatens action against Twitter for ethnic violence 'rumors' (originally posted by Ben Sheppard in AFP and published in the China Post, August 25, 2012): Pranesh Prakash’s analysis is quoted.
Blocked websites: Where India flawed (CIOL, August 23, 2012): Pranesh Prakash’s analysis is quoted.
India: Social Media Censorship to Contain ‘Cyber-Terrorism'? (by Aparna Ray, Global Voices, August 24, 2012): Pranesh Prakash’s analysis is quoted.
Delhi defends Internet blocking (Gulf Today, August 25, 2012): “The officials who are trusted with this don’t know the law or modern technology well enough.” — Pranesh Prakash.
India Blocks News Website Pages for 'Spreading Fear' over Assam Violence (by Gianluca Mezzofiore, International Business Times, August 24, 2012): “The government's highest priority should have been to counter the rumours and it did a really bad job of that.” — Pranesh Prakash.
Internet clamp outrage (Gulf Daily, August 25, 2012): Pranesh Prakash is quoted.
India faces Twitter backlash over Internet clampdown (by Devidutta Tripathy and Satarupa Bhattacharjya, Reuters, August 24, 2012): “This isn't about political censorship. This is about the government not knowing how to do online regulation properly.” — Pranesh Prakash.
Indian government defends Internet blocking (AFP, August 23, 2012): “I hope that this fiasco shows the folly of excessive censorship and encourages the government to make better use of social networks and technology to reach out to people.” — Pranesh Prakash. This was cross-posted in the following: The National (August 25, 2012), MSN News (August 24, 2012), StarAfrica.com (August 24, 2012), Jakarta Globe (August 24, 2012).
Criticism mounts over India censorship (by James Crabtree in Mumbai and Tim Bradshaw in San Francisco, Financial Times, August 24, 2012): “I am not questioning their original motives, but I do think this is excessive and incompetent censorship.” — Pranesh Prakash.
Facebook's Delicate Dance With Delhi On Censorship (by Mark Bergen, Forbes, August 29, 2012): “Perhaps the Indian government has wasted, frittered away goodwill...It has cried ‘wolf’ so many times that this time the internet intermediaries are not taking them as seriously as they should.” — Sunil Abraham.
Internet Analysts Question India’s Efforts to Stem Panic (by Vikas Bajaj, New York Times, August 21, 2012): “The Internet intermediaries are responding slowly because now they have to trawl through their networks and identify hate speech.” — Sunil Abraham. This was cross-posted in NDTV on August 22, 2012. A version of this article appeared in print on August 22, 2012, on page B4 of the New York edition with the headline: Internet Moves by India to Stem Rumors and Panic Raise Questions.
India limits social media after civil unrest (by Mark Magnier, Los Angeles Times, August 23, 2012 and cross-posted in Channel 6 News on August 24, 2012): Sunil Abraham is quoted.
India Debates Misuse of Social Media (by Anjana Pasricha, Voice of America, August 21, 2012 and re-posted in Chosunilbo on September 4, 2012): “Social media websites and other Internet intermediaries should have been asked by the government to run banner advertising or some other form of messaging that revealed the lack of truth in the rumors that were circulating.” — Sunil Abraham.
Officials Raise Questions over Indian Government’s Efforts (by Bruce Totolos, French Tribune, August 22, 2012). “The government acted appropriately, but without sufficient sophistication.” — Sunil Abraham.
India seeks a tighter grip on social media (United Press International, August 24, 2012): Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

National Media Coverage

Internet expert Pranesh Prakash criticizes Indian cyber blockades (Economic Times, August 24, 2012): Pranesh Prakash is quoted.
Govt orders blocking of 300 specific URLs including 16 Twitter accounts (Times of India, August 23, 2012): “The blocking of many of the items on the list are legally questionable and morally indefensible, even while a large number of the items ought to be removed.” — Pranesh Prakash.
NE exodus: List containing 309 blocked URLs leaks online (tech 2, August 23, 2012): Pranesh Prakash's analysis is quoted.
Govt cracks down on Twitter (Hindustan Times, August 24, 2012): “The blocking was done without due process of law...the government should have engaged with the social media platforms since a majority — 217 out of 310 — of the block orders were aimed at Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter.” — Pranesh Prakash.
Twitter users hit back at government ban (originally posted in Reuters and carried in the Hindustan Times, August 24, 2012): “This isn't about political censorship. This is about the government not knowing how to do online regulation properly.” — Pranesh Prakash.
When #GOIBlocks, twitterati fly off their ‘handles’ (Hindustan Times, August 26, 2012). Pranesh Prakash’s tweet is quoted.
Regulating the Internet by fiat (by V Sridhar, Hindu, August 26, 2012): Pranesh Prakash’s analysis is quoted.
Twitter handles: How and why govt erred and what it can do to be smarter & more effective (by TV Mahalingam and Shantanu Nandan Sharma, Economic Times, August 26, 2012): “Perhaps, for the first time, the Indian government had legitimate reasons to censor speech.” — Sunil Abraham.
Some ISPs block Wordpress domain across India (tech 2, August 25, 2012): Pranesh Prakash’s analysis is quoted.
Details emerge on government blockade of websites (Hindu, August 24, 2012): Pranesh Prakash’s analysis is quoted.
India faces Twitter backlash over Internet clampdown (INDOLink, August 25, 2012): Pranesh Prakash is quoted.
India Blocks Facebook, Twitter, Mass Texts in Response to Unrest (by Simon Roughneen, Media Shift, August 28, 2012): “In the older forms of governance, which were imagined through a broadcast model, the government was at the center of the information wheel, managing and mediating what information reached different parts of the country. In the [peer-to-peer] world, where the government no longer has that control, it is now trying different ways by which it can reinforce its authority and centrality to the information ecosystem. Which means that there is going to be a series of failures and models that don't work.” — Nishant Shah.
Tata Photon unblocks Wordpress.com (by Rohini Lakshane, tech 2, August 30, 2012): “This is not the first time an ISP has gone overboard in implementing censorship, be it copyright issues, piracy or inflammatory content. In 2006, the government had chastised ISPs for over-censoring content and blocking unintended websites and pages...ISPs have numerous grouses against the government. They do not possess the technical capabilities to implement the government's orders, at times, whether about surveillance or censorship.” — Pranesh Prakash.
Northeast exodus: Is there a mechanism to pre-screen social media content? (by Wahid Bukhari, Merinews.com, August 23, 2012): “Given the amount of content uploaded on the larger social networks, pre-screening content is just not possible, while removal upon complaint is. They don't have editors like newspapers do; importantly, they shouldn't.” — Pranesh Prakash.
Haphazard censorship? Leaked list of blocked websites in India (IBN Live, August 23, 2012): Pranesh Prakash’s analysis is quoted.
Government asks Twitter to block fake 'PMO India' accounts; site fails to respond (Economic Times, August 23, 2012): Sunil Abraham is quoted.

Videos

FTN: Is it time to regulate social media? (IBN Live, August 21, 2012): Sunil Abraham, Pavan Duggal, A Mukherji and Nikhil Pahwa spoke to CNN-IBN Deputy Editor Sagarika Ghose in Face the Nation episode that was telecasted in IBNLive on August 21, 2012. Sunil said “if one looks at the initial orders that the government sent these intermediaries those were very broad instructions. The order was addressed to all intermediaries under the IT Act.” Watch the full video on IBN Live.
Govt vs Tweeple: Has clampdown hit free speech? (NDTV, August 23, 2012): Has the Government crossed the line by ordering the blocking of several Twitter accounts, many belonging to prominent journalists? The debate was featured in NDTV on August 23, 2012. Sunil Abraham spoke to Sonia Singh of NDTV. Sunil said that “we should focus on designing of the censorship regime in the country and the lack of compliance with the principles of natural justice.” Watch the full video on NDTV.
Is the govt caught in the 'censorship' web? (NDTV, August 26, 2012): In “We the People” Pranesh Prakash responded to Barkha Dutt’s question on what does a government do in a time of social unrest. See the full debate on NDTV.

Events Organised

Role of the US Tech Companies in Government Surveillance: A Lecture by Christopher Soghoian (CIS, Bangalore, August 27, 2012): Christopher Soghoian gave a lecture on the role companies play in assisting government surveillance.
The Asian Edge: 2012 Inter-Asia Cultural Studies Society Summer School: The 2nd Biannual Inter Asia Cultural Studies (IACS) Summer School was hosted in Bangalore by CIS and the Centre for the Study of Culture and Society.
Biometric Identification: Specified Error, Accuracy and Efficiency, Considered for the Operations of the UIDAI — A Talk by Hans Varghese Mathews (CIS, Bangalore, August 17, 2012): Hans Varghese Mathews gave a public lecture on biometric identification.

Events Participated

Sixth Meeting of the two Sub-Groups on Privacy Issues under the Chairmanship of Justice AP Shah (Committee Room No. 228, Yojana Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi, August 31, 2012): Sunil Abraham participated in the meeting.
APNIC 34 Conference (Phnompenh, Cambodia, August 23 – 31, 2012): Sunil Abraham was a panelist along with Ang Peng Hwa, Paul Wilson, Duangthip Chomprang and Raul Echeberria in the session on Internet Governance Plenary. The event was organised by APNIC.

Events Hosted

Meetup for Bangalore's designers (CIS, Bangalore, August 11, 2012): CIS hosted the meet-up in Bangalore.
Visit by students from Hindustan University, Chennai (CIS, Bangalore, August 16, 2012): Sunil Abraham and Elonnai Hickok gave a lecture to students from the Hindustan University.
Interface Intimacies (TERI Complex, Bangalore, August 18 – 20, 2012): CIS conducted a research workshop with Audrey Yue and Namita Malhotra.

Upcoming Events

Thinking with Data@CIS (CIS, Bangalore, September 16 – 18, 2012): The Thinking with Data course offered at the National Institute of Advanced Studies (NIAS) will be screened at CIS, Bangalore. The screening will be followed by online discussions with the faculty through Skype or Google+ Hangouts. Screening starts from September 12.
Cartonama Conference (MLR Convention Centre, JP Nagar, Bangalore, September 22, 2012): The Cartonama Conference is centred around geospatial data, mapping and location based services. HasGeek supported by CIS is organising this event.
UK DNA Database and the European Court of Human Rights: Lessons that India can Learn from Its Mistakes (Alternative Law Forum, Infantry Road, Shivaji Nagar, Bangalore, September 24, 2012): CIS in collaboration with Alternative Law Forum invites the public to a talk with international experts, Helen Wallace from GeneWatch, UK and Jeremy Gruber from the Council for Responsible Genetics in the United States.

Telecom

While the potential for growth and returns exist for telecommunications in India, a range of issues need to be addressed. One aspect is more extensive rural coverage and the other is a countrywide access to broadband which is low. Both require effective and efficient use of networks and resources, including spectrum:

Building Knowledge and Capacity around Telecommunication Policy in India

Ford Foundation has given a grant of USD 2,00,000 to CIS to build expertise in the area of telecommunications in India. The knowledge repository deals with these modules: Introduction to Telecommunications, Telecommunications Infrastructure and Technologies, Government of India Regulatory Framework for Telecom, Telecommunication and the Market, Universal Access and Accessibility, The International Telecommunications Union and other international bodies, Broadcasting, Emerging Topics and Way Forward. Dr. Surendra Pal, Satya N Gupta, Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, Payal Malik, Dr. Rakesh Mehrotra and Dr. Nadeem Akhtar are the expert reviewers.

The following are the new outputs:

Auctioning and Allocation of Spectrum (by Snehashish Ghosh): Auction of spectrums was introduced in the telecommunication market after the failure of the administrative process of allocating spectrum. Auctions use a price mechanism to allocate spectrum. Auction of spectrum can be used to increase efficiency and earn maximum revenue.
The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 (by Snehashish Ghosh): The main objective of the TRAI Act was to establish the TRAI and the Telecom Dispute Settlement Appellate Tribunal. Snehashish also touches upon the amendment to the TRAI Act, government control over TRAI, scheme of the TRAI Act, constitution of TRAI, its powers and functions, grounds and procedures for appeal to the tribunal, etc.
Broadband Wireless Access – Standards (by Jürgen Kock): Jürgen tells us about the broadband wireless access standards, why we need technical standards, who define BWA standards, WiMAX standards and long term evolution.
Mesh Networks (by Ravikiran Annaswamy): Ravikiran tells us the definition of Mesh Networks, its importance, applications and the things to explore in future.
National Telecom Policy, 2012 (by Snehashish Ghosh): The National Telecom Policy, 2012 was approved by the Union Cabinet on May 31, 2012. Snehashish tells us about the vision of the National Telecom Policy, 2012, its background, the strategies (broadband rural telephony and universal service obligation fund), licensing, convergence and value-added services, spectrum management, etc.
New Telecom Policy, 1999 (by Snehashish Ghosh): The New Telecom Policy, 1999 was formulated on the basis of the report of Group on Telecommunication. In this unit, Snehashish talks about the objectives of the Policy, its targets, the new category of service providers, role of the regulator, other mandates to the Policy, amendment to the New Telecom Policy, 1999, etc.
National Telecom Policy, 1994 (by Snehashish Ghosh): The National Telecom Policy, 1994 was formulated for the purpose of opening up the Indian markets for foreign direct investment as well as domestic investment in the telecom sector. Snehashish throws light on the objectives of the National Telecom Policy, 1994, the status of telecom services prior to the implementation of the aforesaid Policy; value added services, hardware and technological aspects, basic services, and outcomes of the National Telecom Policy.

Column in Business Standard

Decision Analysis for Interest Rates - II (Shyam Ponappa, Business Standard, August 2, 2012): “India needs to make practical choices that prioritise growth. This is the second column. The previous column was published in the Business Standard on July 5, 2012. It explained how lower interest rates could improve growth by increasing net profits.”

Access to Knowledge

The Access to Knowledge programme addresses the harms caused to consumers, developing countries, human rights, and creativity/innovation from excessive regimes of copyright, patents, and other such monopolistic rights over knowledge:

Key Research

Consumers International IP Watchlist 2012 — India Report (by Pranesh Prakash): The India Report for Consumers International IP Watchlist 2012 was published on the A2K Network website. According to the report, India's Copyright Act is a relatively balanced instrument that recognises the interests of consumers through its broad private use exception, and by facilitating the compulsory licensing of works that would otherwise be unavailable. However, the compulsory licensing provision have not been utilized so far, because of both a lack of knowledge and more importantly because of the stringent conditions attached to them.

Press Coverage

Copyright Law: More Than a Moral Obligation (by Jaya Bhattacharji Rose, Businessworld, August 9, 2012): “So far, things have worked well because sepia-tinted photographs have generally become part of the public domain. But now, only photographs by photographers who died before 1951 are part of the public domain. This has shrivelled up the public domain in photographs since it is even more difficult to trace the photographer...than to estimate the age of a photograph, determining whether a photograph is in the public domain is laden with uncertainty. The use of historical photos in books (and Wikipedia) will be badly affected.”— Pranesh Prakash.

Accessibility

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

Blog Entry

Ring Side View: Update on WIPO Negotiations on the Treaty for the Visually Impaired (by Rahul Cherian): As the negotiations between Member States progressed it became clear that the United States and the European Union were blocking the Treaty while everybody else was pushing hard for the Treaty. The United States and the European Union were pushing for some form of non-binding instrument that would be more in the nature of a recommendation. Further coverage of this is at Huffington Post and in the Guardian.

Digital Natives

Digital Natives with a Cause? examines the changing landscape of social change and political participation in light of the role that young people play through digital and Internet technologies, in emerging information societies. Consolidating knowledge from Asia, Africa and Latin America, it builds a global network of knowledge partners who critically engage with discourse on youth, technology and social change, and look at alternative practices and ideas in the Global South:

Public Talk

Decoding Digital Natives (Mudra Institute of Communications, Ahmedabad, August 31, 2012): Nishant Shah gave a public lecture.

Openness

The 'Openness' programme critically examines alternatives to existing regimes of intellectual property rights, and transparency and accountability. Under this programme, we study Open Government Data, Open Access to Scholarly Literature, Open Access to Law, Open Content, Open Standards, and Free/Libre/Open Source Software:

Event Hosted

Bangalore Force.com August Meetup (CIS, Bangalore, August 19, 2012): John Barnes, CTO Model Metrics gave a lecture at the event organised by Bangalore Force.com.
Technology Evangelists and Religious Evangelists — A Talk by Katherine Sydenham (CIS, Bangalore, August 10, 2012): Katherine Sydenham from the University of Michigan School gave a lecture.
Data-Driven Journalism, Data Literacy & Open Government — Talk at CIS (CIS, Bangalore, August 1, 2012): The event was co-organised by Open Knowledge Foundation and CIS. Lucy Chambers and Laura Newman gave an informal talk on ‘Data-Driven Journalism, Data Literacy, and Open Government'.

CIS is hiring
*Jobs*
CIS is seeking applications from interested candidates for the following posts:

Research Manager: CIS is seeking an individual, full-time, for a period of 12 months, beginning from October 2012. The Research Manager is expected to contribute to conceptualising, managing and executing research projects in the field of Internet and Society, build knowledge networks of researchers towards collaborative and open knowledge production and dissemination, developing and executing the monitoring and evaluation processes for humanities and social sciences based research, supporting and managing academic, popular and hybrid publishing projects from existing and new research and initiate innovative and creative areas and methodologies of studying the Internet and its practices in India and the larger Global South, to develop key research clusters and networks. Send in your applications to admin@cis-india.org.
Researcher/Editor (Accessibility): CIS is hiring for the full-time position of a researcher for its accessibility programme. The job will entail working on researching on national and international policies and best practices in the field of accessibility of information and technology for persons with disabilities. To apply, please send your CV and three examples of writing to nirmita@cis-india.org
Programme Director – Access to Knowledge: CIS is seeking a Programme Director for its New Delhi office. The Programme Director will manage CIS’s Access to Knowledge programme which is funded by the Wikimedia Foundation, to support the growth of Wikipedia and its sister projects and to advance access to free knowledge in India. The Programme Director will partner with the large Wikimedia community in India to focus on Indic and English languages and will manage a team of four staff members.
Programme Officer – Internet Governance: CIS is seeking an individual with a strong background in legal research and policy work to be part of its internet governance (IG) programme. The candidates must have good knowledge of Indian and international law on freedom of expression and privacy, demonstrable research skills, have strong communication skills and be media savvy with the ability to convey complex legal issues clearly to a general audience, open to travel and work independently.

To apply for the posts of Programme Director and Programme Officers, please send your resume to Sunil Abraham (sunil@cis-india.org) or Pranesh Prakash (pranesh@cis-india.org) with three references.

About CIS

CIS was registered as a society in Bangalore in 2008. As an independent, non-profit research organisation, it runs different policy research programmes such as Accessibility, Access to Knowledge, Openness, Internet Governance, and Telecom. Over the last four years our policy research programmes have resulted in outputs such as the e-Accessibility Policy Handbook for Persons with Disabilities with ITU and G3ict, and Digital Alternatives with a Cause?, Thinkathon Position Papers and the Digital Natives with a Cause? Report with Hivos. With the Government of India we have done policy research for Ministry of Communications & Information Technology, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, etc., on WIPO Treaties, Copyright Bill, NIA Bill, etc.

CIS is an accredited NGO at WIPO and has given policy briefs to delegations from various countries, our Programme Manager, Nirmita Narasimhan won the National Award for Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities from the Government of India and also received the NIVH Excellence Award.

Follow us elsewhere

Get short, timely messages from us on Twitter
Join the CIS group on Facebook
Visit us at http://cis-india.org

CIS is grateful to its donors, Ford Foundation, Privacy International, UK, Hans Foundation and the Kusuma Trust which was founded by Anurag Dikshit and Soma Pujari, philanthropists of Indian origin, for its core funding and support for most of its projects.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/about/newsletters/august-2012-bulletin

Atmanirbhar Bharat Meets Digital India

ankan — 2021-06-03T12:32:47Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/raw/files/atmanirbhar-bharat-meets-digital-india.pdf

Artificial Intelligence: A Full-Spectrum Regulatory Challenge (Working Draft) PDF

pranav — 2020-08-04T06:07:47Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/artificial-intelligence-a-full-spectrum-regulatory-challenge-working-draft-pdf

Artificial Intelligence Literature Review

Admin — 2017-12-16T10:43:42Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/artificial-intelligence-literature-review

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

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

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

Event Report: Download (PDF)

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

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

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

Meaning and Scope of AI

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

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

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

AI Sectoral Applications

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

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

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

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

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

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

Human Involvement with Automated Decision Making

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Social and Power Relations Surrounding AI

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

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

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

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

Regulatory Approaches to AI

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

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

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

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

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

Challenges to Adopting AI

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are we Throwing our Data Protection Regimes under the Bus?

Rohan George — 2015-09-10T14:02:08Z

In this blog post Rohan examines why the principle of consent is providing us increasingly less of an aegis in protecting our data.

Consent is complicated. What we think of as reasonably obtained consent varies substantially with the circumstance. For example, in treating rape cases, the UK justice system has moved to recognise complications like alcohol and its effect on explicit consent[1]. Yet in contracts, consent may be implied simply when one person accepts another’s work on a contract without objections[2]. These situations highlight the differences between the various forms of informed consent and the implications on its validity.

Consent has emerged as a key principle in regulating the use of personal data, and different countries have adopted different regimes, ranging from the comprehensive regimes like of the EU to more sectoral approaches like that in the USA. However, in our modern epoch characterised by the big data analytics that are now commonplace, many commentators have challenged the efficacy and relevance of consent in data protection. I argue that we may even risk throwing our data protection regimes under the proverbial bus should we continue to focus on consent as a key pillar of data protection.

Consent as a tool in Data Protection Regimes

In fact, even a cursory review of current data protection laws around the world shows the extent of the law’s reliance on consent. In the EU for example, Article 7 of the Data Protection Directive, passed in 1995, provides that data processing is only legitimate when “the data subject has unambiguously given his consent”[3]. Article 8, which guards against processing of sensitive data, provides that such prohibitions may be lifted when “the data subject has given his explicit consent to the processing of those data”[4]. Even as the EU attempts to strengthen data protection within the bloc with the proposed reforms to data protection[5], the focus on the consent of data subject remains strong. There are proposals for an “unambiguous consent by the data subject”[6] requirement to be put in place. Such consent will be mandatory before any data processing can occur[7].

Despite adopting very different overall approaches to data protection and privacy, consent is an equally integral part of data protection frameworks in the USA. In his book Protectors of Privacy[8], Abraham Newman describes two main types of privacy legislation: comprehensive and limited. He argues that places like the EU have adopted comprehensive regimes, which primarily seek to protect individuals because of the “informational and power asymmetry” between individuals and organisations[9]. On the other hand, he classifies the American approach as limited, focusing on more sectoral protections and principles of fair information practice instead of overarching legislation[10]. These sectors include the Fair Credit Reporting Act[11] (which governs consumer credit reporting), the Privacy Act[12] (which governs data collected by Federal government) and Electronic Communications Privacy Act[13] (which deals with email communications) among others. However, the Federal Trade Commission describes itself as having only “limited authority over the collection and dissemination of personal data collected online”[14].

This is because the general data processing that is commonplace in today’s era of big data is only regulated by the privacy protections that come from the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Fair Information Practice Principles (FIPPs). Expectedly, consent is equally important under the FTC’s FIPPs. The FTC describes the principle of consent as “the second widely-accepted core principle of fair information practice”[15] in addition to the principle of notice. Other guidelines on fair data processing published by organisations like the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development[16] (OECD) or Canadian Standards Association[17] (CSA) also include consent as a key mechanism in data protection.

The origins of consent in privacy and data protection

Given the clearly extensive reliance on consent in data protection, it seems prudent to examine the origins of consent in privacy and data protection. Just why does consent have so much weight in data protection?

One reason is that data protection, along with inextricably linked concerns about privacy, could be said to be rooted in protecting private property. It was argued that the “early parameters of what was to become the right to privacy were set in cases dealing with unconventional property claims”[18], such as unconsented publication of personal letters[19] or photographs[20]. It was the publication of Brandeis and Warren’s well-known article “The Right to Privacy”[21], that developed “the current philosophical dichotomy between privacy and property rights”[22], as they asserted that privacy protections ought to be recognised as a right in and of themselves and needed separate protection[23]. Indeed, it was Warren and Brandeis who famously borrowed Justice Cooley's expression that privacy is the “right to be let alone”[24].

On the other side of the debate are scholars like Epstein and Posner, who see privacy protections as part of protecting personal property under tort law[25]. However, the central point is that most scholars seem to acknowledge the relationship between privacy and private property. Even Brandeis and Warren themselves argued that one general aim of privacy is “to protect the privacy of private life, and to whatever degree and in whatever connection a man's life has ceased to be private”[26].

It is also important to locate the idea of consent within the domain of privacy and private property protections. Ostensibly, consent seems to have the effect of lessening the privacy protections afforded in a particular situation to a person, because by acquiescing to the situation, one could be seen as waiving their privacy concerns. Brandeis and Warren concur with this position as they acknowledge how “the right to privacy ceases upon the publication of the facts by the individual, or with his consent”[27]. They assert that this is “but another application of the rule which has become familiar in the law of literary and artistic property”[28].

Perhaps the most eloquent articulation of the importance of consent in privacy comes from Sir Edward Coke’s idea that “every man’s house is his castle”[29]. Though the ‘Castle Doctrine’ has been used as a justification for protecting one’s property with the use of force[30], I think that implied in the idea of the ‘Castle Doctrine’ is that consent is necessary in order to preserve privacy. If not, why would anyone be justified in preventing trespass, other than to prevent unconsented entry or use of their property. The doctrine of “Volenti non fit injuria”[31], or ‘to one who consents no injury is done’, is thus the very embodiment of the role of consent in protecting private property. And as conceptions of private property develop to recognise that the data one gives out is part of his private property, for example in US v. Jones, which led scholars to assert that “people should be able to maintain reasonable expectations of privacy in some information voluntarily disclosed to third parties”[32], so does consent act as an important aspect of privacy protection.

Yet, linking privacy with private property is not universally accepted as the conception of privacy. For instance, Alan Westin, in his book Privacy and Freedom[33], describes privacy as “the right to control information about oneself”[34]. Another scholar, Ruth Gavison, contends instead that “our interest in privacy is related to our concern over our accessibility to others: the extent to which we are known to others, the extent to which others have physical access to us, and the extent to which we are the subject of others' attention”[35].

While these alternative notions about privacy’s foundational principles may differ from those related to linking privacy with private property, locating consent within these formulations of privacy is possible. Regarding Westin’s argument, I think that implicit in the right to control one’s information are ideas about individual autonomy, which is exercised through giving or withholding one’s consent. Similarly, Gavison herself states that privacy functions to advance “liberty, autonomy and selfhood”[36]. Consent plays a key role in upholding this liberty, autonomy and selfhood that privacy affords us. Clearly therefore, it is far from unfounded to claim that consent is an integral part of protecting privacy.

Consent, Big Data and Data protection

Given the solid underpinnings of the principle of consent in privacy protection, it was hardly a coincidence that consent became an integral part of data protection. However, with the rise of big data practices, one quickly finds that consent ceases to work effectively as a tool for protecting privacy. In a big data context, Solove argues that privacy regulation rooted in consent is ineffective, because garnering consent amidst ubiquitous data collection for all the online services one uses as part of daily life is unmanageable[37]. Additionally, the secondary uses of one’s data are difficult to assess at the point of collection, and subsequently meaningful consent for secondary use is difficult to obtain[38]. This section examines these two primary consequences of prioritising consent amidst Big data practises.

Consent places unrealistic and unfair expectations on the Individual

As noted by Tene and Polonetsky, the first concern is that current privacy frameworks which emphasize informed consent “impose significant, sometimes unrealistic, obligations on both organizations and individuals”[39]. The premise behind this argument stems from the way that consent is often garnered by organisations, especially regarding use of their services. An examination of various terms of use policies from banks, online video streaming websites, social networking sites, online fashion or more general online shopping websites reveals a deluge of information that the user has to comprehend. Moreover, there are a too many “entities collecting and using personal data to make it feasible for people to manage their privacy separately with each entity”[40].

As Cate and Mayer-Schönberger note in the Microsoft Global Privacy Summit Summary Report, “almost everywhere that individuals venture, especially online, they are presented with long and complex privacy notices routinely written by lawyers for lawyers, and then requested to either “consent” or abandon the use of the desired service”[41]. In some cases, organisations try to simplify these policies for the users of their service, but such initiatives make up the minority of terms of use policies. Tene and Polonetsky assert that “it is common knowledge among practitioners in the field that privacy policies serve more as liability disclaimers for businesses than as assurances of privacy for consumers”[42].

However, it is equally important to consider the principle of consent from perspective of companies. At a time where many businesses have to comply with numerous regulations and processes in the name of ‘compliance’[43], the obligations for obtaining consent could burden some businesses. Firms have to gather consent amidst enhancing user or customer experiences, which represents a tricky balance to find. For example, requiring consent at every stage may make the user experience much worse. Imagine having to give consent for your profile to be uploaded every time you make a high score in a video game? At the same time, “organizations are expected to explain their data processing activities on increasingly small screens and obtain consent from often-uninterested individuals”[44]. Given these factors, it is somewhat understandable for companies to garner consent for all possible (secondary) uses as otherwise it is not feasible to keep collecting.

Nonetheless, this results in situations where “data processors can perhaps too easily point to the formality of notice and consent and thereby abrogate much of their responsibility”[45].The totality of the situation shows the odds stacked against the individual. It could be even argued that this is one manifestation of the informational and power asymmetry that exists between individuals and organisations[46], because users may unwittingly agree to unfair, unclear or even unknown terms and conditions and data practices. Not only are individuals greatly misinformed about data collected about them, but the vast majority of people do not even read these Terms and Conditions or End User license agreements[47]. Solove also argues that “people often lack enough expertise to adequately assess the consequences of agreeing to certain present uses or disclosures of their data”[48].

While the organisational practice of providing extensive and complicated terms of use policies is not illegal, the fact that by one estimation, it may take you would have to take 76 working days to review the privacy policies you have agreed to online[49], or by another, that in the USA the opportunity cost society incurs in reading privacy policies is $781 billion[50], should not go unnoticed. I do think it is unfair for the law to put users into such situations, where they are “forced to make overly complex decisions based on limited information”[51]. There have been laudable attempts by some government organisations like Canada’s Office of the Privacy Commissioner and USA’s Federal Trade Commission to provide guidance to firms to make their privacy policies more accessible[52]. However, these are hard to enforce. Therefore, it can be assumed that when users have neither the expertise nor the rigour to review privacy policies effectively, the consent they provide would naturally be far from informed.

Secondary use, Aggregation and Superficial Consent

What amplifies this informational asymmetry is the potential for the aggregation of individual’s data and subsequent secondary use of that data collected. “Even if people made rational decisions about sharing individual pieces of data in isolation, they greatly struggle to factor in how their data might be aggregated in the future”[53].

This has to do with the prevalence of big data analytics that characterizes our modern epoch, and has major implications for the nature and meaningfulness of the consent users provide. By definition, “big data analysis seeks surprising correlations”[54] and some of its most insightful results are counterintuitive and nearly impossible to conceive at the point of primary data collection. One noteworthy example comes from the USA, with the predictive analytics of Walmart. By studying purchasing patterns of its loyalty card holders[55], the company ascertained that prior to a hurricane the most popular items that people tend to buy are actually Pop Tarts (a pre-baked toaster pastry) and Beer[56]. These correlations are highly counterintuitive and far from what people expect to be necessities before a hurricane. These insights led to Walmart stores being stocked with the most relevant products at the time of need. This is one example of how data might be repurposed and aggregated for a novel purpose, but nonetheless the question about the nature of consent obtained by Walmart for the collection and analysis of the shopping habits of its loyalty card holders stands.

One reason secondary uses make consent less meaningful has been articulated by De Zwart et al, who observe that “the idea of consent becomes unworkable in an environment where it is not known, even by the people collecting and selling data, what will happen to the data”[57]. Taken together with Solove’s aggregation effect, two points become apparent:

Data we consent to be collected about us may be aggregated with other data we may have revealed in the past. While separately they may be innocuous, there is a risk of future aggregation to create new information which one may find overly intrusive and not consent to. However, current data protection regimes make it hard for one to provide such consent, because there is no way for the user to know how his past and present data may be aggregated in the future.
Data we consent to be collected for one specific purpose may be used in a myriad of other ways. The user has virtually no way to know how their data might be repurposed because often time neither do the collectors of that data[58].

Therefore, regulators reliance on principles of purpose limitation and the mechanism of consent for robust data protection seems suboptimal at the very least, as big data practices of aggregation, repurposing and secondary uses become commonplace.

What can organisations do better to obtain more meaningful consent

Organisations that collect data could alter the way the obtain user consent. Most people can attest to having checked a box that was lying surreptitiously next to the words ‘I agree’, thereby agreeing to the Terms and Conditions or End-user License Agreement for a particular service or product. This is in line with the need for both parties to assent to the terms of a contract as part of making valid a contract[75]. Some of the more common types of online agreements that users enter into are Clickwrap and Browsewrap agreements. A Clickwrap agreement is “formed entirely in an online environment such as the Internet, which sets forth the rights and obligations between parties”[76]. They “require a user to click "I agree" or “I accept” before the software can be downloaded or installed”[77]. On the other hand, Browsewrap agreements “try to characterize your simple use of their website as your ‘agreement’ to a set of terms and conditions buried somewhere on the site”[78].

Because Browsewrap agreements do not “require a user to engage in any affirmative conduct”[79], the kind of consent that these types of agreements obtain is highly superficial. In fact, many argue that such agreements are slightly unscrupulous because users are seldom aware that such agreements exist[80], often hidden in small print[81] or below the download button[82] for example. And the courts have begun to consider such terms and practices unfair, which “hold website users accountable for terms and conditions of which a reasonable Internet user would not be aware just by using the site”[83]. For example, In re Zappos.com Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, the court said of their Terms of Use (which is in a browsewrap agreement):

“The Terms of Use is inconspicuous, buried in the middle to bottom of every Zappos.com webpage among many other links, and the website never directs a user to the Terms of Use. No reasonable user would have reason to click on the Terms of Use”[84]

Clearly, courts recognise the potential for consent or assent to be obtained in a hardly transparent or hands on manner. Organisations that collect data should be aware of this and consider other options for obtaining consent.

A few commentators have suggested that organisations switch to using Clickwrap or clickthrough agreements to obtain consent. Undergirding this argument is the fact that courts have on numerous occasions, upheld the validity of a Clickwrap agreement. Such cases include Groff v. America Online, Inc[85] and Hotmail Corporation v. Van Money Pie, Inc[86]. These cases built upon the precedent-setting case of Pro CD v. Zeidenberg, in which the court ruled that “Shrinkwrap licenses are enforceable unless their terms are objectionable on grounds applicable to contracts in general”[87]. Shrinkwrap licenses, which refer to end user license agreements printed on the shrinkwrap of a software product which a user will definitely notice and have the opportunity to read before opening and using the product, and the rules that govern them, have seen application to clickthrough agreements. As Bayley rightly noted, the validity of clickthrough agreements is dependent on “reasonable notice and opportunity to review—whether the placement of the terms and click-button afforded the user a reasonable opportunity to find and read the terms without much effort”[88].

From the perspective of companies and other organisations which attempt to garner consent from users to collect and process their data, utilizing Clickwrap agreements might be one useful solution to consider in obtaining more meaningful and informed consent. In fact Bayley contends that clear Clickwrap agreements are “the “best practice” mechanism for creating a contractual relationship between an online service and a user”[89]. He suggests the following mechanism for acquiring clear and informed consent via contractual agreement[90]:

Conspicuously present the TOS to the user prior to any payment (or other commitment by the user) or installation of software (or other changes to a user’s machine or browser, like cookies, plug-ins, etc.)
Allow the user to easily read and navigate all of the terms (i.e. be in a normal, readable typeface with no scroll box)
Provide an opportunity to print, and/or save a copy of, the terms
Offer the user the option to decline as prominently and by the same method as the option to agree
Ensure the TOS is easy to locate online after the user agrees.

These principles make a lot of sense for organisations, as it requires relatively minor procedural changes instead of more transformational efforts to alter the way the validate their data processing processes entirely.

Herzfield adds two further suggestions to this list. First, organisations should not allow any use of their product or service until “express and active manifestation of assent”[91]. Also, they should institute processes where users re-iterate their consent and assent to the terms of use[92]. He goes further to propose a baseline that organisations should follow: “companies should always provide at least inquiry notice of all terms, and require counterparties to manifest assent, through action or inaction, in a manner that reasonable people would clearly understand to be assent”[93].

While obtaining informed and meaningful consent is neither fool proof nor a process which has widely accepted clear steps, what is clear is that current efforts by organisations may be insufficient. As Cate and Mayer-Schönberger note, “data processors can perhaps too easily point to the formality of notice and consent and thereby abrogate much of their responsibility”[94]. One thing they can do to both ensure more meaningful and informed consent (from the perspective of the users) and preventing potential legal action for unscrupulous or unfair terms is to change the way they obtain consent from opt out to opt in.

Conclusion – how should regulation change

In conclusion, the current emphasis and extensive use of consent in data protection seems to be limited in effectively protecting against illegitimate processing of data in a big data context. More people are starting to use online services extensively. This is coupled by the fact that organisations are realizing the value of collecting and analysing user data to carry out data-driven analytics for insights that can improve the efficacy of the product. Clearly, data protection has never been more crucial.

However not only does emphasising consent seem less relevant, because the consent organisations obtain is seldom informed, but it may even jeopardise the intentions of data protection. Commentators are quick to point out how nimble firms are at acquiring consent in newer ways that may comply with laws but still allow them to maintain their advantageous position of asymmetric power. Kuner, Cate, Millard and Svantesson, all eminent scholars in the field of Big data, asked the prescient question: “Is there a proper role for individual consent?”[95]They believe consent still has a role, but that finding this role in the Big data context is challenging[96]. However, there is surprising consensus on the approach that should be taken as data protection regimes shift away from consent.

In fact, the alternative is staring at us in the face: data protection regimes have to look elsewhere, to other points along the data analysis process for aspects to regulate and ensure legitimate and fair processing of data. One compelling idea which had broad-based support during the aforementioned Microsoft Privacy Summit was that “new approaches must shift responsibility away from data subjects toward data users and toward a focus on accountability for responsible data stewardship”[97], ie creating regulations to guide data processing instead of the data collection. De Zwart et al. suggest that regulation must instead “focus on the processes involved in establishing algorithms and the use of the resulting conclusions”[98].

This might involve regulations relating to requiring data collectors to publish the queries they run on the data. This would be a solution that balances maintaining the ‘trade secret’ of the firm, who has creatively designed an algorithm, with ensuring fairness and legitimacy in data processing. One manifestation of this approach is in conceptualising procedural data due process which “would regulate the fairness of Big Data’s analytical processes with regard to how they use personal data (or metadata derived from or associated with personal data) in any adjudicative process, including processes whereby Big Data is being used to determine attributes or categories for an individual”[99]. While there is debate regarding the usefulness of a data due process, the idea of data due process is just part of the consortium of ideas surrounding alternatives to consent in data protection. The main point is that “greater transparency should be required if there are fewer opportunities for consent or if personal data can be lawfully collected without consent”[100].

It is also worth considering exactly what a single use of group or individual’s data is, and what types of uses or processes require a “greater form of authorization”[101]. Certain data processes could require special affirmative consent to be procured, which is not applicable for other less intimate matters. Canada’s Office of the Privacy Commissioner released a privacy toolkit for organisations, in which they provide some exceptions to the consent principle, one of which is if data collection “is clearly in the individual’s interests and consent is not available in a timely way”[102]. Some therefore suggest that “if notice and consent are reserved for more appropriate uses, individuals might pay more attention when this mechanism is used”[103].

Another option for regulators is to consider the development and implementation of a sticky privacy policies regime. This refers to “machine-readable policies [that] can stick to data to define allowed usage and obligations as it travels across multiple parties, enabling users to improve control over their personal information”[104]. Sticky privacy policies seem to alleviate the risk of repurposed, unanticipated uses of data because users who consent to giving out their data will be consenting to how it is used thereafter. However, the counter to sticky policies is that it places even greater obligations on users to decide how they would like their data used, not just at one point but for the long term. To expect organisations to state their purposes for future use of individuals data or that individuals are to give informed consent to such uses seems farfetched from both perspectives.

Still another solution draws from the noted scholar Helen Nissenbaum’s work on privacy. She argues that “the benchmark of privacy is contextual integrity”[105]. ”Contextual integrity ties adequate protection for privacy to norms of specific contexts, demanding that information gathering and dissemination be appropriate to that context and obey the governing norms of distribution within it”[106]. According to this line of thinking, legislators should instead focus their attention on what constitutes appropriateness in certain contexts, although this could be a challenging task as contexts merge and understandings of appropriateness change according to the circumstances of a context. .

While there is little consensus regarding the numerous ways to focus regulatory attention on data processing and the uses of data collected, there is more support for a shift away from consent, as exemplified by the Microsoft privacy Summit:

“There was broad general agreement that privacy frameworks that rely heavily on individual notice and consent are neither sustainable in the face of dramatic increases in the volume and velocity of information flows nor desirable because of the burden they place on individuals to understand the issues, make choices, and then engage in oversight and enforcement.”[107] I think Cate and Mayer- Schönberger make for the most valid conclusion to this article, as well as to summarise the debate I have presented. They say that “in short, ensuring individual control over personal data is not only an increasingly unattainable objective of data protection, but in many settings it is an undesirable one as well.”[108] We might very well be throwing the entire data protection regimes under the bus.

[1] Gordon Rayner and Bill Gardner, “Men Must Prove a Woman Said ‘Yes’ under Tough New Rape Rules - Telegraph,” The Telegraph, January 28, 2015, sec. Law and Order, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11375667/Men-must-prove-a-woman-said-Yes-under-tough-new-rape-rules.html.

[2] Legal Information Institute, “Implied Consent,” accessed August 25, 2015, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/implied_consent.

[3] European Parliament, Council of the European Union, Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the Protection of Individuals with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data and on the Free Movement of Such Data, 1995, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX:31995L0046.

[4] See supra note 3.

[5] European Commission, “Stronger Data Protection Rules for Europe,” European Commission Press Release Database, June 15, 2015, http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-15-5170_en.htm.

[6] Council of the European Union, “Data Protection: Council Agrees on a General Approach,” June 15, 2015, http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2015/06/15-jha-data-protection/.

[7] See supra note 6.

[8] Abraham L. Newman, Protectors of Privacy: Regulating Personal Data in the Global Economy (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2008).

[9] See supra note 8, at 24.

[10] Ibid.

[11] 15 U.S.C. §1681.

[12] 5 U.S.C. § 552a.

[13] 18 U.S.C. § 2510-22.

[14] Federal Trade Commission, “Privacy Online: A Report to Congress,” June 1998, https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/reports/privacy-online-report-congress/priv-23a.pdf: 40.

[15] See supra note 14, at 8.

[16] Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, “2013 OECD Privacy Guidelines,” 2013, http://www.oecd.org/internet/ieconomy/privacy-guidelines.htm.

[17] Canadian Standards Association, “Canadian Standards Association Model Code,” March 1996, https://www.cippguide.org/2010/06/29/csa-model-code/.

[18] Mary Chlopecki, “The Property Rights Origins of Privacy Rights | Foundation for Economic Education,” August 1, 1992, http://fee.org/freeman/the-property-rights-origins-of-privacy-rights.

[19] See Pope v. Curl (1741), available here.

[20] See Prince Albert v. Strange (1849), available here.

[21] Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis, “The Right to Privacy,” Harvard Law Review 4, no. 5 (December 15, 1890): 193–220, doi:10.2307/1321160.

[22] See supra note 18.

[23] Ibid.

[24] See supra note 21.

[25] See for example, Richard Epstein, “Privacy, Property Rights, and Misrepresentations,” Georgia Law Review, January 1, 1978, 455. And Richard Posner, “The Right of Privacy,” Sibley Lecture Series, April 1, 1978, http://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/lectures_pre_arch_lectures_sibley/22.

[26] See supra note 21, at 215.

[27] See supra note 21, at 218.

[28] Ibid.

[29] Adrienne W. Fawcett, “Q: Who Said: ‘A Man’s Home Is His Castle’?,” Chicago Tribune, September 14, 1997, http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1997-09-14/news/9709140446_1_castle-home-sir-edward-coke.

[30] Brendan Purves, “Castle Doctrine from State to State,” South Source, July 15, 2011, http://source.southuniversity.edu/castle-doctrine-from-state-to-state-46514.aspx.

[31] “Volenti Non Fit Injuria,” E-Lawresources, accessed August 25, 2015, http://e-lawresources.co.uk/Volenti-non-fit-injuria.php.

[32] Bryce Clayton Newell, “Local Law Enforcement Jumps on the Big Data Bandwagon: Automated License Plate Recognition Systems, Information Privacy, and Access to Government Information,” SSRN Scholarly Paper (Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network, October 16, 2013), http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2341182.

[33] Alan Westin, Privacy and Freedom (Ig Publishing, 2015).

[34] Helen Nissenbaum, “Privacy as Contextual Integrity,” Washington Law Review 79 (2004): 119.

[35] Ruth Gavison, “Privacy and the Limits of Law,” The Yale Law Journal 89, no. 3 (January 1, 1980): 421–71, doi:10.2307/795891: 423.

[36] Ibid.

[37] Daniel J. Solove, “Privacy Self-Management and the Consent Dilemma,” SSRN Scholarly Paper (Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network, November 4, 2012), http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2171018: 1888.

[38] Ibid, at 1889.

[39] Omer Tene and Jules Polonetsky, “Big Data for All: Privacy and User Control in the Age of Analytics,” SSRN Scholarly Paper (Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network, September 20, 2012), http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2149364: 261.

[40] See supra note 37, at 1881.

[41] Fred H. Cate and Viktor Mayer-Schönberger, “Notice and Consent in a World of Big Data - Microsoft Global Privacy Summit Summary Report and Outcomes,” Microsoft Global Privacy Summit, November 9, 2012, http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=35596: 3.

^{^[42]} See supra note 39.

[43] See for example, US Securities and Exchange Commission, “Corporation Finance Small Business Compliance Guides,” accessed August 26, 2015, https://www.sec.gov/info/smallbus/secg.shtml and Australian Securities & Investments Commission, “Compliance for Small Business,” accessed August 26, 2015, http://asic.gov.au/for-business/your-business/small-business/compliance-for-small-business/.

[44] See supra note 39.

[45] See supra note 41.

[46] See supra note 8, at 24.

[47] See for example, James Daley, “Don’t Waste Time Reading Terms and Conditions,” The Telegraph, September 3, 2014, and Robert Glancy, “Will You Read This Article about Terms and Conditions? You Really Should Do,” The Guardian, April 24, 2014, sec. Comment is free, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/24/terms-and-conditions-online-small-print-information.

[48] See supra note 37, at 1886.

[49] Alex Hudson, “Is Small Print in Online Contracts Enforceable?,” BBC News, accessed August 26, 2015, http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-22772321.

[50] Aleecia M. McDonald and Lorrie Faith Cranor, “Cost of Reading Privacy Policies, The,” I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society 4 (2009 2008): 541

[51] See supra note 41, at 4.

[52] For Canada, see Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, “Fact Sheet: Ten Tips for a Better Online Privacy Policy and Improved Privacy Practice Transparency,” October 23, 2013, https://www.priv.gc.ca/resource/fs-fi/02_05_d_56_tips2_e.asp. And Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, “Privacy Toolkit - A Guide for Businesses and Organisations to Canada’s Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act,” accessed August 26, 2015, https://www.priv.gc.ca/information/pub/guide_org_e.pdf.

For USA, see Federal Trade Commission, “Internet of Things: Privacy & Security in a Connected World,” Staff Report (Federal Trade Commission, January 2015), https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/federal-trade-commission-staff-report-november-2013-workshop-entitled-internet-things-privacy/150127iotrpt.pdf.

[53] See supra note 37, at 1889.

[54] See supra note 39, at 261.

[55] Jakki Geiger, “The Surprising Link Between Hurricanes and Strawberry Pop-Tarts: Brought to You by Clean, Consistent and Connected Data,” The Informatica Blog - Perspectives for the Data Ready Enterprise, October 3, 2014, http://blogs.informatica.com/2014/03/10/the-surprising-link-between-strawberry-pop-tarts-and-hurricanes-brought-to-you-by-clean-consistent-and-connected-data/#fbid=PElJO4Z_kOu.

[56] Constance L. Hays, “What Wal-Mart Knows About Customers’ Habits,” The New York Times, November 14, 2004, http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/14/business/yourmoney/what-walmart-knows-about-customers-habits.html.

[57] M. J. de Zwart, S. Humphreys, and B. Van Dissel, “Surveillance, Big Data and Democracy: Lessons for Australia from the US and UK,” Http://www.unswlawjournal.unsw.edu.au/issue/volume-37-No-2, 2014, https://digital.library.adelaide.edu.au/dspace/handle/2440/90048: 722.

[58] Ibid.

[59] See supra note 41, at 3.

[60] Julie E. Cohen, “What Privacy Is For,” SSRN Scholarly Paper (Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network, November 5, 2012), http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2175406.

[61] See supra note 37, at 1901.

[62] Ibid.

[63] See supra note 37, at 1899.

[64] Jon Leibowitz, “So Private, So Public: Individuals, The Internet & The paradox of behavioural marketing” November 1, 2007, https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/public_statements/so-private-so-public-individuals-internet-paradox-behavioral-marketing/071031ehavior_0.pdf: 6.

[65] See supra note 5.

[66] See supra note 37, at 1898.

[67] Ibid.

[68] Ibid.

[69] Ibid.

[70] Ibid.

[71] See supra note 41, at 3.

[72] See supra note 39, at 261.

[73] Richard H. Thaler, “Making It Easier to Register as an Organ Donor,” The New York Times, September 26, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/business/economy/27view.html.

[74] Ibid.

[75] The Oxford Introductions to U.S. Law: Contracts, 1 edition (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010): 67.

[76] Francis M. Buono and Jonathan A. Friedman, “Maximizing the Enforceability of Click-Wrap Agreements,” Journal of Technology Law & Policy 4, no. 3 (1999), http://jtlp.org/vol4/issue3/friedman.html.

[77] North Carolina State University, “Clickwraps,” Software @ NC State Information Technology, accessed August 26, 2015, http://software.ncsu.edu/clickwraps.

[78] Ed Bayley, “The Clicks That Bind: Ways Users ‘Agree’ to Online Terms of Service,” Electronic Frontier Foundation, November 16, 2009, https://www.eff.org/wp/clicks-bind-ways-users-agree-online-terms-service.

[79] Ibid, at 2.

[80] Ibid.

[81] See Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble Inc., (9^th Cir. 2014), available here.

[82] See Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp.,(2d Cir. 2002), available here.

[83] See supra note 78, at 2.

[84] See In Re: Zappos.com, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, No. 3:2012cv00325: pg 8 line 23-26, available here.

[85] See Groff v. America Online, Inc., 1998, available here.

[86] Hotmail Corp. v. Van$ Money Pie, Inc., 1998, available here.

[87] ProCD Inc. v. Zeidenberg, (7th. Cir. 1996), available here.

[88] See supra note 78, at 1.

[89] See supra note 78, at 2.

[90] Ibid.

[91] Oliver Herzfeld, “Are Website Terms Of Use Enforceable?,” Forbes, January 22, 2013, http://www.forbes.com/sites/oliverherzfeld/2013/01/22/are-website-terms-of-use-enforceable/.

[92] Ibid.

[93] Ibid.

[94] See supra note 41, at 3.

[95] Christopher Kuner et al., “The Challenge of ‘big Data’ for Data Protection,” International Data Privacy Law 2, no. 2 (May 1, 2012): 47–49, doi:10.1093/idpl/ips003: 49.

[96] Ibid.

[97] See supra note 41, at 5.

[98] See supra note 57, at 723.

[99] Kate Crawford and Jason Schultz, “Big Data and Due Process: Toward a Framework to Redress Predictive Privacy Harms,” SSRN Scholarly Paper (Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network, October 1, 2013), http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2325784: 109.

[100] See supra note 41, at 13.

[101] See supra note 41, at 5.

[102] See supra note 52, Privacy Toolkit, at 14.

[103] See supra note 41, at 6.

[104] Siani Pearson and Marco Casassa Mont, “Sticky Policies: An Approach for Managing Privacy across Multiple Parties,” Computer, 2011.

[105] See supra note 34, at 138.

[106] See supra note 34, at 118.

[107] See supra note 41, at 5.

[108] See supra note 41, at 4.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/are-we-throwing-our-data-protection-regimes-under-the-bus

Are we Losing the Right to Privacy and Freedom of Speech on Indian Internet?

Amber Sinha — 2016-03-16T14:44:19Z

The article was published in DNA on March 10, 2016.

Last month, it was reported that National Security Council Secretariat (NSCS) had proposed the setting up of a National Media Analytics Centre (NMAC). This centre’s mandate would be to monitor blogs, media channels, news outlets and social media platforms. Sources were quoted as stating that the centre would rely upon a tracking software built by Ponnurangam Kumaraguru, an Assistant Professor at the Indraprastha Institute of Information Technology in Delhi. The NMAC seems to mirror other similar efforts in countries such as US, Canada, Australia and UK, to monitor online content for the reasons as varied as prevention of terrorist activities, disaster relief and criminal investigation.

The NSCS, the parent body that this centre will fall under, is a part of the National Security Council, India’s highest agency looking to integrate policy-making and intelligence analysis, and advising the Prime Minister’s Office on strategic issues as well as domestic and international threats. The NSCS represents the Joint Intelligence Committee and its duties include the assessment of intelligence from the Intelligence Bureau, Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW) and Directorates of Military, Air and Naval Intelligence, and the coordination of the functioning of intelligence agencies.

From limited reports available, it appears that the tracking software used by NMAC will generate tags to classify post and comments on social media into negative, positive and neutral categories, paying special attention to “belligerent” comments. The reports say that the software will also try to determine if the comments are factually correct or not. The idea of a government agency systematically tracking social media, blogs and news outlets and categorising content as desirable and undesirable is bound to create a chilling effect on free speech online. The most disturbing part of the report suggested that the past pattern of writers’ posts would be analysed to see how often her posts fell under the negative category, and whether she was attempting to create trouble or disturbance, and appropriate feedback would be sent to security agencies based on it. Viewed alongside the recent events where actors critical of the government and holding divergent views have expressed concerns about attempts to suppress dissenting opinions, this initiative sounds even more dangerous, putting at risk individuals categorised as “negative” or “belligerent”, for exercising their constitutionally protected right to free speech.

Getty Images

It has been argued that the Internet is a public space, and should be treated as subject to monitoring by the government as any other space. Further, this kind of analysis does not concern itself with private communication between two or more parties but only with publicly available information. Why must we raise eyebrows if the government is accessing and analysing it for the purposes of legitimate state interests? There are two problems with this argument. First, any surveillance of communication must always be limited in scope, specific to individuals, necessary and proportionate, and subject to oversight. There are no laws passed by the Parliament in India which allow for mass surveillance measures. Such activities are being conducted through bodies like NSC which came into existence through an Executive Order and have no clear oversight mechanisms built into its functioning. A quick look at the history of intelligence and surveillance agencies in India will show that none of them have been created through a legislation. A host of surveillance agencies have come up in the last few years including the Central Monitoring System, which was set up to monitor telecommunications, and the absence of legislative pedigree translates into lack of appropriate controls and safeguards, and zero public accountability.

The second and the larger issue is that the scale and level of granularity of personal information available now is unprecedented. Earlier, our communications with friends and acquaintances, our movements, our association, political or otherwise, were not observable in the manner it is today. It would be remiss to underestimate the importance of personal information merely because it exists in the public domain. The ability to act without being subject to monitoring and surveillance is key to the right to free speech and expression. While we accept the importance of free speech and the value of an open internet and newer technologies to enable it, we do not give sufficient importance to how these technologies are affecting the right to privacy.

Getty Images

In the last few years, the social media scene in India has been characterised by extreme polemic with epithets such as ‘bhakt’, ‘sanghi’, ‘sickular’ and ‘presstitutes’ thrown around liberally, turning political discussions into a mess of ugliness. It remains to be seen whether the NMAC intends to deal with the professional trolls who rely on a barrage of abuse to disrupt public conversations online. However, the appropriate response would not be greater surveillance, let alone a body like NMAC, with a sweeping mandate and little accountability.

Link to the original here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/dna-amber-sinha-march-10-2016-are-we-losing-right-to-privacy-and-freedom-of-speech-on-indian-internet

Are Cab Apps safe?

praskrishna — 2014-12-27T17:01:39Z

Cab services are increasingly relying on mobile apps to book, track and charge you for journeys. While tech watchers say there is a digital trail.

Originally published by IBNLive on December 8, 2014. Sunil Abraham gave his inputs.

"You can always share your location, the app has a feature for you to share your location through the way to whoever is waiting at the other end," said Aprameya Radhakrishna, CEO Taxi For Sure.

There's also a major safety loopholes. "We have more complicated technological safegaurd. All the cab driver has to do is use a very primitive technique. He just has to pull off his battery and can ensure that he throws away the phone of the traveller, and no one would know," said Sunil Abraham, Head, Centre For Internet And Society.

So can you trust technology to safeguard you? Rest assured that someone will be monitoring your journey back in some control room?

People feel that there should be some kind of an automatically generated alert system. Had the tracker been switched off, that could have been a point of loophole.

Great degree of automation is possible here but finally it is the human oversight which is critical eventually, in any technology.

Technology, ultimately, doesn't have all the answers, can't provide all solutions against crime prevention. We have seen instances when criminals have attacked women in ATMs knowing full well they are caught on camera, we have seen attacks by unruly drivers at road toll booths, regardless of the surveillance cameras.

While technology helps in tracking digital footprints that a criminal has taken, it hasn't deterred the criminal from doing what he wants to. For that, we have to be on guard.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/ibn-live-december-8-2014-are-cab-apps-safe

April Newsletter

praskrishna — 2011-06-03T09:52:27Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/publications-automated/april-11.pdf

April 2019 Newsletter

praskrishna — 2019-09-04T14:36:41Z

The Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) newsletter for April 2019.

Highlights for March 2019

The unprecedented growth of the fintech space in India has concomitantly come with regulatory challenges around inter alia privacy and security concerns. Aayush Rathi and Shweta Mohandas have co-authored a report which has analysed the privacy policies of 48 fintech companies operating in India to better understand some of these concerns.
In today’s increasingly digitized world where an increasing volume of information is being stored in the digital format, access to data generated by digital technologies and on digital platforms is important in solving crimes online and offline. One such mechanism for international cooperation is the Convention on Cybercrime adopted in Budapest (“Budapest Convention”). Vipul Kharbanda has provided a deeper analysis on this in his research paper.
CIS has responded to ICANN's proposed renewal of .org Registry. CIS has found severe issues with the proposed agreement. These centre around the removal of price caps and imposing obligations being currently deliberated in an ongoing Policy Development Process. Akriti Bopanna drafted the response.
The Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion released a draft e-commerce policy in February for which stakeholder comments were sought. CIS responded to the request for comments.
CIS Access to Knowledge team (CIS-A2K) has submitted its proposal form for the year 2019 - 2020 to the Wikimedia Foundation. CIS thanks all community members who gave valuable suggestions and inputs for drafting this proposal.
In 2017–2018, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) and Google collaborated to start a pilot project in India, working closely with the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) and the Wikimedia Indiachapter (WMIN). This project, titled Project Tiger was aimed at encouraging Wikipedia communities to create locally relevant and high-quality content in Indian languages. CIS-A2K team submitted Project Tiger final report.
The r@w blog features works by researchers and practitioners working in India and elsewhere at the intersections of internet, digital media and society, and highlights and materials from ongoing research and events at the researchers@work programme at CIS. On the r@w blog we featured an essay titled 'The Internet in the Indian Judicial Imagination' by Divij Joshi, as part of a series on Studying Internet in India (2015); and audio recording of a session titled #ObjectsofDigitalGovernance by Khetrimayum Monish Singh, Rajiv K. Mishra, and Vidya Subramanian which was part of the Internet Researchers Conference, 2017.

Jobs

CIS is hiring:

CIS-A2K Finance Officer: Call for application (Only women candidates).
Internship - applications accepted throughout the year.

CIS and the News

The following news pieces were authored by CIS and published on its website in January:

Delayed Cash Flows and NPAs (Shyam Ponappa; Business Standard; April 3, 2019).
To preserve freedoms online, amend the IT Act (Gurshabad Grover; April 16, 2019).
Digital Native: Getting through an election made for the social media gaze (Nishant Shah; Indian Express; April 21, 2019).

CIS in the News

CIS was quoted in these news articles published elsewhere:

Reddit, Telegram among websites blocked in India, say internet groups (Sai Sachin Ravikumar; Business Standard; April 3, 2019).
Data leaks could wreak havoc in India, so why aren’t they an issue this election? (Aria Thaker; Quartz India; April 4, 2019).
Cookies, not the monster you may think (Sweta Akundi; Hindu; April 8, 2019).
TikTok craze a ticking time bomb for city (Gulam Jeelani with inputs from Priyanka Sharma and Ajay Kumar; India Today; April 17, 2019).
Almost every social network has a porn problem—so why is India banning only TikTok? (Ananya Bhattacharya; Quartz India; April 19, 2019).
Child protection and cyber-grooming: Indian court rescinds its own Tiktok ban (Leon Kaiser; Netzpolitik.org; April 24, 2019).

Access to Knowledge

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

Wikipdedia

As part of the project grant from the Wikimedia Foundation we have reached out to more than 3500 people across India by organizing more than 100 outreach events and catalysed the release of encyclopaedic and other content under the Creative Commons (CC-BY-3.0) license in four Indian languages (21 books in Telugu, 13 in Odia, 4 volumes of encyclopaedia in Konkani and 6 volumes in Kannada, and 1 book on Odia language history in English).

Project Proposal / Reports

Supporting Indian Language Wikipedias Program/Report (Gopala Krishna A; April 5, 2019).

CIS-A2K proposal to Wikimedia Foundation for 2019-2020 (Ananth Subray; April 15, 2019).

Blog Entries

Wikimedia projects orientation session at Tata Trust's Vikas Anvesh Foundation (Subodh Kulkarni; April 9, 2019).
Indic Wikisource Speak: Sushant Savla (Jayanta Nath; April 10, 2019).
SVG Translation Workshop at KBC North Maharashtra University (Subodh Kulkarni; April 10, 2019).
Content Donation Sessions with Authors (Subodh Kulkarni; April 10, 2019).
Indic Wikisource speak : Ajit Kumar Tiwari (Jayanta Nath; April 11, 2019).

Internet Governance

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

Cyber Security

Research Paper

International Cooperation in Cybercrime: The Budapest Convention (Vipul Kharbanda; April 29, 2019).

Privacy

Research Paper

FinTech in India: A Study of Privacy and Security Commitments (Aayush Rathi and Shweta Mohandas; April 30, 2019).

Submission

CIS Response to Call for Stakeholder Comments: Draft E-Commerce Policy (Arindrajit Basu, Vipul Kharbanda, Elonnai Hickok and Amber Sinha; April 10, 2019).

Participation in Events

IETF 104 Prague (Organized by IETF; Prague; March 23 - 29, 2019). Karan Saini and Gurshabad Grover participated in the event.
The Phantom Public: The Role of Social Media in Democracy (Organized by Ambedkar University; New Delhi; April 3, 2019).
(re) conference (Organized by CREA; New Delhi; April 10 - 12, 2019).
Data for Development: Mapping key considerations for policy and practice in India (Organized by Azim Premchand University; April 24, 2019). Arindrajit Basu delivered a talk.

Artificial Intelligence

Participation in Event

Policy Lab on Artificial Intelligence & Democracy (Organized by Tandem Research, in partnership with Microsoft Research and Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung; Bangalore; April 2-3, 2019). Shweta Mohandas participated in the event.

Free Speech and Expression

Submission

CIS Response to ICANN's proposed renewal of .org Registry (Akriti Bopanna; April 28, 2019).

Event Organized

Internet Speech: Perspectives on Regulation and Policy ( Organized by CIS; India Habitat Centre, New Delhi; April 5, 2019).

Blog Entry

DIDP #33 On ICANN's 2012 gTLD round auction fund (Akriti Bopanna; April 4, 2019).

Researchers at Work (RAW)

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

Announcement

Call for Essays: Studying Internet in India (Sumandro Chattapadhyay; April 6, 2019).

Blog Entries

The Internet in the Indian Judicial Imagination (Divij Joshi; April 21, 2019).
#ObjectsOfDigitalGovernance (Khetrimayum Monish Singh, Rajiv K. Mishra, and Vidya Subramanian; April 21, 2019).

Telecom

Article

Delayed Cash Flows and NPAs (Shyam Ponappa; Business Standard; April 3, 2019 and Organizing India Blogspot; April 4, 2019).

Participation in Event

BIF conference on “Substitutability of OTT Services with Telecom Services & Regulation of OTT Services (Organized by Broadband India Forum; Taj Mahal Hotel, Mansingh Road, New Delhi; April 5, 2019). Anubha Sinha was a panellist at a BIF conference on “Substitutability of OTT Services with Telecom Services & Regulation of OTT Services”.

About CIS

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

► Follow us elsewhere

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

► Support Us

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

► Request for Collaboration

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

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

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/about/newsletters/april-2019-newsletter

April 2018 Newsletter

praskrishna — 2018-05-20T14:57:47Z

Dear readers,

Previous issues of the newsletters can be accessed here.

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

Highlights

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

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

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

Articles:

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

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

CIS in the News:

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

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

►Copyright and Patent

Submission

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

►Wikipedia

Event Organized

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

Blog Entries

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

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

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

►Privacy

Submission

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

Analysis

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

Blog Entries

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

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

►Free Speech and Expression

Blog Entries

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

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

►Cyber Security

Event Organized

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

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

Article

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

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

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

► Follow us elsewhere

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

► Support Us

► Request for Collaboration

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

April 2017 Newsletter

praskrishna — 2017-05-20T12:59:17Z

Welcome to the CIS newsletter for April 2017.

Dear readers,

Previous issues of the newsletters can be accessed here.

Highlights
In a report on the information security practices of Aadhaar, Amber Sinha and Srinivas Kodali documented numerous instances of publicly available Aadhaar numbers along with other personally identifiable information of individuals on government websites. CIS along with like minded organizations made a submission to the Government of India to frame a feasible accessibility guidelines for mobile apps since there is no single standard in existence at the moment. A two-day 100 Women Edit-a-thon was held in March 2017 by CIS-A2K team along with Odisha's biggest newspaper Sambad. The event was inspired by BBC’s 100 Women series and edit-a-thons with the same name in December 2016. More than 20 female journalists participated and registered as new Odia Wikipedians. On March 31, 2017, the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training released a Circular framing rules under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (“RTI Rules”). The Ministry invited comments on on the RTI Rules. CIS submitted its comments. In an article originally published in Hindu Businessline on March 31, Sunil Abraham lists out 11 reasons why Aadhaar is not just non-smart but also insecure. Shuttleworth Foundation has announced Sunil Abraham as Honorary Steward for its September 2017 fellowship round. CIS worked on a three part case study. The first case study on digital protection of traditional knowledge was published by GIS Watch in December 2016. The other two case studies along with the synthesis overview has also been published.

CIS in the news:

NGOs, individuals urge state CMs to curb Internet shutdown (The Times of India; April 4, 2017).
India’s National ID Program May Be Turning The Country Into A Surveillance State (Pranav Dixit; BuzzFeed News; April 4, 2017).
Privacy, what? Bengaluru police leaks 46,000 phone numbers on Twitter (Neha Vashishth; India Today; April 6, 2017).

Bengaluru cops' twitter handle in ethical storm (Umesh Yadav; The Times of India; April 6, 2017).

Opposition questions govt move to make Aadhaar must (Komal Gupta; Livemint; April 12, 2017).
Aadhaar: A widening net (Komal Gupta, Apurva Vishwanath and Suranjana Roy; Livemint; April 21, 2017).
Chemistry research in India 'still not in big league' (IANS and India Online News Portal; April 24, 2017).
Stop the Haphazard Internet Shutdown Says MP Jay Panda (Regina Mihindukulasuriya; Businessworld; April 26, 2017).
Now, Aadhaar details displayed in Mizoram too (Sebastian P.T.; National Herald; April 26, 2017).
After SPB-Ilaiyaraaja, Sony Music and Sun Network lock horns over copyrights (Priyanka Thirumurthy; Newsminute; April 26, 2017).
Analysis: Data Protection in India - Getting It Right (Suparna Goswami and Varun Haran; Info Risk Today; April 26, 2017).
India bans social media in Kashmir for one month (Telegraph; April 27, 2017).
J&K social media ban: Use of 132-year-old Act can’t stand judicial scrutiny, say experts (Shruti Dhapola; Indian Express; April 28, 2017).

CIS members wrote the following articles:

How Aadhaar compromises privacy? And how to fix it? (Sunil Abraham; Hindu; April 1, 2017).
Digital native: You can check out, you can never leave (Nishant Shah; Indian Express; April 2, 2017).
Aadhaar marks a fundamental shift in citizen-state relations: From ‘We the People’ to ‘We the Government’ (Pranesh Prakash; Hindustan Times; April 3, 2017).
It’s the technology, stupid (Sunil Abraham; Hindu Businessline; April 7, 2017).
Privacy in the Age of Big Data (Amber Sinha; Asian Age; April 10, 2017).
Digital native: Are You Still Having Fun? (Nishant Shah; Indian Express; April 17, 2017).
Digital native: Snap out of outrage mode (Nishant Shah; Indian Express; April 30, 2017).

-------------------------------------
Accessibility & Inclusion
-------------------------------------
India has an estimated 70 million persons with disabilities who don't have access to read printed materials due to some form of physical, sensory, cognitive or other disability. As part of our endeavour to make available accessible content for persons with disabilities, we are developing a text-to-speech software in 15 languages with support from the Hans Foundation. The progress made so far in the project can be accessed here.

Submission

Mobile Accessibility Practices (Nirmita Narasimhan; April 12, 2017).

Event

Global Accessibility Awareness Day 2017 (Organized by Prakat Solutions, Mithra Jyothi and CIS; Bengaluru; May 18, 2017).

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

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

►Wikipedia

Blog Entries

Note: All the following events were held earlier but the reports were published in the month of April:

Women's Day Edit-a-thon at Jeewan Jyoti Women's Empowerment Centre, Pune (Subodh Kulkarni; April 10, 2017).
Marathi Wikipedia Edit-a-thon at Savitribai Phule Mahila Ekatma Samaj Mandal, Aurangabad (Subodh Kulkarni; April 13, 2017).
Google-translated Telugu articles prioritisation exercise: January iteration (Pavan Santhosh; April 15, 2017).
Telugu Wikipedia stall at Vijayawada Book Festival (Pavan Santhosh; April 15, 2017).
Women's Day Edit-a-thon at Jnana Prabodhini (Subodh Kulkarni; April 15, 2017).
Bargarh Manuscript Digitisation Project (Sailesh Patnaik; April 16, 2017).
Imperial College Orientation Program, Bargarh (Sailesh Patnaik; April 16, 2017).
Orientation & Training session for Environmental Activists in Satara (Subodh Kulkarni; April 16, 2017).
Marathi Wikipedia Edit-a-thon at Rajarshi Chhatrapati Shahu College, Kolhapur (Subodh Kulkarni; April 16, 2017).
Marathi Wikipedia Edit-a-thon at Shivaji University, Kolhapur (Subodh Kulkarni; April 16, 2017).
Marathi Wikipedia Edit-a-thon at Sangli, Maharashtra (Subodh Kulkarni; April 16, 2017).
Orientation & Training session of Jalbiradari Activists (Subodh Kulkarni; April 16, 2017).
"Free-license Wings To Your Books" in Guntur (Pavan Santhosh; April 16, 2017).
"Free-license Wings To Your Books" in Vijayawada (Pavan Santhosh; April 16, 2017).
Adikavi Nannaya University Telugu Wikipedia Workshop (Pavan Santhosh; April 16, 2017).
Odia Wikipedia Workshop in IIMC, Dhenkanal (Sailesh Patnaik; April 17, 2017).
Sambad 100 Women Edit-a-thon (Ting Yi Chang and Sailesh Patnaik; April 18, 2017).
Google-translated Telugu articles prioritisation exercise: February iteration (Pavan Santhosh; April 18, 2017).

►Copyright and Patent

National Conference on Intellectual Property Rights and Public Interest (Organized by Indian Law Institute; New Delhi; April 7 - 8, 2017). Maggie Huang took part in the event.

►Openness

Our work in the Openness programme focuses on open data, especially open government data, open access, open education resources, open knowledge in Indic languages, open media, and open technologies and standards - hardware and software. We approach openness as a cross-cutting principle for knowledge production and distribution, and not as a thing-in-itself.

Publication

Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in India: Opportunities for Advocacy in Intellectual Property (Sunil Abraham and Vidushi Marda; GIS Watch and Association for Progressive Communications; April 23, 2017). Total 4 reports: Synthesis Overview, Access to Mobile Technology, Traditional Knowledge Digital Library, and FOSS and Open Standards.

Submission

Comments on the Right to Information Rules, 2017 (Amber Sinha; April 27, 2017).

Event Organized

NASA Space Apps Challenge 2017 (CIS, Bengaluru, April 22, 2017).

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

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

►Privacy

Blog Entries

Analysis of Key Provisions of the Aadhaar Act Regulations (Amber Sinha; April 3, 2017).
Right to be Forgotten: A Tale of Two Judgements (Amber Sinha; April 7, 2017).

►Free Speech and Expression

Blog Entries

Killing of Yameen Rasheed Reveals Worsening Human Rights Situation in the Maldives (Pranesh Prakash; April 25, 2017).
Internet Shutdowns in 2016 (Japreet Grewal; April 27, 2016).

►Miscellaneous

Blog Entry

Regulating Bitcoin in India (Vipul Kharbanda; April 20, 2017).

Event

Amutha Arunachalam - Stand Shielded of Digital Rights (CIS; New Delhi; May 5, 2017).

Participation in Event

ISO/IEC JTC1/SC 27 Meetings (Organized by Bureau of Indian Standards; University of Waikato and Novotel; New Zealand; April 18 - 25, 2017). Udbhav Tiwari attended the meetings.

►Cyber Security

Event Organized

Dr. Madan M. Oberoi - Digital Forensics and Cyber Investigations (CIS; New Delhi; April 7, 2017).

Participation in Event

Brainstorming Session on the Global Conference on Cyberspace (GCCS 2017) (Organized by the Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology; New Delhi; April 12, 2017). Japreet Grewal attended the session.

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

► Follow us elsewhere

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

► Support Us

► Request for Collaboration

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/about/newsletters/april-2017-newsletter

April 2016 Newsletter

sunil — 2016-05-10T06:26:09Z

Welcome to the CIS newsletter for April 2016. The key issues we worked on this month included the Aadhaar Act 2016, Standard Essential Patents, cyber security of smart grids, and involvement of international agencies in the smart cities project in India.

Early last year, thanks to the fund raising efforts of a friend of CIS - Suhail Kazi, we received Rs. 1.9 lakhs as donations from 19 individuals. In January this year, we set up an online giving feature on our website which would ease the donation process, but we haven’t got a single donation so far! This could be because many of you may be under a false impression that CIS is very wealthy and does not need more support. Unfortunately, this is no longer true. Today, we are unable to find a single donor who is interested in our Accessibility, Telecom, or RAW programmes. In other words, we need your support. Would you to consider making a small donation to CIS? Click here to donate.

Previous issues of the newsletters can be accessed here: http://cis-india.org/about/newsletters.

Highlights
CIS prepared an FAQ on the Aadhaar / UIDAI project and the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Bill, 2016. Further, two infographics were produced to highlight on the questions of "Can the Aadhaar Act 2016 be Classified as a Money Bill?" and "Can the Matters Dealt with in the Aadhaar Act be the Objects of a Money Bill?". NVDA team prepared a report on the progress of the project for the month of April 2016. CIS submitted its comments to the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion's Discussion Paper on Standard Essential Patents and their Availability on FRAND Terms. CIS has offered its assistance on other matters aimed at developing a suitable policy framework for SEPs and FRAND in India, and, working towards the sustained innovation, manufacture and availability of mobile technologies in India. A summary of the comments can be accessed here. Responses to the Discussion Paper is available here. Rohini Lakshané's paper titled Patents and Mobile Devices in India: An Empirical Survey has been accepted for publication by the Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law. Kiran A.B. in a blog post has documented the availability and openness of data sets in India that are relevant for monitoring the targets under the SDGs. Low-cost Aakash tablet and its previous iterations in India have gone through several phases of technological changes and ideological experiments wrote Sumandro Chattapadhyay and Jahnavi Phalkey in an article published in the Economic and Political Weekly.

-----------------------------------
CIS in the News
-----------------------------------

CIS gave inputs to the following media coverage:

India's biometric database crosses billion-member mark (AFP and Daily Mail, UK; April 4, 2016).
The Panama Papers and the question of privacy (Big News Network; April 6, 2016). This was originally published by Privacyinternational.org.
Daunting task ahead for investigative agencies with WhatsApp's end-to-end encryption (Neha Alawadhi; Economic Times; April 8, 2016).
PMO’s no to smart cards, insists on Aadhaar (Somesh Jha; Hindu; April 10, 2016).
2014 showed the power of Twitter, now every Indian politician wants a handle (T.V. Jayan, Smitha Verma,Sonia Sarkar and V. Kumara Swamy; Telegraph; April 10, 2016).
Why is the UIDAI cracking down on individuals that hoard Aadhaar data? (Alnoor Peermohamed; Business Standard; April 13, 2016).
You will need a license to create a WhatsApp group in Kashmir (Governance Now; April 19, 2016).
Will Facebook, Twitter relocate servers to India? (Taru Bhatia; Governance Now; April 23, 2016).
Government keeps experts out of cyber security discussions (Amrita Madhukalya; DNA; April 23, 2016).
CCTV plays Sherlock (Raj Shekhar, Arun Dev, V Narayan & A Selvaraj with inputs from Sindhu Kannan and Somreet Bhattacharya; The Times of India; April 24, 2016).

CIS members wrote the following pieces:

Sunil Abraham wrote an article in the July 15 edition of Frontline arguing that the Aadhaar project’s technological design and architecture is an unmitigated disaster and no amount of legal fixes in the Act will make it any better.
Amber Sinha wrote an article in The Wire arguing that the Aaddhaar Act is not a money bill, and the Supreme Court may very well question the decision by the Lok Sabha speaker to classify it as such.
Sumandro Chattapadhyay also wrote on The Wire arguing that "the last chance for a welfare state doesn’t rest in the Aadhaar system."
Subhashish Panigrahi's article on the 8 challenges that Indian language Wikipedias have to overcome was published by Global Voices. The article had earlier been published in the Wire.
Elonnai Hickok and Vanya Rakesh co-authored an article on Cyber Security of Smart Grids in India that was published by Dataquest.
Shyam Ponappa in his monthly column published in the Business Standard tell us that it's time the government accepts that current policies are not enough to bring about Digital India.

►NVDA and eSpeak

►Pervasive Technologies

Comments

Comments on Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion Discussion Paper on Standard Essential Patents and their Availability on Frand Terms (Anubha Sinha, Nehaa Chaudhari and Rohini Lakshané; April 23, 2016).
Responses to the DIPP's Discussion Paper on SEPs and their Availability on FRAND Terms (Anubha Sinha, Nehaa Chaudhari and Rohini Lakshané; April 23, 2016).
Summary of CIS Comments to DIPP’s Discussion Paper on SEPs and their availability on FRAND terms (Anubha Sinha; April 26, 2016).

Blog Entries

Global Congress 2015 - A Collection of Resources (Pervasive Technologies Team; April 1, 2016).
Compilation of Mobile Phone Patent Litigation Cases in India (Rohini Lakshané; updated on April 15, 2016).
Joining the Dots in India's Big-Ticket Mobile Phone Patent Litigation (Rohini Lakshané; updated on April 29, 2016).
MHRD IPR Chair Series: Information Received from Tezpur University (Karan Tripathi; April 26, 2016).
National IPR Policy Series : Sectoral Innovation Councils on Intellectual Property Rights – RTI Requests + DIPP Responses (Nehaa Chaudhari and Saahil Dama; April 30, 2016). Nisha S. Kumar assisted in compilation of the document.

Participation in Events

Fifth Annual IP Teaching Workshop (Organised by the Centre for Innovation, Intellectual Property and Competition at National Law University Delhi in association with National Academy of Law Teaching, NLU-D; Delhi; March 31 and April 1, 2016). Nehaa Chaudhari was a speaker.
First Round-table on Innovation, IP and Competition (Organized by the Centre for Innovation, Intellectual Property & Competition (CIIPC) at the National Law University, Delhi; India Habitat Centre; New Delhi; April 1-2, 2016). Nehaa Chaudhari and Anubha Sinha attended the round-table.
Brainstorming Workshop on PG Programme on Media Studies for UGC E-Pathshala Programme (Organized by Jamia Milla Islamia; New Delhi; April 5, 2016).
Sensitization Seminar on IPR for Electronics & ICT Sectors (Organized by Andhra Pradesh Technology Development & Promotion Centre (APTDC) of Confederation of Indian Industry (CII), in association with Department of Electronics and Information Technology (DeitY); Vishakhapatnam; April 21, 2016).

►Wikipedia

Work Plan

CIS - A2K Work Plan: July 2016 - June 2017 (CIS-A2K Team; April 2, 2016): We have revised the work plan template taking into account the changed proposal plan sent out by WMF and in light of the feedback that we have received from FDC assessment during last proposal application. The FDC feedback is taken into account at the level of design, RoI and ensuring quality for all our activities.

Article

Eight Challenges Indian-Language Wikipedias Need to Overcome (Subhashish Panigrahi; Global Voices; April 21, 2016). A version of this post was previously published on The Wire.

Media Coverage

Odia gets more space in e-world (Anwesha Ambaly; The Telegraph; April 7, 2016).
Exercise to Correct articles in Tulu Wikipedia begins (Raviprasad Kamila; The Hindu; April 28, 2016).

Event Organized

Tulu Wikipedia Editathon to Improve Quality of Articles in Tulu Wikipedia (Shri Ramakrishna PU College; Mangaluru; April 26 - 30, 2016).

-----------------------------------
Openness
-----------------------------------

Monitoring Sustainable Development Goals in India: Availability and Openness of Data (Part II) (Kiran A.B.; April 12, 2016).

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

►Cyber Security

Cyber Security of Smart Grids in India (Elonnai Hickok and Vanya Rakesh; April 25, 2016).

►Big Data

Blog Entry

RTI regarding Smart Cities Mission in India (Paul Thottan; April 21, 2016).

►Privacy

Blog Entries

FAQ on the Aadhaar Project and the Bill (Elonnai Hickok, Vanya Rakesh, and Vipul Kharbanda; April 13, 2016).
Aadhaar Act and its Non-compliance with Data Protection Law in India (Vanya Rakesh; April 14, 2016).
Can the Matters Dealt with in the Aadhaar Act be the Objects of a Money Bill? (Pooja Saxena; April 24, 2016).

Articles

Will Aadhaar Act Address India’s Dire Need For a Privacy Law? (Nehaa Chaudhari; Quint; March 31, 2016).
The Last Chance for a Welfare State Doesn’t Rest in the Aadhaar System (Sumandro Chattapadhyay; April 19, 2016).
The Aadhaar Act is Not a Money Bill (Amber Sinha; April 25, 2016).

Participation in Events

RightsCon Silicon Valley 2016 (Organized by RightsCon; March 31 and April 1, 2016). Elonnai Hickok attended the event.
Panel Discussion on UID/ Aadhar act 2016 and its impact on Social, Security (Organized by Students Christian Movement of India at SCM House; Bangalore; April 25, 2016). Sunil Abraham was a panelist.
The Centre for the Study of Law and Governance (CSLG), Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), organised a roundtable discussion on Tuesday, April 26, to discuss the Aadhaar project and Act. Along with Prasanna S, Apar Gupta, and Dr. Chirashree Dasgupta, Sumandro Chattapadhyay was one of the discussants.
Aadhaar by Numbers (Organized by National Institute of Public Finance and Policy; New Delhi; April 29, 2016). Sunil Abraham was a speaker.

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

Article

Breakthroughs Needed For Digital India (Shyam Ponappa; Business Standard; April 6, 2016 and Organizing India BlogSpot; April 7, 2016).

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

Article

Buying into the Aakash Dream - A Tablet’s Tale of Mass Education (Sumandro Chattapadhyay and Jahnavi Phalkey; Economic & Political Weekly; April 23, 2016).

Announcement

Call for Proposal: Big Data for Development – Initial Field Studies (Sumandro Chattapadhyay; April 29, 2016).

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

► Follow us elsewhere

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

► Support Us

► Request for Collaboration

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/about/newsletters/april-2016-newsletter

April 2015 Bulletin

praskrishna — 2015-05-31T04:29:24Z

Newsletter for the month of April below.

We are happy to share with you the fourth issue of the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) newsletter (April 2015). The past editions of the newsletter can be accessed at http://cis-india.org/about/newsletters.

-------------------------------
Highlights
-------------------------------

CIS received 35 engaging abstracts in response to the call for essays on 'Studying Internet in India'. The final essays will be published from June onwards. The ten selected abstracts can be read at http://cis-india.org/raw/studying-internet-in-india-selected-abstracts/ .

CIS submitted its comments to the National Informatics Centre on April 30, 2015 bringing to notice the negligible progress on the front for making Indian government websites conform to the notified standards, and gave recommendations to take the initiatives forward.
Nehaa Chaudhari has prepared a consolidated report that tracks the development of India's National IPR Policy and the requests by CIS to the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion under the RTI Act and responses elicited from the Department.

Institute of Odia Studies and Research organised 2nd National Language Conference beginning on March 30, 2015 and ending on April 2, 2015 at the Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar. This conference was organised in collaboration with the Department of Tourism and Culture. Subhashish Panigrahi presented a paper in Odia language in this conference as part of a panel discussion related to Odia language computing.

Sunil Abraham's article titled "Shreya Singhal and 66A" was published in Economic and Political Weekly Vol-L No.15. Vidushi Marda helped in doing the research.

Sunil Abraham in an article in DNA titled " Multiple Aspects Need to be Addressed as the Clamour Grows for Network Neutrality " tells readers that there are four violations of Network Neutrality that are considered particularly egregious.

Jyoti Panday prepared an analysis of the Supreme Court judgement in Shreya Singhal and what it does for intermediary liability in India.
In February 2015, CIS had requested DeitY under RTI Act to provide information clarifying the procedures for blocking in India. The response elicited from DeitY has been published.

CIS sent a joint response to the TRAI Consultation Paper on Regulatory Framework for Over-the-top (OTT) services with scholars from Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad. The response was sent on March 27, 2015.

► Vacancies at CIS

CIS is seeking applications for:

Internship : CIS is providing opportunities for students enrolled in graduate programmes to undertake internship at its offices in Bangalore and Delhi. Eligible candidates are welcome to participate in our internship programme.

----------------------------------------------
Accessibility and Inclusion
----------------------------------------------
Under a grant from the Hans Foundation we are doing two projects. The first project is on creating a national resource kit of state-wise laws, policies and programmes on issues relating to persons with disabilities in India. CIS in partnership with CLPR (Centre for Law and Policy Research) compiled the National Compendium of Policies, Programmes and Schemes for Persons with Disabilities (29 states and 6 union territories). The publication has been finalised and is being printed. The draft chapters and the quarterly reports can be accessed on the project page. The second project is on developing text-to-speech software for 15 Indian languages. The progress made so far in the project can be accessed here.

►NVDA and eSpeak

# Monthly Updates

April 2015 Report (Suman Dogra; April 30, 2015).

# Language Testing Reports

Hindi Language (Nirmita Narasimhan; April 10, 2015).
Gujarati Language (Nirmita Narasimhan; April 16, 2015).
Oriya Language (Nirmita Narasimhan; April 30, 2015).

►Other

# Submission

Comments to the GIGW (Nirmita Narasimhan; April 30, 2015).

-----------------------------------------------------------
Access to Knowledge
-----------------------------------------------------------
As part of the Access to Knowledge programme we are doing two projects. The first one (Pervasive Technologies) under a grant from the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) is for research on the complex interplay between pervasive technologies and intellectual property to support intellectual property norms that encourage the proliferation and development of such technologies as a social good. The second one (Wikipedia) under a grant from the Wikimedia Foundation is for the growth of Indic language communities and projects by designing community collaborations and partnerships that recruit and cultivate new editors and explore innovative approaches to building projects.

# Blog Entries

Methodology: Patent Landscaping in the Indian Mobile Device Market (Rohini Lakshané; November 10, 2014). The list of standards and specifications found in sub-USD-100 Internet-enabled mobile phones sold in India" (Annexure 2 in the post) has been updated .
Conference on Standards Settings Organizations (SSO) and FRAND, NLSIU (Rohini Lakshané; April 5, 2015).
National IPR Policy Series: RTI Requests by CIS to DIPP + DIPP Responses (Nehaa Chaudhari; April 15, 2015).
Pervasive Technologies Project Working Document Series: Literature Review on IPR in Mobile app development (Anubha Sinha; April 29, 2015).

Media Coverage

CIS gave inputs for the following:

One reason startups are moving out of India (Evelyn Fok and Varun Aggarwal; The Times of India; April 10, 2015). This was also mirrored in Economic Times .
Indian businesses crave IP certainty, but better patent values are tempting them overseas (IAM Magazine; April 28, 2015).

►Wikipedia

# Participation in Event

2nd National Language Conference, Bhubaneswar (Organized by Institute of Odia Studies and Research; Institute of Physics; Bhubaneswar; March 30 - April 2, 2015). This conference was organised in collaboration with the Department of Tourism and Culture. Subhashish Panigrahi presented a paper in Odia language in this conference as part of a panel discussion related to Odia language computing.

# Blog Entries

Hindustani Language: We Are Wikipedia (Syed Muzamiluddin; April 10, 2015).
ଓଡ଼ିଆ ଭାଷା ପାଇଁ ଡିଜିଟାଲ ଅସୁବିଧା (Subhashish Panigrahi; April 15, 2015).
Wikipedia Campus at Oxford College (Subhashish Panigrahi; April 28, 2015).

# News and Media Coverage

CIS-A2K team gave its inputs to the following media coverage:

Odia waits for Google Translate debut - Nine Indian languages available (Anwesha Ambaly; Telegraph; April 6, 2015).
Now you can search Google in Kannada, in your handwriting (Apurva Venkat; Bangalore Mirror; April 18, 2015).

►Openness

# Event Co-organized

NASA International Open Data Challenge 2015 (Co-organized by CIS and Team Indus; Bangalore; April 11-12, 2015).

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

►Freedom of Expression

India's Apex Court in a landmark decision struck down section 66A of the IT Act. The judgment provided great relief for advocates of freedom of speech on the Internet. The development attracted lots of media coverage to which CIS gave its inputs:

# Articles

Shreya Singhal and 66A (Sunil Abraham; Economic and Political Weekly Vol-L No.15; April 11, 2015). Vidushi Marda helped in doing the research.
Don't Do Nothing. Take a Stand on Net Neutrality. (T. Vishnu Vardhan; NDTV; April 13, 2015).
Multiple Aspects Need to be Addressed as the Clamour Grows for Network Neutrality (Sunil Abraham; DNA; April 16, 2015).
The Hazards of a Non-neutral Internet (Geetha Hariharan; April 18, 2015). A modified version of the blog entry was published as an article titled " A must for free speech " in the Week.

# Blog Entries

The Supreme Court Judgment in Shreya Singhal and What It Does for Intermediary Liability in India? (Jyoti Panday; April 11, 2015).
DeitY says 143 URLs have been Blocked in 2015; Procedure for Blocking Content Remains Opaque and in Urgent Need of Transparency Measures (Jyoti Panday; April 29, 2015).

# Event

Freedom of Expression in a Digital Age: Effective Research, Policy Formation & the Development of Regulatory Frameworks in South Asia (Organized by Center for Global Communication Studies at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania, Observer Research Foundation and CIS; Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi; April 21, 2015).

# Participation in Event

Financial Express hosts #NetNeutralityDebate: 'Price discrimination can be allowed, but not for the same packet of data' (New Delhi; April 24, 2015). Pranesh Prakash participated in the discussion.

►Privacy

# Participation in Event

Privacy International Network Meeting (Organized by Privacy International, UK; April 22 - 23, 2015). Sunil Abraham attended the meeting.

►Miscellaneous

# Announcement

IIGF Recruitment : The National Internet Exchange of India (NIXI) conducted walk-in interviews on May 16, 2015 at NIXI Jasola office, Flat No. 6B, 6th Floor, Uppals M6 Plaza, New Delhi. NIXI sought candidates to fill the posts of Technology Analyst, Policy Analyst, Research Associate and Executive Assistants.

# Participation in Events

Global Conference on Cyberspace 2015 (Co-organized by Dutch Government, City of the Hague and One Conference; The Hague, Netherlands; April 16 - 17, 2015). Sunil Abraham was a panelist. He also participated in an expert roundtable conference .
CII Digital India Summit (Organized by Confederation of Indian Industries; Taj Mahal Hotel and Pragati Maidan, New Delhi; April 21 and 24, 2015). Pranesh Prakash attended the summit.

------------------------------------
News & Media Coverage
------------------------------------
CIS gave its inputs to the following media coverage:

'Smack' the Trolls! (Marianne De Nazareth; The Citizen; March 31, 2015).
The block heads (Sibi Arasu; Hindu Businessline; April 3, 2015).
Smriti Irani brings back focus on voyeurism prevailing in our country (Amrita Madhukalya; DNA; April 6, 2015).
Surveillance rises, privacy retreats (Namrata Acharya; Business Standard; April 12, 2015).
People voice their support for net neutrality, say Internet a utility not a luxury (IBN Live; April 13, 2015).
Net neutrality: Trai receives over 2 lakh mails (Sandhya Soman and Jayanta Deka; April 14, 2015).
Net neutrality: Debate rages on (Surabhi Aggarwal; Business Standard; April 11, 2015)
Net neutrality debate rages (Lalatendu Mishra and Pradeesh Chandran; The Hindu; April 15, 2015).
Net neutrality: Net activism packs a punch (Sandhya Soman; The Times of India; April 19, 2015).
Net Neutrality debate in India: Here are all the arguments you need to know (Indian Express; April 23, 2015).
Freedom struggle 2.0 (Zara Khan; Hindu; April 25, 2015).
Cry, you nasty trolls (Prasun Chaudhari; The Telegraph; April 26, 2015). Net Neutrality: The argument continues (Deepak Ajwani and Debojyoti Ghosh; Forbes India Magazine; April 29, 2015).

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

# Blog Entries

Studying Internet in India: Selected Abstracts - CIS received thirty five engaging abstracts in response to the call for essays on 'Studying Internet in India.' The final essays will be published from June onwards. These are the ten selected abstracts: Studying the Internet Discourse in India through the Prism of Human Rights (by Deva Prasad); Indic Scripts and the Internet (by Dibyajyoti Ghosh); The Internet in the Indian Judicial Imagination (by Divij Joshi); Dharmasala Networked (by Laird Brown); WhatsApp Economy (by Maitrayee Deka); Citizens and their Internet (by Purbasha Auddy); The Many Lives and Sites of Internet in Bhubaneswar (by Sailen Routray); Quantity over Quality: Social Media and the New Class System in India (by Sarah McKeever); Governing Speech on the Internet: Transforming the Public Sphere through Policymaking (by Smarika Kumar).

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

# Submission

Response to TRAI Consultation Paper on Regulatory Framework for Over-the-Top (OTT) Services (Pranesh Prakash; March 27, 2015). The response was sent in March but mirrored on our website recently.

---------------------------------
About CIS
---------------------------------
The Centre for Internet and Society is a non-profit research organization that works on policy issues relating to freedom of expression, privacy, accessibility for persons with disabilities, access to knowledge and IPR reform, and openness (including open government, FOSS, open standards, etc.), and engages in academic research on digital natives and digital humanities.

► Follow us elsewhere

Twitter: https://twitter.com/CISA2K
Facebook group: https://www.facebook.com/cisa2k
Visit us at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/India_Access_To_Knowledge
E-mail: a2k@cis-india.org

► Support Us

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

► Request for Collaboration:

We invite researchers, practitioners, and theoreticians, both organisationally and as individuals, to collaboratively engage with Internet and society and improve our understanding of this new field. To discuss the research collaborations, write to Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, at sunil@cis-india.org. To discuss collaborations on Indic language Wikipedia, write to T. Vishnu Vardhan, Programme Director, A2K, at vishnu@cis-india.org.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/about/newsletters/april-2015-bulletin

Centre for Internet and Society

August 2013 Bulletin

Access to Knowledge and Openness

Access to Knowledge (Wikipedia)

Openness

SAFEGUARDS Project

August 2012 Bulletin

Special Section on Freedom of Expression

Follow us elsewhere

Atmanirbhar Bharat Meets Digital India

Artificial Intelligence: A Full-Spectrum Regulatory Challenge (Working Draft) PDF

Artificial Intelligence Literature Review

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

Meaning and Scope of AI

AI Sectoral Applications

Human Involvement with Automated Decision Making

The Social and Power Relations Surrounding AI

Regulatory Approaches to AI

Challenges to Adopting AI

Conclusion

Are we Throwing our Data Protection Regimes under the Bus?

Consent as a tool in Data Protection Regimes

The origins of consent in privacy and data protection

Consent, Big Data and Data protection

Consent places unrealistic and unfair expectations on the Individual

Secondary use, Aggregation and Superficial Consent

Other problems with the mechanism of consent in the context of Big Data

What can organisations do better to obtain more meaningful consent

Conclusion – how should regulation change

Are we Losing the Right to Privacy and Freedom of Speech on Indian Internet?

Are Cab Apps safe?

April Newsletter

April 2019 Newsletter

Highlights for March 2019

Jobs

CIS and the News

CIS in the News

Wikipdedia

Cyber Security

Privacy

Artificial Intelligence

Free Speech and Expression

April 2018 Newsletter

April 2017 Newsletter

April 2016 Newsletter

April 2015 Bulletin