Centre for Internet and Society

Webinar on counter-comments to the draft Intermediary Guidelines

Admin — 2019-02-22T01:51:19Z

CCAOI and the ISOC Delhi Chapter organised a webinar on February 11 to discuss the comments submitted to the Information Technology [Intermediary Guidelines (Amendment) Rules] 2018, and counter-comments that were due by February 14.

The agenda of the discussion was:

A brief introduction to the counter comment process [Shashank Mishra]
Invited stakeholders comment on key issues and perspectives on the submissions and the points to be countered.

The following people participated:

Amba Kak, Mozilla
Rajesh Chharia, ISPAI
Gurshabad Grover, CIS
Priyanka Chaudhari, SFLC
Divij Joshi, Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/webinar-on-counter-comments-to-the-draft-intermediary-guidelines

Typing in Indic Languages from Mobiles made Easy!

subha — 2013-07-17T09:02:46Z

A new app is up for typing in Indic languages from mobile phones. This is is available online at: http://bitly.com/indictyping and supports on iOS. Android version is to be released soon.

"There are two hard things in computer science: cache invalidation, naming things, and off-by-one errors."
Phil Karlton

Yuvi Panda smiles saying this. Yuvi Panda, a former Wikimedia Foundation contractor and developer was here in our Delhi office and I had an opportunity to spend some time discussing some of the technical problems that we have been facing.

One of the major setback most people have with their phones is the lack of language support and lack of typing support for Indic languages. Fortunately most of the new generation phones support Indic languages. Three of the major operating systems used currently by most phones are Android, Windows, Blackberry and iOS. Android being an open source operating system has extensive community support and developments which is something we were primarily hopeful while starting this project. Windows phones also have a good number of user base in India and support for Indic languages on Windows is really good. Though iOS has good support for Indic display there is no support for typing. IOS, Windows and Blackberry all being proprietary have really less community support and any tool available on these app market would be proprietary. So, our idea was to start a cross platform app which will use the available jQuery ime used for Indic typing for Indic Wikipedias and sister projects.

Currently, most of the Indic language Wikipedias use a typing tool called Narayam ( "Narayam" is a Malayalam word which refers to a metal stylus that was used for writing on palm leaves and papyrus in ancient days). By default the typing scheme for most of the language wikipedias is set to transliteration or phonetic. An Indian mobile user would normally type his own language using Roman letters from a mobile. "और दोस्त सब ठीक है?" in Hindi would be typed as "Aur dost sab thik hai?" when someone pings a friend on facebook or sends a text message. Now with the new typing tool you need to type "aur dosta saba thiika hai?" to get the same text in Devanagari script. This typing scheme is almost same like the phonetic typing most people use for regional languages on mobile which is why typing won’t be much of difference. In terms of usability most people would use the typed text either for web search in regional languages, Facebook posts, tweeting or even sending mails and text messages.

The detailed procedure for typing using this tool is documented at: http://goo.gl/HdVJW. Indic typing tool is available at: http://bitly.com/indictyping

Scan the QR code below using your QR code application to go "Indic typing tool".

Developer speaks:

This is a simple tool that lets you type in your native language on mobile phones. Currently only iOS devices are supported.

The tool is a simple wrapper around Wikimedia Foundation Language Engineering's jquery.ime project. It simply adds a much easier to use (on a mobile device) language selector, and makes it available offline (on iOS devices).

Quick links:

Source code: https://github.com/yuvipanda/indic-typing-tool
Test the app and report the bugs directly on GitHub or on Meta.
Credits: YuviPanda, Subhashish Panigrahi, Santhosh Thottingal

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/typing-in-indic-languages-from-mobiles

Twitter's India troubles show tough path ahead for digital platforms

Aditya Sharma — 2021-06-26T02:54:19Z

Twitter is in a standoff with Indian authorities over the government's new digital rules. Critics see the rules as an attempt to curb free speech, while others say more action is needed to hold tech giants accountable.

The blog by Aditya Sharma was published by DW on 21 June 2021. Torsha Sarkar was quoted.

Twitter holds a relatively low share of India's social media market. But, since 2017, the huge nation has emerged as Twitter's fastest-growing market, becoming critical to its global expansion plans.

In February, the Indian government introduced new guidelines to regulate digital content on rapidly growing social media platforms.

The so-called Intermediary Guidelines are aimed at regulating content on internet platforms such as Twitter and Facebook, making them more accountable to legal requests for the removal of posts and sharing information about the originators of messages.

Employees at these companies can be held criminally liable for not complying with the government's requests.

Large social media firms must also set up mechanisms to address grievances and appoint executives to liaise with law enforcement under the new rules, as well as appoint an India-based compliance officer who would be held criminally liable for the content on their platforms.

The Indian government says the rules empower "users who become victims of defamation, morphed images, sexual abuse," among other online crimes. It also said that the rules seek to tackle the problem of disinformation.

But critics fear that the rules could be used to target government opponents and make sure dissidents don't use the platforms.

Social media companies were expected to comply with the new rules by May 25.

Some Indian media reports have recently said that Twitter lost its status as an "intermediary" and the legal protection that came with it, due to its failure to comply with the new rules.

Failure to comply and serious implications

Apar Gupta, the executive director of the Internet Freedom Foundation, a New Delhi-based digital rights advocacy group, says failure to comply with the rules could threaten Twitter's India operations.

"Not complying with the rules would pose a real risk to Twitter's operational environment," he told DW.

"It will need to go to court to defend itself each time criminal prosecutions are launched against it," he added.

The first case against Twitter was filed last week, where it was charged with failing to stop the spread of a video on its platform that allegedly incited "hate and enmity" between two religious groups.

'Heavy censorship'

Gupta says adhering to all the government's demands would substantially change Twitter.

"Absolute compliance would mean heavy censorship of individual tweets, removal of the manipulated media tags, and blocking/suspension of accounts at the government's behest," he said.

Torsha Sarkar, policy officer at the Bengaluru-based Centre for Internet and Society, fears that Twitter might at times be compelled to overcomply with government demands, threatening user rights.

"This can be either by over-complying with flawed information requests, thereby selling out its users, or taking down content that offends the majoritarian sensibilities," she told DW.

Last week, three special rapporteurs appointed by a top UN human rights body expressed "serious concerns" that certain parts of the guidelines "may result in the limiting or infringement of a wide range of human rights."

They urged New Delhi to review the rules, adding that they did not conform to India's international human rights obligations and could threaten the digital rights of Indians.

Twitter's balancing act

It is not the first time that Twitter has been accused of giving in to government pressure to censor content on its platform.

At the height of the long-running farmer protests, Twitter blocked hundreds of tweets and accounts, including the handle of a prominent news magazine. It subsequently unblocked them following public outrage.

The US company stopped short of complying with demands to block the accounts of activists, politicians and journalists, arguing that such a move would "violate their fundamental right to free expression under Indian law."

According to local media reports, Twitter's Indian executives were reportedly threatened with fines and imprisonment if the accounts were not taken down.

Special police notify Twitter offices

Last month, the labeling of a tweet by a politician from the ruling BJP as "manipulated media" prompted a special unit of the Delhi police to visit Twitter's offices in the capital and neighboring Gurgaon. Police notified the offices about an investigation into the labeling of the post.

Twitter India's managing director, Manish Maheswari, was said to have been asked to appear before the police for questioning, according to media reports.

Some Twitter employees have refused to talk about the ongoing tensions for fear of government reprisals.

"Such kind of intimidation does not happen every day. (But) Everyone at Twitter India is terrified," people familiar with the matter told DW on the condition of anonymity.

Big Tech VS sovereign power?

Those calling for better regulation of tech giants say transnational social media companies like Twitter lack accountability, blaming them for the alleged inaction against online abuse and disinformation campaigns.

"The problem with these rules is that they centralize greater power toward the government without providing for the objective benefit of rights toward users," Gupta said.

"If Twitter were to comply with these rules, it would make a bad situation worse," he said.

Twitter is unlikely to ditch a major market such as India.

Sarkar from the Centre for Internet and Society said "It might be difficult to say how the powers of big tech are going to collide with sovereign nations, especially in light of flawed legal interventions around the world."

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/dw-june-21-2021-aditya-sharma-twitter-india-troubles-show-tough-path-ahead-for-digital-platforms

Thousands go online against 66A

praskrishna — 2012-11-30T06:40:38Z

An online petition aimed at amending section 66A of the Information Technology (IT) Act and re-examining internet laws has garnered 3,000 signatures since it began on Tuesday — two days before Kapil Sibal, telecom and IT minister, chairs a meeting with the cyber regulation advisory committee.

This article by Apoorva Dutt was published in DNA on November 29, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

The petition, anchored on Change.org, a platform for social initiatives, was started by Bangalore-based advocate Gautam John after two girls were arrested for their Facebook post on imposing a bandh in the city on the day Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeray was cremated. Following their arrests, Shaheen Dhada has deleted her Facebook account while her friend Rini Srinivasan who merely liked the post has opened a new account on the social networking site. However, she has vowed to refrain from making political statements.

John is blunt about the legislative effect an online petition can have. l Turn to p8.

“Honestly, I don’t believe that a petition can change laws, but it gives concerned citizens a platform for documenting their concern in such troubling scenarios. To some extent, this sort of petition can represent a civil society’s point of view. No more can a government authority say ‘only NGOs care about an issue’. Now they know – thousands of ordinary people care,” John said.

Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Centre For Internet and Society in Bangalore, points out the flaws in section 66A that have been exploited in cases like the Palghar incident. “Section 66A is very broadly-worded and the punishment (three years imprisonment) is excessive,” he said. “The law was borrowed – that too badly – from a British law. There are many a things greatly flawed in this unconstitutional provision, from the disproportionality of the punishment to the non-existence of the crime. The 2008 amendment to the IT Act was one of eight laws passed in 15 minutes without any debate in the winter session of Parliament.”

The petition also aims to organise a meeting of the civil society stakeholders to look into these concerns. A similar meeting was scheduled to be held in August, but it did not take place.

Sudarshan Balachandran of Change.org is the lead campaigner and organiser of the petition. He hopes to hand over a copy of the petition to Sibal during the meeting on Thursday. “Sibal has gone on record to say that they will examine the law, and if they feel it doesn’t work, it will be junked. So I am hopeful,” said Balachandran.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/dnaindia-nov-29-2012-apoorva-dutt-thousands-go-online-against-66a

The Quixotic Fight to Clean up the Web

sunil — 2012-01-26T20:53:02Z

The ongoing attempt to pre-screen online content won’t change anything. It will only drive netizens into the arms of criminals, writes Sunil Abraham in this article published in Tehelka Magazine, Vol 9, Issue 04, Dated 28 Jan 2012.

GOOGLE AND Facebook’s ongoing case in the Delhi High Court over offensive online content is curious in three ways. First, the complaint does not mention the IT Act, 2000. Prior to the 2008 amendment, intermediaries (in this case, Google, Facebook, etc) had no immunity. But after the amendment, intermediaries have significant immunity and are not considered liable unless takedown notices are ignored.

Second, it is curious that the complaint does not mention specific individuals or groups directly responsible for authoring the allegedly offensive material. Only intermediaries have been explicitly named. If specific content items have been submitted in court then it is curious that specific accounts and users have not been charged with the same offences.

Three, Delhi-based journalist Vinay Rai claims that takedown notices and requests for user information were ignored by the intermediaries. As yet, unpublished research at the Centre for Internet and Society has reached the exact opposite conclusion. We sent fraudulent takedown notices to seven of the largest intermediaries in India as part of a policy sting operation. Six of them over-complied and demonstrated no interest in protecting freedom of expression. Our takedown notices were complied with even though they were largely nonsensical. It is therefore curious that Rai’s takedown notices were ignored.

Under Section 79 of the IT Act, the intermediary must not “initiate the transmission”, “select the receiver of the transmission” and “select or modify the information contained in the transmission”. In other words, they must not possess “actual knowledge” of the content. This would be absolutely true if intermediaries acted as “dumb pipes” or “mere conduits”. But today, they have reactive “human filters” ensuring conformance to community guidelines that often go beyond constitutional limits on freedom of expression.

For example, Facebook deletes breastfeeding photographs if a certain proportion of the breast is visible, despite numerous protests. Intermediaries also use proactive “machine filters” to purge their networks of pornography and copyright infringing content. In order to retain immunity under the IT Act, intermediaries would have to demonstrate that they have no “actual knowledge”. This would also imply that they cannot proactively filter or pre-screen content without becoming liable for illegal content.

More sophisticated “machine filters” will continue to be built for social media platforms as computing speeds increase and costs decrease dramatically. But there will be significant collateral damage — the vibrancy of online Indian communities will be diminished as legitimate content will be removed and this in turn will retard Internet adoption rates. Free media, democratic governance, research and development, culture and the arts will all be fundamentally undermined. So whether pre-censorship is technically feasible is an irrelevant question. The real question is what limits on freedom of expression are reasonable in the Internet age.

The legal tussle is yet another chance for reflecting on the shortcomings of the IT Act

Censorship is like prohibition, illegal content will persist, the mafia will profit and ordinary citizens will be implicated in criminal networks. Use of anonymising proxies, circumvention tools and encryption technologies will proliferate, frustrating network optimisation efforts and law enforcement activities.

This is yet another opportunity for reflecting on the shortcomings of the ITAct. A lot of the confusion and anxiety today emerges from vague language, unconstitutional limits on freedom of expression, multi-tiered blanket surveillance provisions, blunt security policy measures contained in the statute and its associated rules. The next Parliament session is the last opportunity for MPs to ask for the rules for intermediaries, cyber cafes and reasonable security practices to be revisited. The MP who musters the courage to speak will be dubbed a superhero.

As told to Shonali Ghosal. Sunil Abraham is Executive director, centre for internet and society and can be contacted at sunil@cis-india.org. The original article was published in Tehelka.

Illustration by Sudeep Chaudhuri

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/quixotic-fight-to-clean-the-web

The National Health Stack: An Expensive, Temporary Placebo

Murali Neelakantan, Swaraj Barooah, Swagam Dasgupta, and Torsha Sarkar — 2018-08-13T15:13:10Z

The year 2002 saw the introduction of a very ambitious National Program for Information Technology in the United Kingdom with the goal to transform the National Health Service — a pre-existing state-sponsored universal healthcare program. This would include a centralised, digital healthcare record for patients and secure access for 30,000 professionals across 300 hospitals.

The article was published by Bloomberg Quint on August 6, 2018.

However, the next ten years would see the scheme meet with constant criticism about its poor management and immense expenditure; and after a gruelling battle for survival, including spending £20 billion and having top experts on board, the NPfIT finally met its end in 2011.

Fast forward eight years — the Indian government’s public policy think tank, NITI Aayog, is proposing an eerily similar idea for the much less developed, and much more populated Indian healthcare sector. On July 6, the NITI Aayog released a consultation paper to discuss “a digital infrastructure built with a deep understanding of the incentive structures prevalent in the Indian healthcare ecosystem”, called the National Health Stack. The paper identifies four challenges that previous government-run healthcare programs ran into and that the current system hopes to solve. These include:

low enrollment of entitled beneficiaries of health insurance,
low participation by service providers of health insurance,
poor fraud detection,
lack of reliable and timely data and analytics.

The current article takes a preliminary look at the goals of the NHS and where it falls behind. Subsequent articles will break down the proposed scheme with regard to safety, privacy and data security concerns, the feasibility of data analytics and fraud detection, and finally, the role of private players within the entire structure.

The primary aim of any digital health infrastructure should be to compliment an existing, efficient healthcare delivery system.

As seen in the U.K., even a very well-functioning healthcare system doesn’t necessarily mean the digitisation efforts will bear fruit.

The NHS is meant to be designed for and beyond the Ayushman Bharat Yojana — the government’s two-pronged healthcare regime that was introduced on Feb. 1. Unfortunately, though, India’s healthcare regime has long been in the need of severe repair, and even if the Ayushman Bharat Yojana works optimally, there are no indications to show that this will miraculously change by their stated target of 2022. Indeed, experts predict it would take at least a ten-year period to successfully implement universal health coverage. A 2013 report by EY-FICCI stated that we must consider a ten-year time frame as well as allocating 3.5-4.7 percent of the GDP to health expenditure to achieve universal health coverage.

However, as per the current statistics, the centre’s allocation for health in the 2017-18 budget is Rs 47,353 crore, which is 1.15 percent of India’s GDP.

Patients wait for treatment in the corridor of the Acharya Tulsi Regional Cancer Treatment & Research Institute in Bikaner, Rajasthan, India. (Photographer: Prashanth Vishwanathan/Bloomberg)

Along with the state costs, India’s current expenditure in the health sector comes to a meagre 1.4 percent of the total GDP, far short of what the target should be. Yet, the government aims to attain universal health coverage by 2022.

In the first of its two-pronged strategy, the Ayushman Bharat Yojana aims to establish 1.5 lakh ‘Health and Wellness Centres’ across the country by 2022, which would provide primary healthcare services free of cost.

However, the total fund allocated for ’setting up’ these centres is only Rs 1,200 crore, which comes down to a meagre Rs 80,000 per centre.

It is unclear whether the government plans to establish new sub-centres, or improve the existing ones. Either way, a pittance of Rs 80,000 is grossly insufficient. As per reports, among the 1,56,231 current health centres, only 17,204 (11 percent) have met Indian Public Health Standards as of March 31, 2017. Shockingly, basic amenities like water and electricity are scarce, if not, absent in a substantial number of these centres.

At least 6,000 centres do not have a female health worker, and at least 1,00,000 centres do not have a male health worker.

A woman holds a child in the post-delivery ward of the district hospital in Jind, Haryana, India. (Photographer: Prashanth Vishwanathan/Bloomberg)

Even taking the generous assumption that the existing 17,204 centres are in top condition, the future of the rest of these health and wellness centres continues to be bleak.

In truth, both limbs of the Ayushman Bharat strategy remain oblivious to the reality of the situation. The goals do not take into account the existing problems within access to healthcare, nor the relevant economic and social indicators that depict a contrasting reality.

Therefore, the fundamental question remains: if there is no established, well-functioning healthcare delivery system to support, what will the NHS help?

NHS: What Purpose Does It Serve?

The ambitious scope of the National Health Stack consultation paper aside, the central problem plaguing the Indian healthcare system, i.e, delivery, and access to healthcare, remains unaddressed. The first two problems that the NHS aims to solve focus solely on increasing health insurance coverage. However, very problematically, the document does not explicitly mention how a digital infrastructure would lead to rising enrollment of both beneficiaries and service providers of insurance.

This goal of increasing enrollment without a functioning healthcare system could result in two highly problematic scenarios.

Either health and wellness centres will effectively act as enrollment agencies rather than providers of healthcare, or the government would fall back on its ‘Aadhar approach’ and employ external enrollment agents.

The former approach runs a very real risk of the health and wellness centres losing focus on their primary purpose even while statistics show them as functioning centres – thus negatively impacting even the working centres. The latter approach is at a higher risk of running into problems akin to the case of Aadhaar enrollment, such as potential data leakages, identity thefts and a market for fake IDs. Even if we somehow overlook this and assume that the NHS would help increase insurance coverage without additional problems, the larger question still stands: should health insurance even be the primary goal of the government, over and above providing access to healthcare? And what effect will this have on the actual delivery of healthcare services to the common citizen?

A lone patient sleeps in the post operation recovery ward of the district hospital in Jind, Haryana, India. (Photographer: Prashanth Vishwanathan/Bloomberg)

Should Insurance Be A Primary Objective Of The Indian Government?

Simply put, the answer is no, because greater insurance coverage need not necessitate better access to healthcare. In recent years, health insurance in India has been rising rapidly due to government-sponsored schemes. In the fiscal year 2016-17, the health insurance market was prized to be worth Rs 30,392 crore. Even with such large investments in insurance premiums, the insurance market accounts for lesser than 5 percent of the total health expenditure.

Furthermore, previous experiences with government-sponsored health insurance schemes have proven that there is little merit to such an expensive task.

For instance, the government’s earlier health insurance scheme, Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana, was predicted to be unable to completely provide ‘accessible, affordable, accountable and good quality health care’ if it focussed only on “increasing financial means and freedom of choice in a top-down manner”.

These traditional insurance-based models are characterised by problems of information asymmetry such as ‘moral hazard’ — patients and healthcare providers have no incentive to control their costs and tend to overuse, resulting in an unsustainable insurance system and cost inflation. Any attempt to regulate providers is met with harsh, cost-cutting steps which end up harming patients.

On another note, some diseases which are responsible for the most number of deaths in the country — including ischaemic heart diseases, lower respiratory tract infections, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, tuberculosis and diarrhoeal diseases — are usually chronic conditions that need outpatient consultation, resulting in out-of-pocket expenses.

Patients wait at the Head and Neck Cancer Out Patient department of Tata Memorial Hospital in Mumbai, India. (Photographer: Prashanth Vishwanathan/Bloomberg News)

Even though the government has added non-communicable diseases under the ambit of the health and wellness centres, there are still reports stating that for some of the most impoverished, their reality is that 80 percent of the time, they have to cover their expenses from their pocket. This issue in all probability will continue to exist since the status and likelihood for these centres to be successful itself is questionable.

It is clear, that in the current scheme of things, this traditional insurance model of healthcare cannot benefit those it is meant for.

If this is the case, why has the NHS built its main objectives around insurance coverage rather than access to healthcare? It is imperative that we question the legitimacy of these goals, especially if they indicate the government's intentions to push health insurance via the NHS above its responsibility of delivering healthcare. The government's thrust for a digital infrastructure shows tremendous foresight, but at what cost? Even the clear goal of healthcare data portability has very little benefit when one understands that this becomes an important goal only when one has given up on ensuring widespread accessible healthcare. Once the focus shifts from using technology needlessly to developing an efficient and universally accessible healthcare delivery system, the need for data portability dramatically reduces. The temptation of digitisation and insurance coverage cannot and should not blind us from the main goal — access to healthcare. The one lesson that we must learn from the case of the U.K. is that even with a well-functioning healthcare delivery system, a digital infrastructure must be introduced very thoughtfully and carefully. In our eagerness to leapfrog with technology, we must not mistake a placebo for a panacea.

Murali Neelakantan is an expert in healthcare laws. Swaraj Barooah is Policy Director at The Centre for Internet and Society. Swagam Dasgupta and Torsha Sarkar are interns at The Centre for Internet and Society.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/bloomberg-quint-august-6-2018-murali-neelakantan-swaraj-barooah-swagam-dasgupta-torsha-sarkar-national-health-stack-an-expensive-temporary-placebo

Submission to the Facebook Oversight Board in Case 2021-008-FB-FBR: Brazil, Health Misinformation and Lockdowns

Tanvi Apte and Torsha Sarkar — 2021-07-01T07:34:09Z

In this note, we answer questions set out by the Board, pursuant to case 2021-008-FB-FBR, which concerned a post made by a Brazilian sub-national health official, and raised questions on health misinformation and enforcement of Facebook's community standards.

Background

The Oversight Board is an expert body created to exercise oversight over Facebook’s content moderation decisions and enforcement of community guidelines. It is entirely independent from Facebook in its funding and administration and provides decisions on questions of policy as well as individual cases. It can also make recommendations on Facebook’s content policies. Its decisions are binding on Facebook, unless implementing them could violate the law. Accordingly, Facebook implements these decisions across identical content with parallel context, when it is technically and operationally possible to do so.

In June 2021, the Board made an announcement soliciting public comments on case 2021-008-FB-FBR, concerning a Brazilian state level medical council’s post questioning the effectiveness of lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, the post noted that lockdowns (i) are ineffective; (ii) lead to an increase in mental disorders, alcohol abuse, drug abuse, economic damage etc.; (iii) are against fundamental rights under the Brazilian Constitution; and (iv) are condemned by the World Health Organisation (“WHO”). These assertions were backed up by two statements (i) an alleged quote by Dr. Nabarro (WHO) stating that “the lockdown does not save lives and makes poor people much poorer”; and (ii) an example of how the Brazilian state of Amazonas had an increase in deaths and hospital admissions after lockdown. Ultimately, the post concluded that effective COVID-19 preventive measures include education campaigns about hygiene measures, use of masks, social distancing, vaccination and extensive monitoring by the government — but never the decision to adopt lockdowns. The post was viewed around 32,000 times and shared over 270 times. It was not reported by anyone.

Facebook did not take any action against the post, since it had opined that the post is not violative of its community standards. Moreover, WHO has also not advised Facebook to remove claims against lockdowns. In such a scenario, Facebook referred the case to the Oversight Board citing its public importance.

In its announcement, the Board sought answers on the following points:

Whether Facebook’s decision to take no action against the content was consistent with its Community Standards and other policies, including the Misinformation and Harm policy (which sits within the rules on Violence and Incitement).
Whether Facebook’s decision to take no action is consistent with the company’s stated values and human rights commitments.
Whether, in this case, Facebook should have considered alternative enforcement measures to removing the content (e.g., the False News Community Standard places an emphasis on “reduce” and “inform,” including: labelling, downranking, providing additional context etc.), and what principles should inform the application of these measures.
How Facebook should treat content posted by the official accounts of national or sub-national level public health authorities, including where it may diverge from official guidance from international health organizations.
Insights on the post’s claims and their potential impact in the context of Brazil, including on national efforts to prevent the spread of COVID-19.
Whether Facebook should create a new Community Standard on health misinformation, as recommended by the Oversight Board in case decision 2020-006-FB-FBR.

Submission to the Board

Facebook’s decision to take no action against the post is consistent with its (i) Violence and Incitement community standard read with the COVID-19 Policy Updates and Protections; and (ii) False News community standard. Facebook’s website as well as all of the Board’s past decisions refer to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights’ (ICCPR) jurisprudence based three-pronged test of legality, legitimate aim, and necessity and proportionality in determining violations of Facebook’s community standards. Facebook must apply the same principles to guide the use of its enforcement actions too, keeping in mind the context, intent, tone and impact of the speech.

First, none of Facebook’s aforementioned rules contain explicit prohibitions on content questioning lockdown effectiveness. There is nothing to indicate that “misinformation”, which is undefined, includes within its scope information about the effectiveness of lockdowns. The World Health Organisation has also not advised against such posts. Applying the principle of legality, any person cannot reasonably foresee that such content is prohibited. Accordingly, Facebook’s community standards have not been violated,

Second, the post does not meet the threshold of causing “imminent” harm stipulated in the community standards. Case decision 2020-006-FB-FBR, notes that an assessment of “imminence” is made with reference to factors like context, speaker credibility, language etc. Presently, the post’s language and tone, including its quoting of experts and case studies, indicate that its intent is to encourage informed, scientific debate on lockdown effectiveness.

Third, Facebook’s false news community standard does contain any explicit prohibitions. Hence there is no question of its violation. Any decision to the contrary may go against the standard’s stated policy logic of not stifling public discourse, and create a chilling effect on posts questioning the lockdown efficacy. This will set a problematic precedent that Facebook will be mandated to implement.

Presently, Facebook cannot remove the post since no community standards have been violated. Facebook must not reduce the post’s circulation since this may stifle public discussion around lockdown effectiveness. Further, its removal would have resulted in violation of the user’s right to freedom of opinion and expression, as guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the ICCPR, which are in turn part of Facebook’s Corporate Human Rights Policy.

Instead, Facebook can provide additional context along with the post through its “related articles” feature, by showing fact checked articles talking about the benefits of lockdown. This approach is the most beneficial since (i) it is less restrictive than reducing circulation of the post; (ii) it balances interests better than not taking any actions by allowing people to be informed about both sides of the debate on lockdowns so that they can make an informed assessment.

Further, Facebook’s treatment of content posted by official accounts of national or sub-national health authorities should be circumscribed by its updated Newsworthy Content Policy, and the Board’s decision in the 2021-001-FB-FBR, which had adopted the Rabat Plan of Action to determine whether a restriction on freedom of expression is required to prevent incitement. The Rabat Plan of Action proposes a six-prong test, that considers: a) the social and political context, b) status of the speaker, c) intent to incite the audience against a target group, d) content and form of the speech, e) extent of its dissemination and f) likelihood of harm, including imminence. Apart from taking these factors into consideration, Facebook must perform a balancing test to determine whether the public interest of the information in the post outweighs the risks of harm.

In the Board’s decision in 2020-006-FB-FBR, it was recommended to Facebook to: a) set out a clear and accessible Community Standard on health misinformation, b) consolidate and clarify existing rules in one place (including defining key terms such as misinformation) and c) provision of "detailed hypotheticals that illustrate the nuances of interpretation and application of [these] rules" to provide further clarity for users. Following this, Facebook has notified its implementation measures, where it has fully implemented these recommendations, thereby bringing it into compliance.

Finally, Brazil is one of the worst affected countries in the pandemic. It has also been struggling to combat the spread of fake news during the pandemic. President Bolsanaro has been criticised for curbing free speech by using a dictatorship-era national security law., and questioned on his handling of the pandemic, including his own controversial statements questioning lockdown effectiveness. In such a scenario, the post may be perceived in a political colour rather than as an attempt at scientific discussion. However, it is unlikely that the post will lead to any-knee jerk reactions, since people are already familiar with the lockdown debate on which much has already been said and done. A post like this which merely reiterates one side of an ongoing debate is not likely to cause people to take any action to violate lockdown.

For detailed explanation on these questions, please see here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/submission-to-the-facebook-oversight-board-in-case-2021-008-fb-fbr-brazil-health-misinformation-and-lockdowns

Secure IT 2012 — Securing Citizens through Technology

praskrishna — 2012-04-28T04:06:47Z

The event is co-organised by DST and NSDI, Govt. of India in partnership with Elets Technomedia Pvt. Ltd. on March 1, 2012 at Claridges in New Delhi.

Draft Agenda

9.00 am – 9.30 am	Registration & Tea
9.30 am – 11.00 am	Inaugural Session

Securing Citizens through Technology

The SecureIT 2012 Inaugural Session would present an overview of the security scenario in the country, and place the use of ICT towards ensuring national security centrestage. The inaugural would also highlight the use that ICT is being put for in effective disaster management, minimising material as well as human loss.

The session would aim at identifying a policy roadmap towards making effective use of ICT for the purposes of national security, well-being of citizens and businesses in times of disaster and an uncertain external environment and identify the major policy objectives for the sector as a whole.

Introductory Remarks: Dr Ravi Gupta, CEO Elets Technomedia and Editor-in-Chief, egov
Welcome Address: Dr M P Narayanan, President, Centre for Science, Development and Media Studies
Inaugural Address: Anil K Sinha, Vice Chairman, Bihar State Disaster Management Authority, Government of Bihar – Chief Guest, SecureIT 2012

Panel Discussion:

S Regunathan, Former Chief Secretary, Government of NCT of Delhi
R S Sharma, Director General, UIDAI
Shankar Aggarwal, Additional Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Government of India
Shambhu Singh, Joint Secretary (North East), Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India
Ajay Sawhney, CEO, National e-Governance Division, Government of India
Major General (Dr) R Siva Kumar, Head, (NRDMS), Government of India

11. 00 am – 11.30 am	Networking Tea
11.30 am – 1.30 pm	Technical Session 1

Information Security – Securing Networks, Communications, Data and Applications

In the modern Information Age, knowledge is power like never before. A robust, secure communications network is not only desired, it is an absolute imperative in order to allow efficient functioning of the state. The communications networks have to be secured from state and non-state actors inimical to India. This session would highlight some major threats to the national communications infrastructure and the policies being adopted to counter these threats.

Chair: Ravi S Saxena, Additional Chief Secretary, DST, Government of Gujarat
Key Note Speaker: Dr Gulshan Rai, Director General, CERT-In

Distinguished Panellists:

S K Basu, Vice President, NIIT Technologies
Manas Sarkar, Head Pre-Sales (India & SAARC), Trend Micro
Ruchin Kumar, Principal Solution Architect, India and SAARC, Safenet India Pvt Ltd
Dr Kamlesh Bajaj, CEO, Data Security Council of India
Rajan Raj Pant, Controller, Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of Nepal
Prof. Anjali Kaushik, Management Development Institute, Gurgaon

1.30 pm – 2.30 pm	Lunch
2.30 pm – 5.00 pm	Technical Session 2

ICT in National Security and Policing

India faces a multiplicity of security challenges from within and without. Conventional responses to these challenges are no longer adequate and technology is being increasingly deployed to make the nation safer and more secure for residents, visitors and businesses. The legal framework has also been modified to incorporate modern technological advances.

The MHA has embarked upon a major project – Crime and Criminal Tracking System (CCTNS) that is expected to bring about a major overhaul of the policing system of the country. In this session, CCTNS and state adaptations of ICT in policing would be discussed along with an overview of technological advances in the field of security.

Chair: S Suresh Kumar, Joint Secretary (Centre-State), Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India

Distinguished Panellists:

NSN Murty, General Manager, Smarter Planet Solutions - India/ South Asia, IBM
Col Vishu Sikka, (Retd) General Manager – Defence, Aerospace & Public Security, SAP India & Subcontinent
Joachim Murat, Director of Sagem Morpho Security Pvt Ltd.
Hemant Sharma, Vice- Chair, BSA India Committee
Raj Prem Khilnani, DGP (Homeguard and Civil Defence), Maharashtra
Rajvir P Sharma, Additional Director General of Police, Bangalore Metropolitan Task Force
Loknath Behra, IGP, National Investigation Agency
Purushottam Sharma, IGP, State Crime Records Bureau, Madhya Pradesh
Ranjan Dwivedi, IGP, UP Police
Sanjay Sahay, IGP, Karnataka State Police

5.00 pm – 5. 30 pm	Networking Tea
5.30 pm – 7.00 pm	Technical Session 3

Managing Information for Safety and Security

In the modern age, ICT is deployed in a variety of ways for enhancing citizen safety and security. ICT is being widely used for disaster management, urban planning, census operations etc.

In this session, discussions would highlight some path-breaking uses of ICT for enhancing citizen safety in a number of diverse settings.

Chair: N Ravishanker, Additional Secretary, Universal Service Obligation Fund, DIT, Govt of India

Distinguished Panellists:

Sandeep Sehgal, IBM, VP, Public Sector, India and South Asia
Sanjeev Mital, CEO, National Institute of Smart Governance (NISG), Government of India
Dr R C Sethi, Additional Registrar General of India
Maj Gen R C Padhi, Assistant Surveyor General, Survey of India
Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, Center For Internet Society
V S Prakash, Director, Karnataka State Natural Disaster Monitoring Centre, Karnataka
Rajiv P Saxena, Deputy Director General, National Informatics Centre, Government of India
Jay Kay Gupta, Fire Chief, Delhi Development Authority

7.00 pm onwards

Valedictory Session: Way Ahead High Tea

VIDEO

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/secure-it-2012

Section 66-A, Information Technology Act, 2000: Cases

snehashish — 2012-12-06T09:20:51Z

In this blog post Snehashish Ghosh summarizes the facts of a few cases where Section 66-A, Information Technology Act, 2000, has been mentioned or discussed.

There has been numerous instances application of the Section 66-A, Information Technology Act, 2000 (“ITA”) in the lower courts. Currently, there are six High Court decisions, in which the section has been mentioned or discussed. In this blog post, I will be summarizing facts of a few cases insofar as they can be gathered from the orders of the Court and are pertinent to the application of 66-A, ITA.

Sajeesh Krishnan v. State of Kerala (Kerala High Court, Decided on June 5, 2012)

Petition before High Court for release of passport seized by investigating agency during arrest

In the case of Sajeesh Krishnan v. State of Kerala (Decided on June 5, 2012), a petition was filed before the Kerala High Court for release of passport seized at the time of arrest from the custody of the investigating agency. The Court accordingly passed an order for release of the passport of the petitioner.

The Court, while deciding the case, briefly mentioned the facts of the case which were relevant to the petition. It stated that the “gist of the accusation is that the accused pursuant to a criminal conspiracy hatched by them made attempts to extort money by black mailing a Minister of the State and for that purpose they have forged some CD as if it contained statements purported to have been made by the Minister.” The Court also noted the provisions under which the accused was charged. They are Sections 66-A(b) and 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 along with a host of sections under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (120B – Criminal Conspiracy, 419 – Cheating by personation, 511- Punishment for attempting to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life or other imprisonment, 420 – Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, 468 – Forgery for purpose of cheating, 469 – Forgery for purpose of harming and 201 – Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860)

Nikhil Chacko Sam v. State of Kerala (Kerala High Court, Decided on July 9, 2012)

Order of the Kerala High Court on issuing of the summons to the petitioner

In another case, the Kerala High Court while passing an order with respect to summons issued to the accused, also mentioned the charge sheet laid by the police against the accused in its order. The accused was charged under section 66-A, ITA. The brief facts which can be extracted from the order of the Court read: “that the complainant and the accused (petitioner) were together at Chennai. It is stated that on 04.09.2009, the petitioner has transmitted photos of the de facto complainant and another person depicting them in bad light through internet and thus the petitioner has committed the offence as mentioned above.”

J.R. Gangwani and Another v. State of Haryana and Others (Punjab and Haryana High Court, Decided on October 15, 2012)

Petition for quashing of criminal proceedings under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

In the Punjab and Haryana High Court, an application for quashing of criminal proceeding draws attention to a complaint which was filed under Section 66-A(c). This complaint was filed under Section 66-A(c) on the ground of sending e-mails under assumed e-mail addresses to customers of the Company which contained material which maligned the name of the Company which was to be sold as per the orders of the Company Law Board. The Complainant in the case received the e-mails which were redirected from the customers. According to the accused and the petitioner in the current hearing, the e-mail was not directed to the complainant or the company as is required under Section 66-A (c).

The High Court held that, “the petitioners are sending these messages to the purchasers of cranes from the company and those purchasers cannot be considered to be the possible buyers of the company. Sending of such e-mails, therefore, is not promoting the sale of the company which is the purpose of the advertisement given in the Economic Times. Such advertisements are, therefore, for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience to the company or to deceive or mislead the addressee about the origin of such messages. These facts, therefore, clearly bring the acts of the petitioners within the purview of section 66A(c) of the Act.”

Mohammad Amjad v. Sharad Sagar Singh and Ors. (Criminal Revision no. 72/2011 filed before the Court of Sh. Vinay Kumar Khana Additional Sessions Judge – 04 South East: Saket Courts Delhi)

Revision petition against the order of the metropolitan magistrate

In a revision petition came up before the Additional Sessions Judge on the grounds that the metropolitan magistrate has dismissed a criminal complaint under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code without discussing the ingredients of section 295-A, IPC and 66-A, IT Act.

In this case, the judge observed that, “...section 66A of Information Technology Act (IT Act) does not refer at all to any 'group' or 'class' of people. The only requirement of Section 66A IT Act is that the message which is communicated is grossly offensive in nature or has menacing character.” He also observed that the previous order “not at all considered the allegations from this angle and the applicability of Section 66A Information Technology Act, 2000 to the factual matrix of the instant case.”

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/section-66-a-information-technology-act-2000-cases

Right to Exclusion, Government Spaces, and Speech

TorShark — 2021-07-02T12:05:13Z

The conclusion of the litigation surrounding Trump blocking its critiques on Twitter brings to forefront two less-discussed aspects of intermediary liability: a) if social media platforms could be compelled to ‘carry’ speech under any established legal principles, thereby limiting their right to exclude users or speech, and b) whether users have a constitutional right to access social media spaces of elected officials. This essay analyzes these issues under the American law, as well as draws parallel for India, in light of the ongoing litigation around the suspension of advocate Sanjay Hegde’s Twitter account.

This article first appeared on the Indian Journal of Law and Technology (IJLT) blog, and can be accessed here. Cross-posted with permission.

---

Introduction

On April 8, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), vacated the judgment of the US Court of Appeals for Second Circuit’s in Knight First Amendment Institute v Trump. In that case, the Court of Appeals had precluded Donald Trump, then-POTUS, from blocking his critics from his Twitter account on the ground that such action amounted to the erosion of constitutional rights of his critics. The Court of Appeals had held that his use of @realDonaldTrump in his official capacity had transformed the nature of the account from private to public, and therefore, blocking users he disagreed with amounted to viewpoint discrimination, something that was incompatible with the First Amendment.

The SCOTUS ordered the case to be dismissed as moot, on account of Trump no longer being in office. Justice Clarence Thomas issued a ten-page concurrence that went into additional depth regarding the nature of social media platforms and user rights. It must be noted that the concurrence does not hold any direct precedential weightage, since Justice Thomas was not joined by any of his colleagues at the bench for the opinion. However, given that similar questions of public import, are currently being deliberated in the ongoing Sanjay Hegde litigation in the Delhi High Court, Justice Thomas’ concurrence might hold some persuasive weightage in India. While the facts of these litigations might be starkly different, both of them are nevertheless characterized by important questions of applying constitutional doctrines to private parties like Twitter and the supposedly ‘public’ nature of social media platforms.

In this essay, we consider the legal questions raised in the opinion as possible learnings for India. In the first part, we analyze the key points raised by Justice Thomas, vis-a-vis the American legal position on intermediary liability and freedom of speech. In the second part, we apply these deliberations to the Sanjay Hegde litigation, as a case-study and a roadmap for future legal jurisprudence to be developed.

A flawed analogy

At the outset, let us briefly refresh the timeline of Trump’s tryst with Twitter, and the history of this litigation: the Court of Appeals decision was issued in 2019, when Trump was still in office. Post-November 2020 Presidential Election, where he was voted out, his supporters broke into Capitol Hill. Much of the blame for the attack was pinned on Trump’s use of social media channels (including Twitter) to instigate the violence and following this, Twitter suspended his account permanently.

It is this final fact that seized Justice Thomas’ reasoning. He noted that a private party like Twitter’s power to do away with Trump’s account altogether was at odds with the Court of Appeals’ earlier finding about the public nature of the account. He deployed a hotel analogy to justify this: government officials renting a hotel room for a public hearing on regulation could not kick out a dissenter, but if the same officials gather informally in the hotel lounge, then they would be within their rights to ask the hotel to kick out a heckler. The difference in the two situations would be that, “the government controls the space in the first scenario, the hotel, in the latter.” He noted that Twitter’s conduct was similar to the second situation, where it “control(s) the avenues for speech”. Accordingly, he dismissed the idea that the original respondents (the users whose accounts were blocked) had any First Amendment claims against Trump’s initial blocking action, since the ultimate control of the ‘avenue’ was with Twitter, and not Trump.

In the facts of the case however, this analogy was not justified. The Court of Appeals had not concerned itself with the question of private ‘control’ of entire social media spaces, and given the timeline of the litigation, it was impossible for them to pre-empt such considerations within the judgment. In fact, the only takeaway from the original decision had been that an elected representative’s utilization of his social media account for official purposes transformed only that particular space into a public forum where constitutional rights would find applicability. In delving into questions of ‘control’ and ‘avenues of speech’, issues that had been previously unexplored, Justice Thomas conflates a rather specific point into a much bigger, general conundrum. Further deliberations in the concurrence are accordingly put forward upon this flawed premise.

Right to exclusion (and must carry claims)

From here, Justice Thomas identified the problem to be “private, concentrated control over online content and platforms available to the public”, and brought forth two alternate regulatory systems — common carrier and public accommodation — to argue for ‘equal access’ over social media space. He posited that successful application of either of the two analogies would effectively restrict a social media platform’s right to exclude its users, and “an answer may arise for dissatisfied platform users who would appreciate not being blocked”. Essentially, this would mean that platforms would be obligated to carry all forms of (presumably) legal speech, and users would be entitled to sue platforms in case they feel their content has been unfairly taken down, a phenomenon Daphne Keller describes as ‘must carry claims’.

Again, this is a strange place to find the argument to proceed, since the original facts of the case were not about ‘dissatisfied platform users’, but an elected representative’s account being used in dissemination of official information. Beyond the initial ‘private’ control deliberation, Justice Thomas did not seem interested in exploring this original legal position, and instead emphasized on analogizing social media platforms in order to enforce ‘equal access’, finally arriving at a position that would be legally untenable in the USA.

The American law on intermediary liability, as embodied in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), has two key components: first, intermediaries are protected against the contents posted by its users, under a legal model termed as ‘broad immunity’, and second, an intermediary does not stand to lose its immunity if it chooses to moderate and remove speech it finds objectionable, popularly known as the Good Samaritan protection. It is the effect of these two components, combined, that allows platforms to take calls on what to remove and what to keep, translating into a ‘right to exclusion’. Legally compelling them to carry speech, under the garb of ‘access’ would therefore, strike at the heart of the protection granted by the CDA.

Learnings for India

In his petition to the Delhi High Court, Senior Supreme Court Advocate, Sanjay Hegde had contested that the suspension of his Twitter account, on the grounds of him sharing anti-authoritarian imagery, was arbitrary and that:

Twitter was carrying out a public function and would be therefore amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution; and
The suspension of his account had amounted to a violation of his right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) and his rights to assembly and association under Article 19(1)(b) and 19(1)(c); and
The government has a positive obligation to ensure that any censorship on social media platforms is done in accordance with Article 19(2).

The first two prongs of the original petition are perhaps easily disputed: as previous commentary has pointed out, existing Indian constitutional jurisprudence on ‘public function’ does not implicate Twitter, and accordingly, it would be a difficult to make out a case that account suspensions, no matter how arbitrary, would amount to a violation of the user’s fundamental rights. It is the third contention that requires some additional insight in the context of our previous discussion.

Does the Indian legal system support a right to exclusion?

Suing Twitter to reinstate a suspended account, on the ground that such suspension was arbitrary and illegal, is in its essence a request to limit Twitter’s right to exclude its users. The petition serves as an example of a must-carry claim in the Indian context and vindicates Justice Thomas’ (misplaced) defence of ‘dissatisfied platform users’. Legally, such claims perhaps have a better chance of succeeding here, since the expansive protection granted to intermediaries via Section 230 of the CDA, is noticeably absent in India. Instead, intermediaries are bound by conditional immunity, where availment of a ‘safe harbour’, i.e., exemption from liability, is contingent on fulfilment of statutory conditions, made under section 79 of the Information Technology (IT) Act and the rules made thereunder. Interestingly, in his opinion, Justice Thomas had briefly visited a situation where the immunity under Section 230 was made conditional: to gain Good Samaritan protection, platforms might be induced to ensure specific conditions, including ‘nondiscrimination’. This is controversial (and as commentators have noted, wrong), since it had the potential to whittle down the US' ‘broad immunity’ model of intermediary liability to a system that would resemble the Indian one.

It is worth noting that in the newly issued Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, proviso to Rule 3(1)(d) allows for “the removal or disabling of access to any information, data or communication link [...] under clause (b) on a voluntary basis, or on the basis of grievances received under sub-rule (2) [...]” without dilution of statutory immunity. This does provide intermediaries a right to exclude, albeit limited, since its scope is restricted to content removed under the operation of specific sub-clauses within the rules, as opposed to Section 230, which is couched in more general terms. Of course, none of this precludes the government from further prescribing obligations similar to those prayed in the petition.

On the other hand, it is a difficult proposition to support that Twitter’s right to exclusion should be circumscribed by the Constitution, as prayed. In the petition, this argument is built over the judgment in Shreya Singhal v Union of India, where it was held that takedowns under section 79 are to be done only on receipt of a court order or a government notification, and that the scope of the order would be restricted to Article 19(2). This, in his opinion, meant that “any suo-motu takedown of material by intermediaries must conform to Article 19(2)”.

To understand why this argument does not work, it is important to consider the context in which the Shreya Singhal judgment was issued. Previously, intermediary liability was governed by the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011 issued under section 79 of the IT Act. Rule 3(4) made provisions for sending takedown orders to the intermediary, and the prerogative to send such orders was on ‘an affected person’. On receipt of these orders, the intermediary was bound to remove content and neither the intermediary nor the user whose content was being censored, had the opportunity to dispute the takedown.

As a result, the potential for misuse was wide-open. Rishabh Dara’s research provided empirical evidence for this; intermediaries were found to act on flawed takedown orders, on the apprehension of being sanctioned under the law, essentially chilling free expression online. The Shreya Singhal judgment, in essence, reined in this misuse by stating that an intermediary is legally obliged to act only when a takedown order is sent by the government or the court. The intent of this was, in the court’s words: “it would be very difficult for intermediaries [...] to act when millions of requests are made and the intermediary is then to judge as to which of such requests are legitimate and which are not.”

In light of this, if Hegde’s petition succeeds, it would mean that intermediaries would now be obligated to subsume the entirety of Article 19(2) jurisprudence in their decision-making, interpret and apply it perfectly, and be open to petitions from users when they fail to do so. This might be a startling undoing of the court’s original intent in Shreya Singhal. Such a reading also means limiting an intermediary’s prerogative to remove speech that may not necessarily fall within the scope of Article 19(2), but is still systematically problematic, including unsolicited commercial communications. Further, most platforms today are dealing with an unprecedented spread and consumption of harmful, misleading information. Limiting their right to exclude speech in this manner, we might be exacerbating this problem.

Government-controlled spaces on social media platforms

On the other hand, the original finding of the Court of Appeals, regarding the public nature of an elected representative’s social media account and First Amendment rights of the people to access such an account, might yet still prove instructive for India. While the primary SCOTUS order erases the precedential weight of the original case, there have been similar judgments issued by other courts in the USA, including by the Fourth Circuit court and as a result of a lawsuit against a Texas Attorney General.

A similar situation can be envisaged in India as well. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that Article 19(1)(a) encompasses not just the right to disseminate information, but also the right to receive information, including receiving information on matters of public concern. Additionally, in Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting v Cricket Association of Bengal, the Court had held that the right of dissemination included the right of communication through any media: print, electronic or audio-visual. Then, if we assume that government-controlled spaces on social media platforms, used in dissemination of official functions, are ‘public spaces’, then the government’s denial of public access to such spaces can be construed to be a violation of Article 19(1)(a).

Conclusion

As indicated earlier, despite the facts of the two litigations being different, the legal questions embodied within converge startlingly, inasmuch that are both examples of the growing discontent around the power wielded by social media platforms, and the flawed attempts at fixing it.

While the above discussion might throw some light on the relationship between an individual, the state and social media platforms, many questions still continue to remain unanswered. For instance, once we establish that users have a fundamental right to access certain spaces within the social media platform, then does the platform have a right to remove that space altogether? If it does so, can a constitutional remedy be made against the platform? Initial commentary on the Court of Appeals’ decision had contested that the takeaway from that judgment had been that constitutional norms had a primacy over the platform’s own norms of governance. In such light, would the platform be constitutionally obligated to not suspend a government account, even if the content on such an account continues to be harmful, in violation of its own moderation standards?

This is an incredibly tricky dimension of the law, made trickier still by the dynamic nature of the platforms, the intense political interests permeating the need for governance, and the impacts on users in the instance of a flawed solution. Continuous engagement, scholarship and emphasis on having a human rights-respecting framework underpinning the regulatory system, are the only ways forward.

---

The author would like to thank Gurshabad Grover and Arindrajit Basu for reviewing this piece.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/right-to-exclusion-government-spaces-and-speech

Reply to RTI filed with BSNL regarding Network Neutrality and Throttling

tarun — 2014-12-22T14:45:03Z

As part of its work on Network Neutrality, the Centre for Internet and Society through Tarun Krishnakumar had filed a Right To Information (RTI) application with Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL), a state-owned teleco holding a market share of 65 per cent in the Indian land line and broadband markets — regarding its position on and adherence to Network Neutrality principles.

The application — targeted at easing the information asymmetry between internet service providers (ISPs) and consumers — elicited responses that provide interesting insights into the functioning of ISPs in India.

The application queried BSNL about its:

Adherence to net neutrality / non-discrimination principles
Throttling on the basis of content
Throttling on the basis of protocol
Limiting traffic / speeds for pornographic websites
Limiting traffic / speeds for P2P / torrent connection

In its reply, BSNL denied all forms of throttling on the basis of content and reaffirmed that it is bound by the terms of its ISP license granted by the Department of Telecommunications. The application and response are below:

Application:

Request for Information under the Right to Information Act, 2005

To,

Sh. Suresh Kumar
Addl.GM (MIS) & CPIO ,BSNL Co.
R. No. -29, IR Hall
Eastern Court, Janpath
New Delhi – 110001

Date of application: 08-10-2014

Subject: Network Neutrality / Throttling / Data discrimination policies of BSNL

Please provide information as to the policies of BSNL / decisions taken in respect of the following questions. Please supply where possible a copy of the relevant documents, minutes of meeting, position papers etc.

Does BSNL support the principle of net neutrality and non-discrimination of data?
Does BSNL regulate internet traffic flows depending on the type of content being accessed by the user on its broadband connections?
Does BSNL regulate internet traffic flows depending on the type of protocol being used by the user on its broadband connections?
Please provide details of the various types of content/protocols for which BSNL regulates traffic and the nature of such regulations, restrictions as the case may be.
Please provide a list of traffic for which BSNL engages in limiting internet speed or throttling.
Does BSNL limit internet traffic or upload/download speeds for pornographic websites and content?
Does BSNL limit internet traffic or upload/download speeds for Peer-to-peer or torrent connections?

Please provide copies of all documents that pertain to BSNL’s policies and decisions in this regard.

It is certified that I am a citizen of India and that I do not fall within the BPL category. I am enclosing Rupees thirty (Rs. 30) towards the application fee and photocopying costs under the RTI Act for the information and documents requested. Kindly inform me at the address stated below if any further fees are required to be paid.

Applicant:

Tarun Krishnakumar
Centre for Internet and Society
No.194, 2nd C Cross Road, Domlur II Stage,
Bangalore - 560071

RESPONSE FROM BSNL:

To,

Sh. Tarun Krishnakumar
Centre for Internet and Society
No. 194, 2^nd C Cross Road, Domulur II stage,
Bengaluru – 560071

Subject: Supply of Information under RTI ACT – 2005

Case of Shri. Tarun Krishnakumar – reg.

Ref: - 1. No. BSNL/BBNW/RTI Act/Vol II/2012-13/52 dtd 28.10.2014

2. No. 23-744/14-RTI dtd 21.10.2014

With reference to the above subject, for the point wise information furnished as below:

BSNL is following the guidelines as per the ISP License Agreement of DOT.
NO, BSNL is NOT regulating the Internet traffic flow based on content.
NO, BSNL is not regulating the Internet traffic flow based on the type of protocol.
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
NO
NO
The documents relating to above are available on DOT’s website http://dot.gov.in

(Sd/-)

DE Admin and APIO
O/o General Manager
BBNW, BSNL,
5^th floor, BG (E), TE Building,
Lazar Road, Fraser Town,
Bengaluru – 560005
Tel No. 080 - 25808878

Copy to:

The Addl. GM (A) & CPIP O/o CGM, BBNW, New Delhi for information pl.

The scanned version of the reply is available here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/reply-to-rti-filed-with-bsnl-regarding-network-neutrality-and-throttling

Pycon India 2019

Admin — 2019-08-27T00:04:03Z

K. Bhuvana Meenakshi gave a talk at BangPypers organized by Python Software Society in Bangalore on August 25, 2019. She spoke on Let the world experience WebXR!

For more info, click here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/pycon-india-2019

Privacy after Big Data: Compilation of Early Research

Saumyaa Naidu — 2016-11-12T01:37:03Z

Download the Compilation (PDF)

Privacy after Big Data

Evolving data science, technologies, techniques, and practices, including big data, are enabling shifts in how the public and private sectors carry out their functions and responsibilities, deliver services, and facilitate innovative production and service models to emerge. For example, in the public sector, the Indian government has considered replacing the traditional poverty line with targeted subsidies based on individual household income and assets. The my.gov.in platform is aimed to enable participation of the connected citizens, to pull in online public opinion in a structured manner on key governance topics in the country. The 100 Smart Cities Mission looks forwards to leverage big data analytics and techniques to deliver services and govern citizens within city sub-systems. In the private sector, emerging financial technology companies are developing credit scoring models using big, small, social, and fragmented data so that people with no formal credit history can be offered loans. These models promote efficiency and reduction in cost through personalization and are powered by a wide variety of data sources including mobile data, social media data, web usage data, and passively collected data from usages of IoT or connected devices.

These data technologies and solutions are enabling business models that are based on the ideals of ‘less’: cash-less, presence-less, and paper-less. This push towards an economy premised upon a foundational digital ID in a prevailing condition of absent legal frameworks leads to substantive loss of anonymity and privacy of individual citizens and consumers vis-a-vis both the state and the private sector. Indeed, the present use of these techniques run contrary to the notion of the ‘sunlight effect’ - making the individual fully transparent (often without their knowledge) to the state and private sector, while the algorithms and means of reaching a decision are opaque and inaccessible to the individual.

These techniques, characterized by the volume of data processed, the variety of sources data is processed from, and the ability to both contextualize - learning new insights from disconnected data points - and de-contextualize - finding correlation rather than causation - have also increased the value of all forms of data. In some ways, big data has made data exist on an equal playing field as far as monetisation and joining up are concerned. Meta data can be just as valuable to an entity as content data. As data science techniques evolve to find new ways of collecting, processing, and analyzing data - the benefits of the same are clear and tangible, while the harms are less clear, but significantly present.

Is it possible for an algorithm to discriminate? Will incorrect decisions be made based on data collected? Will populations be excluded from necessary services if they do not engage with certain models or do emerging models overlook certain populations? Can such tools be used to surveil individuals at a level of granularity that was formerly not possible and before a crime occurs? Can such tools be used to violate rights – for example target certain types of speech or groups online? And importantly, when these practices are opaque to the individual, how can one seek appropriate and effective remedy.

Traditionally, data protection standards have defined and established protections for certain categories of data. Yet, data science techniques have evolved beyond data protection principles. It is now infinitely harder to obtain informed consent from an individual when data that is collected can be used for multiple purposes by multiple bodies. Providing notice for every use is also more difficult – as is fulfilling requirements of data minimization. Some say privacy is dead in the era of big data. Others say privacy needs to be re-conceptualized, while others say protecting privacy now, more than ever, requires a ‘regulatory sandbox’ that brings together technical design, markets, legislative reforms, self regulation, and innovative regulatory frameworks. It also demands an expanding of the narrative around privacy – one that has largely been focused on harms such as misuse of data or unauthorized collection – to include discrimination, marginalization, and competition harms.

In this compilation we have put together a series of articles that we have developed as we explore the impacts – positive and negative – of big data. This includes looking at India’s data protection regime in the context of big data, reviewing literature on the benefits of harms of big data, studying emerging predictive policing techniques that rely on big data, and analyzing closely the impact of big data on specific privacy principles such as consent. This is a growing body of research that we are exploring and is relevant to multiple areas of our work including privacy and surveillance. Feedback and comments on the compilation are welcome and appreciated.

Elonnai Hickok
Director - Internet Governance

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/privacy-after-big-data-compilation-of-early-research

Policy Shaping in the Indian IT Industry: Recommendations by NASSCOM, 2006-2012

Pavishka Mittal — 2016-07-04T08:11:05Z

This is the first of a series of three blog posts, authored by Pavishka Mittal, tracking the engagements by NASSCOM and iSPIRT in suggesting and shaping the IT industry policies in India during 2006-2016. This posts focuses on the policy activities of NASSCOM in 2006-2012 with specific reference to Special Economic Zones, E-Commerce Industry and Transfer Pricing, along with a few other miscellaneous important recommendations.

1. Introduction

2. Tax Reforms in Special Economic Zones (SEZs)

3. E-Commerce Industry

4. Transfer Pricing Issues

5. Other Recommendations

5.1. Concerns with the Union Budget Proposals

5.2. Request for Clarity in Classification of Transactions and Guidelines

5.3. New Retrograde Obligations under Law

6. Endnotes

7. Author Profile

1. Introduction

The National Association of Software and Services Companies (NASSCOM) was established in 1988 as a non-profit, global trade association registered under the Indian Societies Act 1860 representing the interests of the IT Industry, now with over 1500 members. Its objective is to facilitate trade in the software development and services, software products, IT enabled/BPO services and e-commerce. It also undertakes research projects for facilitating innovation in advanced software and maintains data on industry trends, even a national database of registered and verified knowledge workers in the industry. Nevertheless, its role of policy advocacy cannot be over emphasized. It regularly interacts with the Government of India to bring about a favourable business environment for the IT Industry.

This blog post, the first part in a series, discusses NASSCOM’s major issues with policies of the Government of India in the period 2006-2012. The concerns of the IT industry, as highlighted by NASSCOM in the period aforementioned are with reference to the Special Economic Zones, E-Commerce Industry and Transfer Pricing broadly along with other miscellaneous important recommendations. The subsequent blog posts will focus on specific tax issues post 2012 and will elaborately discuss transfer pricing related concerns.

2. Tax Reforms in Special Economic Zones (SEZs)

The ITes and BPO industry constitutes a sizable portion of the number of SEZs in the country [1] so much so that it has been argued that the IT industry alone reaps the benefits of the SEZs and STPIs to the exclusion of the other sectors [2].

The most salient incentive in the SEZ Act enacted by the Government of India in 2005 had been income tax exemption of export profits which contributed to the scheme’s success in attracting major investments [3]. Further, exemption from minimum alternate tax had been provided under section 115JB of the Income Tax Act. However, in 2011, the government decided to impose a Minimum Alternate Tax upto the rate of 18.5% on the book profits of SEZ’s developers and units through the Finance Act 2012 by introducing amendments to the Income Tax Act 1961, to be effective from April 2012 [4]. NASSCOM took a strong stance against equality in corporate tax liability as such tax is sought to be imposed upon income derived from investments made with a commitment of tax exemption. The intention of the government in making such policies having regressive outcomes will be judged if key promised characteristics of SEZs were differential economic laws from the remaining domestic territory. For all practical purposes, they are deemed to be foreign territories for the levy of trade duties and tariffs [5]. In the case of Mindtree Limited v. Union of India [6], software company Mindtree argued that the imposition of MAT in SEZs was against the concept of promissory estoppel and the doctrine of legitimate expectation, which rendered such taxes constitutionally invalid [7]. Even though a time limit was not prescribed for the above tax exemption, it was argued that SEZ policy was predicated on tax relief and the subsequent change in policy was arbitrary and unfair. Individual taxpayers and undertakings should not be affected by subsequent laws if they make sizable investments, modify business models and bear the added expenses of moving into or developing a SEZ. It cannot be disputed that this argument is untenable keeping in mind that the legislature cannot be bound by past promises in line with practical considerations and their independence with regard to the effective discharge of public functions. It was held that the legislature cannot be bound by the doctrine of promissory estoppel [8].

The Adani group had also challenged the imposition of MAT in the Gujarat HC in 2011 on the ground that that any amendments to the SEZ Act can only be brought about by amendments to the SEZ Act itself, and not through the Finance Act [9]. The SC in Madurai District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. [10] held that the parliament has the authority to introduce a new charge of tax even by incorporating it in any other statute other than the act. However, the fact remains that such policies lead to a volatile business environment and the importance of stable business policies cannot be overemphasized. In 2011, NASSCOM recommended that MAT be withdrawn as it is opposed to the government’s long term policy of SEZ’s growth [11]. Alternatively, it stated that the imposition of MAT be withdrawn to ensure the continued economic viability of the SEZs which have already been notified by the government [12]. It also stated that international norms should be applied for the determination of the MAT rate, which was 1/3rd of the corporate tax rates [13].

Another concern highlighted by other stakeholders was the prescribed period of ten years for the setting of the MAT against regular tax liability. This MAT credit may expire or be on the verge of expiration for participants in SEZs who enjoy tax holiday for a prescribed number of years when they start operations due to absence of initial tax liability. Foreign investors will face difficulties in claiming tax benefits in their home jurisdictions for MAT paid in India. Further, the exemption granted to SEZ developers as to the levy of Dividend Distribution Tax @ 15% has been revoked by the Finance Ministry in 2011 severely affecting the IT industry.

The government finally took note of the increased disinvestment as a consequence of such taxes and proposed to make the imposition of MAT and Dividend Distribution Tax inapplicable to SEZ’s in 2015 [14].

3. E-Commerce Industry

NASSCOM in 2012 suggested the lowering of the interchange tax rate on debit cards transactions by the RBI. Debit cards possess lower risk in comparison to credit cards, the transactions being concluded immediately and the same should be reflected in the form of differential taxes. A standard 1-2% interchange/transaction fees were generally levied by banks. NASSCOM also recommended the introduction of a 2% tax incentive on the purchase of products online to facilitate increased purchases and encourage consumers to even undertake small value transactions online. Further, it emphasized that the base of e-commerce users have to be expanded. It commented on the differences in the Internet usage costs between China and India, USD 10 and USD 15-20 respectively. High internet usage costs can only be indicative of reduced Internet access. However, this is not to state that the E-commerce industry is unsuited for India due to infrastructural inefficiencies. NASSCOM has stated that India as of 2012 possesses over 100 million Internet users. Technology has to be developed which would reduce dropout rates of transactions. Further it suggested the creation of an online receipt repository which would store all online transaction receipts, accessible through mobile phones or the internet. It would contribute in increasing customer confidence by enabling tracking of payment, delivery etc.

The RBI in response to the recommendations of NASSCOM and the Online Payment Advisory Group [15] and in consultation with all concerned stakeholders, decided to put a maximum limit on the Merchant Discount Rate (MDR) for transactions undertaken with a debit card [16].

4. Transfer Pricing Issues

Transfer Pricing has become the dominant international tax issue affecting multinational corporations operating in India [17]. As noted by NASSCOM, a steep rise in litigation and the number of transfer pricing adjustments with the Indian Revenue Authority (IRA) has been observed due to ‘increased scrutiny’ by the IRA who has been rejecting the profit declared by foreign companies accruing to Indian subsidiaries by applying very high markups in this sector. Increased complications in setting valid prices through this process have arisen due to the rising presence of ‘highly complex transactions’ involving intangibles and multi-tiered services across the world. The Finance Act 2012 extended the applicability of domestic party transactions to certain related domestic parties, if the aggregate value of such transactions exceeds INR 5 crore, to any expenditure with respect to which deduction is claimed while calculating profits and to transactions related to businesses eligible for profit-linked tax incentives, including SEZ units under section 10AA [18].

NASSCOM has proposed a three pronged approach to the problem of backlog of cases and absence of certainty of price of transactions:

Implementation of Safe Harbour provisions to resolve existing disputes.
Introduction of Advance Pricing Agreements [19] to set fair and transparent prices.
Initiation of review of the structure and procedure of the Dispute Resolution Panel [20].

The Finance Act 2009 introduced section 92CB [21] in the Income Tax Act 1961 which provided for the subjection of the arms length price determined under section 92C or section 92CA to Safe Harbour Rules, to be declared by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). For the valid determination of such a transfer price, the minimum transfer price that a taxpayer is expected to earn for international transactions is prescribed along with certain specific norms for particular transactions. The safe harbour transfer price for eligible transactions is subject to certain prescribed minimum ceilings [22]. A price determined in accordance with such guidelines would be deemed to be an Arms Length Price (ALP). To that extent the safe Harbour Rules are in the nature of ‘presumptive taxation’ and incentivises IT firms to avoid unnecessary litigation by opting for the same. Unilateral, bilateral and multilateral Advance Pricing Agreements, binding on the taxpayer and the revenue authorities for five consecutive years have been introduced with effect from 1 July 2012. Certain domestic transactions are inapplicable for APA’s in the absence of other monetary conditions/stipulations under law for entering into an APA. Documentation on comparables is required to be maintained to substantiate compliance with arms length principle.

The concerns of the prescribed rates include non-representation of industry benchmarks and economic realities in as much as the prescribed rates exceed the actual arms length prices, often leading to the risk of double taxation in foreign jurisdictions. The division of IT services into two components has also been criticized as many of the activities might overlap. NASSCOM has stated that it is not clear how the existing current issues are proposed to be resolved. The introduction of domestic parties as applicable parties to be subject to the transfer pricing regulations will only increase the complexity in the law. There has been subsequent judicial development involving the establishment of some principles for the valid determination of comparables for the purpose of identifying an acceptable transfer price which will be discussed in the next blog post.

5. Other Recommendations

5.1. Concerns with the Union Budget Proposals

NASSCOM summarized that the Union Budget Proposals 2012-13 focus on the reduction of the fiscal deficit through higher taxation rather than expenditure management. More specifically, it focuses on the following concerns of the IT Industry:

The issues of tax simplification have not been resolved as no roadmap for the implementation of the Direct Taxes Code and the Goods and Services Tax Bill has been provided.
The increase in the Current Account Deficit should have incentivized the government to introduce measures which facilitate high value exports, which has been wholly ignored from the budget.
Increase in indirect taxes, namely excise duty and service tax is a retrograde policy measure.
Restrictive conditions in the SEZ Act 2005 which do not facilitate the setting up of small companies, have to be modified.
There is no mention of reduction of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) for SMEs and introduction of non-profit linked incentives in the form of employment benefits etc. in the proposal.
Similar provisions should also be introduced for Tier II and III cities in the country.
Some announcements as to the simplification of service tax refund and the removal of the provisions involving dual levy of service tax and VAT are not sufficient to resolve ambiguities in law. NASSCOM, in light of the increasing delays of service tax, suggested exemption of export activity from such tax and the applicability of a simplified mechanism similar to CENVAT wherein exemption will be provided to exporters in proportion of their exports to total sales.

5.2. Request for Clarity in Classification of Transactions and Guidelines

NASSCOM in its pre-budget recommendations had suggested that in light of the confusion of the characterization of software as goods or services and the resultant dual taxation, in the form of taxes paid to both the Central and the State Governments, the provision of software, whether customized or packaged should be treated as a service irrespective of the media and mode of transfer with the assurance from the States that no VAT shall be leviable on software. Further, guidelines have to be outlined for various e-commerce transactions like database subscription, cloud computing, webhosting and data warehousing. Onsite exporter of services are being denied the benefits of certain tax exemptions due to the sunset of STPI provisions, thus forming the need for a formal clarification by the government deeming these activities to be an integral component of the IT services industry.

5.3. New Retrograde Obligations under Law

NASSCOM emphasized that the introduction of certain provisions, related to GAAR, related party transactions and the withholding of tax in the Finance Bill, some of these retrospective in nature, enhance the difficulties faced by the IT industry. Increased obligations on the corporate tax payers in the form of imposition of additional taxes will only increase the scope of multiple interpretations of the provisions which will lead to the exercise of discretionary powers by the tax authorities.

6. Endnotes

[1] As of September 2011, a significant majority of the 143 operational SEZs in the country belonged to the IT/ITeS and electronic hardware as per data released by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry.

[2] See: http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-02-25/news/31099874_1_sez-unit-sez-promoters-multi-product.

[3] Section 10AA of the Income Tax Act provides for 100% income tax exemption on export income for SEZ units for the first five years, 50% for the next five years and 50% of the ploughed back export profit for the next five years.

[4] See: http://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/govt-imposes-18-5-mat-on-sez-developers-units-111022800153_1.html.

[5] See: http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2005-07-08/news/27506703_1_special-economic-zone-act-sez-act-sez-bill.

[6] (2013)260CTR(Kar)146.

[7] The doctrines of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation, arising from legal relationships and reasonable expectation, respectively, are flexible equitable reliefs not defined in any statute. Judicial decisions have held that a party would not be entitled to go back on a clear and unequivocal promise which was intended to create legal relations, knowing or intending that it would be acted upon by the other party to whom the promise was made and acted upon by the other party under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. Legitimate expectation of a certain treatment arises against representation by an administrative authority, whether express (through promises), or implied (through consistent past practice) despite absence of any right otherwise.

[8] It was held that the action of the government is legal as every tax exemption provision should also incorporate a sunset clause. The deletion of the exemption under law would only reduce the erosion of the tax base.

[9] See: http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2011-05-11/news/29532409_1_sez-act-minimum-alternative-tax-mat.

[10] Madurai District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. ITO (1975) 101 ITR 24(SC), the form and method of introduction of a legislation is not of importance provided the requirement of competence by the legislature to pass the deemed law with respect to its subject matter is satisfied. An amendment of a taxing statute, by an unconventional method of incorporation through an act of a different pith and substance is not unconstitutional. The primary purpose of the Finance Acts is to prescribe tax rates for taxes specified in the Income Tax Act. However, the above fact does not restrain the freedom of the legislature to impose an altogether new tax through the Finance Act or any other deemed legislation besides the Income Tax Act.

[11] See: http://www.nasscom.in/nasscom-prebudget-recommendations.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid.

[14] See: http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2015-02-13/news/59119589_1_sez-developers-and-units-minimum-alternate-tax-special-economic-zones.

[15] Formed in 2012 to examine the challenges faced by the E-commerce Industry in India and to recommend changes needed to facilitate the creation of a vibrant online payment sector.

[16] Not exceeding 1 percent for transaction amount for value above 2,000. The directive was issued under section 18 of the Payments and Settlement Systems Act, with effect from July 1, 2012.

[17] See: http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/international-transfer-pricing/assets/india.pdf.

[18] This amendment would extend to any other transaction as may be specified and would be applicable for FY 2012-13 and subsequent years.

[19] An Advance Pricing Agreement, generally covering multiple years, entered into between a taxpayer and at least one tax authority lays down the method of transfer pricing to be applicable to the taxpayer’s inter-company transactions which eliminates the need for transfer pricing adjustments for enclosed transactions provided the terms of the agreement are complied with.

[20] The Finance Act 2009 inserted section 144C in the Income Tax Act which provides for the constitution of an alternative dispute resolution mechanism for transfer pricing taxation matters, namely a DRP (Dispute Resolution Panel) consisting of three commissioners rank officers.

[21] Section 92CB defines Safe Harbour to be ‘circumstances under which the income tax authorities shall accept the transfer pricing declared by the assessee.’ The procedure for adopting safe harbour, the transfer price to be adopted, the compliance procedure upon adoption of safe harbours and circumstances in which a safe harbour adopted may be held to be invalid is specified in the new rules in 10TA to 10AG issued by the CBDT on 18th September 2013.

[22]

Provision of software development services and information technology enabled services with insignificant risks- upto rs 500 crore- 20% or more on total operating costs, above rs 500 crore- 22% or more on total operating costs.
Provision of knowledge processes outsourcing services with insignificant risks-25% or more on total operating costs.
Provision of specified contract R & D services wholly or partly relating to software development with insignificant risks- 30% or more on total operating costs.

7. Author Profile

Pavishka Mittal is a law student at West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata and has completed her second year. She takes contemporary dance very seriously and hopes to contribute to the dance community in India. Other than dancing, she indulges in binge-watching in her spare time.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/raw/policy-shaping-in-the-indian-it-industry-recommendations-by-nasscom-2006-2012

Participation in the meeting of LITD 17 at BIS

Admin — 2019-11-02T06:30:29Z

On September 25, 2019, Gurshabad Grover along with Elonnai Hickok and Karan Saini attended the meeting of the Information Systems Security & Privacy Sectional Committee (LITD17) of the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS).

Some agenda points:

Elonnai, Karan and Gurshabad had submitted comments on two standards related to infomration security of biometrics systems: (i) ISO/IEC 24745: 2011 Information Technology – Security techniques – Biometric information protection; (ii) Doc. No. LITD 17 (3595) ISO/IEC 19792: 2009 Information Technology – Security techniques – Security evaluation of biometrics. Gurshabad Grover is now serving in a panel with BIS and MeitY representatives to discuss how the standards compare to UIDAI's standards and governing regulations.
Gurshabad updated the committee with my plan of participation at the ISO/IEC JTC 1 SC 27 meetings (which were held earlier this month in Paris).
Gurshabad will be joining a panel to discuss and further develop a draft mobile phone security standard for India.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/participation-in-the-meeting-of-litd-17-at-bis