Centre for Internet and Society

Experts' committee moots law to protect privacy

praskrishna — 2012-10-22T10:18:34Z

In its report submitted to the Planning Commission on Thursday, the first ever experts’ group to identify the privacy issues and prepare a report to facilitate authoring of the privacy bill, has said that existing laws have created an ‘unclear regulatory regime’ which allows a state to be intrusive.

Saikat Datta's article was published in DNA on October 19, 2012

The report has been prepared by experts led by justice AP Shah, former chief justice of the Delhi high court.

In its exceptions to the proposed law on privacy, the experts’ group has recommended that national security, public order and disclosures made in ‘public interest’ will be exempted from the limitations of privacy. Several members of the group unsuccessfully argued to bring in the Intelligence agencies which are empowered to legally tap phones, intercept emails and conduct surveillance on citizens under the ambit of the Privacy Act.

The report, a copy of which is available with DNA, recognises that there are major differences in the existing laws that permit intrusive phone-tapping or surveillance of private citizens by the government.The group feels that “these differences have created an unclear regulatory regime that is inconsistent, non-transparent, and prone to misuse and does not provide remedy or compensation to aggrieved individuals.”

Therefore, the group has recommended that when the government conducts any intrusive surveillance like phone tapping, it must adhere to the principles of proportionality, legality and remain within the boundaries of a democratic state.

“The limitation (on tapping phones, etc) should be in proportion to the harm that has been caused or will be caused,” the report states.

Interestingly, the report also exempts the disclosure of personal or private information for journalistic or historical and scientific purposes from being curbed under the proposed Privacy Act. Interestingly, this will give journalists a legal cover from being hauled up under the proposed privacy laws when they file stories.

The government is keen to enact a privacy law quickly because of two major issues. The fallout of the leakage of the tapes of Niira Radia speaking to industry heads like Ratan Tata which led to a renewed clamour for a comprehensive Privacy Act. Ironically, anything related to phone-tapping has now been left out of the provisions of such an Act.

The other reason was the pressure from the industry that is keen to get business from abroad that deals with sensitive personal data. In the absence of any personal data protection laws, Indian companies were not getting any business from European or American firms. With this law, India can look forward to getting substantial business that involves personal data.

With this framework in mind the experts’ group has recommended that notice be given to any individual from whom personal information will be sought. With intrusive government projects like the UID or the NATGRID, the group was worried that this kind of massive data in the hands of the government could turn this into a police state.

It has also mandated that the choice and consent of the individual must be taken before collecting this information. Also, there has to be a limitation on collecting this information and anything that has been collected will use the data for only a limited purpose. A data controller should be appointed to collect, maintain and use the data under strict stipulations.

Therefore, the data controller will be made accountable for any lapse in handling or disclosure of the data. To ensure that this kind of control can be exercised, the group has suggested the appointment of privacy commissioners who will adjudicate on any matter of illegal disclosures and mete out server punishment.

Recommendations

National security, public order and disclosures made in ‘public interest’ will be exempted from the limitations of privacy
The limitation (on tapping phones, etc) should be in proportion to the harm caused or will be caused
Disclosure of personal or private information for journalistic or historical and scientific purposes should be exempted from being curbed under the proposed Act
Notice be given to individual from whom information has to be sought
A data controller should be appointed to collect, maintain and use the data
Privacy commissioners who will adjudicate on any matter of illegal disclosures be appointed

Note: The Centre for Internet & Society was part of the expert committee even though not explicitly mentioned.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/dna-india-october-19-2012-saikat-datta-experts-committee-moots-law-to-protect-privacy

Govt panel wants curbs on phone taps

praskrishna — 2012-10-22T09:57:05Z

A government-appointed panel on Thursday recommended several measures, including guidelines on interception of telephonic conversations, video and audio recordings, use and storage of data as well as setting up of dispute resolution entities at Centre and state-level to protect the privacy of individuals.

Read the original published in the Times of India on October 19, 2012.

The group led by former Delhi High Court chief justice A P Shah was set up by the Planning Commission to identify privacy issues and prepare a document to facilitate the proposed Privacy Act.

The group was set after concerns were raised about the impact on privacy of individuals with the emergence of several national programmes such as Unique Identification number, NATGRID, DNA profiling, Reproductive Rights of Women, privileged communications and brain mapping, most of which will be implemented through information and communication technology (ICT) platforms.

The panel recommended that reasons for interception must be specified and be recorded in writing and the provisions establish conditions for authorization by the competent authority. It said that all interceptions can be in force for 60 days and renewed for not more than 180 days. The panel said records of interception be destroyed by the security agencies after six months or nine months and service providers must destroy records after two months or six months. It also said that intermediaries must provide an internal check to ensure the security, confidentiality and privacy of intercepted material, and intermediaries would be held legally responsible for any unauthorized access or disclosure of intercepted materials.

The panel said the proposed Act should extend the right of privacy to individuals and bring under its regulation data controllers, which includes all corporates, public/ governmental bodies and organizations. Minister of State for Planning Ashwani Kumar said, "The group has evaluated what is happening in the other country and what is the constitutional position in India... how imperatives of national security and right to privacy of individual can be harmonized."

It said the Act should clarify that publication of personal data for artistic and journalistic purposes in public interest, use of personal information for household purposes and disclosure of information as required by the RTI Act should not constitute an "infringement of privacy".

The proposed Privacy Act should also articulate national privacy principles. The principles will extend and be binding to all private/ public data controllers. It said the principles must establish safeguards and procedures over the collection, processing, storage, retention, access, disclosure, destruction of sensitive personal information, personal identifiable information and identifiable information.

The Act should establish the Central office of the privacy commissioner, regional level privacy commissioner, self regulating organizations at the industry level and data controllers and privacy officers if required at the organization level, the report recommended.

The panel also recommended that the infringement of any provision under the Act should constitute as an "offence" and individuals may seek "compensation" from organizations/ bodies held accountable.

The group agreed that any proposed framework for privacy legislation must be technologically neutral and interoperable with international standards. "Specifically, the Privacy Act should not make any reference to specific technologies and must be generic enough such that principle and enforcement mechanisms adaptable to changes in society, the market place, technology and government," the report said.

Note: The Centre for Internet & Society was part of the expert committee even though not explicitly mentioned.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/times-of-india-october-19-2012-govt-panel-wants-curbs-on-phone-taps

Privacy Act should not circumscribe RTI: expert group

praskrishna — 2012-10-22T09:36:49Z

An expert group to draw the framework of a law to protect privacy of individuals has suggested that issues of personal privacy must not be used to dilute the provisions of or block information under the Right to Information Act, and used a language that almost directly contradicts the sentiments expressed by the Prime Minister in this regard just a few days ago.

This article by Amitabh Sinha was published in the Indian Express on October 19, 2012.

The group headed by Justice (retd) A P Shah has argued that the RTI Act already has provisions that protect the privacy, and such types of information are exempt from public disclosure. “When applied, the (proposed) Privacy Act should not circumscribe the Right to Information Act,” the report of the expert group, which was made public on Thursday, said.

“Section 8 of the (RTI) Act lists specific types of information that are exempted from public disclosure in order to protect privacy. In this way, privacy is the narrow exception to the Right to Information,” the report said.

Interestingly, just earlier this week, while inaugurating an annual convention of information commissioners, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had made the opposite argument. “There is a fine balance required to be maintained between the Right to Information and the right to privacy, which stems out of the Fundamental Right to Life and Liberty,” he had said.

“The citizens’ right to know should definitely be circumscribed if disclosure of information encroaches upon someone’s personal privacy. But where to draw the line is a complicated question,” he had said.

Sibngh’s remarks had come at a time when questions were being asked about whether government money had been spent on foreign trips and medical treatment of UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi. The government had clarified that no public money had been spent on either of the two.

The expert group under Justice Shah was constituted at the initiative of Minister of State for Planning Ashwani Kumar after an attempt by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) last year to draft a privacy bill ended in a disaster. The expert group was only asked to draw up the broad contours of what a privacy law must comprise of. It has drawn from international experiences and presented nine ‘principles’ that must be accommodated in any future privacy law.

The group also recognises that the constitutional basis of privacy as “a fundamental right deriving from Article 21 of the Constitution of India”.

The report deals mainly with how the extensive collection of personal data — through government institutions like Census, NATGRID, UID, or through private agencies like banks, credit card companies or phone operators — must be stored, managed and eventually destroyed, if possible, without infringing on the privacy rights of an individual.

The report would now be referred to the DoPT which will then begin further consultation processes to make a fresh start at drafting a privacy law.

Suggestions on Tapping

The expert group has said that the system of telephone and other communication interception for security reasons has an “unclear regulatory regime that is inconsistent, non-transparent, prone to misuse, and that does not provide remedy or compensation to aggrieved individuals”. It has suggested the following:

All orders of interceptions must be reported to a court within 15 days, disclosing the reason for interception.
All interceptions must only be in force for 60 days, renewable up to a period of 180 days.
Reasons for interception order must be specified and recorded in writing by competent authority.
Records of interception must be destroyed by security agencies after six months, or nine months, and service providers must destroy records after two months, or six months.
All interception orders must be sent for review by a designated committee.
Officers to whom information relating to interception can be disclosed must be specified.
Intermediaries (like telephone operators) must ensure security, confidentiality and privacy of intercepted material, and must be held legally responsible for any unauthorized access or disclosure of intercepted material.

Note: The Centre for Internet & Society was part of the expert committee even though it is not explicitly mentioned here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/indianexpress-amitabh-sinha-october-19-2012-privacy-act-should-not-circumscribe-rti-expert-group

Bill to create bank for DNA profiling of accused coming

praskrishna — 2012-10-22T09:15:43Z

Access to data only for victim’s or suspect’s relatives.

This article by Aarthi Dhar was published in the Hindu on October 21, 2012.

A Bill to create a DNA data centre to profile people accused of serious crimes and unknown deceased is in the works. The proposal was originally mooted in 2007 but was dropped to factor in ethical, moral and legal issues on the sensitive matter.

Crafted by the Department of Biotechnology, it allows Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid (DNA) profiling for cases of culpable homicide, murder, death by negligence, miscarriage, dowry deaths, causing death of new born child, sexual assault, unnatural offences, outraging the modesty of a woman, co-habitation with a woman by deceit, adultery, enticing a married woman with criminal intent, among others.

Protecting privacy

Addressing issues related to protecting privacy of individuals, the draft Bill envisages that access to the information in the National DNA Data Bank will be restricted to those related to the victim or suspect; any individual undergoing a sentence of imprisonment or death sentence can apply to the court which convicted him, for an order of DNA testing of specific evidence under specific conditions.

The Human DNA Profiling Bill seeks to establish a DNA Profiling Board that will lay down the standards for laboratories, collection of human body substances and custody trail from collection to reporting. It also has a provision for setting up a National DNA Data Bank.

The DNA analysis of body substances that makes it possible to determine whether the source of origin of one body substance is identical to that of another, and to establish the biological relationship, if any, between two individuals.

The “forensic material” from which the DNA sample can be lifted is biological material from the body and represents intimate body samples. They include blood, semen, or any other tissue fluid.

DNA Profiling Board

As envisaged in the Bill, the DNA Profiling Board at the national level, with similar structures at the State level, will be headed by a renowned molecular biologist with the other members being from police, legal, biological and related fields.

It will deliberate and advise on all ethical and human rights issues emanating out of DNA profiling in consonance with the United Nations vis-à-vis the rights and privacy of citizens, civil liberties and issues having ethical and other social implications.

The Board will make recommendations on the use and dissemination of DNA information, ensure the accuracy, security and confidentiality of DNA and guidelines destruction of obsolete, expunged or inaccurate information.

Jail, fine for data misuse

It will also will lay down standards and procedures for establishment and functioning of DNA laboratories and Data Banks and prepare guidelines for storage of biological substances and their destruction. Any misuse of DNA data will attract imprisonment up to three years and monetary fine.

The working draft of the Bill has been sent to the Centre for Internet and Society for analysis and comments. The Citizens Forum for Civil Liberties has already opposed the proposed legislation and sought pre-emptive intervention to stop “dangerous” erosion of privacy by DNA profiling of citizens.

In a representation submitted to the National Human Rights Commission, the Forum has said DNA profiling is “undesirable, particularly as forensic DNA developments are intertwined with significant changes in legislation and contentious issues of privacy, civil liberty and social justice.”

The Forum has sought “immediate intervention to safeguard citizens’ privacy and their civil liberties, which face an unprecedented onslaught from the provisions of the DNA Profiling Bill and other related surveillance measures being bulldozed by unregulated and ungovernable technology.”

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/the-hindu-aarti-dhar-october-21-2012-bill-to-create-bank-for-dna-profiling-of-accused-coming

Court’s approval needed to tap phones: Panel

praskrishna — 2012-10-22T07:02:34Z

Investigators can monitor a person for 15-20 days on executive orders in case of emergencies, suggests panel.

Surabhi Agarwal's article was published in LiveMint on October 18, 2012. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

Government agencies need judicial permission before intercepting any communication or starting surveillance of any individual, a panel on the proposed privacy law suggested on Thursday.

If there is any urgency, investigators can tap phones or monitor a person’s movements for 15-20 days on executive orders but will then have to approach the courts to continue, the committee led by retired Delhi high court judge Ajit P. Shah recommended.

“Phone tapping under the present regime is done under executive permission whereas in other countries it is done only with the permission of the courts,” Shah said.

Security agencies currently require permission from home secretaries, either at the Centre or the states, to set up wiretaps or monitor emails. An oversight group of the cabinet, law and telecom secretaries at the Centre reviews all such authorizations.

	The government established the Shah committee in Feburary under the Planning Commission to study international best practices on privacy and surveillance after concerns arose on misuse of information collected by official agencies. Shah said on Thursday that the committee was “not interested” in preparing a privacy law but has only laid down the principles. The department of personnel and training will deliberate on the panel’s recommendations and then draft a legislation, said Ashwani Kumar, junior minister in the Planning Commission.

The government established the Shah committee in Feburary under the Planning Commission to study international best practices on privacy and surveillance after concerns arose on misuse of information collected by official agencies.

Shah said on Thursday that the committee was “not interested” in preparing a privacy law but has only laid down the principles.

The department of personnel and training will deliberate on the panel’s recommendations and then draft a legislation, said Ashwani Kumar, junior minister in the Planning Commission.

The Shah panel has recommended appointing privacy commissioners and a system under which organizations will have to develop privacy standards that will be approved by a commissioner as a means of self-regulation.

Sectoral industry associations would form a code of conduct for companies that will comply with law as they will be approved by the privacy commissioner, according to Kamlesh Bajaj, chief executive officer of Data Security Council of India, one of the members of the committee. “These associations could also act as alternative dispute-resolution mechanisms,” Bajaj said.

The committee’s other recommendations include giving individuals a choice to provide personal information, collection of only critical personal information, use of data only for the purpose for which it has been collected, and a penalty for violations.

“Without a comprehensive horizontal regulatory framework and the office of the regulator both private and public entities in India have been trampling on the rights of citizens without complying to any of the international best practices when it comes to protecting the right to privacy,” said Sunil Abraham, executive director of Centre for Internet and Society, a Bangalore-based advocacy group. After the privacy law is enacted and the office of a privacy commissioner is created, people will be able to seek redressal against these erring pubic and private entities if their rights are violated, he added.

The government has been looking to enact a privacy law to ensure data collected by various programmes such as the National Population Register, Unique Identification Authority of India and National Intelligence Grid was not misused. It was expected to scotch criticism of these programmes by privacy and Internet activists. It later expanded the scope of the proposed legislation after catching flak for a leak of tapped conversations between corporate lobbyist Niira Radia, industrialists and journalists.

The government now aims to uphold the right of all Indians against any misuse of personal information, interception of personal communication, unlawful surveillance and unwanted commercial communication. That means it effectively covers everything from the misuse of data collected by the government to spam.

However, there could be opposition from law enforcement agencies if the privacy law mandates that prior permission of the courts will be required before intercepting communication.

If judges begin taking a call on interception requests, there could be chances of leakage, “since there are so many judges at so many levels”, said Rumel Dahiya, deputy director general at Institute of Defence Studies and Analyses, a New delhi-based think tank. “The government carries out surveillance to gain fool-proof intelligence. That purpose will be defeated.”

Last week, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said a fine balance needs to be maintained between the right to information and the right to privacy.

The Shah committee included representatives from the private sector, the department of information technology, ministry of home affairs, department of telecommunication, the law ministry and the department of personnel and training.

Kirthi V. Rao contributed to this story.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/livemint-october-18-2012-surabhi-agarwal-courts-approval-needed-to-tap-phones

Nine-point code set out to safeguard personal information

praskrishna — 2012-10-22T06:42:36Z

A. P. Shah panel lists exceptions; suggests privacy commissioners.

Published in Hindu Business Line on October 18, 2012.

The Justice A. P. Shah panel has recommended an over-arching law to protect privacy and personal data in the private and public spheres.

The report also suggested setting up privacy commissioners, both at the Central and State levels.

It has spelt out nine national privacy principles that could be followed while framing the law.

The report comes at a time when there is growing concern over unique identity numbers, DNA profiling, brain-mapping, etc, most of which will be implemented on the ICT platform.

The report has listed certain exceptions in the right to privacy such as national security, public order, disclosure in public interest, prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of criminal offences and protection of the individual or of the rights of freedom of others.

In certain cases, historical or scientific research and journalistic purposes can also be considered as exceptions, says the report.

Networking sites

Referring to social networking sites and search engines, which have their own privacy code, Justice Shah said these will either have to follow the model provided in the proposed Act or have a self-regulatory mechanism approved by the privacy commissioner.

The report suggests harmonising the proposed privacy Act with the RTI Act. Responding to privacy infringement concerns, as aired by the Prime Minister recently, Justice Shah said RTI was the only law that gave statutory protection to privacy, which could be over-ridden only in certain cases for individuals, not companies.

Minister of State for Planning Ashwani Kumar said a privacy Act was necessary as in a democracy one had to ensure that "no one right is so exercised so as to infringe upon the rights of individuals."

The high-level panel submitted its report to the Planning Commission on Thursday. It will now be forwarded to the Department of Personnel and Training, which is already looking into the privacy law.

Note: The Centre for Internet & Society was a part of the expert committee even though it is not explicitly mentioned here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/the-hindu-business-line-oct-18-2012-nine-point-code-set-out-to-safeguard-personal-information

Privacy law mooted to protect people against misuse of info

praskrishna — 2012-10-22T06:35:42Z

A government-appointed expert group on Thursday suggested enactment of a law to protect individuals against misuse of information collected through telephone tapping, videography or any other method.

Published in Zee News on October 18, 2012.

The group headed by former Delhi High Court Chief Justice A P Shah recommended setting up of a regulatory framework comprising Privacy Commissioners at the Centre and regional levels to deal with privacy issues and mandatory destruction of telephone conversation after a specified period.

As regards the specific issue of phone tapping, it said "interception orders must be specific and all interceptions would only be in force for a period of 60 days and renewed for a period up to 180 days".

The group, set up by Minister of State for Planning Ashwani Kumar in September 2011, suggested that the records of the conservation should be destroyed by security agencies and telephone service providers within stipulated time frame.

"Records of interception must be destroyed by security agencies after six months or nine months and service providers must destroy after two or six months," it said.

The proposed law seeks to protect individuals from misuse of data collected by agencies, whether in private or public sector. It said the data of individuals should be used only for the purpose for which it was collected.

The issues concerning privacy of individuals assume significance in view of the collection of data by multiple agencies, government as well as private, for different purposes. At present, data is being collected under programmes like Aadhar, Know Your Customer (KYC) norms, recordings of telephone conversation, DNA profiling, brain mapping, etc.

The group, Kumar said, "has evaluated what is happening in the other country and what is the constitutional position in India... How imperatives of national security and right to privacy of individual can be harmonised".

Note: The Centre for Internet & Society was part of the expert committee even though not explicitly mentioned here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/zee-news-october-22-2012-privacy-law-mooted-to-protect-people-against-misuse-of-info

Could better DNA testing facilities in India have saved the Talwars?

praskrishna — 2012-10-11T09:44:30Z

Over the last decade, the use of DNA tests to solve crimes has seen a significant rise in crime investigation in India. But forensic experts warn that the absence of standard practices, quality checks and regulation has resulted in irresponsible and inaccurate application of the technology.

This article by Pallavi Polanki was originally published in FirstPost on October 11, 2012. CIS press statement is mentioned.

The use of outdated technology and lack of expertise to competently collect and analyse DNA samples from the crime scene has compromised investigation and led to instances where courts have rejected DNA evidence as being unreliable or inconclusive.

Says GV Rao, DNA analyst and formerly chief staff scientist at the Hyderabad-based Centre For DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics (CDFD), “Today we are very much behind the rest of the World in upgradation of technology as required…Further, the backlog of cases is quite large in each of the DNA labs in India and not much is being done about it. Still we have not obtained or adopted the DNA techniques to identify difficult samples. The recent example of Bhanwari Devi case, where the CBI had to send the victim’s bones to FBI, USA for identification to get it identified. This is a sad reflection of the present status of DNA technology in India.”

Most recently, the demand for more advanced DNA tests to be conducted was unsuccessfully made by dentist couple Rajesh and Nupur Talwar, who have been charged with the murder of their teenage daughter Aarushi and domestic help Hemraj.

Perhaps, no other case has so fully exposed the pathetic state of the crime-scene investigation in India. With most of the crucial evidence either destroyed or contaminated due to shoddy police work, the prosecution’s case has come to depend entirely on circumstantial evidence, without a shred of material evidence to support it.

The police force’s lack of expertise to collect DNA evidence was flagged recently by senior scientist at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) Anupama Raina at a public meeting by the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society on the DNA profiling Bill, in the Capital.

Raina, speaking at the meeting, emphasized the usefulness of the technology but cautioned that the police were still perfecting the use of DNA samples for forensic purposes.

Elaborating on the inadequate training to cops on collecting DNA evidence, Rao said, “In India, there are no special crime case investigators. We have a law and order police station for each area and from bandobast duty to control crowds. It is a tall order expecting them to collect samples. In some states there are special teams which collect samples for DNA testing and then hand it over to the police….Till date none of the DNA labs have made any sample collection kits made available to police stations or other agencies.”

And what after the samples reach the DNA labs?

Painting a rather bleak picture of existing conditions under which many of the DNA labs are operating, Rao says “There is lack of standards, guidelines, accreditation, proficiency testing of the DNA labs and its experts. Each DNA lab is issuing DNA reports in its own style. Each DNA lab is again following different procedures for conducting the test. ”

“No proper records of the tests conducted are being maintained for production in a court of law for its inspection. DNA experts are not being tested for their proficiency in their expertise by a third party and presently they are getting away with such minimal expertise,” he said.

Will the new draft DNA Profiling Bill fix the problems that beset the use of DNA evidence for forensic purposes in India? And what is the context to the draft DNA profiling bill?

“India currently does not have a legislation specifically regulating the collection, use, and storage of DNA samples for forensics purposes. To address this gap, in 2007 a draft DNA Profiling Bill was created by the Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics. In February 2012 a new draft of the bill from the department of biotechnology was been leaked. The draft Bill envisions creating state level DNA databases that will feed into a national level DNA database for the purposes of solving crime.” (Read the full press statement by CIS here)

Raina endorsed the passing of the bill but with necessary safe-guards. The Bill has raised a degree of alarm for its sweeping proposals to collect DNA profiles and create DNA databases – a move experts believe violates the privacy of citizens.

Helen Wallace, director of GeneWatch UK (a not-for-profit group that monitors developments in genetic technologies from a public interest perspective), who participated in the public meeting on the DNA profiling bill, underlined the absence of a clear purpose for the DNA profiling system as proposed by the bill and its lack of clarity on the collection policy that wishes to profile not just those involved in criminal cases but also civil cases.

Jeremy Gruber, president and executive director of the US-based Council for Responsible Genetics, also warned against the bill’s blind faith in DNA results as the gospel truth and ignoring very real possibilities of false matches, cross-contamination and laboratory errors.

Expressing his disappointment with the draft bill, Rao said, “Unfortunately this bill does not provide for standardization, quality control and regulation except for collection of DNA samples of everybody involved in all civil and criminal cases, including suspects… We need standards, protocols, guidelines, amendments to IPC and CrPC for effective implementation of DNA testing.”

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/first-post-pallavi-polanki-oct-11-2012-could-better-dna-testing-facilities-in-india-have-saved-the-talwars

A Public Meeting on DNA Profiling Bill in Delhi

elonnai — 2012-10-10T10:58:32Z

On September 27, 2012, the Centre for Internet and Society hosted a public talk at the Indian International Centre focused on the draft DNA Profiling Bill. Presenting at the meeting were international experts Dr. Helen Wallace, director of GeneWatch UK and Jeremy Gruber, president and executive director of the Council for Responsible Genetics US, and Dr. Anupuma Raina, senior scientist at AIIMs.

The use of DNA samples for forensics purposes has been increasing as law enforcement in India are relying on DNA samples as a source of evidence to solve crimes. India currently does not have a legislation specifically regulating the collection, use, and storage of DNA samples for forensics purposes. To address this gap, in 2007 a draft DNA Profiling Bill was created by the Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics. In February 2012 a new draft of the bill from the department of biotechnology was been leaked. The draft Bill envisions creating state level DNA databases that will feed into a national level DNA database for the purposes of solving crime.

Opening the meeting was a presentation by Dr. Anupama that focused on how DNA analysis has been used in various cases in India. Dr. Anupama emphasized the important role that DNA plays and the usefulness of the technology, but also cautioned that the police are still perfecting the use of DNA samples for forensic purposes. She promoted the passing of the DNA profiling bill with the correct safeguards. Dr. Anupama also provided insight into the current procedure for DNA analysis in India noting that consent is taken from individuals before taking DNA samples, and that ethical clearance is taken before DNA samples are taken and used for research purposes. She also noted that labs are working on improving quality insurance and emphasized the importance of chain of custody in ensuring that DNA samples are not contaminated.

Following Dr. Anupama, Jeremy Gruber spoke about the US experience with DNA databases and explained how DNA testing was initially introduced as a tool for establishing additional evidence for convicting violent felony offenders or freeing innocent individuals on a case to case basis. He explained how the technology of DNA sampling and its use in forensic cases can be both a useful tool when used justly and democratically, or can be harmful when used unjustly and undemocratically. He noted that there has been an increase in the routine use and retention of DNA by law enforcement today for purposes such as using DNA databases for familial searching purposes, and using DNA analysis to create profiles of individuals. Concerns that Jeremy Gruber raised with respect to the draft DNA Profiling Bill included the assumption in the preamble of the bill that DNA is an infallible piece of evidence, pointing out that when DNA is used for forensic purposes it is vulnerable to inaccuracies such as false matches, sample contamination, and analysis error. He also made the point that the definitions found in the bill are overly broad and work to expand the scope by defining a wide range of crimes for which individuals will be added to the DNA database for. These broad definitions essentially turn the database into an all crimes database. Other concerns with the bill included that DNA laboratories are not clearly independent of the police, and that the bill allows for the additional collection of DNA from missing persons and victims.

In her presentation, Dr. Helen Wallace described the UK experience, where the first DNA database was established in 1995. In 2000 a major expansion of the UK DNA database took place, but was controversial for a number of reasons. In 2008 the European Court of Justice ruled that the regime of retaining DNA samples in the UK was unlawful and a breach of privacy. Now the UK law requires that only a barcode with identifying information be stored. Dr. Wallace also emphasized the fact that the number of convictions resulting from DNA detections has not increased as the UK DNA database has expanded, because the number of solved crimes is driven by the number of crime scene samples. Thus, samples on a database are only useful if they relate directly to the crime scene and a possible criminal. Therefore the more profiles that are added to the database that are related to petty crimes, civil cases, victims, volunteers etc. the less efficient and accurate the database becomes. Dr. Wallace recommended that a DNA database contain only careful crime scene evidence in order to ensure samples are matched accurately. Concerns with the DNA profiling Bill emphasized by Dr. Wallace included that consent is not provided for in the bill, and court orders are not required. Furthermore, the bill does contain a removal process, and it is unclear what DNA profiling system will be used.

Responding to the presentations made by the speakers, members of the audience raised concerns over the use of DNA sampling in India for reasons beyond forensic purposes, such as requiring surrogate mothers and the children to undergo DNA tests. Other members of the audience pointed out that the bill does not address the rights of suspects and prisoners. Additionally the question of the evidentiary weight of DNA samples in court was raised, along with the concern that the broad collection of DNA samples from individuals is just another example of the growing trend by the Indian government to collect and store information about its citizens.

Download Dr. Helen Wallace's presentation

Download Jeremy Gruber's presentation

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/public-meeting-on-dna-profiling-bill

E-Governance, Identity & Privacy

praskrishna — 2012-09-26T06:17:03Z

This chapter will look at different legislations, projects, and policies pertaining to e-governance and identity that India has put in place, and examine both the strengths and the weaknesses of these, through the lense of privacy.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/e-governance-identity-privacy.pdf

ಭಾರತೀಯ ಡಿಎನ್ಎ ಪ್ರೊಫೈಲಿಂಗ್ ಮಸೂದೆಯ ಸೀಳುನೋಟ

praskrishna — 2012-10-03T15:42:54Z

ಭಾರತೀಯ ದಂಡಸಂಹಿತೆಯನ್ನು ೨೦೦೫ರಲ್ಲಿ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ ಮಾಡಲಾಯಿತು. ಇದರ ಉದ್ದೇಶ ಆಪಾದಿತರನ್ನು ಬಂಧಿಸಿದಾಗ ಅವರ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ವಿವಿಧ ವೈದ್ಯಕೀಯ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಸಂಗ್ರಹಿಸಲು ಕಾನೂನುರೀತ್ಯಾ ಅವಕಾಶ ಕಲ್ಪಿಸುವುದು.

ದಂಡಸಂಹಿತೆಯ ಸೆಕ್ಷನ್ ೫೩ರ ಪ್ರಕಾರ, ಅಪರಾಧವನ್ನು ಸಾಬೀತು ಪಡಿಸಲು ವೈದ್ಯಕೀಯ ಪರೀಕ್ಷೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷ್ಯ ಒದಗಿಸುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದು “ನಂಬಲು ತಕ್ಕಮಟ್ಟಿನ ಕಾರಣಗಳಿದ್ದರೆ”, ಆಪಾದಿತನನ್ನು ಬಂಧಿಸಿದಾಗ ಆತನನ್ನು ವೈದ್ಯಕೀಯ ಪರೀಕ್ಷೆಗೆ ಒಳಪಡಿಸಬಹುದು. ೨೦೦೫ರ ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿಯ ಮೂಲಕ, ಈ ಪರೀಕ್ಷೆಯ ವ್ಯಾಪ್ತಿಯನ್ನು ಇವೆಲ್ಲವನ್ನು ಸೇರಿಸಿಕೊಳ್ಳಲಿಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ವಿಸ್ತರಿಸಲಾಯಿತು: ರಕ್ತದ, ರಕ್ತಕಲೆಗಳ, ವೀರ್ಯದ ಪರೀಕ್ಷೆ, ಲೈಂಗಿಕ ಅಪರಾಧಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಸ್ವಾಬ್ಗಳ ಪರೀಕ್ಷೆ, ಉಗುಳು, ಬೆವರು, ಕೂದಲಿನ ಸ್ಯಾಂಪಲ್ ಮತ್ತು ಉಗುರಿನ ತುಂಡುಗಳ ಪರೀಕ್ಷೆ. ನಿರ್ದಿಷ್ಟ ಪ್ರಕರಣದಲ್ಲಿ ಅವಶ್ಯವೆಂದು ನೋಂದಾಯಿತ ವೈದ್ಯರು ಭಾವಿಸುವ ಡಿಎನ್ಎ ಪ್ರೊಫೈಲಿಂಗ್ ಹಾಗೂ ಅಂತಹ ಇತರ ಪರೀಕ್ಷೆಗಳ ಸಹಿತವಾಇ ಆಧುನಿಕ ಮತ್ತು ವೈಜ್ನಾನಿಕ ವಿಧಾನಗಳನ್ನು ಬಳಸಿ ವೈದ್ಯಕೀಯ ಪರೀಕ್ಷೆ ನಡೆಸಬೇಕು.

ಕ್ರಿಮಿನಲ್ ಪ್ರಕರಣದಲ್ಲಿ ಆಪಾದಿತ ಷಾಮೀಲಾಗಿರುವುದನ್ನು ತಿಳಿಯಲಿಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ಡಿಎನ್ಎ ಪರೀಕ್ಷೆಗೆ ಆದೇಶ ನೀಡುವುದರ ಕಾನೂನುಬದ್ಧತೆಯನ್ನು ತೊಗೊರಾಣಿ ಅಲಿಯಾಸ್ ಕೆ. ದಮಯಂತಿ ವರ್ಸಸ್ ಒರಿಸ್ಸಾ ಸ್ಟೇಟ್ ಮತ್ತು ಇತರರು (೨೦೦೪ ಕ್ರಿಮಿನಲ್ ಎಲ್ಜೆ ೪೦೦೩ – ಒರಿಸ್ಸಾ) ಪ್ರಕರಣದಲ್ಲಿ ಒರಿಸ್ಸಾ ಹೈಕೋರ್ಟ್ ಎತ್ತಿ ಹಿಡಿದಿದೆ. ಡಿಎನ್ಎ ಪರೀಕ್ಷೆಗೆ ಆಪಾದಿತ ಸಹಕರಿಸದಿದ್ದರೆ, ಅವನ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ವ್ಯತಿರಿಕ್ತ ಅಭಿಪ್ರಾಯ ಮೂಡುತ್ತದೆ.

ಈ ವಿಷಯದಲ್ಲಿ ವೈಯುಕ್ತಿಕ ಗೌಪ್ಯತೆಯ ಅಂಶಗಳನ್ನು ಪರಿಗಣಿಸಿದ ಬಳಿಕ, ಡಿಎನ್ಎ ಪರೀಕ್ಷೆ ಆದೇಶಿಸುವ ಮುನ್ನ, ಈ ವಿಚಾರಗಳನ್ನು ಪರಿಗಣಿಸಬೇಕೆಂದು ಹೈಕೋರ್ಟ್ ನಿರ್ದೇಶನ ನೀಡಿದೆ: (೧) ಅಪರಾಧ ಎಸಗುವುದರಲ್ಲಿ ಆಪಾದಿತನು ಎಷ್ಟರ ಮಟ್ಟಿಗೆ ಭಾಗವಹಿಸಿರಬಹುದು? (೨) ಅಪರಾಧದ ಗಂಭೀರತೆ ಮತ್ತು ಅಪರಾಧ ಎಸಗಿದ ಸಂದರ್ಭ (೩) ಆಪಾದಿತನ ಪ್ರಾಯ, ದೈಹಿಕ ಮತ್ತು ಮಾನಸಿಕ ಆರೋಗ್ಯ (೪) ಅಪರಾಧದಲ್ಲಿ ಆಪಾದಿತ ಭಾಗವಹಿಸಿದ್ದನ್ನು ಖಚಿತಪಡಿಸುವ ಅಥವಾ ಖುಲಾಸೆ ಮಾಡುವ ಸಾಕ್ಷಾಧಾರಗಳನ್ನು ಸಂಗ್ರಹಿಸುವ ಕಡಿಮೆ ಆತಂಕಕಾರಿಯಾದ ಮತ್ತು ಕಾರ್ಯಸಾಧ್ಯವಾದ ಇತರ ವಿಧಾನಗಳು ಇವೆಯೇ? (೫) ಆಪಾದಿತನು ಡಿಎನ್ಎ ಪರೀಕ್ಷೆಗೆ ಒಪ್ಪಿಗೆ ನಿರಾಕರಿಸಲು ಕಾರಣಗಳೇನು?

ಸಂಸತ್ತಿನ ಅನುಮೋದನೆಗಾಗಿ ಕಾದಿರುವ ೨೦೦೭ರ ಡಿಎನ್ಎ ಪ್ರೊಫೈಲಿಂಗ್ ಮಸೂದೆಯ ಉದ್ದೇಶವನ್ನು ಚುಟುಕಾಗಿ ಹೀಗೆ ಹೇಳಬಹುದು: “ದೇಶದ ಕ್ರಿಮಿನಲ್ ನ್ಯಾಯವ್ಯವಸ್ಥೆಯ ಕಿಂಚಿತ್ ಸಂಪರ್ಕಕ್ಕೆ ಬಂದವರೆಲ್ಲರ ಡಿಎನ್ಎ ವಿವರಗಳನ್ನು ದಾಖಲಿಸುವ “ಕೇಂದ್ರ ಡಿಎನ್ಎ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕನ್ನು” ರಚಿಸುವ ಮಹತ್ವಾಕಾಂಕ್ಷಿ ಪ್ರಯತ್ನ.” ಅಂದರೆ, ಸಂಶಯಕ್ಕೆ ಒಳಗಾದ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿಗಳು, ಕಾನೂನು ಮುರಿಯುವವರು, ಕಾಣೆಯಾದ್ವರು ಮತ್ತು ಸ್ವ-ಇಚ್ಚೆಯವರು – ಇವರ ಡಿಎನ್ಎ ವಿವರಗಳ ಡಿಎನ್ಎ ಮಾಹಿತಿ

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/cadcbecb0ca4caf-ca1cbfc8eca8ccdc8e-caaccdcb0cabcb2cbfc82c97ccd-caecb8cc2ca6cc6caf-cb8cb3cc1ca8c9f

The DNA Profiling Bill: Developing Best Practices

praskrishna — 2012-09-17T05:54:30Z

On the 27th of September 2012 the Centre for Internet & Society invites the public to a meeting and talk with international experts Helen Wallace from GeneWatch UK, and Jeremy Gruber from the Council for Responsible Genetics from the United States. The meeting will take place from 9.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. at the India International Centre, Lodhi Road, New Delhi in Conference Room No. 2.

The public meeting and talk will focus on the proposed DNA Profiling Bill pending in Parliament and explore best practices concerning the collection, storage, and retention of DNA samples and best practices concerning the analysis of DNA samples and use of DNA samples as evidence in courts. Case studies from the US and the UK will be explored to understand what India can do better from the experiences of other countries.

Dr Helen Wallace

Dr Helen Wallace is Director of GeneWatch UK, a not-for-profit organisation which aims to engage members of the public in ensuring that genetic science and technologies are used in the public interest. She is the author of numerous articles and book chapters on the social and ethical issues raised by DNA databases and is widely quoted in the UK press. Helen provided expert evidence to the applicants in the case of S. and Marper v. the UK at the European Court of Human Rights, in which the Court ruled unanimously that the indefinite retention of innocent people's DNA database records was in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. She has supplied both oral and written evidence on this issue to numerous parliamentary committees including the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee and the UK Science and Technology, Home Affairs and Constitutional Committees, as well as the scrutiny committee for the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. This new Act requires the removal of about a million innocent people's records from the UK National DNA Database and the destruction of all stored biological samples.

Jeremy Gruber

Jeremy Gruber is the JD, President and Executive Director of Council for Responsible Genetics. Jeremy joined CRG in March 2009. Previously he served as the legal director of the National Workrights Institute, a human rights organization dedicated to the rights of American workers. Prior to that he served as the field director for the ACLU’s National Taskforce on Civil Liberties in the Workplace. Jeremy has worked for over a decade on genetic non-discrimination legislation at the state and Federal level. He helped author and pass numerous state laws on genetic non-discrimination. Jeremy is a founder and executive committee member of the Coalition for Genetic Fairness, a group of 500 organizations that advocated for genetic non-discrimination legislation on Capitol Hill and played a major role in the recently passed Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act (GINA) by Congress. He worked closely with members of Congress and staff on GINA language as well as strategy and support. He is a prolific writer on privacy issues and is often consulted by state legislatures. He is regularly featured in print, radio and television. Jeremy holds a Juris Doctor (J.D.) from St. John’s University School of Law and a B.A. in Politics from Brandeis University.

Forensic DNA: A Human Rights Challenge

The above video was originally posted in YouTube

Click on the links below to download the files:

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/the-dna-profiling-bill-developing-best-practices

DNA Databases and Human Rights

praskrishna — 2012-09-17T05:39:06Z

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

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

Consumer Privacy

praskrishna — 2012-09-13T09:21:26Z

This chapter will examine the present legal state of consumer privacy in India and seek to understand the gap between policy and implementation of policy. In doing so, it will look at what are the existing avenues for protection of consumer privacy in India, how is the definition of consumer privacy evolving through case law and public opinion, and what are the current challenges to consumer privacy in India. Traditionally speaking, and according to the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, in India, a consumer is a broad label for any person who buys goods or services with the intent of using them for non-commercial purposes. In the typical sense, when people think of themselves as being consumers, they think about transactions with a vendor through a physical exchange of money in a store or through an online exchange for a product or service. Certain services that consumers use put an extraordinary amount of sensitive personal information into the hands of vendors.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/consumer-privacy.pdf

Seventh Meeting of the Group of Experts on Privacy Issues under the Chairmanship of Justice AP Shah

praskrishna — 2012-09-11T06:20:53Z

The seventh meeting of the Group of Experts on Privacy Issues under the Chairmanship of Justice A.P. Shah, former Chief Justice of Delhi High Court is scheduled to be held on September 18, 2012 at 10.30 a.m. in the Committee Room No. 228, Yojana Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi - 110001.

The agenda of the meeting is to discuss and finalize the draft report prepared on the basis of the recommendations of the two Sub-Groups of the Expert Group.

The meeting notice was sent by S. Bose, Deputy Secretary (CIT&I) to the following individuals:

Justice A.P. Shah, Chairman
Shri R. S. Sharma, D.G., UIDAI
Shri R. Ragupathi,Additional Secretary, Department of Legal Affairs
Dr. Gulshan Rai, D.G. CERT-In, DeITy
Shri Manoj Joshi, J.S. DOPT
Shri Som Mittal, Nasscom
Ms. Barkha Dutt, NDTV
Ms. Usha Ramanathan
Shri Sunil Abraham, CIS
Dr. Kamlesh Bajaj
Ms. Mala Dutt
Shri R.K. Gupta

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/seventh-meeting-of-group-of-experts-sept-18-2012-under-chairmanship-of-justice-shah