Centre for Internet and Society

How to Shut Down Internet Shutdowns

pranav — 2020-02-03T11:13:12Z

This talk will focus on the challenges and opportunities for research on internet shutdowns after the judgement of the Supreme Court in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India. Stepping beyond the judgement, there will be a wider discussion on the practice of whitelists, blocking powers of the central government.

About the Speaker

Apar Gupta is the Executive Director of the Internet Freedom Foundation.

Apar has been fighting the good fight for digital rights. While in law school almost 20 years ago, he wrote a legal commentary on the IT Act that is now in its third edition. As a lawyer in the Supreme Court, he worked on landmark cases such as on Section 66A, Intermediary Liability, Internet Shutdowns, the Right to Privacy and Privacy.

He also helped create public campaigns to advance net neutrality, reform defamation laws, fight Internet shutdowns and create a privacy statute. Apar previously ran his own successful law firm, was profiled in Outlook Magazine and listed in Forbes India's list of 30 under 30. He has also worked as a commercial litigator and partner in top law firms, written papers cited widely in local and international publications and taught courses at NLS and NLU.

RSVP here, or by sending an email Torsha (torsha@cis-india.org).

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/how-to-shutdown-internet-shutdowns

Governing ID: Use of Digital ID in the Healthcare Sector

Shruti Trikanad — 2020-03-02T13:21:22Z

In our third case-study, we use our Evaluation Framework for Digital ID to examine the use of Digital ID in the healthcare sector.

Read the case-study or download as PDF.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/governing-id-use-of-digital-id-in-the-healthcare-sector

Governing ID: Kenya’s Huduma Namba Programme

amber — 2020-03-02T13:19:15Z

In our fourth case-study, we use our Evaluation Framework for Digital ID to examine the use of Digital ID in Kenya.

Read the case-study or download as PDF.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/governing-id-kenya2019s-huduma-namba-programme

Governing ID: Introducing our Evaluation Framework

Shruti Trikanad — 2020-03-02T08:03:49Z

With the rise of national digital identity systems (Digital ID) across the world, there is a growing need to examine their impact on human rights. In several instances, national Digital ID programmes started with a specific scope of use, but have since been deployed for different applications, and in different sectors. This raises the question of how to determine appropriate and inappropriate uses of Digital ID. In April 2019, our research began with this question, but it quickly became clear that a determination of the legitimacy of uses hinged on the fundamental attributes and governing structure of the Digital ID system itself. Our evaluation framework is intended as a series of questions against which Digital ID may be tested. We hope that these questions will inform the trade-offs that must be made while building and assessing identity programmes, to ensure that human rights are adequately protected.

Rule of Law Tests

Foundational Digital ID must only be implemented along with a legitimate regulatory framework that governs all aspects of Digital ID, including its aims and purposes, the actors who have access to it, etc. In the absence of this framework, there is nothing that precludes Digital IDs from being leveraged by public and private actors for purposes outside the intended scope of the programme. Our rule of law principles mandate that the governing law should be enacted by the legislature, be devoid of excessive delegation, be clear and accessible to the public, and be precise and limiting in its scope for discretion. These principles are substantiated by the criticism that the Kenyan Digital ID, the Huduma Namba, was met with when it was legalized through a Miscellaneous Amendment Act, meant only for small or negligible amendments and typically passed without any deliberation. These set of tests respond to the haste with which Digital ID has been implemented, often in the absence of an enabling law which adequately addresses its potential harms.

Rights based Tests

Digital ID, because of its collection of personal data and determination of eligibility and rights of users, intrinsically involves restrictions on certain fundamental rights. The use of Digital ID for essential functions of the State, including delivery of benefits and welfare, and maintenance of civil and sectoral records, enhance the impact of these restrictions. Accordingly, the entire identity framework, including its architecture, uses, actors, and regulators, must be evaluated at every stage against the rights it is potentially violating. Only then will we be able to determine if such violation is necessary and proportionate to the benefits it offers. In Jamaica, the National Identification and Registration Act, which mandated citizens’ biometric enrolment at the risk of criminal sanctions, was held to be a disproportionate violation of privacy, and therefore unconstitutional.

Risk based Tests

Even with a valid rule of law framework that seeks to protect rights, the design and use of Digital ID must be based on an analysis of the risks that the system introduces. This could take the form of choosing between a centralized and federated data-storage framework, based on the effects of potential failure or breach, or of restricting the uses of the Digital ID to limit the actors that will benefit from breaching it. Aside from the design of the system, the regulatory framework that governs it should also be tailored to the potential risks of its use. The primary rationale behind a risk assessment for an identity framework is that it should be tested not merely against universal metrics of legality and proportionality, but also against an examination of the risks and harms it poses. Implicit in a risk based assessment is also the requirement of implementing a responsive mitigation strategy to the risks identified, both while creating and governing the identity programme.

Digital ID programmes create an inherent power imbalance between the State and its residents because of the personal data they collect and the consequent determination of significant rights, potentially creating risks of surveillance, exclusion, and discrimination. The accountability and efficiency gains they promise must not lead to hasty or inadequate implementation.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/governing-id-introducing-our-evaluation-framework

Governing ID: India’s Unique Identity Programme

Vrinda Bhandari — 2020-03-02T11:38:51Z

In our second case-study, we use our Evaluation Framework for Digital ID to assess India’s Unique Identity Programme.

Read the case-study or download as PDF.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/governing-id-india2019s-unique-identity-programme

Governing ID: A Framework for Evaluation of Digital Identity

Vrinda Bhandari, Shruti Trikanad, and Amber Sinha — 2020-03-02T13:22:43Z

As governments across the globe implement new and foundational digital identification systems (Digital ID), or modernize existing ID programs, there is an urgent need for more research and discussion about appropriate uses of Digital ID systems. This significant momentum for creating Digital ID has been accompanied with concerns about privacy, surveillance and exclusion harms of state-issued Digital IDs in several parts of the world, resulting in campaigns and litigations in countries, such as UK, India, Kenya, and Jamaica. Given the sweeping range of considerations required to evaluate Digital ID projects, it is necessary to formulate evaluation frameworks that can be used for this purpose.

This work began with the question of what the appropriate uses of Digital ID can be, but through the research process, it became clear that the question of use cannot be divorced from the fundamental attributes of Digital ID systems and their governance structures. This framework provides tests, which can be used to evaluate the governance of Digital ID across jurisdictions, as well as determine whether a particular use of Digital ID is legitimate. Through three kinds of checks — Rule of Law tests, Rights based tests, and Risks based tests — this scheme is a ready guide for evaluation of Digital ID.

View the framework or download as PDF.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/governing-id-a-framework-for-evaluation-of-digital-identity

Governing ID:  Use of Digital ID for Verification

Shruti Trikanad — 2020-03-02T11:16:19Z

This is the first in a series of case studies, using our recently-published Evaluation Framework for Digital ID. It looks at the use of digital identity programmes for the purpose of verification, often using the process of deduplication.

Read the case-study or download as PDF.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/governing-id-2028use-of-digital-id-for-verification

Fundamental Right to Privacy — Three Years of the Puttaswamy Judgment

pranav — 2020-08-24T07:46:10Z

Today marks three years since the Supreme Court of India recognised the fundamental right to privacy, but the ideals laid down in the Puttaswamy Judgment are far from being completely realized. Through our research, we invite you to better understand the judgment and its implications, and take stock of recent issues pertaining to privacy.

Amber Sinha dissects the Puttaswamy Judgment through an analysis of the sources, scope and structure of the right, and its possible limitations. [link]

Through a visual guide to the fundamental right to privacy, Amber Sinha and Pooja Saxena trace how courts in India have viewed the right to privacy since Independence, explain how key legal questions were resolved in the Puttaswamy Judgement, and provide an account of the four dimensions of privacy — space, body, information and choice — recognized by the Supreme Court. [link]

Based on publicly available submissions, press statements, and other media reports, Arindrajit Basu and Amber Sinha track the political evolution of the data protection ecosystem in India, on EPW Engage. They discuss how this has, and will continue to impact legislative and policy developments. [link]

For the AI Policy Exchange, Arindrajit Basu and Siddharth Sonkar examine the Automated Facial Recognition Systems (AFRS), and define the key legal and policy questions related to privacy concerns around the adoption of AFRS by governments around the world. [link]

Over the past decade, reproductive health programmes in India have been digitising extensive data about pregnant women. In partnership with Privacy International, we studied the Mother and Child Tracking system (MCTS), and Ambika Tandon presents the impact on the privacy of mothers and children in the country. [link]

While the right to privacy can be used to protect oneself from state surveillance, Mira Swaminathan and Shubhika Saluja write about the equally crucial problem of lateral surveillance — surveillance that happens between individuals, and within neighbourhoods, and communities — with a focus on this issue during the COVID-19 crisis. [link]

Finally, take a dive into the archives of the Centre for Internet and Society to read our work, which was cited in the Puttaswamy judgment — essays by Ashna Ashesh, Vidushi Marda and Bhairav Acharya that displaced the notion that privacy is inherently a Western concept, by attempting to locate the constructs of privacy in Classical Hindu [link], and Islamic Laws [link]; and Acharya’s article in the Economic and Political Weekly, which highlighted the need for privacy jurisprudence to reflect theoretical clarity, and be sensitive to unique Indian contexts [link].

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/fundamental-right-to-privacy-three-years-of-the-puttaswamy-judgment

Digital Rights and ISP Accountability in India: An Analysis of Policies and Practices

Anubha Sinha, Yesha Tshering Paul, and Sherina Poyyail — 2025-01-23T10:04:44Z

This report presents a comprehensive evaluation of India's four largest Internet Service Providers (ISPs)—Reliance Jio, Bharti Airtel, Vodafone-Idea (Vi), and BSNL—examining their commitment to digital rights and transparency.

Read the full report here.

India's four largest Internet Service Providers (ISPs)—Reliance Jio, Bharti Airtel, Vodafone-Idea (Vi), and BSNL collectively serve 98% of India's internet subscribers, with Jio and Airtel commanding a dominant market share of 80.87%. The assessment comes at a critical juncture in India's digital landscape, marked by a 279.34% increase in internet subscribers from 2014 to 2024, alongside issues such as proliferation of internet shutdowns.

Adapting the Ranking Digital Rights' (RDR) 2022 methodology framework for its 2022 Telco Giants Scorecard, our analysis reveals significant disparities in governance structures and commitment to digital rights across these providers. Bharti Airtel emerges as the leader in governance framework implementation, maintaining dedicated human rights policies and board-level oversight. In contrast, Vi and Jio demonstrate mixed results with limited explicit human rights commitments, while BSNL exhibits the weakest governance structure with minimal human rights considerations. Notably, all ISPs lack comprehensive human rights impact assessments for their advertising and algorithmic systems.

The evaluation of freedom of expression commitments reveals systematic inadequacies across all providers. Terms and conditions are frequently fragmented and difficult to access, while providers maintain broad discretionary powers for account suspension or termination without clear appeal processes. There is limited transparency regarding content moderation practices and government takedown requests, coupled with insufficient disclosure about algorithmic decision-making systems that affect user experiences.

Privacy practices among these ISPs show minimal evolution since previous assessments, with persistent concerns about policy accessibility and comprehension. The investigation reveals limited transparency regarding algorithmic processing of personal data, widespread sharing of user data with third parties and government agencies, and inadequate user control over personal information. None of the evaluated ISPs maintain clear data breach notification policies, raising significant concerns about user data protection.

The concentrated market power of Jio and Airtel, combined with weak digital rights commitments across the sector, raises substantial concerns about the state of user privacy and freedom of expression in India's digital landscape. The lack of transparency in website blocking and censorship, inconsistent implementation of blocking orders, limited accountability in handling government requests, insufficient protection of user rights, and inadequate grievance redressal mechanisms emerge as critical areas requiring immediate attention.

As India continues its rapid digital transformation, our findings underscore the urgent need for both regulatory intervention and voluntary industry reforms. The development of standardised transparency reporting, strengthened user rights protections, and robust accountability mechanisms will be crucial in ensuring that India's digital growth aligns with fundamental rights and democratic values.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/digital-rights-and-isp-accountability-in-india-an-analysis-of-policies-and-practices

Decrypting Automated Facial Recognition Systems (AFRS) and Delineating Related Privacy Concerns

Arindrajit Basu, Siddharth Sonkar — 2020-01-02T14:01:48Z

Arindrajit Basu and Siddharth Sonkar have co-written this blog as the first of their three-part blog series on AI Policy Exchange under the parent title: Is there a Reasonable Expectation of Privacy from Data Aggregation by Automated Facial Recognition Systems?

The use of aggregated Big Data by governments has the potential to exacerbate power asymmetries and erode civil liberties like few technologies of the past. In order to guard against the aggressive aggregation and manipulation of the data generated by individuals who are branded as suspect, it is critical that our firmly established constitutional rights protect human dignity in the face of this potential erosion.

The increasing ubiquity of Automated Facial Recognition Systems (AFRS) serve as a prime example of the rising desire of governments to push fundamental rights to the brink. With AFRS, the core fundamental right in question is privacy, although questions have been posed regarding the potential violation of other related rights, such as the Right to Equality and the Right to Free Speech and Expression, as well.

There is a rich corpus of literature, (see here, here and an excellent recent paper by Smriti Parsheera here) from a diverse coterie of scholars that call out the challenges posed by AFRS, particularly with respect to its proportionality as a restriction over the right to privacy. Our contribution to this discourse focuses on a very specific question around a ‘reasonable expectation of privacy’ — the standard identified for the protection of privacy in public spaces across jurisdictions, including in India. This is because at this juncture, the precise nature of the AFRS which will eventually be used and the regulations it will be subject to are not clear.

In Retd. K.S Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India: Justice Chandrachud (Puttaswamy I), the Indian Supreme Court was concerned with the question whether there exists a fundamental right to privacy under the Indian Constitution. A nine-judge bench of the Court recognized that the right to privacy is a fundamental right implicit inter alia in the right to life within Article 21 of the Constitution.

The right to privacy protects people and not places. Every person is entitled, however, to a reasonable expectation of privacy. The expectation of privacy must be twofold. First, the person must prove that the alleged act could inflict some harm. Such harm must be real and not be speculative or imaginary. Second, society must recognize this expectation as reasonable. The test of reasonable expectations is contextual, i.e., the extent to which it safeguards privacy depends on the place at which the individual is.

In order to pass any constitutional test, therefore, AFRS must satisfy the ‘reasonable expectation’ test articulated in Puttaswamy. However, in this context, the test itself has multiple contours. Do we have a right to privacy in a public place? Is AFRS collecting any data that specifically violates a right to privacy? Is the aggregation of that data a potential violation?

After providing a brief introduction to the use cases of AFRS in India and across the world, we embark upon answering all these questions.

Primer on Automated Facial Recognition Systems (AFRS)

Facial recognition is a biometric technology that utilises cameras to match stored or live footage of individuals (including both stills and moving footage) with images or video from an existing database. Some systems might also be used to analyze broader demographic trends or conduct sentiment analysis through crowd scanning.

While the use of photographs and video footage have been core components of police investigation, the use of algorithms to process vast tracts of Big Data (characterized by ‘Volume, Velocity, and Variety), and compare disparate and discrete data points allows for the derivation of hitherto unfeasible insights on the subjects of Big Data.

The utilisation of AFRS for law enforcement is rapidly spreading around the world. A Global AI Surveillance Index compiled by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace found that at least sixty-four countries are incorporating facial recognition systems into their AI surveillance programs.

Chinese technology company Yitu has entered into a partnership with security forces in Malaysia to equip police officers with facial recognition body cameras that, powered by enabling technologies, would allow a comparison of images caught by the live body cameras with images from several central databases.

In England and Wales, London Metropolitan Police, South Wales Police, and Leicestershire Police are all in the process of developing technologies that allow for the identification and comparison of live images with those stored in a database.

The technology is being developed by Japanese firm NEC and the police force has limited ability to oversee or modify the software, given its proprietary nature. The Deputy Chief of South Wales Police stated that “the tech is given to [them] as a sealed box… [and the police force themselves] have no input – whatever it does, it does what it does.”

In the US, Baltimore’s police set up facial recognition cameras to track and arrest protestors — a system that reached its zenith during the 2018 riots in the city.

It is suspected that authorities in Hong Kong are also using AFRS to clamp down on the ongoing pro-democracy protests.

In India, the Ministry of Home Affairs, through the National Crime Records Bureau put out a tender for a new AFRS, whose stated objective is to “act as a foundation for national level searchable platform of facial images.” The AFRS will pull facial image data from CCTV feeds and compare these with existing records across databases including the Crime and Criminal Tracking Networks and Systems (CCTNS), Inter-operable Criminal Justice System (or ICJS), Immigration Visa Foreigner Registration Tracking (IVFRT), Passport, Prisons and state police records.

Plans are also afoot to integrate this with the yet to be deployed National Automated Fingerprint Identification System (NAFIS), thereby creating a multi-faceted surveillance system.

Despite raising eyeballs due to its potential all-pervasive scope, this tender is not the first instance of AFRS being used by Indian authorities. Punjab Police, in partnership with Gurugram-based start-up Staqu has launched and commenced implementation of the Punjab Artificial Intelligence System (PAIS) which uses digitised criminal records and automated facial recognition to retrieve information on a suspected criminal and essentially tracks their public whereabouts, which poses potential constitutional questions.

This was published by AI Policy Exchange.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/decrypting-automated-facial-recognition-systems-afrs-and-delineating-related-privacy-concerns

Cryptocurrency Regulation in India – A brief history

vipul — 2020-03-05T18:36:09Z

In March 2020, the Supreme Court of India quashed the RBI order passed in 2018 that banned financial services firms from trading in virtual currency or cryptocurrency. Keeping this policy window in mind, the Centre for Internet & Society will be releasing a series of blog posts and policy briefs on cryptocurrency regulation in India

The story of cryptocurrencies started in 2008 when a paper titled “Bitcoin: A Peer to Peer Electronic Cash System” was published by a single or group of pseudonymous developer(s) by the name of Satoshi Nakamoto. The actual network took some time to start with the first transactions taking place only in January 2009. The first actual sale of an item using Bitcoin took place a year later with a user swapping 10,000 Bitcoin for two pizzas in 2010, which attached a cash value to the cryptocurrency for the first time. By 2011 other cryptocurrencies began to emerge, with Litecoin, Namecoin and Swiftcoin all making their debut. Meanwhile, Bitcoin the cryptocurrency that started it all started getting criticised after claims emerged that it was being used on the so-called “dark web”, particularly on sites such as Silk Road as a means of payment for illegal transactions. Over the next five years cryptocurrencies steadily gained traction with increased number of transactions and the price of Bitcoin, the most popular cryptocurrency shot up from around 5 Dollars in the beginning of 2012 to almost 1000 Dollars at the end of 2017.

Riding on the back of this wave of popularity, a number of cryptocurrency exchanges started operating in India between 2012 and 2017 providing much needed depth and volume to the Indian cryptocurrency market. These included popular exchanges such as Zebpay, Coinsecure, Unocoin, Koinex, Pocket Bits and Bitxoxo. With the price of cryptocurrencies shooting up and because of its increased popularity and adoption by users outside of its traditional cult following, regulators worldwide began to take notice of this new technology; in India the RBI issued a Press Release cautioning the public against dealing in virtual currencies including Bitcoin way back in 2013. However, the transaction volumes and adoption of cryptocurrencies in India really picked up in earnest only after the demonetisation of high value currency notes in November of 2016, with the government’s emphasis on digital payments leading to alternatives to traditional online banking such as cryptocurrencies forcing their way into the public consciousness. Indian cryptocurrency exchanges started acquiring users at a much higher pace which drove up volume for cryptocurrency transactions on all Indian exchanges. The growing popularity of cryptocurrencies and its adoption by large numbers of Indian users forced the RBI to issue another Press Release in February 2017 reiterating its concerns regarding cryptocurrencies raised in its earlier Press Release of 2013.

In October and November, 2017 two Public Interest Petitions were filed in the Supreme Court of India, one by Siddharth Dalmia and another by Dwaipayan Bhowmick, the former asking the Supreme Court to restrict the sale and purchase of cryptocurrencies in India, and the latter asking for cryptocurrencies in India to be regulated. Both the petitions are currently pending in the Supreme Court.

In November, 2017 the Government of India constituted a high level Inter-ministerial Committee under the chairmanship of Shri Subhash Chandra Garg, Secretary, Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance and comprising of Shri Ajay Prakash Sawhney (Secretary, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology), Shri Ajay Tyagi (Chairman, Securities and Exchange Board of India) and Shri B.P. Kanungo (Deputy Governor, Reserve Bank of India). The mandate of the Committee was to study various issues pertaining to Virtual Currencies and to propose specific actions that may be taken in relation thereto. This Committee submitted its report in July of 2019 recommending a ban on private cryptocurrencies in India.

In December 2017 both the RBI as well as the Ministry of Finance issued Press releases cautioning the general public about the dangers and risks associated with cryptocurrencies, with the Ministry of Finance Press Release saying that cryptocurrencies are like ponzi schemes and also declaring that they are not currencies or coins. It should be mentioned here that till the end of March 2018, the RBI and the Finance Ministry had issued various Press Releases on cryptocurrencies cautioning people against their risks, however none of them ever took any legal action or gave any enforceable directions against cryptocurrencies. All of this changed with the RBI circular dated April 6, 2018 whereby the RBI prevented Commercial and Co-operative Banks, Payments Banks, Small Finance Banks, NBFCs, and Payment System Providers not only from dealing in virtual currencies themselves but also directing them to stop providing services to all entities which deal with virtual currencies.

The effect of the circular was that cryptocurrency exchanges, which relied on normal banking channels for sending and receiving money to and from their users, could not access any banking services within India. This essentially crippled their business operations since converting cash to cryptocurrencies and vice versa was an essential part of their operations. Even pure cryptocurrency exchanges which did not deal in fiat currency, were unable to carry out their regular operations such as paying for office space, staff salaries, server space, vendor payments, etc. without access to banking services.

As a the operations of cryptocurrency exchanges took a severe hit and the number of transactions on these exchanges reduced substantially. People who had bought cryptocurrencies on these exchanges as an investment were forced to sell their crypto assets and cash out before they lost access to banking facilities. The cryptocurrency exchanges themselves found it hard to sustain operations in the face of the dual hit of reduced transaction volumes and loss of access banking services. Faced with such an existential threat, a number of exchanges who were members of the Internet and Mobile Association of India (IMAI), filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court on May 15, 2018 titled Internet and Mobile Association of India v. Reserve Bank of India, the final arguments in which were heard by the Supreme Court of India in January, 2020 and the judgment is awaited. If the Supreme Court agrees with the arguments of the petitioners, then cryptocurrency exchanges would be able to restart operations in India; as a result the cryptocurrency ecosystem in India may be revived and cryptocurrencies may become a viable investment alternative again.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cryptocurrency-regulation-in-india-2013-a-brief-history

Comments to National Digital Health Mission: Health Data Management Policy

Shweta Mohandas, Pallavi Bedi, Shweta Reddy, and Saumyaa Naidu — 2020-10-05T15:56:51Z

CIS has submitted comments to the National Health Data Management Policy. We welcome the opportunity provided to our comments on the Policy and we hope that the final Policy will consider the interests of all the stakeholders to ensure that it protects the privacy of the individual while encouraging a digital health ecosystem.

Read the full set of comments here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/comments-to-national-digital-health-mission-health-data-management-policy

Comments on NITI AAYOG Working Document: Towards Responsible #AIforAll

Shweta Mohandas, Arindrajit Basu and Ambika Tandon — 2020-08-18T06:25:18Z

The NITI Aayog Working Document on Responsible AI for All released on 21st July 2020 serves as a significant statement of intent from NITI Aayog, acknowledging the need to ensure that any conception of “Responsible AI” must fulfill constitutional responsibilities, incorporated through workable principles. However, as it is a draft document for discussion, it is important to highlight next steps for research and policy levers to build upon this report.

Read our comments in their entirety here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/comments-on-niti-aayog-working-document-towards-responsible-aiforall

Call for Comments: Model Security Standards for the Indian Fintech Industry

pranav — 2019-12-16T13:16:25Z

The Centre for Internet and Society is pleased to make available the Draft document of Model Security Standards for the Indian Fintech Industry, for feedback and comments from all stakeholders. The objective of this document which was first published in November 2019, is to ensure that the data of users is dealt with in a secure and safe manner by the Fintech Industry, and that smaller businesses in the Fintech industry have a specific standard to look at in order to limit their liabilities for any future breaches.

We invite any parties interested in the field of technology policy, including but not limited to lawyers, policy researchers, and engineers, to send in your feedback/comments on the draft document by the 16th of January 2020. We intend to publish our final draft by the end of January 2020. We look forward to receiving your contributions to make this document more comprehensive and effective. Please find a copy of the draft document here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/call-for-comments-model-security-standards-for-the-indian-fintech-industry

Automated Facial Recognition Systems and the Mosaic Theory of Privacy: The Way Forward

Arindrajit Basu, Siddharth Sonkar — 2020-01-02T14:12:38Z

Arindrajit Basu and Siddharth Sonkar have co-written this blog as the third of their three-part blog series on AI Policy Exchange under the parent title: Is there a Reasonable Expectation of Privacy from Data Aggregation by Automated Facial Recognition Systems?

The Mosaic Theory of Privacy

Whether the data collected by the AFRS should be treated similar to face photographs taken for the purposes of ABBA is not clear in the absence of judicial opinion. The AFRS would ordinarily collect significantly more data than facial photographs during authentication. This can be explained with the help of the mosaic theory of privacy.

The mosaic theory of privacy suggests that data collected for long durations of an individual can be qualitatively different from single instances of observation. It argues that aggregating data from different instances can create a picture of an individual which affects her reasonable expectation of privacy. This is because a mere slice of information reveals a lot less if the same is contextualised in a broad pattern — a mosaic.

The mosaic theory of privacy does not find explicit reference in Puttaswamy II. The petitioners had argued that seeding of Aadhaar data into existing databases would bridge information across silos so as to make real time surveillance possible. This is because information when integrated from different silos becomes more than the sum of its parts.

The Court, however, dismissed this argument, accepting UIDAI’s submission that the data collected remains in different silos and merging is not permitted within the Aadhaar framework. Therefore, the Court did not examine whether it is constitutionally permissible to integrate data from different silos; it simply rejected the possibility of surveillance as a result of Aadhaar authentication.

Jurisprudence in other jurisdictions is more advanced. In United States v. Jones, the United States Supreme Court had observed that the insertion of a global positioning system into Antoine Jones’ Jeep in the absence of a warrant and without his consent invaded his privacy, entitling him to Fourth Amendment Protection. In this case, the movement of Jones’ vehicle was monitored for a period of twenty-eight days. Five concurring opinions in Jones acknowledges that aggregated and extensive surveillance is capable of violating the reasonable expectation of privacy irrespective of whether or not surveillance has taken place in public.

The Court distinguished between prolonged surveillance and short term surveillance. Surveillance in the short run does not reveal what a person repeatedly does, as opposed to sustained surveillance which can reveal significantly more about a person. The Court takes the example of how a sequence of trips to a bar, a bookie, a gym or a church can tell a lot more about a person than the story of any single visit viewed in isolation.

Most recently, in Carpenter v. United States, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the collection of historical cell data by the government exposes the physical movements of an individual to potential surveillance, and an individual holds a reasonable expectation of privacy against such collection. The Court admitted that historical-cell site information allows the government to go back in time in order to retract the exact whereabouts of a person.

Judicial decisions have not addressed specifically whether facial recognition through law enforcement constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment or a “mere visual observation”.

The common thread linking CCTV footages and cellular data is the unique ability to track the movement of an individual from one place to another, enabling extreme forms of surveillance. It is perhaps this crucial link that would make ARFS-enabled CCTVs prejudicial to individual privacy.

The mosaic theory as understood in Carpenter helps one understand the extent to which an AFRS can augment the capacities of law enforcement in India. This in turn can help in understanding whether it is constitutionally permissible to install such systems across the country.

AFRS enabled-CCTV footages from different CCTVs. if viewed in conjunction could reveal a sequence of movements of an individual, enabling long-term surveillance of a nature that is qualitatively distinct from isolated observances observed across unrelated CCTV footages.

Subsequent to Carpenter, federal district courts in the United States have declined to apply Carpenter to video surveillance cases since the judgement did not “call into question conventional surveillance techniques and tools, such as security cameras.”

The extent of processing that an AFRS-enabled CCTV exposes an individual to would be significantly greater. This is because every time an individual is in the zone of a AFRS-enabled CCTV, the facial image will be compared to a common database. Snippets from different CCTVs capturing the individual’s physical presence in two different locations may not be meaningful per se. When observed together, the AFRS will make it possible to identify the individual’s movement from one place to another.

For instance, the AFRS will be able to identify the person when they are on Street A at a particular time and when they are Street B in the immediately subsequent hour recorded by respective CCTV cameras, indicating the person’s physical movement from A to B. While a CCTV camera only records movement of an individual in video format, AFRS translates that digital information into individualised data with the help of a comparison of facial features with a pre-existing database.

Through data aggregation, which appears to be the aim of the Indian government in their tender that links three databases, it is apparent that the right to privacy is in danger. Yet, at present, there does not exist any case law or legislation that can render such efforts illegal at this juncture.

Conclusions and The Way Forward

Despite a lack of judicial recognition of the potential unconstitutionality of deploying AFRS, it is clear that the introduction of these systems pose a clear and present danger to civil rights and human dignity. Algorithmic surveillance alters a human being’s life in ways that even the subject of this surveillance cannot fully comprehend. As an individual’s data is manipulated and aggregated to derive a pattern about that individual’s world, the individual or his data no longer exists for itselfbut are massaged into various categories.

Louis Amoore terms this a ‘data-derivative’, which is an abstract conglomeration of data that continuously shapes our futures without us having a say in their framing. The branding of an individual as a criminal and then aggregating their data causes emotional distress as individuals move about in fear of the state gaze and their association with activities that are branded as potentially dangerous — thereby suppressing a right to dissent — as exemplified by their use reported use during the recent protests in Hong Kong.

Case law both in India and abroad has clearly suggested that a right to privacy is contextual and is not surrendered merely because an individual is in a public place. However, the jurisprudence protecting public photography or videography under the umbrella of privacy remains less clear globally and non-existent in India.

The mosaic theory of privacy is useful in this regard as it prevents mass ‘data-veillance’ of individual behaviour and accurately identifies the unique power that the volume, velocity and variety of Big Data provides to the state. Therefore, it is imperative that the judiciary recognise safeguards from data aggregation as an essential component of a reasonable expectation of privacy. At the same time, legislation could also provide the required safeguards.

In the US, Senators Coons and Lee recently introduced a draft Bill titled ‘The Facial Recognition Technology Warrant Act of 2019’. The Bill aims to impose reasonable restrictions on the use of facial recognition technology by law enforcement. The Bill creates safeguards against sustained tracking of physical movements of an individual in public spaces. The Bill terms such tracking ‘ongoing surveillance’ when it occurs for over a period of 72 hours in real time or through application of technology to historical records. The Bill requires that ongoing surveillance only be conducted for law enforcement purposes and in pursuance of a Court Order (unless it is impractical to do so).

While the Bill has its textual problems, it is definitely worth considering as a model going forward and ensure that AFR systems are deployed in line with a rights-respecting reading of a reasonable expectation of privacy. Parsheera suggests that the legislation should narrow tailoring of the objects and purposes for deployment of AFRS, restrictions on the person whose images may be scanned from the databases, judicial approval for its use on a case by case basis and effective mechanisms of oversight, analysis and verification.

Appropriate legal intervention is crucial. A failure to implement this effectively jeopardizes the expression of our true selves and the core tenets of our democracy.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/automated-facial-recognition-systems-and-the-mosaic-theory-of-privacy-the-way-forward

Centre for Internet and Society

How to Shut Down Internet Shutdowns

About the Speaker

Governing ID: Use of Digital ID in the Healthcare Sector

Governing ID: Kenya’s Huduma Namba Programme

Governing ID: Introducing our Evaluation Framework

Rule of Law Tests

Rights based Tests

Risk based Tests

Governing ID: India’s Unique Identity Programme

Governing ID: A Framework for Evaluation of Digital Identity

Governing ID: Use of Digital ID for Verification

Fundamental Right to Privacy — Three Years of the Puttaswamy Judgment

Digital Rights and ISP Accountability in India: An Analysis of Policies and Practices

Decrypting Automated Facial Recognition Systems (AFRS) and Delineating Related Privacy Concerns

Cryptocurrency Regulation in India – A brief history

Comments to National Digital Health Mission: Health Data Management Policy

Comments on NITI AAYOG Working Document: Towards Responsible #AIforAll

Call for Comments: Model Security Standards for the Indian Fintech Industry

Automated Facial Recognition Systems and the Mosaic Theory of Privacy: The Way Forward

Governing ID:  Use of Digital ID for Verification