Centre for Internet and Society

The Aadhaar Act is Not a Money Bill

Amber Sinha — 2016-04-25T10:51:37Z

While the authority of the Lok Sabha Speaker is final and binding, Jairam Ramesh’s writ petition may allow the Supreme Court to question an incorrect application of substantive principles. This article by Amber Sinha was published by The Wire on April 24, 2016.

Originally published by The Wire on April 24, 2016.

Since its introduction as a money bill in the Lok Sabha in the first week of March [1], the Aadhaar (Targeted delivery of Financial and other subsidies, benefits and services) Bill, 2016 has been embroiled in controversy. The Lok Sabha rejected the five recommendations of the Rajya Sabha and adopted the bill on March 16 and only presidential assent was required for it become to become valid law. However, former Union Minister Jairam Ramesh filed a writ petition contesting the decision to treat the Aadhaar Bill as a money bill. The petition is due to be heard before the Supreme Court on April 25, and should the court decide to entertain the petition, it could have far-reaching implications for the Aadhaar project and the manner in which money bills are passed by the Parliament.

There are three broad categories of bills (all legislations or Acts are known as ‘bills’ till they are passed by the Parliament) that the Parliament can pass. The first kind, Constitution Amendment Bills, are those that seek to amend a provision in the Constitution of India. The second are financial bills which contain provisions on matters of taxation and expenditure. Money bills are a subset of the financial bills which contain provisions only related to taxation, financial obligations of the government, expenditure from or receipt to the Consolidated Fund of India and any matters incidental to the above. The third category is of ordinary bills which includes all other bills. The process for the enactment of all these bills is different. Money bills are peculiar in that they can only be introduced in the Lok Sabha where it can be passed by simple majority. Following this, it is transmitted to the Rajya Sabha. The Rajya Sabha’s powers are restricted to giving recommendations on the Bill and sending it back to the Lok Sabha, which the Lok Sabha is under no obligation to accept. The decision to introduce the Aadhaar Bill as a money bill has been widely seen as an attempt to circumvent the Rajya Sabha where the ruling party is in a minority.

Article 110 (1) of the Constitution defines a money bill as one containing provisions only regarding the matters enumerated or any matters incidental to them. These are a) imposition, regulation and abolition of any tax, b) borrowing or other financial obligations of the Government of India, c) custody, withdrawal from or payment into the Consolidated Fund of India (CFI) or Contingent Fund of India, d) appropriation of money out of CFI, e) expenditure charged on the CFI or f) receipt or custody or audit of money into CFI or public account of India. Article 110 is modelled on Section 1(2) of the (UK) Parliament Act, 1911 which also defines the money bills as those only dealing with certain enumerated matters. The use of the word “only” was brought up by Ghanshyam Singh Gupta during the Constituent Assembly Debates. He pointed out that the use of the word “only” limits the scope of money bills to only those legislations which did not deal with other matters. His amendment to delete the word “only” was rejected clearly establishing the intent of the framers of the Constitution to keep the ambit of money bills extremely narrow.

While the Aadhaar Bill does make references to benefits, subsidies and services funded by the Consolidated Fund of India (CFI), even a cursory reading of the bill reveals its main objectives as creating a right to obtain a unique identification number and providing for a statutory apparatus to regulate the entire process. The mere fact of establishing the Aadhaar number as the identification mechanism for benefits and subsidies funded by the CFI does not give it the character of a money bill. The bill merely speaks of facilitating access to unspecified subsidies and benefits rather than their creation and provision being the primary object of the legislation. Erskine May’s seminal textbook, ‘Parliamentary Practice” is instructive in this respect and makes it clear that a legislation which simply makes a charge on the Consolidated Fund does not becomes a money bill if otherwise its character is not that of one.

PDT Achary, former secretary general of the Lok Sabha, has expressed concern about the use of Money Bills as a means to circumvent the Rajya Sabha. He has written here [2] and here [3], on what constitutes a money bill and how the attempts to pass off financial bills like the Aadhaar Bill as money bills could erode the supervisory role Rajya Sabha is supposed to play. This is especially true in the case of a legislation like the Aadhaar Bill which has far reaching implications for individual privacy as it governs the identification system conceptualised to provide a unique and lifelong identity to residents of India dealing with both the analog and digital machinery of the state and by virtue of Section 57 of any private entities. Already over 1 billion people have been enrolled under this identification scheme, and the project has been a subject of much debate and a petition before the Supreme Court. The project has been portrayed as both the last hope for a welfare state and surveillance infrastructure. Regardless of which of the two ends of spectrum one leans towards, it is undeniable that the law governing the Aadhaar project deserved a proper debate in the Parliament. Even those who are strong proponents of the project must accept the decision to pass it off as a money bill undermines the importance of democratic processes and is a travesty on the Constitution and a blatant abrogation of the constitutional duties of the speaker.

The petition by Jairam Ramesh would hinge largely on the powers of the judiciary to question the decision of the Speaker of the Lok Sabha. Article 110 (3) is very clear in pronouncing the authority of the Speaker as final and binding. Additionally, Article 122 prohibits the courts from questioning the validity of any proceedings in Parliament on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure. The powers of privilege that Parliamentarians enjoy are integral to the principle of separation of powers. However, the courts may be able to make a fine distinction between inquiring into procedural irregularity which is prohibited by the Constitution; and questioning an incorrect application of substantive principles, which I would argue, is the case with the Speaker decision.

References

[1] See: http://thewire.in/2016/03/07/arun-jaitley-introduces-money-bill-on-aadhar-in-lok-sabha-24115/.

[2] See: http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/show-me-the-money-4/.

[3] See: http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/circumventing-the-rajya-sabha/article7531467.ece.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-aadhaar-act-is-not-a-money-bill

The 12-digit conundrum

praskrishna — 2017-03-14T13:50:05Z

Even as the Centre plans to link as many as 500 schemes to Aadhaar, concerns over data safety are rising. Richa Mishra reports.

The article by Richa Mishra was published in the Hindu Businessline on March 13, 2017. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

The developments of last few weeks seem to have made real some of the worst fears about Aadhaar. In February, UIDAI (Unique Identification Authority of India) filed a police complaint alleging attempts of unauthorised authentication and impersonation of data related to Aadhaar. Since then, each and every machinery within the government has been trying to convince otherwise, that Aadhaar database is safe and secure, and that the data is protected both by the best available advanced technology as well as by the stringent legal provisions in the Aadhaar Act.

Not everyone is convinced. Critics say, biometrics only make the citizen transparent to the State, it does not make the State transparent to citizens. “We warned the government six years ago, but they ignored us,” said Sunil Abraham, Executive Director of Bengaluru-based research organisation, Centre for Internet and Society. According to him, the legislation implementing Aadhaar has almost no data protection guarantees for citizens. He also believes that by opting for biometrics instead of smart cards the government is using surveillance technology instead of e-governance technology.

“Biometrics is remote, covert and non-consensual identification technology. It is totally inappropriate for authentication. This has only increased the fragility of Indian cyber security,” he stresses.

However, officials associated with UIDAI dismiss these arguments. Collecting biometrics does not pose any threat to the right to privacy because people have been giving their thumb impression for ages, they say. “The biometrics are encrypted at source and kept safe and secure. Unauthorised sharing and leakage of the data does not happen. Fears related to collection of biometrics are not justified,” an official at the helm of affairs said. He requested anonymity.

“However, as and when we find that some suspicious activity or misuse is happening, we will strike at the very beginning itself. UIDAI has full authentication regulation under the Aadhaar Act that has to be followed. It specifies in what manner authorities can use Aadhaar,” the official pointed out.

On the ground

Even as the debate over data security rages, the aam aadmi seem to be little perturbed about the alleged risks involved. For Padmini, who works as a domestic help in East Delhi and is the sole bread earner for her family of four, the Aadhaar card meant access to all government benefits.

“Koi farak nahi padta, kaun dekhta hai mera card. Mujhko LPG cylinder ka paisa bank mein mil jata hai,” (It doesn’t matter to me who sees my card. The subsidy for LPG gets transferred to my account) she says. “Baccho ke school admission mein bhi zaroorat pada,” (I needed it to get my children’s admission in school), she added. Sukh, a cab driver also uses it to get the LPG subsidy.

While everyone BusinessLine talked to were convinced that Aadhaar was not a citizenship card, the more aware ones saw it as a door that gave access to government schemes.

While they had a point, government officials are careful to make it clear that Aadhaar is not mandatory. But the popular perception increasingly points to the opposite view, especially after it emerged that Aadhaar might be made mandatory for children to receive midday meals at schools.

Another senior government official said, “Aadhaar is not mandatory under any welfare scheme of the government and no one is being deprived of a service or benefit for the want of Aadhaar…it’s required for availing a service/subsidy/benefit that accrues through the Consolidated Fund of India.” He added that those who do not have the 12-digit number would be provided with the facility to enrol by the Requiring Agency. “And till the time Aadhaar is assigned, alternative IDs would be allowed,” he said.

If a school which has to get Aadhaar enrolment done for its students puts the Aadhaar numbers of its students on its site and the same is used by someone, you can’t blame us, the official argues. Then, who is accountable?

Pushing for Aadhaar, the UIDAI officials cite the example of Kerala’s Department of General Education (DGE), which has integrated Aadhaar with the student databases and has thereby optimised the teacher-student ratio and identified the schools with excess teachers. In a single academic year, 3,892 excess teacher posts were identified.

“Due to this exercise, no new posts have been sanctioned for the last two years, resulting in notional savings of ₹540 crore per annum,” said a UIDAI official. After student enrolment in the state was linked to Aadhaar since 2012-2013, the head count of pupils have fallen by 5 lakh. Similar trends have been reported in Haryana. Critics have also pointed out the possible security risk in using AadhaarPay, the Andriod-based app. Merchants can download the app in their phone and install a fingerprint scanner linked to the phone. Customers with Aadhaar numbers can use their fingerprints (like the secret PIN in case of debit cards) to do a transaction. While doubts have been raised about the safety of fingerprint data, officials in the know blame the controversy on the “card lobbies.”

“Thirty crore Indians have no mobiles. They find it difficult to handle password, pin or card, this is where AadhaarPay will come handy,” the official added. “They don’t need a smart phone or feature phone. They don’t need a debit card.

“Today more than 112 crore people have the Aadhaar card. Approximately, 52.95 crore people have linked their Aadhaar numbers to their bank accounts. We already have a system of Aadhaar authentication in place,” the official added.

Government officials are at pain to point out the larger benefits of Aadhaar, including savings of more than ₹49,000 crore by plugging leakages in government schemes like PDS. Government plans to increase the number of welfare schemes linked to Aadhaar from 36 to over 500. While the intent is good, concerns remain.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/richa-mishra-hindu-businessline-march-13-2017-the-12-digit-conundrum

The 2nd IJLT-CIS Lecture Series — A Post-event Report

praskrishna — 2011-11-17T10:25:56Z

The Indian Journal of Law and Technology (IJLT) and the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), organised the 2nd IJLT-CIS Lecture Series on the 21st and 22nd of May 2011 at the National Law School of India University, Nagarbhavi, Bangalore. The main theme for this year was Emerging Issues in Privacy Law: Law, Policy and Practice.

Speakers and Topics

Spread over two days, the National Law School hosted six speakers who held forth on the different aspects of privacy law, speaking from perspectives that were grounded in theory and actual practice and some that were India-centric while others applied equally to any jurisdiction.

Vivek Durai, Partner, Atman Law Partners, addressed the gathering and gave the general introduction to the need for a discussion relating to privacy and the law. He spoke of technology and certain current events, including technological advances, have made privacy an issue with which serious engagement of the law has become imperative.

Usha Ramanathan, an independent law researcher, spoke of the Unique Identity Project (Aadhar) launched by the Government of India and its implications on the privacy and data relating to the citizens. Ms. Ramanathan was critical of the Government’s plans on the basis that an ill-planned and executed project that sought to collect data such as this could provide easy fodder for data-mining. The latest 2011 rules that outline the relationship between the citizen and the state and the extent of privacy the citizen has in respect of this relationship.

Hamish Fraser, a leading Australian practitioner in the field of technology law, addressed the gathering via video conference and spoke about cloud computing and privacy of parties using such facilities. He highlighted how technology such as cloud computing where the storage of data is almost fully virtual, with only the weakest of links to any physical storage space, were being increasingly widely used. He helped provide a practitioners perspective to the lecture as well by discussing how companies and individuals seeking to utilise cloud computing facilities, particularly for business purposes, must check for some essential legal provisions that would allow them to retain control over their data and prevent their data from being misappropriated by the provider of the virtual storage space in the cloud. He briefly also discussed the draft Australian privacy legislation.

Sean Blagsvedt, founder of Baba Jobs, discussed the interplay between privacy and transparency and argued convincingly that under certain circumstances, transparency holds greater value than blind protection of privacy. He spoke of his experience in setting up Baba Jobs that seeks to act as a job portal-cum-social networking site for persons providing essential services such as plumbers, electricians, carpenters, house painters, etc. Rather than seeking to strictly protect the details and identity of these persons, Blagsvedt found that one of the most important factors for future employers while considering hiring such service personnel were the details of their previous assignments and testimonials from previous employers – the transparency that Baba Jobs offered became its USP. Blagsvedt talked of how a misplaced over-emphasis on privacy could often lead to greater detriments than benefits and prevent trust due to a lack of information. He concluded by predicting that as people increasingly shifted social and commercial transactions to the online world, the demands for privacy online would soon be offset by demands for greater transparency.

Sudhir Krishnaswamy, Professor of Law at the Azim Premji University, Bangalore delivered a lecture on the state and privacy in India illustrating the development of the law on the matter. He also discussed about the balance that needs to be struck between the individual’s requirement for privacy and the state’s desire for secrecy. He also spoke about two manners in which to conceptualise privacy — recognising privacy as an inherent right that may be at times restricted to a certain extent, vis-a-vis seeing privacy as a right that the state grants to a citizen.

Abhayraj Naik, Assistant Professor, Jindal Global Law School, Sonepat, gave a lecture on informational privacy in comparative contexts. The discussion centred on information surveillance in different jurisdictions and how the values attached to the attribution of information reflects in the laws relating to privacy in those different jurisdictions. His approach included mathematical modelling of information attribution and provided an interdisciplinary approach.

Participation

The lecture series saw registration from over 50 people, including students from law schools all over the country, practitioners, and even educators. Since the lectures were streamed live online, and this was only the second event in NLS to use this facility apart from the Annual Convocation, many more people listened to the lectures online. The lectures were available online for a period of one week after the conclusion of the lecture series.

IJLT-CIS Lecture Series 2011 Registration

The following people participated in the event:

Adithya Banavar, Akanksha Arora, Anand VJ, Aniket Singhania, Ankit Verma, Anupama Kumar, Aparna Gokhale, Arjun Krishnamoorthy, Arjun Sharma, Arun Menon, Asif Ayaz, B. N. Vivek, Batool, Chirag Tanna, Deepakar Livingston.P., Deepthi R, Dheer Bhatnagar, Dinesh Subramany, Esha Goel, Gopalakrishnan R., J Suresh, Jamshed Ansari, Kanti Jadia, Khadeeja Nadeem, Khumtiya Debbarma, Mani Bhushan, Manish, Nayan Jain, Neha Baglani, Panduranga Acharya, Partha Chakravarty, Parul Bali, Prashanth Ramdas, Prateek Rath, Preyanka Sapru, Prianca Ravichander, Priytosh Singh, Purushotham.G, Ralph A, Ruhi Chanda, S. Badrinath, S. Bhushan, S. K. Mohanty, Sahana Manjesh, Sanjana Chappalli, Santosh Dindima, Shalini Iyengar, Shalini S, Sibani Saxena, Spoorthy M. S., Tarang Shashishekar, Tarun Kovvali, Tejaswini Rajkumar, Vaishali Kant, and Y. Shiva Santosh Kumar.

See the Letter of Agreement [PDF, 1 MB]

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/ijlt-cis-lecture-series-report

The (in)Visible Subject: Power, Privacy and Social Networking

rebecca — 2011-08-18T05:06:52Z

In this entry, I will argue that the interplay between privacy and power on social network sites works ultimately to subject individuals to the gaze of others, or to alternatively render them invisible. Individual choices concerning privacy preferences must, therefore, be informed by the intrinsic relationship which exists between publicness/privateness and subjectivity/obscurity.
The Architecture of Openness

Through a Google search or a quick scan of Facebook, people today are able to gain “knowledge” on others in a way never once possible. The ability to search and collect information on individuals online only continues to improve as online social networks grow and search engines become more comprehensive. Social networks, and the social web more broadly, has worked to fundamentally alter the nature of personal information made available online. Social networking services today enable the average person, with web access, to publish information through a “social profile”. Personal information made available online is now communicative, narrative and biographic. Consequentially, social profiles have become rich containers of personal information that can be searched, indexed and analyzed.

The architecture of the social web further encourages users to enclose volumes of personally identifiable information. Most social network sites embrace the “ethos of openness” as, by default, most have relaxed privacy settings. While most sites give users relative control over the disclosure of personal information, services such as MySpace, Facebook and Live Journal are far ahead of the black and white public/private privacy models of sites such as Bebo and Orkut. Bebo, for example, only allows users to disclose information to “friends” or “everyone”, granting little granularity for diverse privacy preferences. MySpace and Facebook, on the other hand, have made room for “friends of friends”, among other customizable group preferences. All networking sites also consider certain pieces of basic information publicly available, without privacy controls. On most sites, this includes name, photograph, gender and location, and list of friends. Okrut, however, considers far more information to public—leaving the political views and religions of its’ members public. This openness leaves the individual with little knowledge or control over how their information is viewed, and subsequently used.

Search functionality has also increased the visibility of individuals outside their immediate social network. For example, sites such Facebook and LinkedIn index user profiles through Google search. Furthermore, all social network sites index their users, effectively allowing profiles to be searched by other users through basic registration data, such as first and last name or registered email address. While most services allow users to remove their profiles from external search engines, they are often not able to effectively control internal searches. Orkut, for example, does not allow users to disable internal searches according to their first and last names. LinkedIn and MySpace also maintains that users be searchable by their email addresses.

Through this open architecture and search functionality, social network sites have rendered individuals more “visible” vis-à-vis one another. The social web has effectively altered the spatial dimensions of our social lives as grounded, embodied experience becomes ubiquitous and multiply experienced. Privacy, in the online social milieu, assumes greater fluidity and varied meaning—transcending spatially constructed understandings of the notion.

While the architecture of social networking sites encourages users to be more “public”, heightened control, or “more privacy” is generally suggested as the panacea to privacy concerns. However, the public/private binary of privacy talk often fails to capture the complex nexus which exists between privacy and power in the networked ecosystem. Privacy preferences on social networks, and the consequences thereof, are effectively shaped and influenced by structures of power. In this entry, I will argue that the interplay between privacy and power works ultimately to expose individuals to the subjective gaze of others, or to render them invisible. In this respect, individual choices concerning privacy preferences must be informed by the intrinsic relationship between notions of publicness/privateness and subjectivity/obscurity.

Power and Subjectivity

The searchable nature of the social profile allows others to quickly and easily aggregate information on one another. As privacy scholar Daniel Solve notes, social searching may be of genuine intent – individuals use social networking services to locate old friends, and to connect with current colleagues. However, curiosity does not always assume such innocence, as fishing expeditions for personal information may serve the purpose of judging individuals based perception of the social profile. The relatively power of search and open information can be harnessed to weed out potential job applicants, or to rank college applicants. Made possible through the architecture of the web and social constructions of power, individuals may be subjected to the deconstructive gaze of superiors.

The architecture of social networking sites significantly compliments this nexus between privacy and power. As individual behavior and preferences become more transparent, the act of surveillance is masked behind the ubiquity and anonymity of online browsing. Drawing on Foucault’s panopticism, social networks make for the “containerization” of social space –allowing the powerful to subjectively hierarchize and classify individuals in relation to one another [1]. This practice becomes particularly troublesome online, as individuals are often unable to control how they are constructed by others in cyberspace.

Perfect control is difficult to guarantee in an ecosystem where personal information is easily searched, stored, copied, indexed, and shared. In this respect, the privacy controls of social networking sites are greatly illusory. Googling an individual’s name, for example, may not reveal the full social profile of an individual, but may unveil dialogue involving the individual in a public discussion group. The searchable nature of personal information on the web has both complicated and undesirable consequences for privacy of the person for, what I believe, to be two main reasons.

The first point refers to what Daniel J. Solve describes as the “virtue of knowing less”. Individuals may be gaining more “information” on others through the internet, but this information is often insufficient for judging one’s character as it only communicates one dimension of an individual. In her work, Helen Nissenbaum emphasizes the importance contextual integrity holds for personal information. When used outside its intended context, information gathered online may not be useful for accurately assessing an individual. In addition, the virtual gaze is void of the essential components of human interaction necessary to effectively understand and situate each other. As Solve notes, certain information may distort judgment of another person, rather than increasing its accuracy.

Secondly, the act of surveillance through social networks work to undermine privacy and personhood, as individuals seek to situate others as “fixed texts” [2]. Due to the complex nature of the social self, such practice is undesirable. Online social networks are socially constructed spaces, with diverse meanings assigned by varied users. One may utilize a social network service to build and maintain professional relationships, while another may use it as an intimate space to share with close friends and family. James Rachels’ theory of privacy notes that privacy is important, as it allows individuals to selectively disclose information and to engage in behaviors appropriate and necessary for maintaining diverse personal relationships. Drawing on the work of performance theorists such as Judith Butler, we can assert that identity is not fixed or unitary, but is constituted by performances that are directed at different audiences [3]. Sociologist Erving Goffman also notes that we “live our lives as performers… [and] play many different roles and wear many different masks” [4]. Individuals, therefore, are inclined to perform themselves online according to their perceived audiences. It is the audience, or the social graph, which constructs the context that, in turn, informs individual behavior.

Any attempt to situate and categorize the individual becomes particularly problematic in the context of social networks, where information is often not intended for the purpose for which it is being used. Due to the complex nature of human behavior, judgments of character based on online observation only effectively capture one side of the “complicated self”. As Julie Cohen writes, the “law often fails to capture the mutually constitutive interactions between self and culture, the social constructions of systems of knowledge, and the interplay between systems of knowledge and systems of power”. Because the panoptic gaze is decentralized and anonymous in the networked ecosystem, individuals will often bear little knowledge on how their identities are being digitally deconstructed and rewired. Most importantly, much of this judgment will occur without individual consent or knowledge—emphasizing the transparent nature of the digital self.

Power and (in)visibility

In response to the notion that the architecture of the social web may render individuals transparent to the gaze of others, the need for more “control” over privacy on social network sites has captured the public imagination. Facebook’s abrupt privacy changes, for example, have received widespread attention in the blogosphere and even by governments. While popular privacy discourse often continues to fixate on the public/private binary—Facebook’s questionable move towards privacy decontrol has raised important questions of power and privilege.

A recent blog post by danah boyd nicely touches upon the dynamics of power, public-ness, and privilege in the context of online social networking. As she notes, “Public-ness has always been a privilege… but now we've changed the equation and anyone can theoretically be public… and seen by millions. However, there are still huge social costs to being public…the privileged don’t have to worry about the powerful observing them online…but most everyone else does –forcing people into the public eye doesn’t dismantle the structures of privilege and power, but only works to reinforce them” (emphasis added).

This point touches upon an important idea —that publicity has value. This nexus between visibility and power is one which unfolds quite clearly in the social media ecosystem. One’s relevance or significance could, arguably, be measured relative to online visibility. Many individuals who are seen as “leaders” within their own professional or social circles often maintain public blogs, maintain a herd of followers on Twitter, and often manage large numbers of connections on social network sites. The more information written by or on an individual online, arguably, the more relevant they appear to in the eyes of their peers and superiors alike.

Power and privilege, however experienced, will be mirrored in the online context. While the participatory and decentralized nature of Web 2.0 arguably works challenge traditional structures of power, systemic hierarchies and are often reinforced online –as Facebook’s privacy blunders clearly illustrates. The privileged need not worry about the subjective gaze of their superiors, as boyd notes. Those who may be compromised due to the lack of privateness, however, do. As boyd goes on to argue, “the privileged get more privileged, gaining from being exposed… and those struggling to keep their lives together are forced to create walls that are constantly torn down around them”. As public exposure may over often equate to power, we must critically challenge the assumption that the move towards more privacy control on social networks will best empower its members.

If publicity can potentially have great value for the individual, the opposite also rings true. Privacy, as polemic to publicness, alternatively works to diminish the presence of the individual, rendering them invisible or irrelevant within hyper-linked networks. With greater personal protectionism online, an individual may go unnoticed or unrecognized, fizzling out dully behind their more public peers. Drawing on social network theory, powerful people can be understood as “supernodes” as they connect more peripheral members of a network. As Lior Strahilevitz notes, supernodes tend to be better informed than the peripherals, and are most likely to be perceived as “leaders”.

As the power of the supernode relates to privacy, Strahilevitz states that that “supernodes maintain their privileged status by continuing to serve as information clearinghouses….and, in certain contexts, become supernodes based in part on their willingness to share previously private information about themselves”. It is within the context of visibility and power that the idea of (in)visibility and powerlessness online unfold. Those who have most at risk by going public, may chose not to do so. Those with in comfortable positions with considerably less to lose by going public may be inclined to “open up”. Heightened privacy controls on social network services, therefore, can work to reinforce the very structures of power they seek to dismantle.

This is not to argue, however, that more privacy is necessarily bad, and that less privacy is good, or that users shouldn’t be selective in their disclosures – to the contrary. As personal information has become ubiquitous and tools for aggregating information improve, maintaining privacy online becomes more pertinent than ever. However, the concept of privacy will only continue to become increasingly complex as digital networks continue to deconstruct and reconfigure the spatial dimensions of the public and private. How are we to effectively understand privacy in a social environment which values openness and publicity? Can the fluid and dynamic self gain visibility online without becoming subject to the gaze of superiors? Will those who selectively choose friends and carefully disclose personal information fizzle out, while the powerful and less inhibited continue to reassert privilege? The interplay between power and privacy on the social web is a multiply constitutive and reinforcing synergy –understanding how to effectively strike balance between the right to privacy and self-determination is the challenge ahead.

1. see “Foucault in Cyberspace” by James Boyle

2. Julie Cohen

3. Cohen citing Butler

4. Solve citing Goffman

Document Actions

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/the-in-visible-subject-power-privacy-and-social-networking

Technology in Government and Topics in Privacy

praskrishna — 2013-12-27T10:20:33Z

Malavika Jayaram is a speaker at an event organized by Data Privacy Lab at CGIS Cafe, Cambridge Street, Harvard University Campus. She will speak on Biometrics in Beta – India's Identity Experiment on December 9, 2013.

Technology in Government (TIG) and Topics in Privacy (TIP) consist of weekly discussions and brainstorming sessions on all aspects of privacy (TIP) and uses of technology to assess and solve societal, political, and government problems (TIG). Discussions are often inspired by a real-world problems being faced by the lead discussant, who may be from industry, government, or academia. Practice talks and presentations on specific techniques and topics are also common.

Abstract of the Talk

India's identity juggernaut - the Unique Identity (UID) project that has registered around 450 million people and is yet to be fully realized - is already the world's largest biometrics identity scheme. Based on the premise that centralized de-duplication and authentication will establish uniqueness and eliminate fraud, it is hailed as a game changer and a silver bullet that will solve myriad problems and improve welfare delivery, yet its conception and architecture raise significant concerns. In addition to the UID project, there is a slew of "Big Brother" systems that together form a matrix of identity and surveillance schemes: the UID is intended as a common identifier across this matrix as well as other public and private databases. Indian authorities frame Big Data as a panacea for fraud, corruption and abuse, without apprehending the further fraud, corruption and abuse that joined up databases can themselves engender. The creation of a privacy-invading technology layer not simply as a barrier to online participation but to social participation writ large is not fully appreciated by policy makers. Malavika will provide an overview of the identity landscape including the implications for privacy and free speech, and more broadly, democracy and openness.

Malavika Jayaram

Malavika is a Fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard, focusing on privacy, identity and free expression, especially in the context of India's biometric ID project. A Fellow at the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, she is the author of the India chapter for the Data Protection & Privacy volume in the Getting the Deal Done series. She is one of 10 Indian lawyers in The International Who's Who of Internet e-Commerce & Data Protection Lawyers directory. In August 2013, she was voted one of India's leading lawyers - one of only 8 women to be featured in the "40 under 45" survey conducted by Law Business Research, London. In a different life, she spent 8 years in London, practicing law with global law firm Allen & Overy in the Communications, Media & Technology group, and as VP and Technology Counsel at Citigroup. During 2012-2013, She was a Visiting Scholar at the Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania.

Click to read more on the event originally published by Data Privacy Lab here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/technology-in-government-and-topics-in-privacy

Technology Foresight Group Tandem Research's AI policy lab on the theme AI and Environment

Admin — 2018-10-31T01:10:34Z

Shweta Mohandas attended a roundtable discussion on artificial intelligence and environment held at Tandem Research's office in Goa on October 5, 2018. She also made the framing intervention for the first session by addressing the question - What are the likely ethical conundrums, and plausible unintended consequences of the use of AI for sustainability?

Conversations at the lab clustered around four main themes:

AI in the Anthropocene
What are the most critical sustainability challenges in India – and can AI be useful in addressing them? What are the likely ethical conundrums, and plausible unintended consequences of the use of AI for sustainability?

Conservation after nature
What AI interventions are possible to foster better conservation and can AI driven citizen science initiatives improve people’s relationship with the natural world? Can AI help imagine a more dynamic and proximate co-existence with other species, after nature?

Water ecosystems
Can AI help us imagine new paradigm of water control and infrastructure that are more dynamic and ‘mirror’ the complexity of natural water systems? Will AI lead to decentralization and empowerment of water users or will it result in centralized models and loss of power and agency of water users?

Future Cities
Can AI systems be used to foster sustainability practices around mobility, energy, waste, and help better plan development zones and create early warning systems? What systems can be built to encourage citizen participation for solving sustainability problems and increase transparency and accountability of municipal governments?

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/technology-foresight-group-tandem-researchs-ai-policy-lab-on-the-theme-ai-and-environment

Techno-solutionist Responses to COVID-19

Amber Sinha, Pallavi Bedi and Aman Nair — 2021-08-10T15:34:06Z

The Indian state has increasingly adopted a digital approach to service delivery over the past decade, with vaccination being the latest area to be subsumed by this strategy. In the context of the need for universal vaccination, the limitations of the government’s vaccination platform Co-WIN need to be analysed.

The article by Amber Sinha, Pallavi Bedi, and Aman Nair was published in the Economic & Political Weekly, Vol. 56, Issue No. 29, 17 Jul, 2021.

Over the last two decades, slowly but steadily, the governance agenda of the Indian state has moved to the digital realm. In 2006, the National e-Governance Plan (NeGP) was approved by the Indian state wherein a massive infrastructure was developed to reach the remotest corners and facilitate easy access of government services efficiently at affordable costs. The first set of NeGP projects focused on digitalising governance schemes that dealt with taxation, regulation of corporate entities, issuance of passports, and pensions. Over a period of time, they have come to include most interactions between the state and citizens from healthcare to education, transportation to employment, and policing to housing. Upon the launch of the Digital India Mission by the union government, the NeGP was subsumed under the e-Gov and e-Kranti components of the project. The original press release by the central government reporting the approval by the cabinet of ministers of the Digital India programme speaks of “cradle to grave” digital identity as one of its vision areas. This identity was always intended to be “unique, lifelong, online and authenticable.”

Since the inception of the Digital India campaign by the current government, there have been various concerns raised about the privacy issues posed by this project. The initiative includes over 50 “mission mode projects” in various stages of implementation. All of these projects entail collection of vast quantities of personally identifiable information of the citizens. However, most of these initiatives do not have clearly laid down privacy policies. There is also a lack of properly articulated access control mechanism and doubts exist over important issues such as data ownership owing to most projects involving public–private partnership which involves a private organisation collecting, processing and retaining large amounts of data. Most importantly, they have continued to exist and prosper in a state of regulatory vacuum with no data protection legislation to govern them. Further, the state of digital divide and digital literacy in India should automatically underscore the need to not rely solely on digital solutions.

Click to read the full article here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/economic-and-political-weekly-july-17-2021-amber-sinha-pallavi-bedi-aman-nair-techno-solutionist-responses-to-covid-19

Teaching at Shristi Interlude

Admin — 2018-12-05T02:53:15Z

Shweta Mohandas is participating as a mentor for Srishti Interlude (a set of workshops that help the design students to produce outputs on a given theme) the theme of this year is Privacy. The course would end on December 7, 2018.

1. Aravani Art Project

Is LGBTQ desire only public at a queer pride parade?

How private is my bedroom?

How does an insult unfold in ‘public view’ ?

2. Padmini Ray Murray

Is LGBTQ desire only public at a queer pride parade?

How private is my bedroom?

“Move fast and break things.” Do you trust Facebook with your privacy?

3. Joshua Muyiwa

Is LGBTQ desire only public at a queer pride parade?

How private is my bedroom?

Profits should be private, risks should be public and art should be beautiful?

4. Roshan Sahi

Profits should be private, risks should be public and art should be beautiful?

“Move fast and break things.” Do you trust Facebook with your privacy?

How does an insult unfold in ‘public view’ ?

5. Shweta Mohandas

“Move fast and break things.” Do you trust Facebook with your privacy?

Is caste “Sensitive Personal Data”? How does an insult unfold in ‘public view’?

6. Suresh Kumar

Is caste “Sensitive Personal Data”?

Profits should be private, risks should be public and art should be beautiful?

How does an insult unfold in ‘public view’?

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/teaching-at-shristi-interlude

Targeting surveillance

praskrishna — 2014-12-30T14:10:58Z

In the fall of 2005, Scotland Yard raided a flat in west London and arrested a suspected al-Qaeda militant known by a teasing Arabic nickname, Irhabi (“Terrorist”) 007.

The article by Ajai Sreevatsan was published in the Hindu on December 28, 2014. Sunil Abraham gave his inputs.

The similarities between Irhabi 007, later identified as Younis Tsouli, and India’s Mehdi Masoor Biswas are uncanny.

Neither participated in any terror attack. Their reputation stems from an alleged involvement as cyber propagandists for proto-terror groups — Irhabi was distributing manuals and teaching online seminars on behalf of the emerging al-Qaeda faction in Iraq, while Mehdi is alleged to be an IS sympathiser. Both in their early 20s with cover identities during the day, and separated by a decade in technological evolution.

Such expertise within terror groups is hardly surprising, says Sunil Abraham of the Centre for Internet and Society. “Any organisation engaged in a war for hearts and minds and oil fields will exploit contemporary technology to its fullest potential,” he says.

Irhabi currently serves a 16-year jail term, while Mehdi awaits his trial. What their cases highlight is that the phenomenon of young, tech-savvy armchair radicals is nothing new.

Research done at Israel’s Haifa University, which tracks the proliferation of terrorist websites, shows that the number of such sites went up from fewer than 100 in the late-1990s to more than 4,800 in just a decade. There is also credible evidence that an al-Qaeda website posted a sketched-out proposal for the 2004 Madrid bombings three months before the attack. Another macabre example is the crowd-sourcing effort launched in 2005 by the Victorious Army Group to build its website. By the competition’s rules, the winner would get to fire a rocket at an American base.

As Indian agencies gear up to respond to similar online threats in this part of the world, Mr. Abraham says India should not repeat the mistakes made by the West over the previous decade. “We should not get caught up in big data surveillance,” he says.

“Surveillance is like salt. It could be counter-productive even if slightly in excess. Ideally, surveillance must be targeted. Indiscriminate surveillance just increases the size of the haystack, making it difficult to find the needles,” Mr. Abraham says.

“Even in the case of Mehdi, his identity was uncovered not by online spying but by Channel 4 which did some old-fashioned detective work,” he says.

In any case, recent events show that the threat of online terror propaganda might be overblown. Much like online activism, it is subject to the law of diminishing returns.

A set of letters sent by newly recruited volunteers of IS was leaked to the French newspaper Le Figaro earlier this month and it shows youngsters complaining about being made to do the dishes or the Iraqi winter. One of them wrote: “I’m fed up to the back teeth. My iPod no longer works out here. I have got to come home.” Of the estimated 1,100 young French who are believed to have joined the IS, more than 100 have already returned.

The IS may have Twitter on its side. But the harsh realities of Iraq and the gruesome ideology behind the slick doctrinal videos are a lot harder to sell.

Mr. Abraham says there is no such thing as a Twitter revolution or a social media terror group. “Such statements underestimate the role of ideology and human beings,” he says.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-hindu-december-28-2014-ajai-sreevatsan-targeting-surveillance

Takshashila's online Cogitatum on AI and Ethics in India

Admin — 2018-09-26T01:46:39Z

Elonnai Hickok participated in an event organized by Takhshashila on August 27, 2018 and made a presentation on Ethics and AI in India. The event was held in Takshashila Institution

Click to view the slides

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/takshashilas-online-cogitatum-on-ai-and-ethics-in-india

Taking Cognisance of the Deeply Flawed System That Is Aadhaar

praskrishna — 2017-05-19T14:52:58Z

Aadhaar and its many connotations have grown to be among the most burning issues on the Indian fore today, that every citizen aware of their rights should be taking note of.

The article by Shreyashi Roy was published in the Wire on May 10, 2017.

With the leak of 130 million Aadhaar numbers recently coming to light, several activists, lawyers and ordinary citizens are up in arms about what is increasingly being viewed as a government surveillance system. Keeping this in mind, on Tuesday, May 9, Software Freedom Law Centre India (SFLC) hosted an event that brought together a panel to clearly articulate the dangers of Aadhaar and to discuss whether the biometric identification system is capable of being reformed.

SFLC is a donor-supported legal services organisation that calls itself a protector of civil liberties in the digital age.

Titled ‘Revisiting Aadhaar: Law, Tech and Beyond’, the discussion, with several eminent personalities who have in-depth knowledge of Aadhaar and its working, threw light on the various problems that have cropped up with regard to India’s unique identification system. The discussion was moderated by Saikat Datta, policy director at Centre for Internet and Society, which published the report that studied the third-party leaks of Aadhaar numbers and other personal data.

The leaks

The discussion took off from the point of the leaks, with Srinivas Kodali, a panelist and one of the authors of the report, explaining his methodology for the study that proved that the Aadhaar database lacked the security required when dealing with private information of people. He highlighted the fact that during the course of his research, he had noticed several leaks from government websites and notified the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) about the same. Yet, at every step, UIDAI continued to deny and reject the possibility of this happening. Kodali says, however, that he had noticed that the websites that were unknowingly leaking data were, in fact, fixing the leaks after being notified without acknowledging that the leak had happened in the first place. Kodali reiterated at the discussion, as in his report, that a simple tweaking of URL query parameters of the National Social Assistance Programme website could unmask and display private information. Unfortunately, UIDAI cannot be brought to task for unknowingly leaking information because there is no such provision.

He also addressed the question of the conflict of interest that existed in the entire system of building Aadhaar, which was created by developers who later left the UIDAI and built their own private companies, monetising the mine of private information that they were sitting on. Kodali blames UIDAI for this even being allowed, since the developers, though clearly lacking ethics, were in fact, merely volunteers.

The system

One of the glaring issues with the technology behind Aadhaar is that the software is not open source. Anivar Aravind, a panelist, called it “defected by design” and “bound to fail” because not only is the technology completely untested but there are very obvious leaks that are taking place. Moreover, UIDAI does not allow any third-party audits or any other persons to look at the technology. Datta pointed to the fact that this is unheard of in other nations, where software is routinely subjected to penetration testing and hacking experts are called upon to check how secure a database is.

Anupam Saraph, another panelist and future designer, illuminated the creation of the Aadhaar database, pointing out that this is a system less about identification and more about verification. All of the verification, moreover, has been done by private parties, making the database itself suspect and leaving everyone’s private information loose at the time of enrolment. In addition, Aadhaar was meant for all residents and not just citizens. But now there is a mix of both, creating confusion in many aspects. Saraph also brought up how one rogue agency with access to all this information could pose an actual national security threat, unlike all the requests for information on breaches that the government keeps pointing fingers at. Referring to Nandan Nilekani’s statement about Aadhaar not being like AIDS, Saraph pointed out that it was exactly like it because much like the body, which cannot distinguish between an invasion and itself, the Aadhaar system is not being able to distinguish between aliens and citizens and has begun denying the latter benefits.

The Supreme Court has declared time and again that Aadhaar cannot be made mandatory, but the government continues to – in complete disregard of the apex court’s judgment – insist on Aadhaar for a multitude of schemes. More and more schemes are being made unavailable without the existence of an Aadhaar number as the government continues to function in a complete lack of cognisance of the fact that the poor are losing out on something as basic as their food because of a number. Prasanna S., an advocate and a panelist, called it a “voluntary but mandatory” system that is becoming an evidence collection mechanism. Moreover, everything is connected through this one number, making many options like financial fraud, selective treatment of citizens and other horrors possible. The collection of all this information is not dangerous, screams the government. Maybe not in the hands of this one. But what of the next? What of rogues?

The legal aspect

One of the panelists was Shyam Divan, a senior advocate of the Supreme Court, who has represented petitioners fighting against Aadhaar. Divan spoke about how along with a group of advocates he has been trying to get the apex court to rule on the issue but has been met with long queues before a ruling can be procured. He addressed the right to privacy aspect of the system and the recent declaration that the citizen does not have the absolute right to the body. He emphasised that the government cannot own the body and that for a free and democratic society, a limited government, instead of an all-knowing and all-seeing government, is essential. Unfortunately for India, there is no express right to privacy in the constitution, but that does not mean that rights can be taken away in exchange for a fingerprint. It is the government’s duty to respect privacy. For him, Aadhaar has become an instrument of oppression and exclusion, a point that Prasanna also agreed with, calling it a “systematic attack on consent”.

There is complete agreement that there has been a railroading of consent in this entire matter if Aadhaar being passed forcibly through the Lok Sabha as a money bill is anything to go by. If parliament’s consent can be disregarded in that fashion, what is an ordinary citizen to do in the face of this complete imbalance of power in the state’s hand?

Usha Ramanathan, a legal researcher and a long-time critic of Aadhaar, spoke about how India has turned into a state where there are more restrictions than fundamental rights, rather than the other way around. She related how there was no clarity at the beginning of Aadhaar of how it would be a card or a number and was never a government project in the first place. This is a private sector ambition that the government has jumped on board with, without considering that the private sector does not concern itself with civil liberties. As other panelists also pointed out, the private sector cannot and will not protect public interest. This is the job of the government, especially in an age of digitisation. But Aadhaar compromises the ability of the state to stand up for its citizens.

With June 30 approaching fast, many of those who have so far abstained from enrolling in the system are considering giving up their rebellion and going like sheep to get themselves registered in the database. In the words of Divan, they will have to “volunteer compulsorily for an Aadhaar”. The government is probably counting on this. Turning to the Supreme Court has been of no help, although a verdict can be hoped for in a couple of weeks. But what can we do if they rule for the government?

Some of the panelists are on board with the idea of a civil disobedience movement, a kind of a rebellion against Aadhaar. Some suggested thinking of out-of-the-box ways to register one’s protest and dissent against what is clearly becoming the architecture of a surveillance state. Saraph was particularly vehement about the need to completely destroy the Aadhaar database – “shred it”.

What all the panelists emphasised repeatedly was that there can be no improvements to a system that is so deeply flawed and that has had so many “teething problems” that are making millions suffer. The main takeaway from the discussion was that Aadhaar must see a speedy demise because it cannot be saved and cannot persist in its current state.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-wire-may-10-2017-shreyashi-roy-taking-cognisance-of-the-deeply-flawed-system-that-is-aadhaar

TACTIS Symposium 2014

praskrishna — 2014-02-04T07:32:01Z

Tata Consultancy organized the TACTIS Symposium at TCS Siruseri, Chennai on January 28 and 29, 2014. Sunil Abraham participated in the event and gave the key note address.

Click to download the event brochure here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/data-privacy-day-chenna-2014

T20 Germany and Beyond: Digital Economy

praskrishna — 2017-06-06T15:25:46Z

Elonnai Hickok participated in a round-table discussion organized by GIZ and EPF in Berlin from May 29 to 30, 2017.

The Think20 (T20) is a network of research institutes and think tanks from the G20 countries. The T20 provides research-based policy advice to the G20, facilitates interaction among its members and the policy community, and communicates with the broader public about issues of global importance. Click to read more

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/t20-germany-and-beyond-digital-economy

Symposium on Human Rights and the Internet in India

praskrishna — 2015-02-07T00:50:00Z

On January 17, 2015 the Center for Communication Governance at National Law University, Delhi in collaboration with the UNESCO Chair on Freedom of Communication and Information at the University of Hamburg hosted a pubic symposium on “Human Rights and Internet in India” as a Network of Centers (NoC) regional event. Bhairav Acharya was a panelist.

See the concept note here.

The event convened a diverse group of collaborators working on issues of Privacy, Surveillance, Data Protection, Freedom of Expression and Intermediary Liability in India, the surrounding region, and internationally.

Agenda | Saturday, January 17 | Public Symposium

Opening words
Prof. (Dr.) Ranbir Singh, Vice Chancellor, National Law University, Delhi
Prof. (Dr.) Wolfgang Schulz, Director, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet & Society

17:45 – 19:00 Panel I: Surveillance & Databases: Experiences & Privacy
The panel will explore how surveillance in India might become more consistent with international human rights standards and Indian constitutional values. It will also discuss the consequences of ubiquitous database programs for citizens’ human rights. This will include comparative perspectives around similar problems and a discussion of privacy-compatible practices in other countries.

Panelists:
Dr. Usha Ramanathan, Independent Law Researcher

Mr. Bhairav Acharya, Lawyer, Supreme Court of India and Adviser Centre for Internet & Society, Bangalore

Mr. Saikat Datta, Editor (National Security), Hindustan Times

Professor KS Park, Former Commissioner, Korea Communications Standards Commission and Professor, Korea University Law School

19:00 – 20:15 Panel II: Unpacking the Intermediary Liability Debate in India
The panel will focus on the legal framework governing Internet platforms in India, especially with regard to online content and its implications for rights of the citizens. It has been argued that the current legal framework creates incentives for online intermediaries to take down content even when no substantive notice or legitimate reasons have been offered. The panel will consider the debate around intermediary liability in India in light of the ongoing litigation at the Supreme Court. It will reflect on the international experience with intermediary liability legislation and discuss how to ensure that laws support an innovative and competitive environment for intermediaries, while ensuring that they prioritize the preservation of their users’ human rights.

Panelists:
Dr. Joris van Hoboken, Fellow, Information Law Institute at NYU School of Law

Professor (Dr.) Wolfgang Schulz, Director, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet & Society (HIIG)

Mr. Raman Jit Singh Chima, Lawyer

Chinmayi Arun and Sarvjeet Singh, Centre for Communication Governance at National Law University, Delhi

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/symposium-on-human-rights-and-internet-in-india

Symposium on Data Privacy and Citizen's Rights

Admin — 2018-09-18T15:18:37Z

Shweta Mohandas was a panelist at the Symposium on Data Privacy and Citizen's Rights on September 9, 2018. The Symposium was organised by the Tech Law Forum of NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad.

Concept Note

The National Academy of Legal Studies and Research (NALSAR) University of Law, Hyderabad is organising a Symposium on DATA PRIVACY AND CITIZEN’S RIGHTS to provide multiple stakeholders one platform to discuss and deliberate on the BN Srikrishna Committee Report and Draft Bill.

The Committee headed by Retd. Justice BN Srikrishna released its Report and Draft Bill on the 27th of July, 2018. It comes at a time when there is increasing discussion about the individual privacy and surveillance by both private organisations and state authorities. Especially in light of the 9-judge Puttaswamy judgment affirming the Fundamental Right to Privacy, there was a need to concretise the right in the form of a statute. The Bill proposes an elaborate data protection framework by utilising concepts such as anonymisation, pseudonymisation, data localisation, guardian data fiduciary, among others. While the Bill has been lauded for providing a data protection framework largely similar to the one proposed by civil society, there are several areas of concern with the Bill such as the amendments suggested to the RTI Act, the impact of the Bill on Free Speech and the lack of substantial provisions regarding surveillance. There has been further criticism that the discussions regarding these issues have been conducted in silos, with little to no dialogue taking place between the various stakeholders and experts in the field.

We believe that there is a need to provide a common forum for these stakeholders to interact with each other in providing suggestions that are representative in nature and nuanced in their expression.

Themes

Privacy and Free Speech This interaction aims to examine the juxtaposition of the constitutional right to free speech and the now constitutionally affirmed right to privacy. Will a new data protection law impact the publication of leaked documents or sting operations like the Radia tapes or Tehelka’s ‘Operation Westend’? If so, how can journalists mitigate the risk of getting sued for breach of privacy? While the jurisprudence concerning the right to privacy is in its most nascent state, it becomes important for us to explore its contours in light of already established constitutional guarantees.

Right to Information and Right to Privacy How does the right to privacy impact the right to information? The guarantee of these two rights arise from diametrically opposite ideologies, in that privacy aims to shield from the public domain information and data concerning individuals and institutions while the right to information aims to promote transparency and disclosure of information held by the state. However, the question remains, is the existence of these two rights necessarily mutually exclusive? Will a new data protection law make it difficult to promote transparency under the Right to Information Act? Is there is a possibility of a clash between the Information Commissions and the proposed Data Protection Authority? This panel would analyze the co-existence and competitive nature of these two rights in the context of the Indian legal space.

Surveillance - As we move towards a form of governance that is increasingly capable of surveilling individual movements and actions, it becomes extremely necessary for us to understand the nature of surveillance. Can data privacy be compromised for surveillance that may be necessary for increased safety in our physical and virtual living spaces? Are there any provisions that protects data in cases of it becoming exploitable? What is the interaction of international statutes (like ICCPR) and the latest Indian statute in terms of its recognition of necessity of surveillance in contrast to the necessity of protection of data.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/symposium-on-data-privacy-and-citizens-rights