Centre for Internet and Society

Sixth Meeting of the two Sub-Groups on Privacy Issues under the Chairmanship of Justice AP Shah

praskrishna — 2012-08-23T09:48:55Z

The sixth meeting of the two sub-groups on privacy issues will be held on August 31, 2012 at 10.00 a.m. in Committee Room No. 228, Yojana Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi under the chairmanship of Justice AP Shah, former chief justice of Delhi High Court.

No. M-13040/43/2012-CIT&I (Pt. File)
Government of India
Planning Commission
(CIT&I Division)

Yojana Bhawan, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi, dated the 23rd August, 2012

Meeting Notice

Subject: Meeting of the Group of Experts on Privacy Issues to be held on 31st August, 2012 under the Chairmanship of Justice A.P. Shah, former Chief Justice of Delhi High Court.

The meeting of the Group of Experts on Privacy Issues under the Chairmanship of Justice A.P. Shah, former Chief Justice of Delhi High Court is scheduled to be held on 31st August, 2012, at 10.00 AM in the Committee Room No. 228, Yojana Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi - 110001.

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

You are requested to kindly make it convenient to attend the meeting.

(S. Bose)
Deputy Secretary (CIT&I)

Through e-mail to:

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

Copy for information to:
Dr. C.M. Kumar, Sr. Adviser (CIT&I)
PS to MOS (Planning, S&T and Earth Sciences)

(S. Bose)
Deputy Secretary (CIT&I)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/sixth-meeting-of-sub-groups-on-privacy-issues

Siri, did you hear me? Adapting Privacy to New Technologies, Automated Decision-making, and Cloud Computing

Admin — 2018-03-25T03:21:24Z

Amber Sinha participated as a panelist in the discussion on adapting privacy to new technologies organised by the USIBC on March 6, 2018 in New Delhi.

The way consumers interact with technology is quickly evolving, and there are distinct implications for privacy as these new applications and products become embedded in our daily lives. Many new technologies eliminate the need for consumers to interface with a screen, relying on sensor data, verbal interactions, or innate human communications – a grin or hand gesture. As technology evolves, so must the privacy protections.

Moderator: Ashutosh Chadha, Group Director, government Affairs & Public policy, Microsoft India

Panelists:

Shaundra Watson, Director, Policy, BSA | The Software Alliance
Betsy Broder, Counsel for International Consumer Protection, U.S. FTC
Amber Sinha, Senior Programme Manager, Centre for Internet and Society (CIS)
Riccardo Masucci, Global Director of Privacy Policy, Intel
Srinivas Poosarla, Vice President & Head (Global), Privacy & Data Protection, Infosys Limited

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/siri-did-you-hear-me-adapting-privacy-to-new-technologies-automated-decision-making-and-cloud-computing

Should you worry about identity theft?

Admin — 2017-11-26T11:24:56Z

Laws in India regarding data protection may be weak, but following basic cyber hygiene rules can make your own defences stronger.

The article by Shaikh Zoaib Saleem was published in Livemint on September 20, 2017. Pranesh Prakash quoted.

Earlier this month, US-based credit information company Equifax Inc. said its systems had been struck by a cybersecurity incident that may have affected about 143 million US consumers. A report by Bloomberg said the incident could be ranked among one of the largest data breaches in history. The intruders accessed names, social security numbers, birth dates, addresses, driver’s licence numbers and also credit card numbers, Equifax said in a statement.

While this reiterates what cyber security professionals say, that nothing is hack proof, it does remind us of the range of cyber crimes, which revolve around identity theft and frauds. It gives us a chance to reflect upon how well prepared we are, if a cyber attack strikes us, or if our personally identifiable data gets leaked.

According to the Norton Cyber Security Insights Report 2016, 49% of India’s online population, or more than 115 million Indians, are affected by cybercrime at some point with the country ranking second in terms of highest number of victims. “No government or organisation creates something that is designed to fail deliberately. People find the gaps in that system and then try to misuse it,” said Ritesh Chopra, country manager, consumer business unit, Symantec India, a cyber security company.

While it can be debated as to who should take the blame in different instances, one underlying theme is following basic cyber hygiene. “There are several mobile apps that leak data. While downloading and installing an app, you may give out access to several other things in your device,” said Chopra.

Most cyber crimes involve leak or breach of public information, which leads to identity fraud. Let’s take a look at what an identity fraud could mean.

Identity theft and frauds

Everything that we do online is linked to a digital identity—an email ID, a phone number or even an IP address of a device. Harshil Doshi, strategy security consultant, Forcepoint India, a cyber security firm, said that as long as the leaked information is limited to names, email addresses, addresses and mobile numbers, there may not be a reason for worrying. “There needs to be a distinction between what information is publicly available and what can be used only privately. People also talk about Aadhaar leaks. As long as it is not my fingerprint and retina scan, there is no cause of concern, because information like name and address are anyway public,” he said.

However, not everyone agrees with this point of view. Pranesh Prakash, policy director at advocacy group Centre for Internet and Society, said email addresses, date of birth and mobile phone number of an individual are not necessarily public information. “Work-related email addresses may be publicly available online but personal ones are not,” he said. Prakash, however, added that our notion of public information keeps changing.

Identity fraud impact

The concept of identity theft has become complicated as our digital lives expand. “Everything about you as an individual is your identity, including something personal like blood group and medical history. Your social media profile, bank transactions, blogs or online comments are also a part of this. From a fraud perspective, it is equally complex,” said Chopra.

Your identity can be impersonated in several ways. “The most common methods of identity fraud all require collecting publicly-available information about you,” said Prakash. For example, celebrity leaks in the US (cloud storage was hacked) happened also because there is more information about celebrities publicly available than for an average individual, he said.

Another example could be misuse of information regarding foreign exchange. “In India, there is a limit of buying foreign exchange worth $30,000 for an individual in a year. If information on how many times you exhaust that limit falls in the wrong hands, it can be used for money laundering in your name. How many people think about how PAN and passport copy that one shares to buy foreign exchange, can be misused?” said Chopra.

Further, health insurance can be fudged and somebody can use the benefit under your name or buy restricted medicines misusing your medical prescription.

What the law says

There are provisions in the Indian Penal Code that deal with issues like cheating by impersonation to some extent. “There isn’t anything that adequately covers activities such as getting access to your personal data, which leads to identity fraud, or sufficiently penalizes things like data breaches or data leaks that facilitate identity fraud,” said Prakash.

The government is working towards data protection laws. A committee for data protection framework has been constituted under Justice B.N. Srikrishna, former judge of Supreme Court.

But it needs to be seen what comes out of these deliberations. “I am quite apprehensive, yet hopeful, about what the committee will produce, especially because they will need to deal with protection of biometric data, leaks of which will be far worse than any other leaks because biometrics is something that cannot be changed at will subsequent to a leak, unlike one’s phone number, email address or password,” said Prakash.

According to cyber security professionals, prevention seems the only way out. “We have forgotten the difference between the real and virtual worlds. In the real world, if somebody knocks at your door, you will check before opening the door ,” said Chopra. The problem for individuals starts when we click on a malicious link or download a file like a song or an image which could have a malware loaded on it. Once it enters our system, it immediately starts stealing information.

While the law may take some time to evolve and address the issues arising out of larger data breaches from corporate entities or even from the government, it is important to be vigilant, which includes having complex passwords, not sharing passwords, being aware of suspicious emails and messages and downloading files and software only from reputed sources. While this alone may not guarantee you protection online, it certainly minimises the risk.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/livemint-shaikh-zoaib-saleem-september-20-2017-should-you-worry-about-identity-theft

Should Nandan Nilekani's Aadhaar project, for identity proof and welfare delivery, exist at all?

praskrishna — 2014-04-14T10:27:57Z

The foundation of Aadhaar—a Congress flagship project to give every Indian a unique identity number and then use it to deliver services—has been under assault in the past three months.

The article by M. Rajshekhar was published in the Economic Times on April 3, 2014. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

Political, legal, reputational.

The political backlash is coming from leaders of BJP, the Congress' principal rival. Meenakshi Lekhi and Ananth Kumar are not, by any stretch of the imagination, the first or the last word on policy matters in the BJP, but they mince no words when they say that if their party forms a government, it will trash Aadhaar —a project that has delivered a unique ID to half of India and on which Rs 3,800 crore has been spent.

Even as BJP's loose cannons fired, the Supreme Court repeated on March 24 that the government cannot make Aadhaar mandatory to access welfare services like pensions and LPG subsidy. The same day, investigative journalism portal Cobrapost aired videos that allegedly showed agencies agreeing to enrol people from neighbouring countries for a bribe.

The BJP piled on. "It (Aadhaar) has served no purpose. They have issued cards to illegal migrants. We want citizenship cards," says Prakash Javadekar, spokesperson of BJP. His party does not have an official policy line on Aadhaar as yet, but another of its leaders, Yashwant Sinha, headed the Parliamentary panel that, in 2011, severely criticised and rejected the draft bill that provided the legal framework for Aadhaar. "We are for direct benefit transfer but not on the basis of Aadhaar, which is a very badly-designed scheme," Sinha told CNBC-TV18 on January 31. "We will give it to all citizens of India on the basis of NPR."

On the campaign trail in Bangalore, Nandan Nilekani, the chief architect and implementer of Aadhaar, defends his work as the chairman of Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI). "Aadhaar is a pro-development and an anti-corruption platform," says Nilekani, who was brought in by the Congress high command in 2009 and is contesting these elections on a party ticket against BJP's Kumar in Bangalore South. "It is a pity that some vested interests with narrow political and other motives are trying to stall the project."

Lost in those binaries are the objectives of Aadhaar, to universalise identity proof and to use it to plug leakages in delivery of welfare services. UIDAI, led by a hands-on Nilekani, pursued this agenda with a certain authority, great speed and an overriding emphasis on technology, all of which delivered outcomes.

But they also contributed to shortcomings that saw the project stumble on its way and for which it is now being critiqued. "This is the only way transformation takes place," says K Koshy, who was part of the team that conceptualised Aadhaar and is now with Ernst & Young. "When you know the ultimate system is workable, you sort out the problems as you go along."

Except, given the political winds blowing, it's anyone's guess what the new dispensation will feel about Aadhaar and UIDAI, from where Nilekani resigned on March 13 and which is seeing many officers who came from other parts of the government, on deputation, returning. Will the new dispensation see Aadhaar as an idea that is sound but with parts that need strengthening? Or, will they see it as an idea that is, by itself, fallacious? "I don't know where this is going," says Abhijit Sen, member, Planning Commission, under which UIDAI is housed.

At one level, it's a political question. "The next Parliament will have to decide what UIDAI can and cannot do," says Sen. At another level, even that political answer will stem from the answers to three questions that go to the core of what Aadhaar was meant to be and where it fell short.

1. Does Aadhaar Provide a Unique and Definitive Identity?

Yes and no. UIDAI collects two sets of information from an individual. The first is biometrics: prints of all 10 fingers and a scan of the iris in both eyes. Biometric data, which is supposed to be unique to every individual, is used to assign a unique number to the individual. The second set is basic personal information: name, address, father's name, date of birth and address. Individuals can show existing documents—like voter's I-card or passport —as verification. For those who did not have identification documents, UIDAI allowed certain people to attest for them.

Aadhaar is better at identifying individuals through their biometrics than ensuring the accuracy of their add-on data. This is partly due to its design. When Aadhaar was being conceptualised, says Shrikant Nadhamuni, who headed technology for UIDAI: "We wanted to move the ID game—from a state where some people had no ID and others had paper ID to something beyond even what Singapore had, in the form of smart cards, to online. Like biometric. Which is the future.

Here, your presence is enough to vet your ID." This is also partly due to how UIDAI did its enrolments. Shortly after taking charge, Nilekani announced UIDAI would issue 600 million Aadhaar numbers by March 2014. The initial plan was that the National Population Register (NPR), which conducts the decadal Census and which is housed under the ministry of home, would do the enrolments— capturing biometrics and information— and UIDAI would only issue the numbers.

Soon after, Nilekani decided he could not meet his 600 million target if he waited for NPR to give him biometric packets, and offered to do enrolments too. To meet the target, UIDAI wanted to outsource enrolment to multiple vendors. And compared to NPR, UIDAI collected very little demographic data. UIDAI appointed public and private companies as enrolment agencies. Quality issues arose. "90% of the larger enrolment agencies offloaded the work to local, small-time guys," says the head of a Gurgaon-based enrolment agency, not wanting to be named.

Instances of incomplete addresses, spelling mistakes, people bribing enrolment staff to obtain numbers, emerged. "There is always a trade off between inclusion and accuracy," says Nilekani. "And the fact that these errors happened only shows that the gates were kept wide enough to ensure there would be no exclusion." "The Aadhaar database is based on very weak data," says Sunil Abraham, the head of Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society, an Internet and governance think-tank. "It is basically linking biometrics to a person and the name/address he claims as his." This weakness started showing up as the government began to deliver welfare services by transferring money directly into bank accounts of beneficiaries, using Aadhaar. The first step was to add the Aadhaar number to the department and bank databases.

Reddy Subramanyam, joint secretary of NREGA, tried to seed Aadhaar numbers into his database of NREGA workers. "The current matching is just 25-30%." The mismatch arises because, say, the name will be S Kumar in one and Sunil Kumar in another. Aadhaar is "less ID project and more identification project," says legal researcher Usha Ramanathan. "The onus for ensuring the demographic information is correct falls on the number-holder."

2. Are Aadhaar-enabled Cash Transfers Delivering?

If giving every Indian a unique ID was Aadhaar's main mandate, revamping welfare delivery became its second. In 2011, Nilekani headed a committee to create a roadmap to move to a system of welfare delivery where money was transferred directly into bank accounts of beneficiaries—or direct benefit transfers (DBTs). The architectures it proposed pivoted around Aadhaar and online, realtime biometric authentication. This was to replace the existing smart-card architecture, which can work even in areas even without connectivity.

UIDAI saw the cloud as the future. "We were not very taken with the smart-card solution," says Nadhamuni. "Farmers have to carry multiple smart cards around. And then, there is the cost of the card." Smart-card companies, staring at the prospect of their investments going waste, protested. "Customers and service providers deserve the right to make a convenient choice. Can someone building a public highway insist that only a certain sort of a vehicle can ply on it?" Abhishek Sinha, CEO of Eko India, a mobile-banking start-up told ET in November 2011.

"The question is whether the model is working better now than what existed before," defends Koshy. It's a question that has not been answered conclusively and credibly: there have been no independent evaluations by the government of Aadhaarbased DBTs till now. "Aadhaar should not have been rolled out on a mission mode till it was tested on some scale," says MS Sriram, visiting faculty at IIM Bangalore's Centre for Public Policy. When asked about this, Sen says: "There was no independent evaluation. Everyone was rushing." From the field came reports about manual labourers and the aged struggling to authenticate using biometrics.

Nor were comparative studies conducted to check alternative ways to improve welfare delivery. Economist Reetika Khera argues that Chhattisgarh has removed corruption from its PDS programme through a mix of computerisation and community supervision. This echoes an observation made by the Parliamentary panel while rejecting the UIDAI bill: the government had not considered comparative costs of Aadhaar and other existing ID documents.

Yet, in November 2012, the Congress decided to make DBTs its calling card for the 2014 elections. At a rally in Dudu, Rajasthan, attended by Congress leaders and Nilekani, it announced DBT rollout in the state. A year later, after a patchy rollout, the Congress lost power in the state. And on January 30, the UPA pressed pause on DBTs for cooking gas.

3. Are there Strong Safeguards to Protect a Person's Privacy?

On February 26, the Mumbai High Court directed UIDAI to share its Goa biometrics with the CBI to help it solve a rape case in the state the agency was struggling to solve. UIDAI refused, saying this would violate the privacy of its number holders. The High Court agreed with the CBI. UIDAI went to the Supreme Court, which ruled that its biometric information cannot be shared with any government agency without the consent of number holders.

But the CBI request had shown what could go wrong. "Once you create an ID system, other things happen," says Sen. "The most inevitable one is that government departments—like the police—want to access it. A database exists and I want to use it." Says a Supreme Court lawyer, not wanting to be named: "You innocently give your fingerprints to UIDAI because you want your scholarship or gas subsidy or something. You volunteer this information and then you realise this can be used as evidence against you in a criminal trial?" In time, more agencies will use Aadhaar. "The moment you start putting the Aadhaar number into multiple databases, you make them comparable," says Abraham. "Land registry, tax records, etc, all become comparable." Adds Sen: "We need to think about who can use the authentication service."

He cites the example of banks using Aadhaar to judge a borrower's credit record as a good thing. Conversely, he adds, an insurer using a customer's Aadhaar to access hospital records, and take a call on premiums or policy issuance, is a bad outcome. "Insurance is supposed to work by pooling risk. Should they (insurers) even have the right to ask for authentication?" asks Sen. UIDAI officials say three things in their defence. One, they collect innocuous information, which they don't share. Two, for authentication queries, they only give 'yes/no' answers. Three, they have safeguards.

What is missing is a legal framework that governs collection, use and retention of biometrics. "India has not passed a data privacy law," says Nadhamuni. "This is a very important legislation we need to draft and enact for projects that use large-scale IT systems, be it Aadhaar, NREGA, voter card, income tax, etc. In the absence of such laws, UIDAI came up with rigorous data privacy and security policies to secure resident data." However, the Parliamentary panel, while rejecting the bill, noted that UIDAI began collecting biometric data even as the government worked on a privacy bill and a data protection bill. "The idea that databases can be used by anyone makes people vulnerable, especially in a state where there is neither law nor much respect for law," says Ramanathan.

Aadhaar stands at an uncomfortable junction. A new government, eager to ensure only citizens have unique numbers, could ask all Aadhaar holders to provide address proof and delete the others. Events of the past three months have framed the issues concerning Aadhaar, sometimes with a touch of rhetoric. "This is a good time to open the regulation issue," says Sen.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/economic-times-april-3-2014-m-rajshekhar-should-nandan-nilekani-aadhar-project-for-identity-proof-and-welfare-delivery-exist

Should an Inability to Precisely Define Privacy Render It Untenable as a Right?

amber — 2017-08-04T01:49:56Z

The judges may still be able to articulate the manner in which limits for a right to privacy may be arrived at, without explicitly specifying them.

The article was published in the Wire on August 2, 2017.

Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote in his book, Philosophical Investigations, that things which we expect to be connected by one essential common feature, may be connected by a series of overlapping similarities, where no one feature is common. Instead of having one definition that works as a grand unification theory, concepts often draw from a common pool of characteristics. Drawing from overlapping characteristics that exist between family members, Wittgenstein uses the phrase ‘family resemblances’ to refer to such concepts.

In his book, Understanding Privacy, Daniel Solove makes a case for privacy being a family resemblance concept. Responding to the discontent in conceptualising privacy, Solove attempted to ground privacy not in a tightly defined idea, but around a web of diverse yet connected ideas. Some of the diverse human experiences that we instinctively associate with privacy are bodily privacy, relationships and family, home and private spaces, sexual identity, personal communications, ability to make decisions without intrusions and sharing of personal data. While these are widely diverse concepts, intrusions upon or interferences with these experiences are all understood as infringements of our privacy.

Other scholars too have recognised this dynamic, evolving and difficult to pinpoint nature of privacy. Robert Post described privacy as a concept “engorged with various and distinct meanings.” Helen Nissenbaum advocates a dynamic idea of privacy to be understood in terms of contextual norms.

The ongoing arguments in the Supreme Court on the existence of a constitutional right to privacy can also be viewed in the context of the idea of privacy as a family resemblance concept. In their arguments, the counsels for the petitioners have tried to make a case for privacy as a multi-dimensional fundamental right. Senior advocate Gopal Subramanium argued before the court that privacy inheres in the concept of liberty and dignity under Constitution of India, and is presupposed by various other rights such as freedom of speech, good conscience, and freedom to practice religion. He further goes on say that there are four aspects to privacy – spatial, decisional, informational and the right to develop personality. Shyam Divan, also arguing for the petitioners, further added that privacy includes the right to be left alone, freedom of thought, freedom to dissent, bodily integrity and informational self-determination.

When the chief justice brought up the need to define the extent of the right to privacy, the counsels raised concerns about the right being defined too specifically. This reluctance was borne out of the recognition that by its very nature, the right to privacy is a cluster of rights, with multiple dimensions manifesting themselves in different ways depending on the context. Both advocates, Subramaniam and Arvind Datar, argued that court must not engage in an exercise to definitively catalog all the different aspects of the right, foreclosing the future development of the law on point. This reluctance was also a result of the fact that the court has isolated the question of the existence of the right to privacy and how it may apply in the case of the Aadhaar project. Usually judges are able to ground legal principles in the relevant facts of the case while developing precedents. The referral to this bench is only on the limited question of the existence of a constitutional right to privacy. Therefore, any limits that are articulated by the court on the right exist without the benefit of a context.

On the other hand, the Attorney General (AG) argued that this very aspect of privacy was a rationale for not declaring it a fundamental right. At various points during the arguments, he indicated that the ambiguous and vague nature of the concept of privacy made it unsuitable as a fundamental right. Similarly, Tushar Mehta, arguing for Unique Identification Authority of India, also sought to deny privacy’s existence as a fundamental right as it is too subjective and vague.

The above argument assumes that the inability to precisely define privacy renders its untenable as a right. The key question is whether this lack of a common denominator makes privacy too vague a right, liable to expansive misinterpretations. Conceptions that do not have fixed and sharp boundaries, are not boundless. What it means is that the boundaries can often be fuzzy and in a state of constant evolution, but the limits and boundaries always exist.

At one point during the hearings, Justice Rohinton Nariman wanted the counsels to work on the parameters of challenge for state action with respect to privacy. As mentioned earlier, in the absence of facts to work with, such an exercise is fraught with risks. However, the judges may still be able to articulate the manner in which such limits may be arrived at, without specifying them. Justice Nariman himself later agrees that the judicial examination must proceed on a case by case basis, taking into account not only the tests under Article 14,19 and 21 under which petitioners have tried to locate privacy, but also under any other concurrent rights which may be infringed.

The AG also argued that the infringement of privacy in itself does not amount to a violation of the rights under Article 21, rather in some cases the transgressions on privacy may lead to an infringement of a person’s right to liberty and only in such cases should the fundamental rights be invoked. Thus, the argument made was that there was no need to declare privacy as a fundamental right but only to acknowledge that limiting privacy may sometimes lead to violations of the already existing rights. This argument may have been more cogent had he identified specific dimensions of privacy which, according to him, do not qualify as fundamental rights. However, this might have meant conceding that other dimensions of privacy, in fact do amount to fundamental rights.

It must be remembered that the problem of changing or multiple meanings is not limited to privacy. As the bench noted, drawing comparisons to the concepts of ‘liberty’ and ‘dignity’, these are constitutionally recognised values which equally suffer from a multitude of meanings based on context. The government’s position here is in line with critiques of privacy that Solove seeks to bust in his book. The idea of privacy evolves with time and people. And people, whether from a developed or developing polity, have an instinctive appreciation for it. The absence of a precise definition does not necessarily do great disservice to a concept, especially one that is fundamental to our freedoms.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-wire-amber-sinha-august-2-2017-should-an-inability-to-precisely-define-privacy-render-it-untenable-as-a-right

Should Aadhaar be mandatory?

amber — 2017-12-18T15:54:39Z

This week, a constitutional bench of the Supreme Court will adjudicate on limited questions of stay orders in the Aadhaar case. After numerous attempts by the petitioners in the Aadhaar case, the court has agreed to hear this matter, just shy of the looming deadline of December 31 for the linking of Aadhaar numbers to avail government services and benefits.

The article was published in Deccan Herald on December 9, 2017.

Getting their day in the court to hear interim matters is but a small victory in what has been a long and frustrating fight for the petitioners. In 2012, Justice K S Puttaswamy, a former Karnataka High Court judge, filed a petition before the Supreme Court questioning the validity of the Aadhaar project due its lack of legislative basis (the Aadhaar Act was passed by Parliament in 2016) and its transgressions on our fundamental rights.

Over time, a number of other petitions also made their way to the apex court challenging different aspects of the Aadhaar project. Since then, five different interim orders of the Supreme Court have stated that no person should suffer because they do not have an Aadhaar number.

Aadhaar, according to the Supreme Court, could not be made mandatory to avail benefits and services from government schemes. Further, the court has limited the use of Aadhaar to only specific schemes, namely LPG, PDS, MNREGA, National Social Assistance Program, the Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojna and EPFO.

The then Attorney General, Mukul Rohatgi, in a hearing before the court in July 2015 stated that there is no constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy. But the judgement by the nine-judge bench earlier this year was an emphatic endorsement of the constitutional right to privacy.

In the course of a 547-page judgement, the bench affirmed the fundamental nature of the right to privacy, reading it into the values of dignity and liberty.

Yet months after the judgement, the Supreme Court has failed to hear arguments in the Aadhaar matter. The reference to a larger bench and subsequent deferrals have since delayed the entire matter, even as the government has moved to make Aadhaar mandatory for a number of government schemes.

At this point, up to 140 government services have made linking with Aadhaar mandatory to avail these services. Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra has promised a constitution bench this week, likely to look only into interim matters of stay on the deadline of Aadhaar-linking. It is likely that the hearings for the final arguments are still some months away. The refusal of the court to adjudicate on this issue has been extremely disappointing, and a grave disservice to the court's intended role as the champion of individual rights.

It is worth noting that the interim orders by the Supreme Court that no person should suffer because they do not have an Aadhaar number, and limiting its use only to specified schemes, still stand.

However, since the passage of the Aadhaar Act, which allows the use of Aadhaar by both private and public parties, permits making it mandatory for availing any benefits, subsidies and services funded by the Consolidated Fund of India, the spate of services for which Aadhaar has been made mandatory suggests that as per the government, the Aadhaar Act has, in effect, nullified the orders by the Supreme Court.

This was stated in so many words by Union Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad in the Rajya Sabha in April. This view is an erroneous one. While acts of Parliament can supersede previous judicial orders, they must do so either through an express statement in the objects of the Act, or implied when the two are mutually incompatible. In this case, the Aadhaar Act, while permitting the government authorities to make Aadhaar mandatory, does not impose a clear duty to do so.

Therefore, reading the orders and the legislation together leads one to the conclusion that all instances of Aadhaar being made mandatory under the Aadhaar Act are void.

The question may be more complicated for cases where Aadhaar has been made mandatory through other legislations, such as Prevention of Money Laundering Act, as they clearly mandate the linking of Aadhaar numbers, rather than merely allowing it. However, despite repeated appeals of the petitioners, the court has so far refused to engage with the question of the legality of such instances.

How may the issues finally be resolved? When the court deigns to hear final arguments, the Aadhaar case will be instructive in how the court defines the contours of the right to privacy. The right to privacy judgement, while instructive in its exposition of the different aspects of privacy, does not delve deeply into the question of what may be legitimate limitations on this right.

In one of the passages of the judgement, "ensuring that scarce public resources are not dissipated by the diversion of resources to persons who do not qualify as recipients" is mentioned as an example of a legitimate incursion into the right to privacy. However, it must be remembered that none of the opinions in the privacy judgement were majority judgements.

Therefore, in future cases, lawyers and judges must parse through the various opinions to arrive at an understanding of the majority opinion, supported by five or more judges. While the privacy judgement was a landmark one, its actual impact on the rights discourse and on matters like Aadhaar will depend extensively on the how the judges choose to interpret it.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/should-aadhaar-be-mandatory

Short-Term Consultant Required: Wordpress Webmaster

praskrishna — 2012-03-13T11:27:34Z

CIS wishes to commission the improvement of the Privacy India website. The Privacy India website should have a well-organized interface and easily navigable

Requirements:

WordPress developer with sufficient relevant experience
Experience in content management
Proven webmaster track record
Savvy and creative

To apply for this position, please send your CV to Natasha Vaz (natasha@cis-india.org)

Click here for the Privacy India website.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/wordprss-webmaster

Short-Term Consultant Required: Events Coordinator

praskrishna — 2012-03-13T11:22:08Z

CIS wishes to commission the planning of 3 privacy meetings in total, scheduled during May and June. Meetings should be well-organized, planned and promoted effectively.

The Events Coordinator should:

Choose a central and convenient Venue
Create the program
Involve relevant multi-stakeholder partners, participants and media
Work with the Privacy India team to organize panels of expert speakers on the topic of discussion

To apply for this position, please send your CV to Natasha Vaz (natasha@cis-india.org)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/events-coordinator

Shopping on apps raise privacy and security concerns

praskrishna — 2017-03-21T14:56:26Z

The recently concluded online Diwali sales frequently offered consumers hefty discounts on merchandise if they shopped via store app, a move that experts say increases security risks for internet users.

The article by Vivek Ananth was published by the Softcopy, an IIJNM Web Publication on November 23, 2015. Sunil Abraham gave inputs.

“It makes the security much worse because of increased complexity from the user perspective,” said Sunil Abraham, executive director at Centre for Internet and Society.

“User will have to install multiple apps and then worry about the security implications arising from each app. From the e-commerce corporation perspective it might reduce effort but for users this is a nightmare.”

Do apps increase security risks?

The degree of risk depends on the specific app and can only be determined after a detailed security audit, Abraham said.

“Unfortunately there aren't many organisations doing such audits and making their results available to the public,” he added.

There are some users who say that privacy on the internet isn’t an option.

“Once you are online your privacy is kind of gone,” said Hasmit Trivedi of Mumbai. “I mean you are vulnerable.”

“That (browsing history being used to target advertisements) does concern me, but not to the extent that I'll stop using these websites,” said Sweta Rajan, a lawyer from Mumbai.

“Google has done this forever," said Dinoo Muthappa.“I don't even care if they use my search to place advertisements of what they think I need while browsing.”

Comfort and Convenience trumps privacy

“I don't really shop for things I'm not comfortable allowing the world to know. I'm ok with them using this (usage pattern and browsing information) for commercial reasons,” Rajan said.

“We live in a world where the cost of convenience is our privacy. Take my user preferences,” said Dinoo Muthappa, a lawyer from Delhi.“If it means you'll make money and somehow reflect as a discount to me later, that's fine,” she added.

“I frankly don't have a problem with it in principle,” said Akshara Kumar Chitoor, a lawyer from Bengaluru, about companies mining data to target advertisements at her. “I don't think it's very different from how certain TV channels carry certain advertisements because they know the audiences.I mean, you get Rin and Horlicks ads on Zee and Sony but not Romedy Now or Comedy Central.”

“The convenience of having it come home when I want and not having to face the guy who I know is ripping me off; these guys can use and sell my information,” Muthappa said.

“With my work timings I literally do not find time to go to a store and shop,”Rajan said. “I buy everything online. It's very convenient and time saving.”

“Personally, I think just browsing stuff to buy is much easier on your computer,” said Sreenath Unnikrishnan, a product developer from Singapore. “However, I do think apps are more convenient for payment. As in your card information is normally stored and can be accessed without having to log in and all. I can do that on a computer too, but it's less secure. At least that's what I think.”

Google and Facebook have their advertisement norms disclosed.

Twitter also follows a similar model using the email ids that their users have associated with their twitter handles.

“If the service is free - then as many have said before - you are the product, said Sunil Abraham executive director at Centre for Internet and Society. “Your personal information is being sold to marketers and advertisers. As Bruce Schneier puts it ‘surveillance is the business model of the Internet’".

The terms and conditions are sometimes very long and use difficult language.

“Transparency and Informed Consent are principles in most jurisdictions that have data protection law modelled on the EU Data Protection Directive,” Abraham said.“Part of the transparency principle is the accessibility of the language.”

The user though still has an option to opt out of the above process where their data is collected by these companies.
Privacy policies of internet companies are legal documents. These are required under data protection laws. This makes them complicated, said Abraham.

The users don’t care that their usage data is being mined by businesses till they have a bad experience, Abraham said.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-soft-copy-vivek-ananth-november-23-2015-shopping-on-apps-raise-privacy-and-security-concerns

Sharad Sharma Apologises for Trolling Aadhaar Critics; Unmasking Ispirit's Controversial Trolling Program

praskrishna — 2017-05-26T01:08:09Z

Last weekend I was at Aditi Mittal’s standup comedy show in Mumbai where she made a cheeky remark that stayed with me – “Do you guys know what India’s soft power is today? It is trolling!”

The blog post by Shweta Modgil was published by Inc 42 on May 23, 2017.

While she was poking fun at the Snapchat-Snapdeal-Evan Spiegel controversy, in a bizarre coincidence those words came back to haunt me three days later. That was when one of biometric authentication system Aadhaar’s most vocal critics, Kiran Jonnalagadda, co-founder of Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF), an advocacy group, revealed in a series of tweets that @Confident_India, one of the anonymous accounts arguing in favour of Aadhaar and attacking its critics on Twitter, was being operated by none other than Sharad Sharma, the founder of software products think tank iSPIRT.

At the time, Sharad had completely denied that he was tweeting from an anonymous account. But today, on Twitter, Sharad apologised for the anonymous trolling on Twitter.

In a tweet, Sharad stated that “There was a lapse of judgement on my part. I condoned tweets with uncivil comments. So I’d like to unreservedly apologise to everybody who was hurt by them.”

He added that “Anonymity seemed easier than propriety, and tired as I was by personal events and attacks on iSPIRT’s reputation, I slipped.” Furthermore, he stated that he would not be part of anything like this again or allow such behaviour to continue. He also revealed that an iSPIRT Guidelines and Compliance Committee (IGCC) has been set up to investigate the matter and recommend corrective action.

On Catching a Troll

On 17 May, Kiran tweeted out a revelation, which shook a lot of people – “Have we caught an Aadhaar troll?” Kiran used Twitter’s account reset option on Confident_India with Sharad Sharma’s number to see if it is was accepted. And, as per a screenshot posted by him, it did.

This was further corroborated by many other Twitter users. Medianama’s Nikhil Pahwa (and co-founder of IFF) also confirmed the same, tweeting that the troll account does link to Sharad Sharma.

In a detailed Medium post, Kiran then revealed how he investigated the rise of anonymous Twitter accounts and trolls responding to critics of Aadhaar. But what he revealed next was the shocking part – that at the 27th Fellows meeting of the think tank, a plan was hatched to respond to critics of India Stack which involved the use of trolls. A group called Sudham, created earlier, divided people who were broadcasting different views on Aadhaar, into different categories and then underlined various proposals on dealing with them. One of the groups called “archers” was entrusted to carry out the mainstream debate, while another group of “swordsmen” was entrusted to challenge people who were categorised as informed yet “trolling.” Swordsmen would do this by coordinating on WhatsApp with quick responses and in numbers.

Kiran got a hold of the presentation and also shared how one controversial slide also showed a detractor matrix.

It is this slide which Kiran uses to illustrate the fact that: “ iSPIRT has an officially sanctioned trolling program where the trolls coordinate on WhatsApp and attack together on Twitter, exactly the behaviour seen in all the tweets above—and I’ve only covered the leader’s tweets. There are at least a dozen known troll accounts that attack in packs.”

First Denial

Back when the information was first revealed, Sharad Sharma responded by denying that he was tweeting from the @Confident_India Twitter account.

He further added that he was in for a family emergency in the US. And that he was clueless as to why his number was linked with that account.

But, interestingly, what roused the investigator’s suspicions was that Sharad shared the same denial from another troll account @indiaforward2 – which was captured by another Twitter user before it was deleted.

The denial from Sharad’s true account came half an hour later. But the damage had been done and all fingers pointed in the direction of Sharad Sharma engaging in trolling from those accounts. Kiran then wrote another damning post on Sharad’s dubious denial.

As can be guessed, all the tweets related to this matter from Sharad’s and Indiaforward’s accounts have been deleted. The last tweet from Confident India’s account on 17 May professed that he is not Sharad Sharma.

Meanwhile, iSPIRT finally responded to Kiran’s revelations on Medium –“We want to categorically state that the allegations against iSPIRT coordinating and/or promoting any troll campaign are false and the evidence presented is a deliberate misreading of our intent to engage with those speaking against India Stack.”

The post further explained that in its Fellows meeting held in February and April 2017, it did address the issue of the chatter around India Stack. It says, “Our volunteer, Tanuj Bhojwani, led the discussion and we outlined our strategy for dealing with our detractors. The slide in question is clearly titled “Detractor Matrix.” The slide outlines how we classify those speaking against India Stack, and how we are engaging with them. We called one category of people “informed yet trolling (IYT),” a category of people deliberately misleading people, despite understanding the nuance behind the debate.”

The post admitted that the think tank encouraged volunteers to respond to these IYT Twitter handles directly from their own personal handles. However, at no point did it endorse or recommend anonymous trolling.

“We are aware that some volunteers and their friends have created an anonymous campaign to Support Aadhaar. This is not a troll campaign, but an informational one. It is also not an iSPIRT campaign.”

It concluded with: “Kiran’s motivated misrepresentation of the slides perhaps speaks to his biases against iSPIRT.” The post added that it plans to investigate the confusion around the alleged mobile number and account link and clarify all outstanding questions.

Meanwhile coming back to trolling from where we started. Though Sharad’s apology did not say directly whether he operated the two Twitter accounts — @Confident_ India and @Indiaforward2 — which he was suspected of using for trolling- he signs off by saying that he requests “those who I have disappointed to look at this as an exception.”

The Aadhaar Controversy

While the series of incidents raises many doubts over an esteemed organisation such as iSPIRT, the controversy over Aadhaar, India’s massive biometric identification programme, has been raging for many months now.

Over the last few months, it has come under fire for not addressing the privacy concerns of an individual and leaking individual data. Aadhaar critics have pointed out that it is more a mass surveillance tool, can lead to identity thefts, and linking basic services with it spells doom.

This month, a CIS (Centre for Internet and Society ) report revealed that Aadhaar numbers and personal information of as many as 135 million Indians could have been leaked from four government portals, due to lack of IT security practices. The report claimed that the absence of “proper controls” in populating the databases could have disastrous results as it may divulge sensitive information about individuals, including details about the address, photographs, and financial data. It also added that as many as 100 Mn bank account numbers could have been “leaked.”

However, on May 16, the CIS updated its report and clarified that although the term ‘leak’ was originally used 22 times in its report, it is at “best characterised as an illegal data disclosure or publication and not a breach or a leak.” It also claimed that some of its findings were “misunderstood or misinterpreted” by the media and that it never suggested that the biometric database had been breached.

Meanwhile, the Aadhaar-issuing authority UIDAI has asked CIS to explain its sensational claim that 13 crore Aadhaar numbers were “leaked” and provide details of servers where they are stored. The UIDAI also wants CIS to clarify what kind of “sensitive data” is still with the Centre or anyone else. The UIDAI has strongly denied any breach of its database and has asked CIS to provide details such as the servers where the downloaded “sensitive data” is stored.

While the security of the above-mentioned Aadhaar data is still being debated, the government’s push towards making it compulsory across industries has become a major topic of debate in India.

From linking bank accounts, to PAN numbers, to obtaining free gas connections under the Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana, to linking scholarships to linking Aadhaar numbers to social welfare schemes for electronically disbursing money to specific beneficiaries, or the Aadhaar-enabled Payment System (AEPS), the government has been pushing on with Aadhaar to make it a mandatory ID rather than the voluntary one it was envisaged to be originally. India still does not have a data protection and privacy law and making Aadhaar mandatory in such a country is not without risks.

Given the fact that the UIDAI cannot afford to carry out authentication-based rollouts across schemes in haste as the failure rate of AEPS can lead to denial of direct benefits, it makes more sense to retain Aadhaar as a voluntary authenticator, at least until the government solves on-ground issues around Aadhaar-based authentication. Because any failure can erode public faith in Aadhaar as the beneficiary would not get his rightful ration over authentication failure— and, to that extent, in the government itself. So, for beneficiaries who depend on public distribution systems (PDS) for rice, sugar, kerosene or oil, authentication failure is a serious problem.

It is to this effect that PILs (public interest litigation suits) have been filed in the Supreme Court stating that making Aadhaar compulsory is illegal and would virtually convert citizens into “slaves” as they would be under the government’s surveillance all the time. The Supreme Court had itself stated in August 2015 that Aadhaar cards will not be mandatory for availing benefits of government’s welfare schemes and had also barred authorities from sharing personal biometric data collected for enrollment under the scheme.

Last month too, it lambasted the Narendra Modi-led BJP government at the Centre for making Aadhaar card a mandatory prerequisite to avail government services. The court will examine all applications against Aadhaar on June 27 2017, while the government remains steadfast on not extending the deadline of June 30 by which various schemes such as the grant of scholarships, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan and various other social welfare schemes were to seek mandatory Aadhaar number.

While the debate rages on, controversies keep on piling up. Recently, linking people living with HIV/ AIDS with Aadhaar cards has allegedly driven away patients from hospitals and antiretroviral therapy (ATR) centres in Madhya Pradesh. As per health department sources, the MP State AIDS Control Society made Aadhaar card number compulsory from February this year for those affected by the virus to get free medicines and treatment in accordance with the Central government’s policy making Aadhaar mandatory to avail benefits of any government scheme.

However, this led to negative fallout as many patients and suspected victims started avoiding ATR centres and district hospitals after the new rule came into effect. The patients feared that the compulsory submission of Aadhaar card to get free medicines and medical check-ups could lead to the disclosure of their identity, inviting social stigma.

While there is no denying the fact that, in a welfare state, technology can play a big role in enabling the state to hand out entitlements more efficiently and distribute public services at scale. But doing the same at the cost of an individual citizen’s privacy and resting it all on one mandatory number whose authentication is still not completely foolproof, is hardly the way a welfare state would like to operate.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/inc42-may-23-2017-shweta-modgil-sharad-sharma-aplogises-for-trolling-aadhaar-critics

SFLC Round Table Discussion on Personal Data Protection Bill

Admin — 2018-10-02T03:16:19Z

Shweta Mohandas participated in a Round Table Discussion on Personal Data Protection Bill, orgnanised by SFLC on September 25, 2018 in Bangalore. She also moderated the first session - Data Protection Principles (Rights and Obligations).

See the agenda of the event here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/sflc-round-table-discussion-on-personal-data-protection-bill

Sexual Harassment at ICANN

padmini — 2016-04-06T14:40:55Z

Padmini Baruah represented the Centre for Internet & Society at ICANN in the month of March 2016. In a submission to ICANN she is calling upon the ICANN board for implementing a system for investigating cases related to sexual harassments.

On the 6th of March, 2016, Sunday, at about 10 am in the gNSO working session being conducted at the room Diamant, I was sexually harassed by someone from the private sector constituency named Khaled Fattal. He approached me, pulled at my name tag, and passed inappropriate remarks. I felt like my space and safety as a young woman in the ICANN community was at stake.

I had incidentally been in discussion with the ICANN Ombudsman on developing a clear and coherent sexual harassment policy and procedure for the specific purposes of ICANN’s public meetings. Needless to say, this incident pushed me to take forward what had hitherto been a mere academic interest with increased vigour. I was amazed, firstly that the office of the ombudsman only had two white male members manning it. I was initially inhibited by that very fact, but made two points before them:

With respect to action on my individual case.
With respect to the development of policy in general.

I would like to put on record that the ombudsman office was extremely sympathetic and gave me a thorough hearing. They assured me that my individual complaint would be recorded, and sought to discuss the possibility of me raising a public statement with respect to policy, as they believed that the Board would be likely to take this suggestion up from a member of the community. I was also informed, astoundingly, that this was the first harassment case reported in the history of ICANN.

I then, as a newcomer to the community, ran this idea of making a public statement by no means an easy task at all, given the attached stigma that comes with being branded a victim of a sexual crime by certain senior people within ICANN who had assured me that they would take my side in this regard. To my dismay, there were two strong stands of victim blaming and intimidation that I faced I was told, in some cases by extremely senior and well respected, prominent women in the ICANN community, that raising this issue up would demean my credibility, status and legitimacy in ICANN, and that my work would lose importance, and I would “...forever be branded as THAT woman.” My incident was also trivialised in offhand casual remarks such as “This happened because you are so pretty”, “Oh you filed a complaint, not against me I hope, ha ha” which all came from people who are very high up in the ICANN heirarchy. I was also asked if I was looking for money out of this. Click to read the full statement made to ICANN here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/sexual-harassment-at-icann

Seventh Privacy Round-table

elonnai — 2013-11-20T09:58:39Z

On October 19, 2013, the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) in collaboration with the Federation for Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry, the Data Security Council of India, and Privacy International held a “Privacy Round-table” in New Delhi at the FICCI Federation House.

The Round-table was the last in a series of seven, beginning in April 2013, which were held across India.

Previous Privacy Round-tables were held in:

New Delhi: (April 13, 2013) with 45 participants;
Bangalore: (April 20, 2013) with 45 participants;
Chennai: (May 18, 2013) with 25 participants;
Mumbai, (June 15, 2013) with 20 participants;
Kolkata: (July 13, 2013) with 25 participants; and
New Delhi: (August 24, 2013) with 40 participants.

Chantal Bernier, Assistant Privacy Commissioner Canada, Jacob Kohnstamm, Dutch Data Protection Authority and Chairman of the Article 29 Working Party, and Christopher Graham, Information Commissioner UK were the featured speakers for this event.

The Privacy Round-tables were organised to ignite spark in public dialogues and gain feedback for a privacy framework for India. To achieve this, the Privacy Protection Bill, 2013, drafted by the Centre for Internet and Society, Strengthening Privacy through Co-regulation by the Data Security Council of India, and the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy by the Justice A.P. Shah committee were used as background documents for the Round-tables. As a note, after each Round-table, CIS revised the text of the Privacy Protection Bill, 2013 based on feedback gathered from the general public.

The Seventh Privacy Round-table meeting began with an overview of the past round-tables and a description of the evolution of a privacy legislation in India till date, and an overview of the Indian interception regime. In 2011, the Department of Personnel and Training drafted a Privacy Bill that incorporated provisions regulating data protection, surveillance, interception of communications, and unsolicited messages. Since 2010, India has been seeking data secure status from the European Union, and in 2012 a report was issued noting that the Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal Data or Information Rules found under section 43A of the Information Technology Act, were not sufficient to meet EU data secure adequacy. In 2012, the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy was published recommending a privacy framework for India and was accepted by the government, and the Department of Personnel and Training is presently responsible for drafting of a privacy legislation for India.

Presentation: Jacob Kohnstamm, Dutch Data Protection Authority and Chairman of the Article 29 Working Group

Jacob Kohnstamm, made a presentation on the privacy framework in the European Union. In his presentation, Khonstamm shared how history, such as the Second World War, shaped the present understanding and legal framework for privacy in the European Union, where privacy is seen as a fundamental human right. Kohnstamm also explained how over the years technological developments have made data gold, and subsequently, companies who process this data and create services that allow for the generation of more data are becoming monopolies. This has created an unbalanced situation for the individual consumer, where his or her data is being routinely collected by companies, and once collected — the individual loses control over the data. Because of this asymmetric relationship, data protection regulations are critical to ensure that individual rights are safeguarded.

Kohnstamm recognized the tension between stringent data protection regulations and security for the government, and the provision of services for businesses was recognized. However, he argued that the use of technology without regulation — for commercial reason or security reasons, can lead to harm. Thus, it is key that any regulation incorporate proportionality as a cornerstone to the use of these technologies to ensure trust between the individual and the State, and the individual and the corporation. This will also ensure that individuals are given the right of equality, and the right to live free of discrimination. Kohnstamm went on to explain that any regulation needs to ensure that individuals are provided the necessary tools to control their data and that a robust supervisory authority is established with enough powers to enforce the provisions, and that checks and balances are put in place to safeguard against abuse.

In response to a question asked about how the EU addresses the tension of data protection and national security, Kohnstamm clarified that in the EU, national security is left as a matter for member states to address but the main principles found in the EU Data Protection Directive also apply to the handling of information for national security purposes. He emphasized the importance of the creation of checks and balances. As security agencies are given additional and broader powers, they must also be subjected to stronger safeguards.

Kohnstamm also discussed the history of the fair trade agreement with India, and India’s request for data secure status. It was noted that currently the fair trade agreement between India and the EU is stalled, as India has asked for data secure status. For the EU to grant this status, it must be satisfied that when European data is transferred and processed in India and that it is subject to the same level of protections as it would be if it were processed in the EU. Without a privacy legislation in place, India’s present regime does not reflect the same level of protections as the EU regime. To find a way out of this ‘dead lock’, the EU and India have agreed to set up an expert group — with experts from both the EU and India to find a way in which India’s regime can be modified to meet EU date secure adequacy. As of date, no experts from the Indian side have been nominated and communicated to the EU.

Key Points:

Europe’s history has influenced the understanding and formulation of the right to privacy as a fundamental right.
Any privacy regulation must have strong checks and balances in place and ensure that individuals are given the tools to control their data.
India’s current regime does not meet EU data secure adequacy. Currently, the EU is waiting for India to nominate experts to work with the EU to find a way of the ‘dead lock’.

Discussion: National Security, Surveillance and Privacy

Opening the discussion up to the floor, it was discussed how in India, there is a tension between data protection and national security, as national security is always a blanket exception to the right to privacy. This tension has been discussed and debated by both democratic institutions in India and commercial entities. It was pointed out that though data protection is a new debate, national security is a debate that has existed in India for many years. It was also pointed out that currently there are not sufficient checks and balances for the powers given to Indian security agencies. One missing safeguard that the Indian regime has been heavily criticized for is the power of the Secretary of the Home Ministry to authorize interception requests, as having the authorization power vested in the executive leaves little space between interested parties seeking approval of interception orders, and could result in abuse or conflict of interest. With regards to the Indian interception regime, it was explained that currently there are five ways in which messages can be intercepted in India. Previously, the Law Commission of India had asked that amendments be made to both the Indian Post Office Act and the Indian Telegraph Act.

Moving the discussion to the Privacy Protection Bill, 2013 by CIS, in Chapter V “Surveillance and Interception of Communications” clause 34, the authorization of interception and surveillance orders is left to a magistrate. Previously, the authorization of interception orders rested with the Privacy Commissioner, but this model was heavily critiqued in previous round-tables, and the authorizing authority has been subsequently changed to a magistrate. Participants pointed out that the Bill should specify the level of the magistrate that will be responsible for the authorization of surveillance orders, and also raised the concern that the lower judiciary in India is not adequately functioning as the courts are overwhelmed, thus creating the possibility for abuse. Participants also suggested that perhaps data protection and surveillance should be de-linked from each other and placed in separate bills. This echoes public feedback from previous roundtables.

While discussing needed safeguards in an interception and surveillance regime for India, it was called out that transparency of surveillance, by both the government and the service providers as key safeguards to ensuring the protection of privacy, as it would enable individuals to make educated decisions about the services they choose to use and the extent of governmental surveillance. The need to bring in a provision that incorporated the idea of "nexus of surveillance" was also highlighted. It was also pointed out that in Canada, entities wanting to deploy surveillance in the name of public safety, must take steps to prove nexus. For example, the organization must empirically prove that there is a need for a security requirement, demonstrate that only data that is absolutely necessary will be collected, show how the technology will be effective, prove that there is not a less invasive way to collect the information, demonstrate security measures in place to ensure against loss and misuse, and the organizations must have in place both internal and external oversight mechanisms. It was also shared that in Canada, security agencies are regulated by the Office of the Canadian Privacy Commissioner, as privacy and security are not seen as separate matters. In the Canadian regime, because security agencies have more powers, they are also subjected to greater oversight.

Key Points:

The Indian surveillance regime currently does not have strong enough safeguards.
The concept of ‘nexus’ should be incorporated into the Privacy Protection Bill, 2013.
A magistrate, through judicial oversight for interception and surveillance requests, might not be the most effective authority for this role in India.

Presentation: Chantal Bernier, Deputy Privacy Commissioner, Canada

In her presentation, Bernier made the note that in the Canadian model there are multiple legislative initiatives that are separate but connected, and all provide a legislative basis for the right to privacy. Furthermore, it was pointed out that there are two privacy legislations in Canada, one regulating the private sector and the other regulating the public sector. It has been structured this way as it is understood that the relationship between individuals and business is based on consent, while the relationship between individuals and the state is based on human rights. Furthermore, aspects of privacy, such as consent are different in the public sector and the private sector. In her presentation, Bernier pointed out that privacy is a global issue and because of this, it is critical that countries have privacy regimes that can speak to each other. This does not mean that the regimes must be identical, but they must at the least be inter-operable.

Bernier described three main characteristics of the Canadian privacy regime including:

It is comprehensive and applies to both the public and the private sectors.
The right to privacy in Canada is constitutionally based and is a fundamental right as it is attached to personal integrity. This means that privacy is above contractual fairness. That said, the right to privacy must be balanced collectively with other imperatives.
The Canadian privacy regime is principle based and not rule based. This flexible model allows for quick adaption to changing technologies and societal norms. Furthermore, Bernier explained how Canada places responsibility and accountability on companies to respect, protect, and secure privacy in the way in which the company believes it can meet. Bernier also noted that all companies are responsible and accountable for any data that they outsource for processing.

Furthermore, any company that substantially deals with Canadians must ensure that the forum for which complaints etc., are heard is Canada. Furthermore, under the Canadian privacy regime, accountability for data protection rests with the original data holder who must ensure — through contractual clauses — that any information processed through a third party meets the Canadian level of protection. This means any company that deals with a Canadian company will be required to meet the Canadian standards for data protection.

Speaking to the governance structure of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner in Canada, Bernier explained that the OPC is a completely independent office and reports directly to the Parliament. The OPC hears complaints from both individuals and organizations. The OPC does not have any enforcement powers, such as finding a company, but does have the ability to "name" companies who are not in compliance with Canadian regulations, if it is in the public interest to do so. The OPC can perform audits upon discretion with respect to the public sector, and can perform audits on the private sector if they have reasonable grounds to investigate.

Bernier concluded her presentation with lessons that have been learned from the Canadian experience including:

The importance of having strong regulators.
Privacy regulators must work and cooperate together.
Privacy has become a condition of trade.
In today’s age, issues around surveillance cannot be underestimated.
Companies that have strong privacy practices now have a competitive advantage in place in today’s global market.
Privacy frameworks must be clear and flexible.
Oversight must be powerful to ensure proper protection of citizens in a world of asymmetry between individuals, corporations, and governments.

Key Points:

The Right to Privacy is a fundamental right in Canada.
The Canadian privacy regime regulates the public sector and the private sector, but through two separate legislations.
The OPC does not have the power to levy fines, but does have the power to conduct audits and investigations and ‘name’ companies who are not in compliance with Canadian regulations if it is in the public interest.

Discussion: The Data Protection Authority

Participants also discussed the composition of the Data Protection Authority as described in chapter IV of the Privacy Protection Bill. It was called out that the in the Bill, the Data Protection Authority might need to be made more independent. It was suggested that to avoid having the office of the Data Protection Authority be filled with bureaucrats, the Bill should specify that the office must be staffed by individuals with IT experience, lawyers, judges, etc. On the other hand it was cautioned, that though this might be useful to some extent, it might not be helpful to be overly prescriptive, as there is no set profile of what composition of employees makes for a strong and effective Data Protection Authority. Instead the Bill should ensure that the office of the Data Protection Authority is independent, accountable, and chosen by an independent selection board.

When discussing possible models for the framework of the Data Protection Authority, it was pointed out that there are many models that could be adopted. Currently in India the commission model is not flexible, and many commissions that are set up, are not effective due to funding and internal bureaucracy. Taking that into account, in the Privacy Protection Bill, 2013, the Data Protection Authority, could be established as a small regulator with an appellate body to hear complaints.

Key Points:

The Data Protection Authority established in the Privacy Protection Bill must be adequately independent.
The composition of the Data Protection Authority be diverse and it should have the competence to address the dynamic nature of privacy.
The Data Protection Authority could be established as a small regulator with an appellate body attached.

Presentation: Christopher Graham, Information Commissioner, United Kingdom

Christopher Graham, the UK Information Commissioner, spoke about the privacy regime in the United Kingdom and his role as the UK Information Commissioner. As the UK Information Commissioner, his office is responsible for both the UK Data Protection Act and the Freedom of Information Act. In this way, the right to know is not in opposition to the right to privacy, but instead an integral part.

Graham said that his office also provides advice to data controllers on how to comply with the privacy principles found in the Data Protection Act, and his office has the power to fine up to half a million pounds on non-compliant data controllers. Despite having this power, it is rarely used, as a smaller fine is usually sufficient enough for the desired effect. Yet, at the end of the day, whatever penalty is levied, it must be proportionate and risk based i.e., selective to be effective. In this way the regulatory regime should not be heavy handed but instead should be subtle and effective. In fact, one of the strongest regulators is the reality of the market place where the price of not having strong standards is innovation and economic growth. To this extent, Graham also pointed out that self regulation and co-regulation are both workable models, if there is strong enforcement mechanisms. Graham emphasized the fact that any data protection must go beyond, and cannot be limited to, just security.

Graham also explained that he has found that currently there is a lack of confidence in Indian partners. This is problematic as the Indian industry tries to grow with European partners. For example, he has been told that customers are moving banks because their previous bank’s back offices were located in India. Citing other examples of cases of data breaches from Indian data controllers, such as a call center merging the accounts of two customers and another call centre selling customer information, he explained that the lack of confidence in the Indian regime has real economic implications. Graham further explained that one difficulty that the office of the UK ICO is faced with, is that India does not have the equivalent of the ICO. Thus, when a breach does happen, it is unclear who can be approached in India about the breach.

Touching upon the issue of data adequacy with the EU, Graham noted that if data adequacy is a goal of India, the privacy principles as defined in the Directive and reflected in the UK Data Protection Act, must be addressed in addition to security. In his presentation, Graham emphasized the importance of India amending their current regime, if they want data secure status and spoke about the economic benefits for both Europe and India, if India does in fact obtain data secure status. In response to a question about why it is so important that India amend its laws, if in effect the UK has the ability to enforce the provisions of UK Data Protection Act, Graham clarified that most important is the rule of law, and according to UK law and more broadly the EU Directive, companies cannot transfer information to jurisdictions that do not have recognized adequate levels of protection. Thus, if companies still wish to transfer information to India, this must be done through binding corporate rules.

Another question which was put forth was about how the right to privacy differs from other human rights, and why countries are requiring that other countries to uphold the right to privacy to the same level, when, for example this is not practiced for other human rights such as children’s rights. In response Graham explained that data belongs to the individual, and when it is transferred to another country — it still belongs to the individual. Although the UK would like all countries to uphold the rights of children to the standard that they do, the UK is not exporting UK citizen’s children to India. Thus, as the Information Commissioner he has a responsibility to protect his citizen’s data, even when it leaves the UK jurisdiction. Graham explained further that in the history of Europe, the misuse of data to do harm has been a common trend, which is why privacy is seen as a fundamental right, and why it is paramount that European data is subject to the same level of protection no matter what jurisdiction it is in. India needs to understand that privacy is a fundamental right and goes beyond security, and that when a company processes data it does not own the data, the individual owns the data and thus has rights attached to it to understand why Europe requires countries to be ‘data secure’ before transferring data to them.

Key Points:

The UK Information Commissioners Office regulates both the right to information and privacy, and thus the two rights are seen as integral to each other.
Penalties must be proportionate and scalable to the offense.
Co-regulation and self-regulation can both be viable models to for privacy, but enforcement is key to them being effective.

Discussion: Collection of Data with Consent and Collection of Data without Consent

Participants also discussed the collection of data with consent and the collection of data without consent found in Chapter III of the Bill. When asked opinions about the circumstances when informed consent should not be required, it was pointed out that in the Canadian model, the option to collect information without consent only applies to the public sector if it is necessary for the delivery of a service by the government. In the private sector all collection of information requires informed and meaningful consent. Yet, collection of data without consent in the commercial context is an area that Canada is wrestling with, as there are instances, such as online advertising, where it is unreasonable to expect consent all the time. It was also pointed out that in the European Directive, consent is only one of the seven grounds under which data can be collected. As part of the conversation on consent, it was pointed out that the Bill currently does not take explicitly take into account the consent for transfer of information, and it does not address changing terms of service and if companies must re-take consent, or if providing notice to the individual was sufficient. The question about consent and additional collection of data that is generated through use of that service was also raised. For example, if an individual signs up for a mobile connection and initially provides information that the service provider stores in accordance to the privacy principles, does the service provider have an obligation to treat all data generated by the user while using the service of the same? The exception of disclosure without consent was also raised and it was pointed out that companies are required to disclose information to law enforcement when required. For example, telecom service providers must now store location data of all subscribers for up to 6 months and share the same when requested by law enforcement.

Key Points:

There are instances where expecting companies to have informed consent for every collection of information is not reasonable. Alternative models, based on — for example transparency — must be explored to address these situations.
The Privacy Protection Bill should explicitly address transfer of information to other countries.
The Privacy Protection Bill should address consent in the context of changing terms of service.

Discussion: Penalties and Offences

The penalties and offenses prescribed in chapter VI of the Privacy Protection Bill were discussed by participants. While discussing the chapter, many different opinions were voiced. For example, some participants held the opinion that offences and penalties should not exist in the Privacy Protection Bill, because in reality they are more likely than not to be effective. For example, when litigating civil penalties, it takes a long time for the money to be realized. Others argued that in India, where enforcement of any law is often weak, strong, clear, and well defined criminal penalties are needed. Another comment raised the point that a distinction should be made between breaches of the law by data controllers and breaches by rogue individuals — as the type of violation. For example, a breach by a data controller is often a matter identifying the breach and putting in place strictures to ensure that it does not happen again by holding the company accountable through oversight. Where as a breach by a rogue agent entails identifying the breach and the rogue agent and creating a strong enough penalty to ensure that they will not repeat the violation. Adding to this discussion, it was pointed out that in the end, scalability is key in ensuring that penalties are proportional and effective. It was also noted that in the UK, any fine that is levied is appealable. This builds in a system of checks and balances, and ensures that companies and individuals are not subject to unfair or burdensome penalties.

The possibility of incentivizing compliance, through rewards and distinctions, was discussed by participants. Some felt that incentivizing compliance would be more effective as it would give companies distinct advantages to incorporating privacy protections, while others felt that incentives can be included but penalties cannot be excluded, otherwise the provisions of the Privacy Protection Bill 2013 will not be enforceable. It was also pointed out that in the context of India, ideally there should be a mechanism to address the ‘leakages’ that happen in the system i.e., corruption. Though this is difficult to achieve, regulations could take steps like specifically prohibiting the voluntary disclosure of information by companies to law enforcement. Taking a sectoral approach to penalties was also suggested as companies in different sectors face specific challenges and types of breaches. Another approach that could be implemented is the statement of a time limit for data controllers and commissioners to respond to complaints. This has worked for the implementation of the Right to Information Act in India, and it would be interesting to see how it plays out for the right to privacy. Throughout the discussion a number of different possible ways to structure offenses and penalties were suggested, but for all of them it was clear that it is important to be creative about the type of penalties and not rely only on financial penalty, as for many companies, a fine has less of an impact than perhaps having to publicly disclose what happened around a data breach.

Key Points:

Penalties and offenses by companies vs. rogue agents should be separately addressed in the Bill.
Instead of levying penalties, the Bill should include incentives to ensure compliance.
Penalties for companies should go beyond fines and include mechanisms such as requiring the company to disclose to the public information about the breach.

Discussion: Cultural Aspects of Privacy

The cultural realities of India, and the subsequent impact on the perception of privacy in India were discussed. It was pointed out that India has a history of colonization, multiple religions and languages, ethnic tensions, a communal based society, and a large population. All of these factors impact understandings, perceptions, practices, and the effectiveness of different frameworks around privacy in India. For example, the point was raised that given India’s cultural and political diversity, having a principle based model might be too difficult to enforce as every judge, authority, and regulator will have a different perspective and agenda. Other participants pointed out that there is a lack of awareness around privacy in India, and this will impact the effectiveness of the regulation. It was also highlighted that anecdotal claims that cultural privacy in India is different, such as the fact that in India on a train everyone will ask you personal questions, and thus Indian’s do not have a concept of privacy, cannot influence how a privacy law is framed for India.

Key Points:

India’s diverse culture will impact perceptions of privacy and the implementation of any privacy regulation.
Given India’s diversity, a principle based model might not be adequate.
Though culture is important to understand and incorporate into the framing of any privacy regulation in India, anecdotal stories and broad assumptions about India’s culture and societal norms around privacy cannot influence how a privacy law is framed for India.

Conclusion

The seventh privacy round-table concluded with a conversation on the NSA spying and the Snowden Revelations. It was asked if domestic servers could be an answer to protect Indian data. Participants agreed that domestic servers are just a band aid to the problem. With regards to the Privacy Protection Bill it was clarified that CIS is now in the process of collecting public statements to the Bill and will be submitting a revised version to the Department of Personnel and Training. Speaking to the privacy debate at large, it was emphasized that every stakeholder has an important voice and can impact the framing of a privacy law in India.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/report-of-sevent-privacy-round-table

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

praskrishna — 2012-09-11T06:20:53Z

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

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

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

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

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

Seven reasons why Parliament should debate the Aadhaar bill (and not pass it in a rush)

praskrishna — 2016-03-24T02:25:24Z

Critics say the Aadhaar Bill does not address concerns over privacy, even as government is rushing the Bill without adequate parliamentary scrutiny.

The blog post by Anumeha Yadav was published in Scroll.in on March 11, 2016. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.

Since it was launched by the United Progressive Alliance government in 2009, the Unique Identification project called Aadhaar has functioned without a legal framework. The project, which aims to assign a biometric-based number to every Indian resident, has been run under an executive order, which means Parliament has no oversight over it.

An Aadhaar Bill was introduced in 2010 but it was rejected by a parliamentary committee over legislative, security, and privacy concerns.

For long, critics have expressed concerns over collecting and centralising citizens' biometric data ‒ such as fingerprints and retina scans ‒ on a mass scale in the absence of a privacy law. The Supreme Court in several orders in 2014 and 2015 affirmed that the government cannot require people to register for an Aadhaar number and no one can be deprived of a government service for not having an Aadhaar number. The Supreme Court is now set to form a constitution bench to examine the contours of the right to privacy flowing from the government's arguments in the Aadhaar case.

Before the bench begins its work, however, the Modi government has introduced a new Bill on Aadhaar, which could override the court's orders.

The Aadhaar (Target Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Bill was introduced on March 3 in Lok Sabha. Finance minister Arun Jaitley said the new Bill addresses concerns over privacy and the security and confidentiality of information.

But a close examination of the Bill shows several questions remain.

1. Does the Bill make it mandatory for you to get an Aadhaar number?
Yes, you may have to compulsorily enrol under Aadhaar, despite the privacy concerns explained in the sections below.

Four-time member of the Lok Sabha, Bhartruhari Mahtab of the Biju Janata Dal, was on the parliamentary committee on finance that examined the previous Aadhaar Bill introduced in 2010. He said the new Aadhaar Bill does not specify that it will not be made mandatory.

“There is duplicity over this issue,” said Mahtab. “Nandan Nilekani [the former chairperson of the Unique Identification Authority of India] repeatedly told us in the parliamentary committee that Aadhaar is not mandatory. The Supreme Court also said, 'You cannot make it mandatory.'”

But if a service agent asks for Aadhaar mandatorily, then as a beneficiary, citizens have no option but to get an Aadhaar number, Mahtab explained. “The government, or a private company, cannot force me to get an Aadhaar number," he said. "The government should bring a law that clearly says Aadhaar is not mandatory.”

A committee of experts on privacy, chaired by Justice AP Shah, had recommended in 2012 that the Bill should specify that individuals have the choice to opt-in or out-of providing their Aadhaar number, and a service should not be denied to individuals who do not provide their number. The Unique Identification Authority of India had then stated to the committee that the enrolment in Aadhaar is voluntary.

But the new Aadhaar Bill does not incorporate a categorical clause on opt-in and opt-out. Instead, it broadens the scope of Aadhaar. Jaitley said the Bill will allow the government to ask a citizen to produce an Aadhaar number to avail of any government subsidy. But section 7 of the Bill is phrased more broadly, and refers to not just subsidies but any “subsidy, benefit or service” for which expense is incurred on the Consolidated Fund of India, or the government treasury.

7. The Central Government or, as the case may be, the State Government may, for the purpose of establishing identity of an individual as a condition for receipt of a subsidy, benefit or service for which the expenditure is incurred from, or the receipt therefrom forms part of, the Consolidated Fund of India, require that such individual undergo authentication, or furnish proof of possession of Aadhaar number or in the case of an individual to whom no Aadhaar number has been assigned, such individual makes an application for enrolment: Provided that if an Aadhaar number is not assigned to an individual, the individual shall be offered alternate and viable means of identification for delivery of the subsidy, benefit or service.

As noted above, the proviso in section 7 is premised on the phrase: “if an Aadhaar number is not assigned”. This, along with language preceding in the section, indicates that a citizen may be compulsorily required to apply for enrolment.

Section 8 permits a “requesting entity” to utilise identity information for authentication with the Central Identities Data Repository. A “requesting entity” is defined under Section 2(u), and will include private entities.

2. Does the Bill allow Aadhaar authorities to share your personal data?
Yes, in the "interest of national security", a term that remains undefined.

Both legal experts and members of Parliament have flagged the provisions in the Bill on the circumstances in which users' data, including core biometrics information, can be shared.

The debate centres over the interception provisions in section 33.

In a piece in The Indian Express, Nandan Nilekani, the former chairperson of the issuing authority, stated that the Aadhaar Bill provides that no core biometric information can be shared, a principle without exception. “...Clause 29(1) is not overridden by Clause 33(2),” he noted.

However, a closer reading of the Bill shows this is not the case. Clause 33(2), in fact, does provide an exception to clause 29(1)(b):

33(2) Nothing contained in sub-section (2) or sub-section (5) of section 28 and clause (b) of sub-section (1), sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of section 29 shall apply in respect of any disclosure of information, including identity information or authentication records, made in the interest of national security in pursuance of a direction of an officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary to the Government of India specially authorised in this behalf by an order of the Central Government

where, Section 29(1)(b) states:

29. (1) No core biometric information, collected or created under this Act, shall be — (b) used for any purpose other than generation of Aadhaar numbers and authentication under this Act.

Pranesh Prakash, a lawyer and policy director of the Centre for Internet and Society said: “This implies that the core biometric information, collected or created under the Aadhaar Act, may be used for purposes other than the generation of Aadhaar numbers and authentication 'in the interest of national security.'"

Legal experts point out that the phrase “national security” is undefined in the present bill, as well as the General Clauses Act, and thus the circumstances in which an individual's information may be disclosed remains open to interpretation.

Section 33(1) permits the disclosure of an individual's demographic information (but not biometrics) following an order by a district judge. It says that no such order shall be made without giving an opportunity of hearing to the UIDAI , but not to the person whose data is being disclosed.

3. Does the Bill protect you from interception and surveillance?
No, the Bill does not provide for transparency concerning covert surveillance.

Section 33(2), which permits disclosure of demographic and biometric pursuant to directions of the joint secretary in interest of national security, says such disclosures will be for three months initially, and a fresh renewal can be granted for another three months, without a limitation on the number of such renewals.

This can lead to a user being under continuous surveillance, and without any notification to the user even after the surveillance ceases, violating one of necessary and proportionate principles on communications surveillance related to user notification and right to effective remedy. In some countries, this principle has been incorporated in law. For example, in Canada, the law limits the time of wiretapping surveillance, and imposes an obligation to notify the person under surveillance within 90 days of the end of the surveillance, extendable to a maximum of three years at a time.

“The interception provisions are severely problematic," said Apar Gupta, a technology lawyer. "They are not open to independent scrutiny and even derogate from the already deficient practices which relate to phone tapping (Rule 419-A of the Telegraph Rules) and interception of data (Interception Rules, 2011).”

Legal scholar Usha Ramanathan pointed out that the Bill lacks provisions on giving notice to a person in case of breach of information, in case of third party use of data, or change in purpose of use of data – which were among provisions recommended by the Justice Shah Committee on Privacy in 2012.

4. Does the Bill allow you to seek redress in case of breach of information?
Yes, but the provisions are weak.

Government officials overseeing the project said that the 2016 Bill is an improvement over the 2010 Bill as it safeguards the information of those enrolled as per sections of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

But technology law experts say the adjudicatory system for disclosure of sensitive personal data under the IT Act has structural flaws and is not functional.

“Initial complaints against the disclosure of sensitive personal data go to an adjudicating officer who is usually the IT Secretary of the state government and may not be trained in law,” said Gupta, the technology lawyer. “There is no court infrastructure and no permanent seat for such cases. The appellate body, the Cyber Appellate Tribunal, has not been made operational in the last three years. Hence, the civil remedies offered [in the Aadhaar Bill] are at best illusionary and unenforceable.”

5. Does the Bill give you the right to alter your information?
No, it leaves you to the mercy of the Unique Identification Authority of India.

Imagine a situation where a user simply wants to change their first or last name, or say, not use their caste name. Under Section 31 of the Bill, individuals can only request the UID authority, which may do so “if it is satisfied”. There is no penalty on the authority if it fails to respond. The Bill does not provide for a user to even be able to approach a court to ask for their information relating to Aadhaar to be corrected.

International norms for data protection give individuals the right to correct and alter information, if their demographic data changes. They provide for individuals to have a copy of their information, and to approach courts for an order to rectify, block, erase inaccurate information.

In an interview to Mint, Sunil Abraham, director of the Centre for Internet and Society, compared the rights of Aadhaar users to the rights we now take for granted as internet users. “Authentication factors [biometrics in the case of Aadhaar], commonly known as passwords, should always be revocable,” noted Abraham. “That means if the password is compromised, you should be able to change the password or at least say that this password is no longer valid.” In its current form, the Aadhaar Bill gives users no such rights.

6. Is the current Bill an improvement over the previous one?
Not really.

The Aadhaar Bill 2016 provides that the renewals of requests for disclosure of data will be reviewed by an oversight committee consisting of the cabinet secretary and the secretaries in the department of legal affairs and the department of electronics and information technology.

This is a watered down version of the provisions in the previous Unique Identification Authority of India 2010 Bill, said Chinmayi Arun, executive director, Centre for Communication Governance at the National Law University Delhi.

“The previous version or the 2010 Bill provided for a three-member review committee, consisting of the nominees of the prime minister, the leader of the opposition, and a third nominee of a union cabinet minister, with the restriction that these nominees could not be a member of parliament or a member of a political party,” Arun said. “This would be a more independent committee than the one proposed now, wherein there will be executive oversight for executive orders."

Regarding penalties, the previous 2010 Bill made copying, deleting, stealing, or altering information in the Central Identities Data Repository, punishable with a jail term of upto three years and a fine not less than Rs 1 crore.

Section 38 of the new Aadhaar Bill now makes the same offence punishable with a jail term of upto three years and reduces the upper limit of the fine to “not less than ten lakh rupees”.

7. Finally, does the Aadhaar Bill have enough parliamentary scrutiny?
The government has introduced the legislation on Aadhaar in the form of a Money Bill, which means the power of the Rajya Sabha to review and amend the Bill is curtailed ‒ if the Speaker Sumitra Mahajan certifies that this is a Money Bill.

The parliamentary committee on finance under Bharatiya Janata Party MP Yashwant Sinha had rejected the previous Bill in December 2011 citing legislative, security, and privacy concerns. Despite this, two successive Prime Ministers – Manmohan Singh and Narendra Modi – have pushed ahead with Aadhaar project.

A common refrain has been that the unique biometric identity will resolve the problem of the poor in India to prove identity and overcome "one of the biggest barriers preventing the poor from accessing benefits and subsidies." But last April, the UIDAI in response to an RTI application revealed that of 83.5 crore Aadhaar numbers issued till then, 99.97% were issued to people who already had at least two existing identification documents, only 0.21 million (0.03%) used the "introducer system" that provides an exception to those lacking identity proof.

More recently, there has been no public consultation by the government over the latest Bill.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/scroll.in-anumeha-yadav-march-24-2016-seven-reasons-why-parliament-should-debate-the-aadhaar-bill-and-not-pass-it-in-a-rush