Centre for Internet and Society

Report on the 5th Privacy Round Table meeting

maria — 2013-07-26T08:24:27Z

This report entails an overview of the discussions and recommendations of the fifth Privacy Round Table in Calcutta, on 13th July 2013.

This research was undertaken as part of the 'SAFEGUARDS' project that CIS is undertaking with Privacy International and IDRC.

In 2013, the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) in collaboration with the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI), and the Data Security Council of India (DSCI), is holding a series of seven multi-stakeholder round table meetings on “privacy” from April 2013 to October 2013. The CIS is undertaking this initiative as part of their work with Privacy International UK on the SAFEGUARD project.

In 2012, the CIS and DSCI were members of the Justice AP Shah Committee which created the “Report of Groups of Experts on Privacy”. The CIS has recently drafted a Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013, with the objective of contributing to privacy legislation in India. The CIS has also volunteered to champion the session/workshops on “privacy” in the meeting on Internet Governance proposed for October 2013.

At the roundtables the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy, DSCI´s paper on “Strengthening Privacy Protection through Co-regulation” and the text of the Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013 will be discussed. The discussions and recommendations from the round table meetings will be presented at the Internet Governance meeting in October 2013.

The dates of the seven Privacy Round Table meetings are enlisted below:

New Delhi Roundtable: 13 April 2013
Bangalore Roundtable: 20 April 2013
Chennai Roundtable: 18 May 2013
Mumbai Roundtable: 15 June 2013
Kolkata Roundtable: 13 July 2013
New Delhi Roundtable: 24 August 2013
New Delhi Final Roundtable and National Meeting: 19 October 2013

Following the first four Privacy Round Tables in Delhi, Bangalore, Chennai and Mumbai, this report entails an overview of the discussions and recommendations of the fifth Privacy Round Table meeting in Kolkata, on 13th July 2013.

Presentation by Mr. Reijo Aarnio – Finnish Data Protection Ombudsman

The fifth Privacy Round Table meeting began with a presentation by Mr. Reijo Aarnio, the Finnish Data Protection Ombudsman. In particular, Mr. Aarnio initiated his presentation by distinguishing privacy and data protection and by emphasizing the need to protect both equally within a legal framework. Mr. Aarnio proceeded by highlighting that 96 percent of the Finnish community believes that data protection is necessary, especially since it is considered to play an essential role in the enhancement of the self-determination of the individual. Fuerthermore, Mr. Aarnio pointed out that the right to privacy in Finland in guaranteed under section 10 of the Finnish constitution.

The Finnish Data Protection Ombudsman argued that in order for India to gain European data protection adequacy, the implementation of a regulation for data protection in the country is a necessary prerequisite. Mr. Aarnio argued that although the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013 provides a decisive step in regulating the use of data, the interception of communications and surveillance in India, it lacks in defining the data controller and the data subject, both of which should be legally specified.

In order to support his argument that India needs privacy legislation, the Ombudsman clarified the term “data protection” by stating that it relates to the following:

individual autonomy
the right to know
the right to live without undue interference
the right to be evaluated on the basis of correct and relevant information
the right to know the criteria automatic decision-making systems are based on
the right to trust data security
the right to receive assistance from independent authorities
the right to be treated in accordance with all other basic rights in a democracy
the right to have access to public documents
the freedom of speech

In addition to the above, Mr. Aarnio argued that the reason why data protection is important is because it ensures the respect for human dignity, individual autonomy and honor.

The Finnish Data Protection Ombudsman gave a brief overview of the development and history of data protection, by citing the oathe of Hippokrates, the Great Revolutions and World War II, all throughout which data protection has gained increased significance. Mr. Aarnio pointed out that as a result of the development and proliferation of technology, societies have evolved and that data protection is a major component of the contemporary Information Society. The Ombudsman stated that in the Information Society, information is money and open data and big data are products which are being commercialised and commodified. Hence, in order to ensure that human rights are not commericalised and commodified in the process, it is necessary to establish legal safeguards which can prevent potential abuse.

Article 8 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights guarantees the protection of personal data. Mr. Aarnio argued that the Parliament is the most important data protection authority in Europe and that privacy is legally guaranteed on three levels:

Protection of personal life: The Criminal Code (chapter 24) addresses and protects freedom of speech and secrecy regulations
Communication: Protection of content and traffic data
Data Protection: The Personal Data Act creates Right to Know and to affect/impact, the right to organise one's personal life, automatic processing of personal data and maintenance of register

The Ombudsman also referred to the Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and the free movement of such data.

Mr. Aarnio argued that in the contemporary ecosystem of the Information Society, countries need “Privacy by Design”, which entails the description of the processing of personal data and the evaluation of its lawfulness. In particular, the purpose for the collection and processing of data should be legally defined, as well as whether such data will be shared with third parties, disclosed and/or retained. The Ombudsman argued that India needs to define its data controllers and to legally specify their roles, in order to ensure that the management of data does not result in the infringement upon the right to privacy and other human rights.

The Finnish Data Protection Ombudsman concluded his presentation by stating that data security is not only a technological matter, but also – and in some cases, mostly – a legal issue, which is why India should enact the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013.

Discussion of the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013

Chapter I: Definitions

The discussion of the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013 commenced with a debate on whether such a Bill is necessary at all, given that section 43 of the IT Act is considered (by participants at the round table) to regulate the protection of data. It was pointed out that although section 43 of the Information Technology Act provides some rules for data protection, the Committee has stated that these rules are inadequate. In particular, India currently lacks statutory provisions dealing with data protection and rules are inadequate because they are subject to parliamentary debate, and the Parliament does not have the right to vote on rules. The Parliament does not have the right to amend rules, which means that it does not have the right to amend the rules on data protection under the IT Act. Since the rules under section 43 of the IT Act are not subject to parliamentary review, India needs a seperate privacy statutue. Hence, the round table reached a consensus on the discussion of the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013.

Personal data is defined in the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013 as any data which relates to a natural person, while sensitive personal data is defined as a subset of personal data, such as biometric data, medical history, sexual preference, political affiliation and criminal history. It was pointed out that race, religion and caste are not included in the Bill's definition for sensitive personal data because the Government of India refuses to acknowledge these types of information as personal data. According to the Government, the collection of such data is routine and there have been no cases when such data has been breached, which is why race, religion and caste should not be included in the definition for sensitive personal information. However, the last caste sensus took place in 1931 and since then there has been no caste sensus, because it is considered to be a sensitive issue. This contradictory fact to the government's position was pointed out during the round table meeting.

A participant argued that financial information should be included within the definition for sensitive personal data. This was countered by a participant who argued that India has the Credit Information Companies Act which covers credit information and sets out specific information for the protection of credit data by banks and relevant companies. Yet the question of whether general financial information should be included in the definition for sensitive personal data was further discussed, and many participants supported its inclusion in the definition.

The question of whether IP addresses should be included in the definition for personal data was raised. The response to this question was that IP addresses should be included in the definition since they relate to the identification of a natural person. However, the question of whether a specific IP address is considered personal data, as many individuals use the Web through the same IP address, remained unclear. Other participants raised the question of whether unborn humans and deceased persons should have privacy rights. The response to this was that in India, only the court can decide if a deceased person can have the right to privacy.

The controversy between the UID project and the protection of biometric data under the definition for sensitive personal information was discussed in the round table. In particular, it was pointed out that because the UID scheme requires the mass biometric collection in India is contradictory to the protection of such data under the Bill. As the UID scheme remains unregulated, it is unclear who will have access to the biometric data, who it will be shared with, whether it will be disclosed and retained and if so, for how long. All the questions which revolve around the implementation of the UID scheme and the use of the biometric data collected raise concerns in regards to what extent such data can realistically be protected under privacy legislation.

On this note, a participant mentioned that under EU regulation, an ID number is included in the definition for sensitive personal information and it was recommended that the same is added in India's draft Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013. Furthermore, a participant recommended that fingerprints are also included in the definition for sensitive personal data, especially in light of the NPR and UID scheme.

A participant argued that passwords should also be included in the definition for sensitive personal data, as well as private keys which are used for encryption and decryption. It was pointed out that section 69 of the IT Act requires the disclosure of encryption keys upon the request from authorities, which potentially can lead to the violation of privacy and other human rights. Hence the significance of protecting passwords and encryption keys which can safeguard data was highly emphasized and it was argued that they should definitely be included in the definition for sensitive personal data. This position was countered by a participant who argued that the Government of India should have access to private encyrption keys for national security purposes.

On the definition of sensitive personal data, it was emphasized that this term should relate to all data which can be used for discrimination, which is why it needs to be protected. It was further emphasized that it took Europe twelve years to reach a definition for personal data, which is why India still needs to look at the issue in depth and encounter all the possible violations which may potentially occur from the non-regulation of various types of data. Most participants agreed that financial information, passwords and private encryption keys should be added in the definition for sensitive personal data.

The fifth round table entailed a debate on whether political affiliation should be included in the definition for sensitive personal data. In particular, one participant argued that political parties disclose the names of their members and that in many cases they are required to do in order to show their source of income. Hence, it was argued that political affiliation should not be included in the definition for sensitive personal data, since it is not realistic to expect political parties to protect their members' privacy. This was countered by other participants who argued that anonymity in political communications is important, especially when an individual is in a minority position, which is why the term political affiliation should be included in the definition for sensitive personal data.

The discussion on the definitions in the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013 concluded with comments that the definiton for surveillance is very exclusive of many types of surveillance. In particular, it was argued that the definition for surveillance does not appear to cover artificial intelligence, screen shots and various other forms of surveillance, all of which should be regulated.

Chapter II: Right to Privacy

Section 4 of the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013 states that all natural persons have a right to privacy. Section 5 of the Bill includes exemptions to the right to privacy. On this note, it was pointed out that during the round table that there is no universal definition of privacy and thus it is challenging to define the term and to regulate it. Furthermore, the rapid pace at which technology is proliferating was emphasized, along with its impact on the right to privacy. For example, it was mentioned that emails were not covered by privacy legislation in the past, but this needs to be amended accordingly. The European Data Protection Directive was established in 1995 and does not regulate many privacy issues which arise through the Internet, which is why it is currently being reviewed. Similarily, it was argued that privacy legislation in India should encompass provisions for potential data breaches which may occur through the Internet and various forms of technology.

A participant argued that the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013 should include provisions for data subjects, which enable them to address their rights. In particular, it was argued that data subjects should have the right to access information collected and retained about them and that they should have the right to make corrections. The reponse to this comment was that the Bill may be split into two seperate Bills, where the one would regulate data protection and the other would regulate the interception of communications and surveillance, while the data subject would be addressed extensively. Furthermore, participants raised questions of how to define the data controller and the data subjects within the Indian context.

Other questions which were raised during the round table included whether spam should be addressed by the Bill. Several participants argued that spam should not be regulated, as it is not necessarily harmful to data subjects. Other participants argued that the isse of access to data should be addressed prior to the definition of privacy. Another argument was that commerical surveillance should not be conducted within restrictions, which is why it should not be inlcuded in the exemptions to the right to privacy. It was also pointed out that residential surveillance should be allowed, as long as the cameras are pointed inwards and do not capture footage of third parties outside of a residence. On this note, it was argued that surveillance in the work place should also be exempted from the right to privacy, as that too can be considered the private property of the owner. Moreover, it was emphasized that the surveillance of specific categories of people should also be excluded from the exemptions to the right to privacy.

A participant argued that in some cases, NGOs may be collecting information for some “beneficial purpose” and that such cases should be excluded from the exemptions to the right to privacy. Other participants argued that in many cases, data needs to be collected for market research and that the Bill should regulate what applies in such cases. All such arguments were countered by a participant, who argued that Section 5 of the Bill on the exemptions to the right to privacy should be deleted, as it creates to many complications. This recommendation was backed up by the example of a husband capturing a photograph of his wife and then publishing the image without her consent.

During this discussion, a participant raised the question of to what extent the right to privacy applies to minors. This question was supported by the example of Facebook, where many minors have profiles but the extent to which this data is protected remains ambiguous. Furthermore, it was pointed out that it remains unclear whether privacy legislation can practically safeguard minors who choose to share their data online. A participant responded to these concerns by stating that Facebook is a data controller and has to comply with privacy law to protect its customers' data. It was pointed out that it does not matter if the data controller is a company or an NGO; in every case, the data controller is obliged to comply with data protection law and regulations.

Furthermore, it was pointed out that Facebook allows for minors aged 13 to create a profile, while it remains unclear how minors can enforce their privacy rights. In particular, it remains unclear how the mediated collection of minors' data can be regulated and it was recommended that this is addressed by the Bill. A participant replied to this by stating that Indian laws rule in favour of minors, but that this simultaneously remains a grey area. In particular, it was pointed out that rules under section 43 of the Information Technology (IT) Act cover Internet access by minors, but this still remains an unclear area which needs further debate and analysis.

The question which prevailed at the end of the discussion of Chapter 2 of the Bill was on the social media and minors, and on how minors' data can be protected when it is being published immediately through the social media, such as Facebook. Furthermore, it was recommended that the Bill addresses the practical operationalisation of the right to privacy within the Indian context.

Chapter III: Protection of Personal Data

The discussion of Chapter 3 of the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013 on the protection of personal data commenced with a reference to the nine privacy principles of the Justice AP Shah Justice Committee. The significance of the principles of notice and consent were outlined, as it was argued that individuals should have the right to be informed about the data collected about them, as well as to have the rigt to access such data and make possible corrections.

Collection of Personal Data

The discussion on the collection of personal data (as outlined in Section 6 of Chapter 3 of the Bill) commenced with a participant arguing that a company seeking to collect personal data should always have a stated function. In particular, a company selling technological products or services should not collect biometric data, for example, unless it serves a specified function. It was pointed out that data collection should be restricted to the specified purposes. For example, a hospital should be able to collect medical data because it relates to its stated function, but an online company which provides services should not be eligible to collect such data, as it deviates from its stated function.

During the discussion, it was emphasized that individuals should have the right to be informed when their data is being collected, which data is being collected, the conditions for the disclosure of such data and everything else that revolves around the use of their data once it has been collected. However, a participant questioned whether it is practically feasible for individuals to provide consent to the collection of their data every time it is being collected, especially since the privacy policies of companies keep changing. Moreover, it was questioned whether companies can or should resume the consent of their customers once their privacy policy has changed. On this note, a participant argued that companies should be obliged to notify their customers every time their privacy policy changes and every time the purpose behind their data collection changes.

On the issue of consent for data collection, a participant argued that individuals should have the right to withdraw their consent, even after their data has been collected and in such cases, such data should be destroyed. This was countered by another participant who argued that it is not realistic to expect companies to acquire individual consent every time the purpose behind data collection changes, nor is it feasible to allow for the withdrawal of consent without probable cause.

The issue of indirect consent to the collection of personal data was raised and, in particular, several participants argued that the Bill should have provisions which would regulate circumstances where indirect consent can be obtained for the collection of personal data. Furthermore, it was emphasized that the Bill should also include a notice for all potential purposes of data collection which may arise in the future; if the purpose for data collection changes based on conditions specified, then companies should not be mandated to notify individuals. Moreover, a participant argued that the Bill should include provisions which would enable individuals to opt-in and/or opt-out from data collection.

On the issue of consent, it was further outlined that consent provides a legitimate purpose to process data and that the data subject should have the right to be informed prior to the collection of his or her data. However, it was emphasized that the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013 is a very strict regulation, as consent cannot always be acquired prior to data collection, because there are many cases where this is not practically feasible. It was pointed out that in the European Data Protection Directive, it is clear that consent cannot always be acquired prior to data collection. The example of medical cases was mentioned, as patients may not always be capable to provide consent to data collection which may be necessary.

In particular, it was highlighted that the European Data Protection Directive includes provisions for the processing of personal data, as well as exceptions for when consent is not required prior to data collection. The Directive guarantees the legitimate interest of the data controller and data processing is based upon the provisions of privacy legislation. The outsourcing of data is regulated in the European Union, and it was recommended that India regulates it too. Following this comment, it was stated that the recent leaks on the NSA's surveillance raise the issue of non-consentual state collection of data and non-consentual private disclosure of data and a brief debate revolved around these issues in the round table.

On the issue of mediated data collection, the situations in which collected data is mediated by third parties was analysed. It was recommended that the law is flexible to address the various types of cases when collected data is mediated, such as when a guardian needs to handle and take decisions for data of a mentally disabled person being collected. However, it was pointed out that mediated data collection should be addressed sectorally, as a doctor, for example, would address mediated data in a different manner than a company. It was emphasized that specific cases – such a parent taking a mediated decision on the data collection of his or her child – should be enabled, whereas all other cases should be prohibited. Thus it was recommended that language to address the mediated collection of data should be included in the Bill.

A participant raised the question of whether there should be seperate laws for the private collection of data and state collection of data. It was mentioned that this is the case in Canada. Another question which was raised was what happens when state collectors hire private contractors. The UID was brought as an example of state collection of data, while private contractors have been hired and are involved in the process of data collection. This could potentially enable the collection and access of data by unauthorised third parties, to which individuals may have not given their consent to. Thus it was strongly recommended that the Bill addresses such cases and prevents unauthorised collection and access of data.

The discussion on the collection of personal data ended with an interesting test case study for privacy: should the media have the right to disclose individuals' personal data? A debate revolved around this question and participants recommended that the Bill regulates the collection, processing, sharing, disclosure and retention of personal data by the media.

Retention of Personal Data

The discussion on the retention of personal data commenced with the statement that there are various exceptions to the retention of data in India, which are outlined in various court cases. It was pointed out that data should be retained in compliance with the law, but this is problematic as, in various occasions, a verbal order by a policeman can be considered adequate, but this can potentially increase the probability for abuse. A question which was raised was whether an Act of Parliament should allow for the long term storage of data, especially when there is inadequate data to support its long-term retention. It was pointed out that in some cases there are laws which allow for the storage of data for up to ten years, without the knowledge – let alone the consent – of the individual. Thus, the issue of data retention in India remains vague and should be addressed by the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013.

Questions were raised on the duration of data retention periods and on whether there should be one general data retention law or several sectoral data retention laws. The participants disagreed on whether an Act of Parliament should regulate data retention or whether data retention should be regulated by sectoral authorities. A participant recommended “privacy by design” and stated that the question of data retention should be addressed by data controllers. Other participants raised the question of purpose limitation, especially for cases when data is being re-retained after the end of its retention period. A participant recommended that requirements for the anonymisation of data once it has exceeed its retention period should be established. However, this proposal was countered by participants who argued that the pracitcal enforcement of the anonymisation of retained data is not feasible within India.

Destruction of Personal Data

The retention of personal data can be prevented once data has been destroyed. However, participants argued that various types of data are being collected through surveillance products which are controlled by private parties. In such cases, it was argued that it remains unclear how it will be verified that data has indeed being destroyed.

A participant argued that the main problem with data destruction is that even if data has been deleted, it can be retrieved up to seven times; thus the question which arises is how can individuals know if their data has been permanently destroyed, or if it is being secretly retrieved. Questions were raised on how the permanent retention of data can be prevented, especially when even deleted data can be retrieved. Hence it was recommended that information security experts cooperate with data controllers and the Privacy Commissioner, to ensure that data is permanently destroyed and/or that data is not being accessed after the end of its retention period. Such experts would ensure that data is actually being destroyed.

Another participant pointed out the difference between the wiping of data and the deletion of data. In particular, the participant argued that data is being deleted when it is being overwritten by other data, and can potentially be recovered. Wiping of data, on the other hand, involves the wiping out of data which can never be recovered. The participant recommended that the Bill explicitly states that data is wiped out in order to ensure that data is not being indirectly retained.

Processing of Personal Data

The dicsussion on the processing of personal data began with the question of national archives. In particular, participants argued that if the processing of data is strictly regulated, that would restrict access to national archives and the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013 should address this issue.

Questions were raised on the non-consentual processing of personal data and on how individual consent should be acquired prior to the processing of personal data. It was pointed out that the Article 29 Working Party has published an Opinion on purpose limitation with regards to data processing and it was recommended that a similar approach is adopted in India.

Furthermore, it was stated that IT companies are processing data from the EU and the U.S., but it remains unclear how individual consent can be obtained in such cases. A debate evolved on how to bind foreign data processors to meet the data requirements of India, as a minimum prerequisite to ensure that outsourced data is not breached. In light of the Edward Snowden leaks of NSA surveillance, many questions were raised on how Indian data outsourced and stored abroad can be protected.

It was highlighted during the round table that all data processing in India requires certification, but since the enforceability of the contracts relies on individuals, this raises issues of data security. Moreover, questions were raised on how Indian companies can protect the data of their foreign data subjects. Thus, it was recommended that the processing of data is strictly regulated through the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013 to ensure that outsourced data and data processed in the country is not breached.

Security of Personal Data

On the issue of data security, the participants argued that the data subject should always be informed in cases when the confidentiality of their personal data is violated. Confidentiality is usually contractually limited, whereas secrecy is not, which is why both terms are included in the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013. In particular, secrecy is usually used for public information, whereas confidentiality is not.

Participants argued that the Bill should include restrictions on the media, in order to ensure that the confidentiality and integrity of their sources' data is preserved. Several participants stated that the Bill should also include provisions for whistleblowers which would provide security and confidentiality for their data. The participants of the round table engaged in a debate on whether the media should be strictly regulated in order to ensure the confidentiality of their sources' data. On the one hand, it was argued that numerous data breaches have occured as a result of the media mishandling their sources' data. On the other hand, it was stated that all duties of secrecy are subject to the public interest, which is why the media reports on them and which is why the media should not be restricted.

Disclosure of Personal Data

The discussion on the disclosure of personal data commenced with participants pointing out that the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013 does not include requirements for consent prior to the disclosure of personal data, which may potentially lead to abuse. Questions were raised on the outsourcing of Indian data abroad and on the consequences of its foreign disclosure. Once data is outsourced, it remains unclear how the lawful disclosure or non-disclosure of data can be preserved, which is why it was recommended that the Bill addresses such issues.

A participant argued that there is a binding relationship between the data controller and the data subject and that disclosure should be regulated on a contractual level. Another participant raised the question of enforcement: How can regulations on the disclosure of personal data be enforced? The response to this question was that the law should focus on the data controller and that when Indian data is being outsourced abroad, the Indian data controller should ensure that the data subjects' data is not breached. However, other participants raised the question of how data can be protected when it is outsourced to countries where the rule of law is not strong and when the country is considered inadequate in terms of data protection.

With an increased transnational flow of information, questions arise on how individuals can protect their information. A participant recommended that it should be mandatory for companies to state in their contracts who they are outsourcing data to and whether such data will be disclosed to third parties. However, this proposal as countered by a participant who argued that even if this was inforced, it is still not possible to enforce the rights of an Indian data subject in a country which does not have a strong rule of law or which generally has weak legislation. A specific example was mentioned, where E.G. Infosys and Wipro Singapore have a contractual agreement and Indian data is outsourced. It was pointed out that if such data is breached, it remains unclear if the individual should address this issue to Wipro India, as well as which law should apply in this case and whether companies should be liable.

A participant suggested that the data controller discloses data without having acquired prior consent, if the Government of India requests it. However, this was countered by a participant who argued that even in such a case, the question of regulating access to data still remains. Other participants argued that the Right to Information Act has been misused and that too much information is currently being disclosed. It was recommended that the Right to Information Act is amended and that the Bill includes strict regulations for the disclosure of personal data.

Meeting Conclusion

The fifth Privacy Round Table meeting commenced with a presentation on privacy and data protection by Mr. Reijo Aarnio, the Finnish Data Protection Ombudsman, and proceeded with a discussion of the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013. The participants engaged in a heated debate and provided recommendations for the definitions used in the Bill, as well as for the regulation of data protection. The recommendations for the improvement of the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013 will be considered and incorporated in the final draft.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/report-on-the-5th-privacy-round-table

Report on the 4th Privacy Round Table meeting

maria — 2013-07-12T11:04:25Z

This report entails an overview of the discussions and recommendations of the fourth Privacy Round Table in Mumbai, on 15th June 2013.

This research was undertaken as part of the 'SAFEGUARDS' project that CIS is undertaking with Privacy International and IDRC

In furtherance of Internet Governance multi-stakeholder Initiatives and Dialogue in 2013, the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) in collaboration with the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI), and the Data Security Council of India (DSCI), is holding a series of six multi-stakeholder round table meetings on “privacy” from April 2013 to August 2013. The CIS is undertaking this initiative as part of their work with Privacy International UK on the SAFEGUARD project.

At the roundtables the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy, DSCI´s paper on “Strengthening Privacy Protection through Co-regulation” and the text of the Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013 will be discussed. The discussions and recommendations from the six round table meetings will be presented at the Internet Governance meeting in October 2013.

The dates of the six Privacy Round Table meetings are enlisted below:

New Delhi Roundtable: 13 April 2013
Bangalore Roundtable: 20 April 2013
Chennai Roundtable: 18 May 2013
Mumbai Roundtable: 15 June 2013
Kolkata Roundtable: 13 July 2013
New Delhi Final Roundtable and National Meeting: 17 August 2013

Following the first three Privacy Round Tables in Delhi, Bangalore and Chennai, this report entails an overview of the discussions and recommendations of the fourth Privacy Round Table meeting in Mumbai, on 15th June 2013.

Discussion of the Draft Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013

Discussion of definitions: Chapter 1

The fourth Privacy Round Table meeting began with a discussion of the definitions in Chapter 1 of the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013. In particular, it was stated that in India, the courts argue that the right to privacy indirectly derives from the right to liberty, which is guaranteed in article 21 of the constitution. However, this provision is inadequate to safeguard citizens from potential abuse, as it does not protect their data adequately. Thus, all the participants in the meeting agreed with the initial notion that India needs privacy legislation which will explicitly regulate data protection, the interception of communications and surveillance within India. To this extent, the participants started a thorough discussion of the definitions used in the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013.

It was specified in the beginning of the meeting that the definition of personal data in the Bill applies to natural persons and not to juristic persons. A participant argued that the Information Technology Act refers to personal data and that the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013 should be harmonised with existing rules. This was countered by a participant who argued that the European Union considers the Information Technology Act inadequate in protecting personal data in India and that since India does not have data secure adequacy, the Bill and the IT Act should not be harmonised.

Other participants argued that all other relevant acts should be quoted in the discussion so that it does not overlap with existing provisions in other rules, such as the IT Act. Furthermore, this was supported by the notion that the Bill should not clash with existing legislation, but this was dismissed by the argument that this Bill – if enacted into law – would over right all other competing legislation. Special laws over right general laws in India, but this would be a special law for the specific purpose of data protection.

The definition of sensitive personal data includes biometric data, political affiliation and past criminal history, but does not include ethnicity, caste, religion, financial information and other such information. It was argued that one of the reasons why such categories are excluded from the definition of sensitive personal data is because the government requests such data on a daily basis and that it is not willing to take any additional expense to protect such data. It was stated that the Indian government has argued that such data collection is necessary for caste census and that financial information, such as credit data, should not be included in the definition for sensitive personal data, because a credit Act in India specifically deals with how credit data should be used, shared and stored.

Such arguments were backlashed by participants arguing that definitions are crucial because they are the “building blocks” of the entire Bill and that ethnicity, caste, religion and financial information should not be excluded from the Bill, as they include information which is sensitive within the Indian context. In particular, some participants argued that the Bill would be highly questioned by countries with strong privacy legislation, as certain categories of information, such as ethnicity and caste, are definitely considered to be sensitive personal information within India. The argument that it is too much of a bureaucratic and financial burden for the Indian government to protect such personal data was countered by participants who argued that in that case, the government should not be collecting that information to begin with – if it cannot provide adequate safeguards.

The debate on whether ethnicity, religion, caste and financial information should be included in the definition for sensitive personal data continued with a participant arguing that no cases of discrimination based on such data have been reported and that thus, it is not essential for such information to be included in the definition. This argument was strongly countered by participants who argued that the mere fact that the government is interested in this type of information implies that it is sensitive and that the reasons behind the governments´ interest in this information should be investigated. Furthermore, some participants argued that a new provision for data on ethnicity, religion, caste and financial information should be included, as well as that there is a difference between voluntarily handing over such information and being forced to hand it over.

The inclusion of passwords and encryption keys in the definition of sensitive personal data was highly emphasized by several participants, especially since their disclosure can potentially lead to unauthorised access to volumes of personal data. It was argued that private keys in encryption are extremely sensitive personal data and should definitely be included within the Bill.

In light of the NSA leaks on PRISM, several participants raised the issue of Indian authorities protecting data stored in foreign servers. In particular, some participants argued that the Bill should include provisions for data stored in foreign servers in order to avoid breaches for international third parties. However, a participant argued that although Indian companies are subject to the law, foreign data processors cannot be subject to Indian law, which is why they should instead provide guarantees through contracts.

Several participants strongly argued that the IT industry should not be subject to some of the privacy principles included in the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy, such as the principle of notice. In particular, they argued that customers choose to use specific services and that by doing so, they trust companies with their data; thus the IT industry should not have to comply with the principle of notice and should not have to inform individuals of how they handle their data.

On the issue of voluntary disclosure of personal data, a participant argued that, apart from the NPR and UID, Android and Google are conducting the largest data collection within India and that citizens should have the jurisdiction to go to court and to seek that data. The issue of data collection was further discussed over the next sessions.

Right to Privacy: Chapter 2

The discussion of the right to privacy, as entailed in chapter 2 of the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013, started with a participant stating that governments own the data citizens hand over to them and that this issue, along with freedom from surveillance and illegal interception, should be included in the Bill.

Following the distinction between exemptions and exceptions to the right to privacy, a participant argued that although it is clear that the right to privacy applies to all natural persons in India, it is unclear if it also applies to organizations. This argument was clarified by a participant who argued that chapter 2 clearly protects natural persons, while preventing organisations from intervening to this right. Other participants argued that the language used in the Bill should be more gender neutral and that the term “residential property” should be broadened within the exemptions to the right to privacy, to also include other physical spaces, such as shops. On this note, a participant argued that the word “family” within the exemptions should be more specifically defined, especially since in many cases husbands have controlled their wives when they have had access to their personal accounts.

The definition of “natural person” was discussed, while a participant raised the question of whether data protection applies to persons who have undergone surgery and who have changed their sexual orientation; it was recommended that such provisions are included within the Bill. The above questions were answered by a participant who argued that the generic European definitions for “natural persons” and “family” could be adopted, as well as that CCTV cameras used in public places, such as shops, should be subject to the law, because they are used to monitor third parties.

Other participants suggested that commercial violations are not excluded from the Bill, as the broadcasting of people, for example, can potentially lead to a violation of the right to privacy. In particular, it was argued that commercial establishments should not be included in the exemptions section of the right to privacy, in contrast to other arguments that were in favour of it. Furthermore, participants argued that the interaction between transparency and freedom of information should be carefully examined and that the exemptions to the right to privacy should be drafted accordingly.

Protection of Personal Data: Chapter 3

Some of the most important discussions in the fourth Privacy Round Table meeting revolved around the protection of personal data.

Collection of personal data

The discussion on the collection of personal data started with a statement that the issue of individual consent prior to data collection is essential and that in every case, the data subject should be informed of its data collection, data processing, data sharing and data retention.

It was pointed out that, unlike most privacy laws around the world, this Bill is affirmative because it states that data can only be collected once the data subject has provided prior consent. It was argued that if this Bill was enacted into law, it would probably be one of the strictest laws in the world in terms of data collection, because data can only be collected with individual consent and a legitimate purpose. Data collection in the EU is not as strict, as there are some exemptions to individual consent; for example, if someone in the EU has a heart attack, other individuals can disclose his or her information. It was emphasized that as this Bill limits data collection to individual consent, it does not serve other cases when data collection may be necessary but individual consent is not possible. A participant pointed out that, although the Justice AP Shah Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy states that “consent may not be acquired in some cases”, such cases are not specified within the Bill.

Other issues that were raised are that the Bill does not specify how individual consent would be obtained as a prerequisite to data collection. In particular, it remains unclear whether such consent would be acquired through documentation, a witness or any other way. Thus it was emphasized that the method for acquiring individual consent should be clearly specified within the Bill, especially since it is practically hard to obtain consent for large portions of the Indian population that live below the line of poverty.

A participant argued that data collection on private detectives, from reality TV shows and on physical movement and location should also be addressed in the Bill. Furthermore, other participants argued that specific explanations to exempt medical cases and state collection of data which is directly related to the provision of welfare should be included in the Bill. Participants recommended that individuals should have the right to opt out from data collection for the purpose of providing welfare programmes and other state-run programmes.

The need to define the term “legitimate purpose” was pointed out to ensure that data is not breached when it is being collected. A participant recommended the introduction of a provision in the Bill for anonymising data in medical case studies and it was pointed out that it is very important to define what type of data can be collected. In particular, it was argued that a large range of personal data is being collected in the name of “public health” and “public security” and that, in many cases, patients may provide misinformed consent, because they may think that the revelation of their personal data is necessary, when actually it might not be. It was recommended that this issue is addressed and that necessary provisions are included in the Bill.

In the cases where data is collected for statistics, individuals may not be informed of their data being collected and may not provide consent. It was also recommended that this issue is addressed and included in the Bill. However, it was also pointed out that in many cases, individuals may choose to use a service, but they may not be able to consent to their data collection and Android is an example of this. Thus it was argued that companies should be transparent about how they handle users´ data and that they should require individuals´ consent prior to data collection.

It was emphasized that governments have a duty of transparency towards their citizens and that the fact that, in many cases, citizens are obliged to hand over their data without giving prior consent to how their data is being used should be taken into consideration. In particular, it was argued that many citizens need to use specific services or welfare programmes and that they are obliged to hand over their personal information. It was recommended that the Bill incorporates provisions which would oblige all services to acquire individual consent prior to data collection. However, the issue that was raised is that often companies provide long and complicated contracts and policy guides which discourage individuals from reading them and thus from providing informed consent; it was recommended that this issue is addressed as well.

Storage and destruction of personal data

The discussion on the storage and destruction of personal data started with a statement that different sectors should have different data retention frameworks. The proposal that a ubiquitous data retention framework should not apply to all sectors was challenged by a participant who stated that the same data retention period should apply to all ISPs and telecoms. Furthermore, it was added that regulators should specify the data retention period based on specific conditions and circumstances. This argument was countered by participants who argued that each sector should define its data retention framework depending on many variables and factors which affect the collection and use of data.

In European laws, no specific data retention periods are established. In particular, European laws generally state that data should only be retained for a period related to the purpose of its collection. Hence it was pointed out that data retention frameworks should vary from sector to sector, as data, for example, may need to be retained longer for medical cases than for other cases. This argument, however, was countered by participants who argued that leaving the prescription of a data retention period to various sectors may not be effective in India.

Questions of how data retention periods are defined were raised, as well as which parties should be authorised to define the various purposes for data retention. One participant recommended that a common central authority is established, which can help define the purpose for data retention and the data retention period for each sector, as well as to ensure that data is destroyed once the data retention period is over. Another participant recommended that a three year data retention period should be applied to all sectors by default and that such periods could be subject to change depending on specific cases.

Security of personal data and duty of confidentiality

Participants recommended that the definition of “data integrity” should be included in Chapter 1 of the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013. Other participants raised the need to define the term “adequacy” in the Bill, as well as to state some parameters for it. It was also suggested that the term “adequacy” could be replaced by the term “reasonable”.

One of the participants raised the issue of storing data in a particular format, then having to transfer that data to another format which could result in the modification of that data. It was pointed out that the form and manner of securing personal data should be specifically defined within the Bill. However, it was argued that the main problem in India is the implementation of the law, and that it would be very difficult to practically implement the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill in India.

Disclosure of personal data

The discussion on the disclosure of personal data started with a participant arguing that the level of detail disclosed within data should be specified within the Bill. Another participant argued that the privacy policies of most Internet services are very generic and that the Bill should prevent such services from publicly disclosing individuals´ data. On this note, a participant recommended that a contract and a subcontract on the disclosure of personal data should be leased in order to ensure that individuals are aware of what they are providing their consent to.

It was recommended that the Bill should explicitly state that data should not be disclosed for any other purpose other than the one for which an individual has provided consent. Data should only be used for its original purpose and if the purpose for accessing data changes within the process, consent from the individual should be acquired prior to the sharing and disclosure of that data. A participant argued that banks are involved with consulting and other advisory services which may also lead to the disclosure of data; all such cases when information is shared and disclosed to (unauthorised) third parties should be addressed in the Bill.

Several participants argued that companies should be responsible for the data they collect and that should not share it or disclose it to unauthorised third parties without individuals´ knowledge or consent. On this note, other participants argued that companies should be legally allowed to share data within a group of companies, as long as that data is not publicly disclosed. An issue that was raised by one of the participants is that online companies, such as Gmail, usually acquire consent from customers through one “click” to a huge document which not only is usually not read by customers, but which vaguely entails all the cases for which individuals would be providing consent for. This creates the potential for abuse, as many specific cases which would require separate, explicit consent, are not included within this consent mechanism.

This argument was countered by a participant who stated that the focus should be on code operations for which individuals sign and provide consent, rather than on the law, because that would have negative implications on business. It was highlighted that individuals choose to use specific services and that by doing so they trust companies with their data. Furthermore, it was argued that the various security assurances and privacy policies provided by companies should suffice and that the legal regulation of data disclosure should be avoided.

Consent-based sharing of data should be taken into consideration, according to certain participants. The factor of “opt in” should also be included when a customer is asked to give informed consent. Participants also recommended that individuals should have the power to “opt out”, which is currently not regulated but deemed to be extremely important. Generally it was argued that the power to “opt in” is a prerequisite to “opt out”, but both are necessary and should be regulated in the Bill.

A participant emphasized the need to regulate phishing in the Bill and to ensure that provisions are in place which could protect individuals´ data from phishing attacks. On the issue of consent when disclosing personal data, participants argued that consent should be required even for a second flow of data and for all other flows of data to follow. In other words, it was recommended that individual consent is acquired every time data is shared and disclosed. Moreover, it was argued that if companies decide to share data, to store it somewhere else or to disclose it to third parties years after its initial collection, the individual should have the right to be informed.

However, such arguments were countered by participants who argued that systems, such as banks, are very complex and that they don´t always have a clear idea of where data flows. Thus, it was argued that in many cases, companies are not in a position to control the flow of data due to a lack of its lack of traceability and hence to inform individuals every time their data is being shared or disclosed.

Participants argued that the phrase “threat to national security” in section 10 of the Bill should be explicitly defined, because national security is a very broad term and its loose interpretation could potentially lead to data breaches. Furthermore, participants argued that it is highly essential to specify which authorities would determine if something is a threat to national security.

The discussion on the disclosure of personal data concluded with a participant arguing that section 10 of the Bill on the non-disclosure of information clashes with the Right to Information Act (RTI Act), which mandates the opposite. It was recommended that the Bill addresses the inevitable clash between the non-disclosure of information and the right to information and that necessary provisions are incorporated in the Bill.

Presentation by Mr. Billy Hawkes – Irish Data Protection Commissioner

The Irish Data Protection Commissioner, Mr. Billy Hawkes, attended the fourth Privacy Round Table meeting in Mumbai and discussed the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013.

In particular, Mr. Hawkes stated that data protection law in Ireland was originally introduced for commercial purposes and that since 2009 privacy has been a fundamental right in the European Union which spells out the basic principles for data protection. Mr. Hawkes argued that India has successful outsourcing businesses, but that there is a concern that data is not properly protected. India has not been given data protection adequacy by the European Union, mainly because the country lacks privacy legislation.

There is a civic society desire for better respect for human rights and there is the industrial desire to be considered adequate by the European Union and to attract more international customers. However, privacy and data protection are not covered adequately in the Information Technology Act, which is why Mr. Hawkes argued that the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013 should be enacted in compliance with the principles from the Justice AP Shah Report on the Group of Experts on Privacy. Enacting privacy legislation in India would, according to Mr. Hawkes, be a prerequisite so that India can potentially be adequate in data protection in the future.

The Irish Data Protection Commissioner referred to the current negotiations taking place in the European Union for the strengthening of the 1995 Directive on Data Protection, which is currently being revisited and which will be implemented across the European Union. Mr. Hawkes emphasized that it is important to have strong enforcement powers and to ask companies to protect data. In particular, he argued that data protection is good customer service and that companies should acknowledge this, especially since data protection reflects respect towards customers.

Mr. Hawkes highlighted that other common law countries, such as Canada and New Zealand, have achieved data secure adequacy and that India can potentially be adequate too. More and more countries in the world are seeking European adequacy. Privacy law in India would not only safeguard human rights, but it´s also good business and would attract more international customers, which is why European adequacy is important. In every outsourcing there needs to be a contract which states that the requirements of the data controller have been met. Mr. Hawkes emphasized that it is a competitive disadvantage in the market to not be data adequate, because most countries will not want their data outsourced to countries which are inadequate in data security.

As a comment to previous arguments stated in the meeting, it was pointed out that in Ireland, if companies and banks are not able to track the flow of data, then they are considered to be behaving irresponsibly. Furthermore, Mr. Hawkes states that data adequacy is a major reputational issue and that inadequacy in data security is bad business. It is necessary to know where the responsibility for data lies, which party initially outsourced the data and how it is currently being used. Data protection is a fundamental right in the European Union and when data flows outside the European Union, the same level of protection should apply. Thus other non-EU countries should comply with regulations for data protection, not only because it is a fundamental human right, but also because it is bad business not to do so.

The Irish Data Protection Commissioner also referred to the “Right to be Forgotten”, which is the right to be told how long data will be retained for and when it will be destroyed. This provides individuals some control over their data and the right to demand this control.

On the funding of data protection authorities, Mr. Hawkes stated that funding varies and that in most cases, the state funds the data protection authority – including Ireland. Data protection authorities are substantially funded by their states across the European Union and they are allocated a budget every year which is supposed to cover all their costs. The Spanish data protection authorities, however, are an exception because a large amount of their activities are funded by fines.The data protection authorities in the UK (ICO) are funded through registration fees paid by companies and other organizations.

When asked about how many employees are working in the Irish data protection commissioner´s office, Mr. Hawkes replied that only thirty individuals are employed. Employees working in the commissioner´s office are responsible for overseeing the protection of the data of Facebook users, for example. Facebook-Ireland is responsible for handling users´ data outside of North America and the commissioner´s office conducted a detailed analysis to ensure that data is protected and that the company meets certain standards. Facebook´s responsibility is limited as a data controller as individuals using the service are normally covered by the so-called "household exemption" which puts them outside the scope of data protection law. The data protection commissioner conducts checks and balances, writes reports and informs companies that if they comply with privacy and data protection, then they will be supported.

Data protection in Ireland covers all the organizations, without exception. Mr. Hawkes stated that EU data protection commissioners meeting in the "Article 29" Working Party spend a significant amount of their time dealing with companies like Google and Facebook and with whether they protect their customers´ data.

The Irish Data Protection Commissioner recommended that India establishes a data protection commission based on the principles included in the Justice AP Shah Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy. In particular, an Indian data protection commission would have to deal with a mix of audit inspections, complaints, greater involvement with sectors, transparency, accountability and liability to the law. Mr. Hawkes emphasized that codes of practice should be implemented and that the focus should not be on bureaucracy, but on accountability. It was recommended that India should adopt an accountability approach, where punishment will be in place when data is breached.

On the recent leaks on the NSA´s surveillance programme, PRISM, Mr. Hawkes commented that he was not surprised. U.S. companies are required to give access to U.S. law enforcement agencies and such access is potentially much looser in the European Union than in the U.S., because in the U.S. a court order is normally required to access data, whereas in the European Union that is not always the case. Mr. Hawkes stated that there needs to be a constant questioning of the proportionality, necessity and utility of surveillance schemes and projects in order to ensure that the right to privacy and other human rights are not violated.

Mr. Hawkes stated that the same privacy law should apply to all organizations and that India should ensure its data adequacy over the next years. The Irish Data Protection Commissioner is responsible for Facebook Ireland and European law is about protecting the rights of any organisation that comes under European jurisdiction, whether it is a bank or a company. Mr. Billy Hawkes emphasized that the focus in India should be on adequacy in data security and in protecting citizens´ rights.

Meeting conclusion

The fourth Privacy Round Table meeting entailed a discussion of the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013 and Mr. Billy Hawkes, the Irish Data Protection Commissioner, gave a presentation on adequacy in data security and on his thoughts on data protection in India. The discussion on the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013 led to a debate and analysis of the definitions used in the Bill, of chapter 2 on the right to privacy, and on data collection, data retention, data sharing and data disclosure. The participants provided a wide range of recommendations for the improvement of the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill and all will be incorporated in the final draft. The Irish Data Protection Commissioner, Mr. Billy Hawkes, stated that the European Union has not given data adequacy to India because it lacks privacy legislation and that data inadequacy is not only a competitive disadvantage in the market, but it also shows a lack of respect towards customers. Mr. Hawkes strongly recommended that privacy legislation in compliance with the Justice AP Shah report is enacted, to ensure that India is potentially adequate in data security in the future and that citizens´ right to privacy and other human rights are guaranteed.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/report-on-the-4th-privacy-round-table-meeting

Report on the 3rd Privacy Round Table meeting

maria — 2013-07-12T11:35:22Z

This report entails an overview of the discussions and recommendations of the third Privacy Round Table meeting in Chennai, on 18th May 2013.

This research was undertaken as part of the 'SAFEGUARDS' project that CIS is undertaking with Privacy International and IDRC.

At the roundtables the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy, DSCI´s paper on “Strengthening Privacy Protection through Co-regulation” and the text of the Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013 will be discussed. The discussions and recommendations from the six round table meetings will be presented at the Internet Governance meeting in October 2013.

The dates of the six Privacy Round Table meetings are enlisted below:

New Delhi Roundtable: 13 April 2013
Bangalore Roundtable: 20 April 2013
Chennai Roundtable: 18 May 2013
Mumbai Roundtable: 15 June 2013
Kolkata Roundtable: 13 July 2013
New Delhi Final Roundtable and National Meeting: 17 August 2013

Following the first two Privacy Round Tables in Delhi and Bangalore, this report entails an overview of the discussions and recommendations of the third Privacy Round Table meeting in Chennai, on 18^th May 2013.

Overview of DSCI´s paper on ´Strengthening Privacy Protection through Co-Regulation´

The third Privacy Round Table meeting began with an overview of the paper on “Strengthening Privacy Protection through Co-Regulation” by the Data Security Council of India (DSCI). In particular, the DSCI pointed out that although the IT (Amendment) Act 2008 lays down the data protection provisions in the country, it has its limitations in terms of applicability, which is why a comprehensive privacy law is required in India. The DSCI provided a brief overview of the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy (drafted in the Justice AP Shah Committee) and argued that in light of the UID scheme, NATRGID, DNA profiling and the Central Monitoring System (CMS), privacy concerns have arisen and legislation which would provide safeguards in India is necessary. However, the DSCI emphasized that although they support the enactment of privacy legislation which would safeguard Indians from potential abuse, the economic value of data needs to be taken into account and bureaucratic structures which would hinder the work of businesses should be avoided.

The DSCI supported the enactment of privacy legislation and highlighted its significance, but also emphasized that such a legal framework should support the economic value of data. The DSCI appeared to favour the enactment of privacy legislation as it would not only oblige the Indian government to protect individuals´ sensitive personal data, but it would also attract more international customers to Indian online companies. That being said, the DSCI argued that it is important to secure a context for privacy based on Indian standards, rather than on global privacy standards, since the applicability of global standards in India has proven to be weak. The privacy bill should cover all dimensions (including, but not limited to, interception and surveillance) and the misuse of data should be legally prevented and prohibited. Yet, strict regulations on the use of data could potentially have a negative effect on companies’ competitive advantage in the market, which is why the DSCI proposed a co-regulatory framework – if not self-regulation.

In particular, the DSCI argued that companies should be obliged to provide security assurances to their customers and that regulation should not restrict the way they handle customers´ data, especially since customers choose to use a specific service in every case. This argument was countered by a participant who argued that in many cases, customers may not have alternative choices for services and that the issue of “choice” and consent is complicated. Thus it was argued that companies should comply with regulations which restrict the manner with which they handle customers´ data. Another participant argued that a significant amount of data is collected without users´ consent (such as through cookies) and that in most cases, companies are not accountable in regards to how they use the data, who they share it with or how long they retain it. Another participant who also countered the co-regulatory framework suggested by the DSCI argued that regulations are required for smartphones, especially since there is currently very low accountability as to how SMS data is being used or shared. Other participants also argued that, in every case, individual consent should be acquired prior to the collection, processing, retention, and disclosure of data and that that individual should have the right to access his/her data and make possible corrections.

The DSCI firmly supported its position on co-regulation by arguing that not only would companies provide security assurances to customers, but that they would also be accountable to the Privacy Commissioner through the provision of a detailed report on how they handle their customers´ data. Furthermore, the DSCI pointed out that in the U.S. and in Europe, companies provide privacy policies and security assurances and that this is considered to be adequate. Given the immense economic value of data in the Digital Age and the severe effects regulation would have on the market, the DSCI argued that co-regulation is the best solution to ensure that both individuals´ right to privacy and the market are protected.

The discussion on co-regulation proceeded with a debate on what type of sanctions should be applied to those who do not comply with privacy regulations. However, a participant argued that if a self-regulatory model was enforced and companies did not comply with privacy principles, the question of what would happen to individuals´ data would still remain. It was argued that neither self-regulation nor co-regulation provides any assurances to the individual in regards to how his/her data is protected and that once data is breached, there is very little that can be done to eliminate the damage. In particular, the participant argued that self-regulation and co-regulation provide very few assurances that data will not be illegally disclosed and breached. The DSCI responded to this argument by stating that in the case of a data breach, the both the Privacy Commissioner and the individual in question would have to be informed and that this issue would be further investigated. Other participants agreed that co-regulation should not be an option and argued that the way co-regulation would benefit the public has not been adequately proven.

The DSCI countered the above arguments by stating that the industry is in a better position to understand privacy issues than the government due to the various products that it produces. Industries also have better outreach than the Indian government and could enhance awareness to both other companies and individuals in terms of data protection, which is why the code of practice should be created by the industry and validated by the government. This argument was countered by a participant who stated that if the industry decides to participate in the enforcement process, this would potentially create a situation of conflict of interest and could be challenged by the courts in the future. The participant argued that an industry with a self-regulatory code of practice may be problematic, especially since there would be inadequate checks and balances on how data is being handled.

Another participant argued that the Indian government does not appear to take responsibility for the right to privacy, as it is not considered to be a fundamental human right; this being said, a co-regulatory framework could be more appropriate, especially since the industry has better insights on how data is being protected on an international level. Thus it was argued that the government could create high level principles and that the industry would comply. However, a participant argued that every company is susceptible to some type of violation and that in such a case, both self-regulation and co-regulation would be highly problematic. It was argued that, as any company could probably violate users´ data in some way down the line either way, self-regulation or co-regulation would probably not be the most beneficial option for the industry. This argument was supplemented by another participant who stated that co-regulation would mandate the industry and the Privacy Commissioner as the ultimate authorities to handle users´ data and that this could potentially lead to major violations, especially due to inadequate accountability towards users.

Co-regulation was once again supported by the DSCI through the argument that customers choose to use specific services and that by doing so, they should comply with the security measures and privacy policies provided. However, a participant asked whether other stakeholders should be involved, as well as what type of incentives companies have in order to comply with regulations and to protect users´ data. Another participant argued that the very definition of privacy remains vague and that co-regulation should not be an option, since the industry could be violating individuals´ privacy without even realising it. Another issue which was raised is how data would be protected when many companies have servers based in other countries. The DSCI responded by arguing that checks and balances would be in place to deal with all the above concerns, yet a general consensus on co-regulation did not appear to have been reached.

Discussion on the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013

Discussion of definitions: Chapter II

The sections of the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013 were discussed during the second session of the third Privacy Round Table meeting. In particular, the session started with a discussion on whether the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013 should be split into two separate Bills, where the one would focus on data protection and the other on surveillance and interception. The split of a Bill on data protection to two consecutive Bills was also proposed, where the one would focus on data protection binding the public sector and the other on data protection binding the private sector. As the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013 is in line with global privacy standards, the possibility of splitting the Bill to focus separately on the sections mentioned above was seriously considered.

The discussion on the definitions laid out in Chapter 2 of the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013 started with a debate around the definitions of personal data and sensitive personal data and what exactly they should include. It was pointed out that the Data Protection Act of the UK has a much broader definition for the term ´sensitive personal data´ and it was recommended that the Indian draft Privacy (Protection) Bill complies with it. Other participants argued that a controversy lies in India on whether the government would conduct a caste census and if that were to be the case, such data (also including, but not limited to, religion and ethnic origin) should be included in the legal definition for ´sensitive personal data´ to safeguard individuals from potential abuse. Furthermore, the fact that the term ´sensitive personal data´ does not have a harmonious nature in the U.S. and in Europe was raised, especially since that would make it more difficult for India to comply to global privacy standards.

The broadness of the definition for ´sensitive personal data´ was raised as a potential problematic issue, especially since it may not be realistic to expect companies in the long term to protect everything it may include. The participants debated on whether financial information should be included in the definition of ´sensitive personal data´, but a consensus was not reached. Other participants argued that the terms ´data subject´ and ´data controller´ should be carefully defined, as well as that a generic definition for the term ´genetic data´ should be included in the Bill. Furthermore, it was argued that the word ´monitor´ should be included in the definitions of the Bill and that the universal norms in regards to the definitions should apply to each and every state in India. It was also noted that organizational affiliation, such as a trade union membership, should also be included in the definitions of the Bill, since the lack of legal protection may potentially have social and political implications.

Discussion of “Protection of Personal Data”: Chapter III

The discussion on the data protection chapter of the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill began with the recommendation that data collected by companies should comply with a confidentiality agreement. Another participant argued that the UK looks at every financial mechanism to trace how information flows and that India should do the same to protect individuals´ personal data. It was also argued that when an individual is constantly under surveillance, that individual´s behaviour is more controlled and that extra accountability should be required for the use of CCTV cameras. In particular, it was argued that when entities outside the jurisdiction gain access to CCTV data, they should be accountable as to how they use it. Furthermore, it was argued that the Bill should provide provisions on how data is used abroad, especially when it is stored in foreign servers.

Issue of Consent

The meeting proceeded with a discussion of Section 6 and it was pointed out that consent needs to be a prerequisite to data collection. Furthermore, conditions laid out in section 3 would have to be met, through which the individual would have to be informed prior to any data collection, processing, disclosure and retention of data. Section 11 of the Bill entails an accuracy provision, through which individuals have the right to access the data withheld about them and make any necessary corrections. A participant argued that the transmission of data should also be included in the Bill and that the transmitter would have to be responsible for the accuracy of the data. Another participant argued that transmitters should be responsible for the integrity of the data, but that individuals should be responsible for its accuracy. However, such arguments were countered by a participant who argued that it is not practically possible to inform individuals every time there is a change in their data.

Outsourcing of Data

It was further recommended that outsourcing guidelines should be created and implemented, which would specify the agents responsible for outsourcing data. On this note, the fact that a large volume of Indian data is being outsourced to the U.S. under the Patriot Act was discussed. In particular, it was pointed out that most data retention servers are based in the U.S., which makes it difficult for Indians to be able to be informed about which data is being collected, whether it is being processed, shared, disclosed and/or retained. A participant argued that most companies have special provisions which guarantee that data will not cross borders and that it actually depends on the type of ISP handling the data.

Another issue which was raised was that, although a consumer may have control over his/her data at the first stage, that individual ultimately loses control over his/her data in the next stages when data is being shared and/or disclosed without his/her knowledge or consent. Not only is this problematic because individuals lose control over their data, but also because the issue of accountability arises, as it is hard to determine who is responsible for the data once it has been shared and disclosed. Some participants suggested that such a problem could possibly be solved if the data subject is informed by the data processor that its data is being outsourced, as well as of the specific parties the data is being outsourced to. Another participant argued that it does not matter who the data is being outsourced to, but the manner of its use is what really matters.

Data Retention

Acting on the powers given by POTA, it was argued that 50,000 arrests have been made. Out of these arrests, only seven convictions have been made, yet the data of thousands of individuals can be stored for many years under POTA. Thus, it was pointed out that it is crucial that the individual is informed when his/her data is destroyed and that such data is not retained indefinitely. This was supplemented by a participant who argued that most countries in the West have data retention laws and that India should too. Other participants argued that data retention does not end with data destruction, but with the return of the data to the individual and the assurance that it is not stored elsewhere. However, several participants argued that the return of data is not always possible, especially since parties may lack the infrastructure to take back their data.

It was pointed out that civil society groups have claimed that collected data should be destroyed within a specific time period, but the debate remains polarized. In particular, some participants argued that data should be retained indefinitely, as the purpose of data collection may change within time and that data may be valuable in dealing with crime and terrorism in the future. This was countered by participants who argued that the indefinite retention of data may potentially lead to human rights violations, especially if the government handling the data is non-democratic. Another participant argued that the fact that data may be collected for purpose A, processed for purpose B and retained or disclosed for purpose C can be very problematic in terms of human rights violations in the future. Furthermore, another participant stated that destruction should mean that data is no longer accessible and that is should not only apply to present data, but also to past data, such as archives.

Data Processing

The processing of personal data is regulated in section 8 of the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013. A participant argued that the responsibility should lie with the person doing the outsourcing of the data (the data collector). Another participant raised the issue that although banks acquire consent prior to collection and use of data, they subsequently use that data for any form of data processing and disclosure. Credit information requires specific permission and it was argued that the same should apply to other types of personal data. Consent should be acquired for every new purpose other than the original purpose for data collection. It was strongly argued that general consent should not cover every possible disclosure, sharing and processing of data. Another issue which was raised in terms of data processing is that Indian data could be compromised through global cooperation or pre-existing cooperation with third parties.

Data Disclosure

The disclosure of personal data was highlighted as one of the most important provisions within the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013. In particular, three types of disclosure were pointed out: (1) disclosure with consent, (2) disclosure in outsourcing, (3) disclosure for law enforcement purposes. Within this discussion, principle liability issues were raised, as well as whether the data of a deceased person should be disclosed. Other participants raised the issue of data being disclosed by international third parties, who gain access to it through cooperation with Indian law enforcement agencies and cases of dual criminality in terms of the misuse of data abroad were raised. A participant highlighted three points: (1) the subject who has responsibility for the processing of data, (2) any obligation under law should be made applicable to the party receiving the information, (3) applicable laws for outsourcing Indian data to international third parties. It was emphasized that the failure to address these three points could potentially lead to a conflict of laws.

According to a participant, a non-disclosure agreement should be a prerequisite to outsourcing. This was preceded by a discussion on the conditions for data disclosure under the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013 and it was recommended that if data is disclosed without the consent of the individual, the individual should be informed within one year. It was also pointed out that disclosure of data in furtherance of a court order should not be included in the Bill because courts in India tend to be inconsistent. This was followed by a discussion on whether power should be invested in the High Court in terms of data disclosure.

Discussion of “Interception of Communications”: Chapter IV

The third Privacy Round Table ended with a brief discussion on the fourth chapter of the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013, which regulates the interception of communications. Following an overview of the sections and their content, a participant argued that interception does not necessarily need to be covered in the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill, as it is already covered in the Telegraph Act. This was countered by participants who argued that the interception of communications can potentially lead to a major violation of the right to privacy and other human rights, which is why it should be included in the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill. Other participants argued that a requirement that intercepted communication remains confidential is necessary, but that there is no need to include privacy officers in this. Some participants proposed that an exception for sting operations should be included in this chapter.

Meeting conclusion

The third Privacy Round Table entailed a discussion of the definitions used in the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013, as well as of chapters II, III and IV on the right to privacy, the protection of personal data and the interception of communications. The majority of the participants agreed that India needs a privacy legislation and that individuals´ data should be legally protected. However, participants disagreed in regards to how data would be safeguarded and the extent to which data collection, processing, sharing, disclosure, destruction and retention should be regulated. This was supplemented by the debate on self-regulation and co-regulation; participants disagreed on whether the industry should regulate the use of customers´ data autonomously from government regulation or whether the industry should co-operate with the Privacy Commissioner for the regulation of the use of data. Though a consensus was not reached in regards to co-regulation and self-regulation, the majority of the participants agreed upon the establishment of a privacy legislation which would safeguard individuals´ personal data. The major issue, however, with the creation of a privacy legislation in India would probably be its adequate enforcement.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/report-on-the-third-privacy-round-table-meeting

Report on the 2nd Privacy Round Table meeting

maria — 2013-07-12T11:54:28Z

This post entails a report on the second Privacy Round Table meeting which took place on 20th April 2013.

This research was undertaken as part of the 'SAFEGUARDS' project that CIS is undertaking with Privacy International and IDRC

At the roundtables the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy, DSCI´s paper on “Strengthening Privacy Protection through Co-regulation” and the text of the Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013 will be discussed. The discussions and recommendations from the six round table meetings will be presented at the Internet Governance meeting in October 2013.

The dates of the six Privacy Round Table meetings are enlisted below:

New Delhi Roundtable: 13 April 2013
Bangalore Roundtable: 20 April 2013
Chennai Roundtable: 18 May 2013
Mumbai Roundtable: 15 June 2013
Kolkata Roundtable: 13 July 2013
New Delhi Final Roundtable and National Meeting: 17 August 2013

Following the first Privacy Round Table in Delhi, this report entails an overview of the discussions and recommendations of the second Privacy Round Table meeting in Bangalore, on 20^th April 2013.

Overview of DSCI´s paper on “Strengthening Privacy Protection through Co-regulation”

The meeting began with a brief summary of the first Privacy Round Table meeting which took place in Delhi on 13^th April 2013. Following the summary, the Data Security Council of India (DSCI) presented the paper “Strengthening Privacy Protection through Co-regulation”. In particular, DSCI presented the regulatory framework for data protection under the IT (Amendment) Act 2008, which entails provisions for sensitive personal information, privacy principles and “reasonable security practices”. It was noted that the privacy principles, as set out in the Justice AP Shah Report, refer to: data collection limitation, data quality, purpose specification, use limitation, security safeguards, openness and individual participation. The generic definitions of identified privacy principles refer to: notice, choice and consent, collection limitation, purpose specification, access and correction, disclosure of information, security, openness/transparency and accountability. However, the question which prevailed is what type of regulatory framework should be adopted to incorporate all these privacy principles.

DSCI suggested a co-regulatory framework which would evolve from voluntary self-regulation with legal recognition. The proposed co-regulatory regime could have different types of forms based on the role played by the government and industry in the creation and enforcement of rules. DSCI mentioned that the Justice AP Shah Committee recommends: (1) the establishment of the office of the Privacy Commissioner, both at the central and regional levels, (2) a system of co-regulation, with emphasis on SROs and (3) that SROs would be responsible for appointing an ombudsman to receive and handle complaints.

The discussion points brought forward by DSCI were:

What role should government and industry respectively play in developing and enforcing a regulatory framework?
How can the codes of practice developed by industry be enforced in a co-regulatory regime? How will the SRO check the successful implementation of codes of practice? How can the SRO penalize non-compliances?
How can an organization be incentivized to follow the codes of practice under the SRO?
What should be the role of SROs in redressal of complaints?
What should be the business model for SROs?

DSCI further recommended the establishment of “light weight” regulations based on global privacy principles that value economic beliefs of data flow and usage, while guaranteeing privacy to citizens. DSCI also recommended that bureaucratic structures that could hinder business interests be avoided, as well as that the self-regulatory framework of businesses adapts technological advances to the privacy principles. Furthermore, DSCI recommended that self-regulatory bodies are legally recognised.

Discussion on the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013

Discussion of definitions and preamble: Chapter I & II

The second session began with a discussion of definitions used in the Bill. In particular, many participants argued that the term ´personal data´ should be more specific, especially since the vague definition of the term could create a potential for abuse. Other participants asked who the protection of personal data applies to and whether it covers both companies and legal persons. Furthermore, the question of whether the term ´personal data´ entails processed and stored data was raised, as well as whether the same data protection regulations apply to foreign citizens residing in India. A participant argued that the preamble of the Bill should be amended to include the term ´governance´ instead of ´democracy´, as this privacy legislation should be applicable in all cases in India, regardless of the current political regime.

Sensitive Personal Data

The meeting proceeded with a discussion of the term ´sensitive personal data´ and many participants argued that the term should be broadened to include more categories, such as religion, ethic group, race, caste, financial information and others. Although the majority of the participants agreed that the term ´sensitive personal data´ should be redefined, they disagreed in regards to what should be included in the term. In particular, the participants were not able to reach a consensus on whether religion, caste and financial information should be included in the definition of the term ´sensitive personal data´. Other participants argued that passwords should be included within the scope of ´sensitive personal data´, as they can be just as crucial as financial information.

Information vs. Data

During the discussion, a participant argued that there is a subtle difference between the term ´information´ and ´data´ and that this should be pointed out in the Bill to prevent potential abuse. Another participant argued that ´sensitive personal data´ should be restricted to risk factors, which is why unique identifiers, such as passwords, should be included in the definition of the term. Other participants argued that the context of data defines whether it is ´sensitive´ or not, as it may fall in the category of ´national security´ in one instance, but may not in another. Thus, all types of data should be considered within their context, rather than separately. The fact that privacy protection from several financial services already exists was pointed out and the need to exclude pre-existing protections from the Bill was emphasised. In particular, a participant argued that banks are obliged to protect their customers´ financial information either way, which is why it should not be included in the definition of the term ´sensitive personal data´.

Exemptions

Several exemptions to the right to privacy were discussed throughout the meeting. A participant asked whether the right to privacy would also apply to deceased persons and to unborn infants. Another participant asked whether the term ´persons´ would be restricted to natural persons or if it would also apply to artificial persons. The fact that children should also have privacy rights was discussed in the meeting and in particular, participants questioned whether children´s right to privacy should be exempted in cases when they are being surveilled by their own parents.

Discussion of “Protection of Personal Data”: Chapter III

Following the discussion of definitions used in the Bill, the meeting proceeded with a discussion on the protection of personal data. A participant emphasized that the probability of error in data is real and that this could lead to major human rights violations if not addressed appropriately and in time. The fact that the Bill does not address the element of error within data was pointed out and suggested that it be included in draft Privacy (Protection) Bill. Another participant recommended an amendment to the Bill which would specify the parties, such as the government or companies, which would be eligible to carry out data collection in India. As new services are been included, the end purpose of data collection should be taken into consideration and, in particular, the ´new purposes´ for data collection would have to be specified at every given moment.

Data Collection

In terms of data collection, a participant emphasized that the objectives and purposes are different from an individual and an industry perspective, which should be explicitly considered through the Bill. Furthermore, the participant argued that the fact that multiple purposes for data collection may arise should be taken into consideration and relevant provisions should be incorporated in the in Bill. Another participant argued that the issue of consent for data collection may be problematic, especially since the purpose of data collection may change in the process and while an individual may have given consent to the initial purpose for data collection, he/she may not have given consent to the purposes which evolved throughout the process. Thus, explicitly defining the instances for data collection may not be feasible.

Consent

On the issue of consent, several participants argued that it would be important to distinguish between ´mandatory´ and ´optional´ information, as, although individuals may be forced by the government to hand over certain cases, in other cases they choose to disclose their personal data. Thus participants argued that the Bill should provide different types of privacy protections for these two separate cases. Other participants argued that the term ´consent´ varies depending on its context and that this should too be taken into consideration within the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill. It was also argued that a mechanism capable of gaining individual consent prior to data collection should be developed. However, a participant emphasized upon the fact that, in many cases, it is very difficult to gain individual consent for data collection, especially when individuals cannot read or write. Thus the need to include provisions for uneducated or disabled persons within the Bill was highly emphasized.

Further questions were raised in regards to the withdrawal of consent. Several participants argued that the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill should explicitly determine that all data is destroyed once an individual has withdrawn consent. Participants also argued that consent should also be a prerequisite to the collection, processing, sharing and retention of secondary users´ data, such as the data of individuals affiliated to the individual in question. A participant argued that there are two problematic areas of consent: (1) financial distribution (such as loans) and (2) every financial institution must store data for a minimum of seven to eight years. Having taken these two areas in consideration, the participant questioned whether it is feasible to acquire consent for such cases, especially since the purpose for data retention may change in the process. Participants also referred to extreme cases through which consent may not be acquired prior to the collection, processing, sharing and retention of data, such as in disastrous situations (e.g. earthquake) or in extreme medical cases (e.g. if a patient is in a coma), and suggested that relevant provisions are included in the Bill.

Data Disclosure

In terms of data disclosure, several participants argued that the disclosure of data can potentially be a result of blackmail and that the Bill does not provide any provisions for such extreme cases. Furthermore, participants argued that although consent may be taken from an individual for a specific purpose, such data may be used in the process for multiple other purposes by third parties and that it is very hard to prevent this. It was recommended that the Bill should incorporate provisions to prevent the disclosure of data for purposes other than the ones for which consent was given.

A participant recommended that individuals are informed of the name of the Data Processor prior to the provision of consent for the disclosure of data, which could potentially increase transparency. Many participants raised questions in regards to the protection of data which goes beyond the jurisdiction of a country. It remains unclear how data will be processed, shared, retained when it is not handled within India and several participants argued that this should be encountered within the Bill.

Data Destruction

In terms of data destruction, a participant emphasized upon the fact that the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill lacks provisions for the confirmation of the destruction of data. In particular, although the Bill guarantees the destruction of data in certain cases, it does not provide a mechanism through which individuals can be assured that their data has actually been deleted from databases. Another individual argued that since the purposes for data collection may change within the process, it is hard to determine the cases under which data can be destroyed. Since the purposes for data collection and data retention may change in time, the participant argued that it would be futile to set a specific regulatory framework for data destruction. Another participant emphasized upon the value of data and stated that although some data may appear to have no value today, it may in the future, which is why data should not be destroyed.

Data Processing

In terms of data processing, participants argued that privacy protection complications have arisen in light of the social media. In particular, they argued that social media develop and expand technologically constantly and that it is very difficult to regulate the processing of data that may be conducted by such companies. A participant emphasized the difference between (1) the processing of data when it is being read and (2) the processing of data when it is being analysed. Such a distinction should be considered within the Bill, as well as the use of data which is being processed. Many participants distinguished between the primary and secondary use of data and argued that the secondary use of data should also be included in the privacy statements of companies.

However, participants also pointed out that purposes for the collection of data may overlap and that it may be difficult to distinguish between primary and secondary purposes for data collection. A participant disagreed with this argument and stated that it is possible to distinguish between primary and secondary purposes of data collection, as long as companies are transparent about why they are collecting information and about the purpose of its processing. This argument was seconded by another participant who argued that the specific purposes for the processing of data should be incorporated in the Bill.

In brief, the following questions with regards to chapter III of the bill were raised during the meeting:

Should consent be required prior to the collection of data?
Should consent be acquired prior and after the disclosure of data?
Should the purpose of data collection be the same as the purpose for the disclosure of data?
Should an executive order or a court order be required to disclose data?
At the background of national security, anyone´s data can be under the ´suspicion list´. How can the disclosure of data be prevented in such circumstances? Non-criminals may have their data in the ´suspicion list´ and under national security, the government can disclose information; how can their information be protected in such cases?
An individual may not be informed of the collection, analysis, disclosure and retention of his/her data; how can an individual prevent the breach of his/her data?

Should companies notify individuals when they share their (individuals´) data with international third parties?

In brief, the following recommendations with regards to chapter III of the bill were raised during the meeting:

The data subject has to be informed, unless there is a model contract.
The request for consent should depend on the type of data that is to be disclosed.
Some exceptions need to be qualified (for example, in instances of medical patients different exceptions may apply).
The shared data may be considered private data (need of a relevant regulatory framework).
An international agreement should deal with the sharing of data with international third parties - incorporating such provisions in Indian law would probably be inadequate.
If any country is not data-secure, there should be an approval mechanism for the transfer of data to such a country.
India could have an export law which would monitor which data is sensitive and should not be shared with international third parties.
The problem with disclosure is when there is an exception for certain circumstances
Records should be kept on individuals who disclose data; there should be a trail of disclosure, so that there can be more transparency and accountability.
Ownership of data is a controversial issue and so is the disclosure of data; consumers give up the ownership of their data when they share it with third parties and ergo cannot control its disclosure (or non-disclosure).
´Data ownership´ should be included in the definitions of the Bill.
What is the ´quality´ of data? The definition for ´quality´ under section 11 of the Bill is not well defined and should be improved.

Discussion of “Interception of Communications”: Chapter IV

The discussion on the interception of communications started off with a statement that 70 percent of the citizens in India are enrolled on “voice”, which means that the interception of communications affects a large proportion of the population in the country. A participant asked whether the body corporate in India should be treated as a telecommunications provider and whether it should be responsible for the interception of communications. Another participant argued that the disclosure of information should be closely regulated, even when it is being intercepted for judicial purposes. Many participants agreed that data which is collected and intercepted should not be used for other purposes other than the original purpose, as well as that such information should not be shared with third parties.

Questions were raised in regards to who should authorise the interception of communications and a participant recommended that a judicial warrant should be a prerequisite to the interception of communications in India. Some participants argued that the Bill should clearly specify the instances under which communications can be intercepted, as well as the legitimate purposes for interception. It was also argued that some form of ´check and balance´ should exist for the interception of communications and that the Bill should provide mechanisms to ensure that interception is carried out in a legal way. Several participants recommended that the Privacy Commissioner is mandated to approve the interception of communications, while questions were raised in regards to the sharing of intercepted data.

Discussion on self-regulation and co-regulation

The final session of the meeting consisted of a debate on self-regulation and co-regulation. Questions were raised in regards to how self-regulation and co-regulation could be enforced. Some participants recommended the establishment of sector regulations which would mandate the various forms of surveillance, such as a separate regulation for the UID scheme. However, this recommendation was countered by participants who argued that the government would probably not approve every sector regulation and that this would leave large areas of surveillance unregulated.

The participants who supported the self-regulation framework argued that the government should not intervene in the industry and that the industry should determine its own rules in terms of handling its customers´ data. Other participants supported the co-regulatory framework and argued that companies should cooperate with the Privacy Commissioner in terms of handling customers´ data, especially since this would increase transparency on how the industry regulates the use of customers´ data. The supporters of co-regulation supplemented this statement by arguing that the members of the industry should comply with regulations and that if they do not, there should be sanctions. Such arguments were countered by supporters of self-regulation, who stated that the industry should create its own code of conduct and that the government should not regulate its work.

Furthermore, it was argued that although government regulations for the handling of data could make more sense in other countries, in India, the industry became aware of privacy far sooner than what the government did, which is why a self-regulatory regime should be established in terms of handling data. Such arguments were countered by supporters of co-regulation who argued that the industry has vested interest in self-regulation, which should be countered by public policy. This argument was also countered by participants arguing that, given the high levels of corruption in India, the Privacy Commissioner in India may be corrupt and co-regulation may end up being ineffective. Other participants questioned this argument by stating that if India lacks legal control over the use of data by companies, individuals are exposed to potential data breaches. Supporters of co-regulation stated that the Privacy Commissioner should formulate a set of practices and both the industry and the government should comply with them.

Meeting conclusion

The second Privacy Round Table entailed a discussion of the definitions used in the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013, as well as of chapters II, III and IV on the right to privacy, the protection of personal data and the interception of communications. The majority of the participants agreed that India needs a privacy legislation and that individuals´ data should be legally protected. However, participants disagreed in regards to how data would be safeguarded and the extent to which data collection, processing, sharing, disclosure, destruction and retention should be regulated. This was supplemented by the debate on self-regulation and co-regulation which concluded the meeting; participants disagreed on whether the industry should regulate the use of customers´ data autonomously from government regulation or whether the industry should co-operate with the Privacy Commissioner for the regulation of the use of data. Though a consensus was not reached in regards to co-regulation and self-regulation, the majority of the participants agreed upon the establishment of a privacy legislation which would safeguard individuals´ personal data. The major issue, however, with the creation of a privacy legislation in India would probably be its adequate enforcement.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/report-on-the-2nd-privacy-round-table

Report on the 1st Privacy Round Table meeting

maria — 2013-07-30T11:11:11Z

This report entails an overview of the discussions and recommendations of the first Privacy Round Table meeting in New Delhi, on 13th April 2013.

This research was undertaken as part of the 'SAFEGUARDS' project that CIS is undertaking with Privacy International and IDRC.

In furtherance of Internet Governance multi-stakeholder Initiatives and Dialogue in 2013, the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) in collaboration with the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI), is holding a series of six multi-stakeholder round table meetings on “privacy” from April 2013 to August 2013. DSCI will be joining the CIS as a co-organizer on 20 April 2013. The CIS is undertaking this initiative as part of their work with Privacy International UK on the SAFEGUARD project.

In 2012, the CIS was a member of the Justice AP Shah Committee which created the “Report of Groups of Experts on Privacy”. The CIS has recently drafted a Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013, with the objective of contributing to privacy legislation in India. The CIS has also volunteered to champion the session/workshops on “privacy” in the final meeting on Internet Governance proposed for October 2013.

At the roundtables the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy and the text of the Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013 will be discussed. The discussions and recommendations from the six round table meetings will be presented at the Internet Governance meeting in October 2013.

The dates of the six Privacy Round Table meetings are enlisted below:

New Delhi Roundtable: 13 April 2013
Bangalore Roundtable: 20 April 2013
Chennai Roundtable: 18 May 2013
Mumbai Roundtable: 15 June 2013
Kolkata Roundtable: 13 July 2013
New Delhi Final Roundtable and National Meeting: 17 August 2013

This report entails an overview of the discussions and recommendations of the first Privacy Round Table meeting in New Delhi, on 13th April 2013.

Overview of Justice A P Shah Report: Purpose, Principles and Framework

The Delhi Privacy Round Table meeting began with an overview of the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy, by the Justice AP Shah Committee. The report recommends a potential framework for privacy in India, including detailing nine privacy principles and a regulatory framework. India currently lacks a privacy legislation and during the meeting it was pointed out that the protection of personal data in India is a highly significant issue, especially in light of the UID scheme. The Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy has guided the draft of the Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013 by CIS and will potentially guide the creation of privacy legislation by the Government of India.

During the discussion on the report, a participant stated that, although a privacy legislation should be enacted in India to protect individuals´ personal data, commercial interests should not be endangered in the name of privacy. In particular, he called upon the need for the creation of a comprehensive privacy law in India and argued that although privacy should be protected, it should not have a negative impact on cloud computing, social media and on online businesses. Thus, the participant emphasized upon the creation of “light-weight” privacy legislation, which would protect individual´s right to privacy, without infringing upon the interests of the private sector.

Following the presentation of the privacy principles of the Justice AP Shah Report, the participants of the meeting made many comments on the feasibility of applying these principles within privacy legislation. In particular, a participant stated that setting a specific data retention framework is a very complicated issue, since the storage of data depends on many factors, some of which are:

The purpose of the collection of data
The purpose behind the collection of data may change within the process and may require a longer retention period, depending on the case
Data is shared with third parties and it is hard to control how long they retain the data for
Every type of data serves a different purpose and it is hard to set a universal data retention regulatory framework for all different types of data

Some participants argued that the nature of technological evolution should be considered within the privacy principles framework, in the sense that privacy is a fundamental human right to the extent that it does not disrupt other human rights and interests, such as those of companies. Many questions were raised in regards to data collection, one of them being: When data is collected for two different purposes, should an individual be eligible to single access of both types of data? Many other questions were raised in regards to co-regulation and self-regulation. In particular, a participant argued that, based on international experience, India will not be able to enforce self-regulation. On self-regulation in the United States, a participant stated that there are fifty laws which deal with certain aspects of privacy. The participant suggested that India follows the U.S. model, since self-regulation is more effective when the industry is involved, rather than when the government just imposes laws in a top-down manner. The United States enables the involvement of the industry in self-regulation and a participant recommended the same for India, as well as that the standards for co-regulation and self-regulation are approved by the Privacy Commissioner.

While identifying the clash between the right to privacy and the right to information, participants argued that safeguards are essential in a co-regulation framework, to ensure transparency. It was emphasized that India has a history of corruption and abuse of government power, which increases the probability of self-regulation in the country not being successful. India is currently facing serious problems of accountability and lack of transparency, and participants argued that a solid legal privacy framework would have to be reached, which would not require a legal amendment every other month. Participants pointed out that, within the privacy context, it is highly significant to identify where incentives lie and to regulate the Privacy Commissioner. Currently, if an officer denies access to information, it could take at least a year and a half before being authorised access to information. Participants argued that IT companies and law enforcement agencies should be enabled to access information and that the denial of access to information by the Privacy Commissioner should be regulated. In particular, participants referred to examples from the UK and questioned whether Privacy Commissioners should be considered public authorities.

The need to find a mechanism which would inform individuals of how their data is used was discussed during the meeting. A debate revolved around the question of whether the Indian government should inform an individual, once that individual´s personal information has been collected, used, processed and retained. Many participants argued that since customers decide to use their products, they should comply with the companies´ method of handling data and they should trust that the company will not misuse that data. This argument was countered by other participants, who argued that companies should be accountable as to how they handle customers´ data and that the sharing of customer data without the individual´s prior knowledge or consent could lead to data breaches and human rights violation.

The first hour of the meeting concluded that self-regulation should be considered in regards to IT companies dealing with customers´ data, but a consensus on whether companies should inform individuals of how their data is being used was not reached. Nonetheless, everyone in the meeting agreed upon the need to introduce privacy legislation in India, especially since phone tapping and the interception of communications is a widespread phenomenon in the country. India currently lacks rules for CDRs and the introduction of procedures and laws which would regulate the interception of communications in India was generally agreed upon throughout the first session of the meeting, even though the technical details of how data would be used by the private sector remained controversial.

Discussion Highlights:

The pros and cons of self-regulation and co-regulation
The national privacy principles – and how to build in insurance for technology
The role of the Privacy Commissioner
The definition of terms used in the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013

Overview, explanation and discussion on the Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013

The second session of the meeting began with an overview of the Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013, which was drafted by the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) and represents a citizen´s version of a privacy legislation for India. The Bill entails chapters on the definition of privacy, personal data, interception, surveillance and the Privacy Commissioner. The surveillance chapter was not thoroughly discussed during the meeting, as it is primarily handled from a criminal law perspective and the majority of the participants were from the IT sector.

During the meeting, the possibility of splitting the Bill was discussed. In particular, if separated, one Bill would focus on personal data and interception, while the second would focus on the criminal justice system. This would broadly be along the lines of the Canadian regime, which has two separate legislations to deal with privacy in the private and public sector.

Participants discussed the possibility of narrowing down the scope of the exceptions to the right to privacy, and made the critique that the Bill does not include any provisions for co-regulation and self-regulation. Many participants insisted that self-regulation should be included in the Bill, while other participants pointed out that the Bill does not provide protection for very several types of data, such as sexual orientation, caste and religion, which may be problematic in the future.

As the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013 may possibly clash with pre-existing laws, such as the IT Act, participants recommended that new definitions be created, to ensure that the proposed privacy legislation coincides with other contradicting legislation. Many questions were raised in regards to how personal data in the public sector would be distinguished by personal data in the private sector. Other questions were raised on the harmonization of the Privacy Bill with the Right to Information Act, as well as on the redefinition of surveillance and interception, their changing nature and the difficulties of regulating them.

Many participants agreed that India´s proposed Privacy Law should meet global standards in order to attract more customers to Indian IT companies. However, a participant disagreed with this notion and argued that privacy principles generally differ depending on the social, economic, political and cultural status of a country and that the same universal privacy principles should not be imposed upon all countries. The participant argued that India should not copy global standards, but should instead create parallel legislation which would be interoperable with global standards.

The issue of to whom privacy laws would apply to was thoroughly discussed during the meeting. In particular, questions were raised in regards to whether privacy legislation would only apply to Indian individuals, or if it would also apply to international individuals using services and/or products by Indian IT companies. The data protection of customers beyond India remains vague and this was thoroughly discussed, while participants disagreed upon this issue. According to the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013, consent needs to be taken from the individual, but it remains unclear whether that would be applicable to international customers. Questions were raised on how Indian IT companies would gain consent on the use of data by customers of foreign countries, especially since different laws apply to each country.

The second session of the meeting also entailed a debate on the disclosure of data to intelligence agencies by IT companies. Public authorities often request data from IT companies, on the grounds of national security and the prevention of crime and terrorism. However, questions were raised on whether companies should inform the individual prior to disclosing data to public authorities, as well as on whether certain terms, such as ´data´, should be reconceptualised.

The term ´sensitive personal data´ was analysed in the meeting and it was argued that it entails data such as sexual orientation, religion, caste and health records among others. The participants emphasized the significance of the Bill explicitly including the protection of all sensitive personal data, as well as the need to provide requirements for using personal data in both the private and public sphere. Some participants suggested that the Privacy Commissioner in India be empowered with the authority to define the term ´sensitive personal data´ and that he/she not only ensures that all such data is legally protected, but also that health data is included within the definition of the term. A participant backed up the need to closely define the term ´sensitive personal data´, by arguing that a loose definition of the term, which would not include ethnic origin, could lead to social violence and tension and thus the necessity to strictly define the term is highly essential.

Throughout the meeting it was pointed out that the Bill only deals with three aspects of privacy: personal data, surveillance and interception of communications. According to the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013, an individual has the right to install surveillance technology in his/her private property, as long as that technology does not monitor other individuals in private areas. A participant asked about the balance between internet freedom and privacy, whether that should be included in the Bill and whether exemptions to privacy should be included within those lines. Other participants asked whether CDR records should be placed under privacy exemptions and whether the public disclosure of surveillance should be prohibited by the Bill. The need to redefine ´public figures´ was also emphasized in the meeting, as the threshold for public disclosure of data remains unclear. Some participants argued that the public disclosure of data should be prohibited, as this may potentially have severe effects on vulnerable groups of people, such as victims of violence. However, several participants disagreed by arguing that disclosure of data in the name of public interest should be enabled.

During the meeting several participants argued that the fact that many social networking sites and other online social media enable individuals to publicize their personal data makes it even harder to protect their online privacy. A participant emphasized the need to take freedom of expression into consideration, as it significantly enables individuals to disclose their personal data and increases the probability of online data breaches. Thus, it was argued that the draft Bill should distinguish between private data and private data being made publicly available. However, a participant argued that publicly available data depends on where it is being broadcasted. To support this argument, an example was brought forward of an individual uploading a video on YouTube and that same video being broadcasted on national television. Thus the context in which data is made publicly available is highly significant and should be outlined within the draft Privacy Bill.

The meeting proceeded to a discussion on the interception of communications and a participant claimed that a major privacy abuse is to intercept communications without a warrant or a legal order, and to request for authorisation once the interception has already being conducted. It was argued that, in any case, legal authorisation prior to any interception should be a prerequisite and should be highlighted in the draft Privacy Bill. However, another participant argued that currently, the interception of communications needs to be legally authorised within seven days and that prior authorisation should not be a prerequisite. This argument was supported by the statement that in extreme cases, the conditions may not enable prior authorisation. Many participants then questioned this practice by asking what happens in cases when authorisation is not granted within seven days after an interception and whether the agencies conducting the interception would be accountable. An assertive answer was not given, but the majority of the participants appeared to agree upon the need for legal authorisation prior to any interception.

The second session of the meeting concluded to the significance of the principles of notice and consent, which should apply in every case, prior to every interception of communications and in regards to the handling of all individuals´ personal data.

Discussion Highlights:

If the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013 should be split to two separate Bills
Definition for the term ´sensitive personal data´ (to include broader categories, such as health data)
If personal data should be distinguished in the private and public sector
If the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013 should comply with global privacy standards
The nuances of consumer consent
Various ways to define ´public figures´
Freedom of expression in the context of the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013
The distinction between exemptions and exceptions

In depth explanation and discussions regarding the Privacy (Protection)

Bill 2013

The third and final session of the Privacy Round Table began with a discussion on data collection. In particular, a participant stated that data collection should not be defined for a specific purpose, as the purposes for data collection constantly change. This argument was supported by the statement that privacy provisions can negatively affect a company and reduce its earnings, since restricting the instances for data collection ultimately restricts the services a company can provide (such as advertising). Thus it was strongly argued that data collection should not be restricted to ´specific purposes´, because such purposes can constantly change and all such restrictions can have a negative impact on both the industry and on intelligence agencies carrying out crime investigations. Other participants countered this argument by stating that the term ´necessary information´ is too broad and vague and could create a potential for abuse, which is why data collection should be restricted to specific instances which are legally justified.

The idea that Internet users should be given the right or the option not to be tracked was emphasized during the meeting. It was suggested that the draft Privacy Bill entails provisions which would oblige IT companies and intelligence agencies to inform an individual prior to the tracking of data and to request consent. This argument was supported by the statement that IT companies should protect the interest of the people, especially in terms of data mining and analytics. All such arguments were countered by a participant who stated that the collateral damage surrounding privacy needs to be acknowledged. This statement was supported by the argument that, although it is important to safeguard individuals´ right to privacy, regulations should not infringe upon the rights and interests of companies. In particular, it was argued that a deterrent law should not be created and that it should be acknowledged that individuals choose to disclose a large amount of information.

The meeting proceeded to the discussion of the disclosure of data to third parties, and many participants argued that they should not be obliged to disclose the names of the parties they are sharing data with. It was argued that businesses prefer not to reveal the names of the third parties to which they are disclosing data to, as this would affect their competitive advantage in the market. This argument was supplemented by the statement that it would not be feasible to inform individuals every time their data is being shared and that not only would this affect a company´s competitive advantage in the market, but it would also be costly and time consuming. Instead of informing individuals every time their data is being shared, it was argued that companies are responsible for protecting their customers´ data and that those customers should trust companies with their data. A participant strongly argued that while companies are obliged to protect their customers´ data, they are not obliged to reveal the parties with whom they are sharing information with, as this would be highly inconvenient.

Many participants strongly reacted to these statements by arguing that customers should have the right to be informed of how their data is being used and with which parties it is being shared. A participant argued that a customer may not trust the parties that the company chooses to trust and thus every customer should be informed of the sharing of their data. The customer should be respected and should be informed about the sharing of his/her personal data with third parties, because when data is being outsourced, the customer can only hope that the third parties handling his/her data will not misuse it. Thus, customers ultimately lose control over their data and over their personal lives. In order to avoid potential privacy breaches and to empower individuals with control over their personal data and their lives, it was argued that companies should be obliged to inform individuals of the sharing of their data and that this provision should be included in the draft Privacy Bill.

A participant countered this argument by stating that when data is being automated, it is hard to identify the source of the data and that by providing transparency on which parties share customer data, companies would be put out of business. A participant responded to this argument by stating that companies only protect users´ data when they have an incentive to do so, which is why a liability element should be added to the Bill. Other participants supported the argument of not informing customers of the handling of their data by stating that even some of the biggest IT companies, such as Gmail, share customers data with third parties without informing individuals or gaining prior consent. Such arguments were supported by other participants who emphasized upon the futility of informing customers of the handling of their data, especially since the average customer would not understand the security setting of a server. Since the majority of online users lack the technological expertise to understand the security settings, all companies should do is provide a security assurance to their customers in regards to how their data is being used.

In terms of data retention, a participant repeated the argument that a specific regulatory framework for data retention should not be established, especially since the purpose of data collection may change within time. Thus it was emphasized that no data retention period should be included within the draft Privacy Bill.

In terms of transparency, some participants argued that IT companies should submit detailed reports on how they are using customers’ data to the Privacy Commissioner, but not to the public. In particular, many participants emphasized that a co-regulation framework should be implemented for the use of data, through which IT companies would regulate the use of data in co-operation with the Privacy Commissioner. Under a co-regulation framework, the public would be excluded from the right to receive detailed reports on how data is being used. Yet, participants emphasized that companies would be in compliance with regulations on data protection and security, which would ensure that customers´ data is not breached.

Such arguments were countered by other participants, who argued that a tremendous amount of significance lies in informing online users of what type of data is being collected, whether it is being analysed and processed, why it is being collected and with which parties it is being shared with. Such questions are considered to be crucial elements of privacy, especially since privacy means that individuals are able to share some data with some individuals, and choose not to share the same or other data with other individuals. The practices of non-disclosure supported by some participants appear to be infringing upon the core of privacy. The participants emphasized that privacy cannot be protected if companies are not accountable in regards to how they handle data.

The fact that companies can use meta-data for research purposes was mentioned in the meeting, which called upon the need to redefine the term ´data´. Questions were raised in regards to how data can be deleted once used within analytics. Some participants referred to the ´Right to be Forgotten´ debate and stated that the deletion of data, in many cases, is not feasible. A participant stated that some data is very sensitive and that companies should be responsible for deciding on how such data should be handled. Data should not be disclosed for the sake of being disclosed, but companies should decide upon the disclosure, retention and destruction of data based on how sensitive its content is. The participant emphasized that customers directly or indirectly give their consent to their data being handled by companies when they use their products and if they do not agree with the security assurances provided by the companies, then they should use a different product or service. However, this argument was countered by several participants who argued that online consumers do not always have an alternative choice and that there is a difference between the bargaining powers of consumers around the world. Some consumers may be socially pressured into using a specific product or service, or may not have an alternative option and the example of Facebook was brought up. Participants argued that given that consumers do not always have a choice to use or not use a specific online service, their data should be protected regardless of consent.

The debate on the destruction of data continued with participants arguing that companies should not have to destroy all personal data and that such restrictions should only apply to ´sensitive personal data´. The need for the redefinition of the term ´sensitive personal data´ in the draft Privacy Bill was emphasized again, as well as participants´ concern that the purpose behind the collection of data may change within the process and that the regulations which apply in such cases remain vague. In response to issues revolving around the collection of data, a participant recommended the regulation of instances under which data should not be used. In terms of consent, several participants argued that it is not rational to expect consumers to give consent for the future (indefinite) use of their data, as this may expose them to future threats which they may have not considered when granting initial consent.

The meeting proceeded to discuss the processing of data and several participants emphasized upon the need to gain consent, whilst others disagreed for the reasons mentioned above. On the disclosure of data, a participant stated that companies can be approached by law enforcement agencies for multiple purposes and that it is usually hard for companies to define the cases under which information is disclosed. Other participants disagreed with the disclosure of data when it is being collected and analysed for investigatory purposes and argued that regulations on the disclosure of data should not be applicable to intelligence agencies.

Discussion Highlights:

The different instances of data collection and consumer consent
The nuances of data sharing
The issue of consumer consent and security assurances offered by companies
The pros and cons of having a data retention regulatory framework
How transparency is incorporated into the draft Privacy Protection Bill 2013
What is needed in provisions that speak to data destruction

Meeting conclusion

The general conclusion of the meeting was that self-regulation should be encouraged, as IT companies should provide security assurances to their consumers and regulate the collection, use, analysis, sharing and retention of their data. There was some discussion on the possibility of introducing co-regulation between IT companies and the Privacy Commissioner, but most participants appeared to prefer self-regulation. All participants in the meeting agreed upon the necessity to introduce a Privacy Bill in India which would safeguard individuals´ right to privacy and other human rights. However, the debate revolved around the definition of terms used in the Bill, whether consent should be a prerequisite to the collection, use, analysis, processing and retention of data, as well as whether companies should be obliged to inform consumers of the sharing, disclosure and destruction of their data.

Following the first Privacy Round Table meeting on the Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013, the discussion between various stakeholders will continue in the next national round table meetings throughout the year 2013. Following the Delhi Privacy Round Table, corrections have been incorporated into the Privacy Protection Bill, 2013 based on participants´ feedback, concerns, comments and ideas.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/report-on-the-first-privacy-round-table-meeting

Report on CIS' Workshop at the IGF:'An Evidence Based Framework for Intermediary Liability'

jyoti — 2014-09-24T10:47:30Z

An evidence based framework for intermediary liability' was organised to present evidence and discuss ongoing research on the changing definition, function and responsibilities of intermediaries across jurisdictions.

The discussion from the workshop will contribute to a comprehensible framework for liability, consistent with the capacity of the intermediary and with international human-rights standards.

Electronic Frontier Foundation (USA), Article 19 (UK) and Centre for Internet and Society (India) have come together towards the development of best practices and principles related to the regulation of online content through intermediaries. The nine principles are: Transparency, Consistency, Clarity, Mindful Community Policy Making, Necessity and Proportionality in Content Restrictions, Privacy, Access to Remedy, Accountability, and Due Process in both Legal and Private Enforcement. The workshop discussion will contribute to a comprehensible framework for liability that is consistent with the capacity of the intermediary and with international human-rights standards. The session was hosted by Centre for Internet and Society (India) and Centre for Internet and Society, Stanford (USA) and attended by 7 speakers and 40 participants.

Jeremy Malcolm, Senior Global Policy Analyst EFF kicked off the workshop highlighting the need to develop a liability framework for intermediaries that is derived out of an understanding of their different functions, their role within the economy and their impact on human rights. He went on to structure the discussion which would follow to focus on ongoing projects and examples that highlight central issues related to gathering and presenting evidence to inform the policy space.

Martin Husovec from the International Max Planck Research School for Competition and Innovation, began his presentation, tracking the development of safe harbour frameworks within social contract theory. Opining that safe harbour was created as a balancing mechanism between a return of investments of the right holders and public interest for Internet as a public space, he introduced emerging claims that technological advancement have altered this equilibrium. Citing injunctions and private lawsuits as instruments, often used against law abiding intermediaries, he pointed to the problem within existing liability frameoworks, where even intermediaries, who diligently deal with illegitimate content on their services, can be still subject to a forced cooperation to the benefit of right holders. He added that for liability frameworks to be effective, they must keep pace with advances in technology and are fair to right holders and the public interest.

He also pointed that in any liability framework because the ‘law’ that prescribes an interference, must be always sufficiently clear and foreseeable, as to both the meaning and nature of the applicable measures, so it sufficiently outlines the scope and manner of exercise of the power of interference in the exercise of the rights guaranteed. He illustrated this with the example of the German Federal Supreme Court attempts with Wi-Fi policy-making in 2010. He also raised issues of costs of uncertainty in seeking courts as the only means to balance rights as they often, do not have the necessary information. Similarly, society also does not benefit from open ended accountability of intermediaries and called for a balanced approach to regulation.

The need for consistency in liability regimes across jurisdictions, was raised by Giancarlo Frosio, Intermediary Liability Fellow at Stanford's Centre for Internet and Society. He introduced the World Intermediary Liability Map, a project mapping legislation and case law across 70 countries towards creating a repository of information that informs policymaking and helps create accountability. Highlighting key takeaways from his research, he stressed the necessity of having clear definitions in the field of intermediary liability and the need to develop taxonomy of issues to deepen our understanding of the issues at stake towards an understanding of type of liability appropriate for a particular jurisdiction.

Nicolo Zingales, Assistant Professor of Law at Tilburg University highlighted the need for due process and safeguards for human rights and called for more user involvement in systems that are in place in different countries to respond to requests of takedown. Presenting his research findings, he pointed to the imbalance in the way notice and takedown regimes are structured, where content is taken down presumptively, but the possibility of restoring user content is provided only at a subsequent stage or not at all in many cases. He cited several examples of enhancing user participation in liability mechanisms including notice and notice, strict litigation sanction inferring the knowledge that the content might have been legal and shifting the presumption in favor of the users and the reverse notice and takedown procedure. He also raised the important question, if multistakeholder cooperation is sufficient or adequate to enable the users to have a say and enter as part of the social construct in this space? Reminding the participants of the failure of the multistakeholder agreement process regarding the cost for the filters in the UK, that would be imposed according to judicial procedure, he called for strengthening our efforts to enable users to get more involved in protecting their rights online.

Gabrielle Guillemin from Article 19 presented her research on the types of intermediaries and models of liability in place across jurisdictions. Pointing to the problems associated with intermediaries having to monitor content and determine legality of content, she called for procedural safeguards and stressed the need to place the dispute back in the hands of users and content owners and the person who has written the content rather than the intermediary. She goes on to provide some useful and practically-grounded solutions to strengthen existing takedown mechanisms including, adding details to the notices, introducing fees in order to extend the number of claims that are made and defining procedure regards criminal content.

Elonnai Hickok introduced CIS' research to the UNESCO report Fostering Freedom Online: the Role of Internet Intermediaries, comparing a range of liability models in different stages of development and provisions across jurisdictions. She argued for a liability framework that tackles procedural and regulatory uncertainty, lack of due process, lack of remedy and varying content criteria.

Francisco Vera, Advocacy Director, Derechos Digitales from Chile raised issues related to mindful community policy-making expounding on Chile's implementation of intermediary liability obligation with the USA, the introduction of judicial oversight under Chilean legislation which led to US objection to Chile on grounds of not fulfilling their standards in terms of Internet property protection. He highlighted the tensions that arise in balancing the needs of the multiple communities and interests engaged over common resources and stressed the need for evidence in policy-making to balance the needs of rights holders and public interest. He stressed the need for evidence to inform policy-making and ensure it keeps pace with technological developments citing the example of the ongoing Transpacific Partnership Agreement negotiations that call for exporting provisions DMCA provisions to 11 countries even though there is no evidence of the success of the system for public interest. He concluded by cautioning against the development of frameworks that are or have the potential to be used as anti-competitive mechanisms that curtail innovation and therby do not serve public interest.

Malcolm Hutty associated with the European Internet Service Providers Association, Chair of the Intermediary Reliability Committee and London Internet Exchange brought in the intermediaries' perspective into the discussion. He argued for challenging the link between liability and forced cooperation, understated the problems arising from distinction without a difference and incentives built in within existing regimes. He raised issues arising from the expectancy on the part of those engaged in pre-emptive regulation of unwanted or undesirable content for intermediaries to automate content. Pointing to the increasing impact of intermediaries in our lives he underscored how exposing vast areas of people's lives to regulatory enforce, which enhances power of the state to implement public policy in the public interest and expect it to be executed, can have both positive and negative implications on issues such as privacy and freedom of expression.

He called out practices in regulatory regimes that focus on one size fits all solutions such as seeking automating filters on a massive scale and instead called for context and content specific solutions, that factor the commercial imperatives of intermediaries. He also addressed the economic consequences of liability frameworks to the industry including cost effectiveness of balancing rights, barriers to investments that arise in heavily regulated or new types of online services that are likely to be the targeted for specific enforcement measures and the long term costs of adapting old enforcement mechanisms that apply, while networks need to be updated to extend services to users.

The workshop presented evidence of a variety of approaches and the issues that arise in applying those approaches to impose liability on intermediaries. Two choices emerged towards developing frameworks for enforcing responsibility on intermediaries. We could either rely on a traditional approach, essentially court-based and off-line mechanisms for regulating behaviour and disputes. The downside of this is it will be slow and costly to the public purse. In particular, we will lose a great deal of the opportunity to extend regulation much more deeply into people's lives so as to implement the public interest.

Alternatively, we could rely on intermediaries to develop and automate systems to control our online behaviour. While this approach does not suffer from efficiency problems of the earlier approach it does lack, both in terms of hindering the developments of the Information Society, and potentially yielding up many of the traditionally expected protections under a free and liberal society. The right approach lies somewhere in the middle and development of International Principles for Intermediary Liability, announced at the end of the workshop, is a step closer to the developing a balanced framework for liability.

See the transcript on IGF website.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/report-on-cis-workshop-at-igf

Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy vs. The Leaked 2014 Privacy Bill

elonnai — 2014-04-14T06:10:20Z

Following our previous post comparing the leaked 2014 Privacy Bill with the leaked 2011 Privacy Bill, this post will compare the recommendations provided in the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy by the Justice AP Shah Committee to the text of the leaked 2014 Privacy Bill. Below is an analysis of recommendations from the Report that are incorporated in the text of the Bill, and recommendations in the Report that are not incorporated in the text of the Bill.

Recommendations in the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy that are Incorporated in the 2014 Privacy Bill

Constitutional Right to Privacy

The Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy recommends that any privacy legislation for India specify the constitutional basis of a right to privacy. The 2014 Privacy Bill has done this, locating the Right to Privacy in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Nine National Privacy Principles

The Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy recommends that nine National Privacy Principles be adopted and applied to harmonize existing legislation and practices. The 2014 Privacy Bill also adopts nine National Privacy Principles. Though these principles differ slightly from the National Privacy Principles recommended in the Report, they are broadly the same, and importantly will apply to all existing and evolving practices, regulations and legislations of the Government that have or will have an impact on the privacy of any individual. Presently, the 2014 Privacy Bill locates the nine National Privacy Principles in an Annex to the Bill, but also incorporates the principles in more detail in sections relating to personal data. An analysis of the principles as compared in the Report and the Bill is below:

Notice: The principle of notice as recommended by the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy differs from the principle of notice in the 2014 Privacy Bill. According to the notice principle in the Report, a data controller shall give sample to understand notice of its information practices to all individuals, in clear and concise language, before any personal information is collected from them. Such notices should include: (during collection) What personal information is being collected; Purposes for which personal information is being collected; Uses of collected personal information; Whether or not personal information may be disclosed to third persons; Security safeguards established by the data controller in relation to the personal information; Processes available to data subjects to access and correct their own personal information; Contact details of the privacy officers and SRO ombudsmen for filing complaints. (Other Notices) Data breaches must be notified to affected individuals and the commissioner when applicable. Individuals must be notified of any legal access to their personal information after the purposes of the access have been met. Individuals must be notified of changes in the data controller’s privacy policy. Any other information deemed necessary by the appropriate authority in the interest of the privacy of data subjects.

In contrast, the 2014 Privacy Bill requires that all the data controllers provide adequate and appropriate notice of their information practices in a form that is easily understood by all intended recipients. In addition to this principle as listed in an annex, the Bill requires that on initial collection data controllers provide notice of what personal data is being collected and the legitimate purpose for which the personal data is being collected. If the purpose for which the personal data changes, data controllers must provide data subjects with a further notice that would include the use to which the personal data shall be put, whether or not the personal data will be disclosed to at third person and, if so, the identity of such person if the personal data being collected is intended to be transferred outside India and the reasons for doing so; how such transfer helps in achieving the legitimate purpose; and whether the country to which such data is transferred has suitable legislation to provide for adequate protection and privacy of the data; the security and safeguards established by the data controller in relation to the personal data; the processes available to a data subject to access and correct his personal data; the recourse open to a data subject, if he has any complaints in respect of collection or processing of the personal data and the procedure relating thereto; the name, address and contact particulars of the data controller and all persons who will be processing the personal data on behalf of the data controller. Additionally, if a breach of data takes place data controllers must inform the affected data subject that lost or stolen; accessed or acquired by any person not authorized to do so; damaged, deleted or destroyed; processed, re-identified or disclosed in an unauthorized manner.

Though the 2014 Privacy Bill requires a more comprehensive notice to be issued if the purpose for the use of personal data changes, it does not specify (as recommended by the Group of Experts on Privacy) that notice of changes to a data controller’s privacy policy be issued.

Choice and Consent: The principle of choice and consent in the 2014 Privacy Bill is similar to the principle in the Report of the Group of Experts on privacy in that it requires that all data subjects be provided with a choice to provide or not to provide personal data and that data subject will have the option of withdrawing consent at any time. Though not a part of the specific principle on ‘choice and consent’ listed in the annex the 2014 Privacy Bill also contains provisions that address mandatory collection of information which require, as recommended by the Report of the Group of Experts, that the information is anonymoized. Furthermore, the 2014 Privacy Bill provides individuals an opt-in or opt-out choice with respect to the provision of personal data.

Different from as recommended in the principle in the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy, the 2014 Privacy Bill does not specify that in exception cases when it is not possible to provide a service with choice and consent, then choice and consent will not be required.

Collection Limitation: The principle of collection limitation as recommended in the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy and the principle of collection limitation in the Annex of the 2014 Privacy Bill are similar in that both require that only data that is necessary to achieve an identified purpose be collected. As recommended in the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy, the 2014 Privacy Bill also requires that notice be provided prior to collection and content taken.

Purpose Limitation: Though the principle of Purpose Limitation are similar in the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy and the 2014 Privacy Bill as they both require personal data to be used only for the purposes for which it was collected and that the data must be destroyed after the purposes have been served, the 2014 Privacy Bill does not specify that information collected by a data controller must be adequate and relevant for the purposes for which they are processed. The 2014 Privacy Bill also incorporates elements from the principle of Purpose Limitation as defined by the Report of the Group of Experts in other parts of the Bill. For example, the 2014 Bill requires that notice be provided to the individual if there is a change in purpose for the use of the personal information, and designates a section on retention of personal data.

Access and Correction: The principle of Access and Correction in the 2014 Privacy Bill reflects the principle of Access and Correction in the Report of the Group of Experts (though not verbatim). Importantly, the 2014 Privacy Bill incorporates the recommendation from the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy that prohibits access to personal data if it will affect the privacy rights of another individual.

Disclosure of Information: The principle of ‘Disclosure of Information’ in the Privacy Bill 2014 is similar to the principle of ‘Disclosure of Information’ as recommended in the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy (though not verbatim). As recommended this principle requires that personal data be disclosed to third parties only if informed consent has been taken from the individual and the third party is bound the adhere to all relevant and applicable privacy principles.

Security: The principle of security in the 2014 Privacy Bill reflects the principle of Security recommended in the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy and requires that personal data be secured through reasonable security safeguards against unauthorized access, destruction, use, modification, de-anonymization or unauthorized disclosure.

Openness: The principle of Openness in the 2014 Privacy Protection Bill is similar to the principle of Openness recommended in the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy in that it requires data controllers to make available to all individuals in an intelligible form, using clear and plain language, the practices, procedures, and policies, and systems that are in place to ensure compliance with the privacy principles. The principle in the 2014 Privacy Bill differs from the recommendation in the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy in that it does not require data controllers to take necessary steps to implement practices, policies, and procedures in a manner proportional to the scale, scope, and sensitivity to the data they collect.

Accountability: The principle of Accountability in the 2014 Privacy Bill is similar to the principle of Accountability as recommended in the Report of the Group of Experts as both require that the data controller is accountable for compliance with the national Privacy Principles.

Application to interception and access, video and audio recording, personal identifiers, bodily and genetic material: The Privacy Bill 2014 incorporates the recommendations from the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy and specifies the way in which the National Privacy Principles will apply to the interception and access of communications, video and audio recording, and personal identifiers. But the 2014 Privacy Bill does not specify the application of the National Privacy Principles to bodily and genetic material (though this information is included in the definition of sensitive personal information).

With respect to the installation and operation of video recording equipment in a public space, the 2014 Privacy Bill requires that video recording equipment may only be used in accordance with a prescribed procedure and for a legitimate purpose that is proportionate to the objective for which it was installed. Furthermore, individuals cannot use video recording equipment for the purpose of identifying an individual, monitoring his personal particulars, or revealing in public his personal information. The provisions in the Bill that speak to storage, processing, retention, security, and disclosure of personal data apply to the installation and use of video recording equipment. As a note the 2014 Privacy Bill carves out an exception for law enforcement and government intelligence agencies in the interest of the sovereignty, integrity, security or the strategic, scientific or economic interest of India.

With respect to the application of the National Privacy Principles to the interception of communications, the 2014 Privacy Bill lays down a regime for the interception of communications and specifies that the principles of notice, choice, consent, access and correction, and openness will apply to the interception of communications when authorised.

With respect to Personal Identifiers, the 2014 Privacy Bill notes that the principles of notice, choice, and consent will not apply to the collection of personal identifiers by the government. Additionally, the government will not be obliged to use any personal identifier only for the limited purpose for which the personal identifier was collected, provided that the use is in conformance with the other National Privacy Principles.

Additional Protection for Sensitive Personal Data

The Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy broadly recommends that sensitive personal data be afforded additional protection and existing definitions of sensitive personal data should be harmonised. The 2014 Privacy Bill incorporates these recommendations by defining sensitive personal data as data relating to physical and mental health including medical history, biometric, bodily or genetic information; criminal convictions; password, banking credit and financial data; narco analysis or polygraph test data, sexual orientation. The 2014 Privacy Bill also requires authorization from the Data Protection Authority for the collection and processing of sensitive personal data and defines circumstances of when this authorization would not be required including: collection or processing of such data is authorized by any other law for the time being in force; such data has already been made public as a result of steps taken by the data subject; collection and processing of such data is made in connection with any legal proceedings by an order of the competent court; such data relating to physical or mental health or medical history of an individual is collected and processed by a medical professional, if such collection and processing is necessary for medical care and health of that individual; such data relating to biometrics, bodily or genetic material, physical or mental health, prior criminal convictions or financial credit history is processed by the employer of an individual for the purpose of and in connection with the employment of that individual; such data relating to physical or mental health or medical history is collected an processed by an insurance company, if such processing is necessary for the purpose of and in connection with the insurance policy of that individual; such data relating to criminal conviction, biometrics and genetic is processed and collected by law enforcement agencies; such data regarding credit, banking and financial details of an individual is processed by a specific user under the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005; such data is processed by schools or other education institutions in connection with imparting of education to an individual; such data is collected or processed by the government Intelligence agencies in the interest of the sovereignty, integrity, security or the strategic, scientific or economic interest of India, the authority has, by a general or specified order permitted the processing of such data for specific purpose and is limited to the extent of such permission. The 2014 Privacy Bill also prohibits additional transactions from being performed using sensitive personal information unless free consent was obtained for such transaction.

Privacy Officers

The Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy recommends that Privacy Officers be established at the organizational level for overseeing the processing of personal data and compliance with the Act. This recommendation has been incorporated in the 2014 Privacy Bill, which establishes Privacy Officers at the organizational level.

Co-regulatory Framework

The Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy recommends that a system of co-regulation be established, where industry levels self regulatory organizations develop privacy norms, which are in turn approved and enforced by the Privacy Commissioner. The 2014 Privacy Bill puts in place a similar co-regulatory framework where industry level self regulatory organizations can develop norms which will be turned into regulations and enforced by the Data Protection Authority. If a sector does not develop norms, the Data Protection Authority can develop norms for the specific sector.

Recommendations in the Report that are not in the Bill

Scope

The Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy recommends that the scope of any privacy framework extends to all individuals, all data processed in India, and all data originating from India. The 2014 Privacy Bill differs from these recommendations by extending the right to privacy to all residents of India, while remaining silent on whether or not the scope of the legislation extends to all data processed in India and all data originating in India. Despite this, the 2014 Bill does specify that any organization that processes or deals with data of an Indian resident, but does not have a place of business within India, must establish a ‘representative resident’ in India who will be responsible for compliance with the Act.

Exceptions

The Report of the Group of Experts recommends the following as exceptions to the right to privacy:

National security
Public order
Disclosure in the public interest
Prevention, detection, investigation, and prosecution of criminal offenses
Protection of the individual and rights and freedoms of others

The Report further clarifies that any exception must be qualified and measured against the principles of proportionality, legality, and necessary in a democratic state.

The Privacy Bill 2014 reflects only the exception of “protection of the individual rights and freedoms of others”. The exceptions as defined in the 2014 Bill are:

Sovereignty, integrity or security of India or
Strategic, scientific or economic interest of India; or
Preventing incitement to the commission of any offence; or
Prevention of public disorder; or
The investigation of any crime; or
Protection of rights and freedoms others; or
Friendly relations with foreign states; or
Any other legitimate purpose mentioned in this Act.

Instead of qualifying these exceptions with the principles of proportionality, legality, and necessary in a democratic state – as recommended in the Report of Group of Experts on Privacy, the 2014 Privacy Bill qualifies that any restriction must be adequate and not excessive to the objectives it aims to achieve.

Constitution of Infringement of Privacy

The Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy specifies that the publication of personal data for artistic and journalistic purposes in the public interest, disclosure under the Right to Information Act, 2005, and the use of personal data for household purposes should not constitute an infringement of privacy. In contrast the 2014 Privacy Bill specifies that the processing of personal data by an individual purely for his personal or household use, the disclosure of information under the provisions of the Right to information Act, 2005, and any other action specifically exempted under the Act will not constitute an infringement of privacy.

The Data Protection Authority

The Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy recommends the establishment of Privacy Commissioners (and places emphasis on Privacy Commissioner rather than Data Protection Authority) at the Central and Regional level. The Privacy Commissioner should be of a rank no lower than a retired Supreme Court Judge at the Central level and a retired High Court Judge at the regional level. The privacy commissioner should have the power to receive and investigate class action complaints and investigative powers of the commissioner should include the power to examine and call for documents, examine witnesses, and take a case to court if necessary. The Commissioner should be able to investigate data controllers on receiving complaints or suo moto, and can order privacy impact assessments. Organizations should not be able to appeal fines levied by the Privacy Commissioner, but individuals can appeal a decision of the Privacy Commissioner to the court. The Commissioner should also have broad oversight with respect to interception/access, audio & video recordings, use of personal identifiers, and the use of bodily or genetic material. The Privacy Commissioner will also have the responsibility of approving codes of conduct developed by the industry level SRO’s.

Differing from the recommendations in the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy, the 2014 Privacy Bill establishes a Data Protection Authority (as opposed to a Privacy Commissioner) at the Central level. Instead of creating regional Data Protection Authorities, the 2014 Privacy Bill allows for the Central Government to decide where other offices of the Data Protection Authority will be located. Furthermore, the 2014 Privacy Bill does not specify a qualification for the Data Protection Authority and instead establishes a selection committee to choose and appoint a Data Protection Authority. This committee is comprised of a Cabinet Secretary, Secretary to the Department of Personnel and Training, Secretary to the Department of Electronics and Information Technology, and two experts of eminence from relevant fields that will be nominated by the Central Government.

The 2014 Privacy Bill does not specify that fines ordered by the Data Protection Authority will be binding for organizations, but does allow individuals to appeal decisions of the Data Protection Authority to the Appellate Tribunal. Differing from the recommendations in the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy, the 2014 Privacy Bill gives the Data Protection Authority the power to call upon any data controller at any time to furnish in writing information or explanation relating to its affairs, and receive and investigate complaints about alleged violations of privacy of individuals in respect of matters covered under this Act, conduct investigations and issue appropriate orders or directions to the parties concerned. Furthermore, the 2014 Privacy Bill does not specify that the Data Protection Authority will carry out privacy impact assessments, but the Authority can conduct audits of any or all personal data controlled by a data controller, can investigate data breaches, investigate in complaint received, and adjudicate on a dispute arising between data controllers or data subjects and data controllers. Unlike the recommendations in the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy, it does not seem that the Data Protection Authority will play an overseeing role with respect to interception, the use of video recording equipment, personal identifiers, and the use of bodily and genetic material.

Tribunal and System of Complaints

Differing from the recommendation in the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy, which specified that a Tribunal should not be established as under the Information Technology Act as there is the risk that the institutions will not have the capacity to rule on a broad right to privacy, the 2014 Privacy Bill does establish a Tribunal under the Information Technology Act. The Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy also recommended that complaints be taken to the district level, high level, and Supreme Court – whereas the 2014 Privacy Bill allows individuals to appeal decisions from the Tribunal only to a High Court. Similar to the recommendations of the Report of the Group of Experts, the 2014 Privacy Bill has in place Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanisms at the level of the industry self regulatory organization. The 2014 Privacy Bill also specifies that individuals can seek civil remedies and leaves the issuance of compensation for privacy harm to be from a Court. Unlike the recommendations in the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy, the 2014 Privacy Bill does not specify that the Data Protection Authority will be able to take a case to the court.

Penalties and Offenses

The Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy did not provide specific recommendations for types of offences and penalties, but did suggest that offenses similar to those spelled out in the UK Data Protection Act and Australian Privacy Act be adopted – namely non-compliance with the privacy principles, unlawful collection, processing, sharing/disclosure, access, and use of personal data, and obstruction of the privacy commissioner. The 2014 Privacy Bill does create offenses for the unlawful collection, processing, sharing/disclosure, access, and use of personal data, but does not create offenses for obstruction of the privacy commissioner or broad non-compliance with the privacy principles.

Conclusion

The Centre for Internet and Society welcomes the similarities between the recommendations in the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy and the leaked 2014 Privacy Bill, but would recommend that on areas where there are differences, particularly in the scope of the Privacy Bill and the powers and functions of the Data Protection Authority, the 2014 Bill be brought in line with the recommendations from the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy.

In the upcoming post, we will be comparing the text of the leaked 2014 Privacy Bill to international best practices and standards.

References

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/report-of-group-of-experts-on-privacy-vs-leaked-2014-privacy-bill

Reply to RTI Application under RTI Act of 2005 from Vanya Rakesh

vanya — 2016-01-13T02:40:57Z

Unique Identification Authority of India replied to the RTI application filed by Vanya Rakesh.

Madam,

Please refer to your RTI application dated 3.12.2015 received in the Division on 10.12.2015 on the subject mentioned above requesting to provide the information in electronic form via the email address vanya@cis-india.org, copies of the artwork in print media released by UIDAI to create awareness about use of Aadhaar not being mandatory.
I am directed to furnish herewith in electronic form, copy of the artwork in print media released / published in the epapers edition of the Times of India and Dainik Jagran in their respective editions of dated 29.8.2015 in a soft copy, about obtaining of Aadhaar not being mandatory for a citizen, as desired.
In case, you want to go for an appeal in connection with the information provided, you may appeal to the Appellate Authority indicated below within thirty days from the date of receipt of this letter.
Shri Harish Lal Verma,
Deputy Director (Media),
Unique Identification Authority of India
3nd Floor, Tower – II, Jeevan Bharati Building,
New Delhi – 110001.

Yours faithfully,

(T Gou Khangin)
Section Officer & CPIO Media Division

Copy for information to: Deputy Director (Establishment) & Nodal CPIO

Below scanned copies:

RTI Reply

Coverage in Dainik Jagran

Download the coverage in the Times of India here. Read the earlier blog entry here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/reply-to-rti-application-under-rti-act-of-2005-from-vanya-rakesh

Reliance Jio data leaked on website : report

praskrishna — 2017-07-10T14:53:42Z

Reliance Jio customer data was leaked on independent website magicapk.com, including details such as names, mobile numbers and email IDs , said a report.

The article was published by Livemint on July 10, 2017.

Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd’s customer data was allegedly leaked on an independent website, magicapk.com, a report said. Jio, which crossed the 100 million mark in February, barely six months after it was launched, ended the financial year with 108.9 million subscribers as of 31 March.

The report, published first in a late-night article on Sunday on Fonearena.com, alleged that “several sensitive details” were exposed, including customers’ first and last names, mobile numbers, email IDs, circles, SIM activation dates and even the Aadhaar numbers. The Aadhaar numbers, however, were redacted on magicapk.

“To my disbelief I found my own details in the database and also couple of my colleagues are affected too,” wrote Varun Krish, the author of the article. However, if you now click on Magicapk.com, it reads: “This Account has been suspended .” The Registrar of the site, according to the whois database, is Godaddy.com, LLC.

When contacted, a Reliance Jio spokesperson said, “We have come across the unverified and unsubstantiated claims of the website and are investigating it. Prima facie, the data appears to be unauthentic. We want to assure our subscribers that their data is safe and maintained with highest security. Data is only shared with authorities as per their requirement. We have informed law enforcement agencies about the claims of the website and will follow through to ensure strict action is taken.”

Fonearena.com, on its site, has responded with a: “We still stand by our story.”

The report assumes significance because the site exposed redacted Aadhaar card details. There are nearly 1.2 billion Aadhaar number holders in the country. Aadhaar aims to plug leakages in the delivery of state benefits, such as subsidized grains to the poor, and aid in generating a savings of about Rs70,000 crore a year for the government. But data breaches have rattled citizens, especially since India does not have a Privacy Act.

In March, the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) blacklisted a common services centre for 10 years after it shared the Aadhaar details of former cricket captain Mahendra Singh Dhoni. On 25 April, Mint reported that many government departments, including the ministry of drinking water and sanitation, the Jharkhand Directorate of Social Security, and the Kerala government’s pension department, had published Aadhaar numbers of beneficiaries of the schemes they run in violation of the Aadhaar Act .

On 1 May, Bengaluru-based think tank Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) reported that a Central government ministry and a state government may have made public up to 135 million Aadhaar numbers .

Under the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016, the unique identity number is mandatory only to receive social welfare benefits. However, tagging of the Aadhaar number is being made mandatory by the government for various schemes including PAN (permanent account number) accounts for taxation. On 7 July, the Supreme Court refused to pass any interim order against the mandatory use of Aadhaar for various government schemes. It, instead, suggested that petitioners call for immediate formation of a Constitution bench to decide on the case .

News of the alleged data leak also comes at a time when there have been a spate of cyber hacks.

For instance, just when companies started believing that WannaCry—the malware that held over 200,000 individuals across 10,000 organizations in nearly 100 countries to ransom—was on the wane, a virus christened GoldenEye (a variant of the Petya ransomware) by security firm Bitdefender Labs attacked companies, mostly in Ukraine. And while the target primarily appeared to be European countries, the ransomware was also reported to be making inroads in countries like India.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/livemint-july-10-2017-reliance-jio-data-leaked-on-website-report

Relationship Between Privacy and Confidentiality

vipul — 2014-12-30T14:27:02Z

The laws of breach of confidentiality and breach of privacy at first glance seem very similar to each other. If a doctor releases health information relating to a patient that s/he is treating then such an act would give rise to a claim both under the law of privacy as well as under the law of confidentiality.

Similar is the case with financial information released by a bank, etc. This makes one wonder exactly where and how it is that the law of breach of privacy intersects with that of the law of confidentiality. An enquiry into such a complex question of law requires a deeper appreciation of the relationship between these two different principles of law which require a better understanding of the origins and evolutions of these principles.

In this paper we shall try to explore the origins of both the law of privacy as well as confidentiality as they have evolved in the field of tort law in India. Although our primary focus is Indian law, however in order to understand the evolution of these principles it is necessary to discuss their evolution in three common law jurisdictions, viz. the United States of America, the United Kingdom and India. The reason for an analysis of these three jurisdictions will become clear as the reader goes further into this paper, however for ease of reference it would be better if the reason is clarified here itself. The concept of a right against breach of confidentiality has existed in English common law for a very long time, however the concept of a claim for breach of privacy originated only in American law, other than some statutory protection granted in the last couple of decades, has still not been granted recognition in English common law.

After a discussion of the evolution of these principles in both American and English law, we will then discuss these principles as they exist in Indian law. This discussion will (or should) at once become easier to understand and digest because of the deeper understanding of the interplay between these two principles gained from a reading of the first two chapters.

Privacy Torts: American Origins

Looking at the origins of privacy law it has been argued by many academics that the law of privacy in common law has its origins in an article published by Samuel Warren and Louis Brandies in the Harvard Law Review in 1890.[1] Warren and Brandeis suggested that one could generalise certain cases on defamation, breach of copyright in unpublished letters, trade secrets and breach of confidence as all based upon the protection of a common value which they called privacy.[2] The authors relied upon the existing body of cases relating to the law of confidentiality and interpreted it in a way so as to create a "right to privacy" which has evolved into a right quite different from the common understanding of confidentiality.

Although there are certain criticisms of the article by Warren and Brandeis, the background in which the article was written and the lacuna that these two scholars were trying to fill in the law of confidentiality as it existed at that time gives some context to the reasons why they felt the need to move away from the existing principles and propose a new principle of law. Samuel Warren and Louis Brandies were both worried about the invasion of personal space by the advent of the news and print media which was experiencing a boom during the late 19^th century. [3] Warren and Brandeis were worried that although the existing body of law on confidentiality would protect a person from having their picture put on a postcard by their photographer without their consent,[4] however if there was no relationship between the two persons there would be no remedy available to the aggrieved party. [5]

One of the criticisms of Warren and Brandeis' article is that to propose the existence of a right to privacy they relied heavily on the English case of Prince Albert v. Strange[6]. It has been proposed by some academics that this was a case which dealt with confidentiality and literary property which was characterized by Warren and Brandeis as a privacy case. [7] In this case Prince Albert sought to restrain publication of otherwise unpublished private etchings and lists of works which were made by Queen Victoria. The etchings appeared to have been removed surreptitiously from the private printer to whom these etchings were given and came into the possession of one Mr. Strange who wanted to print and sell the etchings. The case specifically rejected the existence of a right to privacy in the following words:

"The case is not put by the Plaintiff on any principle of trust or contract, but on property; there is nothing to show contract or confidence. It cannot be maintained that privacy constitutes property, or that the Court will interfere to protect the owner in the enjoyment of it; Chadler v. Thompson (3 Camp. 80). In William Aldred's case (9 Rep. 58 b.), Wray C. J. said, "The law does not give an action for such things of delight"."

Infact the case mentioned the term "privacy" only once, but that statement was made in the context of whether a delay in granting an injunction in such cases would defeat the entire purpose of the suit and was not preceeded or followed by any discussion on a distinct right to privacy:

"In the present case, where privacy is the right invaded, postponing the injunction would be equivalent to denying it altogether. The interposition of this Court in these cases does not depend upon any legal right, and to be effectual, it must be immediate."

However, Warren and Brandeis interpreted this case in a different manner and came to the conclusion that the "principle which protects personal writings and all other personal productions, not against theft and physical appropriation, but against publication in any form, is in reality not the principle of private property, but that of an inviolate personality".[8]

The article further incorporated the language of Judge Cooley's treatise (Cooley on Torts)[9] which used the phrase "the right to be let alone". They said that identifying this common element should enable the courts to declare the existence of a general principle which protected a person's appearance, sayings, acts and personal relations from being exposed in public. [10] However it has been argued by some scholars that this phrase was not used by Judge Cooley with as much import as has been given by Warren and Brandeis in their article. The phrase was used by Judge Cooley in mere passing while discussing why tort law protected against not only batteries but also assaults with no physical contact, and had no connection with privacy rights. [11]

Warren and Brandeis' article started getting almost immediate attention and some amount of recognition from various quarters,[12] though it cannot be said that it was universally well received. [13] However over time this tort of privacy slowly started getting recognized by various Courts throughout the United States and got a huge boost when it was recognized in a brief section in the First Restatement of Torts published in 1939. The right to privacy in American jurisprudence got another boost and became fully entrenched later on specially with the endorsement of Dr. William Prosser who discussed privacy in his treatise on the law of torts, the subsequent editions of which had a more and more elaborate discussion of the tort of privacy. This development of the law was further enhanced by Dr. Prosser's position as a reporter of the Second Restatement of Torts, which imported a four part taxonomy of the privacy tort which had been suggested by Dr. Prosser in his previous works.[14]

Thus we see how, beginning with the article by Warren and Brandeis in 1890, the privacy tort in American jurisprudence developed over the years and became further entrenched due to the influence of William Prosser and his works on the tort of privacy.

Privacy Torts in England: An Elaborate Principle of Confidentiality

The law of confidentiality in English law, as applied in certain specific contexts such as attorney client privileges, [15] doctor patient confidentiality,[16] etc. has been applied since hundreds and even though cases relating to the breach of confidentiality had already existed, however the case of Prince Albert v. Strange,[17] be it due to the interesting facts or the fame of the parties involved, is still considered as the clearest and most well established precedent for the tort of breach of confidence.[18] Similar cases relying upon this tort kept being decided by the English Courts but the tort of confidentiality was further cemented in English common law by the case of Saltman Engineering Co. v. Campbell Engineering Co.,[19] which expanded the application of the principle by holding that the obligation to respect confidence is not limited to only instances where parties have a contractual relationship.

The seminal case on the tort of breach of confidentiality in English law was that of Coco v. A.N Clark (Engineers) Ltd., [20] where an inventor enjoined a moped manufacturer from using design ideas communicated by the inventor during failed contractual negotiations with the manufacturer.[21] In this case Megarry J., held that a case of breach of confidence normally requires three elements to succeed, apart from contract, (i) the information itself must have the necessary quality of confidence about it, (ii) that information must have been imparted in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence, and (iii) there must be an unauthorised use of that information to the detriment of the party communicating it.

Relying on the principles enunciated in the above cases and developed by subsequent decisions, English law relating to the tort of breach of confidentiality developed into a robust and flexible body of law protecting personal and commercial information from disclosure. Infact by the late 1990s, English law was very broad and gradually expanding in its scope of the tort of breach of confidentiality and Courts had stretched the idea of an obligation of confidence so as to include cases where there was not even any communication between the parties, such as secret photography and wiretapping. Further since third parties had already been reposed with an obligation of confidence when they knowingly received confidential material even if they did not have any relationship with the plaintiff, therefore the law of confidence could be extended to parties outside the relationship in which the confidence was initially made. This, although was not as broad and overarching as the American privacy tort, still had the ability to cover a wide range of cases. [22]

While English Courts on the one hand kept trying to expand the scope of the confidentiality tort, they also categorically rejected the existence of a privacy tort on the lines developed under American jurisprudence. The suggestion of the existence of such a privacy tort in English law was most recently rejected by the House of Lords in the case of Wainwright v. Home Office,[23] by Lord Bingham in the following words:

"What the courts have so far refused to do is to formulate a general principle of "invasion of privacy" (I use the quotation marks to signify doubt about what in such a context the expression would mean) from which the conditions of liability in the particular case can be deduced."

In this case the plaintiffs made a claim against the prison authorities for strip searching them before they went to meet an inmate and since the incident occurred before the coming into force of the Human Rights Act, 1998 of the UK had not yet come into force, so the plaintiffs also argued that there was an existing tortuous remedy based on a breach of privacy in common law. While discussing whether English Courts were amenable to or had ever recognized such a common law tort of privacy, the House of Lords cited decisions such as Malone v Metropolitan Police Comr, [24] and R v Khan (Sultan),[25] in both of which the courts refused to recognize a general right to privacy in the context of tapping of telephones.

The absence of any general cause of action for invasion of privacy was also acknowledged by the Court of Appeal in the context of a newspaper reporter and photographer invading into a patient's hospital bedroom in an effort to purportedly interview him and taking photographs, in the case of Kaye v Robertson.[26]

Thus relying on the above line of cases the House of Lords concluded that a general right to privacy does not exist in English common law:

"All three judgments are flat against a judicial power to declare the existence of a high-level right to privacy and I do not think that they suggest that the courts should do so. The members of the Court of Appeal certainly thought that it would be desirable if there was legislation to confer a right to protect the privacy of a person in the position of Mr Kaye against the kind of intrusion which he suffered, but they did not advocate any wider principle."

Thus it is clear that English Courts have time and again denied the existence of an American style right to privacy as emanating from common law. The Courts have instead tried to expand and widen the scope of the tort of confidentiality so as to cover various situations which may arise due to the pervasiveness of technology and which the traditional interpretation of the law of confidentiality was not equipped to deal with.

Therefore it is now a little clearer that the reason for the existence of the confusion between the torts of privacy and confidentiality is that the right to privacy had its origins in the common law precedents but the right to privacy developed as a distinct and separate right in America, primarily due to the influence of Warren and Brandeis's article as well as the works of William Prosser, whereas the Courts in England did not adopt this principle of privacy and instead favored a much more elaborate right to confidentiality. In the Indian context, this has led to some amount of confusion because, Indian case laws, as will be seen in the following chapter, borrowed heavily from American jurisprudence when discussing the right to privacy and not all cases have been able to clearly bring out the difference between the principles of privacy and confidentiality.

Indian Law

Tort of Breach of Privacy

Any analysis of the right to privacy in India, be it in the realm of constitutional law or tort law almost always includes within its ambit a discussion of the two celebrated cases of Kharak Singh v. Union of India[27] and Govind v. State of M.P.,[28] which elevated the right to privacy to the pedestal of a fundamental right under Indian law. However, an unintended consequence of this has been that pretty much every commentator on Indian law includes a discussion of these two cases when discussing the right to privacy, be it under constitutional law or under tort law. However, there is one problem with such an analysis of the right to privacy, viz. these two cases were dealing with a pure constitutional law question and relied upon American case laws to read into Article 21 an inbuilt right to privacy. However from a strictly tort law perspective, these cases are not relevant at all, and the seminal case for the tort of breach of privacy would have to be the Apex Court decision in R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, [29] which specifically recognized this distinction and stated that the right to privacy has two different aspects, (i) the constitutional right to privacy, and (ii) the common law right to privacy.

The facts of the R. Rajagopal case revolve around the publishing of the autobiography written by the prisoner Auto Shankar, who had been placed in jail for committing multiple murders. The autobiography contained proof of involvement of many IAS, IPS officers in his crimes. Although Shankar had initially requested that the magazine print his autobiography, he later requested that his story not be published. The publishers held that it was their right to publish the autobiography while the IPS and IAS officers on the other hand claimed that Auto Shankar was trying to defame them and wanted to ban its publication. The Supreme Court in this case, implicitly accepts the existence of a right to privacy under Indian tort law when

"21.The question is how far the principles emerging from the United States and English decisions are relevant under our constitutional system. So far as the freedom of press is concerned, it flows from the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a). But the said right is subject to reasonable restrictions placed thereon by an existing law or a law made after the commencement of the Constitution in the interests of or in relation to the several matters set out therein. Decency and defamation are two of the grounds mentioned in clause (2). Law of torts providing for damages for invasion of the right to privacy and defamation and Sections 499/500 IPC are the existing laws saved under clause (2). "

Discussing the distinction between the two aspects of the right to privacy, the Court held:

"The right to privacy as an independent and distinctive concept originated in the field of Tort law, under which a new cause of action for damages resulting from unlawful invasion of privacy was recognized. This right has two aspects which are but two faces of the same coin (1) the general law of privacy which affords a tort action for damages resulting from an unlawful invasion of privacy and (2) the constitutional recognition given to the right to privacy which protects personal privacy against unlawful governmental invasion. The first aspect of this right must be said to have been violated where, for example, a person's name or likeness is used, without his consent, for advertising or non-advertising purposes or for that matter, his life story is written whether laudatory or otherwise and published without his consent as explained hereinafter. In recent times, however, this right has acquired a constitutional status."

After a discussion of the various arguments presented by the parties (a number of which are not relevant for the purposes of this paper), the Supreme Court laid down the following principles regarding freedom of the press and the right to privacy:

(1) The right to privacy is implicit in the right to life and liberty guaranteed to the citizens of this country by Article 21. It is a "right to be let alone". A citizen has a right to safeguard the privacy of his own, his family, marriage, procreation, motherhood, child-bearing and education among other matters. None can publish anything concerning the above matters without his consent whether truthful or otherwise and whether laudatory or critical. If he does so, he would be violating the right to privacy of the person concerned and would be liable in an action for damages. Position may, however, be different, if a person voluntarily thrusts himself into controversy or voluntarily invites or raises a controversy.

(2) The rule aforesaid is subject to the exception, that any publication concerning the aforesaid aspects becomes unobjectionable if such publication is based upon public records including court records. This is for the reason that once a matter becomes a matter of public record, the right to privacy no longer subsists and it becomes a legitimate subject for comment by press and media among others. We are, however, of the opinion that in the interests of decency [Article 19(2)] an exception must be carved out to this rule, viz., a female who is the victim of a sexual assault, kidnap, abduction or a like offence should not further be subjected to the indignity of her name and the incident being publicised in press/media.

(3) There is yet another exception to the rule in (1) above - indeed, this is not an exception but an independent rule. In the case of public officials, it is obvious, right to privacy, or for that matter, the remedy of action for damages is simply not available with respect to their acts and conduct relevant to the discharge of their official duties. This is so even where the publication is based upon facts and statements which are not true, unless the official establishes that the publication was made (by the defendant) with reckless disregard for truth. In such a case, it would be enough for the defendant (member of the press or media) to prove that he acted after a reasonable verification of the facts; it is not necessary for him to prove that what he has written is true. Of course, where the publication is proved to be false and actuated by malice or personal animosity, the defendant would have no defence and would be liable for damages. It is equally obvious that in matters not relevant to the discharge of his duties, the public official enjoys the same protection as any other citizen, as explained in (1) and (2) above. It needs no reiteration that judiciary, which is protected by the power to punish for contempt of court and Parliament and legislatures protected as their privileges are by Articles 105 and 104 respectively of the Constitution of India, represent exceptions to this rule."

The above principles have ruled the roost on the issue of privacy and freedom of the press under Indian law, with certain minimal additions. It has been held by the Delhi High Court that even though a claim for damages may be made under tort law for breach of privacy, the Court may even grant a pre-publication injunction to prevent a breach of privacy.[30] The principles laid down inR. Rajagopal were further clarified in the case of Indu Jain v. Forbes Incorporated, [31] where a case was filed by Indu Jain in the Delhi High Court to stop Forbes magazine from featuring her family in the Forbes List of Indian Billionaires. After a discussion of the various authorities and cases on the issue the Court summarized the principles relating to privacy and freedom of the press and applying those principles rejected the claim of the plaintiff. However for the purposes of our discussion these principles are extremely useful, and have been listed below:

"(V) Public or general interest in the matter published has to be more than mere idle curiosity.

(VI) Public figures like public officials play an influential role in ordering society. They have access to mass media communication both to influence the policy and to counter-criticism of their views and activities. The citizen has a legitimate and substantial interest in the conduct of such persons and the freedom of press extends to engaging in uninhibited debate about the involvement of public figures in public issues and events. (Ref. (1994) 6 SCC 632 R. Rajagopal & Anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Others Para 18).

(VII) Right to privacy that rests in an individual may be waived by him by express or implied consent or lost by a course of conduct which estops its assertions. Such implication may be deduced from the conduct of the parties and the surrounding circumstances.

(VIII) A public person or personage is one who by his standing, accomplishment, fame, mode of life or by adopting a profession or calling which gives the public a legitimate interest in his doings, affairs and character has so become a public figure and thereby relinquishes at least a part of his privacy.

(IX) The standard to be adopted for assessing as to whether the published material infracts the right to privacy of any individual is that of an ordinary man of common sense and prudence and not an out of ordinary or hyper-sensitive man. (Ref. (2007) 1 SCC 143 Ajay Goswami v. UOI & Ors.).

(X) Even though in this country, the freedom of press does not have presumptive priority as in some other jurisdictions including the United States of America, however the importance of a free media of communication to a healthy democracy has to receive sufficient importance and emphasis.

(XI) In evaluating a relief to be granted in respect of a complaint against infraction of the right to privacy, the court has to balance the rights of the persons complaining of infraction of right to privacy against freedom of press and the right of public to disclosure of newsworthy information. Such consideration may entail the interest of the community and the court has to balance the proportionality of interfering with one right against the proportionality of impact by infraction of the other.

(XII) The publication has to be judged as a whole and news items, advertisements and published matter cannot be read without the accompanying message that is purported to be conveyed to public. Pre-publication censorship may not be countenanced in the scheme of the constitutional framework unless it is established that the publication has been made with reckless disregard for truth, publication shall not be normally prohibited. (Ref.: (2007) 1 SCC 143 Ajay Goswami Vs. UOI & Ors.; (1994) 6 SCC 632 R. Rajagopal & Anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Others and AIR 2002 Delhi 58 Khushwant Singh & Anr. Vs. Maneka Gandhi)."

Thus we see that the right to privacy in Indian law, even in the realm of tort law has had an inextricable connection with constitutional principles and constitutional cases have had a very huge impact on the development of this right in India. However a perusal of these cases shows that the right to privacy is available only insofar as information which is personal in nature, however in situations where the information is non-personal in nature the right to privacy may not be as useful and this is where, as we shall see below, the tort of breach of confidentiality comes in to fill the void.

Tort of Breach of Confidentiality

While there have been a number of landmark cases in India on the issue of breach of confidence in a contractual or a statutory setting, these cases are not very relevant for a discussion on the tort of breach of confidentiality. This is not to say that the tort of breach of confidentiality is non-existent in Indian law, the Courts here have time and again accepted that there does exist such a tortuous remedy in certain situations. We shall now try to examine the contours of this principle of torts by discussing some of the landmark cases on the topic.

In the case of Petronet LNG Ltd. v. Indian Petro Group and Another, ^{^[32]} the Delhi High Court considered a claim by a corporation seeking to prevent a news and media group from reporting its confidential negotiations and contracts with counterparties. The claim was based upon both the right to privacy as well as the right to confidentiality but in this case the court, looking at the fact that the plaintiff was a corporation and also the type of information involved denied the claim on the right to privacy. However, it did allow the injunction claimed by the corporation based on the right to confidentiality. Summarizing its discussion of the right to confidentiality, the Court stated thus:

"49. It may be seen from the above discussion, that originally, the law recognized relationships- either through status (marriage) or arising from contract (such as employment, contract for services etc) as imposing duties of confidentiality. The decision in Coco (1969) marked a shift, though imperceptibly, to a possibly wider area or zone. Douglas noted the paradigm shift in the perception, with the enactment of the Human Rights Act; even before that, in Attorney General (2) (also called the Spycatcher case, or the Guardian case) the Court acknowledged that there could be situations -where a third party (likened to a passerby, coming across sensitive information, wafting from the top of a building, below) being obliged to maintain confidentiality, having regard to the nature and sensitivity of the information….."

While discussing the factors that the Court would have to consider while deciding a claim based on the breach of confidentiality, the Delhi High Court relied upon and quoted from English judgments as follows:

"50. Even while recognizing the wider nature of duty - in the light of the Human Rights Act, 1998, and Articles 8 and 10 of the European Convention, it was cautioned that the court, in each case, where breach of confidentiality, is complained, and even found- has to engage in a balancing process; the factors to be weighed while doing so, were reflected in A v. B Plc [2003] QB 195; the latest judgment in H.R.H. Prince of Wales indicates that the court would look at the kind of information, the nature of relationship, etc, and also consider proportionality, while weighing whether relief could be given:

"The court will need to consider whether, having regard to the nature of the information and all the relevant circumstances, it is legitimate for the owner of the information to seek to keep it confidential or whether it is in the public interest that the information should be made public….

..In applying the test of proportionality, the nature of the relationship that gives rise to the duty of confidentiality may be important."

Holding that the principles discussed in the English cases given in the context of individual rights of confidentiality would also hold good in the case of corporations, the Court held that:

"51. Though the reported cases, discussed above, all dealt with individual right, to confidentiality of private information (Duchess of Argyll;Frazer; Douglas; Campbell and H.R.H. Prince of Wales) yet, the formulations consciously approved in the Guardian, and Campbell, embrace a wider zone of confidentiality, that can possibly be asserted. For instance, professional records of doctors regarding treatment of patients, ailments of individuals, particulars, statements of witnesses deposing in investigations into certain types of crimes, particulars of even accused who are facing investigative processes, details victims of heinous assaults and crimes, etc, may, be construed as confidential information, which, if revealed, may have untoward consequences, casting a corresponding duty on the person who gets such information - either through effort, or unwittingly, not to reveal it. Similarly, in the cases of corporations and businesses, there could be legitimate concerns about its internal processes and trade secrets, marketing strategies which are in their nascent stages, pricing policies and so on, which, if prematurely made public, could result in irreversible, and unknown commercial consequences. However, what should be the approach of the court when the aggrieved party approaches it for relief, would depend on the facts of each case, the nature of the information, the corresponding content of the duty, and the balancing exercise to be carried out. It is held, therefore, that even though the plaintiff cannot rely on privacy, its suit is maintainable, as it can assert confidentiality in its information."

Apart from privacy, the law of confidentiality has been used in cases where there has been a definite harm to one side but none of the other laws provide for any relief. This was the situation in the case of Zee Telefilms Limited v. Sundial Communications Pvt Ltd, [33] where a company which developed television and media programming had discussed their concept of a new show with a network during negotiations which could not be finalized. The network however subsequently tried to start a new show which was based on the same concept and idea as the one presented by the plaintiff company. The plaintiff sued the network, inter alia on a claim for breach of confidential information and asked that the network be prevented from airing its show. In this case the plaintiff's claim based on copyright was rejected because copyright only subsists on the expression of an idea and not the idea itself, therefore the tort of breach of confidentiality had to be resorted to in order to give relief to the plaintiffs. Discussing the difference between confidentiality and copyright, the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court held:

"10. The law of the confidence is different from law of copyright. In paragraph 21.2 (page 721), [of Copinger and Skone-James on Copyright (13th Edn.)] the learned author has pointed out that right to restrain publication of work upon the grounds, that to do so would be breach of trust of confidence, is a broader right than proprietary right of copyright. There can be no copyright of ideas or information and it is not infringement of copyright to adopt or appropriate ideas of another or to publish information received from another, provided there is no substantial copying of the form in which those ideas have, or that information has, been previously embodied. But if the ideas or information have been acquired by a person under such circumstances that it would be a breach of good faith to publish them and he has no just case or excuses for doing so, the court may grant injunction against him. The distinction between the copyright and confidence may be of considerable importance with regard to unpublished manuscripts / works submitted, and not accepted, for publication or use. Whereas copyright protects material that has been reduced to permanent form, the general law of confidence may protect either written or oral confidential communication. Copyright is good against the world generally while confidence operates against those who receive information or ideas in confidence. Copyright has a fixed statutory time limit which does not apply to confidential information, though in practice application of confidence usually ceases when the information or ideas becomes public knowledge. Further the obligation of confidence rests not only on the original recipient, but also on any person who received the information with knowledge acquired at the time or subsequently that it was originally given in confidence."

A similar view, in a similar fact situation Single Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court had also came to a similar conclusion in the case of Anil Gupta v. Kunal Das Gupta.[34]

The law of confidentiality has also come to the rescue of employers in attempting to prevent important business and client information from being taken or copied by the employees for their personal gain. In the case of Mr. Diljeet Titus, Advocate v. Mr. Alfred A. Adebare, [35] the Delhi High Court had to decide a claim based on breach of confidentiality when some ex-employees of a law firm tried to take away client lists and drafts of legal agreements and opinions from their earlier employer-law firm. Discussing the importance of preventing employees or former employees from away which such actions, the Court held as follows:

"81. I am in full agreement with the views expressed in Margaret, Duchess of Argyll (Feme Sole) v. Duke of Argyll and Ors. (1965) 1 All ER 611, that a Court must step in to restrain a breach of confidence independent of any right under law. Such an obligation need not be expressed but be implied and the breach of such confidence is independent of any other right as stated above. The obligation of confidence between an advocate and the client can hardly be re-emphasised. Section 16 of the Copyright Act itself emphasizes the aspect of confidentiality de hors even the rights under the Copyright Act. If the defendants are permitted to do what they have done it would shake the very confidence of relationship between the advocates and the trust imposed by clients in their advocates. The actions of the defendants cause injury to the plaintiff and as observed by Aristotle: 'It makes no difference whether a good man defrauds a bad one, nor whether a man who commits an adultery be a good or a bad man; the law looks only to the difference created by the injury."

The Court allowed the claim of the law firm holding that the relationship between a law firm and its attorneys is of a nature where information passed between them would be covered by the law of confidence and would not be allowed to be copied or used by the attorneys for their individual gain.

Recently, in 2009, the principles relating to breach of confidentiality under Indian law were very succinctly summarized by the Bombay High Court in the case of Urmi Juvekar Chiang v. Global Broadcasting News Limited,[36] where in a fact situation similar to the ones in Zee Telefilms case and the Anil Gupta case, the Court discussed a number of previous cases on breach of confidentiality and laid down the following principles:

"8. The principles on which the action of breach of confidence can succeed, have been culled out as

(i) he (Plaintiff) had to identify clearly what was the information he was relying on;

(ii) he (Plaintiff) had to show that it was handed over in the circumstances of confidence;

(iii) he (Plaintiff) had to show that it was information of the type which could be treated as

confidential; and

(iv) he (Plaintiff) had to show that it was used without licence or there was threat to use it…… It is further noted that at interlocutory stage, the Plaintiff does not have to prove (iii) and (iv) referred to above, as he will at the trial. But the Plaintiff must address them and show that he has atleast seriously arguable case in relation to each of them."

From the above discussion on Indian law it is clear that the Courts in India have tried to incorporate the best of both worlds, in the sense that it has taken and adopted the principle of a right to privacy, a breach of which would give rise to an action in torts, from American jurisprudence while rejecting the stand taken by English Courts in rejecting such a right to privacy. However, Indian Courts have often referred to the decisions given by English Courts as well as American Courts in interpreting the principle of the right to confidentiality. Therefore on an overall examination it would appear that insofar as the rights to privacy and confidentiality are concerned, Indian jurisprudence has more in common with American law rather than English law.

Conclusion

The law of privacy does not seem to have existed as a recognizable principle of law before it was propounded in the article by Warren and Brandeis in the Harvard Law Review in 1890. It slowly gained traction in American jurisprudence over the twentieth century but was rejected outright by the Courts in England, which preferred to follow the principle of confidentiality rather than privacy and tried to expand that old principle to fit newer and newer situations. Since Indian law borrows heavily from English law and to a smaller extent also from American law, the Courts in India have accepted both, the principle of a right to privacy as well as a right to confidentiality. This is not to say that the Courts in America do not recognize a right to confidentiality and only accept a right to privacy. Infact American Courts, just like their Indian counterparts, recognize both a right to confidentiality as well as a right to privacy.

Since Indian courts accept both the concept of breach of privacy as well as breach of confidentiality, one should not try to figure out if a particular circumstance is more appropriate for the one over the other, but actually use both principles to supplement one another for achieving the same objective. For example in situations where the conditions required for the application of the law of confidentiality do not exist such as disclosure of personal information by a person who did not receive it in a confidential capacity, one could apply the principle of privacy to prevent such information being disclosed or claim a remedy after disclosure. On the other hand if the information to be disclosed is not of a personal nature then one could try to utilize the law of confidentiality to prevent disclosure or claim damages.

[1] Harry Kalven, Jr., Privacy in Tort Law-Were Warren and Brandeis Wrong?, "31 Law & Contemp. Problems". 326, 327 (1966). Elbridge L. Adams, The Right of Privacy, and Its Relation to the Law of Libel, 39 AM. L. REV. 37 (1905).

[2] Wainwright v. Home Office, 2003 UKHL 53.

[3] Neil M. Richards & Daniel J. Solove, Privacy's Other Path: Recovering the Law of Confidentiality, "96 Georgetown Law Journal", 123 at 128 and 132 (2007).

[4] Pollard v. Photographic Co., (1888) 40 Ch. D. 345.

[5] It is also said that this concern arose out of the personal experience of Samuel Warren, whose wedding announcement as well as the report on his sister-in-law's death in the newspapers did not go down well with him. http://www.english.illinois.edu/-people-/faculty/debaron/380/380powerpoint/privacy.pdf

[6] (1848) 41 Eng. Rep. 1171 (Ch.).

[7] Neil M. Richards & Daniel J. Solove, Privacy's Other Path: Recovering the Law of Confidentiality, "96 Georgetown Law Journal", 123 (2007).

[8] Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis, The Right to Privacy, "4 Harvard Law Review", 193 at 207 (1890).

[9] Thomas M. Cooley, The Law Of Torts, 2^nd Ed., 1888, p. 29.

[10] Wainwright v. Home Office, 2003 UKHL 53.

[11] Neil M. Richards & Daniel J. Solove, Privacy's Other Path: Recovering the Law of Confidentiality, "96 Georgetown Law Journal", 123 (2007).

[12] As early as in 1891, the case of Schuyler v. Curtis, 45 NYS 787 (Sup. Ct., 1891) involving the erection of a statue of a dead person, recognized the principle proposed in Warren and Brandeis' article.

[13] Most famously the case of Robertson v. Rochester folding Box Co., 64 NE 442 (NY 1902) where the New York Court of appeals specifically rejected a the existence of a right to privacy as proposed by Warren and Brandeis.

[14] Neil M. Richards & Daniel J. Solove, Privacy's Other Path: Recovering the Law of Confidentiality, "96 Georgetown Law Journal", 123 (2007).

[15] Bredd v. Lovelace, (1577) 21 Eng. Rep. 33 (Ch.)

[16] For doctor patient confidentiality we need look no further than the Hippocratic Oath itself which states "Whatever, in connection with my professional service, or not in connection with it, I see or hear, in the life of men, which ought not to be spoken of abroad, I will not divulge, as reckoning that all such should be kept secret".

[17] (1848) 41 Eng. Rep. 1171 (Ch.).

[18] Neil M. Richards & Daniel J. Solove, Privacy's Other Path: Recovering the Law of Confidentiality, 96 GEORGETOWN LAW JOURNAL, 123 (2007).

[19] [1948] 65 RPC 203.

[20] [1969] RPC 41 (UK).

[21] Neil M. Richards & Daniel J. Solove, Privacy's Other Path: Recovering the Law of Confidentiality, 96 GEORGETOWN LAW JOURNAL, 123 (2007).

[22] Neil M. Richards & Daniel J. Solove, Privacy's Other Path: Recovering the Law of Confidentiality, 96 GEORGETOWN LAW JOURNAL, 123 (2007).

[23] 2003 UKHL 53.

[24] [1979] Ch 344.

[25] [1997] AC 558.

[26] [1991] FSR 62

[27] http://www.judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=3641 .

[28] http://www.judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=6014 .

[29] http://www.judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=11212 .

[30] Phoolan Devi v. Shekhar Kapoor and others, http://indiankanoon.org/doc/793946/.

[31] http://lobis.nic.in/dhc/GM/judgement/25-01-2010/GM12102007S21722006.pdf

[32] http://lobis.nic.in/dhc/SRB/judgement/25-04-2009/SRB13042009S11022006.pdf

[33] http://indiankanoon.org/doc/603848/ .

[34] http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1709727/ .

[35] http://delhicourts.nic.in/may06/DILJEET%20TITUS%20VS.%20ALFED%20A.%20ADEBARE.htm .

[36] http://indiankanoon.org/doc/582634/ .

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/relationship-between-privacy-and-confidentiality

Regulation, misuse concerns still dog DNA profiling bill

praskrishna — 2015-09-13T08:32:48Z

Experts fear such data could be used for non-forensic purposes and are concerned about the vast powers to be vested in proposed DNA profiling board.

The article by Nikita Mehta was published in Livemint on July 29, 2015. Sunil Abraham gave his inputs.

A bill aimed at creating a DNA database of offenders, slated for introduction in the monsoon session of Parliament, has been criticized by experts who fear that such information could be used for non-forensic purposes and are concerned about the vast powers sought to vested in a proposed DNA profiling board.

Despite changes made by the Department of Biotechnology, the final draft of the Human DNA Profiling Bill 2015 has drawn flak from the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), a non-profit group that works on policy issues.

The bill seeks Parliament’s approval for plans to create a DNA bank of various offenders in order to prevent repeat offences and to regulate the process by defining infrastructure, training, qualifications, facilities and legalities.

The government says that conducting DNA analysis involves working with sensitive information which, if misused, can cause harm to a person or to society. There is, thus, a need to restrict the use of DNA profiles through an Act of Parliament only for lawful purposes of establishing someone’s identity in a criminal or civil case and for other specified purposes.

The bill seeks to establish standards for laboratories, staff qualifications, training, proficiency testing, collection of body substances, custody trail from collection to reporting and a data bank with policies of use and access to information, its retention and deletion.

The offences for which the database can be maintained range from criminal and civil offences to paternity disputes.

“We need this bill because there are so many unresolved cases. A judge can use this data as material evidence and speedy justice can be served,” said M.K. Bhan, former secretary of the department of biotechnology. “Tremendous amount of effort has been taken to consult all possible parties and the bill has been drafted and redrafted over the years,” Bhan added.

In its note of dissent, CIS raised objections about DNA profiling and DNA samples being used for identifying victims of accidents or disasters, for missing persons and in civil disputes. It also objected to the creation and maintenance of a population statistics databank that is to be used, as prescribed, for the purposes of identification.

“One problem is accuracy. Unlike comparisons between digital signatures which can either have matches or no matches, biometric signatures will have a level of accuracy, so there can be a few false matches. Hence unnecessary widening of the data will reduce the accuracy of this system,” said Sunil Abraham, executive director at CIS.

CIS further noted that a DNA Profiling Board proposed by the bill will have vast powers, including those of authorizing procedures for DNA profiling for civil and criminal investigation, drawing up a list of instances for the application of human DNA profiling and undertaking any other activity which in the opinion of the Board advances the purposes of the Act. The DNA Profiling Board will consist of eminent scientists, administrators and law enforcement officers who will administer and carry out other functions assigned to it under the Act.

“Usually when regulators are created, the mandate is extremely clear. In this bill it is quite vague and there should not be so many things left to the discretionary powers of the board,” said Abraham who was part of the consultation process for the bill. He added that a number of changes have been introduced to the bill, including reduction of powers of the board, tighter definitions and more privacy safeguards.

“Any regulatory system requires external auditing, that should be taken into view. Another issue that was being looked at was that the forensic system should be outside police jurisdiction as they may have vested interests,” Bhan said.

The CIS note pointed out that although the bill refers to security and privacy procedures that labs are to follow, these have been left to be drawn up and implemented by the proposed DNA Board.

“This proposal has been doing the rounds for years and I can vouch for the scientific infallibility of using DNA profiling for carrying out justice. That being said, the bill does not provide verifiable or implementable safeguards for misuse of this data and lack of accountability of public servants can cause serious jeopardy to the privacy of citizens,” said K.P.C. Gandhi, a forensic scientist and founder chairman at Truth Labs, an independent forensic science laboratory.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/livemint-nikita-mehta-july-29-2015-regulation-misuse-concerns-still-dog-dna-profiling-bill

Registering for Aadhaar in 2019

sunil — 2019-01-03T14:59:04Z

It is a lot less scary registering for Aadhaar in 2019 than it was in 2010, given how the authentication modalities have since evolved.

The article was published in Business Standard on January 2, 2019.

Last November, a global committee of lawmakers from nine countries the UK, Canada, Ireland, Brazil, Argentina, Singapore, Belgium, France and Latvia summoned Mark Zuckerberg to what they called an “international grand committee” in London. Mr. Zuckerberg was too spooked to show up, but Ashkan Soltani, former CTO of the FTC was among those who testified against Facebook. He said “in the US, a lot of the reticence to pass strong policy has been about killing the golden goose” referring to the innovative technology sector. Mr. Soltani went on to argue that “smart legislation will incentivise innovation”. This could be done either intentionally or unintentionally by governments. For example, a poorly thought through blocking of pornography can result in innovative censorship circumvention technologies. On other occasions, this can happen intentionally. I hope to use my inaugural column in these pages to provide an Indian example of such intentional regulatory innovation.

Eight years ago, almost to this date, my colleague Elonnai Hickok wrote an open letter to the Parliamentary Finance Committee on what was then called the UID or Unique Identity. She compared Aadhaar to the digital identity project started by the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government in 2001. Like the Vajpayee administration which was working in response to the Kargil War, she advocated a decentralised authentication architecture using smart cards based on public key cryptography. Last year, even before the five-judge constitutional bench struck down Section 57 of the Aadhaar Act, the UIDAI preemptively responded to this regulatory development by launching offline Aadhaar cards. This was to be expected especially since from the A.P. Shah Committee report, the Puttaswamy Judgment, the B.N. Srikrishna Committee consultation paper, report and bill, the principle of “privacy by design” was emerging as a key Indian regulatory principle in the domain of data protection.

The introduction of the offline Aadhaar mechanism eliminates the need for biometrics during authentication. I have previously provided 11 reasons why biometrics is inappropriate technology for e-governance applications by democratic governments, and this comes as a massive relief for both human rights activists and security researchers. Second, it decentralises authentication, meaning that there is a no longer a central database that holds a 360-degree view of all incidents of identification and authentication. Third, it dramatically reduces the attack surface for Aadhaar numbers, since only the last four digits remain unmasked on the card. Each data controller using Aadhaar will have to generate his/her own series of unique identifiers to distinguish between residents. If those databases leak or get breached, it won’t tarnish the credibility of Aadhaar or the UIDAI to the same degree. Fourth, it increases the probability of attribution in case a data breach were to occur; if the breached or leaked data contains identifiers issued by a particular data controller, it would become easier to hold them accountable and liable for the associated harms. Fifth, unlike the previous iteration of the Aadhaar “card”, on which the QR code was easy to forge and alter, this mechanism provides for integrity and tamper detection because the demographic information contained within the QR code is digitally signed by the UIDAI. Finally, it retains the earlier benefit of being very cheap to issue, unlike smart cards.

Thanks to the UIDAI, the private sector is also being forced to implement privacy by design. Previously, since everyone was responsible for protecting Aadhaar numbers, nobody was. Data controllers would gladly share the Aadhaar number with their contractors, that is, data processors, since nobody could be held responsible. Now, since their own unique identifiers could be used to trace liability back to them, data controllers will start using tokenisation when they outsource any work that involves processing of the collected data. Skin in the game immediately breeds more responsible behaviour in the ecosystem.

The fintech sector has been rightfully complaining about regulatory and technological uncertainty from last year’s developments. This should be addressed by developing open standards and free software to allow for rapid yet secure implementation of these changes. The QR code standard itself should be an open standard developed by the UIDAI using some of the best practices common to international standard setting organisations like the World Wide Web Consortium, Internet Engineers Task Force and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. While the UIDAI might still choose to take the final decision when it comes to various technological choices, it should allow stakeholders to make contributions through comments, mailing lists, wikis and face-to-face meetings. Once a standard has been approved, a reference implementation must be developed by the UIDAI under liberal licences, like the BSD licence that allows for both free software and proprietary software derivative works. For example, a software that can read the QR code as well as send and receive the OTP to authenticate the resident. This would ensure that smaller fintech companies with limited resources can develop secure systems.

Since Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud’s excellent dissent had no other takers on the bench, holdouts like me must finally register for an Aadhaar number since we cannot delay filing taxes any further. While I would still have preferred a physical digital artefact like a smart card (built on an open standard), I must say it is a lot less scary registering for Aadhaar in 2019 than it was in 2010, given how the authentication modalities have since evolved.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/business-standard-january-2-2019-registering-for-aadhaar-in-2019

Reading the Fine Script: Service Providers, Terms and Conditions and Consumer Rights

jyoti — 2014-07-04T06:31:37Z

This year, an increasing number of incidents, related to consumer rights and service providers, have come to light. This blog illustrates the facts of the cases, and discusses the main issues at stake, namely, the role and responsibilities of providers of platforms for user-created content with regard to consumer rights.

On 1st July, 2014 the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a complaint against T-Mobile USA,[1] accusing the service provider of 'cramming' customers bills, with millions of dollars of unauthorized charges. Recently, another service provider, received flak from regulators and users worldwide, after it published a paper, 'Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks'.[2] The paper described Facebook's experiment on more than 600,000 users, to determine whether manipulating user-generated content, would affect the emotions of its users.

In both incidents the terms that should ensure the protection of their user's legal rights, were used to gain consent for actions on behalf of the service providers, that were not anticipated at the time of agreeing to the terms and conditions (T&Cs) by the consumer. More precisely, both cases point to the underlying issue of how users are bound by T&Cs, and in a mediated online landscape—highlight, the need to pay attention to the regulations that govern the online engagement of users.

I have read and agree to the terms

In his statement, Chief Executive Officer, John Legere might have referred to T-Mobile as "the most pro-consumer company in the industry",[3] however the FTC investigation revelations, that many customers never authorized the charges, suggest otherwise. The FTC investigation also found that, T-Mobile received 35-40 per cent of the amount charged for subscriptions, that were made largely through innocuous services, that customers had been signed up to, without their knowledge or consent. Last month news broke, that just under 700,000 users 'unknowingly' participated in the Facebook study, and while the legality and ethics of the experiment are being debated, what is clear is that Facebook violated consumer rights by not providing the choice to opt in or out, or even the knowledge of such social or psychological experiments to its users.

Both incidents boil down to the sensitive question of consent. While binding agreements around the world work on the condition of consent, how do we define it and what are the implications of agreeing to the terms?

Terms of Service: Conditions are subject to change

A legal necessity, the existing terms of service (TOS)—as they are also known—as an acceptance mechanism are deeply broken. The policies of online service providers are often, too long, and with no shorter or multilingual versions, require substantial effort on part of the user to go through in detail. A 2008 Carnegie Mellon study estimated it would take an average user 244 hours every year to go through the policies they agree to online.[4] Based on the study, Atlantic's Alexis C. Madrigal derived that reading all of the privacy policies an average Internet user encounters in a year, would take 76 working days.[5]

The costs of time are multiplied by the fact that terms of services change with technology, making it very hard for a user to keep track of all of the changes over time. Moreover, many services providers do not even commit to the obligation of notifying the users of any changes in the TOS. Microsoft, Skype, Amazon, YouTube are examples of some of the service providers that have not committed to any obligations of notification of changes and often, there are no mechanisms in place to ensure that service providers are keeping users updated.

Facebook has said that the recent social experiment is perfectly legal under its TOS,[6] the question of fairness of the conditions of users consent remain debatable. Facebook has a broad copyright license that goes beyond its operating requirements, such as the right to 'sublicense'. The copyright also does not end when users stop using the service, unless the content has been deleted by everyone else.

More importantly, since 2007, Facebook has brought major changes to their lengthy TOS about every year.[7] And while many point that Facebook is transparent, as it solicits feedback preceding changes to their terms, the accountability remains questionable, as the results are not binding unless 30% of the actual users vote. Facebook can and does, track users and shares their data across websites, and has no obligation or mechanism to inform users of the takedown requests.

Courts in different jurisdictions under different laws may come to different conclusions regarding these practices, especially about whether changing terms without notifying users is acceptable or not. Living in a society more protective of consumer rights is however, no safeguard, as TOS often include a clause of choice of law which allow companies to select jurisdictions whose laws govern the terms.

The recent experiment bypassed the need for informed user consent due to Facebook's Data Use Policy[8], which states that once an account has been created, user data can be used for 'internal operations, including troubleshooting, data analysis, testing, research and service improvement.' While the users worldwide may be outraged, legally, Facebook acted within its rights as the decision fell within the scope of T&Cs that users consented to. The incident's most positive impact might be in taking the questions of Facebook responsibilities towards protecting users, including informing them of the usage of their data and changes in data privacy terms, to a worldwide audience.

My right is bigger than yours

Most TOS agreements, written by lawyers to protect the interests of the companies add to the complexities of privacy, in an increasingly user-generated digital world. Often, intentionally complicated agreements, conflict with existing data and user rights across jurisdictions and chip away at rights like ownership, privacy and even the ability to sue. With conditions that that allow for change in terms at anytime, existing users do not have ownership or control over their data.

In April New York Times, reported of updates to the legal policy of General Mills (GM), the multibillion-dollar food company.[9] The update broadly asserted that consumers interacting with the company in a variety of ways and venues no longer can sue GM, but must instead, submit any complaint to “informal negotiation” or arbitration. Since then, GM has backtracked and clarified that “online communities” mentioned in the policy referred only to those online communities hosted by the company on its own websites.[10] Clarification aside, as Julia Duncan, Director of Federal programs at American Association for Justice points out, the update in the terms were so broad, that they were open to wide interpretation and anything that consumers purchase from the company could have been held to this clause. [11]

Data and whose rights?

Following Snowden revelations, data privacy has become a contentious issue in the EU, and TOS, that allow the service providers to unilaterally alter terms of the contract, will face many challenges in the future. In March Edward Snowden sent his testimony to the European Parliament calling for greater accountability and highlighted that in "a global, interconnected world where, when national laws fail like this, our international laws provide for another level of accountability."[12] Following the testimony came the European Parliament's vote in favor of new safeguards on the personal data of EU citizens, when it’s transferred to non-EU.[13] The new regulations seek to give users more control over their personal data including the right to ask for data from companies that control it and seek to place the burden of proof on the service providers.

The regulation places responsibility on companies, including third-parties involved in data collection, transfer and storing and greater transparency on concerned requests for information. The amendment reinforces data subject right to seek erasure of data and obliges concerned parties to communicate data rectification. Also, earlier this year, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled in favor of the 'right to be forgotten'[14]. The ECJ ruling recognised data subject's rights override the interest of internet users, however, with exceptions pertaining to nature of information, its sensitivity for the data subject's private life and the role of the data subject in public life.

In May, the Norwegian Consumer Council filed a complaint with the Norwegian Consumer Ombudsman, “… based on the discrepancies between Norwegian Law and the standard terms and conditions applicable to the Apple iCloud service...”, and, “...in breach of the law regarding control of marketing and standard agreements.”[15] The council based its complaint on the results of a study, published earlier this year, that found terms were hazy and varied across services including iCloud, Drop Box, Google Drive, Jotta Cloud, and Microsoft OneDrive. The Norwegian Council study found that Google TOS, allow for users content to be used for other purposes than storage, including by partners and that it has rights of usage even after the service is cancelled. None of the providers provide a guarantee that data is safe from loss, while many, have the ability to terminate an account without notice. All of the service providers can change the terms of service but only Google and Microsoft give an advance notice.

The study also found service providers lacking with respect to European privacy standards, with many allowing for browsing of user content. Tellingly, Google had received a fine in January by the French Data Protection Authority, that stated regarding Google's TOS, "permits itself to combine all the data it collects about its users across all of its services without any legal basis."

To blame or not to blame

Facebook is facing a probe by the UK Information Commissioner's Office, to assess if the experiment conducted in 2012 was a violation of data privacy laws.[16] The FTC asked the court to order T-Mobile USA, to stop mobile cramming, provide refunds and give up any revenues from the practice. The existing mechanisms of online consent, do not simplify the task of agreeing to multiple documents and services at once, a complexity which manifolds, with the involvement of third parties.

Unsurprisingly, T-Mobile's Legere termed the FTC lawsuit misdirected and blamed the companies providing the text services for the cramming.[17] He felt those providers should be held accountable, despite allegations that T-Mobile's billing practices made it difficult for consumers to detect that they were being charged for unauthorized services and having shared revenues with third-party providers. Interestingly, this is the first action against a wireless carrier for cramming and the FTC has a precedent of going after smaller companies that provide the services.

The FTC charged T-Mobile USA with deceptive billing practices in putting the crammed charges under a total for 'use charges' and 'premium services' and failure to highlight that portion of the charge was towards third-party charges. Further, the company urged customers to take complaints to vendors and was not forthcoming with refunds. For now, T-Mobile may be able to share the blame, the incident brings to question its accountability, especially as going forward it has entered a pact along with other carriers in USA including Verizon and AT&T, agreeing to stop billing customers for third-party services. Even when practices such as cramming are deemed illegal, it does not necessarily mean that harm has been prevented. Often users bear the burden of claiming refunds and litigation comes at a cost while even after being fined companies could have succeeded in profiting from their actions.

Conclusion

Unfair terms and conditions may arise when service providers include terms that are difficult to understand or vague in their scope. TOS that prevent users from taking legal action, negate liability for service providers actions despite the companies actions that may have a direct bearing on users, are also considered unfair. More importantly, any term that is hidden till after signing the contract, or a term giving the provider the right to change the contract to their benefit including wider rights for service provider wide in comparison to users such as a term that that makes it very difficult for users to end a contract create an imbalance. These issues get further complicated when the companies control and profiting from data are doing so with user generated data provided free to the platform.

In the knowledge economy, web companies play a decisive role as even though they work for profit, the profit is derived out of the knowledge held by individuals and groups. In their function of aggregating human knowledge, they collect and provide opportunities for feedback of the outcomes of individual choices. The significance of consent becomes a critical part of the equation when harnessing individual information. In France, consent is part of the four conditions necessary to be forming a valid contract (article 1108 of the Code Civil).

The cases highlight the complexities that are inherent in the existing mechanisms of online consent. The question of consent has many underlying layers such as reasonable notice and contractual obligations related to consent such as those explored in the case in Canada, which looked at whether clauses of TOS were communicated reasonably to the user, a topic for another blog. For now, we must remember that by creating and organising social knowledge that further human activity, service providers, serve a powerful function. And as the saying goes, with great power comes great responsibility.

[1] 'FTC Alleges T-Mobile Crammed Bogus Charges onto Customers’ Phone Bills', published 1 July, 2014. See: http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2014/07/ftc-alleges-t-mobile-crammed-bogus-charges-customers-phone-bills

[2] 'Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks', Adam D. I. Kramera,1, Jamie E. Guilloryb, and Jeffrey T. Hancock, published March 25, 2014. See:http://www.pnas.org/content/111/24/8788.full.pdf+html?sid=2610b655-db67-453d-bcb6-da4efeebf534

[3] 'U.S. sues T-Mobile USA, alleges bogus charges on phone bills, Reuters published 1st July, 2014 See: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/01/us-tmobile-ftc-idUSKBN0F656E20140701

[4] 'The Cost of Reading Privacy Policies', Aleecia M. McDonald and Lorrie Faith Cranor, published I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society 2008 Privacy Year in Review issue. See: http://lorrie.cranor.org/pubs/readingPolicyCost-authorDraft.pdf

[5] 'Reading the Privacy Policies You Encounter in a Year Would Take 76 Work Days', Alexis C. Madrigal, published The Atlantic, March 2012 See: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/03/reading-the-privacy-policies-you-encounter-in-a-year-would-take-76-work-days/253851/

[6] Facebook Legal Terms. See: https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms

[7] 'Facebook's Eroding Privacy Policy: A Timeline', Kurt Opsahl, Published Electronic Frontier Foundation , April 28, 2010 See:https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/04/facebook-timeline

[8] Facebook Data Use Policy. See: https://www.facebook.com/about/privacy/

[9] 'When ‘Liking’ a Brand Online Voids the Right to Sue', Stephanie Strom, published in New York Times on April 16, 2014 See: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/17/business/when-liking-a-brand-online-voids-the-right-to-sue.html?ref=business

[10] Explaining our website privacy policy and legal terms, published April 17, 2014 See:http://www.blog.generalmills.com/2014/04/explaining-our-website-privacy-policy-and-legal-terms/#sthash.B5URM3et.dpufhttp://www.blog.generalmills.com/2014/04/explaining-our-website-privacy-policy-and-legal-terms/

[11] General Mills Amends New Legal Policies, Stephanie Strom, published in New York Times on 1http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/18/business/general-mills-amends-new-legal-policies.html?_r=0

[12] Edward Snowden Statement to European Parliament published March 7, 2014. See: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/document/activities/cont/201403/20140307ATT80674/20140307ATT80674EN.pdf

[13] Progress on EU data protection reform now irreversible following European Parliament vote, published 12 March 201 See: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-14-186_en.htm

[14] European Court of Justice rules Internet Search Engine Operator responsible for Processing Personal Data Published by Third Parties, Jyoti Panday, published on CIS blog on May 14, 2014. See: http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/ecj-rules-internet-search-engine-operator-responsible-for-processing-personal-data-published-by-third-parties

[15] Complaint regarding Apple iCloud’s terms and conditions , published on 13 May 2014 See:http://www.forbrukerradet.no/_attachment/1175090/binary/29927

[16] 'Facebook faces UK probe over emotion study' See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-28102550

[17] Our Reaction to the FTC Lawsuit See: http://newsroom.t-mobile.com/news/our-reaction-to-the-ftc-lawsuit.htm

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/reading-between-the-lines-service-providers-terms-and-conditions-and-consumer-rights

Re: The Human DNA Profiling Bill, 2012

bhairav — 2013-10-29T10:00:47Z

This short note speaks to legal issues arising from the proposed Human DNA Profiling Bill, 2012 ("DBT Bill") that was circulated drafted under the aegis of the Department of Biotechnology of the Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India, which seeks to collect human DNA samples, profile them and store them. These comments are made clause-by-clause against the DBT Bill.

Note: Clause-by-clause comments on the Working Draft version of April 29, 2012 from the Centre for Internet and Society

This short note speaks to legal issues arising from the proposed Human DNA Profiling Bill, 2012 ("DBT Bill") that was circulated within the Experts Committee constituted under the aegis of the Department of Biotechnology of the Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India.
This note must be read against the relevant provisions of the DBT Bill and, where indicated, together with the proposed Forensic DNA Profiling (Regulation) Bill, 2013 that was drafted by the Centre for Internet & Society, Bangalore ("CIS Bill"). These comments must also be read alongside the two-page submission titled “A Brief Note on the Forensic DNA Profiling (Regulation) Bill, 2013” ("CIS Note"). Whereas the aforesaid CIS Note raised issues that informed the drafting of the CIS Bill, this present note seeks to provide legal comments on the DBT Bill.
Preamble
The DBT Bill, in its current working form, lacks a preamble. No doubt, a preamble will be added later once the text of the DBT Bill is finalised. Instead, the DBT Bill contains an introduction. It must be borne in mind that the purpose of the legislation should be spelt out in the preamble since preambular clauses have interpretative value. [See, A. Thangal Kunju Musaliar AIR 1956 SC 246; Burrakur Coal Co. Ltd. AIR 1961 SC 954; and Arnit Das (2000) 5 SCC 488]. Hence, a preamble that states the intent of Parliament to create permissible conditions for DNA source material collection, profiling, retention and forensic use in criminal trials is necessary.
Objects Clause
An ‘objects clause,’ detailing the intention of the legislature and containing principles to inform the application of a statute, in the main body of the statute is an enforceable mechanism to give directions to a statute and can be a formidable primary aid in statutory interpretation. [See, for example, section 83 of the Patents Act, 1970 that directly informed the Order of the Controller of Patents, Mumbai, in the matter of NATCO Pharma and Bayer Corporation in Compulsory Licence Application No. 1 of 2011.] Therefore, the DBT Bill should incorporate an objects clause that makes clear that (i) the principles of notice, confidentiality, collection limitation, personal autonomy, purpose limitation and data minimisation must be adhered to at all times; (ii) DNA profiles merely estimate the identity of persons, they do not conclusively establish unique identity; (iii) all individuals have a right to privacy that must be continuously weighed against efforts to collect and retain DNA; (iv) centralised databases are inherently dangerous because of the volume of information that is at risk; (v) forensic DNA profiling is intended to have probative value; therefore, if there is any doubt regarding a DNA profile, it should not be received in evidence by a court; (vi) once adduced, the evidence created by a DNA profile is only corroborative and must be treated on par with other biometric evidence such as fingerprint measurements.
Definitions
The definition of “analytical procedure” in clause 2(1)(a) of the DBT Bill is practically redundant and should be removed. It is used only twice – in clauses 24 and 66(2)(p) which give the DNA Profiling Board the power to frame procedural regulations. In the absence of specifying the content of any analytical procedure, the definition serves no purpose.
The definition of “audit” in clause 2(1)(b) is relevant for measuring the training programmes and laboratory conditions specified in clauses 12(f) and 27. However, the term “audit” is subsequently used in an entirely different manner in Chapter IX which relates to financial information and transparency. This is a conflicting definition. The term “audit” has a well-established use for financial information that does not require a definition. Hence, this definition should be removed.
The definition of “calibration” in clause 2(1)(d) is redundant and should be removed since the term is not meaningfully used in the DBT Bill.
The definition of “DNA Data Bank” in clause 2(1)(h) is unnecessary. The DBT Bill seeks to establish a National DNA Data Bank, State DNA Data Banks and Regional DNA Data Banks vide clause 32. These national, state and regional databases must be defined individually with reference to their establishment clauses. Defining a “DNA Data Bank”, exclusive of the national, state and regional databases, creates the assumption that any private individual can start and maintain a database. This is a drafting error.
The definition of “DNA Data Bank Manager” in clause 2(1)(i) is misleading since, in the text of the DBT Bill, it is only used in relation to the proposed National DNA Data Bank and never in relation to the State and Regional Data Banks. If it is the intention of DBT Bill that only the national database should have a manager, the definition should be renamed to ‘National DNA Data Bank Manager’ and the clause should specifically identify the National DNA Data Bank. This is a drafting error.
The definition of “DNA laboratory” in clause 2(1)(j) should refer to the specific clauses that empower the Central Government and State Governments to license and recognise DNA laboratories. This is a drafting error.
The definition of “DNA profile” in clause 2(1)(l) is too vague. Merely the results of an analysis of a DNA sample may not be sufficient to create an actual DNA profile. Further, the results of the analysis may yield DNA information that, because of incompleteness or lack of information, is inconclusive. These incomplete bits of information should not be recognised as DNA profiles. This definition should be amended to clearly specify the contents of a complete and valid DNA profile that contains, at least, numerical representations of 17 or more loci of short tandem repeats that are sufficient to estimate biometric individuality of a person.
The definition of “forensic material” in clause 2(1)(o) needs to be amended to remove the references to intimate and non-intimate body samples. If the references are retained, then evidence collected from a crime scene, where an intimate or non-intimate collection procedure was obviously not followed, will not fall within the scope of “forensic material”.
The terms “intimate body sample” and “non-intimate body sample” that are defined in clauses 2(1)(q) and 2(1)(v) respectively are not used anywhere outside the definitions clause except for an inconsequential reference to non-intimate body samples only in the rule-making provision of clause 66(2)(zg). “Intimate body sample” is not used anywhere outside the definitions clause. Both these definitions are redundant and should be removed.
The terms “intimate forensic procedure” and “non-intimate forensic procedure”, that are defined in clauses 2(1)(r) and 2(1)(w) respectively, are not used anywhere except for an inconsequential reference of non-intimate forensic procedure in the rule-making provision of clause 66(2)(zg). “Intimate forensic procedure” is not used anywhere outside the definitions clause. Both these definitions are redundant and should be removed.
The term “known samples” that is defined in clause 2(1)(s) is not used anywhere outside the definitions clause and should be removed for redundancy.
The definition of “offender” in clause 2(1)(y) if vague because it does not specify the offences for which an “offender” need be convicted. It is also linked to an unclear definition of the term “undertrial”, which does not specify the nature of pending criminal proceedings and, therefore, could be used to describe simple offences such as, for example, failure to pay an electricity bill, which also attracts criminal penalties.
The term “proficiency testing” that is defined in clause 2(1)(zb) is not used anywhere in the text of the DBT Bill and should be removed.
The definitions of “quality assurance”, “quality manual” and “quality system” serve no enforceable purpose since they are used only in relation to the DNA Profiling Board’s rule-making powers under clauses 18 and 66. Their inclusion in the definitions clause is redundant. Accordingly, these definitions should be removed.
The term “suspect” defined in clause 2(1)(zi) is vague and imprecise. The standard by which suspicion is to be measured, and by whom suspicion may be entertained – whether police or others, has not been specified. The term “suspect” is not defined in either the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("CrPC") or the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC").
The DNA Profiling Board
Clause 3 of the DBT Bill, which provides for the establishment of the DNA Profiling Board, contains a sub-clause (2) which vests the Board with corporate identity. This vesting of legal personality in the DNA Profiling Board – when other boards and authorities, even ministries and independent departments, and even the armed forces do not enjoy this function – is ill-advised and made without sufficient thought. Bodies corporate may be corporations sole – such the President of India, or corporations aggregate – such as companies. The intent of corporate identity is to create a fictional legal personality where none previously existed in order for the fictional legal personality to exist apart from its members, enjoy perpetual succession and to sue in its own legal name. Article 300 of the Constitution of India vests the Central Government with legal personality in the legal name of the Union of India and the State Governments with legal personality in the legal names of their respective states. Apart from this constitutional dispensation, some regulatory authorities, such as the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India ("TRAI") and the Securities and Exchange Board of India ("SEBI") have been individually vested with legal personalities as bodies corporate to enable their autonomous governance and independent functioning to secure their ability to free, fairly and impartially regulate the market free from governmental or private collusion. Similarly, some overarching national commissions, such as the Election Commission of India and the National Human Rights Commission ("NHRC") have been vested with the power to sue and be sued in their own names. In comparison, the DNA Profiling Board is neither an independent market regulator nor an overarching national commission with judicial powers. There is no legal reason for it to be vested with a legal personality on par with the Central Government or a company. Therefore, clause 3(2) should be removed.
The size and composition of the Board that is staffed under clause 4 is extremely large. Creating unwieldy and top-heavy bureaucratic authorities and investing them with regulatory powers, including the powers of licensing, is avoidable. The DBT Bill proposes to create a Board of 16 members, most of them from a scientific background and including a few policemen and one legal administrator. In its present form, the Board is larger than many High Courts but does not have a single legal member able to conduct licensing. Drawing from the experiences of other administrative and regulatory bodies in India, the size of the Board should be drastically reduced to no more than five members, at least half of whom should be lawyers or ex-judges. The change in the legal composition of the Board is necessary because the DBT Bill contemplates that it will perform the legal function of licensing that must obey basic tenets of administrative law. The current membership may be viable only if the Board is divested of its administrative and regulatory powers and left with only scientific advice functions. Moreover, stacking the Board with scientists and policemen appears to ignore the perils that DNA collection and retention pose to the privacy of ordinary citizens and their criminal law rights. The Board should have adequate representation from the human rights community – both institutional (e.g NHRC and the State Human Rights Commissions) and non-institutional (well-regarded and experienced human rights activists). The Board should also have privacy advocates.
Clauses 5(2) and 5(3) establish an unequal hierarchy within the Board by privileging some members with longer terms than others. There is no good reason for why the Vice-Chancellor of a National Law University, the Director General of Police of a State, the Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory and the Director of a State Forensic Science Laboratory should serve membership terms on the Board that are longer than those of molecular biologists, population geneticists and other scientists. Such artificial hierarchies should be removed at the outset. The Board should have one pre-eminent chairperson and other equal members with equal terms.
The Chairperson of the Board, who is first mentioned in clause 5(1), has not been duly and properly appointed. Clause 4 should be modified to mention the appointment of the Chairperson and other Members.
Clause 7 deals with the issue of conflict of interest in narrow cases. The clause requires members to react on a case-by-case basis to the business of the Board by recusing themselves from deliberations and voting where necessary. Instead, it may be more appropriate to require members to make a full and public disclosures of their real and potential conflicts of interest, and then granting the Chairperson the power to prevent such members from voting on interested matters. Failure to follow these anti-collusion and anti-corruption safeguards should attract criminal penalties.
Clause 10 anticipates the appointment of a Chief Executive Officer of the Board who shall be a serving Joint Secretary to the Central Government. Clause 10(3) further requires this officer to be scientist. This may not be possible because the administrative hierarchy of the Central Government may not contain a genetic scientist.
The functions of the Board specified in clause 12 are overbroad. Advising ministries, facilitating governments, recommending the size of funds and so on – these are administrative and governance functions best left to the executive. Once the Board is modified to have sufficient legal and human rights representation, then the functions of the Board can non-controversially include licensing, developing standards and norms, safeguarding privacy and other rights, ensuring public transparency, promoting information and debate and a few other limited functions necessary for a regulatory authority.
DNA Laboratories
The provisions of Chapters V and VI may be simplified and merged.
DNA Data Banks
The creation of multiple indices in clause 32(4) cannot be justified and must be removed. The collection of biological source material is an invasion of privacy that must be conducted only in strict conditions when the potential harm to individuals is outweighed by the public good. This balance may only be struck when dealing with the collection and profiling of samples from certain categories of offenders. The implications of collecting and profiling DNA samples from corpses, suspects, missing persons and others are vast and have either not been properly understood or deliberately ignored. At this moment, the forcible collection of biological source material should be restricted to the categories of offenders mentioned in the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 ("Prisoners Act") with a suitable addition for persons arrested in connection with certain specified terrorism-related offences. Therefore, databases should contain only an offenders’ index and a crime scene index.
Clause 32(6), which requires the names of individuals to be connected to their profiles, and hence accessible to persons connected with the database, should be removed. DNA profiles, once developed, should be anonymised and retained separate from the names of their owners.
Clause 36, which allows international disclosures of DNA profiles of Indians, should be removed immediately. Whereas an Indian may have legal remedies against the National DNA Data Bank, he/she certainly will not be able to enforce any rights against a foreign government or entity. This provision will be misused to rendition DNA profiles abroad for activities not permitted in India. Similarly, as in data protection regimes around the world, DNA profiles should remain within jurisdictions with high privacy and other legal standards.
Use
The only legitimate purpose for which DNA profiles may be used is for establishing the identity of individuals in criminal trials and confirming their presence or absence from a certain location. Accordingly, clauses 39 and 40 should be re-drafted to specify this sole forensic purpose and also specify the manner in which DNA profiles may be received in evidence. For more information on this point, see the relevant provisions of the CIS Note and the CIS Bill.
The disclosure of DNA profiles should only take place to a law enforcement agency conducting a valid investigation into certain offences and to courts currently trying the individuals to whom the DNA profiles pertains. All other disclosures of DNA profiles should be made illegal. Non-consensual disclosure of DNA profiles for the study of population genetics is specifically illegal. The DBT Bill does not prescribe stringent criminal penalties and other mechanisms to affix individual liability on individual scientists and research institutions for improper use of DNA profiles; it is therefore open to the criticism that it seeks to sacrifice individual rights of persons, including the fundamental right to privacy, without parallel remedies and penalties. Clause 40 should be removed in entirety.
Clause 43 should be removed in entirety. This note does not contemplate the retention of DNA profiles of suspects and victims, except as derived from a crime scene.
Clause 45 sets out a post-conviction right related to criminal procedure and evidence. This would fundamentally alter the nature of India’s criminal justice system, which currently does not contain specific provisions for post-conviction testing rights. However, courts may re-try cases in certain narrow cases when fresh evidence is brought forth that has a nexus to the evidence upon which the person was convicted and if it can be proved that the fresh evidence was not earlier adduced due to bias. Any other fresh evidence that may be uncovered cannot prompt a new trial. Clause 45 is implicated by Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India and by section 300 of the CrPC. The principle of autrefois acquit that informs section 300 of the CrPC specifically deals with exceptions to the rule against double jeopardy that permit re-trials. [See, for instance, Sangeeta Mahendrabhai Patel (2012) 7 SCC 721].

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/re-the-human-dna-profiling-bill-2012

Re-thinking Key Escrow

natasha — 2011-08-22T11:44:21Z

Would you make duplicates of your house keys and hand them over to the local police authority? And if so, would you feel safe? Naturally, one would protest this invasion of privacy. Similarly, would it be justified for the government to have a copy of the private key to intercept and decrypt communications? This is the idea behind key escrow; it enables government ‘wiretapping’.

The evolution of technology has allowed for increased communication and interconnectedness among people, markets and institutions all over the globe. This has increasingly facilitated the transaction and exchange of all kinds of information. However, this has raised major ethical concerns surrounding the privacy of communication and security of information. Key encryption is an important tool developed to preserve an individual’s privacy. It involves transforming information, so as to ensure that it is unreadable. The need for encryption is irrefutable.

Governments and authorities are concerned with the difficulties associated with accessing and intercepting the encrypted communication. For lawful interception a recovery key is escrowed with a trusted third party. Key escrow is controversial as it is vulnerable to lawful interception and has the potential to threaten the security of sensitive and personal data. In India, key escrow is a requirement under the Indian Internet Service Provider (ISP) license. This means that an ISP, a law enforcement agency, or other party has the potential to partake in covert surveillance and maliciously use the key, thereby compromising the data.

In a short video Jim X. Dempsey, Vice President of Public Policy at the Centre for Democracy and Technology in Washington, DC reviews the public policy battle over key escrow in the United States that took place in the 1990's. At the time the U.S government’s approach to encryption technology involved the use of key escrow in communication devices. One danger of using key escrow in this way was that it allowed for the commercial use of encryption technology, provided that a copy of the private key is held in escrow by the U.S. government. The use of key escrow also permitted the U.S. government to decrypt all data transmitted across communication networks. The risks associated with the use of key escrow led to widespread dissatisfaction from the private sector in the U.S., which ultimately led to the rejection of encryption technology by the President and Congress. In response to the strong negative feedback given by different stakeholders, the US government lifted the controls on encryption technology thereby allowing it to become widely available.

The use of key escrow in India should be seriously reconsidered. Foremost, it subverts basic constitutional practices by violating various freedoms and civil liberties guaranteed in the fundamental rights. Secondly, it threatens the security of personal information. Lastly, it could significantly hinder the growth of e-commerce, transactions, and purchases made over the Internet. The Indian government should take into consideration the failed attempt in implementing the system of key escrow in the United States when deciding on whether or not to implement the use of key escrow in India.

Please see Jim Dempsey’s account on the Short History of Key Escrow.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/privacy/key-escrow