Centre for Internet and Society

How Facebook is Blatantly Abusing our Trust

nishant — 2012-06-28T12:42:32Z

‘Don’t fix it, if it ain’t broken’ is not an adage Facebook seems to subscribe to. Nishant Shah's column on privacy and Facebook was published in First Post on June 27, 2012.

Facebook is just re-emerging from the controversies around how it conducted the voting on its new privacy policies, when it goes and digs itself deeper by trying to push down its email services down the throats of its users. If you have recently logged-in to Facebook, you will have received a notification that says that you have been ‘gifted’ with a free Facebook email account.

However, that is a later phenomenon. A couple of days ago, the whole community of Facebook users went about their usual way, without knowing that something substantial had changed.

Facebook, who launched their email service as a part of their social networking empire, with or without your consent, has given us a ‘yourname@facebook.com’ email account. I know free things are considered good, but not an email account that I did not sign up for!

And to make things worse, this email account was, without our consent, added to our time-line and displayed as the primary email address.

In itself, it is a small move – with the redesign of the Timeline, Facebook had already introduced many such forced disclosures and changes that most of just had to accept, even if it might have had us fuming. However, with this change, Facebook has now started showing exactly what it can do in building your public profile and creating information about you, without your consent.

In their lame PR spiel, the company tried to pass it off as a freebie that they were gifting their users. But anybody who was not born yesterday realises that this is a desperate attempt to make a floundering service work.

Facebook messaging may work despite the clunky user interface, but its email services remain terribly underused. One of the paradoxes for this lies in the fact that you cannot open a Facebook account without a primary email account with another service, which is used as your authentication as well as the system through which Facebook notifications work.

Thus, many times, when introducing Facebook to first-time users of the web, we have to first train them in creating and using an email account before they can get on to the social network.

Hence, when Facebook did offer users the option of using a Facebook email service, most of them politely declined because nobody in their right mind is going to migrate to new a email services unless there was a substantial range of benefits being offered.

So how did Facebook respond? It just forced the email service upon its millions of users. While this is no different from the other kind of restrictions that are imposed upon us within the Facebook universe – the advertisements we see, the design and layout, the insipid white-and-blue background, the kind of information we can and cannot share and display – etc. this is the first time that Facebook actually added to our information profile and displayed it to the public.

Which means, that the next time somebody looks you up on Facebook – and let’s face it, one of the things we all use Facebook for, is to find people we know and get connected with them – they will see your Facebook email id listed as your contact address. And while you might get a notification in your primary email about any mails that you receive in your Facebook account, the fact is that, all those emails will become a part of Facebook’s huge data farms.

In a move that is almost a pale imitation of Google’s growing monopoly over our private information, Facebook seems to be now looking to expand its data empires. However, while Google did it through strategic design and marketing, offering innovations and incentives for its users to use their services, Facebook seems to have decided to build a Trojan horse and sneak these services in through the back door.

While this might not seem a big deal right now, it has deeper repercussions for what this corporate behemoth can do, not only with our data, but also to our data that we think is actually our own.

If your alarm bells aren’t already ringing, they should be, as Facebook demonstrates a blatant abuse of the trust that we have put in its system, to keep our private data safe.

The million dollar question – or maybe a slightly reduced price, given its public listing status on the stock-exchange right now – is that while Facebook might keep us safe from other people using our data, will it also be able to keep us safe from itself?

Read the original here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/how-facebook-is-blatantly-abusing-our-trust

How data privacy and governance issues have battered Facebook ahead of 2019 polls

Admin — 2018-12-25T01:43:59Z

Rohit S, an airline pilot, had enough of Facebook. With over 1,000 friends and part of at least a dozen groups on subjects ranging from planes to politics, the 34-year-old found himself constantly checking his phone for updates and plunging headlong into increasingly noisy debates, where he had little personal connect.

The article by Rahul Sachitanand was published in Economic Times on December 9, 2018. Elonnai Hickok was quoted.

While he had originally signed up with Facebook a decade ago to reconnect with school classmates, he found himself more and more disconnected from the sprawl the social network had become. “It was a mess of impersonal shares, unverified half-truths and barely any personal updates,” he says, a week after permanently logging out. “I’d rather reconnect the old-fashioned way.”

This kind of user disenchantment has become increasingly common among Facebook users. Many like Rohit, who signed up with more altruistic aims, find themselves distanced by how the social networking platform has evolved.

All through 2018, Facebook and its embattled cofounder, Mark Zuckerberg, have found themselves battling one fire after another. Starting with the mess involving Cambridge Analytica and ending with the document dump unearthed by UK’s Parliament this week (that showed the firm as a cut-throat corporation at best), this has been a year to forget. “Unfortunately, Facebook cannot be trusted with the privacy of its users’ data,” says Alessandro Acquisti, professor, Carnegie Mellon University. “Time and again, Facebook has shown a cavalier attitude towards the handling of users’ data as well as towards informing users clearly and without deception about the actual extent of Facebook’s data collection and handling policies.”

This perception has caused problems with Facebook, both around the world and at home, with privacy advocates pushing for stronger monitoring to counter the seeming free reign enjoyed by the platform.

Mishi Choudhary, legal director of Software Freedom Law Center in the US and Mishi Choudhary and Associates, a New Delhi-law firm, says the pay-for-data model necessitates a stronger data protection regime that doesn’t leave users at the mercy of self-governing corporate entities.

“The contrast between Facebook’s public statements and private strategies to monetise user data reveals the truth of surveillance capitalism carried out stealthily and steadily,” she says.

In an election year in India, this could cause problems for Facebook.

The company has already tried to clean up its act, implementing more transparent political advertising norms and looking to clean up fake news claims (on itself and WhatsApp, the messaging platform it owns) to try to win back user trust. Facebook has also launched video monetisation capabilities and Lasso, a short video offering similar to Tik Tok, the Chinese startup that has been massively popular here. The company, that has over 250 million users in India, plans to train five million people on digital technologies in three years, to try to increase awareness.

Facebook didn’t respond to an email seeking more specific comments for this piece.

In a country where privacy legislation is yet in the works, experts are worried about the overt and covert interest in users’ private data. Hundreds of millions of users here, many unwittingly, accepting user terms and giving apps too many permissions could easily give away confidential information, the experts argue. This is especially so in the case of Android users in the country, who access the web on cheap handsets and don’t have a full understanding of what they sign up for. “Very few people know about the origin or provenance of apps that they download or what data they track or phone features that they access,” says Shiv Putcha, founder and principal analyst, Mandala Insights, a telecom consultancy. “These are all potential security breaches of a massive order.”

Alessandro Acquisti, professor, Carnegie Mellon University. This situation has privacy advocates closely watching Facebook and pushing for more stringent rules to monitor the company. "The criticality of human rights impact assessment for all products and services by companies like Facebook is underscored," says Elonnai Hickok, from the Centre for Internet and Society, a think tank in Bengaluru. "To build user trust, these assessments should be made public."

As India finalises its privacy legislation, it is important to ensure that such assessments are undertaken according to law, citizens and their rights are upheld and companies are held accountable. "This also demonstrates that India needs a privacy legislation that allows the government to address a situation if data of Indian citizens is impacted."

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/economic-times-rahul-sachitanand-december-9-2018-how-data-privacy-and-governance-issues-have-battered-facebook

How Aadhaar compromises privacy? And how to fix it?

sunil — 2017-04-01T07:00:06Z

Aadhaar is mass surveillance technology. Unlike targeted surveillance which is a good thing, and essential for national security and public order – mass surveillance undermines security. And while biometrics is appropriate for targeted surveillance by the state – it is wholly inappropriate for everyday transactions between the state and law abiding citizens.

The op-ed was published in the Hindu on March 31, 2017.

When assessing a technology, don't ask - “what use is it being put to today?”. Instead, ask “what use can it be put to tomorrow and by whom?”. The original noble intentions of the Aadhaar project will not constrain those in the future that want to take full advantage of its technological possibilities. However, rather than frame the surveillance potential of Aadhaar in a negative tone as three problem statements - I will propose three modifications to the project that will reduce but not eliminate its surveillance potential.

Shift from biometrics to smart cards: In January 2011, the Centre for Internet and Society had written to the parliamentary finance committee that was reviewing what was then called the “National Identification Authority of India Bill 2010”. We provided nine reasons for the government to stop using biometrics and instead use an open smart card standard. Biometrics allows for identification of citizens even when they don't want to be identified. Even unconscious and dead citizens can be identified using biometrics. Smart cards, on the other hand, require pins and thus citizens' conscious cooperation during the identification process. Once you flush your smart cards down the toilet nobody can use them to identify you. Consent is baked into the design of the technology. If the UIDAI adopts smart cards, we can destroy the centralized database of biometrics just like the UK government did in 2010 under Theresa May's tenure as Home Secretary. This would completely eliminate the risk of foreign governments, criminals and terrorists using the biometric database to remotely, covertly and non-consensually identify Indians.

Destroy the authentication transaction database: The Aadhaar Authentication Regulations 2016 specifies that transaction data will be archived for five years after the date of the transaction. Even though the UIDAI claims that this is a zero knowledge database from the perspective of “reasons for authentication”, any big data expert will tell you that it is trivial to guess what is going on using the unique identifiers for the registered devices and time stamps that are used for authentication. That is how they put Rajat Gupta and Raj Rajratnam in prison. There was nothing in the payload ie. voice recordings of the tapped telephone conversations – the conviction was based on meta-data. Smart cards based on open standards allow for decentralized authentication by multiple entities and therefore eliminate the need for a centralized transaction database.

Prohibit the use of Aadhaar number in other databases: We must, as a nation, get over our obsession with Know Your Customer [KYC] requirements. For example, for SIM cards there is no KYC requirement is most developed countries. Our insistence on KYC has only resulted in retardation of Internet adoption, a black market for ID documents and unnecessary wastage of resources by telecom companies. It has not prevented criminals and terrorists from using phones. Where we must absolutely have KYC for the purposes of security, elimination of ghosts and regulatory compliance – we must use a token issued by UIDAI instead of the Aadhaar number itself. This would make it harder for unauthorized parties to combine databases while at the same time, enabling law enforcement agencies to combine databases using the appropriate authorizations and infrastructure like NATGRID. The NATGRID, unlike Aadhaar, is not a centralized database. It is a standard and platform for the express assembly of sub-sets of up to 20 databases which is then accessed by up to 12 law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

To conclude, even as a surveillance project – Aadhaar is very poorly designed. The technology needs fixing today, the law can wait for tomorrow.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/hindu-op-ed-sunil-abraham-march-31-2017-how-aadhaar-compromises-privacy-and-how-to-fix-it

Holding ID Issuers Accountable, What Works?

Shruti Trikanad and Amber Sinha — 2019-08-08T10:23:58Z

Together with the Institute of Technology & Society (ITS), Brazil, and the Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Technology Law (CIPIT), Kenya, CIS participated at a side event in RightsCon 2019 held in Tunisia, titled Holding ID Issuers Accountable, What Works?, organised by the Omidyar Network. The event was attended by researchers and advocates from nearly 20 countries. Read the event report here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/holding-id-issuers-accountable-what-works

HillHacks 2019

Admin — 2019-06-05T14:41:44Z

Karan Saini was a speaker at HillHacks 2019 organized by HillHacks in Bir, Himachal Pradesh from May 24 to May 26, 2019.

Karan's talk was on using web applications for intelligence gathering purposes. For more info on the event, click here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/hillhacks-2019

High Level Comparison and Analysis of the Use and Regulation of DNA Based Technology Bill 2017

elonnai — 2017-08-11T02:16:52Z

This blog post seeks to provide a high level comparison of the 2017 and 2015 DNA Profiling Bill - calling out positive changes, remaining issues, and missing provisions.

In July 2017 the Law Commission published a report on DNA profiling and the “Draft Use and Regulation of DNA Based Technology Bill 2017”. India has been contemplating a draft DNA Profiling Bill since 2007. There have been two publicly available versions of the bill, 2012, and 2015, and one version in 2016. In 2013, the Department of Biotechnology formulated an Expert Committee to discuss different aspects and issues raised regarding the Bill towards finalizing the text. The Centre for Internet and Society was a member of the Expert Committee, and in its conclusion, issued a note of dissent to the Expert Committee for DNA Profiling.

This post provides a high level overview of the Use and Regulation of DNA Based Technology Bill 2017 and calls out positive changes from the 2015 Bill, remaining issues, and missing provisions. The post also calls out if, and where, CIS's recommendations to the Expert Committee have been incorporated.

If enacted, the 2017 Bill will establish national and regional DNA data banks that will maintain five different types of indices: a crime scene index, missing persons, offenders, suspects, and unknown deceased persons. The data banks will be led by a Director, responsible for communicating information with requesting entities, foreign states, and international organizations. Information relating to DNA profiles, DNA samples, and records maintained in a DNA laboratory can be made available in six instances: to law enforcement and investigating agencies, in judicial proceedings, for facilitating prosecution and adjudication of criminal cases, for taking defence of an accused, for investigation of civil disputes, and other cases which might be specified by regulations. Offences related to unauthorized disclosure of information in the DNA data bank, obtaining information from DNA data banks without authorization, unlawful access to information in the DNA Data Bank, using DNA sample or result without authorization, and destroying, altering, contaminating, or tampering with biological evidence.

Below are some key positive changes from the 2015 Bill, remaining issues, and missing safeguards from the 2017 Bill:

Positive Changes: The Bill contains a number of positive changes from the 2015 draft. Key ones include:

Consent: Section 21 prohibits the taking of samples from arrested persons without consent, except in the case of a specified offence - a specified offence being any offence punishable with death or imprisonment for a term exceeding seven years. If consent is refused, a magistrate can order the taking of the sample. This can be in the case of any matter listed in the Schedule of the Act. Section 22 provides for consent from volunteers. It is important to note that despite being an improvement from the 2015 Bill, which did not address instances of collection with our without consent, this provision is still broad as the list of offences under the Schedule is expansive and can be further expanded by the Central Government. Furthermore, the Magistrate can overrule a refusal of consent of the parent or guardian of a voluneet who is a minor, which does not provide adequate protection to childrens' rights.
Deletion: Section 31 defines instances for deletion of suspect profiles, under trial profiles, and all other profiles. Though a step in the right direction, as the 2015 Bill only addressed retention and deletion of the offenders index, this provision does not address the automatic removal of innocents.
Purpose limitation: Section 33 limits the purpose of profiles in the DNA Data Bank to that of facilitating identification. This is a positive step from the 2015 Bill - which enabled use of DNA profiles for the creation and maintenance of a population statistics data bank. Section 34 also limits the purposes for which information relating to DNA profiles, samples, and records can be made available.
Destruction of samples: Section 20 defines instances for destruction of DNA samples. Destruction of samples was not address in the 2015 Bill, and is an important protection as it prevents samples from being re-analyzed.
Comparison of profiles: Section 29 clarifies that if the individual is not an offender or a suspect, their information will not be compared with DNA profiles in the offenders’ or suspects index. This creates an important distinction between types of indices held in the data bank and the purpose for the same i.e missing persons are not treated as potential offenders. In the 2015 Bill, profiles entered in the offenders or crime scene index could be compared by the DNA Data Bank Manger against all profiles contained in the DNA Data Bank.
Re-testing: Section 24 allows for an accused person to request for a re-examination of fresh bodily substances if it is believed the sample has been contaminated. The closest provision to this in the 2015 was the creation a post - conviction right for DNA profiling - which is now deleted. It is important to note that fresh samples can easily be obtained from individuals, but if contamination happens at a crime scene, it is much more difficult to obtain a fresh sample.
Limiting Indices and including a crime scene index: The 2017 Bill limits the number of indices to five - a crime scene index, missing persons, offenders, suspects, and unknown deceased persons. This is an improvement from the 2015 Bill which provides for the maintenance of indices in the DNA Bank and includes a missing person’s index, an unknown deceased person’s index, a volunteers’ index, and such other DNA indices as may be specified by regulation.

Remaining Issues: There are some remaining issues in the 2017 Bill. Some of these include:

Delegating and Expanding through Regulation: The Bill delegates a number of procedures to regulation - many which should be in the text of the Bill. For example: the format for receiving and storing DNA profiles, and additional criteria for entry, retention, and deletion of DNA profiles. Furthermore, a number of provisions allow for expansion through regulation. For example, the sources from which DNA can be collected from to be expanded as specified by regulations. Further purposes for making DNA profiles available can be defined by regulation. Important procedures such as privacy and security safeguards are also left to regulation.
Broad Powers and Composition of the Board: The Bill designates twenty one responsibilities to the Board. As pointed out in 1, many of these should be detailed in the text of the legislation.

While serving on the Expert Committee,CIS recommended that the functions of the DNA Profiling Board should be limited to 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. This recommendation has not been incorporated.

Ideally, the Board should also include privacy experts, an expert in ethics, as well as civil society. Towards this, the Board should be comprised of separate Committees to address these different functions. There should be a Committee addressing regulatory issues pertaining to the functioning of Data Banks and Laboratories and an Ethics Committee to provide independent scrutiny of ethical issues.

As a positive note, the reduction of the size of the Board was agreed upon by the Expert Committee from 16 members (2012 Bill) to 11 members. This reccomendation has been incorporated.

CIS also provided language regarding how the Board could consult with the public:The Board, in carrying out its functions and activities, shall be required to consult with all persons and groups of persons whose rights and related interests may be affected or impacted by any DNA collection, storage, or profiling activity. The Board shall, while considering any matter under its purview, co-opt or include any person, group of persons, or organisation, in its meetings and activities if it is satisfied that that person, group of persons, or organisation, has a substantial interest in the matter and that it is necessary in the public interest to allow such participation. The Board shall, while consulting or co-opting persons, ensure that meetings, workshops, and events are conducted at different places in India to ensure equal regional participation and activities. This language has not been fully incorporated

Lack of Authorization Procedure: Though the Bill defines instances of when DNA information can be made available, it fails to establish or refer to an authorization process for making information available and the decision currently seems to rest with the DNA Bank Director.
Expansive Schedule: The Bill creates a schedule containing a list of matters for DNA testing which includes whole acts and a range of civil disputes and matters that are broad and do not relate to criminal cases - most notably “issues relating to immigration or emigration and issues relating to establishment of individual identity.”
Unclear Data Stored: Though the Bill clarifies the circumstance that the identity of the individual will be associated with a profile, it allows for ‘information of data based on DNA testing and records relating thereto” to be stored, yet it is unclear what information this would entail.
Lack of procedures for chain of custody: Presently, the Bill defines quality assurance procedures for a sample that is already at the lab. There are no provisions defining a process for the examination of a crime scene and laying down standards for the chain of custody of a sample from the crime scene to a DNA laboratory.

Missing Safeguards:

There are some safeguards that, if added, would strengthen the Bill and ensure rights to the individual:

Notification to the individual: There are no provisions that ensure that notification is given to an individual if his/her information is accessed or made available.
Right to challenge: There are no provisions that give the individual the right to challenge the storage of their DNA.
Established profiling standard: Though the Law Commission report refers to the 13 CODIS standard, the Bill does not mandate the use of the 13 CODIS profiling standard.
Reporting standard: There are no standards for how matches or other information should be communicated from the DNA director to the authority or receiving entity including instances of partial matches.
Right to access and review: There are no provisions that allow an individual to review his/her information contained in the regional or the national database.
Lack of costing: There is no cost estimate in the report or a requirement for one to be carried out.
Study for the potential for false matches: This must consider the size of the population and large family size, i.e. relatively large numbers of closely related people and is particularly necessary given the the size over population as large as India's.

Importantly, in the DNA Expert Committee, CIS requested the Expert Committee that the Bill be brought in line with the nine national principles defined in the Report of Experts on Privacy led by Justice AP Shah. These include the principles of notice, choice and consent, collection limitation, purpose limitation, access and correction, disclosure of information, security, openness, and accountability. These principles have not been fully incorporated.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/high-level-comparison-and-analysis-of-the-use-and-regulation-of-dna-based-technology-bill-2017

Here’s why we need a lot more discussion on India’s new DNA Profiling Bill

elonnai — 2017-08-21T23:48:03Z

The DNA Profiling Bill 2017 is still missing a number of safeguards that would enable individual rights. The implications of creating regional and national level DNA databanks need to be fully understood and publicly debated.

The article was published in the Hindustan Times on August 7, 2017.

The first step towards a DNA Profiling Bill was taken in 2007 with the ‘Draft DNA Profiling Bill” by the Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics. Since then, there has been a 2012, 2015, and a 2016 version of the Bill - the last not available to the public. In 2013, the Department of Biotechnology formulated an Expert Committee to deliberate on concerns raised about the Bill and finalise the text. The “Use and Regulation of DNA Based Technology Bill 2017” and the report by the Law Commission is a further evolution of the legislation and dialogue. The 2017 Bill contains a number of improvements from previous versions - yet there are still outstanding concerns that remain.

Positive changes in the Bill include provisions for consent, defined instances for deletion of profiles, limitation on purpose of the use of data in the DNA Data Bank, defined instances fo r destruction of biological samples, and the ability for an individual to request a re-test of bodily substances if they believe contamination has occurred.

Despite these changes the Bill still has an overly broad schedule defining instances of when DNA profiling can be used and is missing a number of safeguards that would enable individual rights. These include a right to notification of storage and access to information on the DNA databank, the right to appeal and challenge storage of DNA samples, and right to access and review personal information stored on the DNA Data Bank.

It is concerning that the 2017 Bill has left the defining of privacy and security safeguards to regulation — including implementation and sufficiency of protection, appropriate use and dissemination of DNA information, accuracy, security and confidentiality of DNA information, timely removal and deletion of obsolete or inaccurate DNA information, and other steps as necessary. Furthermore, though the Law Commission cites the use of the 13 CODIS (Combined DNA Index System) profiling standard as a means to protecting privacy in its report — this standard has yet to find its way in the text of the Bill.

The implications of creating regional and national level DNA databanks need to be fully understood and publicly debated. DNA is not foolproof - false matches can take place for multiple reasons. Importantly, the usefulness of DNA based technology to a legal system and the impact on individual rights is dependent and reflective of the social, legal, and political environment the technology is used in. DNA based technology can be a powerful tool for law enforcement, and it is important that a robust process and structure is given to the collection of DNA samples from a crime scene to the laboratory for analysis, to the DNA Bank for storage and comparison, but this structure needs to also be fully cognizant of the rights of individuals and the potential for misuse of the technology.

As society continues to rapidly become more and more data centric, and that data increasingly is a direct extension of the person, it is critical that legislation that is developed has clear protections of rights. In addition to amendments to the text of the draft 2017 Bill, this includes enacting a comprehensive privacy legislation in India. It is worrying that in the conclusion of its report, the Law Commission has referred to whether privacy is an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution as merely “a matter of academic debate.” Privacy is recognised as a fundamental right in many democratic contexts – including many of those reviewed by the Law Commission as examples of contexts with DNA Profiling laws.

Policy needs to evolve past protections that are limited to process oriented legal privacy provisions, but instead to protections that are comprehensive — accounting for process and enabling the individual to control and know how her/his data is being used and by whom. Other countries have recognised this and are taking important steps to empower the individual. India needs to do the same for its citizens.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/hindustan-times-elonnai-hickok-august-7-2017-here-is-why-we-need-a-lot-more-discussion-on-indias-new-dna-profiling-bill

Health Data Management Policies - Differences Between the EU and India

shweta — 2023-07-10T16:36:25Z

Through this issue brief we would like to highlight the differences in approaches to health data management taken by the EU and India, and look at possible recommendations for India, in creating a privacy preserving health data management policy.

This issue brief was reviewed and edited by Pallavi Bedi

Introduction

Health data has seen an increased interest the world over, on account of the amount of information and inferences that can be drawn not just about a person but also about the population in general. The Covid 19 pandemic also brought about an increased focus on health data, and brought players that earlier did not collect health data to be required to collect such data, including offices and public spaces. This increased interest has led to further thought on how health data is regulated and a greater understanding of the sensitivity of such data, because of which countries are in varying processes to get health data regulated over and above the existing data protection regulations. The regulations not only look at ensuring the privacy of the individual but also look at ways in which this data can be shared with companies, researchers and public bodies to foster innovation and to monetise this valuable data. However for a number of countries the effort is still on the digitisation of health data. India has been in the process of implementing a nationwide health ID that can be used by a person to get all their medical records in one place. The National Health Authority (NHA) has also since 2017 been publishing policies that look at the framework and ecosystem of health data, as well as the management and sharing of health data. However these policies and a scattered implementation of the health ID are being carried out without a data protection legislation in place. In comparison, Europe, which already has an established health Id system, and a data protection legislation (GDPR) is looking at the next stage of health data management through the EU Health Data Space (EUHDS). Through this issue brief we would like to highlight the differences in approaches to health data management taken by the EU and India, and look at possible recommendations for India, in creating a privacy preserving health data management policy.

Background

EU Health Data Space

The EU Health Data Space (EUHDS) was proposed by the EU Council as a way to create an ecosystem which combines rules, standards, practices and infrastructure, around health data under a common governance framework. The EUHDS is set to rely on two pillars; namelyMyHealth@EU and HealthData@EU, where MyHealth@EU facilitates easy flow of health data between patients and healthcare professionals within member states, the HealthData@EU,faciliates secondary use of data which allows policy makers,researchers access to health data to foster research and innovation.^{^[1]} The EUHDS aims to provide a trustworthy system to access and process health data and builds up from the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), proposed Data Governance Act.^{^[2]}

India’s health data policies:

The last few years has seen a flurry of health policies and documents being published and the creation of a framework for the evolution of a National Digital Health Ecosystem (NDHE). The components for this ecosystem were the National Digital Health Blueprint published in 2019 (NDHB) and the National Digital Health Mission (NDHM). The BluePrint was created to implement the National Health Stack (published in 2018) which facilitated the creation of Health IDs.^{^[3]} Whereas the NDHM was drafted to drive the implementation of the Blueprint, and promote and facilitate the evolution of NDHE.^{^[4]}

The National Health Authority (NHA) established in 2018 has been given the responsibility of implementing the National Digital Health Mission. 2018 also saw the Digital Information Security in Healthcare Act (DISHA) which was to be a legislation that laid down provisions that regulate the generation, collection, access, storage, transmission and use of Digital Health Data ("DHD") and associated personal data.^{^[5]} However since its call for public consultation no progress has been made on this front.

Along with these three strategy documents the NHA has also released policy documents more particularly the Health Data Management Policy (which was revised three times; the latest version released in April 2022), the Health Data Retention Policy (released April 2021), and the Consultation Paper on Unified Health Interface (UHI) (released March 2021). Along with this in 2022 the NHA released the NHA Data Sharing Guidelines for the Pradhan Mantri Jan Aarogya Yojana (PM-JAY) India’s state health insurance policy.

However these draft guidelines repeat the pattern of earlier policies on health data, wherein there is no reference to the policies that predated it; the PM-JAY’s Data Sharing Guidelines published in August 2022 did not even refer to the draft National Digital Health Data Management Policy (published in April 2022). As stated through the examples above these documents do not cross-refer or mention preceding health data documents, creating a lack of clarity of which documents are being used as guidelines by health care providers.

In addition to this the Personal Data Protection Bill has been revised three times since its release in 2018. The latest version was published for public comments on November 18, 2022; the Bill has removed the distinction between sensitive personal data and personal data and clubbed all personal data under one umbrella heading of personal data. Health and health data definition has also been deleted; creating further uncertainty with respect to health data as the different policies mentioned above rely on the data protection legislation to define health data.

Comparison of the Health Data Management Approaches
Interoperability with Data Protection Legislations

At the outset the key difference between the EU and India’s health data management policies has been the legal backing of GDPR which the EUHDS has. EUHDS has a strong base in terms of rules for privacy and data protection as it follows, draws inference and works in tandem with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The provisions also build upon legislation such as Medical Devices Regulation and the In Vitro Diagnostics Regulation. With particular respect to GDPR the EUHDS draws from the rights set out for protection of personal data including that of electronic health data.

The Indian Health data policies however currently exist in the vacuum created by the multiple versions of the Data Protection Bill that are published and repealed or replaced. The current version called the Digital Personal Data Protection Bill 2022 seems to take a step backward in terms of health data. The current version does away with sensitive personal data (which health data was a part of) and keeps only one category of data - personal data. It can be construed that the Bill currently considers all personal data as needing the same level of protection but it is not so in practice. The Bill does not at the moment mandate more responsibilities on data fiduciaries^{^[6]} that deal with health data (something that was present in all the earlier versions of the Bill) and in other data protection legislation across different jurisdictions and leaves the creation of Significant Data Fiduciaries (who have more responsibilities) to be created by rules, based on the sensitivity of data decided by the government at a later date.^{^[7]} In addition to this the Bill does not define “health data”, the reason why this is a cause for worry is that the existing health data policies also do not define health data often relying on the definition mentioned in the versions of Data Protection Bill.

Definitions and Scope

The EUHDS defines ‘personal electronic health data’ as data concerning health and genetic data as defined in Regulation (EU) 2016/679^{^[8]}, as well as data referring to determinants of health, or data processed in relation to the provision of healthcare services, processed in an electronic form. Health data by these parameters would then include not just data about the status of health of a person which includes reports and diagnosis, but also data from medical devices.

In India the Health Data Management Policy 2022, defines “Personal Health Records” (PHR) as a health record that is initiated and maintained by an individual. The policy also states that a PHR would be able to reveal a complete and accurate summary of the health and medical history of an individual by gathering data from multiple sources and making this accessible online. However there is no definition of health data which can be used by companies or users to know what comes under health data. The 2018, 2019 and 2021 version of the Data Protection Legislation had definitions of the term health data, however the 2022 version of the Bill does away with the definition.

Health data and wearable devices

One of the forward looking provisions in the EUHDS is the inclusion of devices that records health data into this legislation. This also includes the requirement of them to be added to registries to provide easy access and scrutiny. The document also requires voluntary labeling of wellness applications and registration of EHR systems and wellness applications. This is not just for the regulation point of view but also in the case of data portability, in order for people to control the data they share. In addition to this in the case where manufacturers of medical devices and high-risk AI systems declare interoperability with the EHR systems, they will need to comply with the essential requirements on interoperability under the EHDS.

In India the health data management policy 2022 while stating the applicable entities and individuals who are part of the ABDM ecosystem^{^[9]} mention medical device manufacturers, does not mention device sellers or use terms such as wellness applications or wearable devices. Currently the regulation of medical devices falls under the purview of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (DCA) read along with the Medical Device Rules, 2017 (MDR). However in 2020 possibly due to the pandemic the Indian Government along with the Drugs Technical Advisory Board (DTAB) issued two notifications the first one expanded the scope of medical devices which earlier was limited to only 37 categories excluding medical apps, and second one notified the Medical Device (Amendment) Rules, 2020. These two changes together brought all medical devices under the DCA as well as expanded the categories of medical devices. However it is still unclear whether fitness tracker apps that come with devices are regulated, as the rules and the DCA still rely on the manufacturer to self-identify as a medical device.^{^[10]} However, this regulatory uncertainty has not brought about any change in how this data is being used and insurance companies at times encourage people to sync their fitness tracker data.^{^[11]}

Multiple use of health data

The EUHDS states two types of uses of data: primary and secondary use of data. In the document the EU states that while there are a number of organisations collecting data, this data is not made available for purposes other than for which it was collected. In order to ensure that researchers, innovators and policy makers can use this data. the EU encourages the data holders to contribute to this effort in making different categories of electronic health data they are holding available for secondary use. The data that can be used for secondary use would also include user generated data such as from devices, applications or other wearables and digital health applications.However, the regulation cautions against using this data for measures and making decisions that are detrimental to the individual, in ways such as increasing insurance premiums. The EUHDS also states that as the data is sensitive personal data care should be taken by the data access bodies, to ensure that while data is being shared it is necessary to ensure that the data will be processed in a privacy preserving manner. This could include through pseudonymisation, anonymisation, generalisation, suppression and randomisation of personal data.

While the document states how important it is to have secondary use of the data for public health, research and innovation it also requires that the data is not provided without adequate checks. The EUHDS requires the organisation seeking access to provide several pieces of information and be evaluated by the data access body. The information should include legitimate interest, the necessity and the process the data will go through. In the case where the organisation is seeking pseudonymised data, there is a need to explain why anonymous data would not be sufficient. In order to ensure a comprehensive approach between health data access bodies, the EUHDS states that the European Commission should support the harmonisation of data application, as well as data request.

In India, while multiple health data documents state the need to share data for public interest, research and innovation, not much thought has been given to ensuring that the data is not misused and that there is harmonisation between bodies that provide the data. Most recently the PMJay documents states that the NHA shall make aggregated and anonymised data available through a public dashboard for the purpose of facilitating health and clinical research, academic research, archiving, statistical analysis, policy formulation, the development and promotion of diagnostic solutions and such other purposes as may be specified by the NHA. Such data can be accessed through a request to the Data Sharing Committee^{^[12]} for the sharing of such information through secure modes, including clean rooms and other such secure modes specified by NHA. However the document does not mention what clean rooms are in this context.

The Health Data Management Policy 2022 states that Data fiduciaries (data controllers/ processors according to the data protection legislation) can themselves make anonymised or de-identified data in an aggregated form available based in technical processes and anonymisation protocols which may be specified by the NDHM in consultation with the MeitY. The purposes mentioned in this policy included health and clinical research, academic research, archiving, statistical analysis, policy formulation, the development and promotion of diagnostic solutions and such other purposes as may be specified by the NDHMP. The policy states that in order to access the anonymised or de-identified data the entity requesting the data would have to provide relevant information such as name, purpose of use and nodal person of contact details. While the policy does not go into details about the scrutiny of the organisations seeking this data, it does state that the data will be provided based on the term as may be stipulated.

However the issue arises as both the documents published by the NHA do not have a similar process for getting the data, for example the NDHMP requires the data fiduciary to share the data directly, while the PMJay guidelines requires the data to be shared by the Data Sharing Committee, creating duplicate datasets as well as affecting the quality of the data being shared.

Recommendations for India
Need for a data protection legislation:

While the EUHDS is still a draft document and the end result could be different based on the consultations and deliberations, the document has a strong base with respect to the privacy and data protection based on the earlier regulations and the GDPR. The definitions of what counts as health data, and the parameters for managing the data creates a more streamlined process for all stakeholders. More importantly the GDPR and other regulations provide a way of recourse for people. In India the health data related policies and strategy documents have been published and enforced before the data protection legislation is passed. In addition to this India, unlike the EU has just begun looking at a universal health ID and digitisation of the healthcare system, ideally it would be better to take each step at a time, and at first look at the issues that may arise due to the universal health ID. In addition to this, multiple policies, without a strong data protection legislation providing parameters and definitions could mean that the health data management policies only benefit certain people. This also creates uncertainty in terms of where an individual will go in case of harms caused by the processing of their data, and who would be the authority to govern questions around health data. The division of health data management between different documents also creates multiple silos of data management which creates data duplication and issues with data quality.

Secondary use of data

While both the EUHDS and India's Health Data Management Policy look at the sharing of health data with researchers and private organisations in order to foster innovation, the division of sharing of data based on who uses the data is a good way to ensure that only interested parties have access to the data. With respect to the health data policies in India, a number of policies talk about the sharing of anonymised data with researchers, however the documents being scattered could cause the same data to be shared by multiple health data entities, making it possible to identify people. For example, the health data management policy could share anonymised data of health services used by a person, whereas the PMJAY policy could share data about insurance covers, and the researcher could probably match the data and be closer to identifying people. It has also been revealed in multiple studies that anonymisation of data is not permanent and that the anonymisation can be broken. This is more concerning since the polices do not put limits or checks on who the researchers are and what is the end goal of the data sought by them, the policies seem to rely on the anonymisation of the data as the only check for privacy. This data could be used to de-anonymise people, could be used by companies working with the researchers to get large amounts of data to train their systems,

train data that could lead to greater surveillance, increase insurance scrutiny etc. The NHA and Indian health policy makers could look at the restrictions and checks that the EUHDS creates for the secondary use of data and create systems of checks and categories of researchers and organisations seeking data to ensure minimal risks to an individual’s data.

Conclusion

While the EU Health data space has been criticised for facilitating vast amounts of data with private companies and the collecting of data by governments, the codification of the legislation does in some way give some way to regulate the flow of health data. While India does not have to emulate the EU and have a similar document, it could look at the best practices and issues that are being highlighted with the EUHDS. Indian lawmakers have looked at the GDPR for guidance for the draft data protection legislation, similarly it could do so with regard to health data and health data management. One possible way to ensure both the free flow of health data and the safeguards of a regulation could be to re-introduce the DISHA Act which much like the EUHDS could act as a legislation which provides an anchor to the multiple health data policies, including standard definition of health data, grievance redressal bodies, and adjudicating authorities and their functions. In addition a legislation dedicated to the health data would also remove the existing burden on the to be formed data protection authority.

^{^[1]} “European Health Data Space”, European Commission, 03 May 2022,https://health.ec.europa.eu/ehealth-digital-health-and-care/european-health-data-space_en

^{^[2]}“European Health Data Space”

^{^[3]} “National Digital Health Blueprint”, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Government of India, https://abdm.gov.in:8081/uploads/ndhb_1_56ec695bc8.pdf

^{^[4]} “National Digital Health Blueprint”

^{^[5]} “Mondaq” “DISHA – India's Probable Response To The Law On Protection Of Digital Health Data” accessed 13 June 2023,https://www.mondaq.com/india/healthcare/1059266/disha-india39s-probable-response-to-the-law-on-protection-of-digital-health-data

^{^[6]}“The Digital Personal Data Protection Bill 2022”, accessed 13 June 2023 , https://www.meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/The%20Digital%20Personal%20Data%20Potection%20Bill%2C%202022_0.pdf

^{^[7]}The Digital Personal Data Protection Bill 2022

^{^[8]} Regulation (EU) 2016/679 defines health data as “Personal data concerning health should include all data pertaining to the health status of a data subject which reveal information relating to the past, current or future physical or mental health status of the data subject. This includes information about the natural person collected in the course of the registration for, or the provision of, health care services as referred to in Directive 2011/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (1) to that natural person; a number, symbol or particular assigned to a natural person to uniquely identify the natural person for health purposes; information derived from the testing or examination of a body part or bodily substance, including from genetic data and biological samples; and any information on, for example, a disease, disability, disease risk, medical history, clinical treatment or the physiological or biomedical state of the data subject independent of its source, for example from a physician or other health professional, a hospital, a medical device or an in vitro diagnostic test.

^{^[9]} For creating an integrated, uniform and interoperable ecosystem in a patient or individual centric manner, all the government healthcare facilities and programs, in a gradual/phased manner, should start assigning the same number for providing any benefit to individuals.

^{^[10]} For example a manufacturer of a fitness tracker which is capable of monitoring heart rate could state that the intended purpose of the device was fitness or wellness as opposed to early detection of heart disease thereby not falling under the purview of the regulation.

^{^[11]}“Healthcare Executive” “GOQii Launches GOQii Smart Vital 2.0, an ECG-Enabled Smart Watch with Integrated Outcome based Health Insurance & Life Insurance, accessed 13 June 2023
https://www.healthcareexecutive.in/blog/ecg-enabled-smart-watch

^{^[12]} The guidelines only state that the Committee will be responsible for ensuring the compliance of the guidelines in relation to the personal data under its control. And does not go into details of defining the Committee.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/health-data-management-policies

Hammered government offers Virtual ID firewall to protect your Aadhaar

Admin — 2018-01-16T23:34:12Z

Days after reports surfaced claiming security breaches, the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) on Wednesday announced the implementation of a new security protocol that would remove the need to divulge Aadhaar numbers during authentication processes and limit third-party access to KYC details.

The article was published in New Indian Express on January 11, 2018.

Admitting that the “collection and storage of Aadhaar numbers by various entities has heightened privacy concerns”, the UIDAI circular said Authentication User Agencies (AUAs) providing Aadhaar services have to be ready to implement the protocol from March 1, 2018. From June 1 use of Virtual ID for authentication would be mandatory.

The linchpin of the new protocol will be the virtual ID (VID) — a “temporary, revocable 16-digit random number” that can be used instead of Aadhaar to verify or link services. VIDs will have a limited validity and can be generated only by the Aadhaar holder. “UIDAI will provide various options to generate, retrieve and replace VIDs… these will be made available via UIDAI’s resident portal, Aadhaar Enrolment Centre, mAadhaar mobile application, etc.,” it said. While only one VID per Aadhaar number will be valid at a time, users can revoke and generate new VIDs as many times as desired.

UIDAI will also limit KYC details accessible by AUAs by classifying them as Global AUAs, which are required to use Aadhaar e-KYC by law, and Local AUAs. Only the former will have full access to e-KYC details and can store Aadhaar numbers. Local AUAs will only have access to limited KYC details and be prohibited from storing Aadhaar numbers. UIDAI will also generate UID tokens which will be used to identify customers within agencies’ systems, but these will not be usable by other AUAs.

However, cybersecurity experts say that even if the new “patch” is effective, verification processes will have to be redone to prevent misuse of already-leaked Aadhaar numbers. “The concept is attractive, but the devil is in the details,” observed Pavan Duggal, cyberlaw expert, adding that the new system does not address those who have already gained unauthorised access to Aadhaar numbers. Sunil Abraham, executive director, Centre for Internet and Society, was more categorical. “If it has to be effective, they will have to redo (Aadhaar-KYC) from scratch.”

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/indian-express-january-11-2018-

Hacking without borders: The future of artificial intelligence and surveillance

maria — 2013-07-12T15:30:27Z

In this post, Maria Xynou looks at some of DARPA´s artificial intelligence surveillance technologies in regards to the right to privacy and their potential future use in India.

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

Robots or computer systems controlling our thoughts is way beyond anything I have seen in science fiction; yet something of the kind may be a reality in the future. The US Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is currently funding several artificial intelligence projects which could potentially equip governments with the most powerful weapon possible: mind control.

Combat Zones That See (CTS)

Source: swanksalot on flickr

Ten years ago DARPA started funding the Combat Zones That See (CTS) project, which aims to ´track everything that moves´ within a city through a massive network of surveillance cameras linked to a centralized computer system. Groundbreaking artificial intelligence software is being used in the project to identify and track all movement within cities, which constitutes Big Brother as a reality. The computer software supporting the CTS is capable of automatically identifying vehicles and provides instant alerts after detecting a vehicle with a license plate on a watch list. The software is also able to analyze the video footage and to distinguish ´normal´ from ´abnormal´ behavior, as well as to discover links between ´places, subjects and times of activity´ and to identify patterns. With the use of this software, the CTS constitute the world´s first multi-camera surveillance system which is capable of automatically analyzing video footage.

Although the CTS project was initially intended to be used for solely military purposes, its use for civil purposes, such as combating crime, remains a possibility. In 2003 DARPA stated that 40 million surveillance cameras were already in use around the world by law enforcement agencies to combat crime and terrorism, with 300 million expected by 2005. Police in the U.S. have stated that buying new technology which may potentially aid their work is an integral part of the 9/11 mentality. Considering the fact that literally millions of CCTV cameras are installed by law enforcement agencies around the world and that DARPA has developed the software that has the capability of automatically analyzing data gathered by CCTV cameras, it is very possible that law enforcement agencies are participating in the CTS network.

However if such a project was used for non-military level purposes, it could raise concerns in regards to data protection, privacy and human rights. As a massive network of surveillance cameras, the CTS ultimately could enable the sharing of footage between private parties and law enforcement agencies without individuals´ knowledge or consent. Databases around the world could be potentially linked to each other and it remains unclear what laws would regulate the access, use and retention of such databases by law enforcement agencies of multiple countries. Furthermore, there is no universal definition for ´normal´ and ´abnormal´ behaviour, thus if the software is used for its original purpose, to distinguish between “abnormal” and “normal” behaviour, and used beyond military purposes, then there is a potential for abuse, as the criteria for being monitored, and possibly arrested, would not be clearly set out.

Mind´s Eye

Source: watchingfrogsboil on flickr

A camera today which is only capable of recording visual footage appears futile in comparison to what DARPA´s creating: a thinking camera. The Mind´s Eye project was launched in the U.S. in early 2011 and is currently developing smart cameras endowed with ´visual intelligence´. This ultimately means that artificial intelligence surveillance cameras can not only record visual footage, but also automatically detect ´abnormal´ behavior, alert officials and analyze data in such a way that they are able to predict future human activities and situations.

Mainstream surveillance cameras already have visual-intelligence algorithms, but none of them are able to automatically analyze the data they collect. Data analysts are usually hired for analyzing the footage on a per instance basis, and only if a policeman detects ´something suspicious´ in the footage. Those days are over. General James Cartwright, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated in an intelligence conference that “Star[ing] at Death TV for hours on end trying to find the single target or see something move is just a waste of manpower.” Today, the Mind´s Eye project is developing smart cameras equipped with artificial intelligence software capable of identifying operationally significant activity and predicting outcomes.

Mounting these smart cameras on drones is the initial plan; and while that would enable military operations, many ethical concerns have arisen in regards to whether such technologies should be used for ´civil purposes.´ Will law enforcement agencies in India be equipped with such cameras over the next years? If so, how will their use be regulated?

SyNAPSE

Source: A Health Blog on flickr

The Terminator could be more than just science fiction if current robots had artificial brains with similar form, function and architecture to the mammalian brain. DARPA is attempting this by funding HRL Laboratories, Hewlett-Packard and IBM Research to carry out this task through the Systems of Neuromorphic Adaptive Plastic Scalable Electronics (SyNAPSE) programme. Is DARPA funding the creation of the Terminator? No. Such artificial brains would be used to build robots whose intelligence matches that of mice and cats...for now.

SyNAPSE is a programme which aims to develop electronic neuromorphic machine technology which scales to biological levels. It started in the U.S. in 2008 and is scheduled to run until around 2016, while having received $102.6 million in funding as of January 2013. The ultimate aim is to build an electronic microprocessor system that matches a mammalian brain in power consumption, function and size. As current programmable machines are limited by their computational capacity, which requires human-derived algorithms to describe and process information, SyNAPSE´s objective is to create biological neural systems which can autonomously process information in complex environments. Like the mammalian brain, SyNAPSE´s cognitive computers would be capable of automatically learning relevant and probabilistically stable features and associations, as well as of finding correlations, creating hypotheses and generally remembering and learning through experiences.

Although this original type of computational device could be beneficial to predict natural disasters and other threats to security based on its cognitive abilities, human rights questions arise if it were to be used in general for surveillance purposes. Imagine surveillance technologies with the capacity of a human brain. Imagine surveillance technologies capable of remembering your activity, analyzing it, correlating it to other facts and/or activities, and of predicting outcomes; and now imagine such technology used to spy on us. That might be a possibility in the future.

Such cognitive technology is still in an experimental phase and although it could be used to tackle threats to security, it could also potentially be used to monitor populations more efficiently. No such technology currently exists in India, but it could only be a matter of time before Indian law enforcement agencies start using such artificial intelligence surveillance technology to supposedly enhance our security and protect us.

Brain-Computer Interface (BCI)

Remember Orwell's ´Thought Police´? Was Orwell exaggerating just to get his point across? Well, the future appears to be much scarier than Orwell's vision depicted in 1984. Unlike the ´Thought Police´ which merely arrested individuals who openly expressed ideas or thoughts which contradicted the Party´s dogma, today, technologies are being developed which can literally read our thoughts.

Once again, DARPA appears to be funding one of the world´s most innovative projects: the Brain-Computer Interface (BCI). The human brain is far better at pattern matching than any computer, whilst computers have greater analytical speed than human brains. The BCI is an attempt to merge the two together, and to enable the human brain to control robotic devices and other machines. In particular, the BCI is comprised of a headset (an electroencephalograph - an EEG) with sensors that rest on the human scalp, as well as of software which processes brain activity. This enables the human brain to be linked to a computer and for an individual to control technologies without moving a finger, but by merely thinking of the action.

Ten years ago it was reported that the brains of rats and monkeys could control robot arms through the use of such technologies. A few years later brainstem implants were developed to tackle deafness. Today, brain-computer interface technologies are able to directly link the human brain to computers, thus enabling paralyzed people to conduct computer activity by merely thinking of the actions, as well as to control robotic limbs with their thoughts. BCIs appear to open up a new gateway for disabled persons, as all previously unthinkable actions, such as typing on a computer or browsing through websites, can now be undertaken by literally thinking about them, while using a BCI.

Brain-controlled robotic limbs could change the lives of disabled persons, but ethical concerns have arisen in regards to the BCI´s mind-reading ability. If the brain can be used to control computers and other technologies, does that ultimately mean that computers can also be used to control the human brain? Researchers from the University of Oxford and Geneva, and the University of California, Berkley, have created a custom programme that was specially designed with the sole purpose of finding out sensitive data, such as an individuals´ home location, credit card PIN and date of birth. Volunteers participated in this programme and it had up to 40% success in obtaining useful information. To extract such information, researchers rely on the P300 response, which is a very specific brainwave pattern that occurs when a human brain recognizes something that is meaningful, whether that is personal information, such as credit card details, or an enemy in a battlefield. According to DARPA:

´When a human wearing the EEG cap was introduced, the number of false alarms dropped to only five per hour, out of a total of 2,304 target events per hour, and a 91 percent successful target recognition rate was introduced.´

This constitutes the human brain as a new warfighting domain of the twenty-first century, as experiments have proven that the brain can control and maneuver quadcopter drones and other military technologies. Enhanced threat detection through BCI´s scan for P300 responses and the literal control of military operations through the brain, definitely appear to be changing the future of warfare. Along with this change, the possibility of manipulating a soldier´s BCI during conflict is real and could lead to absolute chaos and destruction.

Security expert, Barnaby Jack, of IOActive demonstrated the vulnerability of biotechnological systems, which raises concerns that BCI technologies may also potentially be vulnerable and expose an individual's´ brain to hacking, manipulation and control by third parties. If the brain can control computer systems and computer systems are able to detect and distinguish brain patterns, then this ultimately means that the human brain can potentially be controlled by computer software.

Will BCI be used in the future to interrogate terrorists and suspects? What would that mean for the future of our human rights? Can we have human rights if authorities can literally hack our brain in the name of national security? How can we be protected from abuse by those in power, if the most precious thing we have - our thoughts - can potentially be hacked? Human rights are essential because they protect us from those in power; but the privacy of our thoughts is even more important, because without it, we can have no human rights, no individuality.

Sure, the BCI is a very impressive technological accomplishment and can potentially improve the lives of millions. But it can also potentially destroy the most unique quality of human beings: their personal thoughts. Mind control is a vicious game to play and may constitute some of the scariest political novels as a comedy of the past. Nuclear weapons, bombs and all other powerful technologies seem childish compared to the BCI which can literally control our mind! Therefore strict regulations should be enacted which would restrict the use of BCI technologies to visually impaired or handicapped individuals. Though these technologies currently are not being used in India, explicit laws on the use of artificial intelligence surveillance technologies should be enacted in India, to help ensure that they do not infringe upon the right to privacy and other human rights.

Apparently, anyone can buy Emotiv or Neurosky BCI online to mind control their computer with only $200-$300. If the use of BCI was imposed in a top-down manner, then maybe there would be some hope that people would oppose its use for surveillance purposes; but if the idea of mind control is being socially integrated...the future of privacy seems bleak.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/hacking-without-borders-the-future-of-artificial-intelligence-and-surveillance

Hacker steals 17 million Zomato users’ data, briefly puts it on dark web

praskrishna — 2017-05-20T05:57:14Z

Records of 17 million users were stolen from online restaurant search platform Zomato, the company said in a blog post on Thursday.

The article by Kim Arora and Digbijay Mishra with inputs from Ranjani Ayyar in Chenna was published in the Times of India on May 19, 2017. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.

According to information security blog and news website HackRead, the data was being peddled online on the "dark web" for about $1,000. The company, also a food delivery platform, advised users to change passwords. However, late on Thursday night, Zomato claimed it had contacted the hacker and persuaded him/her to not only destroy all copies of the data, but also to take the database off the dark web marketplace. The company said it will post an update on how the breach happened once they "close the loopholes".

In an official blog updated with this information, Zomato said, "The hacker has been very cooperative with us. He/she wanted us to acknowledge security vulnerabilities in our system and work with the ethical hacker community to plug the gaps. His/her key request was that we run a healthy bug bounty program for security researchers." Bug bounties are a standard program among tech companies, where they reward outsiders to highlight bugs and flaws in their software systems.

The number of user accounts compromised was pegged at 17 million earlier in the day. In the late night update, Zomato said password hashes (passwords in a scrambled, encrypted form) of 6.6 million users was compromised. It wasn't immediately clear whether this 6.6 million was part of the 17 million records stolen.

Zomato tried assuring users that payment information was safe. "Please note that only 5 data points were exposed - user IDs, names, usernames, email addresses, and password hashes with salt- that is, passwords that were encrypted and would be unintelligible. No other information was exposed to anyone (we have a copy of the 'leaked' database with us). Your payment information is absolutely safe, and there's no need to panic," said the late night update.

However, the information security community raised concerns over the technique used for "hashing" or encrypting the passwords. A screenshot of the vendor's sale page for stolen data posted on HackRead identifies the hashing algorithm as "MD5", which experts say is "outdated" and "insecure". The research team at infySEC -- a cyber security company from Chennai -- tried to access user information in Zomato's database, as part of its bug bounty program. "We were able to access user names, email IDs, addresses and history of transactions. We highlighted this to Zomato but we have not heard from them," said Karthick Vigneshwar, director, infySEC.

Zomato joins a long list of tech-enabled businesses that have recently had user data stolen. Such data can ostensibly be used by malicious actors to send phishing mails, or even by hackers to carry out cyber attacks. In February 2017, content delivery network CloudFlare's customer data was leaked. The data leaked had not just password hashes, but even customers' IP addresses and private messages. In June 2015, online password management service LastPass was hacked and had its data leaked online.

"We hash passwords with a one-way hashing algorithm, with multiple hashing iterations and individual salt per password. This means your password cannot be easily converted back to plain text. We, however, strongly advise you to change your password for any other services where you are using the same password," Zomato's chief technology officer Gunjan Patidar said in the blog which was updated twice through the day. Affected users have been logged out of the website and the app.

Password "hashing" is an encryption technique usually used for large online user databases. The strength of the encryption depends on the algorithm employed to do the same. "Salting" is the addition of a string of characters to the passwords when stored on such a database, which adds another layer of difficulty in cracking them.

In an email to TOI, a company spokesperson said, "Over the next couple of days, we'll be actively working to improve our security systems — we'll be further enhancing security measures for all user information stored within our database, and will also add a layer of authorisation for internal teams having access to this data to avoid any human breach."

HackRead, a security blog and news website, found the stolen Zomato database of 17 million users for sale on what is called the "dark web". This can be described as a portion of the content available on the World Wide Web, away from the public internet. This content is not indexed on search engines like Google, and can only be accessed using software that can route around the public internet to get there.

According to the screenshots of the sale posted on HackRead, the Zomato database used a hashing technique called "MD5", which security experts say is inappropriate for encrypting passwords. "If MD5 was used, it shows bad security practices were in place. It isn't industry standard to use this algorithm for password hashing. Algorithms like bcrypt, scrypt, are more secure," says Pranesh Prakash, policy director at Bengaluru's Centre for Internet and Society.

What if a user does not use an exclusive Zomato account to sign into the service, but signs in through a Google or Facebook account? "In that case, just to be safe, you can delink your Zomato from the account you use to sign in, although your password will not be at risk," says Prakash. Zomato says, 60% of its users use such third party authorisation, and they are at "zero risk."

Would Zomato be liable to compensate end users for loss of sensitive data? Supreme Court advocate Pavan Duggal says, "Such players, referred to as intermediaries under the IT Act hold sensitive data and are expected to have reasonable security protocols in place. Should an end user face any loss/damage due to a data breach, they can sue Zomato and seek compensation." While most players have end user agreements and disclaimers in place, Duggal adds that the IT Act will prevail over any other law or contract to the extent it is inconsistent.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-times-of-india-may-19-2017-kim-arora-and-digbijay-mishra-hacker-steals-17-million-zomato-users-data-briefly-puts-it-on-dark-web

Hack exposes Zomato's weak protection of customer data, say Cyber experts

praskrishna — 2017-05-19T09:11:40Z

Online restaurant aggregator says it will beef up security after 17 million user details were stolen.

The article by Alnoor Peermohamed was published in the Business Standard on May 19, 2017. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.

After details of over 17 million users was stolen and sold online, restaurants discovery and food ordering service Zomato has vowed to beef up security measures, including adding a layer of authentication for its own employees to access user data.

The company in a blog post claimed that the leak appeared to be an internal (human) security breach with an employee's development account getting compromised.

However, cyber security experts pointed out that Zomato was clearly lacking in its technique to protect customer data from unwanted elements .

Sajal Thomas, a cyber security consultant, claimed on Twitter that he verified the sample data being sold on the dark web and found that Zomato had used MD5 to hash passwords. MD5 is neither encryption nor encoding, and was known to be easily cracked by attacks and suffered from major vulnerabilities.

Further, he said Zomato had not used salting, a technique where random data was used as additional input to make cracking a hashed password much harder. Thomas said that it took just a few seconds to crack the hashed passwords to turn them into plain text.

Zomato in its blog post, however, claimed that it protected "passwords with a one-way hashing algorithm, with multiple hashing iterations and individual salt per password."

It said that this was to ensure that passwords could not be easily converted back to plain text. The firm claimed no credit or debit card information of users were leaked.

While Zomato says it has reset passwords of all the affected accounts, experts say that users whose data were leaked are still under threat.

"If you had a password for Zomato that you used elsewhere (on facebook or email), immediately change that password across all those accounts," tweeted Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Centre for Internet and Society.

If you had a password for Zomato that you used elsewhere, then IMMEDIATELY change that password across ALL those accounts. Use a pw manager! https://t.co/CbhtxCwlnD
— Pranesh Prakash (@pranesh) May 18, 2017

According to Prakash, a statement by Zomato misled people on how serious the security breach was by providing a false sense of security.

Subsequently, the company reworded its blog post to prompt users to change passwords of other services where they might have used the same password as their Zomato account.

The leak was first detected by security blog HackRead when it came across an online handle going by the name of "nclay" claiming to have hacked Zomato's database and selling its data on the dark web. Upon testing some of the data made public by the hacker, HackRead found that each account actually existed on Zomato.

"The database includes emails and password hashes of registered Zomato users while the price set for the whole package is $1,001.43 (BTC 0.5587). The vendor also shared a trove of sample data to prove that the data is legit," HackRead wrote in its post.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/business-standard-alnoor-peermohamed-may-19-2017-hack-exposes-zomatos-weak-protection-of-customer-data-say-cyber-experts

Habeas Data in India

Vipul Kharbanda and edited by Elonnai Hickok — 2016-12-10T04:01:40Z

Habeas Data is a latin word which can be loosely translated to mean “have the data”. The right has been primarily conceptualized, designed, ratified, and implemented by various nation-states in the background of a shared common history of decades of torture, terror, and other repressive practices under military juntas and other fascist regimes.

Download the Paper (PDF)

Introduction

The writ of habeas data was a distinct response to these recent histories which provided individuals with basic rights to access personal information collected by the state (and sometimes byprivate agencies of a public nature) and to challenge and correct such data, requiring the state to safeguard the privacy and accuracy of people's personal data.[1]

The origins of Habeas Data are traced back, unsurprisingly, to the European legal regime since Europe is considered as the fountainhead of modern data protection laws. The inspiration for Habeas Data is often considered to be the Council of Europe's 108th Convention on Data Protection of 1981.[2] The purpose of the Convention was to secure the privacy of individuals regarding the automated processing of personal data. For this purpose, individuals were granted several rights including a right to access their personal data held in an automated database.[3]

Another source or inspiration behind Habeas Data is considered to be the German legal system where a constitutional right to information self-determination was created by the German Constitutional Tribunal by interpretation of the existing rights of human dignity and personality. This is a right to know what type of data is stored on manual and automatic databases about an individual, and it implies that there must be transparency on the gathering and processing of such data.[4]

Habeas Data is essentially a right or mechanism for an individual complaint presented to a constitutional court, to protect the image, privacy, honour, information self-determination and freedom of information of a person. [5]

A Habeas Data complaint can be filed by any citizen against any register to find out what information is held about his or her person. That person can request the rectification, update or even the destruction of the personal data held, it does not matter most of the times if the register is private or public.[6]

Habeas Data in different jurisdictions

Habeas Data does not have any one specific definition and has different characteristics in different jurisdictions. Therefore, in order to better understand the right, it will be useful to describe the scope of Habeas Data as it has been incorporated in certain jurisdictions in order to better understand what the right entails:[7]

Brazil

The Constitution of Brazil grants its citizens the right to get a habeas data “a. to assure knowledge of personal information about the petitioner contained in records or data banks of government agencies or entities of a public character; b. to correct data whenever the petitioner prefers not to do so through confidential judicial or administrative proceedings;[8]

The place or tribunal where the Habeas Data action is to be filed changes depending on who is it presented against, which creates a complicated system of venues. Both the Brazilian constitution and the 1997 law stipulate that the court will be:

The Superior Federal Tribunal for actions against the President, both chambers of Congress and itself;
The Superior Justice Tribunal for actions against Ministers or itself;
The regional federal judges for actions against federal authorities;
State tribunals according to each state law;
State judges for all other cases.[9]

Paraguay
The Constitution of Paraguay grants a similar right of habeas data in its constitution which states:

"All persons may access the information and the data that about themselves, or about their assets, [that] is [obren] in official or private registries of a public character, as well as to know the use made of the same and of their end. [All persons] may request before the competent magistrate the updating, the rectification or the destruction of these, if they were wrong or illegitimately affected their rights."[10]

Compared to the right granted in Brazil, the text of the Paraguay Constitution specifically recognises that the citizen also has the right to know the use his/her data is being put to.

Argentina

Article 43 of the Constitution of Argentina grants the right of habeas data, though it has been included under the action of “amparo”,[11] the relevant portion of Article 43 states as follows:

"Any person may file an amparo action to find out and to learn the purpose of data about him which is on record in public registries or data banks, or in any private [registers or data banks] whose purpose is to provide information, and in case of falsity or discrimination, to demand the suppression, rectification, confidentiality, or updating of the same. The secrecy of journalistic information sources shall not be affected."[12]

The version of Habeas Data recognised in Argentina includes most of the protections seen in Brazil and Paraguay, such as the right to access the data, rectify it, update it or destroy it, etc. Nevertheless, the Argentinean constitution also includes certain other features such as the fact that it incorporates the Peruvian idea of confidentiality of data, being interpreted as the prohibition to broadcast or transmit incorrect or false information. Another feature of the Argentinean law is that it specifically excludes the press from the action, which may be considered as reasonable or unreasonable depending upon the context and country in which it is applied.[13]

Venezuela
Article 28 of the Constitution of Venezuela established the writ of habeas data, which expressly permits access to information stored in official and private registries. It states as follows:

"All individuals have a right to access information and data about themselves and about their property stored in official as well as private registries. Secondly, they are entitled to know the purpose of and the policy behind these registries. Thirdly, they have a right to request, before a competent tribunal, the updating, rectification, or destruction of any database that is inaccurate or that undermines their entitlements. The law shall establish exceptions to these principles. By the same token, any person shall have access to information that is of interest to communities and groups. The secrecy of the sources of newspapers-and of other entities or individuals as defined by law-shall be preserved."[14]

The Venezuelan writ of habeas data expressly provides that individuals "are entitled to know the purpose of and the policy behind these registries." Also, it expresses a right to "updating, rectification, or destruction of any database that is inaccurate or that undermines their entitlements." Article 28 also declares that the “secrecy of the sources of newspapers and of other entities or individuals as defined by law-shall be preserved."[15]

Philippines

It is not as if the remedy of Habeas Data is available only in Latin American jurisdictions, but even in Asia the writ of Habeas Data has been specifically granted by the Supreme Court of the Philippines vide its resolution dated January 22, 2008 which provides that “The writ of habeas data is a remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data or information regarding the person, family, home and correspondence of the aggrieved party.” According to the Rule on Writ of Habeas Data, the petition is to be filed with the Regional Trial Court where the petitioner or respondent resides, or which has jurisdiction over the place where the data or information is gathered, collected or stored, at the option of the petitioner. The petition may also be filed with the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals or the Sandiganbayan when the action concerns public data files of government offices.[16]

Two major distinctions are immediately visible between the Philippine right and that in the latin jurisdictions discussed above. One is the fact that in countries such as Bazil, Argentina and Paraguay, there does not appear to be a prerequisite to filing such an action asking for the information, whereas in Philippines it seems that such a petition can only be filed only if an individual’s “right to privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission”. This means that the Philippine concept of habeas data is much more limited in its scope and is available to the citizens only under certain specific conditions. On the other hand the scope of the Philippine right of Habeas Data is much wider in its applicability in the sense that this right is available even against private individual and entities who are “engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data or information regarding the person, family, home and correspondence”. In the Latin American jurisdictions discussed above, this writ appears to be available only against either public institutions or private institutions having some public character.

Main features of Habeas Data

Thus from the discussion above, the main features of the writ of habeas data, as it is applied in various jurisdictions can be culled out as follows: [17]

It is a right to the individual or citizen to ask for his/her information contained with any data registry;
It is available only against public (government) entities or employees; or private entities having a public character;[18]
Usually it also gives the individuals the right to correct any wrong information contained in the data registry;
It is a remedy that is usually available by approaching any single judicial forum.

Since the writ of Habeas Data has been established and evolved primarily in Latin American countries, there is not too much literature on it available freely in the English language and that is a serious hurdle in researching this area. For example, this author did not find many article mentioning the scope of the writ of habeas data, for example whether it is an absolute right and on what grounds can it be denied. The Constitution of Venezuela, for example, specifies that the law shall establish exceptions to these principles and infact mentions the secrecy of sources for newspapers as an exception to this rule.[19]

Similarly in Argentina, there exists a public interest exception to the issuance of the writ of Habeas Data.[20]

That said, although little literature on the specific exceptions to habeas data is freely available in English, references can still be found to exceptions such as state security (Brazil), secrecy of newspaper sources (Argentina and Venezuela), or other entities defined by law (Venezuela).[21]

This suggests that the, as would be expected, the right to ask for the writ of habeas data is not an absolute right but would also be subject to certain exceptions and balanced against other needs such as state security and police investigations.

Habeas Data in the context of Privacy

Data protection legislation and mechanisms protect people against misuse of personal information by data controllers. Habeas Data, being a figure for use only by certain countries, gives the individuals the right to access, correct, and object to the processing of their information.

In general, privacy is the genus and data protection is the species, data protection is a right to personal privacy that people have against the possible use of their personal data by data controllers in an unauthorized manner or against the requirements of force. Habeas Data is an action that is brought before the courts to allow the protection of the individual’s image, privacy, honour, self-determination of information and freedom of information of a person. In that sense, the right of Habeas Data can be found within the broader ambit of data protection. It does not require data processors to ensure the protection of personal data processed but is a legal action requiring the person aggrieved, after filing a complaint with the courts of justice, the access and/or rectification to any personal data which may jeopardize their right to privacy.[22]

Habeas Data in the Indian Context

Although a number of judgments of the Apex Court in India have recognised the existence of a right to privacy by interpreting the fundamental rights to life and free movement in the Constitution of India,[23]

the writ of habeas data has no legal recognition under Indian law. However, as is evident from the discussion above, a writ of habeas data is very useful in protecting the right to privacy of individuals and it would be a very useful tool to have in the hands of the citizens. The fact that India has a fairly robust right to information legislation means that atleast some facets of the right of habeas data are available under Indian law. We shall now examine the Indian Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) to see what facets of habeas data are already available under this Act and what aspects are left wanting. As mentioned above, the writ of habeas data has the following main features:

It is a right to the individual or citizen to ask for his/her information contained with any data registry;
It is available only against public (government) entities or employees; or private entities having a public character;[24]
Usually it also gives the individuals the right to correct any wrong information contained in the data registry;
It is a remedy that is usually available by approaching any single judicial forum.

We shall now take each of these features and analyse whether the RTI Act provides any similar rights and how they differ from each other.

Right to seek his/her information contained with a data registry

Habeas data enables the individual to seek his or her information contained in any data registry. The RTI Act allows citizens to seek “information” which is under the control of or held by any public authority. The term information has been defined under the RTI Act to mean “any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force”.[25]

Further, the term “record” has been defined to include “(a) any document, manuscript and file; (b) any microfilm, microfiche and facsimile copy of a document; (c) any reproduction of image or images embodied in such microfilm (whether enlarged or not); and (d) any other material produced by a computer or any other device”. It is quite apparent that the meaning given to the term information is quite wide and can include various types of information within its fold. The term “information” as defined in the RTI Act has been further elaborated by the Supreme Court in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay,[26]

where the Court has held that a person’s evaluated answer sheet for the board exams held by the CBSE would come under the ambit of “information” and should be accessible to the person under the RTI Act.[27]

An illustrative list of items that have been considered to be “information” under the RTI Act would be helpful in further understanding the concept:

Asset declarations by Judges;[28]
Copy of inspection report prepared by the Reserve Bank of India about a Co-operative Bank;[29]
Information on the status of an enquiry;[30]
Information regarding cancellation of an appointment letter;[31]
Information regarding transfer of services;[32]
Information regarding donations given by the President of India out of public funds.[33]

The above list would indicate that any personal information relation to an individual that is available in a government registry would in all likelihood be considered as “information” under the RTI Act.

However, just because the information asked for is considered to come within the ambit of section 2(h) does not mean that the person will be granted access to such information if it falls under any of the exceptions listed in section 8 of the RTI Act. Section 8 provides that if the information asked falls into any of the categories specified below then such information shall not be released in an application under the RTI Act, the categories are:

"(a) information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence;
(b) information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court;
(c) information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature;
(d) information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;
(e) information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;
(f) information received in confidence from foreign Government;
(g) information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;
(h) information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;
(i) cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers:
Provided that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over:
Provided further that those matters which come under the exemptions specified in this section shall not be disclosed;
(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:
Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person."

The above mentioned exceptions seem fairly reasonable and infact are important since public records may contain information of a private nature which the data subject would not want revealed, and that is exactly why personal information is a specific exception mentioned under the RTI Act. When comparing this list to the recognised exceptions under habeas data, it must be remembered that a number of the exceptions listed above would not be relevant in a habeas data petition such as commercial secrets, personal information, etc. The exceptions which could be relevant for both the RTI Act as well as a habeas data writ would be (a) national security or sovereignty, (b) prohibition on publication by a court, (c) endangering the physical safety of a person, (d) hindrance in investigation of a crime. It is difficult to imagine a court (especially in India) granting a habeas data writ in violation of these four exceptions.

Certain other exceptions that may be relevant in a habeas data context but are not mentioned in the common list above are (a) information received in a fiduciary relationship; (b) breach of legislative privilege, (c) cabinet papers; and (d) information received in confidence from a foreign government. These four exceptions are not as immediately appealing as the others listed above because there are obviously competing interests involved here and different jurisdictions may take different points of view on these competing interests.[34]

Available only against public (government) entities or entities having public character.

A habeas corpus writ is maintainable in a court to ask for information relating to the petitioner held by either a public entity or a private entity having a public character. In India, the right to information as defined in the RTI Act means the right to information accessible under the Act held by or under the control of any public authority. The term "public authority" has been defined under the Act to mean “any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted—

(a) by or under the Constitution;
(b) by any other law made by Parliament;
(c) by any other law made by State Legislature;
(d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any— (i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed; (ii) non-Government organisation substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government;"[35]

Therefore most government departments as well as statutory as well as government controlled corporations would come under the purview of the term "public authority". For the purposes of the RTI Act, either control or substantial financing by the government would be enough to bring an entity under the definition of public authority.[36]

The above interpretation is further bolstered by the fact that the preamble of the RTI Act contains the term “governments and their instrumentalities".[37]

Right to correct wrong information
While certain sectoral legislations such as the Representation of the People Act and the Collection of Statistics Act, etc. may provide for correction of inaccurate information, the RTI Act does not have any such provisions. This stands to reason because the RTI Act is not geared towards providing people with information about themselves but is instead a transparency law which is geared at dissemination of information, which may or may not relate to an individual.

Available upon approaching a single judicial forum
While the right of habeas data is available only upon approaching a judicial forum, the right to information under the RTI Act is realised entirely through the bureaucratic machinery. This also means that the individuals have to approach different entities in order to get the information that they need instead of approaching just one centralised entity.

Conclusion

There is no doubt that habeas data, by itself cannot end massive electronic surveillance of the kind that is being carried out by various governments in this day and age and the excessive collection of data by private sector companies, but providing the citizenry with the right to ask for such a writ would provide a critical check on such policies and practices of vast surveillance.[38]

An informed citizenry, armed with a right such as habeas data, would be better able to learn about the information being collected and kept on them under the garb of law and governance, to access such information, and to demand its correction or deletion when its retention by the government is not justified.

As we have discussed in this paper, under Indian law the RTI Act gives the citizens certain aspects of this right but with a few notable exceptions. Therefore, if a writ such as habeas data is to be effectuated in India, it might perhaps be a better idea to approach it by amending/tweaking the existing structure of the RTI Act to grant individuals the right to correct mistakes in the data along with creating a separate department/mechanism so that the applications demanding access to one’s own data do not have to be submitted in different departments but can be submitted at one central place. This approach may be more pragmatic rather than asking for a change in the Constitution to grant to the citizens the right to ask for a writ in the nature of habeas data.

There may be calls to also include private data processors within the ambit of the right to habeas data, but it could be challenging to enforce this right. This is because it is still feasible to assume that the government can put in place machinery to ensure that it can find out whether information about a particular individual is available with any of the government’s myriad departments and corporations, however it would be almost impossible for the government to track every single private database and then scan those databases to find out how many of them contain information about any specific individual. This also throws up the question whether a right such as habeas data, which originated in a specific context of government surveillance, is appropriate to protect the privacy of individuals in the private sector. Since under Indian law section 43A and the Rules thereunder, which regulate data protection, already provide for consent and notice as major bulwarks against unauthorised data collection, and limit the purpose for which such data can be utilised, privacy concerns in this context can perhaps be better addressed by strengthening these provisions rather than trying to extend the concept of habeas data to the private sector.

[1]. González, Marc-Tizoc, ‘Habeas Data: Comparative Constitutional Interventions from Latin America Against Neoliberal States of Insecurity and Surveillance’, (2015). Chicago-Kent Law Review, Vol. 90, No. 2, 2015; St. Thomas University School of Law (Florida) Research Paper No. 2015-06. Available at SSRN:http://ssrn.com/abstract=2694803

[2]. Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data, 1981, available at https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/rms/0900001680078b37

[3]. Guadamuz A, 'Habeas Data: The Latin-American Response to Data Protection',2000 (2) The Journal of Information, Law and Technology (JILT).

[4]. Id.

[5]. Speech by Chief Justice Reynato Puno, Supreme Court of Philippines delivered at the UNESCO Policy Forum and Organizational Meeting of the Information for all Program (IFAP), Philippine National Committee, on November 19, 2007, available at http://jlp-law.com/blog/writ-of-habeas-data-by-chief-justice-reynato-puno/

[6]. Guadamuz A, 'Habeas Data: The Latin-American Response to Data Protection',2000 (2) The Journal of Information, Law and Technology (JILT).

[7]. The author does not purport to be an expert on the laws of these jurisdictions and the analysis in this paper has been based on a reading of the actual text or interpretations given in the papers that have been cited as the sources. The views in this paper should be viewed keeping this context in mind.

[8]. Article 5, LXXII of the Constitution of Brazil, available at https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Brazil_2014.pdf

[9]. Guadamuz A, 'Habeas Data vs the European Data Protection Directive', Refereed article, 2001 (3) The Journal of Information, Law and Technology (JILT).

[10]. Article 135 of the Constitution of Paraguay, available at https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Paraguay_2011.pdf?lang=en

[11]. The petition for a writ of amparo is a remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty and security is violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity.

[12]. Article 43 of the Constitution of Argentina, available at https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Argentina_1994.pdf?lang=en

[13]. https://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/elj/jilt/2001_3/guadamuz/

[14]. Article 28 of the Venezuelan Constitution, available at http://www.venezuelaemb.or.kr/english/ConstitutionoftheBolivarianingles.pdf

[15]. González, Marc-Tizoc, ‘Habeas Data: Comparative Constitutional Interventions from Latin America Against Neoliberal States of Insecurity and Surveillance’, (2015). Chicago-Kent Law Review, Vol. 90, No. 2, 2015; St. Thomas University School of Law (Florida) Research Paper No. 2015-06. Available at SSRN:http://ssrn.com/abstract=2694803

[16]. Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data Resolution, available at http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/research/Philippines/Rule%20on%20Habeas%20Data.pdf

[17]. The characteristics of habeas data culled out in this paper are by no means exhaustive and based only on the analysis of the jurisdictions discussed in this paper. This author does not claim to have done an exhaustive analysis of every jurisdiction where Habeas Data is available and the views in this paper should be viewed in that context.

[18]. Except in the case of the Philippines and Venezeula. This paper has not done an analysis of the writ of habeas data in every jurisdiction where it is available and there may be jurisdictions other than the Philippines which also give this right against private entities.

[19]. González, Marc-Tizoc, ‘Habeas Data: Comparative Constitutional Interventions from Latin America Against Neoliberal States of Insecurity and Surveillance’, (2015). Chicago-Kent Law Review, Vol. 90, No. 2, 2015; St. Thomas University School of Law (Florida) Research Paper No. 2015-06. Available at SSRN:http://ssrn.com/abstract=2694803

[20]. The case of Ganora v. Estado Nacional, Supreme Court of Argentina, September 16, 1999, cf.http://www.worldlii.org/int/journals/EPICPrivHR/2006/PHR2006-Argentin.html

[21]. González, Marc-Tizoc, ‘Habeas Data: Comparative Constitutional Interventions from Latin America Against Neoliberal States of Insecurity and Surveillance’, (2015). Chicago-Kent Law Review, Vol. 90, No. 2, 2015; St. Thomas University School of Law (Florida) Research Paper No. 2015-06. Available at SSRN:http://ssrn.com/abstract=2694803

[22]. http://www.oas.org/dil/data_protection_privacy_habeas_data.htm

[23]. Even the scope of the right to privacy is currently under review in the Supreme Court of India. See “Right to Privacy in Peril”, http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/right-to-privacy-in-peril

[24]. Except in the case of the Philippines. This paper has not done an analysis of the writ of habeas data in every jurisdiction where it is available and there may be jurisdictions other than the Philippines which also give this right against private entities.

[25]. Section 2(f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

[26]. 2011 (106) AIC 187 (SC), also available at http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=38344

[27]. The exact words of the Court were: “The definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the RTI Act refers to any material in any form which includes records, documents, opinions, papers among several other enumerated items. The term `record' is defined in section 2(i) of the said Act as including any document, manuscript or file among others. When a candidate participates in an examination and writes his answers in an answer-book and submits it to the examining body for evaluation and declaration of the result, the answer-book is a document or record. When the answer-book is evaluated by an examiner appointed by the examining body, the evaluated answer-book becomes a record containing the `opinion' of the examiner. Therefore the evaluated answer-book is also an `information' under the RTI Act.”

[28]. Secretary General, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, AIR 2010 Del 159, available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1342199/

[29]. Ravi Ronchodlal Patel v. Reserve Bank of India, Central Information Commission, dated 6-9-2006.

[30]. Anurag Mittal v. National Institute of Health and Family Welfare, Central Information Commission, dated 29-6-2006.

[31]. Sandeep Bansal v. Army Headquarters, Ministry of Defence, Central Information Commission, dated 10-11-2008.

[32]. M.M. Kalra v. DDA, Central Information Commission, dated 20-11-2008.

[33]. Nitesh Kumar Tripathi v. CPIO, Central Information Commission, dated 4-5-2012.

[34]. A similar logic may apply to the exceptions of (i) cabinet papers, and (ii) parliamentary privilege.

[35]. Section 2 (h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

[36]. M.P. Verghese v. Mahatma Gandhi University, 2007 (58) AIC 663 (Ker), available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1189278/

[37]. Principal, M.D. Sanatan Dharam Girls College, Ambala City v. State Information Commissioner, AIR 2008 P&H 101, available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1672120/

[38]. González, Marc-Tizoc, ‘Habeas Data: Comparative Constitutional Interventions from Latin America Against Neoliberal States of Insecurity and Surveillance’, (2015). Chicago-Kent Law Review, Vol. 90, No. 2, 2015; St. Thomas University School of Law (Florida) Research Paper No. 2015-06. Available at SSRN:http://ssrn.com/abstract=2694803

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/habeas-data-in-india

Guidelines for the Protection of National Critical Information Infrastructure: How Much Regulation?

jon — 2013-08-01T04:48:01Z

July has been a busy month for cyber security in India. Beginning with the release of the country’s first National Cyber Security Policy on July 2 and followed just this past week by a set of guidelines for the protection of national critical information infrastructure (CII) developed under the direction of the National Technical Research Organization (NTRO), India has made respectable progress in its thinking on national cyber security.

Yet the National Cyber Security Policy, taken together with what little is known of the as-yet restricted guidelines for CII protection, raises troubling questions, particularly regarding the regulation of cyber security practices in the private sector. Whereas the current Policy suggests the imposition of certain preferential acquisition policies, India would be best advised to maintain technology neutrality to ensure maximum security.

According to Section 70(1) of the Information Technology Act, Critical Information Infrastructure (CII) is defined as a “computer resource, the incapacitation or destruction of which, shall have debilitating impact on national security, economy, public health or safety.” In one of the 2008 amendments to the IT Act, the Central Government granted itself the authority to “prescribe the information security practices and procedures for such protected system[s].” These two paragraphs form the legal basis for the regulation of cyber security within the private sector.

Such basis notwithstanding, private cyber security remains almost completely unregulated. According to the Intermediary Guidelines [pdf], intermediaries are required to report cyber security incidents to India’s national-level computer emergency response team (CERT-In). Other than this relatively small stipulation, the only regulation in place for CII exists at the sector level. Last year the Reserve Bank of India mandated that each bank in India appoint a chief information officer (CIO) and a steering committee on information security. The finance sector is also the only sector of the four designated “critical” by the Department of Electronics and Information Technology (DEIT) Cyber Security Strategy to have established a sector-level CERT, which released a set of non-compulsory guidelines [pdf] for information security governance in late 201

The new guidelines for CII protection seek to reorganize the government’s approach to CII. According to a Times of India article on the new guidelines, the NTRO will outline a total of eight sectors (including energy, aviation, telecom and National Stock Exchange) of CII and then “monitor if they are following the guidelines.” Such language, though vague and certainly unsubstantiated, suggests the NTRO may ultimately be responsible for enforcing the “[mandated] security practices related to the design, acquisition, development, use and operation of information resources” described in the Cyber Security Policy. If so, operators of systems deemed critical by the NTRO or by other authorized government agencies may soon be subject to cyber security regulation—with teeth.

To be sure, some degree of cyber security regulation is necessary. After all, large swaths of the country’s CII are operated by private industry, and poor security practices on the part of one operator can easily undermine the security of the rest. To quote security expert Bruce Schneier, “the externalities in cybersecurity are so great that even the freest free market would fail.” In less academic terms, networks are only as secure as their weakest links. While it is true that many larger enterprises take cyber security quite seriously, small and medium-sized businesses either lack immediate incentives to invest in security (e.g. no shareholders to answer to) or more often lack the basic resources to do so. Some form of government transfer for cyber security related investments could thus go a long way toward shoring up the country’s overall security.

Yet regulation may well extend beyond the simple “fiscal schemes and incentives” outlined in section IV of the Policy and “provide for procurement of indigenously manufactured ICT products that have security implications.” Such, at least, was the aim of the Preferential Market Access (PMA) Policy recently put on hold by the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO). Under pressure from international industry groups, the government has promised to review the PMA Policy, with the PMO indicating it may strike out clauses “regarding preference to domestic manufacturer[s] on security related products that are to be used by private sector.” If the government’s aim is indeed to ensure maximum security (rather than to grow an infant industry), it would be well advised to extend this approach to the Cyber Security Policy and the new guidelines for CII protection.

Although there is a national security argument to be made in favor of such policies—namely that imported ICT products may contain “backdoors” or other nefarious flaws—there are equally valid arguments to be made against preferential acquisition policies, at least for the private sector. First and foremost, it is unlikely that India’s nascent cyber security institutions will be able to regulate procurement in such a rapidly evolving market. Indeed, U.S. authorities have been at pains to set cyber security standards, especially in the past several years. Secondly, by mandating the procurement of indigenously manufactured products, the government may force private industry to forgo higher quality products. Absent access to source code or the ability to effectively reverse engineer imported products, buyers should make decisions based on the products’ performance records, not geo-economic considerations like country of origin. Finally, limiting procurement to a specific subset of ICT products likewise restricts the set of security vulnerabilities available to hackers. Rather than improve security, however, a smaller, more distinct set of vulnerabilities may simply make networks easier targets for the sorts of “debilitating” attacks the Policy aims to avert.

As India broaches the difficult task of regulating cyber security in the private sector, it must emphasize flexibility above all. On one hand, the government should avoid preferential acquisition policies which risk a) overwhelming limited regulatory resources, b) saddling CII operators with subpar products, and/or c) differentiating the country’s attack surface. On the other hand, the government should encourage certain performance standards through precisely the sort of “fiscal schemes and incentives” alluded to in the Cyber Security Policy. Regulation should focus on what technology does and does not do, not who made it or what rival government might have had their hands in its design. Ultimately, India should adopt a policy of technology neutrality, backed by the simple principle of trust but verify. Only then can it be truly secure.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/guidelines-for-protection-of-national-critical-information-infrastructure

GSMA Research Outputs

elonnai — 2015-04-06T14:18:18Z

This is a collection of research under our GSMA project that we have undertaken in collaboration with Privacy International. The research has sought to understand different legal and regulatory aspects of security and surveillance in India and consists of blog entries and reports. Any feedback or comment is welcome.

Indian Law and the Necessary Proportionate Principles

The presentation shows that there are no comprehensive provisions for the principles of legitimate aim, competent judicial authority, proportionality, transparency, etc. whereas these are partially present for the principles of legality, necessity, adequacy, public oversight, safeguards for international cooperation, etc. The presentation also looks at the Indian intelligence agencies and shows us that there are nine agencies authorized to intercept communications along with at least eleven additional agencies. It further dwelves into the establishment and structure of Indian intelligence agencies and whom they report to, the sharing of information internationally as well as nationally. It shows us that India has MLAT agreements with 36 countries and request to CBI can be initiated informally or formally through court order. It then lists out the various regulatory and important bodies responsible for national security. Some cases of unlawful interception / leaks have been discussed along with examples of arrests based on digital evidence. The various government schemes, the telecommunication companies in India, telecom licenses requirements, government developed security and surveillance solutions, private security companies, security expos, export, import and selling of security and surveillance equipment, and the way forward are also discussed.

Click to download the PDF

Security, Surveillance and Data Sharing Schemes and Bodies in India

Following the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks, India had implemented a wide range of data sharing and surveillance schemes. Though developed under different governments the purpose of these schemes has been to increase public safety and security by tackling crime and terrorism. As such, two data sharing schemes have been proposed - the National Intelligence Grid (NATGRID) and the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network & Systems (CCTNS), as well as several surveillance systems, such as the Lawful Intercept and Monitoring (LIM) system, the Network Traffic Analysis system (NETRA), state Internet Monitoring Systems and the Central Monitoring System (CMS). This chapter details the various schemes and provides policy recommendations for their improvement, with regards to the protection of the right to privacy and other human rights.

Click to download the PDF

Export and Import of Security Technologies in India: QA

The write-up examines in question-answer format the standards regulating the export of technologies that can be used for surveillance purposes, the department and legislation that governs exports and imports of security technologies in India, the procedure for obtaining an export licence for the export of SCOMET items, what is ITC (HS) and why is it important, and examples of ITC codes for technologies that can facilitate security or surveillance. The research finds answers to all these queries.

Click to download the PDF

Regulation of CCTV’s in India

In light of the increasing use and installation of CCTV’s in cities across India, and the role that CCTVs play in the Home Ministry's plans for implementing "Mega Policing Cities", this blog seeks to review various attempts to regulate the use of CCTV's in India, review international best practices, and provide preliminary recommendations for the regulation of CCTV's in India.

Click to download the PDF

Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLATs) and Cross Border Sharing of Information in India

It is unclear the exact process that intelligence agencies in India share information with other agencies internationally. India is a member of Interpol and the Central Bureau of Investigation, which is a Federal/Central investigating agency functioning under the Central Government, Department of Personnel & Training is designated as the National Central Bureau of India.

Click to download the PDF

Composition of Service Providers in India

Telecom, at present, is one of the fastest-growing industries in India. As of January 2014, according to the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) there are 922 million wireless and over the wire subscribers in India, and 56.90 million broadband subscribers including wired, wireless and wimax subscribers. India’s overall wireless teledensity was quoted as having 893.31million subscribers, with a 0.79% (7.02 million) monthly addition.

Click to download the PDF

The Surveillance and Security Industry in India - An Analysis of Indian Security Expos

The ‘Spy Files’, a series of documents released by whistleblower website WikiLeaks over the last few years, exposed the tremendous growth of the private surveillance industry across the world – a multi-billion dollar industry thriving on increasing governmental and private capabilities for mass surveillance of individuals. These documents showed how mass surveillance is increasingly made possible through new technologies developed by private players, often exploiting the framework of nascent but burgeoning information and communication technologies like the internet and communication satellites.

Click to download the PDF

An Analysis of News Items and Cases on Surveillance and Digital Evidence in India

In a technologically advanced era, with preponderance of electronic communications in both professional and social interactions and the ability to store such information in digital form, digital evidence has gained significance in civil as well as criminal litigation in India. In order to match the pace with the progressive technology, the Indian Courts have embarked on placing more and more reliance on the digital evidence and a portion of such digital evidence is obtained through electronic surveillance.

Click to download the PDF

Policy Recommendations for Surveillance Law in India and an Analysis of Legal Provisions on Surveillance in India and the Necessary & Proportionate Principles

The Government of India has created a legal framework which supports the carrying out of surveillance by authorities through its various laws and license agreements for service providers. The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) acknowledges that lawful, warranted, targeted surveillance can potentially be a useful tool in aiding law enforcement agencies in tackling crime and terrorism. However, current Indian laws and license agreements appear to overextend the Government's surveillance capabilities in certain cases, while inadequately safeguarding individuals' right to privacy and data protection.

Click to download the PDF

The Surveillance Industry in India

India has the world's second largest population, an expanding middle class and undoubtedly a huge market which attracts international investors. Some of the world's largest corporations have offices in India, such as Google Incorporated and BlackBerry Limited. In the Information Age, the market revolves around data and companies which produce technologies capable of mining such data are on the rise. Simultaneously, companies selling surveillance technologies appear to be on the peak too, especially since the global War on Terror requires law enforcement agencies around the world to be equipped with the latest surveillance gear.

Click to download the PDF

State of Cyber Security and Surveillance in India: A Review of the Legal Landscape

The issue of cyber security and surveillance, especially unauthorised surveillance, though traditionally unprioritised, has recently gained much traction due to the increasing number of news reports regarding various instances of unauthorised surveillance and cyber crimes. In the case of unauthorised surveillance, more than the frequency of the instances, it is their sheer magnitude that has shocked civil society and especially civil rights groups. In the background of this ever increasing concern regarding surveillance as well as increasing concerns regarding cyber security due to the increased pervasiveness of technology in our society, this paper tries to discuss the legal and regulatory landscape regarding surveillance as well as cyber security.

Click to download the PDF

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/gsma-research-outputs

Centre for Internet and Society

How Facebook is Blatantly Abusing our Trust

How data privacy and governance issues have battered Facebook ahead of 2019 polls

How Aadhaar compromises privacy? And how to fix it?

Holding ID Issuers Accountable, What Works?

HillHacks 2019

High Level Comparison and Analysis of the Use and Regulation of DNA Based Technology Bill 2017

Here’s why we need a lot more discussion on India’s new DNA Profiling Bill

Health Data Management Policies - Differences Between the EU and India

Introduction

Background

EU Health Data Space

India’s health data policies:

Comparison of the Health Data Management Approaches Interoperability with Data Protection Legislations

Definitions and Scope

Health data and wearable devices

Multiple use of health data

Recommendations for India Need for a data protection legislation:

Secondary use of data

Conclusion

Hammered government offers Virtual ID firewall to protect your Aadhaar

Hacking without borders: The future of artificial intelligence and surveillance

Combat Zones That See (CTS)

Mind´s Eye

SyNAPSE

Brain-Computer Interface (BCI)

Hacker steals 17 million Zomato users’ data, briefly puts it on dark web

Hack exposes Zomato's weak protection of customer data, say Cyber experts

Habeas Data in India

Introduction

Habeas Data in different jurisdictions

Main features of Habeas Data

Habeas Data in the context of Privacy

Habeas Data in the Indian Context

Conclusion

Guidelines for the Protection of National Critical Information Infrastructure: How Much Regulation?

GSMA Research Outputs

Indian Law and the Necessary Proportionate Principles

Security, Surveillance and Data Sharing Schemes and Bodies in India

Export and Import of Security Technologies in India: QA

Regulation of CCTV’s in India

Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLATs) and Cross Border Sharing of Information in India

Composition of Service Providers in India

The Surveillance and Security Industry in India - An Analysis of Indian Security Expos

An Analysis of News Items and Cases on Surveillance and Digital Evidence in India

Policy Recommendations for Surveillance Law in India and an Analysis of Legal Provisions on Surveillance in India and the Necessary & Proportionate Principles

The Surveillance Industry in India

State of Cyber Security and Surveillance in India: A Review of the Legal Landscape

Comparison of the Health Data Management Approaches
Interoperability with Data Protection Legislations

Recommendations for India
Need for a data protection legislation: