Centre for Internet and Society

'I'm going to ruin you, dear'

praskrishna — 2014-09-09T09:55:47Z

Revenge porn is sweeping across the developed world. And now it's being seen in India. The culprit, says Prasun Chaudhuri, is often a former friend, partner, relative or colleague.

This article by Prasun Chaudhuri with additional reporting by Varuna Verma in Bangalore was published in the Telegraph on August 3, 2014. Rohini Lakshane gave her inputs.

How would you feel if you casually opened a mail and found the link to a pornographic site — and it turned out to contain pictures of yourself naked? That's what Kalpana did. She clicked on a link sent to her and, to her horror, found that the face of the girl who "was available for sex" was hers. Her stomach lurched when she saw that the pictures showed her own bedroom. The site also contained her personal and contact details.

Kalpana was shattered. The subject line of the mail had said "I'm going to ruin you, dear". It had seemed like a prank. Only, it wasn't. It was a very real and malevolent attempt to destroy her reputation.

The 24-year-old Mumbai-based bank executive had become a victim of revenge porn — a new form of cybercrime in which ex-lovers or boyfriends upload intimate photos and videos of their former partners for the world to see. Mostly, the sexually explicit pictures are of women posted by jilted or spurned men.

Kalpana's photos, it was later found, were posted by her recently divorced husband, Pranay. They were taken when the two lived together.

Revenge porn is a trend sweeping across the developed world — from the US and Japan to countries in Europe. And now it's being seen in India, fuelled by the growing access to the Internet and camera-wielding mobile phones — all that is needed for taking and posting offensive pictures.

"Now that you have gadgets you tend to capture every moment of your life in pictures or videos," Calcutta-based psychiatrist J.R. Ram points out. "Not only that, you want to share these images through networking apps in your mobile phone or the Internet — without ever thinking of the consequences."

National Crimes Record Bureau (NCRB) figures — released on July 1, 2014 — show a 63.7 per cent rise in cyber offences from 2012 to 2013. During this period, the category "transmission of obscene content in electronic form" reflects a quantum jump —104.2 per cent — with 1,203 cases registered and 737 people arrested. "The data show cyber offences against women have increased sharply," NCRB director-general R.R. Verma says. "But we do not have any specific data on revenge crimes."

More and more such cases, however, are now coming to light. Kalpana lodged a complaint with the Navgarh police station in Mumbai. Ashish was arrested under a number of sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Information Technology Act.

Sneha, a 22-year-old college student from Udupi in Karnataka, also went to the police with the complaint that her ex-boyfriend had put up her photographs and videos on the Internet. M.B. Boralingaiah, superintendent of police, Manipal district, says the boy was arrested and sent to judicial custody.

"There has been an exponential rise in the number of cases of cyber revenge being reported to the police," Boralingaiah says. "This could also be because of increasing awareness of cyber laws, which prompts more people to approach the police." The Karnataka police are now setting up cyber crime police stations at regional levels across the state. Currently, only one police station, in Bangalore, deals with such crimes.

The profile of the criminal in revenge porn, Boralingaiah adds, is different from that of the average criminal plotting a scam using the Internet. In all the cases that have been reported, the accused is a former friend, partner, relative or colleague with no criminal history. They are also educated, intelligent and technologically savvy.

And that is why, despite suspicions, it is not always easy to catch the offender. The police say they have to first track down the origin of the pornographic site where the pictures are posted. "When we receive a complaint we try to locate the IP address (the unique identifier for the computer)," says Siddhartha Chakraborty, in charge of Cyber Police Station, Lalbazar, Calcutta. "But these crooks are clever enough to use some fake IP address of a distant country."

Once the police zero in on the IP address, it asks the web hosts to remove the offensive images, which they normally do. "But the procedure can take weeks or even months," Chakraborty adds.

Debarati Halder, a lawyer and cyber victim counsellor based at Tirunelvelli, Tamil Nadu, says she comes across 10-15 cases of revenge porn every month across the country, mostly involving college students. Often, the victims themselves take pictures while taking a shower or in their inner wear and share them with their boyfriends.

Many young women, Halder says, see such acts as symbols of independence or defiance.

"Taking 'sexy' images of themselves offers them a false sense of liberty, bypassing the repression imposed upon them in the real world," she says. "They feel relatively uninhibited in cyberspace and tend to experiment with their looks and sexuality, but are unable to determine where to draw the line."

The young are not greatly concerned with privacy and security on the Internet, Canada-based Internet safety expert Terry Cutler stresses. "They don't understand that once you send out an inappropriate photo or video, you no longer control it."

There are, according to some estimates, at least 3,000 voyeuristic websites where such pictures can be posted. The visuals are often copied and replicated across multiple porn sites, making it virtually impossible for the authorities to wipe off the digital prints. "Often these clips are available on mirror sites, web archives and caches. Video footage can also go viral on social networks and porn buffs even share these images offline," Chakraborty warns.

But people seldom think that the intimate pictures that they shoot with their lovers may one day become public. "When you're in love you trust your partner. You don't expect him to use these pictures to humiliate you when things fall apart," says Antara, a 32-year-old IT analyst in a government agency who has been a victim of revenge porn. She says that her husband, to seek a quick divorce, uploaded intimate pictures on porn sites to show that she was a woman of "bad character".

Also worrying is that a large number of women are victims of non-consensual and amateur pornography. Abir Atarthy, a Calcutta-based cyber-security expert, recently solved a case in which a college student found her pictures, shot in her bedroom, circulating on a social networking site.

"She was shocked because she not taken those pictures, nor had anybody else," Atarthy says. A thorough check revealed that a boy whose advances she had spurned had installed a hidden spy program in her laptop. "The program — capable of switching on the webcam even if the machine was offline — had been taking her snaps from her private life and sending the visuals to the youth whenever she connected to the Internet," he says.

Rohini Lakshané, a researcher at the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society, describes such non-consensual acts as sexually violent crimes. "I don't like to use the term 'revenge porn', for it's an act of violence against women," she says. "Sometimes women are even raped and coerced into sex, filmed, threatened and blackmailed over the release of the footage online," Lakshané says.

The intention is to humiliate the woman and make her life miserable is the equivalent of throwing acid on her face, holds Dr Subhrangshu Aditya, a student counsellor at Jadavpur University, Calcutta. "These men can't accept rejection and it's their way to settle scores."

The victim, the experts say, doesn't just feel betrayed but often falls into depression — not just because of the ex-partner's action but because she sees herself as a partner in the crime, for the pictures uploaded may have been shot with her consent. "Their guardians also blame her for this and avoid reporting the matter to the police apprehending a bigger scandal," Halder adds.

The lawyer urges victims of such crimes to always approach the police. "Indian women have a strong legal recourse against perpetrators of revenge porn," she says. The amended 354 [C] of the Criminal Law (Amended) Act 2013, also known as the "voyeurism section", criminalises capturing and sharing images of a woman in private space. Section 66(E) of the IT Act criminalises the publication and transmission of images of an individual's private parts without his or her consent.

"These are watertight laws, strong enough to book an offender," she says, adding that the law also protects a victim's identity.

Across the world, laws are now being framed to punish cyber porn offenders. In January, Israel voted to define posting of images without consent as sexual harassment, punishable by up to five years in jail. Many states in the US already have laws against revenge porn and Britain may bring in one soon.

But perhaps the best way to prevent such crimes is by safeguarding privacy — at home and in the virtual world (see box). Cyber security expert Cutler sums it up aptly: "Just think this before you click the send button: If I were to post the visual on the Internet, would I care if it landed on the front page of a newspaper or the 8pm news?"

Some names have been changed to protect identities

How to Safeguard Your Privacy?

Get acquainted with the privacy settings of the social networks, dating and matrimonial websites you use
Do not upload any single close-shot picture on the Internet; this can be morphed and misused
Never film yourself during sexually intimate acts; even if you delete the pictures and videos these can be recovered from your device
Watch out for weird webcam activity; malicious software can easily infect your computer or phone and control the webcam
Remove your memory card from your mobile or format the hard disc of your computer before giving the device to service centres
Don't give your device to others and always lock your applications (especially picture galleries) in your mobile
Install and update antivirus and antimalware in your device

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-telegraph-august-3-2014-i-am-going-to-ruin-you-dear

Surat’s Massive Surveillance Network Should Cause Concern, Not Celebration

joe — 2014-09-06T03:05:13Z

The blog post examines the surveillance network of Surat, a city in Gujarat state in India.

The Surveillance System

Surat, a city in the state of Gujarat, has recently unveiled a comprehensive closed-circuit camera surveillance system that spans almost the entire city. This makes Surat the first Indian city to have a modern, real-time CCTV system, with eye-tracking software and night vision cameras, along with intense data analysis capabilities that older systems lack.

Similar systems are planned for cities across India, from Delhi to Punjab, even those that already have older CCTV programs in place. Phase I of the system, which is currently completed, consists of 104 CCTV cameras installed at 23 locations and a 280 square foot video wall at the police control room. The video wall is one of the largest in the country, according to the Times of India.

Narendra Modi, then the Gujarat chief minister, launched the project in January 2013, though the project was original conceptualized by police commissioner Rakesh Asthana, who has cited the CCTV system in Scotland Yard as his inspiration.

Phase II of the surveillance project will involve the installation of 550 cameras at 282 locations, and in the future, police plan to install over 5000 cameras across the city. Though other security systems, like those in Delhi, rely on lines from the state owned service provider MTNL, with limited bandwidth for their CCTV network, the Surat system has its own dedicated cables.

The security system was financed by a unique Public-Private Partnership (PPP) model, where a coalition of businesses, including many manufacturing units and representatives of Surat’s textile industry want to prevent crime. The many jewelers in the city also hoped it would limit thefts. In the model, businesses interested in joining the coalition contribute Rs 25 lakh as a one-time fee and the combined fees along with some public financing go to construct the city-wide system. The chairman of the coalition is always the Commissioner of Surat Police. Members of the coalition not only get a tax break, but also believe they are helping to create a safer city for their industries to thrive.

Arguments for the System

Bomb blasts in Ahmedabad in 2008 led the Gujarat police to consider setting up surveillance systems not just in Ahmedabad, according to Scroll.in, but in many cities including Surat. Terror attacks in Mumbai in 2008 and at the Delhi High Court in 2011 lent momentum to surveillance efforts, as did international responses to terror, such as the United Kingdom’s intensive surveillance efforts in response to 2005 bombing in London. The UK’s security system has become so comprehensive that Londoners are caught on camera over 300 times a day on average. The UK’s CCTV systems cost over £500 million between 2008 and 2012, and one single crime has been solved in London for every 1,000 cameras each year, according to 2008 Metropolitan Police figures.

However, citizens in London may feel safer in their surveillance state knowing that the Home Office of the United Kingdom regulates how CCTV systems are used to ensure that cameras are being used to protect and not to spy. The UK’s Surveillance Camera Code of Practice outlines a thorough system of safeguards that make CCTV implementation less open to abuse. India currently has no comparable regulation.

The combined government worries of terrorism and business owners desire to prevent crime led to Surat’s unique PPP, ournalist Suarav Datta’s article in Scroll.in continues. Though the Surat Municipal Corporation invested Rs 2 crore, business leaders demonstrated their support for the surveillance system by donating the remaining Rs 10 crore required to build the first phase system. Phase II will cost Rs 21 crore, with the state government investing Rs 3 crore and business groups donating the other Rs 18 crore. This finance model demonstrates both public and private support for the CCTV system.

Why CCTV systems may do more harm than good

Despite hopes that surveillance through CCTV systems may prevent terrorism and crime, evidence suggests that it is not as much of a golden bullet as its proponents believe. In the UK, for example, where surveillance is practice extensively, the number of crimes captured on camera dropped significantly in 2010, because there were so many cameras that combing through all the hours footage was proving to be an exercise in futility for many officers. According to Suaray Datta’s article on Scroll.in, potential offenders in London either dodge cameras or carry out their acts in full view of them, which detracts from the argument that cameras deter crime. Additionally, prosecutors allege that the CCTV systems are of little value in court, because the quality of the footage is so low that it cannot provide conclusive proof of identities.

A 2008 study in San Francisco showed that surveillance cameras produce only a placebo effect–they do not deter crime, they just move it down the block, away from the cameras. In Los Angeles, more dramatically, there was little evidence that CCTV cameras helped detect crime, because in high traffic areas the number of cameras and operators required is so high, and because the city’s system was privately funded, the California Research Bureau’s report noted that it was open to exploitation by private interests pursuing their own goals. Surat’s surveillance efforts are largely privately funded too, a vulnerability that could lead to miscarriages of justice if private security contractors were to gain to security footage.

More evidence of the ineffectiveness of CCTV surveillance comes in the Boston marathon bombing of 2013 and the attack on the Indian parliament in 2001. In the case of the Boston bombing, release of CCTV footage to the general public led to rampant and unproductive speculation about the identity of the bomber, which resulted in innocent spectators being unfairly painted with suspicion.

India’s lack of regulation over CCTV’s also makes Surat’s new system susceptible to misuse. There is currently no strong legislation that protects citizens filmed on CCTV from having their images exploited or used inappropriately. Only police will have access to the recordings, Surat officials say, but the police themselves cannot always be trusted to adequately respect the rights of the citizens they are trying to protect.

The Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy acknowledges the lack of regulations on CCTV surveillance, and recommends that CCTV footage be legally protected from abuse. However, the Report notes that regulating CCTV surveillance to the standards of the National Privacy Principals they establish earlier in the report may not be possible for a number of reasons. First, it will be difficult to limit the quantity of information collected because the cameras are simply recording video of public spaces, and is unlikely that individuals will be able to access security footage of themselves. However, issues of consent and choice can be addressed by indicating that CCTV surveillance is taking place on entryways to monitored spaces.

Surat is not the first place in India to experiment with mass CCTV surveillance. Goa has mandated surveillance cameras in beach huts to monitor the huts and deter and detect crime. The rollout is slow and ongoing, and some of the penalties the cameras are intended to enforce seem too severe, such as potentially three months in prison for having too many beach chairs. More worryingly, there are still no laws ensuring that the footage will only be used for its proper law-enforcement objectives. Clear oversight is needed in Goa just as it is in Surat. The Privacy Commissioner outlined by the Report of the Group of Experts could be well suited to overseeing the proper administration of CCTV installations, just as the Commissioner would oversee digital surveillance.

Concerns of privacy and civil liberties appear to have flown out the window in Surat, with little public debate. It is unclear that Surat’s surveillance efforts will achieve any of their desired effects, but without needed safeguards they will present an opportunity for abuse. Perhaps CCTV initiatives need to be subjected to a little bit more scrutiny.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/surat-massive-surveillance-network-cause-of-concern-not-celebration

Information Influx Conference

praskrishna — 2014-07-28T06:31:40Z

Malavika Jayaram was a speaker at the event organized by the Institute for Information Law, University of Amsterdam from July 2 to 4, 2014.

Click to read the full details here.

When IViR set up its research 25 years ago, the digital transition was just starting to gather speed. Since then, our societies have been undergoing enormous changes in the modes of expression, organization and (re)use of information. Traditional roles of producers, intermediaries, users and governments blur and are recast. Information is the central building block of market economies. New ways of creating, disseminating and using it impact the workings of democracy, of science and education, creativity and culture.

Information Influx will bridge disciplines, regions and institutional perspectives to confront the major challenges of developing the rules that govern the expression, organization and re(use) of information in our society – as the central aspects of IViR’s Research Programme.

Wednesday 2 July

13.00 – 16.30

Information Influx Young Scholars Competition:

13.00 – 15.00

Welcome by Prof. Mireille van Eechoud & Dr. L. Guibault

Catherine Doldirina (Joint Research Centre EC) – Open data and Earth observations: the case of opening access to and use of EO through the Global Earth Observation System of Systems
Comments by Prof. Mark Perry

Jenny Metzdorf (University of Luxembourg) – The implementation of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive by national regulatory authorities – National reponses to regulatory challenges
Comments by Dr. Tarlach McGonagle

Harry Halpin (MIT/W3C) – No Safe Haven: The Storage of Data Secrets
Comments by Dr. Philippe Aigrain

15.00 – 15.15
Refreshments break

15.15 – 16.30

Ellen Wauters (ICRI – University of Leuven) – Social Networking Sites’ Terms of Use: addressing imbalances in the user-provider relationship through ex ante and ex post mechanisms
Comments by Dr. Chantal Mak

Nicolo Zingales (Tilburg University) – Virtues and perils of anonymity: should intermediaries bear the burden?
Comments by Prof. Joel Reidenberg

Closing remarks

17.00 – 18.30

Information Influx public opening:

Welcome Louise Gunning-Schepers (University of Amsterdam), Edgar du Perron (University of Amsterdam) and Bernt Hugenholtz (Institute for Information Law)
Keynote – Degrees of Freedom: Sketches of a political theory for an age of deep uncertainty and persistent imperfection – prof. Yochai Benkler (Harvard Law School)
Young Scholars Award ceremony
Speech by Neelie Kroes (Vice-President of the European Commission) – Our Single Market is Crying out for Copyright Reform!

19.00 – 22.00

IViR 25th birthday soirée – by invitation

Thursday 3 July

9.00 – 10.00

Keynote – Governance, Function and Form – prof. Deirdre Mulligan (University of California, Berkeley)

As data and technology to wield it become pervasive, privacy protection must take new forms. Traditional models of governance centered on state actors, and human oversight do not scale to today’s challenges. Drawing from several research projects Mulligan suggests that focusing on roles and functions, rather than traditional forms and actors, can assist us in leveraging the potential of a range of human and technical actors towards privacy’s protection.

10.30 – 12.30

Parallel sessions:

12.30 – 13.45

Lunch

13.45 – 14.30

Julian Oliver & Danja Vasiliev

14.30 – 16.30

Parallel sessions:

17.00 – 18.00

Keynote – Copyright as Innovation Policy – Fred von Lohmann (Google)

Copyright has historically been concerned with encouraging commercial cultural production. Thanks to digital technology, however, copyright law today finds itself called upon to take on additional unfamiliar roles, including fostering technological innovation and encouraging amateur creative expression. The talk will suggest some ways that copyright can successfully grow into these new roles.

19.00 – 22.00

Conference Dinner

Friday 4 July

9.00 – 10.00

Keynote – Datafication, dataism and dataveillance – prof. José van Dijck (University of Amsterdam)

The popularization of datafication as a neutral paradigm is carried by a widespread belief and supported by institutional guardians of trust. That notion of trust becomes problematic when it leads to dataveillance by a number of institutions that handle people’s (meta)data. The interlocking of government, business, and academia in the adaptation of this ideology (“dataism”) prompts us to look more critically at the entire ecosystem of connective media.

10.30 – 12.30
Parallel sessions:

12.30 – 14.00

Buffet Lunch, plus: Brown bag lunch with Rob Frieden – Net Neutrality: One step beyond

14.00 – 15.00

Keynote – Intellectual Property: Two Pasts and A Future – prof. James Boyle (Duke Law School)

Twenty years from now, will our children look up from their digital devices and ask “Daddy, did anyone ever own a book”? In his keynote speech, James Boyle will trace the past lives of intellectual property, the battles fought, the technologies regulated. Can we find hints of the future in the battles of our past? Boyle’s answer is yes, and that answer should give us pause.

15.30 – 17.30

Parallel sessions:

17.30 – 18.30

Farewell drinks

Parallel sessions

Rights in the mix

Among amateur and professional creators alike there is a manifest need to not only share but also remix existing works. The panel discusses how adequately open content licensing systems support these needs. It also looks to how well this licensing system fits in the wider legal framework.

prof. Séverine Dusollier (University of Namur) (moderator)
Paul Keller (Kennisland)
prof. Daniel Gervais (Vanderbilt Law School)
prof. Volker Grassmuck (Lüneburg University)

Behavioural targeting – If you cannot control it, ban it?

The discussion about the potential pitfalls of behavioural targeting practices and the problems it may create for users and user rights continues in full force. The growing evidence of the ineffectiveness of the existing informed-consent-approach to regulation can no longer be ignored. Is it time for the regulator to move to more drastic means and ban certain behavioural targeting practices, and if so, which practices?

prof. Chris Hoofnagle (University of California, Berkeley) (moderator)
prof. Neil Richards (Washington University)
Frederik Borgesius (Institute for Information Law)
prof. Joseph Turow (University of Pennsylvania)
prof. Mireille Hildebrandt (University of Nijmegen)
dr. Tal Zarsky (University of Haifa)

Tomorrow’s news: bright, mutualized and open?

As public debate becomes more diversified, crowded, interactive, noisy and technology-dependent than ever before, what survival strategies are being devised for the news as we know it? Are existing expressive and communicative rights, and related duties and responsibilities, fit-for-purpose in increasingly digitized and networked democratic societies? Will tomorrow’s news still be worth tuning into?

dr. Tarlach McGonagle (Institute for Information Law) (moderator)
dr. Susanne Nikoltchev (European Audiovisual Observatory)
Aidan White (Ethical Journalism Network)
dr. Luís Santos (University of Minho)
dr. Eugenia Siapera (Dublin City University)
Gillian Phillips (The Guardian)

Filtering away infringement: copyright, injunctions and the role of ISPs

Can technology solve the problem of intermediary liability for online copyright infringement? If so, should technology be allowed to determine law? This panel shall focus on the issue of injunctions imposed on online intermediaries to force them to adopt measures that filter or block copyright infringements by third parties on their websites.

prof. Bernt Hugenholtz (Institute for Information Law) (moderator)
prof. Dirk Visser (University of Leiden)
Remy Chavannes (Brinkhof)
Fred von Lohmann (Google)
Sir Richard Arnold (High Court UK)
prof. Niva Elkin-Koren (University of Haifa)
prof. Reto Hilty (Max Planck Institute)

Mass-digitization and the conundrum of online access

Cultural heritage institutions face difficulties providing online access to digitized materials in their collections. This session examines a number of pressing issues, taking a trans-Atlantic perspective. When does digitization in public-private partnerships pose a threat to access to public domain materials? What ways are there to manage rights clearance of copyrighted materials and deal with territoriality?

prof. Martin Senftleben (VU University Amsterdam) (moderator)
prof. Pamela Samuelson (University of California, Berkeley)
dr. Elisabeth Niggemann (Deutsche Nationalbibliothek)
prof. Martin Kretschmer (Glasgow University)

The algorithmic public: towards a normative framework for automated media

In the online media, decisions about what users get to see (or not to see) are increasingly automated, through the use of smart algorithms and extensive data about users’ preferences and online behaviour. This raises a number of fundamental questions about freedom of expression, editorial integrity and user autonomy. Leading thinkers will debate algorithmic decision-making in online media and explore the contours of a much needed normative framework for automated media.

prof. Natali Helberger (Institute for Information Law) (moderator)
dr. Joris van Hoboken (New York University)
prof. Wolfgang Schulz (Hans-Bredow-Institut)
prof. Niva Elkin-Koren (University of Haifa)
dr. Bernhard Rieder (University of Amsterdam)

Accountability and the public sector data push

Initiatives to make governments more ‘transparent’ abound. Freedom of information laws are reconfigured to push out ever more information to citizens and businesses. Promises of benefits abound too: better accountability and increased participation, as well as efficiency gains and new business opportunities. Can and should the next generation of freedom of information laws serve both political-democratic objectives and economic ones?

prof. Mireille van Eechoud (Institute for Information Law) (moderator)
Chris Taggart (Open Corporates)
Helen Darbishire (Access Info)
prof. Deirdre Curtin (University of Amsterdam)
dr. Ben Worthy (Birkbeck University College London)
Jonathan Gray (Open Knowledge Foundation / University of London)

A new governance model for communications security?

Today, the vulnerable state of electronic communications security dominates headlines across the globe, while money and power increasingly permeate the policy arena. 2013 has seen no less than five sweeping legislative initiatives in the E.U., while the U.S. seems to trust in the market to deliver. Amidst these diverging approaches, how should communications security be regulated?

Axel Arnbak (Institute for Information Law) (moderator)
prof. Deirdre Mulligan (University of California, Berkeley)
prof. Ian Brown (Oxford University)
prof. Michel van Eeten (Delft university of technology)
Amelia Andersdotter (European Parliament)
Ashkan Soltani (independent researcher)

Global information flows and the nation state

Information flows contest the physical spaces in which the nation state has been deemed a sovereign for almost five centuries. This tension dominates nearly all areas of information law, from data protection and IP enforcement to mass surveillance by national intelligence agencies. This session reflects on the broader challenges that territoriality presents for information law today.

prof. Urs Gasser (Harvard) (moderator)
prof. Joel Reidenberg (Fordham Law School)
prof. Graeme Dinwoodie (Oxford University)
Malavika Jayaram (Harvard)
Hielke Hijmans (Vrije Universiteit Brussel)

United in diversity – the future of the public mission

Digital technologies and the information economy create fascinating new opportunities but also pose fundamental challenges to the fulfilment of the public mission of the media, public archives and libraries alike. This panel is a step towards establishing a dialogue between the three institutions: to explore the congruence between their missions, and their responses to critical issues such as technological convergence, the changing habits of users, the growing abundance of content and their relationship to new information intermediaries, such as search engines, social networks or content platforms.

prof. Natali Helberger (Institute for Information Law) (moderator)
prof. Klaus Schönbach (University of Vienna)
prof. Frank Huysmans (University of Amsterdam)
prof. Egbert Dommering (Institute for Information Law)
Maarten Brinkerink (Netherlands Institute for Sound and Vision)
Richard Burnley (European Broadcasting Union)

Legalizing file-sharing: an idea whose time has come – or gone?

Alternative compensation systems are designed to legalize and monetize online copyright restricted acts of distributing and consuming content. Empirical evidence shows that end-users strongly support paying flat-rate fees for the ability to legally download and share content. So what prevents us from introducing such schemes? The group of experts convened debates the future of alternative compensation systems in light of current legal, business and technology trends.

prof. Bernt Hugenholtz (Institute for Information Law) (moderator)
prof. Neil Netanel (University of California, Los Angeles)
prof. Alexander Peukert (University of Frankfurt)
dr. Philippe Aigrain (Quadrature du Net)
prof. Séverine Dusollier (University of Namur)

Assembly (Information influx)

Taking legal cases and controversies involving intellectual property, art collective Agency composes a growing list of “Things” that resist the split between “nature” and “culture”, a split that intellectual property relies upon. From the list of over a 1,000 Things, Agency calls forth Thing 002094, the copyright controversy Être et Avoir, to jointly speculate upon. The purpose is less to re-enact the judgment and more to prolong hesitation.

Agency
Severine Dusollier
Wilco Kalff
Sanne Rovers
Margot van de Linde
Arnisa Zeqo

Big brother is back

The debate about the pervasive surveillance of the online environment is roaring. Considering what we know now, what better metaphor is there than to conclude that we live in the world of Big Brother? This session will bring together leading thinkers and doers related to power and control in the communication environment, who will provide critical input on the way we think and speak about information freedom and control. Should we aspire to tame Big Brother or should we think differently about the problem?

Axel Arnbak (Institute for Information Law) (moderator)
dr. Joris van Hoboken (New York University) (moderator)
John McGrath (National Theatre of Wales)
dr. Seda Gürses (New York University)
Hans de Zwart (Bits of Freedom)

Who owns the World Cup? The case for and against property rights in sports events

Sports have important economic, social and cultural dimensions. What is the optimal form of legal protection of sports events considering the public-private nature of sports? The focus of debate will be on football because of its major relevance in Europe in terms of diffusion, commercial exploitation, and social impact; but we can expect many insights to hold true for other sports as well.

prof. Bernt Hugenholtz (Institute for Information Law) (moderator)
prof. Lionel Bently (University of Cambridge)
prof. Dirk Voorhoof (Ghent University)
prof. Peter Jaszi (American University Washington)
prof. Graeme Dinwoodie (Oxford University)
prof. Egbert Dommering (Institute for Information Law)
prof. Alan Bairner (Loughborough University)

Associated events

Invitation only:
Wednesday 2 July: Big Breakfast with Joseph Turow & Tal Zarksy – Ethical, normative, social and cultural implications of profiling & targeting in an era of big data – towards a research agenda, Institute for Information Law (IViR) & Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR), East India House, room E0.02, 09.00-12.00 a.m.

Public event:

Friday 4 July: Lecture James Boyle & Marjan Hammersma about cultural heritage and the public domain
More information and registration at:
Cultural heritage institutions as guardians of public domain works in the digital environment, Rijksmuseum & Kennisland in cooperation with IViR, Rijksmuseum Auditorium, 18.00-20.00 p.m.

About IViR

The Institute for Information Law (IViR) is a centre of excellence in academic research which consistently seeks to further our understanding of how legal norms reflect and shape the creation, dissemination and use of information in our societies. That is the ambition at the heart of the many research initiatives IVIR has undertaken since its foundation in 1989. The urgency of taking an interdisciplinary and international approach has only grown in the past decades. It is crucial if we want to understand and evaluate the rapidly evolving complex and myriad legal norms that govern information relations in markets, in social and in political spaces. With over 30 researchers, teachers and support staff based in our offices in the historic centre of Amsterdam, we have the critical mass to broach key regulatory challenges of today’s information society.

Our focus on information relations deliberately cuts across traditional boundaries in legal scholarship. We bring together insights from constitutional law, human rights, public administration, intellectual property, contract and property law, and competition law. Our functional approach enables fruitful collaboration with experts from an array of academic disciplines, in information and communications technology, economics, media studies, political science and the arts.

Continuing a long Dutch tradition of openness towards the world, our work has a strong international orientation. It shows in the topics we study, the strong global network of affiliations we have in academia and the wonderful dynamic mix of upcoming and experienced researchers from all over Europe and beyond that make up IViR.

With each consecutive research programme we prioritize legal developments that fascinate us, and translate them into a variety of research projects. This includes doctoral research, research for policymakers at national, European and international level, and projects funded through national and European research grant programmes. Our current research programme and an overview of research projects can be found here. Doctoral dissertations, journal articles, books, case comments, studies, reports, lectures, debates, workshops, conferences and summer schools are the staple means of communicating what we do. Browse our publications here.

Media reports and conference outputs will be posted on the IViR website

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/information-influx-conference

The trouble with trolls

praskrishna — 2014-07-28T05:42:36Z

Social networking sites give trolls the ability to hide their real identity and cause grief to others. Here is what you need to do if you face an online attack.

The article by Vishal Mathur was published in Livemint on July 22, 2014. Sunil Abraham gave his inputs.

Social networking sites give trolls the ability to hide their real identity and cause grief to others. Here is what you need to do if you face an online attack.

Though social networks were not designed with the intention of letting someone anonymously abuse another online, the reality is that people utilize the ability to hide behind online identities to threaten other users. These could be veiled attacks, direct abuse, or even threats to “cause bodily harm”. What can you do if you’re trolled and threatened on any social network? Follow our five-step guide. Avoid conversation if you can The responses could come in relation to something you may have just posted online. Or perhaps it could be just a random trolling attempt, to get a response from you. It is important to understand and identify such intentions. And as difficult as it may be, do not respond. Getting into a direct interaction with a bully only makes things worse. Report to the social network You should report any instance of cyber bullying or harassment to the host social network—the website or forum on which the interaction happened. There are various methods of getting in touch with the moderators—customer support email, contact submission forms or even via phone, in certain locations. Describe the problem in detail, and persist till the offending account is blocked from the platform. “Most social networks have systems that allow you to report abusive content and users. However, there is great variance in the speed with which they respond across different platforms, jurisdictions, etc.,” says Sunil Abraham, executive director at the Bangalore-based non-profit research organization Centre for Internet and Society. New Delhi-based Anja Kovacs, project director, at civil society organization Internet Democracy Project, adds: “Blocking and reporting an account can be two ways to stop harassment on some social networks, but on other platforms, such as Twitter, it is possible for the person to immediately make a new account under a different username, meaning that these measures do not necessarily stop the harassment.” Ankhi Das, director, public policy, India and South Asia at social network Facebook, says: “Every reported piece of content is reviewed. Serial offenders are notified for non-compliance.” Facebook’s Community Standards, that prevent harassment and offensive posts, have an 11-point categorization for reported content—violence and threats, hate speech, graphic content, bullying and harassment, to name some. Raheel Khursheed, head of news, politics and government at Twitter India, did not respond to our mail about how Twitter handles trolls at the time of going to press. On blogs and forums, it may be a bit easier to deal with trolling and abuse. If it is your own blog, you can delete comments and block users. If it is a forum, the administrator can do it for you. But, with social networks having millions of users, it is not possible to have one administrator managing it all. And it is not just Facebook and Twitter, all social networks have a method by which you can register your complaint. LinkedIn, for example, automatically blocks a user who gets multiple “I don’t know” responses to invitations to connect. There is a strong monitoring policy where any reported content (recommendations or direct messages) is examined and immediate warnings are sent out to offending parties. Keep a copy of the offensive posts Be it a post, or a series of posts, direct message or even an offending photograph, always save it for future reference. Never assume that the matter will end soon, and always prepare for the worst. Don’t ignore privacy settings Most people start using Facebook, Twitter and other social networks without paying much attention to the privacy settings—what content people can see on your page, and who can directly contact you. Be conservative in sharing information—the less you share, the lower the chances of someone picking on you. “Avoid friending or linking to people whom you don’t know in real life unless you are certain of the chain of trust that exists between you and the unknown person,” says Abraham. New Delhi-based cyber lawyer Apar Gupta, adds: “The privacy settings on most social networking platforms allow users to prevent (restrict) the audience for their posts as well as strangers from contacting them. This will prevent most cases of online harassment.” Get help from the law In case social networks are not able to effectively block a user, or are in some way unwilling to do so, take help from the law-enforcement authorities. File an FIR in the nearest police station. Unfortunately, the progress may not be very smooth. The reality is that not every law-enforcement officer may know about social networking sites. “You could try and go to the police, but without support from the social network platform, they are often at a loss to do much themselves,” warns Kovacs. The police may look for hints of threat to cause bodily harm or worse still, to life. In such cases, they may recommend the case to the Cyber Crime Cell of the Central Bureau of Investigation. “Generally, while the substantive offences do exist under law, the process for having them enforced is deficient. These are deeper structural problems of delay, investigation and conviction which are prevalent across criminal justice or civil litigation,” clarifies Gupta. Officials at the Cyber Crime Cell say they take up cases after reference from the local police, who file the report first and do a preliminary level of investigation. But it is important to realize that only the police and the law-enforcement agencies have the right to demand further details about the perpetrator from the social networks, starting with profile details and Internet Protocol (IP) addresses, which will help track the person down. Das clarifies: “Facebook has a point-of-contact system through which the law-enforcement agencies tell us what the actual case is, depending on severity. The police may ask us to take down particular content, or even ask for user information like IP info, to prevent real crime.” According to Facebook’s Government Requests Report for July-December 2013, the network restricted access to 4,765 pieces of content after requests from the Indian government and law-enforcement agencies.

Though social networks were not designed with the intention of letting someone anonymously abuse another online, the reality is that people utilize the ability to hide behind online identities to threaten other users. These could be veiled attacks, direct abuse, or even threats to “cause bodily harm”. What can you do if you’re trolled and threatened on any social network? Follow our five-step guide.

Avoid conversation if you can
The responses could come in relation to something you may have just posted online. Or perhaps it could be just a random trolling attempt, to get a response from you. It is important to understand and identify such intentions. And as difficult as it may be, do not respond. Getting into a direct interaction with a bully only makes things worse.

Report to the social network
You should report any instance of cyber bullying or harassment to the host social network—the website or forum on which the interaction happened. There are various methods of getting in touch with the moderators—customer support email, contact submission forms or even via phone, in certain locations. Describe the problem in detail, and persist till the offending account is blocked from the platform. “Most social networks have systems that allow you to report abusive content and users. However, there is great variance in the speed with which they respond across different platforms, jurisdictions, etc.,” says Sunil Abraham, executive director at the Bangalore-based non-profit research organization Centre for Internet and Society. New Delhi-based Anja Kovacs, project director, at civil society organization Internet Democracy Project, adds: “Blocking and reporting an account can be two ways to stop harassment on some social networks, but on other platforms, such as Twitter, it is possible for the person to immediately make a new account under a different username, meaning that these measures do not necessarily stop the harassment.” Ankhi Das, director, public policy, India and South Asia at social network Facebook, says: “Every reported piece of content is reviewed. Serial offenders are notified for non-compliance.” Facebook’s Community Standards, that prevent harassment and offensive posts, have an 11-point categorization for reported content—violence and threats, hate speech, graphic content, bullying and harassment, to name some. Raheel Khursheed, head of news, politics and government at Twitter India, did not respond to our mail about how Twitter handles trolls at the time of going to press. On blogs and forums, it may be a bit easier to deal with trolling and abuse. If it is your own blog, you can delete comments and block users. If it is a forum, the administrator can do it for you. But, with social networks having millions of users, it is not possible to have one administrator managing it all. And it is not just Facebook and Twitter, all social networks have a method by which you can register your complaint. LinkedIn, for example, automatically blocks a user who gets multiple “I don’t know” responses to invitations to connect. There is a strong monitoring policy where any reported content (recommendations or direct messages) is examined and immediate warnings are sent out to offending parties.

Keep a copy of the offensive posts
Be it a post, or a series of posts, direct message or even an offending photograph, always save it for future reference. Never assume that the matter will end soon, and always prepare for the worst.

Don’t ignore privacy settings
Most people start using Facebook, Twitter and other social networks without paying much attention to the privacy settings—what content people can see on your page, and who can directly contact you. Be conservative in sharing information—the less you share, the lower the chances of someone picking on you. “Avoid friending or linking to people whom you don’t know in real life unless you are certain of the chain of trust that exists between you and the unknown person,” says Abraham. New Delhi-based cyber lawyer Apar Gupta, adds: “The privacy settings on most social networking platforms allow users to prevent (restrict) the audience for their posts as well as strangers from contacting them. This will prevent most cases of online harassment.”

Get help from the law
In case social networks are not able to effectively block a user, or are in some way unwilling to do so, take help from the law-enforcement authorities. File an FIR in the nearest police station. Unfortunately, the progress may not be very smooth. The reality is that not every law-enforcement officer may know about social networking sites. “You could try and go to the police, but without support from the social network platform, they are often at a loss to do much themselves,” warns Kovacs. The police may look for hints of threat to cause bodily harm or worse still, to life. In such cases, they may recommend the case to the Cyber Crime Cell of the Central Bureau of Investigation. “Generally, while the substantive offences do exist under law, the process for having them enforced is deficient. These are deeper structural problems of delay, investigation and conviction which are prevalent across criminal justice or civil litigation,” clarifies Gupta. Officials at the Cyber Crime Cell say they take up cases after reference from the local police, who file the report first and do a preliminary level of investigation. But it is important to realize that only the police and the law-enforcement agencies have the right to demand further details about the perpetrator from the social networks, starting with profile details and Internet Protocol (IP) addresses, which will help track the person down. Das clarifies: “Facebook has a point-of-contact system through which the law-enforcement agencies tell us what the actual case is, depending on severity. The police may ask us to take down particular content, or even ask for user information like IP info, to prevent real crime.” According to Facebook’s Government Requests Report for July-December 2013, the network restricted access to 4,765 pieces of content after requests from the Indian government and law-enforcement agencies.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/livemint-july-22-2014-vishal-mathur-the-trouble-with-trolls

UK’s Interception of Communications Commissioner — A Model of Accountability

joe — 2014-07-24T06:08:53Z

The United Kingdom maintains sophisticated electronic surveillance operations through a number of government agencies, ranging from military intelligence organizations to police departments to tax collection agencies. However, all of this surveillance is governed by one set of national laws outlining specifically what surveillance agencies can and cannot do.

The primary law that governs government investigations is the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, abbreviated as RIPA 2000.

To ensure that this law is being followed and surveillance operations in the United Kingdom are not conducted illegally, the RIPA 2000 Part I establishes an Interception of Communications Commissioner, who is tasked with inspecting the surveillance operations, assessing their legality, and compiling an annual report to for the Prime Minister.

On April 8, 2014 the current Commissioner, Rt Hon. Sir Anthony May, laid the 2013 annual report before the House of Commons and the Scottish Parliament. In its introduction, the report notes that it is responding to concerns raised as a result of Edward Snowden’s actions, especially misuse of powers by intelligence agencies and invasion of privacy. The report also acknowledges that the laws governing surveillance, and particularly RIPA 2000, are difficult for the average citizen to understand, so the report includes a narrative outline of relevant provisions in an attempt to make the legislation clear and accessible. However, the report points out that while the Commissioner had complete access to any documents or investigative records necessary to construct the report, the Commissioner was unable to publish surveillance details indiscriminately, due to confidentiality concerns in a report being issued to the public. (It is worth noting here that though the Commissioner is one man, he has an entire agency working under him, so it is possible that he himself did not do or write all of that the report attributes to him). As a whole, the report outlines a series of thorough audits of surveillance operations, and reveals that the overwhelming majority of surveillance in the UK is conducted entirely legally, and that the small minority of incorrectly conducted surveillance appears to be unintentional. Looking beyond the borders of the United Kingdom, the report represents a powerful model of a government initiative to ensure transparency in surveillance efforts across the globe.

The Role of the Commissioner

The report begins in the first person, by outlining the role of the Commissioner. May’s role, he writes, is primarily to audit the interception of data, both to satisfy his own curiosity and to prepare a report for the Prime Minister. Thus, his primary responsibility is to review the lawfulness of surveillance actions, and to that end, his organization possesses considerable investigative powers. He is also tasked with ensuring that prisons are legally administrated, though he makes this duty an afterthought in his report.

Everyone associated with surveillance or interception in the government must disclose whatever the commissioner asks for. In short, he seems well equipped to carry out his work. The Commissioner has a budget of £1,101,000, almost all of which, £948,000 is dedicated to staff salaries.

The report directly addresses questions about the Commissioner’s ability to carry out his duties. Does the Commissioner have full access to whatever materials or data it needs to conduct its investigations, the report asks, and it answers bluntly, yes. It is likely, the report concludes, that the Commissioner also has sufficient resources to adequately carry out his duties. Yes, the Commissioner is fully independent from other government interests; the commissioner answers his own question. Finally, the report asks if the Commissioner should be more open in his reports to the public about surveillance, and he responds that the sensitivity of the material prohibits him from disclosing more, but that the report adequately addresses public concern regardless. There is a degree to which this question and answer routine seems self-congratulatory, but it is good to see that the Commissioner is considering these questions as he carries out his duties.

Interception of Communications

The report first goes into detail about the Commissioner’s audits of communications interception operations, where interception means wiretapping or reading the actual content of text messages, emails, or other communications, as opposed to the metadata associated with communications, such as timestamps and numbers contacted. In this section, the report outlines the steps necessary to conduct an interception, outlining that an interception requires a warrant, and only a Secretary of State (one of five officials) can authorize an interception warrant. Moreover, the only people who can apply for such warrants are the directors of various intelligence, police, and revenue agencies. In practice, the Secretaries of State have senior staff that read warrant applications and present those they deem worthy to the Secretary for his or her signature, as their personal signature is required for authorization.

For a warrant to be granted, it must meet a number of criteria. First, interception warrants must be necessary in the interests of national security, to prevent or detect serious crime, or to safeguard economic wellbeing of the UK. Additionally, a warrant can be granted if it is necessary for similar reasons in other countries with mutual assistance agreements with the UK. Warrants must be proportionate to the ends sought. Finally, interception warrants for communications inside the UK must specify either a person or a location where the interception will take place. Warrants for communications outside of the UK require no such specificity.

In 2013, 2760 interception warrants were authorized, 19% fewer warrants than in 2012. The Commissioner inspected 26 different agencies and examined 600 different warrants throughout 2013. He gave inspected agencies a report on his findings after each inspection, so they could see whether or not they were following the law. He concluded that the agencies that undertake interception “do so lawfully, conscientiously, effectively, and in our national interest.” Thus, all warrants adequately meet the application and authorization requirements outlined in RIPA 2000.

Communications Data

The report goes on to discuss communications data collection, where communications data refers to metadata–not the content of the communications itself, but data associated with it, such as call durations, or a list of email recipients. The Commissioner explains that metadata is easier to obtain than an interception warrant. Designated officials in their respective surveillance organization read and grant metadata warrant applications, instead of one of the Secretaries of State who could grant interception warrants. Additionally, the requirements for a metadata warrant are looser than for interception warrants. Metadata warrants must still be necessary, but necessary for a broader range of causes, ranging from collecting taxes, protecting public health, or for any purpose specified by a Secretary of State.

The relative ease of obtaining a metadata warrant is consistent with a higher number of warrants approved. In 2013, 514,608 metadata warrants were authorized, down from 570,135 in 2012. Local law enforcement applied for 87.5% of those warrants while intelligence agencies accounted for 11.5%. Only a small minority of requests was sent from the revenue office or other departments.

The purposes of these warrants were similarly concentrated. 76.9% of metadata warrants were issued for prevention or detection of crime. Protecting national security justified 11.4% of warrants and another 11.4% of warrants were issued to prevent death or injury. 0.2% of warrants were to identify people who had died or otherwise couldn’t identify themselves, 0.11% of warrants were issued to protect the economic wellbeing of the United Kingdom, and 0.02% of warrants were associated with tax collection. The Commissioner identified less than 0.01% of warrants as being issued in a miscarriage of justice, a very low proportion.

The Commissioner inspected metadata surveillance efforts, conducting 75 inspections in 2013, and classified the practices of those operations inspected as good, fair or poor. 4% of operations had poor practices. He noticed two primary errors. The first was that data was occasionally requested on an incorrect communications address, and the second was that he could not verify that some metadata was not being stored past its useful lifetime. May highlighted that RIPA 2000 does not give concrete lengths for which data should be stored, as Section 15(3) states only that data must be deleted “as soon as there are no longer grounds for retaining it as necessary for any of the authorized purposes.” He noted that he was only concerned because some metadata was being stored for longer periods than associated interception data. As May put it, “I have yet to satisfy myself fully that some of these periods are justified and in those cases I required the agencies to shorten their retention periods or, if not, provide me with more persuasive reasons.” The Commissioner seems determined that this practice will either be eliminated or better justified to him in the near future.

Indian Applications

The United Kingdom’s Interception of Communications Commissioner has similar powers to the Indian Privacy Commissioner suggested by the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy. Similar to the United Kingdom, it is recommended that a Privacy Commissioner in India have investigative powers in the execution of its charter, and that the Privacy Commissioner represent citizen interests, ensuring that data controllers are in line with the stipulated regulations. The Report also broadly states that “with respect to interception/access, audio & video recordings, the use of personal identifiers, and the use of bodily or genetic material, the Commissioner may exercise broad oversight functions.” In this way, the Report touches upon the need for oversight of surveillance, and suggests that this responsibility may be undertaken by the Privacy Commissioner, but does not clearly place this responsibility with the Privacy Commissioner. This raises the question of if India should adopt a similar model to the United Kingdom – and create a privacy commissioner – responsible primarily for overseeing and enforcing data protection standards, and a separate surveillance commissioner – responsible for overseeing and enforcing standards relating to surveillance measures. When evaluating the different approaches there are a number of considerations that should be kept in mind:

Law enforcement and security agencies are the exception to a number of data protection standards including access and disclosure.
There is a higher level of ‘sensitivity’ around issues relating to surveillance than data protection and each needs to be handled differently.
The ‘competence’ required to deliberate on issues related to data protection is different then the ‘competence’ required deliberating on issues related to surveillance.

Additionally, this raises the question of whether India needs a separate regulation governing data protection and a separate regulation governing surveillance.

Allegations of Wrongdoing

It is worth noting that though May describes surveillance operations conducted in compliance with the law, many other organizations have accused the UK government of abusing their powers and spying on citizens and internet users in illegal ways. The GCHQ, the government’s communications surveillance center has come under particular fire. The organization has been accused indiscriminate spying and introducing malware into citizen’s computers, among other things. Led by the NGO Privacy International, internet service providers around the world have recently lodged complaints against the GCHQ, alleging that it uses malicious software to break into their networks. Many of these complaints are based on the information brought to light in Edward Snowden’s document leaks. Privacy International alleges that malware distributed by GCHQ enables access to any stored content, logging keystrokes and “the covert and unauthorized photography or recording of the user and those around him,” which they claim is similar to physically searching through someone’s house unbeknownst to them and without permission. They also accuse GCHQ malware of leaving devices open to attacks by others, such as identity thieves.

Snowden’s files also indicate a high level of collaboration between GCHQ and the NSA. According to the Guardian, which analyzed and reported on many of the Snowden files, the NSA has in past years paid GCHQ to conduct surveillance operations through the US program called Prism. Leaked documents report that the British intelligence agency used Prism to generate 197 intelligence reports in the year to May 2012. Prism is not mentioned at all in the Interception of Communications Commissioner’s report. In fact, while the report’s introduction explains that it will attempt to address details revealed in Snowden’s leaked documents, very little of what those documents indicate is later referenced in the report. May ignores the plethora of accusations of GCHQ wrongdoing.

Thus, while May’s tone appears genuine and sincere, the details of his report do little to dispel fears of widespread surveillance. It is unclear whether May is being totally forthcoming in his report, especially when he devotes so little energy to directly responding to concerns raised by Snowden’s leaks.

Conclusion

May wrapped up his report with some reflections on the state of surveillance in the United Kingdom. He concluded that RIPA 2000 protects consumers in an internet age, though small incursions are imaginable, and especially lauds the law for it’s technological neutrality. That is, RIPA 2000 is a strong law because it deals with surveillance in general and not with any specific technologies like telephones or Facebook, use of which changes over time. The Commissioner also was satisfied that powers were not being misused in the United Kingdom. He reported that there have been a small number of unintentional errors, he noted, and some confusion about the duration of data retention. However, any data storage mistakes seemed to stem from an unspecific law.

Despite May’s report of surveillance run by the books, other UK groups have accused GCHQ, the government’s communications surveillance center, of indiscriminate spying and introducing malware into citizen’s computers. Privacy International has submitted a claim arguing that a litany of malware is employed by the GCHQ to log detailed personal data such as keystrokes. The fact that May’s report does little to disprove these claims casts the Commissioner in an uncertain light. It is unclear whether surveillance is being conducted illegally or, as the report suggests, all surveillance of citizens is being conducted as authorized.

Still, the concept of a transparency report and audit of a nation’s surveillance initiatives report is a step towards government accountability done right, and should serve as a model for enforcement methods in other nations. May’s practice of giving feedback to the organizations he inspects allows them to improve, and the public report he releases serves as a deterrent to illegal surveillance activity. The Interception of Communications Commissioner–provided he reports truthfully and accurately–is what gives the safeguards built into the UK’s interception regime strength and accountability. In other nations looking to establish privacy protections, a similar role would make their surveillance provisions balanced with safeguards and accountability to ensure that the citizens fundamental rights–including the right to privacy–are not compromised.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/uk-interception-of-communications-commissioner-a-model-of-accountability

Private Censorship and the Right to Hear

chinmayi — 2014-07-22T05:57:09Z

Very little recourse is available against publishers or intermediaries if these private parties censor an author’s content unreasonably.

The article was published in the Hoot on July 17, 2014 and also mirrored on the website of Centre for Communication Governance.

DNA newspaper's removal of Rana Ayyub's brave piece on Amit Shah, with no explanation, is shocking. It is reminiscent of the role that media owners played in censoring journalists during the Emergency, prompting L.K. Advani to say, "You were asked to bend, but you crawled."

The promptitude with which some media houses are weeding out political writing that might get them into trouble should make us reconsider the way we think about the freedom of the press. Discussions of press freedom often concentrate on the individual's right to speak, but may be more effective if they also accommodated another perspective - the audience's right to hear.

It is fortunate that Ayyub's piece was printed and reached its audience before attempts were made to bury it. Its removal was counterproductive, making DNA's decision a good example of what is popularly known as the Streisand Effect (when an attempt to censor or remove infor-mation has the unintended consequence of publicising the information even more widely).

The controversy that has emerged from DNA removing the article has generated much wider attention for it now that it has appeared on multiple websites, its readership expanding as outrage at its removal ricochets around the Internet.

This incident is hardly the first of its kind. Just weeks ago, news surfaced of Rajdeep Sardesai being pressurised to alter his news channel's political coverage before the national election. The Mint reported that the people pressurising Sardesai wanted a complete blackout of Kejriwal and the Aam Admi party from CNN-IBN. Had he capitulated, significant news of great public interest would have been lost to a large audience. CNN-IBN's decision would have been put down to editorial discretion, and we the public would have been none the wiser.

Luckily for their audience, Sardesai and Sagarika Ghose quit the channel that they built from scratch instead of compromising their journalistic integrity. However, the league of editors who choose to crawl remains large, their decisions protected by the Indian constitution.

The freedom of the press in India only protects the press from the government's direct attempts to influence it. Both big business and the state have far more instruments at their disposal than just direct ownership or censorship diktats. These include withdrawal of lucrative advertisements, defamation notices threatening journalists with enormous fines and imprisonment, and sometimes even physical violence. Who can forget how Tehelka magazine's exposure of largescale government wrongdoing resulted in its financiers being persecuted by the Enforcement Directorate, with one of them even being jailed for some time.

The instruments of harassment work best when the legal notices are sent to third party publishers or intermediaries. Unlike the authors who may wish to defend their work or modify it a little to make it suitable for publication, a publishing house or web platform would usually prefer to avoid expensive litigation. Third party publishers will often remove legitimate con-tent to avoid spending time and money fighting for it. Pressurising them is a fairly effective way to silence authors and journalists.

Consider the different news outlets and publishing houses that control what reaches us as news or commentary. If they can be forced to bury content, citing editorial discretion, consider what this means for the quality of news that reaches the Indian public. Indira Gandhi understood this weakness of the press, and successfully controlled the Indian media by managing the proprietors.

Although media ownership still remains concentrated in a few hands, the disruptive element that still offers some hope of free public dialogue is the Internet where, through blogs, small websites and social media, journalists can still get access to the public sphere. This means that when DNA deletes Rana Ayyub's article, copies of it are immediately posted in other places.

However, online journalism is also vulnerable. Online intermediaries which receive content blocking and take down orders tend to over-comply rather than risk litigation. Like publishers, these intermediaries can easily prevent speakers from reaching their audiences. Just look at the volume of information online that is dependent on third party intermediaries such as Rediff, Facebook, WordPress or Twitter. The only thing that keeps the state and big business from easily controlling the flow of information on the Internet is that it is difficult to exert cross-border pressure on online intermediaries located outside India.

However, the ease with which most of the mainstream media is controlled makes it easy to construct a bubble of fiction around audiences, leaving them in blissful ignorance of how little they really know. Very little recourse is available against publishers or intermediaries if these private parties censor an author's content unreasonably. Unlike state censorship, private censorship is invisible, and is protected by the online and offline intermediaries' right to their editorial choices.

Ordinarily, there is nothing wrong with editorial discretion or even with a media house choosing a particular slant to its stories. However, it is important for the public to have access to a healthy range of perspectives and interests, with a diversity of content. If news of public significance is regularly filtered out, it affects the state of our democracy. Citizens cannot participate in governance without access to important information.

It is, therefore, vital to acknowledge the harm caused by private censorship. A democracy is endangered when a few parties disproportionately control access to the public sphere. We need to think of how to ensure that the voices of journalists and scholars reach their audience. Media freedom should be seen in the context of the right of the audience, the Indian public, to receive information.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-hoot-july-17-2014-chinmayi-arun-private-censorship-and-the-right-to-hear

First Privacy and Surveillance Roundtable

anandini — 2014-08-09T04:13:50Z

The Privacy and Surveillance Roundtables are a CIS initiative, in partnership with the Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI), as well as local partners. From June 2014 – November 2014, CIS and COAI will host seven Privacy and Surveillance Roundtable discussions across multiple cities in India. The Roundtables will be closed-door deliberations involving multiple stakeholders.

Through the course of these discussions we aim to deliberate upon the current legal framework for surveillance in India, and discuss possible frameworks for surveillance in India. The provisions of the draft CIS Privacy Bill 2013, the International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communication Surveillance, and the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy will be used as background material and entry points into the discussion. The recommendations and dialogue from each roundtable will be compiled and submitted to the Department of Personnel and Training.

The first of seven proposed roundtable meetings on “Privacy and Surveillance” conducted by the Centre for Internet and Society in collaboration with the Cellular Operators Association of India and the Council for Fair Business Practices was held in Mumbai on the 28th of June, 2014.

The roundtable’s discussion centered on the Draft Privacy Protection Bill formed by CIS in 2013, which contains provisions on the regulation of interception and surveillance and its implications on individual privacy. Other background documents to the event included the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy, and the International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance.

Background and Context

The Chair of the Roundtable began by giving a brief background of Surveillance regulation in India, focusing its scope to primarily telegraphic, postal and electronic surveillance.

Why a surveillance regime now?

A move to review the existing privacy laws in India came in the wake of Indo-EU Fair Trade Agreement negotiations; where a Data Adequacy Assessment conducted by European Commission found India’s data protection policies and practices inadequate for India to be granted EU secure status. The EU’s data protection regime is in contrast, fairly strong, governed by the framework of the EU Data Protection Directive, 1995.

In response to this, the Department of Personnel and Training, which drafted the Right to Information Act of 2005 and the Whistleblower’s Protection Act, 2011 was given the task of forming a Privacy Bill. Although the initial draft of the Bill was made available to the public, as per reports, the Second draft of the Bill has been shared selectively with certain security agencies and not with service providers or the public.

Discussion

The Chair began the discussion by posing certain preliminary questions to the Roundtable:

What should a surveillance law contain and how should it function?
If the system is warrant based, who would be competent to execute it?
Can any government department be allowed a surveillance request?

A larger question posed was whether the concerns and questions posed above would be irrelevant with the possible enforcement of a Central Monitoring System in the near future? As per reports, the Central Monitoring System would allow the government to intercept communications independently without using service providers and thus, in effect, shielding such information from the public entirely.

The CIS Privacy Protection Bill’s Regulatory Mechanism

The discussion then focused on the type of regulatory mechanism that a privacy and surveillance regime in India should have in place. The participants did not find favour in either a quasi-judicial body or a self-regulatory system – instead opting for a strict regulatory regime.

The CIS Draft Privacy Protection Bill proposes a regime that consists of a Data Protection Regulation Authority that is similar to the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, including the provision for an appellate body. The Bill envisions that the Authority will act as an adjudicating body for all complaints relating to the handling of personal data in addition to forming and reviewing rules on personal data protection.

Although, the Draft Bill dealt with privacy and surveillance under one regulatory authority, the Chair proposes a division between the two frameworks, as the former is governed primarily by civil law, and the latter is regulated by criminal law and procedure. Though in a 2014 leaked version of the governments Privacy Bill, surveillance and privacy are addressed under one regulation, as per reports, the Department of Personnel and Training is also considering creating two separate regulations: one for data protection and one for surveillance.

Authorities in Other Jurisdictions

The discussion then moved to comparing the regulatory authorities within other jurisdictions and the procedures followed by them. The focus was largely on the United States and the United Kingdom, which have marked differences in their privacy and surveillance systems.

In the United Kingdom, for example, a surveillance order is reviewed by an Independent Commissioner followed by an Appellate Tribunal, which has the power to award compensation. In contrast, the United States follows a far less transparent system which governs foreigners and citizens under separate legislations. A secret court was set up under the FISA, an independent review process, however, exists for such orders within this framework.

The Authority for Authorizing Surveillance in India

The authority for regulating requests for interceptions of communication under the Draft CIS Privacy Protection Bill is a magistrate. As per the procedure, an authorised officer must approach the Magistrate for approval of a warrant for surveillance. Two participants felt that a Magistrate is not the appropriate authority to regulate surveillance requests as it would mean vesting power in a few people, who are not elected via a democratic process.

In the present regime, the regulation of interception of telecommunications under Indian Law is governed by the Telegraph Act,1885 and the Telegraph Rules,1951. Section 5(2) of the Act and Rule 419A of the Telegraph Rules, permit interception only after an order of approval from the Home Secretary of the Union Government or of the State Governments, which in urgent cases, can be granted by an officer of the Joint Secretary Level or above of the Ministry of Home Affairs of the Union or that State’s Government.

Although most participants felt confident that a judicial authority rather than an executive authority would serve as the best platform for regulating surveillance, there was debate on what level of a Magistrate Judge would be apt for receiving and authorizing surveillance requests - or whether the judge should be a Magistrate at all. Certain participants felt that even District Magistrates would not have the competence and knowledge to adjudicate on these matters. The possibility of making High Court Judges the authorities responsible for authorizing surveillance requests was also suggested. To this suggestion participants noted that there are not enough High Court judges for such a system as of now.

The next issue raised was whether the judges of the surveillance system should be independent or not, and if the orders of the Courts are to be kept secret, would this then compromise the independence of such regulators. As part of this discussion, questions were raised about the procedures under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the US regulation governing the surveillance of foreign individuals, and if such secrecy could be afforded in India. During the discussions, certain stakeholders felt that a system of surveillance regulation in India should be kept secret in the interests of national security. Others highlighted that this is the existing practice in India giving the example of the Intelligence Bureau and Research and Analysis Wing orders which are completely private, adding however, that none of these surveillance regulations in India have provisions on disclosure.

When can interception of communications take place?

The interception of communications under the CIS Privacy Protection Bill is governed by the submission of a report by an authorised officer to a Magistrate who issues a warrant for such surveillance. Under the relevant provision, the threshold for warranting surveillance is suspicious conduct. Several participants felt that the term ‘suspicious conduct’ was too wide and discretionary to justify the interception of communication and suggested a far higher threshold for surveillance. Citing the Amar Singh Case, a participant stated that a good way to ensure ‘raise the bar’ and avoid frivolous interception requests would be to require officers submitting interception request to issue affidavits. A participant suggested that authorising officers could be held responsible for issuing frivolous interception requests. Some participants agreed, but felt that there is a need for a higher and stronger standard for interception before provisions are made for penalising an officer. As part of this discussion, a stakeholder added that the term “person” i.e. the subject of surveillance needed definition within the Bill.

The discussion then moved to comparing other jurisdictions’ thresholds on permitting surveillance. The Chair explained here that the US follows the rule of probable cause, which is where a reasonable suspicion exists, coupled with circumstances that could prove such a suspicion true. The UK follows the standard of ‘reasonable suspicion’, a comparatively lesser degree of strength than probable cause. In India, the standard for telephonic interception under the Telegraph Act 1885 is the “occurrence of any public emergency or in the interest of public safety” on the satisfaction of the Home Secretary/Administrative Officer.

The participants, while rejecting the standard of ‘suspicious conduct’ and agreeing that a stronger threshold was needed, were unable to offer other possible alternatives.

Multiple warrants, Storing and sharing of Information by Governmental Agencies

The provision for interception in the CIS Privacy Protection Bill stipulates that a request for surveillance should be accompanied by warrants previously issued with respect to that individual. The recovery of prior warrants suggests the sharing of information of surveillance warrants across multiple governmental agencies which certain participants agree, could prevent the duplication of warrants.

Participants briefly discussed how the Central Monitoring System will allow for a permanent log of all surveillance activities to be recorded and stored, and the privacy implications of this. It was noted that as per reports, the hardware purported to be used for interception by the CMS is Israeli, and is designed to store a log of all metadata.

A participant stated that automation component of the Centralized Monitoring System may be positive considering that authentication of requests i.e. tracing the source of the interception may be made easier with such a system.

Conditions prior to issuing warrant

The CIS Privacy Protect Bill states that a Magistrate should be satisfied of either. A reasonable threat to national security, defence or public order; or a cognisable offence, the prevention, investigation or prosecution of which is necessary in the public interest. When discussing these standards, certain participants felt that the inclusion of ‘cognizable offences’ was too broad, whereas others suggested that the offences would necessarily require an interception to be conducted should be listed. This led to further discussion on what kind of categorisation should be followed and whether there would be any requirement for disclosure when the list is narrowed down to graver and serious offences.

The chair also posed the question as to whether the term ‘national security’ should elaborated upon, highlighting the lack of a definition in spite of two landmark Supreme Court judgments on national security legislations, Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act,1985 and the Prevention of Terrorism Act, i.e. Kartar Singh v Union of India [1] and PUCL v Union of India.[2]

Kinds of information and degree of control

The discussion then focused on the kinds of information that can be intercepted and collected. A crucial distinction was made here, between content data and metadata, the former being the content of the communication itself and the latter being information about the communication. As per Indian law, only content data is regulated and not meta-data. On whether a warrant should be issued by a Magistrate in his chambers or in camera, most participants agreed that in chambers was the better alternative. However, under the CIS Privacy Protection Bill, in chamber proceedings have been made optional, which stakeholders agreed should be discretionary depending on the case and its sensitivity.

Evidentiary Value

The foundation of this discussion, the Chair noted, is the evidentiary value given to information collected from interception of communications. For instance, the United States follows the exclusionary rule, also known as the “fruit of the poisonous tree rule”, where evidence collected from an improper investigation discredits the evidence itself as well as further evidence found on the basis of it.

Indian courts however, allow for the admission of evidence collected through improper collection, as does the UK. In Malkani v State of Maharashtra[3] the Supreme Court stated that an electronically recorded conversation can be admissible as evidence, and stated that evidence collected from an improper investigation can be relied upon for the discovery of further evidence - thereby negating the application of the exclusionary rule.

Emergent Circumstances: who should the authority be?

The next question posed to the participants was who the apt authority would be to allow surveillance in emergent circumstances. The CIS Privacy Protection Bill places this power with the Home Secretary, stating that if the Home Secretary is satisfied of a grave threat to national security, defence or public order, he can permit surveillance. The existing law under the Telegraph Act 1885 uses the term ‘unavoidable circumstance’, though not elaborating on what this amounts to for such situations, where an officer not below the rank of a Joint Secretary evaluates the request. In response to this question, a stakeholder suggested that the issuing authority should be limited to the police and administrative services alone. In the CIS Privacy Protection Bill - a review committee for such decisions relating to interception is comprised of senior administrative officials both at the Central and State Government level. A participant suggested that the review committee should also include the Defence secretary and the Home secretary.

Sharing of Information

The CIS Privacy Protection Bill states that information gathered from surveillance should not be shared be shared amongst persons, with the exception that if the information is sensitive in terms of national security or prejudicing an investigation, an authorised officer can share the information with an authorised officer of any other competent organisation.

A participant highlighted that this provision is lacking an authority for determining the sharing of information. Another participant noted that the sharing of information should be limited amongst certain governmental agencies, rather than to ‘any competent organisation.’

Proposals for Telecommunication Service Providers

In the Indian interception regime, although surveillance orders are passed by the Government, the actual interception of communication is done by the service provider. Certain proposals have been introduced to protect service providers from liability. For example, an execution provision ensures that a warrant is not served on a service provider more than seven days after it is issued. In addition an indemnity provision prevents any action being taken against a service provider in a court of law, and indemnifies them against any losses that arise from the execution of the warrant, but not outside the scope of the warrant. During discussions, stakeholders felt that the standard should be a blanket indemnity without any conditions to assure service providers.

Under the Indian interception regime, a service provider must also ensure confidentiality of the content and meta data of the intercepted communications. To this, a participant suggested that in situations of information collection, a service provider may have a policy for obtaining customer consent prior to the interception. The Information Technology (Reasonable security practices and procedures and sensitive personal information) Rules, 2011 are clearer in this respect, which allow for the disclosure of information to governmental agencies without consent.

Another participant mentioned that the inconsistencies between laws on information disclosure and collection, such as the IT Act, the Right to Information Act and the recently enacted Whistleblower’s Protection Act, 2011 need to be harmonised. Other stakeholders agreed with this, though they stated that surveillance regulations should prevail over other laws in case of any inconsistency.

Conclusions

The inputs from the Bombay Roundtable seem to point towards a more regulated approach, with the addition of a review system to enhance accountability. While most stakeholders here agreed that national security is a criterion that takes precedence over concerns of privacy vis-à-vis surveillance, there is a concomitant need to define the limits of permissible interception. The view here is that a judicial model would prove to be a better system than the executive system; however, there is no clear answer as of yet on who would constitute this model. While the procedure for interception was covered in depth, the nature of the information itself was covered briefly and more discussion would be welcome here in forthcoming sessions.

Click to download the Report (PDF, 188 Kb)

[1]. 1994 4 SCC 569.

[2]. (1997) 1 SCC 301.

[3]. [1973] 2 S.C.R. 417.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/privacy-surveillance-roundtable-mumbai

Living in a Fish Bowl

praskrishna — 2014-07-16T07:15:22Z

Though India needs a comprehensive law on the right to privacy, it may not be ready for something as avant garde as the “right to be forgotten” on the Internet, argues Shuma Raha

The article by Shuma Raha was published in the Telegraph on July 16, 2014. Sunil Abraham gave his inputs.

If you do a Google search for journalist and television personality Barkha Dutt, a raft of scurrilous information about her pops up. It isn’t tucked away somewhere on the 10th page either — it’s all up front, right there in “autosuggest”, almost prompting you to go and check it out. And thanks to Google’s search algorithm, the more people click on that link, it further strengthens the score for that “hit”.

Dutt says she has brought the matter to the attention of Google, but to no avail. “I have lost interest in the whole struggle,” she says. “But Google definitely needs to do something about the slanderous, inaccurate, fictional information out there that creates a narrative of its own.”

Well, in Europe at least, the tech giant has taken a step in that direction. Late last month, it started erasing search results that threw up information deemed to be “irrelevant”, “outdated” or “excessive”. The move came after the European Court of Justice ruled that Internet search engines would have to allow people the “right to be forgotten” in specific cases and accordingly, take down information about them.

The European Court ruling has triggered a huge debate since an individual’s right to be forgotten seems to be at complete loggerheads with people’s right to know. Nevertheless, it’s a landmark decision when it comes to right to privacy on the Internet. After all, the online space has perma-memory and inaccurate or irrelevant or outdated information about a person can be embedded there forever, damaging him or her in manifold ways.

So how far are we in India from securing the right to be forgotten on the Internet?

The short answer to that is, very far. That is because India does not have a well-defined privacy regime wherein one could envisage a court of law handing out a similar — and some would say a somewhat radical — order on a Google or a Bing. “The right to be forgotten is a bit too advanced for us,” says Sunil Abraham, director, Centre for Internet and Society, a non-profit organisation that works on policy issues relating to freedom of expression and privacy. “After all, we are yet to come up with a privacy and data protection regime that implements the best practices of European countries.”

Adds Apar Gupta, a Delhi-based lawyer, who has written extensively on privacy issues, “Sector specific privacy legislation do exist, but they do not provide substantive rights or efficient remedy in case of violations.”
No one disputes that India should get a right to privacy law, especially one that relates to the collection, processing and use of personal data. Right now the government’s surveillance mechanisms like the Central Monitoring System and the Lawful Interception and Monitoring Systems allow security agencies and income tax authorities to intercept communication, snoop on phone conversations, read emails and SMSes with little or no safeguards for privacy protection.

A right to privacy bill has, in fact, been in the works since as early as 2011. But the government has been dragging its feet over it. Early this year, a new version of the draft bill was “leaked” to the press. But few are happy with it. On the positive side, it raises the penalty for unlawful interception of communication (from Rs 1 lakh to Rs 2 crore) and increases penalties for other offences such as obtaining personal data under false pretexts. But crucially, it almost wholly exempts intelligence agencies from the purview of the law, thereby allowing them unbridled access to personal information. Of course, no one knows if this “leaked” draft is indeed the official one.

Experts say that the government should really formulate a right to privacy law based on the recommendations of a committee chaired by Justice A.P. Shah. The report, which was published in 2012, proposes that the right to privacy be statutorily extended to all Indians. It recommends, among other things, the appointment of privacy commissioners and the formulation of certain “national privacy principles” such as taking the consent of the individual prior to the collection of data, allowing him the choice to withdraw such consent, limiting the use of personal information to the stated purpose and so on. The privacy principles would apply to all data collectors in both private and public sectors.
There are, of course, a number of provisions in existing laws that relate to privacy. For example, Rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951, sets down certain privacy safeguards such as maintaining details about the officer ordering an intercept of telecommunication.

Moreover, Section 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000, prescribes “punishment for the violation of privacy” (in the context of capturing “private” images of a person without his or her consent); Section 43A lays down that a “body corporate” will be liable to pay compensation in case it fails to protect personal data gathered in the course of its operation; and Section 79 stipulates that “intermediaries” — entities such as Google, Facebook, Twitter — would have to take down any information stored or transmitted by them that is found to be grossly harassing, defamatory, blasphemous, obscene, pornographic and so on, within 36 hours of being notified.

Of course, this section of the IT Act has been roundly criticised as arbitrary and Draconian, but that is another story.
The point is that despite the fair number of privacy provisions, in the absence of a comprehensive law, the untrammelled and unauthorised use of personal data cannot be ruled out. “Every country in the world collects personal data. But once the data are collected for a particular purpose they should not be used for any other purpose. The law has to be in a position to catch the violators,” says Kamlesh Bajaj, CEO of Data Security Council of India, an organisation that works to promote data protection and privacy best practices.

As always, the key issue is that an individual’s right to privacy has to be balanced with public interest. And it is in that context that experts feel that even if India were to have a privacy law, it is probably not ready for something akin to the European Court ruling on the right to be forgotten. As Gupta says, “It raises a real danger of public personalities blocking legitimate journalism on grounds of privacy. This is specially true in a country like India which permits a high degree of illegality in the name of secrecy and confidentiality.”

Abraham agrees with that view. “I’m not sure if the right to be forgotten will enhance privacy or usher in a level of censorship,” he says.

As Europe grapples with that debate, India’s privacy warriors are asking for something far more fundamental — a comprehensive law that guarantees the right to privacy to all.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/the-telegraph-july-16-2014-living-in-a-fish-bowl

Rethinking Privacy: The Link between Florida v. Jardines and the Surveillance of Nature Films

praskrishna — 2014-07-28T05:51:48Z

Bhairav Acharya gave a talk on "Rethinking Privacy" at an event organized by the Indian Institute of Technology, Madras (IIT-M) on July 11, 2014.

In a 2010 article in Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, Brett Mills proposed that animals have a right to privacy and that wildlife documentaries, specifically BBC's Nature's Great Events (2009), invaded this right without an examination of animal conservation ethics. In the 2013 Florida v. Jardines decision, the Supreme Court of the United States re-examined the constitutional validity of 'dog sniff laws' that permitted police animals to enter the threshold of private property to conduct 'minimally invasive warant-less searches' and 'Terry stops'; this was the latest in a long line of Fourth Amendment cases that examine the ethics of conserving and protecting public order. I attempt to draw links between the two scenarios that highlight the dissonance between sociological and jurisprudential constructions of privacy.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/rethinking-privacy

Best Practices Meet

praskrishna — 2014-08-06T06:25:20Z

The Best Practices Meet 2014 is being organized by DSCI at Hotel Leela Palace on July 9, 2014. Sunil Abraham will participate as a panelist at the event.

SMAC: new paradigm for Security?

Convergence of Social, Mobile, Analytics, and Cloud, is collectively referred as SMAC technologies. The success of social media products and sites such as Facebook, Twitter, Linkedin many more has been driving organizations’ investment in social computing. Mobile is another example of how technologies invented initially for personal use, entrenched itself into the enterprise ecosystem. Social computing and mobile blurs the boundaries between personal, social and business transactions. They lead to the explosion of information, which provides interesting insights, critical for business benefits. This reflects in huge impetus that has been seen in analytics, widely known as Big Data analytics. On the other hand, cloud brings completely new paradigm of organizing entperise IT, developing new products and services and delivering consumer experiences.

Increasing adoption of SMAC stack by enterprises breaks the existing paradigm of security. The data explosion on mobile devices exposes organizations’ information to inadvertent loss of revenue and brand value. Malicious applications may steal vital information stored on an employee’s mobile device and pave the way for a major data breach. Web application attacks remain the most significant threat for environments of cloud-hosting providers, amongst other apprehensions about data security. Data sovereignty also continue to pose serious concerns, which organizations need to tackle while moving their data to the cloud. Big data facilitates advanced analytics; however, requires protection from intrusion, corruption and securing its access. Furthermore, social media platforms are continuously exploited to launch malicious content and stealthy payload on devices. Social technologies are also plagued by the use of malicious techniques to mine confidential personal information under the guise of innocuous looking web pages via social engineering techniques.

Apart from security concerns, privacy supposed to be a big causality, as each component of the SMAC stack is considered intrusive enough to compromise the personal rights. Convergence and nexus of them add to the woes.

The collaborative and cumulative effect of all of these technologies working in unison essentially magnifies the efforts of the organizations that are able to wield them effectively. This evolution is challenging the ability of current security capabilities to address business critical risks. The way forward for organizations would be to understand the perspective of end users and IT infrastructure in terms of its integration with any or all the elements of SMAC. The organizations will have to deal with the new paradigm of security that will take them to more scalable, granualar, complex, independent and diverse challenges.

The DSCI Best Practices Meet, 2014 brings the security community and other stakeholders together, to deliberate and ponder over these diverse set of issues and challenges. It is aimed at deliberating on the new security paradigm from the perspectives of public policy, enterprise strategies, technology and practices.

Click to download the agenda and other details here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/best-practices-meet-2014

COAI, Centre for Internet & Society to hold pan-India meetings on privacy issues

praskrishna — 2014-07-07T07:37:34Z

In order to discuss possible legal frameworks to enable surveillance of voice and data communications in India, the Cellular Operators' Association of India (COAI) along with the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) will hold seven roundtable meetings across the country in the coming weeks on privacy and surveillance issues.

Originally published by IANS on July 4, 2014 the news was mirrored in the Times of India, NDTV, Business Standard, Economic Times, and World News on the same day. Bhairav Acharya gave his inputs.

The recommendations and dialogues from each of these roundtables will be compiled and submitted to the relevant ministries of the government, a statement issued by COAI said here on Friday.

The roundtable meetings will take place in Mumbai, Ahmedabad, Hyderabad, Bangalore, Chennai and twice in New Delhi.

These roundtables are closed-door meetings involving multiple stakeholders such as the industry leaders, policy makers, and experts from the legal fraternity and civil society.

In the era of freedom, when data connectivity via the internet, has emerged as one of the most powerful tools for communications, infringement of customer privacy by government agencies through telecom networks have forced the industry to initiate discussions on the international best practices on communications privacy and surveillance, and the relevant Indian jurisprudence.

"COAI, with the Centre for Internet and Society has taken this initiative by bringing the relevant stakeholders on a common platform to discuss the matter to arrive at an acceptable conclusion," COAI Director General Rajan S Mathews said.

According to Bhairav Acharya, who advises the CIS: "Legal reform is necessary to identify the limits of permissible surveillance, the protection of privacy, the procedure of intercepting communications, the expectations of service providers, and freedom of all Indians. The law must keep up with technological advancements to create a balanced, proportionate and fair mechanism to enable and regulate surveillance. This will serve India’s national interest."

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/ians-july-4-2014-coai-cis-to-hold-pan-india-meetings-on-privacy-issues

Free Speech and Surveillance

Gautam Bhatia — 2014-07-07T04:59:59Z

Gautam Bhatia examines the constitutionality of surveillance by the Indian state.

The Indian surveillance regime has been the subject of discussion for quite some time now. Its nature and scope is controversial. The Central Monitoring System, through which the government can obtain direct access to call records, appears to have the potential to be used for bulk surveillance, although official claims emphasise that it will only be implemented in a targeted manner. The Netra system, on the other hand, is certainly about dragnet collection, since it detects the communication, via electronic media, of certain “keywords” (such as “attack”, “bomb”, “blast” and “kill”), no matter what context they are used in, and no matter who is using them.

Surveillance is quintessentially thought to raise concerns about privacy. Over a series of decisions, the Indian Supreme Court has read in the right to privacy into Article 21’s guarantee of the right to life and personal liberty. Under the Supreme Court’s (somewhat cloudy) precedents, privacy may only be infringed if there is a compelling State interest, and if the restrictive law is narrowly tailored – that is, it does not infringe upon rights to an extent greater than it needs to, in order to fulfill its goal. It is questionable whether bulk surveillance meets these standards.

Surveillance, however, does not only involve privacy rights. It also implicated Article 19 – in particular, the Article 19(1)(a) guarantee of the freedom of expression, and the 19(1)(c) guarantee of the freedom of association.

Previously on this blog, we have discussed the “chilling effect” in relation to free speech. The chilling effect evolved in the context of defamation cases, where a combination of exacting standards of proof, and prohibitive damages, contributed to create a culture of self-censorship, where people would refrain from voicing even legitimate criticism for fear of ruinous defamation lawsuits. The chilling effect, however, is not restricted merely to defamation, but arises in free speech cases more generally, where vague and over-broad statutes often leave the border of the permitted and the prohibited unclear.

Indeed, a few years before it decided New York Times v. Sullivan, which brought in the chilling effect doctrine into defamation and free speech law, the American Supreme Court applies a very similar principle in a surveillance case. In NAACP v. Alabama, the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People (NAACP), which was heavily engaged in the civil rights movement in the American deep South, was ordered by the State of Alabama to disclose its membership list. NAACP challenged this, and the Court held in its favour. It specifically connected freedom of speech, freedom of association, and the impact of surveillance upon both:

“Effective advocacy of both public and private points of view, particularly controversial ones, is undeniably enhanced by group association, as this Court has more than once recognized by remarking upon the close nexus between the freedoms of speech and assembly. It is beyond debate that freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of the “liberty” assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which embraces freedom of speech. Of course, it is immaterial whether the beliefs sought to be advanced by association pertain to political, economic, religious or cultural matters, and state action which may have the effect of curtailing the freedom to associate is subject to the closest scrutiny… it is hardly a novel perception that compelled disclosure of affiliation with groups engaged in advocacy may constitute [an] effective a restraint on freedom of association… this Court has recognized the vital relationship between freedom to associate and privacy in one’s associations. Inviolability of privacy in group association may in many circumstances be indispensable to preservation of freedom of association, particularly where a group espouses dissident beliefs.”

In other words, if persons are not assured of privacy in their association with each other, they will tend to self-censor both who they associate with, and what they say to each other, especially when unpopular groups, who have been historically subject to governmental or social persecution, are involved. Indeed, this was precisely the argument that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) made in its constitutional challenge to PRISM, the American bulk surveillance program. In addition to advancing a Fourth Amendment argument from privacy, the ACLU also made a First Amendment freedom of speech and association claim, arguing that the knowledge of bulk surveillance had made – or at least, was likely to have made – politically unpopular groups wary of contacting it for professional purposes (the difficulty, of course, is that any chilling effect argument effectively requires proving a negative).

If this argument holds, then it is clear that Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(c) are prima facie infringed in cases of bulk – or even other forms of – surveillance. Two conclusions follow: first, that any surveillance regime needs statutory backing. Under Article 19(2), reasonable restrictions upon fundamental rights can only be imposed by law, and not be executive fiat (the same argument applies to Article 21 as well).

Assuming that a statutory framework is brought into force, the crucial issue then becomes whether the restriction is a reasonable one, in service of one of the stated 19(2) interests. The relevant part of Article 19(2) permits reasonable restrictions upon the freedom of speech and expression “in the interests of… the security of the State [and] public order.” The Constitution does not, however, provide a test for determining when a restriction can be legitimately justified as being “in the interests of” the security of the State, and of public order. There is not much relevant precedent with respect to the first sub-clause, but there happens to be an extensive – although conflicted – jurisprudence dealing with the public order exception.

One line of cases – characterised by Ramji Lal Modi v. State of UP and Virendra v. State of Punjab – has held that the phrase “for the interests of” is of very wide ambit, and that the government has virtually limitless scope to make laws ostensibly for securing public order (this extends to prior restraint as well, something that Blackstone, writing in the 18^th century, found to be illegal!). The other line of cases, such as Superintendent v. Ram Manohar Lohia and S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram, have required the government to satisfy a stringent burden of proof. In Lohia, for instance, Ram Manohar Lohia’s conviction for encouraging people to break a tax law was reversed, the Court holding that the relationship between restricting free speech and a public order justification must be “proximate”. In Rangarajan, the Court used the euphemistic image of a “spark in a powder keg”, to characterise the degree of proximity required. It is evident that under the broad test of Ramji Lal Modi, a bulk surveillance system is likely to be upheld, whereas under the narrow test of Lohia, it is almost certain not to be.

Thus, if the constitutionality of surveillance comes to Court, three issues will need to be decided: first, whether Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(c) have been violated. Secondly – and if so – whether the “security of the State” exception is subject to the same standards as the “public order” exception (there is no reason why it should not be). And thirdly, which of the two lines of precedent represent the correct understanding of Article 19(2)?

Gautam Bhatia — @gautambhatia88 on Twitter — is a graduate of the National Law School of India University (2011), and has just received an LLM from the Yale Law School. He blogs about the Indian Constitution at http://indconlawphil.wordpress.com. Here at CIS, he blogs on issues of online freedom of speech and expression.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/free-speech-and-surveillance

Facebook and its Aversion to Anonymous and Pseudonymous Speech

Jessamine Mathew — 2014-07-04T07:53:07Z

Jessamine Mathew explores Facebook's "real name" policy and its implications for the right to free speech.

The power to be unidentifiable on the internet has been a major reason for its sheer number of users. Most of the internet can now be freely used by anybody under a pseudonym without the fear of being recognised by anybody else. These conditions allow for the furtherance of free expression and protection of privacy on the internet, which is particularly important for those who use the internet as a medium to communicate political dissent or engage in any other activity which would be deemed controversial in a society yet not illegal. For example, an internet forum for homosexuals in India, discussing various issues which surround homosexuality may prove far more fruitful if contributors are given the option of being undetectable, considering the stigma that surrounds homosexuality in India, and the recent setting-aside of the Delhi High Court decision reading down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. The possibility of being anonymous or pseudonymous exists on many internet fora but on Facebook, the world’s greatest internet space for building connections and free expression, there is no sanction given to pseudonymous accounts as Facebook follows a real name policy. And as the recent decision of a New York judge, disallowing Facebook from contesting warrants on private information of over 300 of its users, shows, there are clear threats to freedom of expression and privacy.

On the subject of using real names, Facebook’s Community Standards states, “Facebook is a community where people use their real identities. We require everyone to provide their real names, so you always know who you're connecting with. This helps keep our community safe.” Facebook’s Marketing Director, Randi Zuckerberg, bluntly dismissed the idea of online anonymity as one that “has to go away” and that people would “behave much better” if they are made to use their real names. Apart from being a narrow-minded statement, she fails to realise that there are many different kinds of expression on the internet, from stories of sexual abuse victims to the views of political commentators, or indeed, whistleblowers, many of whom may prefer to use the platform without being identified. It has been decided in many cases that humans have a right to anonymity as it provides for the furtherance of free speech without the fear of retaliation or humiliation (see Talley v. California).

While Facebook’s rationale behind wanting users to register for accounts with their own names is based on the goal of maintaining the security of other users, it is still a serious infraction on users’ freedom of expression, particularly when anonymous speech has been protected by various countries. Facebook has evolved from a private space for college students to connect with each other to a very public platform where not just social connections but also discussions take place, often with a heavily political theme. Facebook has been described as instrumental in the facilitation of communication during the Arab Spring, providing a space for citizens to effectively communicate with each other and organise movements. Connections on Facebook are no longer of a purely social nature but have extended to political and legal as well, with it being used to promote movements all through the country. Even in India, Facebook was the most widely adopted medium, along with Twitter and Facebook, for discourse on the political future of the country during, before and after the 2014 elections. Earlier in 2011, Facebook was used intensively during the India Against Corruption movement. There were pages created, pictures and videos uploaded, comments posted by an approximate of 1.5 million people in India. In 2012, Facebook was also used to protest against the Delhi gang rape with many coming forward with their own stories of sexual assault, providing support to the victim, organising rallies and marches and protesting about the poor level of safety of women in Delhi.

Much like its content policy, Facebook exhibits a number of discrepancies in the implementation of the anonymity ban. Salman Rushdie found that his Facebook account had been suspended and when it was reinstated after he sent them proof of identity, Facebook changed his name to the name on his passport, Ahmed Rushdie instead of the name he popularly goes by. Through a series of tweets, he criticised this move by Facebook, forcing him to display his birth name. Eventually Facebook changed his name back to Salman Rushdie but not before serious questions were raised regarding Facebook’s policies. The Moroccan activist Najat Kessler’s account was also suspended as it was suspected that she was using a fake name. Facebook has also not just stopped at suspending individual user accounts but has also removed pages and groups because the creators used pseudonyms to create and operate the pages in question. This was seen in the case of Wael Ghonim who created a group which helped in mobilizing citizens in Egypt in 2011. Ghonim was a Google executive who did not want his online activism to affect his professional life and hence operated under a pseudonym. Facebook temporarily removed the group due to his pseudonymity but later reinstated it.

While Facebook performs its due diligence when it comes to some accounts, it has still done nothing about the overwhelmingly large number of obviously fake accounts, ranging from Santa Claus to Jack the Ripper. On my own Facebook friend list, there are people who have entered names of fictional characters as their own, clearly violating the real name policy. I once reported a pseudonymous account that used the real name of another person. Facebook thanked me for reporting the account but also said that I will “probably not hear back” from them. The account still exists with the same name. The redundancy of the requirement lies in the fact that Facebook does not request users to upload some form identification when they register with the site but only when they suspect them to be using a pseudonym. Since Facebook also implements its policies largely only on the basis of complaints by other users or the government, the real name policy makes many political dissidents and social activists the target of abuse on the internet.

Further, Articles 21 and 22 of the ICCPR grant all humans the right to free and peaceful assembly. As governments increasingly crack down on physical assemblies of people fighting for democracy or against legislation or conditions in a country, the internet has proved to be an extremely useful tool for facilitating this assembly without forcing people to endure the wrath of governmental authorities. A large factor which has promoted the popularity of internet gatherings is the way in which powerful opinions can be voice without the fear of immediate detection. Facebook has become the coveted online space for this kind of assembly but their policies and more particularly, faulty implementation of the policies, lead to reduced flows of communication on the site.

Of course, Facebook’s fears of cyberbullying and harassment are likely to materialise if there is absolutely no check on the identity of users. A possible solution to the conflict between requiring real names to keep the community safe and still allowing individuals to be present on the network without the fear of identification by anybody would be to ask users to register with their own names but still allowing them to create a fictional name which would be the name that other Facebook users can see. Under this model, Facebook can also deal with the issue of safety through their system of reporting against other users. If a pseudonymous user has been reported by a substantial number of people for harassment or any other cause, then Facebook may either suspend the account or remove the content that is offensive. If the victim of harassment chooses to approach a judicial body, then Facebook may reveal the real name of the user so that due process may be followed. At the same time, users who utilise the website to present their views and participate in the online process of protest or contribute to free expression in any other way can do so without the fear of being detected or targeted. Safety on the site can be maintained even without forcing users to reveal their real names to the world. The system that Facebook follows currently does not help curb the presence of fake accounts and neither does it promote completely free expression on the site.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/facebook-and-its-aversion-to-anonymous-and-pseudonymous-speech

The Constitutionality of Indian Surveillance Law: Public Emergency as a Condition Precedent for Intercepting Communications

bedaavyasa — 2014-08-04T04:52:42Z

Bedavyasa Mohanty analyses the nuances of interception of communications under the Indian Telegraph Act and the Indian Post Office Act. In this post he explores the historical bases of surveillance law in India and examines whether the administrative powers of intercepting communications are Constitutionally compatible.

Introduction

State authorised surveillance in India derives its basis from two colonial legislations; §26 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 and §5 of the Telegraph Act, 1885 (hereinafter the Act) provide for the interception of postal articles[1] and messages transmitted via telegraph[2] respectively. Both of these sections, which are analogous, provide that the powers laid down therein can only be invoked on the occurrence of a public emergency or in the interest of public safety. The task of issuing orders for interception of communications is vested in an officer authorised by the Central or the State government. This blog examines whether the preconditions set by the legislature for allowing interception act as adequate safeguards. The second part of the blog analyses the limits of discretionary power given to such authorised officers to intercept and detain communications.

Surveillance by law enforcement agencies constitutes a breach of a citizen’s Fundamental Rights of privacy and the Freedom of Speech and Expression. It must therefore be justified against compelling arguments against violations of civil rights. Right to privacy in India has long been considered too ‘broad and moralistic’[3] to be defined judicially. The judiciary, though, has been careful enough to not assign an unbound interpretation to it. It has recognised that the breach of privacy has to be balanced against a compelling public interest [4] and has to be decided on a careful examination of the facts of a certain case. In the same breath, Indian courts have also legitimised surveillance by the state as long as such surveillance is not illegal or unobtrusive and is within bounds [5]. While determining what constitutes legal surveillance, courts have rejected “prior judicial scrutiny” as a mandatory requirement and have held that administrative safeguards are sufficient to legitimise an act of surveillance. [6]

Conditions Precedent for Ordering Interception

§§5(2) of the Telegraph Act and 26(2) of the Indian Post Office Act outline a two tiered test to be satisfied before the interception of telegraphs or postal articles. The first tier consists of sine qua nons in the form of an “occurrence of public emergency” or “in the interests of public safety.” The second set of requirements under the provisions is “the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of an offence.” While vesting the power of interception in administrative officials, the sections contemplate a legal fiction where a public emergency exists and it is in the interest of sovereignty, integrity, security of the state or for the maintenance of public order/ friendly relations with foreign states. The term “public emergency,” however, has not been clearly defined by the legislature or by the courts. It thus vests arbitrary powers in a delegated official to order the interception of communication violating one’s Fundamental Rights.

Tracing the History of the Expression “Public Emergency”

The origins of the laws governing interception can be traced back to English laws of the late 19th Century; specifically one that imposed a penalty on a postal officer who delayed or intercepted a postal article.[7] This law guided the drafting of the Indian Telegraph Act in 1885 that legitimised interception of communications by the state. The expression “public emergency” appeared in the original Telegraph Act of 1885 and has been adopted in that form in all subsequent renderings of provisions relating to interception. Despite the contentious and vague nature of the expression, no consensus regarding its interpretation seems to have been arrived at. One of the first post-independence analyses of this provision was undertaken by the Law Commission in 1968. The 38th Law Commission in its report on the Indian Post Office Act, raised concerns about the constitutionality of the expression. The Law Commission was of the opinion that the term not having been defined in the constitution cannot serve as a reasonable ground for suspension of Fundamental Rights.[8] It further urged that a state of public emergency must be of such a nature that it is not secretive and is apparent to a reasonable man.[9] It thus challenged the operation of the act in its then current form where the determination of public emergency is the discretion of a delegated administrative official. The Commission, in conclusion, implored the legislature to amend the laws relating to interception to bring them in line with the Constitution. This led to the Telegraph (Amendment) Act of 1981. Questions regarding the true meaning of the expression and its potential misuse were brought up in both houses of the Parliament during passing of the amendment. The Law Ministry, however, did not issue any additional clarifications regarding the terms used in the Act. Instead, the Government claimed that the expressions used in the Act are “exactly those that are used in the Constitution.” [10] It may be of interest to note here that the Constitution of India, neither uses nor defines the term “public emergency.” Naturally, it is not contemplated as a ground for reasonably restricting Fundamental Rights provided under Article 19(1). [11] Similarly, concerns regarding the potential misuse of the powers were defended with the logically incompatible and factually inaccurate position that the law had not been misused in the past.[12]

Locating “Public Emergency” within a Proclamation of Emergency under the Constitution (?)

Public emergency in not equivalent to a proclamation of emergency under Article 352 of the Constitution simply because it was first used in legislations over six decades before the drafting of the Indian Constitution began. Besides, orders for interception of communications have also been passed when the state was not under a proclamation of emergency. Moreover, public emergency is not the only prerequisite prescribed under the Act. §5(2) states that an order for interception can be passed either on the occurrence of public emergency or in the interest of public safety. Therefore, the thresholds for the satisfaction of both have to be similar or comparable. If the threshold for the satisfaction of public emergency is understood to be as high as a proclamation of emergency then any order for interception can be passed easily under the guise of public safety. The public emergency condition will then be rendered redundant. Public emergency is therefore a condition that is separate from a proclamation of emergency.

In a similar vein the Supreme Court has also clarified[13] that terms like “public emergency” and “any emergency,” when used as statutory prerequisites, refer to the occurrence of different kinds of events. These terms cannot be equated with one another merely on the basis of the commonality of one word.

The Supreme Court in Hukam Chand v. Union of India,[14] correctly stated that the terms public emergency and public safety must “take colour from each other.” However, the court erred in defining public emergency as a situation that “raises problems concerning the interest of the public safety, the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States or public order or the prevention of incitement to the commission of an offence.” This cyclic definition does not lend any clarity to the interpretive murk surrounding the term. The Act envisages public emergency as a sine qua non that must exist prior to a determination that there is a threat to public order and sovereignty and integrity of the state. The court’s interpretation on the other hand would suggest that a state of public emergency can be said to exist only when public order, sovereignty and integrity of the state are already threatened. Therefore, while conditions precedent exist for the exercise of powers under §5(2) of the Act, there are no objective standards against which they are to be tested.

Interpretation of Threshold Requirements

A similar question arose before the House of Lords in Liversidge v. Anderson.[15] The case examined the vires of an Act that vested an administrative authority with the conditional power to detain a person if there was reasonable cause to believe that the person was of hostile origin. Therein, Lord Atkin dissenting with the majority opinion stated in no unclear terms that power vested in the secretary of state was conditional and not absolute. When a conditional authority is vested in an administrative official but there aren’t any prescriptive guidelines for the determination of the preconditions, then the statute has the effect of vesting an absolute power in a delegated official. This view was also upheld by the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Baldeo Prasad.[16] The court was of the opinion that a statute must not only provide adequate safeguards for the protection of innocent citizens but also require the administrative authority to be satisfied as to the existence of the conditions precedent laid down in the statute before making an order. If the statute failed to do so in respect of any condition precedent then the law suffered from an infirmity and was liable to be struck down as invalid.[17] The question of the existence of public emergency, therefore being left to the sole determination of an administrative official is an absolute and arbitrary power and is ultra vires the Constitution

Interestingly, in its original unamended form, §5 contained a provisio stating that a determination of public emergency was the sole authority of the secretary of state and such a finding could not be challenged before a court of law. It is this provision that the government repealed through the Telegraph (Amendment) Act of 1981 to bring it in line with Constitutional principles. The preceding discussion shows that the amendment did not have the effect of rectifying the law’s constitutional infirmities. Nonetheless, the original Telegraph Act and its subsequent amendment are vital for understanding the compatibility of surveillance standards with the Constitutional principles. The draconian provisio in the original act vesting absolute powers in an administrative official illustrates that the legislative intent behind the drafting of a 130 year law cannot be relied on in today’s context. Vague terms like public emergency that have been thoughtlessly adopted from a draconian law find no place in a state that seeks to guarantee to its citizens rights of free speech and expression.

Conclusion

Interception of communications under the Telegraph Act and the Indian Post office act violate not only one’s privacy but also one’s freedom of speech and expression. Besides, orders for the tapping of telephones violate not only the privacy of the individual in question but also that of the person he/she is communicating with. Considering the serious nature of this breach it is absolutely necessary that the powers enabling such interception are not only constitutionally authorised but also adequately safeguarded. The Fundamental Rights declared by Article 19(1) cannot be curtailed on any ground outside the relevant provisions of Cls. 2-6.[18] The restrictive clauses in Cls. (2)-(6) of Article 19 are exhaustive and are to be strictly construed.[19] Public emergency is not one of the conditions enumerated under Article 19 for curtailing fundamental freedoms. Moreover, it lacks adequate safeguards by vesting absolute discretionary power in a non-judicial administrative authority. Even if one were to ignore the massive potential for misuse of these powers, it is difficult to conceive that the interception provisions would stand a scrutiny of constitutionality.

Over the course of the last few years, India has been dangerously toeing the line that keeps it from turning into a totalitarian surveillance state. [20] In 2011, India was the third most intrusive state[21] with 1,699 requests for removal made to Google; in 2012 that number increased to 2529[22]. The media is abuzz with reports about the Intelligence Bureau wanting Internet Service Providers to log all customer details [23] and random citizens being videotaped by the Delhi Police for “looking suspicious.” It becomes essential under these circumstances to question where the state’s power ends and a citizens’ privacy begins. Most of the information regarding projects like the CMS and the CCTNS is murky and unconfirmed. But under the pretext of national security, government officials have refused to divulge any information regarding the kind of information included within these systems and whether any accountability measures exist. For instance, there have been conflicting opinions from various ministers regarding whether the internet would also be under the supervision of the CMS [24]. Even more importantly, citizens are unaware of what rights and remedies are available to them in instances of violation of their privacy.

The intelligence agencies that have been tasked with handling information collected under these systems have not been created under any legislation and therefore not subject to any parliamentary oversight. Attempts like the Intelligence Services (Powers and Regulation) Bill, 2011 have been shelved and not revisited since their introduction. The intelligence agencies that have been created through executive orders enjoy vast and unbridled powers that make them accountable to no one[25]. Before, vesting the Indian law enforcement agencies with sensitive information that can be so readily misused it is essential to ensure that a mechanism to check the use and misuse of that power exists. A three judge bench of the Supreme Court has recently decided to entertain a Public Interest Litigation aimed at subjecting the intelligence agencies to auditing by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India. But the PIL even if successful will still only manage to scratch the surface of all the wide and unbridled powers enjoyed by the Indian intelligence agencies. The question of the constitutionality of interception powers, however, has not been subjected to as much scrutiny as is necessary. Especially at a time when the government has been rumoured to have already obtained the capability for mass dragnet surveillance such a determination by the Indian courts cannot come soon enough.

[1] Indian Post Office Act, 1898, § 26

[2] Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 § 5(2)

[3] PUCL v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 568

[4] Govind vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1975) 2 SCC 148

[5] Malak Singh vs. State Of Punjab & Haryana, AIR 1981 SC 760

[6] Supra note 3

[7] Law Commission, Indian Post Office Act, 1898 (38^th Law Commission Report) para 84

[8] ibid

[9] id

[10] Lok Sabha Debates , Minister of Communications, Shri H.N. Bahuguna, August 9, 1972

[11] The Constitution of India, Article 358- Suspension of provisions of Article 19 during emergencies

[12] Lok Sabha Debates , Minister of Communications, Shri H.N. Bahuguna, August 9, 1972

[13] Hukam Chand v. Union of India, AIR 1976 SC 789

[14] ibid

[15] Liversidge v. Anderson [1942] A.C. 206

[16] State of M.P. v. Baldeo Prasad, AIR 1961 (SC) 293 (296)

[17] ibid

[18] Ghosh O.K. v. Joseph E.X. Air 1963 SC 812; 1963 Supp. (1) SCR 789

[19] Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 305 (315); 1962 (3) SCR 842

[20] See Notable Observations- July to December 2012, Google Transparency Report, available at http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/government/ (last visited on July 2, 2014) (a 90% increase in Content removal requests by the Indian Government in the last year)

[21] Willis Wee, Google Transparency Report: India Ranks as Third ‘Snoopiest’ Country, July 6, 2011 available at http://www.techinasia.com/google-transparency-report-india/ (last visited on July 2, 2014)

[22] See Notable Observations- July to December 2012, Google Transparency Report, available at http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/government/ (last visited on July 2, 2014) (a 90% increase in Content removal requests by the Indian Government in the last year)

[23] Joji Thomas Philip, Intelligence Bureau wants ISPs to log all customer details, December 30, 2010 http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2010-12-30/news/27621627_1_online-privacy-internet-protocol-isps (last visited on July 2, 2014)

[24] Deepa Kurup, In the dark about ‘India’s Prism’ June 16, 2013 available at http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/in-the-dark-about-indias-prism/article4817903.ece

[25] Saikat Dutta, We, The Eavesdropped May 3, 2010 available at http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?265191 (last visited on July 2, 2014)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-constitutionality-of-indian-surveillance-law

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

jyoti — 2014-07-04T06:31:37Z

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

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

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

I have read and agree to the terms

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

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

Terms of Service: Conditions are subject to change

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

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

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

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

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

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

My right is bigger than yours

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

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

Data and whose rights?

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

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

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

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

To blame or not to blame

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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