Centre for Internet and Society

Report on the 1st Privacy Round Table meeting

maria — 2013-07-30T11:11:11Z

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion Highlights:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion Highlights:

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

In depth explanation and discussions regarding the Privacy (Protection)

Bill 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion Highlights:

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

Meeting conclusion

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

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

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

India takes its first serious step toward privacy regulation – but it may be misguided

praskrishna — 2013-04-15T06:39:05Z

The world’s second-most populous nation may be on the cusp of embracing privacy legislation. After several false starts the Indian government appears ready to accept the need for some form of regulation.

This blog post by Simon Davies was published in the Privacy Surgeon on April 9, 2013. The Centre for Internet and Society recently published a draft Citizens privacy bill which is mentioned in this post.

Well, maybe this is a slightly optimistic view. A more accurate portrayal might be “the Indian government appears ready to accept the principle of some form of regulation”.

There is actually no agreed policy position across government on the question of privacy and data protection, but the Planning Commission last year established an Expert Group under the chairmanship of the former Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, A.P.Shah. Justice Shah’s subsequent report is being considered and a draft Bill has been created.

Shah’s report provided a convincing body of evidence – both at the domestic and the international level – for the creation of national regulation.

It called for the formation of a regulatory framework and set out nine principles that could form a foundation for the next stage. These principles – reflecting the basis of law in other countries – have been generally accepted by Indian stakeholders as a sound frame of reference for progress.

However although the nine principles are supported, the precise nature of any possible regulation is still very much in flux.

There’s a long way to go before consensus is established on a overall type of regulatory framework. Having said that, India is closer than ever to seeing real legislation – and the international community needs to put its weight behind the activity.

Debate over the merits of data protection and privacy law stretch back beyond a decade but reform was constantly hampered by perceptions that regulation would stifle economic growth.

Some industry lobbies have been as keen as government to ensure that privacy proposals are stillborn.

Even with the nine principles as a bedrock the path to privacy law must overcome two extremely difficult hurdles.

The first of these is that a substantial number of Indian opinion leaders continue to express an instinctive view that there is no cultural history for respect of privacy in India. That is, people don’t want or expect privacy protection and Western notions of privacy are alien to Indian society.

In support of this assertion these critics often cite an analogy about conversation on Indian trains. It is well known that many Indians will disclose their life story to strangers on the Indian rail network, discussing their personal affairs with people they have never before met. This trait is construed as evidence that Indians do not value their privacy.

I spoke last week at an important meeting in New Delhi where this exact point was repeatedly made. The meeting, organised by the Data Security Council of India and ICOMP India was well attended by industry, government, academics and NGOs. Speakers made constant reference to the matter of public disclosure of personal information.

In response, noted commentator Vickram Crishna expressed the view that the train anecdote had no relevance and was a convenient ruse for people who for their own self interest opposed privacy regulation.

“In reality this circumstance is like Vegas”, he said. “What happens on Indian trains, stays on Indian trains. People will talk about their lives because they will never see these passengers again and there is no record of the disclosures.”

“What we are dealing with in the online world is a completely different matter. There is no correlation between the two environments”.

A substantial opinion poll published earlier this year also debunked the myth that Indians don’t care about privacy. Levels of concern expressed by respondents was roughly the same as the level of concern identified in other parts of the world.

A second hurdle facing privacy legislation is the perception - particularly prevalent in the United States – that legislation will be a burden on industry and people do not want yet another cumbersome and costly government structure.

There are perhaps some grounds for considering this perspective, given the vast scale and complexity of India’s economy.

Government intervention does not enjoy a history of consistent success in the marketplace, though in many instances intervention has been the only means to bring industry into compliance with basic safeguards.

I made the point at the meeting that support for a purist model of industry self regulation was simplistic and misguided. Most systems of a similar nature fail unless someone is mandated to ensure compliance, transparency, enforceability and consistency. It’s a question of finding a way to embed accountability in industry self regulation – and this is where legislation and government could help.

Justice Shah’s report reflected this widespread concern by recommending a co-regulatory framework in which a privacy commissioner would oversee industry self regulation. However – as last week’s meeting exemplified – even this compromise solution is not acceptable to many industry players. They oppose the idea of an appointed commissioner and believe that industry self regulation alone will be sufficient.

This is an influential view that cannot be brushed aside. However in a special programme aired on19th April on India’s main parliamentary television network – RSTV – I repeatedly make the point that such a view, if successful, would put Indian industry in danger of winning the battle but losing the war. Europe is unlikely to accept a model of sole industry regulation, and the crucial flow of data between the two regions could be imperiled.

Conscious of all these challenges the influential NGO Centre for Internet and Society has published a draft Citizens privacy bill and has commenced a series of consultation meetings across the country. These initiatives will provide important input for the emerging legislation.

This is an important moment for privacy in India, and one that will require careful thought and sensitive implementation. However no-one in India should be in any doubt that the current unregulated situation is unsustainable in a global environment where nations are expected to protect both their citizens and the safety of data on their systems.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/privacy-surgeon-simon-davies-april-9-2013-india-takes-its-first-serious-step-toward-privacy-regulation

India's 'Big Brother': The Central Monitoring System (CMS)

maria — 2013-12-06T09:39:20Z

In this post, Maria Xynou looks at India´s Central Monitoring System (CMS) project and examines whether it can target individuals´ communications data, regardless of whether they are involved in illegal activity.

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

Starting from this month, all telecommunications and Internet communications in India will be analysed by the government and its agencies. What does that mean? It means that everything we say or text over the phone, write, post or browse over the Internet will be centrally monitored by Indian authorities. This totalitarian type of surveillance will be incorporated in none other than the Central Monitoring System (CMS).

The Central Monitoring System (CMS)

The Central Monitoring System (CMS) may just be another step in the wrong direction, especially since India currently lacks privacy laws which can protect citizens from potential abuse. Yet, all telecommunications and Internet communications are to be monitored by Indian authorities through the CMS, despite the fact that it remains unclear how our data will be used.

The CMS was prepared by the Telecom Enforcement, Resource and Monitoring (TREM) and by the Centre for Development of Telematics (C-DoT) and is being manned by the Intelligence Bureau. The CMS project is likely to start operating this month and the government plans on creating a platform that will include all the service providers in Delhi, Haryana and Karnataka. The Information Technology Amendment Act 2008 enables e-surveillance and central and regional databases will be created to help central and state level law enforcement agencies in interception and monitoring. Without any manual intervention from telecom service providers, the CMS will equip government agencies with Direct Electronic Provisioning, filters and alerts on the target numbers. The CMS will also enable Call Data Records (CDR) analysis and data mining to identify the personal information of the target numbers.

The estimated set up cost of the CMS is Rs. 4 billion and it will be connected with the Telephone Call Interception System (TCIS) which will help monitor voice calls, SMS and MMS, fax communications on landlines, CDMA, video calls, GSM and 3G networks. Agencies which will have access to the CMS include the Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW), the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the National Investigation Agency (NIA), the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), the Narcotics Control Bureau, and the Enforcement Directorate (ED). In particular, last October, the NIA approached the Department of Telecom requesting its connection with the CMS, which would help it intercept phone calls and monitor social networking sites without the cooperation of telcos. However, the NIA is currently monitoring eight out of 10,000 telephone lines and if it is connected with the CMS, the NIA will also get access to e-mails and other social media platforms. Essentially, the CMS will be converging all the interception lines at one location and Indian law enforcement agencies will have access to them. The CMS will also be capable of intercepting our calls and analyzing our data on social networking sites. Thus, even our attempts to protect our data from ubiquitous surveillance would be futile.

In light of the CMS being installed soon, the Mumbai police took the initiative of setting up a ´social media lab´ last month, which aims to monitor Facebook, Twitter and other social networking sites. This lab would be staffed by 20 police officers who would keep an eye on issues being publicly discussed and track matters relating to public security. According to police spokesman Satyanarayan Choudhary, the lab will be used to identify trends among the youth and to plan law and order accordingly. However, fears have arisen that the lab may be used to stifle political debate and freedom of expression. The arrest of two Indian women last November over a Facebook post which criticized the shutdown of Mumbai after the death of politician Bal Thackeray was proof that the monitoring of our communications can potentially oppress our freedom and human rights. And now that all our online activity will be under the microscope...will the CMS security trade-off be worth it?

Surveillance in the name of Security

In a digitised world, threats to security have been digitised. Terrorism is considered to be a product of globalisation and as such, the Internet appears to be a tool used by terrorists. Hence governments all around the world are convinced that surveillance is probably one of the most effective methods in detecting and prosecuting terrorists, as all movement, action, interests, ideas and everything else that could define an individual are closely being monitored under the ´surveillance umbrella´ True; if everything about our existence is being closely monitored and analysed, it seems likely that we will instantly be detected and prosecuted if engaged in illegal activity. But is that the case with big data? According to security expert Bruce Schneier, searching for a terrorist through data mining is like looking for a needle in a haystack. Generally, the bigger the amount of data, the bigger the probability of an error in matching profiles. Hence, when our data is being analysed through data mining of big data, the probability of us being charged for a crime we did not commit is real. Nonetheless, the CMS is going to start operating soon in an attempt to enable law enforcement agencies to tackle crime and terrorism.

A few days ago, I had a very interesting chat with an employee at SAS Institute (India) Pvt. Ltd. in Bangalore, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of SAS Institute Inc. SAS is a company which produces software solutions and services to combat fraud in financial services, identify cross-sell opportunities in retail, and all the business issues it addresses are based on three capabilities: information management, analytics and business intelligence. Interestingly enough, SAS also produces social network analysis which ´helps institutions detect and prevent fraud by going beyond individual and account views to analyze all related activities and relationships at a network dimension´. In other words, social network analysis by SAS would mean that, through Facebook, for example, all of an individual's´ interests, activities, habits, relationships and everything else that could be, directly or indirectly, linked to an individual would be mapped out in relation to other individuals. If, for example, several individuals appear to have mutual interests and activities, there is a high probability that an individual will be associated with the same type of organization as the other individuals, which could potentially be a terrorist organization. Thus, an essential benefit of the social network analysis solution is that it uncovers previously unknown network connections and relationships, which significantly enables more efficient investigations.

According to the SAS employee I spoke to, the company provides social network analysis to Indian law enforcement agencies and aims at supporting the CMS project in an attempt to tackle crime and terrorism. Furthermore, the SAS employee argued that their social network analysis solution only analyzes open source data which is either way in the public online domain, hence respecting individuals´ online privacy. In support of the Mumbai ´social media lab´, cyber security expert, Vijay Mukhi, argued:

´There may be around 60 lakh twitter users in the city and millions of other social media network users. The police will require a budget of around Rs 500 crore and huge resources such as complex software, unique bandwidth and manpower to keep a track of all of them. To an extent, the police can monitor select people who have criminal backgrounds or links with anti-social or anti-national elements...[...]...Even the apprehension that police is reading your tweet is wrong. The volume of networking on social media sites is beyond anybody's capacity. Deleting any user's message is humanly impossible. It is even difficult to find the origin of messages and shares. However, during the recent Delhi gangrape incident such monitoring of data in public domain helped the police gauge the mood of the people.´

Another cyber security expert argued that the idea that the privacy of our messages and online activity would be intercepted is a misconception. The expert stated that:

´The police are actually looking out for open source intelligence for which information in public domain on these sites is enough. Through the lab, police can access what is in the open source and not the message you are sending to your friend.´

Cyber security experts also argued that the purpose of the creation of the Mumbai social media lab and the CMS in general is to ensure that Indian law enforcement agencies are better informed about current public opinion and trends among the youth, which would enable them to take better decisions on a policy level. It was also argued that, apparently, there is no harm in the creation of such monitoring centres, especially since other countries, such as the U.S., are conducting the same type of surveillance, while have enacted stringent privacy regulations. In other words, the monitoring of our communications appears to be justified, as long as it is in the name of security.

CMS targeting individuals: myth or reality?

The CMS is not a big deal, because it will not target us individually...or at least that is what cyber security experts in India appear to be claiming. But is that really the case? Lets look at the following hypothesis:

The CMS can surveille and target individuals, if Indian law enforcement agencies have access to individuals content and non-content data and are simultaneously equipped with the necessary technology to analyse their data.

The two independent variables of the hypothesis are: (1) Indian law enforcement agencies have access to individuals´ content and non-content data, (2) Indian law enforcement agencies are equipped with the necessary technology to analyse individuals´ content and non-content data. The dependent variable of the hypothesis is that the CMS can surveille and target individuals, which can only be proven once the two independent variables have been confirmed. Now lets look at the facts.

The surveillance industry in India is a vivid reality. ClearTrail is an Indian surveillance technology company which provides communication monitoring solutions to law enforcement agencies around the world and which is a regular sponsor of ISS world surveillance trade shows. In fact, ClearTrail sponsored the ISS world surveillance trade show in Dubai last month - another opportunity to sell its surveillance technologies to law enforcement agencies around the world. ClearTrail´s solutions include, but are not limited to, mass monitoring of IP and voice networks, targeted IP monitoring, tactical Wi-Fi monitoring and off-the-air interception. Indian law enforcement agencies are equipped with such technologies and solutions and thus have the technical capability of targeting us individually and of monitoring our ´private´ online activity.

Shoghi Communications Ltd. is just another example of an Indian surveillance technology company. WikiLeaks has published a brochure with one of Shoghi´s solutions: the Semi Active GSM Monitoring System. This system can be used to intercept communications from any GSM service providers in the world and has a 100% target call monitor rate. The fact that the system is equipped with IMSI analysis software enables it to extract the suspect´s actual mobile number from the network without any help from the service provider. Indian law enforcement agencies are probably being equipped with such systems by Shoghi Communications, which would enable the CMS to monitor telecommunications more effectively.

As previously mentioned, SAS provides Indian law enforcement agencies social network analysis solutions. In general, many companies, Indian and international, produce surveillance products and solutions which they supply to law enforcement agencies around the world. However, if such technology is used solely to analyse open source data, how do law enforcement agencies expect to detect criminals and terrorists? The probability of an individual involved in illegal activity to disclose secrets and plans in the public online sphere is most likely significantly low. So given that law enforcement agencies are equipped with the technology to analyse our data, how do they get access to our content data in order to detect criminals? In other words, how do they access our ´private´ online communications to define whether we are a terrorist or not?

Some of the biggest online companies in the world, such as Google and Microsoft, disclose our content data to law enforcement agencies around the world. Sure, a lawful order is a prerequisite for the disclosure of our data...but in the end of the day, law enforcement agencies can and do have access to our content data, such as our personal emails sent to friends, our browsing habits, the photos we sent online and every other content created or communicated via the Internet. Law enforcement requests reports published by companies, such as Google and Microsoft, confirm the fact that law enforcement agencies have access to both our content and non-content data, much of which was disclosed to Indian law enforcement agencies. Thus, having access to our ´private´ online data, all Indian law enforcement agencies need is the technology to analyse our data and match patterns. The various surveillance technology companies operating in India, such as ClearTrail and Shoghi Communications, ensure that Indian law enforcement agencies are equipped with the necessary technology to meet these ends.

The hypothesis that the CMS can surveille and target us individually can be confirmed, since Indian law enforcement agencies have access to our content and non-content data, while simultaneously being equipped with the necessary technology to analyse our data. Thus, the arguments brought forth by cyber security experts in India appear to be weak in terms of validity and reliability and the CMS appears to be a new type of ´Big Brother´ upon us. But what does this mean in terms of our privacy and human rights?

The telephone tapping laws in India are weak and violate constitutional protections. The Information Technology Amendment Act 2008 has enabled e-surveillance to reach its zenith, but yet surveillance projects, such as the CMS, lack adequate legal backing. No privacy legislation currently exists in India which can protect us from potential abuse. The confirmed CMS hypothesis indicates that all individuals can potentially be targeted and monitored, regardless of whether they have been involved in illegal activity. Yet, India currently lacks privacy laws which can protect individuals from the infringement of their privacy and other human rights. The following questions in regards to the CMS remain vague: Who can authorise the interception of telecommunications and Internet communications? Who can authorise access to intercepted data? Who can have access to data? Can data monitored by the CMS be shared between third parties and if so, under what conditions? Is data monitored by the CMS retained and if so, for how long and under what conditions? Do individuals have the right to be informed about their communications being monitored and about data retained about them?

Immense vagueness revolves around the CMS, yet the project is due to start operating this month. In order to ensure that our right to privacy and other human rights are not breached, parliamentary oversight of intelligence agencies in India is a minimal prerequisite. E-surveillance regulations should be enacted, which would cover both policy and legal issues pertaining to the CMS project and which would ensure that human rights are not infringed. The overall function of the CMS project and its use of data collected should be thoroughly examined on a legal and policy level prior to its operation, as its current vagueness and excessive control over communications can create a potential for unprecedented abuse.

The necessity and utility of the CMS remain unclear and thus it has not been adequately proven yet that the security trade-off is worth it. One thing, though, is clear: we are giving up a lot of our data....we are giving up the control of our lives...with the hope that crime and terrorism will be reduced. Does this make sense?

This was cross-posted in Medianama

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/indias-big-brother-the-central-monitoring-system

A Privacy Round Table in Bangalore

praskrishna — 2013-04-17T06:55:52Z

The Centre for Internet and Society, Data Security Council of India and the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry cordially invite you to a "Privacy Round Table" at Jayamahal Palace in Jayamahal Road, Bangalore on Saturday, April 20, 2013, 10.30 a.m. to 4.00 p.m.

To discuss, in furtherance of Internet Governance Initiatives and Dialogue in 2013, the "Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy" by the Justice AP Shah Committee, the text of the Citizens' Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013, drafted by the Centre for Internet and Society, and the paper "Strengthening Privacy Protection through Co-Regulation" by DSCI.

The discussions and recommendations from the meeting will be published into a compilation, and presented at the Internet Governance meeting planned for October 2013.

Time	Detail
10.30	Overview, explanation, and discussion: The Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy
11.30	Overview, explanation, and discussion: Strengthening Privacy Protection through Co-regulation
12.15	Tea
12.30	Overview, explanation, and discussion: The Citizens (Protection) Bill 2013
13.15	Lunch
14.15	In depth discussions: The Citizens’ Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013
16.15	Tea

Confirmations and RSVP

Please send your email confirmations for attending the Bangalore Privacy Roundtable on April 20, 2013, to Snehashish Ghosh at snehashish@cis-india.org, mobile no. +91- 9902763325,latest by end-of-business 5:30 p.m. on Monday April 15, 2013. As the conference is a roundtable dialogue, we request that attendees submit a brief introduction about themselves and their interest in the topic.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/privacy-round-table-in-bangalore

Comments on the Information Technology (Electronic Service Delivery) Rules, 2011

bhairav — 2013-07-12T12:12:16Z

Bhairav Acharya on behalf of the Centre for Internet and Society prepared the following comments on the Information Technology (Electronic Services Delivery) Rules, 2011. These were submitted to the Committee on Subordinate Legislation of the 15th Lok Sabha. These were submitted to the Committee on Subordinate Legislation of the 15th Lok Sabha.

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

I Preliminary

1.1 This submission presents comments from the Centre for Internet and Society (“CIS”) on the Information Technology (Electronic Service Delivery) Rules, 2011 that were notified by the Central Government in the Gazette of India vide Notification GSR 316(E) on 11 April 2011 (“ESD Rules” or “Rules”).

1.2 The ESD Rules were notified only eight months before the Electronic Delivery of Services Bill, 2011 was tabled in the Lok Sabha on 27 December 2011 (Bill 137 of 2011) (“EDS Bill” or “Bill”). Both the ESD Rules and the EDS Bill are concerned with enabling computer-based electronic delivery of government services to Indian citizens (“electronic service delivery”). Both the Rules and the Bill originate from the same government department: the Department of Electronics and Information Technology of the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology. Since the EDS Bill seeks to enact a comprehensive legislative framework for mandating and enforcing electronic service delivery, the purpose of the ESD Rules are called into question.

II Basic Issues Regarding Electronic Service Delivery

2.1 CIS believes that there are significant conceptual issues regarding electronic service delivery that demand attention. The Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Information Technology of the Fifteenth Lok Sabha (“Standing Committee”) raised a few concerns when it submitted its 37th Report on the EDS Bill on 29 August 2012. There is a clear need for a national debate on the manner of effecting exclusive electronic service delivery to the exclusion of manual service delivery. Some of these issues are briefly summarised as follows:

(a) Mandatory exclusive electronic service delivery pre-supposes the ability of all Indian citizens to easily access such mechanisms. While there are no authoritative national statistics on familiarity with computer-related technologies, it is apparent that a large majority of Indians, most of whom are likely to be already marginalised and vulnerable, are totally unfamiliar with such technologies to endanger their ability to receive basic government services;

(b) Consequent upon mandatory exclusive electronic service delivery for basic government services, a large group of ‘middlemen’ will arise to facilitate access for that majority of Indians who cannot otherwise access these services. This group will control the interface between citizens and their government. As a result, citizens’ access to governance will deteriorate. This problem may be mitigated to a certain extent by creating a new class of public servants to solely facilitate access to electronic service delivery mechanisms;

(c) The issue of governmental incapacity at the citizen-government interface might be addressed by contracting private service providers to operate mandatory exclusive electronic service delivery mechanisms. However, it is difficult to see how commercialising access to essential government services serves the public interest, especially when public funds will be expended to meet the costs of private service providers. Permitting private service providers to charge a fee from the general public to allow access to essential government services is also ill advised;

(d) All electronic service delivery, whether mandatory to the exclusion of other service delivery mechanisms or offered simultaneously with manual service delivery, must be accompanied by strong data protection measures to ensure the sanctity of sensitive personal information shared online with the state. At present, there are no specific laws that bind the state, or its agents, to the stringent requirements of privacy necessary to protect personal liberties. In the same vein, strong data security measures are necessary to prevent sensitive personal information from being compromised or lost;

(e) All electronic service delivery, whether mandatory to the exclusion of other service delivery mechanisms or offered simultaneously with manual service delivery, must ensure ease and equality of accessibility. For this reason, electronic service delivery mechanisms should conform to the National Policy on Open Standards, 2010 (or the proposed National Electronic Access Policy which is currently awaiting adoption), the Interoperability Framework for E-Governance in India and the Website Guidelines of the National Informatics Centre;

(f) Electronic service delivery requires infrastructure which India does not currently have but can develop. Only 1.44 per cent of India’s population has access to a broadband internet connection[1] and current daily energy demand far exceeds supply. On the other hand, the number of broadband subscribers is increasing,[2] the annual installed capacity for electricity generation is growing[3] and the literacy rate is increasing.[4]

2.2 The ESD Rules do not address any of the issues raised in the preceding paragraph. As a result, they cannot be seen to represent the result of a national consensus on the crucial question of mandating exclusive electronic service delivery and the means of enforcing such a scheme. Further, very few of the provisions of the Rules are binding; instead, the Rules appear to be drafted to serve as a minimal model for electronic service delivery. In this background, CIS believes that the Rules should be treated as an incomplete arrangement that prescribe the minimal standards necessary to bind private service providers before comprehensive and statutory electronic service delivery legislation is enacted, perhaps in the form of the EDS Bill or otherwise. Therefore, without prejudice to the issues raised in the preceding paragraph, CIS offers the following comments on the provisions of the Rules while reserving the opportunity to make substantive submissions on electronic service delivery in general to an appropriate forum at a later date.

III Improper Exercise of Subordinate Legislative Power

3.1 Rule 317 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Lok Sabha (Fourteenth Edition, July 2010) (“Rules of Procedure”), which empowers the Committee on Subordinate Legislation to scrutinise exercises of statutory delegation of legislative powers for impropriety, states:

There shall be a Committee on Subordinate Legislation to scrutinize and report to the House whether the powers to make regulations, rules, subrules, bye-laws etc., conferred by the Constitution or delegated by Parliament are being properly exercised within such delegation.

Further, the Committee on Subordinate Legislation is specifically empowered by rule 320(vii) of the Rules of Procedure to examine any provision of the ESD Rules to consider “whether it appears to make some unusual or unexpected use of the powers conferred by the Constitution or the Act pursuant to which it is made.”

3.2 Accordingly, the attention of the Committee on Subordinate Legislation is called to an improper exercise of delegated power under rule 3(1) of the ESD Rules, which states:

The appropriate Government may on its own or through an agency authorised by it, deliver public services through electronically- enabled kiosks or any other electronic service delivery mechanism.

This sub-rule (1) empowers both the Central Government and State Governments to provide electronic service delivery on their own.

3.3 The ESD Rules are made in exercise of delegated powers conferred under section 87(2)(ca) read with section 6-A(2) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (“IT Act”). Section 87(2)(ca) of the IT Act empowers the Central Government to make rules to provide for:

the manner in which the authorised service provider may collect, retain and appropriate service charges under sub-section (2) of section 6-A.

Section 6-A(2) of the IT Act states:

The appropriate Government may also authorise any service provider authorised under sub-section (1) to collect, retain and appropriate such service charges, as may be prescribed by the appropriate Government for the purpose of providing such services, from the person availing such service.

Prima facie, the delegated powers under section 87(2)(ca) read with section 6-A(2) of the IT Act, in exercise of which the ESD Rules are made, only permit delegated legislation to regulate private service providers, they do not permit the executive to exercise these powers to empower itself to conduct electronic service delivery on its own. Therefore, to the extent that the ESD Rules authorise the Central Government and State Governments to provide electronic service delivery on their own, such authorisation constitutes an improper exercise of delegated power and is ultra vires the IT Act. This may be resolved by deriving the delegated legislative competence of the ESD Rules from section 87(1) of the IT Act, instead of section 87(2)(ca) read with section 6-A(2).

IV Clause-by-Clause Comments

Rule 2 - Definitions

4.1.1 Rule 2(c) of the ESD Rules states:

"authorised agent" means an agent of the appropriate Government or service provider and includes an operator of an electronically enabled kiosk who is permitted under these rules to deliver public services to the users with the help of a computer resource or any communication device, by following the procedure specified in the rules

In accordance with the argument regarding improper exercise of delegated power contained in paragraphs 3.1 – 3.3 of this submission, the appropriate Government cannot undertake electronic service delivery under these Rules. Consequently, the appropriate Government cannot appoint an agent to provide electronic service delivery on behalf, and under the control, of the appropriate Government since, as the principal, the appropriate Government would be responsible for the acts of its agents. Instead, private service providers may provide electronic service delivery as contractees of the appropriate Government who might enter into such contracts as a sovereign contractor. Therefore, only a private service provider may appoint an authorised agent under these Rules.

4.1.2 Therefore, it is proposed that rule 2(c) is amended to read as follows:

““authorised agent” means an agent of a service provider, and includes an operator of an electronically enabled kiosk, who is permitted under these rules to deliver public services with the help of a computer resource or any communication device, by following the procedure specified in these rules”

Rule 3 - System of Electronic Service Delivery

4.2.1 Rule 3(3) of the ESD Rules states:

The appropriate Government may determine the manner of encrypting sensitive electronic records requiring confidentiality, white they are electronically signed.

This sub-rule is supposed to prescribe stringent standards to maintain the security, confidentiality and privacy of all personal information used during electronic service delivery transactions. In the absence of transactional security, electronic service delivery will invite fraud, theft and other misuse to impugn its viability as a means of delivering public services. However, the use of the term “may” leaves the prescription of security standards up to the discretion of the appropriate Government. Further, the language of the sub-rule is unclear and imprecise.

4.2.2 Therefore, it is proposed that rule 3(3) is amended to read as follows:

“The appropriate Government shall, prior to any electronic service delivery, determine the manner of encrypting electronic records and shall prescribe standards for maintaining the safety, security, confidentiality and privacy of all information collected or used in the course of electronic service delivery.”

4.3.1 Rule 3(5) of the ESD Rules states:

The appropriate Government may allow receipt of payments made by adopting the Electronic Service Delivery System to be a deemed receipt of payment effected in compliance with the financial code and treasury code of such Government.

Firstly, if these Rules enable payments to be made electronically, they must also validate the receipt of these payments. Inviting citizens to make electronic payments for government services without recognising the receipt of those payments is farcical to attract abusive and corrupt practices. Therefore, it is imperative that these Rules compulsorily recognise receipt of payments, either by deeming their receipt to be valid receipts under existing law or by specially recognising their receipt by other means including the law of evidence. Either way, electronic receipts of electronic payments must be accorded the validity in law that manual/paper receipts have; and, copies of such electronic receipts must be capable of being adduced in evidence. Secondly, the use of the phrase “financial code and treasury code” is avoidable since these terms are undefined.

4.3.2 Therefore, it is proposed that rule 3(5) be amended to read as follows:

“Any receipt of payment made by electronic service delivery shall be deemed to be a valid receipt of such payment under applicable law and shall be capable of being adduced as evidence of such payment.”

4.4.1 Rule 3(6) of the ESD Rules states:

The appropriate Government may authorise service providers or their authorised agents to collect, retain and appropriate such service charges as may be specified by the appropriate Government for the purpose of providing such services from the person availing such services:

Provided that the apportioned service charges shall be clearly indicated on the receipt to be given to the person availing the services.

This sub-rule is an almost verbatim reproduction of the provisions of section 6-A(2) of the IT Act which reads as follows:

Since the IT Act specifically delegates to the appropriate Governments the power to authorise service providers to levy charges, rule 3(6) of the ESD Rules that merely copies the provisions of the parent statute is meaningless. The purpose of delegated legislation is to give effect to the provisions of a statute by specifying the manner in which statutory provisions shall be implemented. Copying and pasting statutory provisions is a absurd misuse of delegated legislative powers.

4.4.2 Therefore, it is proposed that sub-rule (6) is deleted and the remaining sub-rules of rule 3 are renumbered.

4.5.1 Rule 3(7) of the ESD Rules states:

The appropriate Government shall by notification specify the scale of service charges which may be charged and collected by the service providers and their authorised agents for various kinds of services.

This is an almost verbatim reproduction of the provisions of section 6-A(4) of the IT Act which reads as follows:

The appropriate Government shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify the scale of service charges which may be charged and collected by the service providers under this section.

As noted in paragraph 4.3.1 of this submission, the purpose of delegated legislation is not to copy the provisions of the parent statute, but to amplify the scope of the delegated power and the manner of effecting its implementation.

4.5.2 Therefore, it is proposed that sub-rule (7) is deleted and the remaining sub-rules of rule 3 are renumbered.

4.6.1 Rule 3(8) of the ESD Rules states:

The appropriate Government may also determine the norms on service levels to be complied with by the Service Provider and the authorised agents.

There is no quarrel with the power of the government to determine norms for, or directly prescribe, service levels to regulate service providers. However, without a scheme of statutory or sub-statutory penalties for contravention of the prescribed service levels, a sub-delegated service level cannot enforce any penalties. Simply put, the state cannot enforce penalties unless authorised by law. Unfortunately, rule 3(8) contains no such authorisation. Service levels for service providers without a regime of penalties for non-compliance is meaningless, especially since service providers will be engaged in providing access to essential government services.

4.6.2 Therefore, it is proposed that rule 3(8) be amended to read as follows:

“The appropriate Government shall prescribe service levels to be complied with by all service providers and their authorised agents which shall include penalties for failure to comply with such service levels.”

[1]. Thirty-Seventh Report of the Standing Committee on Information Technology (2011-12) on the Electronic Delivery of Services Bill, 2011 (New Delhi: Lok Sabha Secretariat, 29 August 2012) at pp. 13, 17 and 34. See also, Telecom Sector in India: A Decadal Profile (New Delhi: Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, 8 June 2012).

[2]. Annual Report (2011-12) of the Department of Telecommunications, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, Government of India (New Delhi: Department of Telecommunications, 2012) at pp. 5 and 1-3.

[3]. Report of the Working Group on Power of the Twelfth Plan (New Delhi: Planning Commission, Government of India, January 2012).

[4]. Provisional Report of the Census of India 2011 (New Delhi: Registrar General and Census Commissioner, 2011) from p. 124.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/comments-on-it-electronic-service-delivery-rules-2011

Comments on the Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal Data or Information) Rules, 2011

bhairav — 2013-07-12T12:13:53Z

Bhairav Acharya on behalf of the Centre for Internet and Society prepared the following comments on the Sensitive Personal Data Rules. These were submitted to the Committee on Subordinate Legislation of the 15th Lok Sabha.

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

I Preliminary

1.1 The Centre for Internet and Society (“CIS”) is pleased to present this submission on the Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal Data or Information) Rules, 2011 that were notified by the Central Government in the Gazette of India vide Notification GSR 313(E) on 11 April 2011 (“Sensitive Personal Data Rules” or “Rules”) to the Committee on Subordinate Legislation of the Fifteenth Lok Sabha.

1.2 The protection of personal information lies at the heart of the right to privacy; and, for this reason, it is an imperative legislative and policy concern in liberal democracies around the world. In India, although remedies for invasions of privacy exist in tort law and despite the Supreme Court of India according limited constitutional recognition to the right to privacy[1], there have never been codified provisions protecting the privacy of individuals and their personal information.

The Sensitive Personal Data Rules represent India’s first legislative attempt to recognise that all persons have a right to protect the privacy of their personal information. However, the Rules suffer from numerous conceptual, substantive and procedural weaknesses, including drafting defects, which demand scrutiny and rectification. The interpretation and applicability of the Rules was further confused when, on 24 August 2011, the Department of Information Technology of the Ministry of Communications attempted to reinterpret the Rules through a press release oblivious to the universally accepted basic proposition that law cannot be made or reinterpreted via press releases.[2] Therefore, the attention of the Committee on Subordinate Legislation of the Fifteenth Lok Sabha is called to the following submissions:

II Principles to Facilitate Appraisal
2.1 The Sensitive Personal Data Rules are an important step towards building a legal regime that protects the privacy of individuals whilst enabling the secure collection, use and storage of personal information by state and private entities. The Rules are to be welcomed in principle. However, at present, the Rules construct an incomplete regime that does not adequately protect privacy and, for this reason, falls short of internationally accepted data protection standards.[3]

This not only harms the personal liberties of Indian citizens, it also affects the ability of Indian companies to conduct commerce in foreign countries. More importantly, the Rules offer no protection against the state.

2.2 To enact a comprehensive personal information protection regime, CIS believes that the Rules should proceed on the basis of the following broad principles:

(a) Principle of Notice / Prior Knowledge

All persons from whom personal information is collected have a right to know, before the personal information is collected and, where applicable, at any point thereafter: (i) of an impending collection of personal information; (ii) the content and nature of the personal information being collected; (iii) the purpose for which the personal information is being collected; (iv) the broad identities of all natural and juristic persons who will have access to the collected personal information; (v) the manner in which the collected personal information will be used; (vi) the duration for which the collected personal information will be stored; (vii) whether the collected personal information will be disclosed to third parties including the police and other law enforcement agencies; (viii) of the manner in which they may access, check, modify or withdraw their collected personal information; (ix) the security practices and safeguards that will govern the sanctity of the collected personal information; (x) of all privacy policies and other policies in relation to the collected personal information; (xi) of any breaches in the security, safety, privacy and sanctity of the collected personal information; and, (xii) the procedure for recourse, including identities and contact details of ombudsmen and grievance redress officers, in relation to any misuse of the collected personal information.

(b) Principle of Consent

Personal information must only be collected once the person to whom it pertains has consented to its collection. Such consent must be informed, explicit and freely given. Informed consent is conditional upon the fulfilment of the principle of notice/prior knowledge set out in the preceding paragraph. Consent must be expressly given: the person to whom the personal information to be collected pertains must grant explicit and affirmative permission to collect personal information; and, he must know, or be made aware, of any action of his that will constitute such consent. Consent that is obtained using threats or coercion, such as a threat of refusal to provide services, does not constitute valid consent. Any person whose personal information has been consensually collected may, at any time, withdraw such consent for any or no reason and, consequently, his personal information, including his identity, must be destroyed. When consent is withdrawn in this manner, the person who withdrew consent may be denied any service that requires the use of the personal information for which consent was withdrawn.

Personal information must only be collected when, where and to the extent necessary. Necessity cannot be established in general; there must be a specific nexus connecting the content of the personal information to the purpose of its collection. Only the minimal amount of personal information necessary to achieve the purpose should be collected. If a purpose exists that warrants a temporally specific, or an event-dependent, collection of personal information, such a collection must only take place when that specific time is reached or that event occurs. If the purpose of personal information is dependent upon, or specific to, a geographical area or location, that personal information must only be collected from that geographical area or location.

(d) Right to be Forgotten / Principle of Purpose Limitation

Once collected, personal information must be processed, used, stored or otherwise only for the purpose for which it was collected. If the purpose for which personal information was collected is achieved, the collected personal information must be destroyed and the person to whom that personal information pertained must be ‘forgotten.’ Similarly, collected personal information must be destroyed and the person to whom it pertained ‘forgotten’ if the purpose for which it was collected expires or ceases to exist. Personal information collected for a certain purpose cannot be used or stored for another purpose nor even used or stored for a similar purpose to arise in the future without the express and informed consent of the person from whom it was collected in accordance with the principles of notice/prior knowledge and consent.

(e) Right of Access

All persons from whom personal information is collected have a right to access that personal information at any point following its collection to check its accuracy, make corrections or modifications and have destroyed that which is inaccurate. Where personal information of more than one person is held in an aggregated form such that affording one person access to it may endanger the right to privacy of another person, the entity holding the aggregated personal information must, to the best of its ability, identify the portion of the personal information that pertains to the person seeking access and make it available to him. All persons from whom personal information is collected must be given copies of their personal information upon request.

(f) Principle regarding Disclosure

Personal information, once collected, must never be disclosed. However, if the person to whom certain personal information pertains consents to its disclosure in accordance with the principle of consent after he has been made aware of the proposed disclosee and other details related to the personal information in accordance with the principle of notice/prior knowledge, the personal information may be disclosed. Consent to a disclosure of this nature may be obtained even during collection of the personal information if the person to whom it pertains expressly consents to its future disclosure. Notwithstanding the rule against disclosure and the consent exception to the rule, personal information may be disclosed to the police or other law enforcement agencies on certain absolute conditions. Since the protection of personal information is a policy imperative, the conditions permitting its disclosure must be founded on a clear and serious law enforcement need that overrides the right to privacy; and, in addition, the disclosure conditions must be strict, construed narrowly and, in the event of ambiguity, interpreted to favour the individual right to privacy. Therefore, (i) there must be a demonstrable need to access personal information in connection with a criminal offence; (ii) only that amount of personal information that is sufficient to satisfy the need must be disclosed; and, (iii), since such a disclosure is non-consensual, it must follow a minimal due process regime that at least immediately notifies the person concerned and affords him the right to protest the disclosure.

(g) Principle of Security

All personal information must be protected to absolutely maintain its sanctity, confidentiality and privacy by implementing safeguards against loss, unauthorised access, destruction, use, processing, storage, modification, de-anonymisation, unauthorised disclosure and other risks. Such a level of protection must include physical, administrative and technical safeguards that are constantly and consistently audited. Protection measures must be revised to incorporate stronger measures and mechanisms as and when they arise.

(h) Principle of Transparency / ‘Open-ness’

All practices, procedures and policies governing personal information must be made available to the person to whom that personal information pertains in a simple and easy-to-understand manner. This includes policies relating to the privacy, security and disclosure of that personal information. If an entity that seeks to collect personal information does not have these policies, it must immediately draft, publish and display such policies in addition to making them available to the person from whom it seeks to collect personal information before the collection can begin.

(i) Principle of Accountability

Liability attaches to the possession of personal information of another person. Since rights and duties, such as those in relation to privacy of personal information, are predicated on accountability, this principle binds all entities that seek to possess personal information of another person. As a result, an entity seeking to collect, use, process, store or disclose personal information of another person is accountable to that person for complying with all these principles as well as the provisions of any law. The misuse of personal information causes harm to the person to whom it pertains to attract and civil and criminal penalties.

2.3 These principles are reflective of internationally accepted best practices to form the basis upon which Indian legislation to protect personal information should be drafted. The Sensitive Personal Data Rules, in their current form, fall far short of the achieving the substantive intent of these principles. CIS submits that either (i) the Sensitive Personal Data Rules should be replaced with new and comprehensive legislation that speaks to the objectives and purpose of these principles, or (ii) the Sensitive Personal Data Rules are radically modified by amendment to bring Indian law to par with world standards. Nevertheless, without prejudice to the preceding submission, CIS offers the following clause-by-clause comments on the Sensitive Personal Data Rules:

III Clause-by-Clause Analysis and Comments

Rule 2 - Definitions

3.1.1 Rule 2(1)(b) of the Sensitive Personal Data Rules defines “biometrics” as follows:

"Biometrics" means the technologies that measure and analyse human body characteristics, such as 'fingerprints', 'eye retinas and irises', 'voice patterns', "facial patterns', 'hand measurements' and 'DNA' for authentication purposes.

3.1.2 Firstly, the Sensitive Personal Data Rules do not use the term “biometrics.” Instead, rule 3(vi), which defines sensitive personal data, uses the term “biometric information.” It is unclear why rule 2(1)(b) provides a definition of the technologies by which information is obtained instead of clearly identify the information that constitutes sensitive personal data. This is one of several examples of poor drafting of the Sensitive Personal Data Rules. Secondly, biometric information is not used only for authentication; there are many other reasons for collecting and using biometric information. For instance, DNA is widely collected and used for medical research. Restricting the application of the definition to only that biometric information that is used for authentication is illogical to deprive the Rules of meaning.

3.1.3 Therefore, it is proposed that rule 2(1)(b) be re-drafted to read as follows:

““Biometric information” means any information relating to the physical, physiological or behavioural characteristics of an individual which enable their unique identification including, but not limited to, fingerprints, retinas, irises, voice patterns, facial patterns, Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and genetic information.”

3.2.1 Rule 2(1)(c) of the Sensitive Personal Data Rules defines “body corporate” in accordance with the definition provided in clause (i) of the Explanation to section 43A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (“IT Act”) as follows:

“body corporate” means any company and includes a firm, sole proprietorship or other association of individuals engaged in commercial or professional activities.

3.2.2 Firstly, this definition of a body corporate is poorly drafted to extend beyond incorporated entities to bring within its ambit even unincorporated professional organisations such as societies and associations which, by their very nature, are not bodies corporate.[4]

This is an arbitrary reinterpretation of the fundamental principles of company law. As it presently stands, this peculiar definition will extend to public and private limited companies, including incorporated public sector undertakings, ordinary and limited liability partnerships, firms, sole proprietorships, societies and associations; but, will exclude public and private trusts[5] and unincorporated public authorities. Hence, whereas non-governmental organisations that are organised as societies will fall within the definition of “body corporate,” those that are organised as trusts will not. Similarly, incorporated public authorities such as Delhi Transport Corporation and even municipal corporations such as the Municipal Corporation of Delhi will fall within the definition of “body corporate” but unincorporated public authorities such as the New Delhi Municipal Council and the Delhi Development Authority will not. This is a prima facie violation of the fundamental right of all persons to be treated equally under the law guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

3.2.3 Secondly, whereas state entities and public authorities often collect and use sensitive personal data, with the exception of state corporations the Sensitive Personal Data Rules do not apply to the state. This means that the procedural safeguards offered by the Rules do not bind the police and other law enforcement agencies allowing them a virtually unfettered right to collect and use, even misuse, sensitive personal data without consequence. Further, state entities such as the Unique Identification Authority of India or the various State Housing Boards which collect, handle, process, use and store sensitive personal data are not covered by the Rules and remain unregulated. It is not possible to include these unincorporated entities within the definition of a body corporate; but, in pursuance of the principles set out in paragraph 2.2 of this submission, the Rules should be expanded to all state entities, whether incorporated or not.

3.2.4 Therefore, it is proposed that rule 2(1)(c) be re-drafted to read as follows:

““body corporate” means the body corporate defined in sub-section (7) of section 2 read with section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) and includes those entities which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf but shall not include societies registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (21 of 1860), trusts created under the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 (2 of 1882) or any other association of individuals that is not a legal entity apart from the members constituting it and which does not enjoy perpetual succession.”

Further, it is proposed that the Sensitive Personal Data Rules be re-drafted to apply to societies registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and trusts created under the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 in a manner reflective of their distinctiveness from bodies corporate.

Furthermore, it is proposed that the Sensitive Personal Data Rules be re-drafted to apply to public authorities and the state as defined in Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

3.3.1 Rule 2(1)(d) of the Sensitive Personal Data Rules defines “cyber incidents” as follows:

"Cyber incidents" means any real or suspected adverse event in relation to cyber security that violates an explicitly or implicitly applicable security policy resulting in unauthorised access, denial of service or disruption, unauthorised use of a computer resource for processing or storage of information or changes to data, information without authorisation.

3.3.2 Before examining the provisions of this clause, CIS questions the need for this definition. The term “cyber incidents” is used only once in these rules: the proviso to rule 6(1) which specifies the conditions upon which personal information or sensitive personal data may be disclosed to the police or other law enforcement authorities without the prior consent of the person to whom the information pertains. An analysis of rule 6(1) is contained at paragraphs 3.11.1 – 3.11.4 of this submission. Firstly, personal information and sensitive personal data should only be disclosed in connection with the prevention, investigation and prosecution of an existing offence. Offences cannot be created in the definitions clause of sub-statutory rules, they can only be created by a parent statute or another statute. Secondly, the scope and content of “cyber incidents” are already covered by section 43 of the IT Act. When read with section 66 of IT Act, an offence is created that is larger than the scope of the term “cyber incidents” to render this definition redundant.

3.3.3 Therefore, it is proposed that the definition of “cyber incidents” in rule 2(1)(d) be deleted and the remaining clauses in sub-rule (1) of rule 2 be accordingly renumbered.

3.4.1 Rule 2(1)(g) of the Sensitive Personal Data Rules defines “intermediary” in accordance with the definition provided in section 2(1)(w) of the IT Act. However, the term “intermediary” is not used anywhere in the Sensitive Personal Data Rules and so its definition is redundant. This is another instance of careless drafting of the Sensitive Personal Data Rules.

3.4.2 Therefore, it is proposed that the definition of “intermediary” in rule 2(1)(g) be deleted and the remaining clauses in sub-rule (1) of rule 2 be accordingly renumbered.

Rule 3 - Sensitive Personal Data

3.5.1 Rule 3 of the Sensitive Personal Data Rules provides an aggregated definition of sensitive personal data as follows:

Sensitive personal data or information of a person means such personal information which consists of information relating to –

(i) password;

(ii) financial information such as Bank account or credit card or debit card or other payment instrument details ;

(iii) physical, physiological and mental health condition;

(iv) sexual orientation;

(v) medical records and history;

(vi) Biometric information;

(vii) any detail relating to the above clauses as provided to body corporate for providing service; and

(viii) any of the information received under above clauses by body corporate for processing, stored or processed under lawful contract or otherwise:

provided that, any information that is freely available or accessible in public domain or furnished under the Right to Information Act, 2005 or any other law for the time being in force shall not be regarded as sensitive personal data or information for the purposes of these rules.

3.5.2 In accordance with the principle that certain kinds of personal information are particularly sensitive, due to the intimate nature of their content in relation to the right to privacy, to invite privileged protective measures regarding the collection, handling, processing, use and storage of such sensitive personal data, it is surprising that rule 3 does not protect electronic communication records of individuals. Emails and chat logs as well as records of internet activity such as online search histories are particularly vulnerable to abuse and misuse and should be accorded privileged protection.

3.5.3 Therefore, it is proposed that rule 3 be re-drafted to read as follows:

“Sensitive personal data or information of a person means personal information as to that person’s –

(i) passwords and encryption keys;

(ii) financial information including, but not limited to, information relating to his bank accounts, credit cards, debit cards, negotiable instruments, debt and other payment details;

(iii) physical, physiological and mental condition;

(iv) sexual activity and sexual orientation;

(v) medical records and history;

(vi) biometric information; and

(vii) electronic communication records including, but not limited to, emails, chat logs and other communications made using a computer;

and shall include any data or information related to the sensitive personal data or information set out in this rule that is provided to, or received by, a body corporate.

Provided that, any information that is freely available or accessible in the public domain or furnished under the Right to Information Act, 2005 or any other law for the time being in force shall not be regarded as sensitive personal data or information for the purposes of these rules.”

Rule 4 - Privacy and Disclosure Policy

3.6.1 Rule 4 of the Sensitive Personal Data Rules, which obligates certain bodies corporate to publish privacy and disclosure policies for personal information, states:

Body corporate to provide policy for privacy and disclosure of information. – (1) The body corporate or any person who on behalf of body corporate collects, receives, possess, stores, deals or handle information of provider of information, shall provide a privacy policy for handling of or dealing in personal information including sensitive personal data or information and ensure that the same are available for view by such providers of information who has provided such information under lawful contract. Such policy shall be published on website of body corporate or any person on its behalf and shall provide for –

(i) Clear and easily accessible statements of its practices and policies;

(ii) type of personal or sensitive personal data or information collected under rule 3;

(iii) purpose of collection and usage of such information;

(iv) disclosure of information including sensitive personal data or information as provided in rule 6;

(v) reasonable security practices and procedures as provided under rule 8.

3.6.2 This rule is very badly drafted, contains several discrepancies and is legally imprecise. Firstly, this rule is overbroad to bind all bodies corporate that receive and use information, as opposed to “personal information” or “sensitive personal data.” All bodies corporate receive and use information, even a vegetable seller uses information relating to vegetables and prices; but, not all bodies corporate receive and use personal information and even fewer bodies corporate receive and use sensitive personal data. The application of this provision should turn on the reception and use of personal information, which includes sensitive personal data, and not simply information. Secondly, although this rule only applies when a provider of information provides information, the term “provider of information” is undefined. It may mean any single individual who gives his personal information to a body corporate, or it may even mean another entity that outsources or subcontracts work that involves the handling of personal information. This lack of clarity compromises the enforceability of this rule. The government’s press release of 24 August 2011 acknowledged this error but since it is impossible, not to mention unconstitutional, for a statutory instrument like these Rules to be amended, modified, interpreted or clarified by a press release, CIS is inclined to ignore the press release altogether. It is illogical that privacy policies not be required when personal information is directly given by a single individual. This rule should bind all bodies corporate that receive and use personal information irrespective of the source of the personal information. Thirdly, it is unclear whether separate privacy policies are required for personal information and for sensitive personal data. There is a distinction between personal information and sensitive personal data and since these Sensitive Personal Data Rules deal with the protection of sensitive personal data, this rule 4 should unambiguously mandate the publishing of privacy policies in relation to sensitive personal data. Any additional requirement for personal information must be set out to clearly mark its difference from sensitive personal data. Fourthly, because of sloppy drafting, the publishing duties of the body corporate in respect of any sensitive personal data are unclear. For example, the phrase “personal or sensitive personal data or information” used in clause (ii) is meaningless since “personal information” and “sensitive personal data or information” are defined terms.

3.6.3 Therefore, it is proposed that rule 3 be re-drafted to read as follows:

“Duty to publish certain policies. – (1) Any body corporate that collects, receives, possesses, stores, deals with or handles personal information or sensitive personal data from any source whatsoever shall, prior to collecting, receiving, possessing, storing, dealing with or handling such personal information or sensitive personal data, publish and prominently display the policies listed in sub-rule (2) in relation to such personal information and sensitive personal data.

(2) In accordance with sub-rule (1) of this rule, all bodies corporate shall publish separate policies for personal information and sensitive personal data that clearly state –

(i) the meanings of personal information and sensitive personal data in accordance with these rules;

(ii) the practices and policies of that body corporate in relation to personal information and sensitive personal data;

(iii) descriptive details of the nature and type of personal information and sensitive personal data collected, received, possessed, stored or handled by that body corporate;

(iv) the purpose for which such personal information and sensitive personal data is collected, received, possessed, stored or handled by that body corporate;

(v) the manner and conditions upon which such personal information and sensitive personal data may be disclosed in accordance with rule 6 of these rules; and

(vi) the reasonable security practices and procedures governing such personal information and sensitive personal data in accordance with rule 8 of these rules.”

Rule 5 - Collection of Information

3.7.1 Rule 5(1) of the Sensitive Personal Data Rules lays down the requirement of consent before personal information can be collected as follows:

Body corporate or any person on its behalf shall obtain consent in writing through letter or Fax or email from the provider of the sensitive personal data or information regarding purpose of usage before collection of such information.

3.7.2 Firstly, the principle and requirement of consent is of overriding importance when collecting personal information, which includes sensitive personal data. Pursuant to the principles laid down in paragraph 2.2 of this submission, consent must be informed, explicit and freely given. Since sub-rule (3) of rule 5 attempts to secure the informed consent of persons giving personal information, this sub-rule must establish that all personal information can only be collected upon explicit consent that is freely given, irrespective of the medium and manner in which it is given. Secondly, it may be noted that sub-rule (1) only applies to sensitive personal data and not to other personal information that is not sensitive personal data. This is ill advised. Thirdly, this sub-rule relating to actual collection of personal information should follow a provision establishing the principle of necessity before collection can begin. The principle of necessity is currently laid down in sub-rule (2) of rule 5 which should be re-numbered to precede this sub-rule relating to collection.

3.7.3 Therefore, it is proposed that rule 5(1) be re-numbered to sub-rule (2) of rule 5 and re-drafted to read as follows:

“A body corporate seeking to collect personal information or sensitive personal data of a person shall, prior to collecting that personal information or sensitive personal data, obtain the express and informed consent of that person in any manner, and through any medium, that may be convenient but shall not obtain such consent through threat, duress or coercion.”

3.8.1 Rule 5(2) of the Sensitive Personal Data Rules sets out the principle of necessity governing the collection of personal information as follows:

Body corporate or any person on its behalf shall not collect sensitive personal data or information unless —

(a) the information is collected for a lawful purpose connected with a function or activity of the body corporate or any person on its behalf; and

(b) the collection of the sensitive personal data or information is considered necessary for that purpose.

3.8.2 Firstly, before allowing a body corporate to collect personal information, which includes sensitive personal data, the law should strictly ensure that the collection of such personal information is necessary. Necessity cannot be established in general, there must be a nexus connecting the personal information to the purpose for which the personal information is sought to be collected. This important sub-rule sets out the principles upon which personal information can be collected; and, should therefore be the first sub-rule of rule 5. Secondly, this sub-rule only applies to sensitive personal data instead of all personal information. It is in the public interest that the principle of necessity applies to all personal information, including sensitive personal data.

3.8.3 Therefore, it is proposed that rule 5(2) be re-numbered to sub-rule (1) of rule 5 and re-drafted to read as follows:

“No body corporate shall collect any personal information or sensitive personal data of a person unless it clearly establishes that –

(a) the personal information or sensitive personal data is collected for a lawful purpose that is directly connected to a function or activity of the body corporate; and

(b) the collection of the personal information or sensitive personal data is necessary to achieve that lawful purpose.”

3.9.1 Rule 5(3) of the Sensitive Personal Data Rules attempts to create an informed consent regime for the collection of personal information as follows:

While collecting information directly from the person concerned, the body corporate or any person on its behalf snail take such steps as are, in the circumstances, reasonable to ensure that the person concerned is having the knowledge of —

(a) the fact that the information is being collected;

(b) the purpose for which the information is being collected;

(c) the intended recipients of the information; and

(d) the name and address of —

(i) the agency that is collecting the information; and

(ii) the agency that will retain the information.

3.9.2 Firstly, this sub-rule (3) betrays the carelessness of its drafters by bringing within its application any and all information collected by a body corporate from a person instead of only personal information or sensitive personal data. Secondly, this provision is crucial to establishing a regime of informed consent before personal information is given by a person to a body corporate. For consent to be informed, the person giving consent must be made aware of not only the collection of that personal information or sensitive personal data, but also the purpose for which it is being collected, the manner in which it will be used, the intended recipients to whom it will be sent or made accessible, the duration for which it will be stored, the conditions upon which it may be disclosed, the conditions upon which it may be destroyed as well as the identities of all persons who will collect, receive, possess, store, deal with or handle that personal information or sensitive personal data. Thirdly, the use of the phrase “take such steps as are, in the circumstances, reasonable” dilutes the purpose of this provision and compromises the establishment of an informed consent regime. Instead, the use of the term “reasonable efforts”, which has an understood meaning in law, will suffice to protect individuals while giving bodies corporate sufficient latitude to conduct their business.

3.9.3 Therefore, it is proposed that rule 5(3) be re-drafted to read as follows:

“A body corporate seeking to collect personal information or sensitive personal data of a person shall, prior to such collection, make reasonable efforts to inform that person of the following details in respect of his personal information or sensitive personal data –

(a) the fact that it is being collected;

(b) the purpose for which it is being collected;

(d) the intended recipients to whom it will be sent or made available;

(e) the duration for which it will be stored;

(f) the conditions upon which it may be disclosed;

(g) the conditions upon which it may be destroyed; and

(h) the identities of all persons and bodies corporate who will collect, receive, possess, store, deal with or handle it.”

3.10.1 Rule 5(4) of the Sensitive Personal Data Rules lays down temporal restrictions to the retention of personal information:

Body corporate or any person on its behalf holding sensitive personal data or information shall not retain that information for longer than is required for the purposes for which the information may lawfully be used or is otherwise required under any other law for the time being in force.

3.10.2 Since this sub-rule (4) only applies to sensitive personal data instead of all personal information, bodies corporate are permitted to hold personal information of persons that is not sensitive personal data for as long as they like even after the necessity that informed the collection of that personal information expires and the purpose for which it was collected ends. This is a dangerous provision that deprives the owners of personal information of the ability to control its possession to jeopardise their right to privacy. The Sensitive Personal Data Rules should prescribe a temporal limit to the storage of all personal information by bodies corporate.

3.10.3 Therefore, it is proposed that rule 5(4) be re-drafted to read as follows:

“No body corporate shall store, retain or hold personal information or sensitive personal data for a period longer than is required to achieve the purpose for which that personal information or sensitive personal data was collected.”

Rule 6 - Disclosure of Information

3.11.1 Rule 6(1) of the Sensitive Personal Data Rules, which deals with the crucial issue of disclosure of personal information, states:

Disclosure of sensitive personal data or information by body corporate to any third party shall require prior permission from the provider of such information, who has provided such information under lawful contract or otherwise, unless such disclosure has been agreed to in the contract between the body corporate and provider of information, or where the disclosure is necessary for compliance of a legal obligation:

Provided that the information shall be shared, without obtaining prior consent from provider of information, with Government agencies mandated under the law to obtain information including sensitive personal data or information for the purpose of verification of identity, or for prevention, detection, investigation including cyber incidents, prosecution, and punishment of offences. The Government agency shall send a request in writing to the body corporate possessing the sensitive personal data or information stating clearly the purpose of seeking such information. The Government agency shall also state that the information so obtained shall not be published or shared with any other person.

3.11.2 In addition to errors and discrepancies in drafting, this sub-rule contains wide and vague conditions of disclosure of sensitive personal data to gravely impair the privacy rights and personal liberties of persons to whom such sensitive personal data pertains. A summary of drafting errors and discrepancies follows: Firstly, this sub-rule only applies to sensitive personal data instead of all personal information. The protection of personal information that is not sensitive personal data is an essential element of the right to privacy; hence, prohibiting bodies corporate from disclosing personal information at will is an important public interest prerogative. Secondly, the use of the phrase “any third party” lends vagueness to this provision since the term “third party” has not been defined. Thirdly, the repeated use of the undefined phrase “provider of information” throughout these Rules and in this sub-rule is confusing since, as pointed out in paragraph 3.6.2 of this submission, it could mean either or both of the single individual who consents to the collection of his personal information or another entity that transfers personal information to the body corporate.

3.11.3 Further, the conditions upon which bodies corporate may disclose personal information and sensitive personal data without the consent of the person to whom it pertains are dangerously wide. Firstly, the disclosure of personal information and sensitive personal data when it is “necessary for compliance of a legal obligation” is an extremely low protection standard. The law must intelligently specify the exact conditions upon which disclosure sans consent is possible; since the protection of personal information is a public interest priority, the conditions upon which it may be disclosed must outweigh this priority to be significant and serious enough to imperil the nation or endanger public interest. The disclosure of personal information and sensitive personal data for mere compliance of a legal obligation, such as failure to pay an electricity bill, is farcical. Secondly, the proviso sets out the conditions upon which the state, through its law enforcement agencies, may access personal information and sensitive personal data without the consent of the person to whom it pertains. Empowering the police with access to personal information can serve a public good if, and only if, it results in the prevention or resolution of crime; if not, this provision will give the police carte blanche to misuse and abuse this privilege. Hence, personal information should only be disclosed for the prevention, investigation and prosecution of an existing criminal offence. Thirdly, the definition and use of the term “cyber incidents” is unnecessary because section 43 of the IT Act already lists all such incidents. In addition, when read with section 66 of the IT Act, there emerges a clear list of offences to empower the police to seek non-consensual disclosure of personal information to obviate the need for any further new terminology. In sum, with regard to the non-consensual disclosure of personal information for the purposes of law enforcement: a demonstrable need to access personal information to prevent, investigate or prosecute crime must exist; only that amount of personal information sufficient to satisfy the need must be disclosed; and, finally, no disclosure may be permitted without clearly laid down procedural safeguards that fulfil the requirements of a minimal due process regime.

3.11.4 Therefore, it is proposed that rule 6(1) be re-drafted to read as follows:

“No body corporate shall disclose any personal information or sensitive personal data to anyone whosoever without the prior express consent of the person to whom the personal information or sensitive personal data to be disclosed pertains.

Provided that if the personal information or sensitive personal data was collected pursuant to an agreement that expressly authorises the body corporate to disclose such personal information or sensitive personal data, and if the person to whom the personal information or sensitive personal data pertains was aware of this authorisation prior to such collection, the body corporate may disclose the personal information or sensitive personal data without obtaining the consent of the person to whom it pertains in the form and manner specified in such agreement.

Provided further that if a reasonable threat to national security, defence or public order exists, or if the disclosure of personal information or sensitive personal data is necessary to prevent, investigate or prosecute a criminal offence, the body corporate shall, upon receiving a written request from the police or other law enforcement authority containing the particulars and details of the personal information or sensitive personal data to be disclosed, disclose such personal information or sensitive personal data to such police or other law enforcement authority without the prior consent of the person to whom it pertains.”

3.12.1 Rule 6(2) of the Sensitive Personal Data Rules creates an additional disclosure mechanism:

Notwithstanding anything contain in sub-rule (1), any sensitive personal data on Information shall be disclosed to any third party by an order under the law for the time being in force.

3.12.2 This sub-rule is overbroad to enable anyone’s sensitive personal data to be disclosed to any other person without the application of any standards of necessity, proportionality or due process and without the person to whom the sensitive personal data pertains having any recourse or remedy. Such provisions are the hallmarks of authoritarian and police states and have no place in a liberal democracy. For instance, the invocation of this sub-rule will enable a police constable in Delhi to exercise unfettered power to access the biometric information or credit card details of a politician in Kerala since an order of a policeman constitutes “an order under the law”. Pursuant to our submission in paragraph 3.11.4, adequate measures exist to secure the disclosure of personal information or sensitive public data in the public interest. The balance of convenience between privacy and public order has already been struck. This sub-rule should be removed.

3.12.3 Therefore, it is proposed that rule 6(2) be deleted and the remaining sub-rules in rule 6 be accordingly renumbered.

3.13.1 Rule 6(4) of the Sensitive Personal Data Rules states:

The third party receiving the sensitive personal data or information from body corporate or any person on its behalf under sub-rule (1) shall not disclose it further.

3.13.2 Firstly, as mentioned elsewhere in this submission, the phrase “third party” has not been defined. This is a drafting discrepancy that must be rectified. Secondly, this sub-rule only encompasses sensitive personal data and not other personal information that is not sensitive personal data. Thirdly, it may be necessary, in the interests of business or otherwise, for personal information or sensitive personal data that has been lawfully disclosed to a third person to be disclosed further if the person to whom that personal information consents to it.

3.13.3 Therefore, it is proposed that rule 6(4) be re-drafted to read as follows:

“Personal information and sensitive personal data that has been lawfully disclosed by a body corporate to a person who is not the person to whom such personal information or sensitive personal data pertains in accordance with the provisions of these rules may be disclosed further upon obtaining the prior and express consent of the person to whom it pertains.”

Rule 7 - Transfer of Information

3.14.1 Rule 7 of the Sensitive Personal Data Rules sets out the conditions upon which bodies corporate may transfer personal information or sensitive personal data to other bodies corporate in pursuance of a business arrangement:

A body corporate or any person on its behalf may transfer sensitive personal data or information including any information, to any other body corporate or a person in India, or located in any other country, that ensures the same level of data protection that is adhered to by the body corporate as provided for under these Rules. The transfer may be allowed only if it is necessary for the performance of the lawful contract between the body corporate or any person on its behalf and provider of information or where such person has consented to data transfer.

3.14.2 This provision allows personal information and sensitive personal data to be transferred across international borders to other bodies corporate in pursuance of a business agreement. The transfer of such information is a common feature of international commerce in which Indian information technology companies participate with significant success. Within India too, personal information and sensitive personal data is routinely transferred between companies in furtherance of an outsourced business model. Besides affecting ease of business, the sub-rule also affects the ability of persons to control their personal information and sensitive personal data. However, the sub-rule has been poorly drafted: firstly, the simultaneous use of the phrases “provider of information” and “such person” is imprecise and misleading; secondly, the person to whom any personal information or sensitive personal data pertains must pre-consent to the transfer of such information.

3.14.3 Therefore, it is proposed that rule 7 be re-drafted to read as follows:

“A body corporate may transfer any personal information or sensitive personal data in its possession to another body corporate, whether located in India or otherwise, if the transfer is pursuant to an agreement that binds the other body corporate to same, similar or stronger measures of privacy, protection, storage, use and disclosure of personal information and sensitive personal data as are contained in these rules, and if the express and informed consent of the person to whom the personal information or sensitive personal data pertains is obtained prior to the transfer.”

Rule 8 - Reasonable Security Practices

3.15.1 Following rule 8(1) of the Sensitive Personal Data Rules that prescribes reasonable security practices and procedures necessary for protecting personal information and sensitive personal data, rule 8(2) asserts that the international standard ISO/IEC 27001 fulfils the protection standards required by rule 8(1):

The international Standard IS/ISO/IEC 27001 on "Information Technology - Security Techniques - Information Security Management System - Requirements" is one such standard referred to in sub-rule (1).

3.15.2 ISO/IEC 27001 is an information security management system standard that is prescribed by the International Organisation for Standardisation and the International Electrotechnical Commission. CIS raises no objection to the content or quality of the ISO/IEC 27001 standard. However, to achieve ISO/IEC 27001 compliance and certification, one must first purchase a copy of the standard. A copy of the ISO/IEC 27001 standard costs approximately Rs. _____/-. The cost of putting in place the protective measures required by the ISO/IEC 27001 standard are higher: these include the cost of literature and training, the cost of external assistance, the cost of technology, the cost of employees’ time and the cost of certification.

3.15.3 Therefore, to bring these standards within the reach of small and medium-sized Indian bodies corporate, an appropriate Indian authority, such as the Bureau of Indian Standards, should re-issue affordable standards that are equivalent to ISO/IEC 27001.

IV The Press Release of 24 August 2011

4.1 The shoddy drafting of the Sensitive Personal Data Rules resulted in national and international confusion about its interpretation. However, instead of promptly correcting the embarrassingly numerous errors in the Rules, the Department of Information Technology of the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology chose to issue a press release on 24 August 2011 that was published on the website of the Press Information Bureau. The content of that press release is brought to the attention of the Committee of Subordinate Legislation as follows:

Clarification on Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal Data or Information) Rules, 2011 Under Section 43A of the Information Technology ACT, 2000.

Press Note

The Department of Information Technology had notified Information Technology (Reasonable security practices and procedures and sensitive personal data or information) Rules, 2011 under section 43A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 on 11.4.2011 vide notification no. G.S.R. 313(E).

These rules are regarding sensitive personal data or information and are applicable to the body corporate or any person located within India. Any such body corporate providing services relating to collection, storage, dealing or handling of sensitive personal data or information under contractual obligation with any legal entity located within or outside India is not subject to the requirement of Rules 5 & 6. Body corporate, providing services to the provider of information under a contractual obligation directly with them, as the case may be, however, is subject to Rules 5 & 6. Providers of information, as referred to in these Rules, are those natural persons who provide sensitive personal data or information to a body corporate. It is also clarified that privacy policy, as prescribed in Rule 4, relates to the body corporate and is not with respect to any particular obligation under any contract. Further, in Rule 5(1) consent includes consent given by any mode of electronic communication.

Ministry of Communications & Information Technology (Dept. of Information Technology)

Press Information Bureau, Government of India, Bhadra 2, 1933, August 24, 2011

SP/ska
(Release ID :74990)

4.2 It is apparent from a plain reading of the text that this press release seeks to re-interpret the application of rules 5 and 6 of the Sensitive Personal Data Rules insofar as they apply to Indian bodies corporate receiving personal information collected by another company outside India. Also, it seeks to define the term “providers of information” to address the confusion created by the repeated use this term in the Rules. Further, it re-interprets the scope and application of rule 4 relating to duty of bodies corporate to publish certain policies. Furthermore, it seeks to amend the provisions of rule 5(1) relating to manner and medium of obtaining consent prior to collecting personal information.

4.3 At the outset, it must be understood that a press release is not valid law. According to Article 13(3) of the Constitution of India,

...law includes any Ordinance, order, bye law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usages having in the territory of India the force of law.

Law includes orders made in exercise of a statutory power as also orders and notifications made in exercise of a power conferred by statutory rules.

[See, Edward Mills AIR 1955 SC 25 at pr. 12, Babaji Kondaji Garad 1984 (1) SCR 767 at pp. 779-780 and Indramani Pyarelal Gupta 1963 (1) SCR 721 at pp. 73-744]

Sub-delegated orders, made in exercise of a power conferred by statutory rules, cannot modify the rules.

[See, Raj Narain Singh AIR 1954 SC 569 and Re Delhi Laws Act AIR 1951 SC 332]

Therefore, press releases, which are not made or issued in exercise of a delegated or sub-delegated power are not “law” and cannot modify statutory rules.

V Summary

5.1 CIS submits that the following provisions of the Sensitive Personal Data Rules be amended or annulled

Rule 2(1)(b);
Rule 2(1)(c);
Rule 2(1)(d);
Rule 2(1)(g);
Rule 3;
Rule 4(1);
Rule 5(1);
Rule 5(2);
Rule 5(3);
Rule 5(4);
Rule 6(1);
Rule 6(1) Proviso;
Rule 6(2);
Rule 6(4);
Rule 7; and
Rule 8.

5.2 CIS submits that the Committee on Subordinate Legislation should take a serious view of the press release issued by the Department of Information Technology of the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology on 24 August 2011.

5.3 CIS submits that in exercise of the powers granted to the Committee on Subordinate Legislation under Rules 317 and 320 of the Lok Sabha Rules of Procedure, the provisions of the Sensitive Personal Data Rules listed in the preceding paragraph 5.1 should be annulled; and, the Committee may be pleased to consider and recommend as an alternative the amendments proposed by CIS in this submission.

5.4 CIS thanks the Committee on Subordinate Legislation for the opportunity to present this submission and reiterates its commitment to supporting the Committee with any clarification, question or other requirement it may have.

[1]. See generally, Kharak Singh AIR 1963 SC 1295, Gobind (1975) 2 SCC 148, R. Rajagopal (1994) 6 SCC 632, People’s Union for Civil Liberties (1997) 1 SCC 301 and Canara Bank (2005) 1 SCC 496.

[2]. See infra pr. 4.3.

[3]. See, for comparison, Directive 95/46/EC of 24 October 1995 of the European Parliament and Council, the Data Protection Act, 1998 of the United Kingdom and the Proposed EU Regulation on on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation).

[4].See generally, Board of Trustees of Ayurvedic College AIR 1962 SC 458 and S. P. Mittal AIR 1983 SC 1.

[5]. See generally, W. O. Holdsworth AIR 1957 SC 887 and Duli Chand AIR 1984 Del 145.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/comments-on-the-it-reasonable-security-practices-and-procedures-and-sensitive-personal-data-or-information-rules-2011

The Criminal Law Amendment Bill 2013 — Penalising 'Peeping Toms' and Other Privacy Issues

divij — 2013-07-12T12:17:06Z

The pending amendments to the Indian Penal Code, if passed in their current format, would be a huge boost for individual physical privacy by criminalising stalking and sexually-tinted voyeurism and removing the ambiguities in Indian law which threaten the privacy and dignity of individuals.

The author, Divij Joshi is a law student at NLS and is interning with CIS for its privacy project. This research was undertaken as part of the 'SAFEGUARDS' project that CIS is undertaking with Privacy International and IDRC.

What is the Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill, 2013? What will it change?
The Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill is a bill which is to be introduced in the Indian Parliament, which will replace the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 2013[1] currently in force, and aims at amending the existing provisions in criminal law in order to improve the safety of women. The Bill seeks to make changes to the Indian Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the Indian Evidence Act. The Bill will introduce unprecedented provisions in the Indian Penal Code which would criminalise sexual voyeurism and stalking and would amend legal provisions to protect the privacy of individuals, such as discontinuing the practice of examination of the sexual history of the victim of a sexual assault for evidence. With instances of threats to individual privacy on the rise in India, [2] it is high time that the criminal law expands its scope to deal with offences which violate physical privacy.

What threats to privacy will the Act address?
The Act will address the following violations of physical privacy:

Stalking
Draft provision: The ordinance introduces the offence of stalking under Section 345D of the Indian Penal Code, and makes it punishable by imprisonment of not less than one year, which may extend to three years, and a fine. The provision prescribes that ‘Whoever follows a person and contacts, or attempts to contact such person to foster personal interaction repeatedly, despite a clear indication of disinterest by such person, or whoever monitors the use by a person of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication, or watches or spies on a person in a manner that results in a fear of violence or serious alarm or distress in the mind of such person, or interferes with the mental peace of such person.’ Hence, under the new law, constant, unwanted interaction of any one person with another, for any reason, can be made punishable, if the actions results in fear of violence or distress in any person, or interferes with their mental peace.

Current law and need for amendment: Stalking is generally characterized by unwanted and obsessive harassment or persecution of one person by another. Stalking can be a physical act such as constantly following a person, or can be done through electronic means — usually the internet (known as cyberstalking). Stalking may or may not be an act which physically threatens the security of an individual; however, it can cause mental trauma and fear to the person being stalked. Stalking is a blatant intrusion into an individual’s privacy, where the stalker attempts to establish relationships with their victim which the victim does not consent to and is not comfortable with. The stalker also intrudes into the victim’s private life by collecting or attempting to collect personal information the victim may not want to disclose, such as phone numbers or addresses, and misusing it. If the stalker is left undeterred to continue such actions, it can even lead to a threat to the safety of the victim. Cyber-stalking is a phenomenon which can prove to be even more invasive and detrimental to privacy, as most cyber-stalkers attempt to gain access to private information of the victims so that they can misuse it. Stalking, in any form, degrades the privacy of the victim by taking away their choice to use their personal information in ways they deem fit. [3] Recognizing stalking as an offence would not only protect the physical privacy rights of the victims, but also nip potentially violent crimes in the bud.

Many nations including Australia, the United States of America and Japan have penal provisions which criminalise stalking. [4] In India however, there is no appropriate response to stalking as an offence — either in its physical or electronic forms. The Information Technology Act, the legislation purported to deal with instances of cyber-crimes, overlooks instances of breach of online privacy and stalking which does not lead to publication of obscene images or other obvious manifestations of physical or mental threat. The general provision under which victims of stalking can file complaints is Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which states that — ‘Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.’There are several problems with using this section as a response to stalking. Without a particular definition of what comes under the scope of ‘intrusion of privacy’ under this section, there is reluctance both for the victim to approach the police and for the police to file the complaint. Usually the offence is coupled with some other form of harassment or violence, and the breach of privacy and trauma is not considered as a separate offence. For example, if a person is continuously following or trying to contact you without your consent or approval, but does not physically threaten or insult you, there is no protection in law against such a person. Hence, as pointed out, there is a need to recognize the breach of privacy as a separate ground of offence, notwithstanding other physical or mental grounds. Secondly, the provisions of this section require the criminal to have the ‘intent of insulting the modesty of a woman’. Aside from the difficulties in adjudging the ‘modesty’ of a woman, the provision limits the scope of harassment to only that which intends to insult the modesty of a woman and excludes any other intention as criminal behaviour. The present law amends these problems by disregarding the reason or intent for the behaviour, and by clearly defining the elements of the offence and making stalking as a stand-alone, punishable offence.

Sexual Voyeurism

Draft provision: The Act will add Section 345D to the Indian Penal Code, which reads as follows — ‘Whoever watches, or captures the image of, a woman engaging in a private act in circumstances where she would usually have the expectation of not being observed either by the perpetrator or by any other person at the behest of the perpetrator shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one year, but which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine, and be punished on a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than three years, but which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation 1.–– For the purposes of this section, “private act” includes an act carried out in a place which, in the circumstances, would reasonably be expected to provide privacy, and where the victim's genitals, buttocks or breasts are exposed or covered only in underwear; or the victim is using a lavatory; or the person is doing a sexual act that is not of a kind ordinarily done in public.

Explanation 2.–– Where the victim consents to the capture of images or any act, but not to their dissemination to third persons and where such image or act is disseminated, such dissemination shall be considered an offence under this section.’

The provision seeks to protect victims of voyeurism, who have been watched, or recorded, without their consent and under circumstances where the victim could reasonably expect privacy, and where the victim’s genitals, buttocks or breasts have been exposed. A reasonable expectation of privacy means that in the circumstances, whether in a public or a private place, the victim has a reasonable expectation that she is not being observed engaging in private acts such as disrobing or sexual acts. The test of reasonable expectation of privacy can be derived from similar provisions in voyeurism laws across the world, and also section 66E of the Information Technology Act.[5] It is particularly important because voyeurism does not necessarily take place in private places like the victims home, but also in public spaces where there is generally an expectation that exposed parts of one’s body are not viewed by anyone.

Current law and need for amendment: A ‘voyeur’ is generally defined as "a person who derives sexual gratification from the covert observation of others as they undress or engage in sexual activities." [6] Voyeurism is the act of a person who, usually for sexual gratification, observes, captures or distributes the images of another person without their consent or knowledge. With the development in video and image capturing technologies, observation of individuals engaged in private acts in both public and private places, through surreptitious means, has become both easier and more common. Cameras or viewing holes may be placed in changing rooms or public toilets, which are public spaces where individuals generally expect a reasonable degree of privacy, and where their body may be exposed. Voyeurism is an act which blatantly defies reasonable expectations of privacy that individuals have about their bodies, such as controlling its exposure to others.[7] Voyeurism is an offence to both the privacy as well as the dignity of a person, by infringing upon the right of individuals to control the exposure of their bodies without their consent or knowledge, either through unwarranted observation of the individual, or through distribution of images or videos against the wishes or without the knowledge of the victim.

Voyeurism is a criminal offence in many jurisdictions across the world such as Australia,[8] the United States,[9] Canada,[10] and the UK,[11] which criminalise either the capturing of certain images, or observation of individuals, or both. In India, the capturing, distribution and transferring of images of ‘private areas’ of a person’s body, under circumstances where the person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy that their body would not be exposed to public view, is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three years or with fine not exceeding two lakh rupees, or with both. However, this does not cover instances where a person observes another in places and situations where they do not consent to being observed. The inclusion of voyeurism as an offence in the IPC would close several loopholes in the voyeurism law and hopefully be a precedent for the state to better work towards securing the bodily privacy of its citizens.

Examination of Sexual History and Privacy
Draft provision: The amendment to Section 53A of the Indian Evidence Act in the Bill reads, “In a prosecution for an offence under section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section 354C, sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 376, section 376A, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D or section 376E of the Indian Penal Code or for attempt to commit any such offence, where the question of consent is in issue, evidence of the character of the victim or of such person’s previous sexual experience with any person shall not be relevant on the issue of such consent or the quality of consent.”

A similar proviso is added to Section 376 of the Indian Evidence Act.

According to the above provision, in a trial for sexual assault or rape the evidence supplied of a victim’s previous sexual experience or her ‘character’ would not be admissible as relevant evidence to determine the fact of the consent or the quality of the consent.

Current law and need for amendment: The Indian Evidence Act is the legislation which governs the admissibility of evidence in the different courts. In cases of rape or sexual assault and related crimes, the evidence of consent often considered is not just that of the consent of the woman in the act at that time itself, but rather her previous sexual experience and “promiscuous character”. Even though it has been widely censured by the highest court,[12] such practices continue to dominate and prejudice the justice of victims of sexual assault and harassment.[13] The examination of the victim’s sexual history in court is an unwarranted intrusion into their privacy through public disclosure of the sexual history and details of her sexual life, which causes potential embarrassment and sexual stereotyping of the victim, especially in a conservative, patriarchal society like in India. With the new amendments, such evidence will not be permitted in a court of law, hence, it will act as a safeguards against defendants attempting to influence the court's decision through disparaging the ‘character’ of the victim, and will protect the disclosure of intimate, personal details like previous sexual encounters of the victim.

Conclusion
Privacy, crime, and safety of women are intricately linked in any legal system. An essential part of the security of citizens is the safety of their privacy and personal information. If any legal system does not protect the privacy — both of body and of information — of its people, there will always be insecurity in such a system. With the recent debates on women’s safety, several crucial privacy and security issues have been raised, such as the criminalization of voyeurism and stalking, which is a huge boost for privacy rights of citizens in India, and it is hopeful that the government will continue the trend of considering privacy issues along when addressing security concerns for the state.

Update to the Criminal Law Amendment Bill 2013 - Penalising Peeping Toms and other privacy issues

The Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill, 2013, was made into law on April 3, 2013. Several provisions under the Act differ from the provisions in the ordinance. Under the Act, unlike in the Ordinance, the terms or watches or spies on a person in a manner that results in a fear of violence or serious alarm or distress in the mind of such person, or interferes with the mental peace of such person are not included as a part of the offence of stalking. Hence, the offence is limited to the physical act of following or contacting a person, provided that there has been a clear sign of disinterest, or to monitoring the use by a woman of the internet, email or any other forms of electronic communication.

Hence, from the confusing language of the provision, it would seem that the offence of stalking related to monitoring of activities of a woman is restricted to the monitoring of online communications, and not physical acts. The caveat of such monitoring having to cause serious alarm, distress or interference with the mental peace of the victim is also removed. The removal of unwaranted intrusion through watching or spying of a person, and indeed, the removal of any subjective test to determine the effect of stalking is a departure from stalking provisions accross the world, and is a setback for individual privacy, because stalking per se is a privacy offence, relating not only to the physical interference but also the mental harassment it causes to the victims.

The provision has also increased the puinishment for the crime in the first offence to upto three years, and subsequently to upto five years. Further, the provisions sought to be included within Section 53A and Section 376 of the Indian Evidence Act are now included in Section 146 of the Act.

Link to the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013

[1]. Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 2013, available at http://mha.nic.in/pdfs/criminalLawAmndmt-040213.pdf

[2]. http://bit.ly/10nMSTT

[3]. Anita Gurumurthy and Nivedita Menon, Violence against Women via Cyberspace, Economic and Political Weekly, 44 (40), 19, (October, 2009).

[4]. For example, see laws listed http://bit.ly/126hBpO

[5]. Section 66E, The Information Technology Act, 2000: ‘66E. Punishment for violation of privacy.- Whoever, intentionally or knowingly captures, publishes or transmits the image of a private area of any person without his or her consent, under circumstances violating the privacy of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years or with fine not exceeding two lakh rupees, or with both.

Explanation - For the purposes of this section--

(a) “transmit” means to electronically send a visual image with the intent that it be viewed by a person or persons;
(b) “capture”, with respect to an image, means to videotape, photograph, film or record by any means;
(c) “private area” means the naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks or female breast;
(d) “publishes” means reproduction in the printed or electronic form and making it available for public;
(e) “under circumstances violating privacy” means circumstances in which a person can have a reasonable expectation that--(i) he or she could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that an image of his private area was being captured; or
(ii) any part of his or her private area would not be visible to the public, regardless of whether that person is in a public or private place.

[6]. Oxford English Dictionary, available at http://bit.ly/YN2ZvI

[7]. Lance Rothenberg, Rethinking Privacy: Peeping Toms, Video Voyeurs, and the failure of criminal law to recognize a reasonable expectation of privacy in the public space, American University Law Review, 49, 1127, (1999).

[8]. Section 91J, Crimes Act, 1910: "A person who, for the purpose of obtaining sexual arousal or sexual gratification, observes a person who is engaged in a private act without the consent of the person being observed to being observed for that purpose, and knowing that the person being observed does not consent to being observed for that purpose, is guilty of an offence."

[9]. Video Voyeurism Protection Act, 2004.

[10]. Section 162, Criminal Code of Canada: " (1) Every one commits an offence who, surreptitiously, observes — including by mechanical or electronic means — or makes a visual recording of a person who is in circumstances that give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy, if
(a) the person is in a place in which a person can reasonably be expected to be nude, to expose his or her genital organs or anal region or her breasts, or to be engaged in explicit sexual activity;
(b) the person is nude, is exposing his or her genital organs or anal region or her breasts, or is engaged in explicit sexual activity, and the observation or recording is done for the purpose of observing or recording a person in such a state or engaged in such an activity; or
(c) the observation or recording is done for a sexual purpose.

[11]. Section 67, Sexual Offences Act, 2003.

[12]. http://bit.ly/10nNDwg

[13]. http://reut.rs/13CIDXU

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-criminal-law-amendment-bill-2013

India's Biometric Identification Programs and Privacy Concerns

divij — 2016-07-21T10:51:42Z

The invasiveness of individual identification coupled with the fallibility of managing big data which biometric identification presents poses a huge risk to individual privacy in India.

Divij Joshi is a 2nd year at NLS. He is interning with the Centre for Internet and Society for the privacy project. This research was undertaken as part of the 'SAFEGUARDS' project that CIS is undertaking with Privacy International and IDRC.

Introduction

Biometric technology looks to be the way ahead for the Indian government in its initiatives towards identification. From the Unique Identity Scheme (Aadhaar) to the National Population Register and now to Election ID’s, [1] biometric identification seems to have become the government’s new go-to solution for all kinds of problems. Biometrics prove to be an obvious choice in individual identification schemes – it’s easiest to identify different individuals by their faces and fingerprints, unique and integral aspects of individuals – yet, the unflinching optimism in the use of biometric technology and the collection of biometric data on a massive scale masks several concerns regarding compromises of individual privacy.

‘Big Data’ and Privacy Issues

Biometric data is going to be collected under several existing and proposed identification schemes of the government, from the Centralized Identities Data Register of the UID to the draft DNA Profiling Bill which seeks to improve criminal forensics and identification. With the completion of the biometric profiling under the UID, the Indian government will have the largest database of personal biometric data in the world. [3] With plans for the UID to be used for several different purposes — as a ration card, for opening a banking account, for social security and healthcare and several new proposed uses emerging everyday,[1] the creation of ‘Big Data’ becomes possible. ‘Big Data’ is characterized by the volume of information that is produced, the velocity by which data is produced, the variety of data produced and the ability to draw new conclusions from an analysis of the data.[2] The UID will generate “Big Data” as it is envisioned that the number will be used in every transaction for any platform that adopts it — for all of the 1.2 billion citizens of India. In this way the UID is different any other identity scheme in India, where the identifier is used for a specific purpose at a specific point of time, by a specific platform, and generates data only in connection to that service. Though the creation of “Big Data” through the UID could be beneficial through analysing data trends to target improved services, for example, at the same time it can be problematic in case of a compromise or breach, or if generated information is analyzed to draw new and unintended conclusions about individuals without their consent, and using information for purposes the individuals did not mean for it to be used.

Biometric ID and Theft of Private Data

The government has touted identification schemes such as the UID and NPR as a tool to tackle rural poverty, illegal immigration and national security issues and with this as the premise, the concerns about privacy seem to have been left in the lurch. The optimism driving the programmes also means that its potential fallibility is often overlooked in the process. Biometric technology has been proven time and again to be just as easily jeopardized as any other and the threat of biometric identity theft is as real and common as something like credit card fraud, with fingerprints and iris scans being easily capable of replication and theft without the individual owners consent. [2] In fact, compromise or theft of biometric identity data presents an even greater difficulty than other forms of ID because of the fact that it is unique and intrinsic, and hence, once lost cannot be re-issued or reclaimed like traditional identification like a PIN, leaving the individual victim with no alternative system for identification or authentication. This would also defeat the entire purpose behind any authentication and identification schemes. With the amount of personal data that the government plans to store in databases using biometrics, and without adequate safeguards which can be publicly scrutinized, using this technology would be a premature and unsafe move.

Biometric data and Potential Misuse

Centralised data storage is problematic not only for the issues with data compromise and identity theft, but the problems of potential third-party misuse in the absence of an adequate legal framework for protecting such personal data, and proper technical safeguards for the same, as has been pointed out by the Standing Committee on Finance in its report on the UIDAI project.[4] The threat to privacy which these massive centralized databases pose has led to the shelving of similar programmes in England as well as France. [4] Further, concerns have been voiced about data sharing and access to the information contained in the biometric database. The biometric database is to be managed by several contracting companies based in the US. These same companies have legal obligations to share any data with the US government and Homeland Security. [5]

A second, growing concern over biometric identification schemes is over the use of biometrics for state surveillance purposes. While the UID’s chief concern on paper has been development, poverty, and corruption alleviation, there is no defined law or mandate which restricts the number from being used for other purposes, hence giving rise to concerns of a function creep - a shift in the use of the UID from its original intended purpose. For example, the Kerala government has recently proposed a scheme whereby the UID would be used to track school children.[5] Other schemes such as the National Population Register and the DNA Profiling Bill have been specifically set up with security of the State as the mandate and aim.[6] With the precise and accurate identification which biometrics offers, it also means that individuals are that much easier to continuously survey and track, for example, by using CCTV cameras with facial recognition software, the state could have real-time surveillance over any activities of any individual.[7]

With all kinds of information about individuals connected by a single identifier, from bank accounts to residential and voter information, the threat of increased state surveillance, and misuse of information becomes more and more pronounced. By using personal identifiers like fingerprints or iris scans, agencies can potentially converge data collected across databases, and use it for different purposes. It also means that individuals can potentially be profiled through the information provided from their various databases, accessed through identifiers, which leads to concerns about surveillance and tracking, without the individuals knowledge. There are no Indian laws or policies under data collection schemes which address concerns of using personal identifiers for tracking and surveillance.[8] Even if such such use is essential for increased national security, the implementation of biometrics for constant surveillance under the present regime ,where individuals are not notified about the kind of data being collected and for what its being used, would be a huge affront on civil liberties, as well as the Right to Privacy, and prove to be a powerful and destructive weapon in the hands of a police state. Without these concerns being addressed by a suitable, publicly available policy, it could pose a huge threat to individual privacy in the country. As was noted by the Deputy Prime Minister of the UK, Nick Clegg, in a speech where he denounced the Identity Scheme of the British government, saying that “This government will end the culture of spying on its citizens. It is outrageous that decent, law-abiding people are regularly treated as if they have something to hide. It has to stop. So there will be no ID card scheme. No national identity register, a halt to second generation biometric passports.” [6]

Biometric technology has been useful in several programmes and policies where its use has been open to scrutiny and restricted to a specific function, for example, the recent use of facial recognition in Goa to tackle voter fraud, and similar schemes being taken up by the Election Commission. [7] However, with lack of any guidelines or specific legal framework covering the implementation and collection of biometric data schemes, such schemes can quickly turn into ‘biohazards’ for personal liberty and individual privacy, as has been highlighted above and these issues must be brought to light and adequately addressed before the Government progresses on biometric frontiers.

[1]. http://www.goacom.com/goa-news-highlights/3520-biometric-scanners-to-be-used-for-elections.

[2]. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/03/hackers-publish.

[3].https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/09/indias-gargantuan-biometric-database-raises-big-questions.

[4]. http://www.informationweek.com/security/privacy/britain-scraps-biometric-national-id-car/228801001.

[5]. http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/questions-for-mr-nilekani/article4382953.ece.

[6]. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8691753.stm

[7]. Supra note 1.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/indias-biometric-identification-programs-and-privacy-concerns

A Privacy Round Table in Delhi

praskrishna — 2013-04-12T09:33:46Z

The Centre for Internet and Society and the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry cordially invite you to a "Privacy Round Table" at the FICCI Federation House in Tansen Marg, New Delhi on April 13, 2013, from 10.30 a.m. to 4.00 p.m.

To discuss, in furtherance of Internet Governance Initiatives and Dialogue in 2013, the “Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy” by the Justice AP Shah Committee, and the text of the Citizens’ Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013, drafted by the Centre for Internet and Society.

The discussions and recommendations from the meeting will be published into a compilation, and presented at the Internet Governance meeting planned for October 2013.

Time	Detail
10.30 11.30	Overview of Justice AP Shah report: Purpose, principles, and framework
11.30 12.00	Tea
12.00 13.00	Overview, explanation, and discussion on the Citizens’ Privacy Protection Bill 2013
13.00 14.00	Lunch
14.00 16.00	In depth explanation and discussions regarding the Citizens’ Privacy Protection Bill 2013 (time for review and comments)
16.00 16.30	Tea

Confirmations and RSVP

Please send your email confirmations for attending the first New Delhi Roundtable on April 13, 2013, to Snehashish Ghosh at snehashish@cis-india.org, mobile no. +91- 9902763325,latest by end-of-business 5:30 p.m. on Friday April 5, 2013. As the conference is a roundtable dialogue, we request that attendees submit a brief introduction about themselves and their interest in the topic.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/privacy-round-table

CIS Welcomes Standing Committee Report on IT Rules

pranesh — 2013-04-03T10:54:52Z

The Centre for Internet and Society welcomes the report by the Standing Committee on Subordinate Legislation, in which it has lambasted the government and has recommended that the government amend the Rules it passed in April 2011 under section 79 of the Information Technology Act.

Click to read the Parliamentary Standing Committee Report on the IT Rules. A modified version was published in CiOL on March 27, 2013.

These rules have been noted by many, including CIS, Software Freedom Law Centre, and Society for Knowledge Commons, and many eminent lawyers, as being unconstitutional. The Standing Committee, noting this, has asked the government to make changes to the Rules to ensure that the fundamental rights to freedom of speech and privacy are safeguarded, and that the principles of natural justice are respected when a person’s freedom of speech or privacy are curtailed.

Ambiguous and Over-reaching Language

The Standing Committee has noted the inherent ambiguity of words like "blasphemy", "disparaging", etc., which are used in the Intermediary Guidelines Rules, and has pointed out that unclear language can lead to harassment of people as has happened with Section 66A of the IT Act, and can lead to legitimate speech being removed. Importantly, the Standing Committee recognizes that many categories of speech prohibited by the Intermediary Guidelines Rules are not prohibited by any statute, and hence cannot be prohibited by the government through these Rules. Accordingly, the Standing Committee has asked the government to ensure "no new category of crimes or offences is created" by these Rules.

Government Confused Whether Rules Are Mandatory or Advisory

The Standing Committee further notes that there is a discrepancy in the government’s stand that the Intermediary Guidelines Rules are not mandatory, and are only "of advisory nature and self-regulation", and that "it is not mandatory for the Intermediary to disable the information, the rule does not lead to any kind of censorship". The Standing Committee points out the flaw in this, and notes that the language used in the rules is mandatory language (“shall act” within 36 hours). Thus, it rightly notes that there is a "need for clarity on the aforesaid contradiction". Further, it also notes that there is "there should be safeguards to protect against any abuse", since this is a form of private censorship by intermediaries."

Evidence Needed Against Foreign Websites

The government has told the Standing Committee that "foreign websites repeatedly refused to honour our laws", however, it has not provided any proof for this assertion. The government should make public all evidence that foreign web services are refusing to honour Indian laws, and should encourage a public debate on how we should tackle this problem in light of the global nature of the Internet.

Cyber Cafes Rules Violate Citizens’ Privacy

The Standing Committee also pointed out that the Cyber Cafe Rules violated citizens’ right to privacy in requiring that "screens of the computers installed other than in partitions and cubicles should face open space of the cyber café". Unfortunately, the Standing Committee did not consider the privacy argument against retention of extensive and intrusive logs. Under the Cyber Cafe Rules, cyber cafes are required to retain (for a minimum of one year) extensive logs, including that of "history of websites accessed using computer resource at cyber café" in such a manner that each website accessed can be linked to a person. The Committee only considered the argument that this would impose financial burdens on small cybercafes, and rejected that argument. CIS wishes the Committee had examined the provision on log maintenance on grounds of privacy as well."

Government’s Half-Truths

In one response, the government notes that "rules under Section 79 in particular have undergone scrutiny by High Courts in the country. Based on the Rules, the courts have given reliefs to a number of individuals and organizations in the country. No provision of the Rules notified under Sections 43A and 79 of the IT Act, 2000 have been held ultra vires."

What the government says is a half-truth. So far, courts have not struck down any of the IT Rules. But that is because none of the High Court cases in which the vires of the Rules have been challenged has concluded. So it is disingenuous of the government to claim that the Rule have "undergone scrutiny by High Courts". And in those cases where relief has been granted under the Intermediary Guidelines, the cases have been ex-parte or have been cases where the vires of the Rules have not been challenged. The government, if it wants to defend the Rules, should point out to any case in which the vires of the Rules have been upheld. Not a single court till date has declared the Rules to be constitutional when that question was before it.

Lack of Representation of Stakeholders in Policy Formulation

Lastly, the Standing Committee noted that it is not clear whether the Cyber Regulatory Advisory Committee (CRAC), which is responsible for policy guidance on the IT Act, has "members representing the interests of principally affected or having special knowledge of the subject matter as expressly stipulated in Section 88(2) of the IT Act". This is a problem that we at CIS also noted in November 2012, when the CRAC was reconstituted after having been defunct for more than a decade.

CIS hopes that the government finally takes note of the view of legal experts, the Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, the Parliamentary motion against the Rules, and numerous articles and editorials in the press, and withdraws the Intermediary Guidelines Rules and the Cyber Cafe Rules, and instead replaces them with rules that do not infringe our constitutional rights.

The Centre for Internet and Society is a non-profit research organization that works on policy issues relating to freedom of expression, privacy, accessibility for persons with disabilities, access to knowledge and IPR reform, and openness, and engages in academic research on digital natives and digital humanities. It was among the organizations that submitted evidence to the Standing Committee on Subordinate Legislation on the IT Rules.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-welcomes-standing-committee-report-on-it-rules

Driving in the Surveillance Society: Cameras, RFID tags and Black Boxes...

maria — 2013-07-12T15:26:33Z

In this post, Maria Xynou looks at red light cameras, RFID tags and black boxes used to monitor vehicles in India.

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

How many times in your life have you heard of people been involved in car accidents and of pedestrians being hit by red-light-running vehicles? What if there could be a solution for all of this? Well, several countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom and Singapore, have already adopted measures to tackle vehicle accidents and fatalities, some of which include traffic enforcement cameras and other security measures. India is currently joining the league by not only installing red light cameras, but by also including radio frequency identification (RFID) tags on vehicles´ number plates, as well as by installing electronic toll collection systems and black boxes in some automobiles. Although such measures could potentially increase our safety, privacy concerns have arisen as it remains unclear how data collected will be used.

Red light cameras

Last week, the Chennai police announced that it plans to install traffic enforcement cameras, otherwise known as red light cameras, at 240 traffic signals over the next months, in order to put an end to car thefts in the city. Red light cameras, which capture images of vehicles entering an intersection against a red traffic light, have been installed in Bangalore since early 2008 and a study indicates that they have reduced the traffic violation rates. A 2003 report by the National Cooperative Highway Research Programme (NCHRP) examined studies from the previous 30 years in the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and Singapore and concluded that red light cameras ´improve the overall safety of intersections when they are used´.

However, how are traffic violation rates even measured? According to Barbara Langland Orban, an associate professor of health policy and management at the University of South Florida:

“Safety is measured in crashes, in particular injury crashes, and violations are not a proxy for injuries. Also, violations can be whatever number an agency chooses to report, which is called an ‘endogenous variable’ in research and not considered meaningful as the number can be manipulated. In contrast, injuries reflect the number of people who seek medical care, which cannot be manipulated by the reporting methods of jurisdictions.”

Last year, the Bombay state government informed the High Court that the 100 CCTV cameras installed at traffic junctions in 2006-2007 were unsuitable for traffic enforcement because they lacked the capacity of automatic processing. Nonetheless, red light cameras, which are capable of monitoring speed and intersections with stop signals, are currently being proliferated in India. Yet, questions remain: Do red light cameras adequately increase public safety? Do they serve financial interests? Do they violate driver´s due-process rights?

RFID tags and Black Boxes

A communication revolution is upon us, as Maharashtra state transport department is currently including radio frequency identification (RFID) tags on each and every number plate of vehicles. This ultimately means that the state will be able to monitor your vehicle´s real-time movement and track your whereabouts. RFID tags are not only supposedly used to increase public safety by tracking down offenders, but to also streamline public transport timetables. Thus, the movement of buses and cars would be precisely monitored and would provide passengers minute-to-minute information at bus stops. Following the 2001 amendment of Rule 50 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, new number plates with RFID tags have been made mandatory for all types of motor vehicles throughout India.

RFID technology has also been launched at Maharashtra´s state border check-posts. Since last year, the state government has been circulating RFID stickers to trucks, trailers and tankers, which would not only result in heavy goods vehicles not having to wait in long queues for clearance at check-posts, but would also supposedly put an end to corruption by RTO officials.

By 31 March 2014, it is estimated that RFID-based electronic toll collection (ETC) systems will be installed on all national highways in India. According to Dr. Joshi, the Union Minister for Road Transport and Highways:

“The RFID technology shall expedite the clearing of traffic at toll plazas and the need of carrying cash shall also be eliminated when toll plazas shall be duly integrated with each other throughout India.”

Although Dr. Joshi´s mission to create a quality highway network across India and to increase the transparency of the system seems rational, the ETC system raises privacy concerns, as it uniquely identifies each vehicle, collects data and provides general vehicle and traffic monitoring. This could potentially lead to a privacy violation, as India currently lacks adequate statutory provisions which could safeguard the use of our data from potential abuse. All we know is that our vehicles are being monitored, but it remains unclear how the data collected will be used, shared and retained, which raises concerns.

The cattle and pedestrians roaming the streets in India appear to have increased the need for the installation of an Event Data Recorder (EDR), otherwise known as a black box, which is a device capable of recording information related to crashes or accidents. The purpose of a black box is to record the speed of the vehicle at the point of impact in the case of an accident and whether the driver had applied the brakes. This would help insurance companies in deciding whether or not to entertain insurance claims, as well as to determine whether a driver is responsible for an accident.

Black boxes for vehicles are already being designed, tested and installed in some vehicles in India at an affordable cost. In fact, manufacturers in India have recommended that the government make it mandatory for cars to be fitted with the device, rather than it being optional. But can we have privacy when our cars are being monitored? This is essentially a case of proactive monitoring which has not been adequately justified yet, as it remains unclear how information would be used, who would be authorised to use and share such information, and whether its use would be accounted for to the individual.

Are monitored cars safer?

The trade-off is clear: the privacy and anonymity of our movement is being monitored in exchange for the provision of safety. But are we even getting any safety in return? According to a 2005 Federal Highway Administration study, although it shows a decrease in front-into-side crashes at intersections with cameras, an increase in rear-end crashes has also been proven. Other studies of red light cameras in the US have shown that more accidents have occurred since the installation of traffic enforcement cameras at intersections. Although no such research has been undertaken in India yet, the effectiveness, necessity and utility of red light cameras remain ambiguous.

Furthermore, there have been claims that the installation of red light cameras, ETCs, RFID tags, black boxes and other technologies do not primarily serve the purpose of public security, but financial gain. A huge debate has arisen in the United States on whether such monitoring of vehicles actually improves safety, or whether its primary objective is to serve financial interests. Red light cameras have already generated about $1.5 million in fines in the Elmwood village of Ohio, which leads critics to believe that the installation of such cameras has more to do with revenue enhancement than safety. The same type of question applies to India and yet a clear-cut answer has not been reached.

Companies which manufacture vehicle tracking systems are widespread in India, which constitutes the monitoring of our cars a vivid reality. Yet, there is a lack of statutory provisions in India for the privacy of our vehicle´s real-time movement and hence, we are being monitored without any safeguards. Major privacy concerns arise in regards to the monitoring of vehicles in India, as the following questions have not been adequately addressed: What type of data is collected in India through the monitoring of vehicles? Who can legally authorize access to such data? Who can have access to such data and under what conditions? Is data being shared between third parties and if so, under what conditions?How long is such data being retained for?

And more importantly: Why is it important to address the above questions? Does it even matter if the movement of our vehicles is being monitored? How would that affect us personally? Well, the monitoring of our cars implies a huge probability that it´s not our vehicles per se which are under the microscope, but us. And while the tracking of our movement might not end us up arrested, interrogated, tortured or imprisoned tomorrow...it might in the future. As long as we are being monitored, we are all suspects and we may potentially be treated as any other offender who is suspected to have committed a crime. The current statutory omission in India to adequately regulate the use of traffic enforcement cameras, RFID tags, black boxes and other technologies used to track and monitor the movement of our vehicles can potentially violate our due process rights and infringe upon our right to privacy and other human rights. Thus, the collection, access, use, analysis, sharing and retention of data acquired through the monitoring of vehicles in India should be strictly regulated to ensure that we are not exposed to our defenceless control.

Maneuvering our monitoring

Nowadays, surveillance appears to be the quick-fix solution for everything related to public security; but that does not need to be the case.

Instead of installing red light cameras monitoring our cars´ movements and bombarding us with fines, other ´simple´ measures could be enforced in India, such as increasing the duration of the yellow light between the green and the red, re-timing lights so drivers will encounter fewer red ones or increasing the visibility distance of the traffic lights so that it is more likely for a driver to stop. Such measures should be enforced by governments, especially since the monitoring of our vehicles is not adequately justified.

Strict laws regulating the use of all technologies monitoring vehicles in India, whether red light cameras, RFID tags or black boxes, should be enacted now. Such regulations should clearly specify the terms of monitoring vehicles, as well as the conditions under which data can be collected, accessed, shared, used, processed and stored. The enactment of regulations on the monitoring of vehicles in India could minimize the potential for citizens´ due process rights to be breached, as well as to ensure that their right to privacy and other human rights are legally protected. This would just be another step towards preventing ubiquitous surveillance and if governments are interested in protecting their citizens´ human rights as they claim they do, then there is no debate on the necessity of regulating the monitoring of our vehicles. The question though which remains is:

Should we be monitored at all?

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/driving-in-the-surveillance-society-cameras-rfid-black-boxes

The Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013: A Citizen's Draft

bhairav — 2013-07-12T11:50:20Z

The Centre for Internet and Society has been researching privacy in India since 2010 with the objective of raising public awareness around privacy, completing in depth research, and driving a privacy legislation in India. As part of this work, Bhairav Acharya has drafted the Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013.

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

The Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013 contains provisions that speak to data protection, interception, and surveillance. The Bill also establishes the powers and functions of the Privacy Commissioner, and lays out offenses and penalties for contravention of the Bill. The Bill represents a citizen's version of a possible privacy legislation for India, and will be shared with key stakeholders including civil society, industry, and government.

Click to download a full draft of the Privacy (Protection) Bill, 2013.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/privacy-protection-bill-2013-citizens-draft

Future of Privacy in India

praskrishna — 2013-03-26T05:14:45Z

DSCI and ICOMP are organizing a meet on Privacy at the Oberoi Hotel in New Delhi on April 5, 2013. Sunil Abraham will be participating in this event as a speaker.

In recent years, there has been an increasing deployment of ICT in the collection of personal information by both private sector and state agencies. Data is a reason for empowerment for both commercial and public purposes. The prolific use of the Internet for search, social networking cloud computing and e-commerce transactions places increasing amounts of personal information and Internet history in hands of dominant private sector players. Data is undeniably the capital of the Internet. While technology has evolved to be able to collect, store and mine increasing amounts of data for improved public services or for commercial purposes, there are understandable concerns over the lack of accountability for the purposes and limits of the use of personal data. These concerns demand an appropriate regulatory framework for Privacy.

As an important step toward formulating the privacy bill, an Expert Group headed by Justice A P Shah provides inputs based on a study of the international landscape of privacy laws, along with the predominant privacy concerns ensuing from technological advancements. The Committee’s report, submitted in Oct 2012 has recommended Nine Principles as the cornerstone for privacy legislation. While the Privacy Act is under development, DSCI and iCOMP are organizing a meet focusing on the following areas:

Outline an appropriate Indian context for privacy: the nine principles
Presentation of the state of play on privacy in key markets (practices, Issues, regulatory interventions)
Analyse the scope and implications of data collection by public agencies in India.
Analyse privacy challenges and risks related to commercial use of data collected on the Internet by private players
Consider how India can address these challenges and enshrine privacy principles in legislation

Key Speakers

Dr. Gulshan Rai, DG, CERT-In*

Mr. Simon Davis, London School of Economics

Mr. Manoj Joshi, JS, DOPT*

Mr. Kanta Roy, CEO, NeGD*

Dr. Kamlesh Bajaj, CEO, DSCI

Mr. Sunil Abraham, ED, CIS

* To be confirmed

Event Flow

Opening Remark by Mr. S V Divvaakar, Executive Director, ICOMP
Framework for Privacy Regulation in India, By Dr. Kamlesh Bajaj, CEO, DSCI
Keynote Address
‘Privacy :The International state of play’, by Mr. Simon Davis, London School of Economics
Panel Discussion 1: Context of Privacy in India
Panel Discussion 2: Business responsibility in the age of ‘data driven’ transformations

Date: April 5, 2013
Time: 9.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.
Venue: Oberoi Hotel, Nilgiri Room, New Delhi

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/future-of-privacy-in-india-on-april-5-2013-at-oberoi-hotel-new-delhi

Global Partners Meeting @ London

praskrishna — 2013-03-20T06:37:48Z

Privacy International is organizing the Global Partners Meeting in London from March 22 to 25, 2013. The workshop will be held at the London School of Economics and Political Science. Sunil Abraham and Malavika Jayaram will be participating in this event.

Click to read the full details published by Privacy International here.

The meeting is an opportunity to connect global partners with each other and with researchers, human rights advocates, and privacy and technology experts from over 20 countries. This will provide an opportunity for discussion and debate, that will enrich global research and advocacy agenda for the next two years.

Workshop Overview

The purpose of the three day workshop is as follows:

To understand the privacy discourse and identify the challenges faced in advancing the right to privacy across the globe.
To consolidate our network and look for opportunities for collaboration and cross-pollination for research and advocacy initiatives.
To share experiences about research, dissemination and advocacy strategies that influence policy change.

We envisage this workshop as a launching pad for the work that Privacy International and our global partners will conduct over the next two years under the ambit of the Surveillance and Freedom: Global Understandings and Rights Development (SAFEGUARD) project, funded by the International Development

Research Centre. The focus of the SAFEGUARD project is to understand what are the threats, challenges and obstacles to, and opportunities for, the protection of privacy in developing countries.

Background to the SAFEGUARD project

Nowhere are the challenges to, and opportunities for, privacy protections as dynamic and complex as in the developing world. As these countries seek new measures to develop their economies, build social and technological infrastructures, sustain their social systems, and ensure security they need to consider what are the modern policy frameworks they require to ensure a just society. The windows around these policy frameworks are key opportunities for reflection about rights and democratic values, and in the case of this project, the protection of privacy.

The vast scope and relevance of the right to privacy in this age of technology gives rise to a myriad of challenges and issues, many of which have relevance across, as well as within, borders. This is particularly the case in the developing world, where South-South collaboration is gaining increasing currency in the development sector, and donor countries continue to contribute to and influence policy in recipient countries, particularly with respect to the adoption of new technologies. Many of the trends in developing countries – communications surveillance, biometrics and DNA databases, and identity cards – mirror those being adopted in the global North. Policy laundering and modelling, such as that witnessed with respect to counter-terrorism policies in the aftermath of 9/11 is taking hold in the context of communications surveillance laws and national ID databases. Such phenomena raise concerns not only as to the spread of practices that threaten to undermine privacy, but also with respect to the stifling of national policy discourses and legislative processes.

Conceptual framework

This projects sets out to isolate and understand the challenges to privacy in the developing world. In order to ensure that the research developed is sufficiently targeted to influence policy debates, we have identified a set of themes that cover the range of privacy-related issues and that together will give a comprehensive picture of the difficult relationship between privacy and technology. This set of themes has been developed in collaboration with our partners, who have identified those discussions around which there is perfect storm of advancing surveillance policies and technologies, poor legal and technical safeguards, and a scarcity of research and understanding. We have designed our conceptual framework accordingly.

Research questions

The legal and constitutional landscape: What laws and constitutional provisions exist to protect privacy, how are they implemented and monitored, and where are the legal and policy gaps?

Data protection: What is the state of data protection in partner countries, and what are the local and regional regulatory standards and good practices?

Communications surveillance: What communications surveillance regimes are in place, how are they designed in law and how do they operate in practice?

Adoption of surveillance technologies: Where are governments buying surveillance technologies, and how are they using them? What legal regimes are in place to establish safeguards over the use of advanced surveillance technologies? What is the state of the art in legal protections?

Political intelligence oversight: What is the nature and operation of local intelligence services, what oversight mechanisms are in place, and how can these mechanisms be implemented or enforced?

Politics, Identity, sexual and reproductive health and social sorting: To what the extent do governments misuse personal information to pursue social sorting practices?

Delivery of public services: What is the state of privacy protections in public service delivery, particularly those related to e-health systems and social protection programmes, and how can protections be improved?

ID, DNA and biometrics: What privacy risks are associated with the collection and use of personal information for ID and biometric systems?

Partners

Africa	Latin America	Asia
Zimbabwe Human Rights Forum, Zimbabwe Kenyan Ethical and Legal Issues Network, Kenya Media Institute of Southern Africa, Namibia Jonction, Senegal Centre for Social Sciences Research, University of Cape Town African Platform for Social Protection, Kenya	Dejusticia, Columbia Asociacion por los Derechos Civiles, Argentina Autonomous University of Mexico State, Mexico Centro de Tecnologia y Sociedad, Universidad San Andres, Argentina, in collaboration with the Centro de Tecnologica da Escola de Direito da Fundacao Getulio Vargas, Brasil Instituto NUPEF, Brazil Derechos Digitales, Chile	VOICE, Bangladesh University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Centre for Internet and Society, India Thai Netizen Network, Thailand Thai Media Policy Center, Thailand Bytes For All, Pakistan Centre for Cyber Law Studies, Indonesia Foundation for Media Alternatives, Philippines

Africa

Latin America

Asia

Zimbabwe Human Rights Forum, Zimbabwe

Kenyan Ethical and Legal Issues Network, Kenya

Media Institute of Southern Africa, Namibia

Jonction, Senegal

Centre for Social Sciences Research, University of Cape Town

African Platform for Social Protection, Kenya

Dejusticia, Columbia

Asociacion por los Derechos Civiles, Argentina

Autonomous University of Mexico State, Mexico

Centro de Tecnologia y Sociedad, Universidad San Andres, Argentina, in collaboration with the Centro de Tecnologica da Escola de Direito da Fundacao Getulio Vargas, Brasil

Instituto NUPEF, Brazil

Derechos Digitales, Chile

VOICE, Bangladesh
University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
Centre for Internet and Society, India
Thai Netizen Network, Thailand
Thai Media Policy Center, Thailand
Bytes For All, Pakistan
Centre for Cyber Law Studies, Indonesia
Foundation for Media Alternatives, Philippines

Participants

Ababacar Diop
Allan Maleche
Anna Fielder
Anthony Jackson
Arthit Suriyawongkul
Arthur Gwagwa
Ben Hayes
Ben Wagner
Benjamin Barretto
Carly Nyst
Carolin Moeller
Charles Dhewa
Claudio Ruiz
Clement Chen
Danilo Doneda
Eric King
Farjana Akter
Fieke Jansen
Graciela Sulamein
Gus Hosein
Helen Wallace
Juan Camilo Rivera
Karelle Dagon
Katitza Rodriguez
Kevin Donovan
Levinson Kabwato
Malavika Jayaram
Mathias Vermeulen
Michael Rispoli
Nelson Arteaga Botello
Pablo Palazzi
Pirongrong Ramasoota
Ramiro Alvarez Ugarte
Richie Tynan
Sam Smith
Sinta Dewi Rosadi
Shahzad Ahmed
Sinta Dewi Rosadi
Sunil Abraham
Stephanie Perrin
Tavengwa Nhongo
Vera Franz
Vicky Nida
Vivian Newman Pont

Agenda

Friday, March 22, 2013: Reception

Meet with Privacy International staff members and advisors, and workshop participants from more than 20 countries in Latin America, Asia, Africa, Europe and Central Asia. Food and drinks will be provided.

Time: 6.00 p.m.
Location: 2nd Floor, 46 Bedford Row, London WC1R 4LR
Contact: 0207 242 2836
Getting there: Our office is a short walk 10 minute from your hotel. See Map 1 below for directions.

Saturday, March 23, 2013: Day 1 (Objectives and Reviewing the Landscape)

10:00 a.m. - Welcome Breakfast: Setting The Scene
Location: Mercure London Bloomsbury restaurant

Welcome and introduction

Overview of PI’s work in developing countries

Participant introductions

Setting the agenda

12:30 p.m. - Session 1: Reviewing The Landscape
Location: Old Building, Room 3.21, London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE

Mapping privacy in constitutions

Masterclass 1: communications surveillance laws around the world

Break-out groups on assigned topics, and reporting back

2:30 p.m. - Afternoon tea

Privacy quiz

Masterclass 2: SIM card registration

Building a network: how can PI facilitate your work?

Masterclass 3: Oversight of intelligence agencies

6:00 p.m. - Drinks

7:00 p.m. - Dinner

Location: Tohbang, 164 Clerkenwell Road
http://www.tohbang.com/sub_eng/main.php

Sunday, March 24: Day 2 (Research Topics and Strategies)

Location: Old Building, Room 3.21, London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE

10:00 a.m. - Recap of day one

Masterclass 4 - The UN Universal Periodic Review

Open-space - research and policy priorities

1:00 p.m. - Lunch
Location: Ship Tavern, Holborn

2:30 p.m. - Reconvene

Open space - research, dissemination and communication strategies

Wrapping up and going forward

6:00 p.m. - Dinner
Location: Wahaca, Charlotte St, http://www.wahaca.co.uk/

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/global-partners-meeting-london

Human DNA Profiling Bill 2012 Analysis

Jeremy Gruber — 2013-03-19T09:53:22Z

Jeremy Gruber from the Council for Responsible Genetics, US provides an analysis of the Human DNA Profiling Bill, 2012. He says that India’s updated 2012 Human DNA Profiling Bill offers largely superficial changes from its predecessor, the Draft DNA Profiling Bill, 2007.

Indeed, where there are significant departures from prior language, they tend to raise additional privacy and human rights concerns. Overall the current version of the Bill is littered with significant and striking human rights and privacy concerns and, if passed in its current form, would place India far outside the mainstream of both law and policy in this area. Beyond the privacy and human rights concerns that are addressed in this analysis of the Bill, the breadth of the structural and financial costs of enacting the Bill in its current form should also be seriously considered as they would most certainly be staggeringly high.

Bill Analysis

Introduction

The introduction of the Bill sets out the broad policy objectives of its drafters. The most telling portion in paragraph 1 states: “[DNA analysis] makes it possible to determine whether the source of origin of one body substance is identical to that of another, and further to establish the biological relationship, if any, between two individuals, living or dead without any doubt.” (emphasis added). It is evident that the policy animating the Bill presupposes the objective infallibility of genetic analysis. This patent mistruth underpins the policy rationale for the Bill, and as such casts a long shadow over its substantive provisions. At the very least, it tells the reader (and perhaps one day the court) to broadly interpret the Bill’s language to favor DNA analysis as the privileged solution to investigational and prosecutorial needs. This provision, and indeed the bill as a whole, ignores the occurrence of false matches, cross-contamination, laboratory error and other limitations of forensic DNA analysis.

The introduction goes on to state, truthfully, that “DNA analysis offers sensitive information which, if misused can cause harm to person or society.” However this statement does not acknowledge that DNA analysis often causes more harm when used as intended as part of unnecessarily expansive powers given to law enforcement authorities. Indeed this is further illustrated by language showing the legislative intent to draft a broad based bill that would govern the use of DNA in a variety of civil and criminal proceedings as well as for purposes to be determined at a later point.

Definitions (Chapter II)

A number of the Bill’s definitions are overbroad, further expanding the scope of its later provisions. The “crime scene index” is defined to include “DNA profiles from forensic material found . . . on or within the body of any person, on anything, or at any place, associated with the commission of a specified offence.” Chapter II(2)(iv). A “specified offence” is defined as any “offence listed in Part 1of the Schedule [to the Bill].” Part 1 of the “Schedule,” on page 56 of the Bill , includes in (A) “Offences under Indian Penal Code” without any specification. In the 2007 version of the bill, the language related to criminal offences was incredibly expansive but specified the various crimes covered inc. rape,“offences relating to dowry,” defamation, and “unnatural offenses.” (See 2007 Bill Schedule p. 34). The current Bill version dispenses with such identified crimes and seemingly expands the Schedule to create an “all crimes” database. The new Bill (Section B) further adds a variety of additional offences under special laws ranging from the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act to the Motor Vehicles Act and empowers the Board to add any new law it wants to the Schedule. Section C of the Schedule identifies a wide variety of civil matters to be included in the Schedule including disputes related to paternity, pedigree, and organ transplantation. In adds additional civil categories not contemplated by prior versions of the Bill including issues related to assisted reproductive technologies, issues related to immigration/emigration and similar to Section B of the Schedule and in another significant departure from previous Bill versions, empowers the Board to include any other civil matter it chooses in the future. The Crime Scene Index also defines victim expansively to include a person “reasonably suspected of being a victim” (Section 2 ii). Taken together, the government is empowered to conduct genetic testing on almost anyone in any way connected with even minor infractions of the criminal law or involved in virtually any civil proceeding.

The definition of “offender” (Section 2y) is not limited to one with a criminal conviction but includes anyone even charged with an offense, thereby expanding coverage of the criminal provisions of the Bill to include individuals who have not yet been convicted of any crime.

The crucial term “suspect” (Section 2zi) is defined as anyone “suspected of having committed an offence.” By intentionally leaving out the qualifier “specified,” the drafters’ intent is plain: to sweep within the Bill’s breadth all persons suspected of any crime whatsoever even if there is insufficient probable cause for arrest. And, accordingly, the Bill defines the “suspects index” to include “DNA profiles derived from forensic material lawfully taken from suspects.”

Furthermore the definitions include a category of persons entitled “volunteers,” (Section 2 zo) defined as “a person who volunteers to undergo a DNA procedure and, in case of a child or incapable person, his parent or guardian having agreed…” There is no additional clarification as to how this category might be treated in practice but without any clear provisions for informed consent, it is highly unlikely that such participation will be truly voluntary; especially without provisions for decision making subsequent to offering the sample such as future expungement from the system.

Taken together the definitions of victim, offender and suspect expand the reach of this Bill to a broad range of potentially innocent individuals involved in the criminal justice system, while the Schedule and definition of “volunteers” sweep a broad range of categories of innocent citizens into the purview of this Bill- including children and the mentally incapacitated-having nothing to do with the criminal justice system. There is simply no corollary in any other country to such expansive authority. The Bill places India far outside the mainstream of policy in this area and raises serious and far ranging human rights concerns

DNA Profiling Board (Chapter III)

The DNA Profiling Board (hereinafter “Board”) is responsible for administering and overseeing the Indian DNA database . Oversight is an important and valuable concept, however the value of such principles in this Bill are completely overshadowed by the expansive powers given to the Board.

The Bill lays out a number of fields from which the members are to be chosen inc. molecular biology, population biology, criminal justice and bioethics. There is no representation from civil society human rights organizations or the criminal defense bar to ensure that privacy, human rights and the general public interest are ensured. Furthermore the Chief Executive Office of the Board is to be a scientist and therefore unlikely to be familiar with criminal justice matters and evaluations of their efficacy. (Chapter III, Section 10)

The Board is given an almost limitless list of responsibilities including “recommendations for maximizing the use of DNA techniques and technologies (Section 10k) and identifying scientific advances that may assist law enforcement (Section 10L). Such powers are particularly concerning because the Bill does not include any privacy provisions whatsoever but rather invests in the Board the power to make “recommendations for privacy protection laws, regulations and practices relating to access to, or use of stored DNA samples or DNA analyses,” as well as “mak[ing] specific recommendations to . . . ensure the appropriate use and dissemination of DNA information [and] take any other necessary steps required to be taken to protect privacy.” (Section 10o and p). Furthermore the Board is given the responsibility of “deliberating and advising on all ethical and human rights issues emanating out of DNA profiling.” (Section 10t).

These provisions are in lieu of any substantive language limiting the scope of the legislation, and protecting privacy and human rights principles (which the bill otherwise lacks.) These are significant omissions. As expressed in the introduction, the stated purpose of the Bill is “to enhance protection of people in the society and [the] administration of justice.” Taken alone, this Bill actually expresses only the government’s interest in the legislation, suggesting an ambiguously wide scope for its provisions. Substantive concepts of individual privacy and human rights are required to counterbalance the interests of the government and provide protections for the equally vital privacy and human rights interests of the individual. As such, limiting privacy and human rights principles should be included alongside the expression of the government’s security interest. Without it, the Board will effectively have carte blanche with regard to what privacy and human rights protections are—or are not—adopted.

Also in a departure from previous versions of this Bill, this Bill expands the Boards powers to include areas of policy beyond the coverage of the Bill’s other provisions including “intellectual property issues. (Section 10i)

Finally, as noted earlier in the discussion of the Schedule (and in a significant departure from previous versions of the Bill), the Board is given total control to expand every category of person to be included under the Bill. In a democratic system of government, such decisions should rest exclusively with the Parliament and therefore be subject to the checks and balances of government as well as the transparency necessary to ensure public participation. Leaving such decision making to an unelected body raises serious human rights concerns.

Approval of Laboratories (Chapter IV)

Sections 13 to 17 provide for the approval by the DNA Profiling Board of DNA laboratories that will process and analyze genetic material for eventual inclusion on the DNA database. Under Section 13, all laboratories must be approved in writing prior to processing or analyzing any genetic material. However, a conflicting provision appears in the next section, Section 14(2), which permits DNA laboratories in existence at the time the legislation is enacted to process or analyze DNA samples immediately, without first obtaining approval.

Either an oversight on the part of the drafters, or the product of overly-vague language, the result is that established genetic laboratories—including whatever genetic material or profiles they may already have for whatever reason—are in effect “grandfathered” into the system. The only review of these laboratories is the post hoc approval of the laboratory by the DNA profiling board. The potential for abuse and error that this conflict of provisions would be best addressed in keeping with the rule articulated in Section 13, i.e. correcting the language of Section 14(2) that allows for laboratories to be “grandfathered” into the system.

Standards, Obligations of DNA Laboratory (Chapter V)

Chapter V, which concerns the obligations of and the standards to be observed by approved DNA laboratories, lacks adequate administrative requirements. For example, Section 21 requires that labs ensure “adequate security” to minimize contamination without providing for accountability in the event of contamination. Similarly, Section 27 provides for audits of DNA laboratories only, withholding from similar scrutiny of the DNA Profiling Board itself. However, the greatest limitation of every Section of this Chapter is that rather than offering any specific substantive requirements, they instead offer categories requiring attention “as may be specified “ by the DNA Board. Any actual standard or obligation by a laboratory is set entirely by the DNA Board. Minimum standards must be set by law to ensure compliance.

Infrastructure and Training (Chapter VI)

Similar to Chapter V, this section offers no legislative benchmarks but rather categories of activities, with further regulation “as may be specified” by the Board. As noted earlier, there are serious concerns in using DNA analysis with regards to false matches, cross-contamination and laboratory error. Not taking such concerns seriously, and taking serious steps to minimize their occurrence, can lead to significant distrust of government and police authority when such incidents occur.

DNA Databank (Chapter VII)

In addition on one national DNA database, the Bill sanctions the several Indian states to maintain their own DNA databases, provided these state-level databases forward copies of their content to the national database. Section 32(3). Section 32(5) states that the indices should include records related thereto” the DNA analysis. (See also Section 35(b)) Such provisions allow for access to “the information” contained in the database, not simply “the DNA profiles” contained in the database. Without further clarification it would appear to authorize an unlimited amount of private information unrelated to identification to be included in the indices.

The national database is envisioned to comprise several sub-databases (Section 32(4)), each to contain the genetic information of a subset of persons/samples, namely: (a) unidentified crime scene samples, (b) samples taken from suspects, (c) samples taken from offenders inc. persons convicted or currently subject to prosecution for criminal offenses (d) samples associated with missing persons, (e) samples taken from unidentified bodies, (f) samples taken from “volunteers,” and finally (g) samples taken for reasons “as may be specified by regulations made by the Board. Section 33 (4) et seq. Putting to one side the breadth of persons subject to inclusion under subcategories (1) through (6), subsection (7) appears on its face to be a “catch all” provision, leaving one only to guess at the circumstances under which its specificities may be promulgated.

A close reading of Section 32(6) strongly suggests that the agency conducting the forensic analyses and populating the DNA database shall retain the actual DNA samples thereafter. This section reads in relevant part:

The “DNA Data Bank shall contain . . . the following information, namely: (a) in case of a profile in the offenders index, the identity of the person from whose body substance or body substances the profile was derived, and (b) in case of all other profiles, the case reference number of the investigation associated with the body substance or body substances from which the profile was derived.

Allowing retention of the biological sample, even after a profile has been created from it, in conjunction with the unlimited ability of the Board to create regulations for additional uses of that sample raises serious privacy and human rights concerns.

Moreover, rather than choosing to link the DNA profile data to a specific offender or case, the drafters of the Bill instead link the “body substance or body substances” with that specific offender or case. Whether sloppy drafting or clever nuance, this provision equates the DNA profile with the DNA sample, injecting unneeded—and potentially harmful—ambiguity into the proposed law.

Section 37 (1) allows for indefinite retention of information in the offenders index (which includes individuals charged with an offense but not convicted). This provision raises serious human rights concerns as it would appear to allow indefinite retention of profiles of individuals who have not been convicted of a crime. This directly conflicts with Section 37 (II) which allows for expungement when a certified copy of a court order stating that the individual in question has been acquitted. This provision also appears to conflict with Chapter VIII Section 43(b) which appears to allow indefinite retention of DNA of suspects even after they’ve been excluded from an investigation. Indeed no process or procedures for expungement and removal of records are in place for suspects generally who are never charged or for any of the other categories of indices that are present in the Bill, thereby raising serious question as to how and even whether such profiles can be removed from the Databank.

Confidentiality, Access to DNA Profiles, Samples, and Records (Chapter VIII)

Two further provisions regarding access to the database warrant close scrutiny. First, Sections 39 and 40 confers upon the Board the unlimited power to expand categories for which DNA profiles, samples and records can be used. Considering that the Bill (Section 40(e)) already questionably allows such records to be used for population research, these provisions raise serious questions as to the classes of potential use such private information might be subject.
Sections 40-42 purport to confer upon the police and other authorized individuals direct access to all of the information contained in the national DNA database. While administratively expedient, this arrangement opens up the possibility for misuse. A more prudent system would place the Board (or some administrative subordinate portion thereof) between the police and the content of the DNA database, with the latter having to make specific and particular requests to the former. This would minimize the risks inherent in the more expansive model of database access the bill currently envisions.

Section 45 related to post-conviction DNA testing has the laudable goal of offering “any individual undergoing a sentence of imprisonment or death pursuant to conviction for an offence, may apply to the court which convicted him for an order of DNA testing” in order to prove their innocence. However such an application lists eleven separate criteria that such an applicant must meet before qualifying, and allows a court total discretion in deciding whether all such criteria have been met. High barriers and absolute discretion make such testing highly unlikely and therefore make a provision seeming to offer human rights protections completely hollow.

Offences and Penalties (Chapter X)

This chapter lays out penalties for misuse of the Database. Most notably, the bill specifically excludes a private cause of action for the unlawful collection of DNA, or for the unlawful storage of private information on the national DNA database. A new provision in Section 58 does allow for an aggrieved person to petition the Central Government or Board if an instance of misuse is not being addressed but such provision does not contain any required processes such entities must follow in responding to such a petition, making an otherwise positive new provision relatively empty. Nor does the bill grant an individual right to review one’s personal data contained on the database. Without these key features, there are limited checks against the unlawful collection, analysis, and storage of private genetic information on the database.

Best Practices Analysis

Collection of DNA

With consent: only for a specific investigation (e.g. from a victim or for elimination purposes). Volunteers should not have information entered on a database.	No provision.
Without consent: only from persons suspected of a crime for which DNA evidence is directly relevant i.e. a crime scene sample exists or is likely to exist. Or, broader categories?	No provision.
Requirement for an order by a court? Or allowed in other circumstances?	No provision.
Samples collected by police officers, or only medical professionals? Must take place in a secure location i.e. not on the street, etc.	No provision.
Provision of information for all persons from whom DNA is taken.	No provision.
Crime scenes should be promptly examined if DNA evidence is likely to be relevant, and quality assurance procedures must protect against contamination of evidence.	No provision; regulated at discretion of DNA Profiling Board.

Analysis of DNA

Should take place only in laboratories with quality assurance.	Regulated at discretion of DNA Profiling Board.
Laboratories should be independent of police.	No provision; regulated at discretion of DNA Profiling Board.
Profiling standards must be sufficient to minimize false matches occurring by chance. This must take account of increased likelihood of false matches in transboundary searches, and with relatives.	No provision; regulated at discretion of DNA Profiling Board.

Storage of DNA and Linked Data

Data from convicted persons should be separate from others e.g. missing persons’ databases.	Unclear.
Access to databases and samples must be restricted and there must be an independent and transparent system of governance, with regular information published e.g. annual reports, minutes of oversight meetings.	Access to database at discretion of DNA Data Bank Manager.
Personal identification information should not be sent with samples to laboratories.	No provision; regulated at discretion of DNA Profiling Board.
Any transfer of data e.g. from police station to lab or database, must be secure.	No provision; regulated at discretion of DNA Profiling Board.

Uses of Samples and Data

Research uses should be restricted to anonymised verification of database performance (e.g. checking false matches etc.). Third party access to data for such purposes should be allowed, provided public information on research projects is published. There should be an ethics board.	No provision.
Research uses for other purposes e.g. health research, behavioral research should not be allowed.	No provision.
Uses should be restricted by law to solving crimes or identifying dead bodies/body parts. Identification of a person is not an acceptable use. Missing persons databases (if they exist) should be separate from police databases. .	Ambiguous provisions suggest much wider scope.
Any transfer of data e.g. from police station to lab or database, must be secure.	No provision.

Destruction of DNA and Linked Data

DNA samples should be destroyed once the DNA profiles needed for identification purposes have been obtained from them, allowing for sufficient time for quality assurance, e.g. six months.	DNA samples are retained.
An automatic removals process is required for deletion of data from innocent persons. This must take place within a reasonable time of acquittal, etc.	No provision.
There should be limits on retention of DNA profiles from persons convicted of minor crimes.	No provision.
There should be an appeals process against retention of data.	No provision.
Linked data on other databases (e.g. police record of arrest, fingerprints) should be deleted at the same time as DNA database records.	No provision.
Crime scene DNA evidence should be retained for as long as a reinvestigation might be needed (including to address miscarriages of justice).	DNA evidence permitted to be retained indefinitely.

Use in court

Individuals must have a right to have a second sample taken from them and reanalyzed as a check.	No provision.
Individuals must have a right to obtain re-analysis of crime scene forensic evidence in the event of appeal.	Allowed but with impossibly high barriers.
Expert evidence and statistics must not misrepresent the role and value of the DNA evidence in relation to the crime. .	No provision.

Other

Relevant safeguards must be proscribed by law and there should be appropriate penalties for abuse.	No provision.
Impacts on children and other vulnerable persons (e.g. mentally ill) must be considered.	No provision.
Potential for racial bias must be minimized.	No provision.

Click for more information on the Council for Responsible Genetics.

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