Centre for Internet and Society

Press Release, March 11, 2016: The Law cannot Fix what Technology has Broken!

Japreet Grewal and Sunil Abraham — 2016-03-16T10:10:40Z

We published and circulated the following press release on March 11, 2016, as the Lok Sabha passed the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Bill, 2016. This Bill was proposed by finance minister, Mr. Arun Jaitley to give legislative backing to Aadhaar, being implemented by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI).

The Lok Sabha passed the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Bill, 2016 today. This Bill was proposed by finance minister, Mr. Arun Jaitley to give legislative backing to Aadhaar, being implemented by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI).

The Bill was introduced as a money bill and there was no public consultation to evaluate the provisions therein even though there are very serious ramifications for the Right to Privacy and the Right to Association and Assembly. The Bill has made it compulsory for an individual to enrol under Aadhaar in order to receive any subsidy, benefit or service from the Government. Biometric information that is required for the purpose of enrolment has been deemed "sensitive personal information" and restrictions have been imposed on use, disclosure and sharing of such information for purposes other than authentication, disclosure made pursuant to a court order or in the interest of national security. Here, the Bill has acknowledged the standards of protection of sensitive personal information established under Section 43A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The Bill has also laid down several penal provisions for acts that include impersonation at the time of enrolment, unauthorised access to the Central Identities Data Repository, unauthorised use by requesting entity, noncompliance with intimation requirements, etc.

Key Issues

1. Identification without Consent

Before the Aadhaar project it was not possible for the Indian government to identify citizens without their consent. But once the government has created a national centralized biometric database it will be possible for the government to identify any citizen without their consent. Hi-resolution photography and videography make it trivial for governments and also any other actor to harvest biometrics remotely. In other words, the technology makes consent irrelevant. A German ministers fingerprints were captured by hackers as she spoke using hand gesture at at conference. In a similar manner the government can now identify us both as individuals and also as groups without requiring our cooperation. This has direct implications for the right to privacy as we will be under constant government surveillance in the future as CCTV camera resolutions improve and there will be chilling effects on the right to free speech and the freedom of association. The only way to fix this is to change the technology configuration and architecture of the project. The law cannot be used as band-aid on really badly designed technology.

2. Fallible Technology

The technology used for collection and authentication as been said to be fallible. It is understood that the technology has been feasible for a population of 200 million. The Biometrics Standards Committee of UIDAI has acknowledged the lack of data on how a biometric authentication technology will scale up where the population is about 1.2 billion. Further, a report by 4G Identity Solutions estimates that while in any population, approximately 5% of the people have unreadable fingerprints, in India it could lead to a failure to enroll up to 15% of the population.

We know that the Aadhaar number has been issued to dogs, trees (with the Aadhaar letter containing the photo of a tree). There have been slip-ups in the Aadhaar card enrolment process, some cards have ended up with pictures of an empty chair, a tree or a dog instead of the actual applicants. An RTI application has revealed that the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) has identified more than 25,000 duplicate Aadhaar numbers in the country till August 2015.

At the stage of authentication, the accuracy of biometric identification depends on the chance of a false positiveâ€” the probability that the identifiers of two persons will match. For the current population of 1.2 billion the expected proportion of duplicates is 1/121, a ratio which is far too high. In a recent paper in EPW by Hans Mathews, a mathematician with CIS, shows that as per UIDAI's own statistics on failure rates, the programme would badly fail to uniquely identify individuals in India. [1]

Endnote

[1] See: http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/epw-27-february-2016-hans-varghese-mathews-flaws-in-uidai-process

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/press-release-aadhaar-11032016-the-law-cannot-fix-what-technology-has-broken

List of Recommendations on the Aadhaar Bill, 2016 - Letter Submitted to the Members of Parliament

Amber Sinha, Sumandro Chattapadhyay, Sunil Abraham, and Vanya Rakesh — 2016-03-21T08:50:09Z

On Friday, March 11, the Lok Sabha passed the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Bill, 2016. The Bill was introduced as a money bill and there was no public consultation to evaluate the provisions therein even though there are very serious ramifications for the Right to Privacy and the Right to Association and Assembly. Based on these concerns, and numerous others, we submitted an initial list of recommendations to the Members of Parliaments to highlight the aspects of the Bill that require immediate attention.

Download the submission letter: PDF.

Text of the Submission

On Friday, March 11, the Lok Sabha passed the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Bill, 2016. The Bill was introduced as a money bill and there was no public consultation to evaluate the provisions therein even though there are very serious ramifications for the Right to Privacy and the Right to Association and Assembly. The Bill has made it compulsory for all Indian to enroll for Aadhaar in order to receive any subsidy, benefit, or service from the Government whose expenditure is incurred from the Consolidate Fund of India. Apart from the issue of centralisation of the national biometric database leading to a deep national vulnerability, the Bill also keeps unaddressed two serious concerns regarding the technological framework concerned:

Identification without Consent: Before the Aadhaar project it was not possible for the Indian government or any private entity to identify citizens (and all residents) without their consent. But biometrics allow for non-consensual and covert identification and authentication. The only way to fix this is to change the technology configuration and architecture of the project. The law cannot be used to correct the problems in the technological design of the project.
Fallible Technology: The Biometrics Standards Committee of UIDAI has acknowledged the lack of data on how a biometric authentication technology will scale up where the population is about 1.2 billion. The technology has been tested and found feasible only for a population of 200 million. Further, a report by 4G Identity Solutions estimates that while in any population, approximately 5% of the people have unreadable fingerprints, in India it could lead to a failure to enroll up to 15% of the population. For the current Indian population of 1.2 billion the expected proportion of duplicates is 1/121, a ratio which is far too high. [1]

Based on these concerns, and numerous others, we sincerely request you to ensure that the Bill is rigorously discussed in Rajya Sabha, in public, and, if needed, also by a Parliamentary Standing Committee, before considering its approval and implementation. Towards this, we humbly submit an initial list of recommendations to highlight the aspects of the Bill that require immediate attention:

Implement the Recommendations of the Shah and Sinha Committees: The report by the Group of Experts on Privacy chaired by the Former Chief Justice A P Shah [2] and the report by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance (2011-2012) chaired by Shri Yashwant Sinha [3] have suggested a rigorous and extensive range of recommendations on the Aadhaar / UIDAI / NIAI project and the National Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010 from which the majority sections of the Aadhaar Bill, 2016, are drawn. We request that these recommendations are seriously considered and incorporated into the Aadhaar Bill, 2016.
Authentication using the Aadhaar number for receiving government subsidies, benefits, and services cannot be made mandatory: Section 7 of the Aadhaar Bill, 2016, states that authentication of the person using her/his Aadhaar number can be made mandatory for the purpose of disbursement of government subsidies, benefits, and services; and in case the person does not have an Aadhaar number, s/he will have to apply for Aadhaar enrolment. This sharply contradicts the claims made by UIDAI earlier that the Aadhaar number is “optional, and not mandatory”, and more importantly the directive given by the Supreme Court (via order dated August 11, 2015). The Bill must explicitly state that the Aadhaar number is only optional, and not mandatory, and a person without an Aadhaar number cannot be denied any democratic rights, and public subsidies, benefits, and services, and any private services.
Vulnerabilities in the Enrolment Process: The Bill does not address already documented issues in the enrolment process. In the absence of an exhaustive list of information to be collected, some Registrars are permitted to collect extra and unnecessary information. Also, storage of data for elongated periods with Enrollment agencies creates security risks. These vulnerabilities need to be prevented through specific provisions. It should also be mandated for all entities including the Enrolment Agencies, Registrars, CIDR and the requesting entities to shift to secure system like PKI based cryptography to ensure secure method of data transfer.
Precisely Define and Provide Legal Framework for Collection and Sharing of Biometric Data of Citizens: The Bill defines “biometric information” is defined to include within its scope “photograph, fingerprint, iris scan, or other such biological attributes of an individual.” This definition gives broad and sweeping discretionary power to the UIDAI / Central Government to increase the scope of the term. The definition should be exhaustive in its scope so that a legislative act is required to modify it in any way.
Prohibit Central Storage of Biometrics Data: The presence of central storage of sensitive personal information of all residents in one place creates a grave security risk. Even with the most enhanced security measures in place, the quantum of damage in case of a breach is extremely high. Therefore, storage of biometrics must be allowed only on the smart cards that are issued to the residents.
Chain of Trust Model and Audit Trail: As one of the objects of the legislation is to provide targeted services to beneficiaries and reduce corruption, there should be more accountability measures in place. A chain of trust model must be incorporated in the process of enrolment where individuals and organisations vouch for individuals so that when a ghost is introduced someone has can be held accountable blame is not placed simply on the technology. This is especially important in light of the questions already raised about the deduplication technology. Further, there should be a transparent audit trail made available that allows public access to use of Aadhaar for combating corruption in the supply chain.
Rights of Residents: There should be specific provisions dealing with cases where an individual is not issued an Aadhaar number or denied access to benefits due to any other factor. Additionally, the Bill should make provisions for residents to access and correct information collected from them, to be notified of data breaches and legal access to information by the Government or its agencies, as matter of right. Further, along with the obligations in Section 8, it should also be mandatory for all requesting entities to notify the individuals of any changes in privacy policy, and providing a mechanism to opt-out.
Establish Appropriate Oversight Mechanisms: Section 33 currently specifies a procedure for oversight by a committee, however, there are no substantive provisions laid down that shall act as the guiding principles for such oversight mechanisms. The provision should include data minimisation, and “necessity and proportionality” principles as guiding principles for any exceptions to Section 29.
Establish Grievance Redressal and Review Mechanisms: Currently, there are no grievance redressal mechanism created under the Bill. The power to set up such a mechanism is delegated to the UIDAI under Section 23 (2) (s) of the Bill. However, making the entity administering a project, also responsible for providing for the frameworks to address the grievances arising from the project, severely compromises the independence of the grievance redressal body. An independent national grievance redressal body with state and district level bodies under it, should be set up. Further, the NIAI Bill, 2010, provided for establishing an Identity Review Committee to monitor the usage pattern of Aadhaar numbers. This has been removed in the Aadhaar Bill 2016, and must be restored.

Endnotes

[1] See: http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/Flaws_in_the_UIDAI_Process_0.pdf.

[2] See: http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/genrep/rep_privacy.pdf.

[3] See: http://164.100.47.134/lsscommittee/Finance/15_Finance_42.pdf.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/list-of-recommendations-on-the-aadhaar-bill-2016

Vulnerabilities in the UIDAI Implementation Not Addressed by the Aadhaar Bill, 2016

Pooja Saxena and Amber Sinha — 2016-03-21T08:33:53Z

In this infographic, we document the various issues in the Aadhaar enrolment process implemented by the UIDAI, and highlight the vulnerabilities that the Aadhaar Bill, 2016 does not address. The infographic is based on Vidushi Marda’s article 'Data Flow in the Unique Identification Scheme of India,' and is designed by Pooja Saxena, with inputs from Amber Sinha.

Download the infographic: PDF and PNG.

Credits: The illustration uses the following icons from The Noun Project - Thumpbrint created by Daouna Jeong, Duplicate created by Pham Thi Dieu Linh, Copy created by Mahdi Ehsaei.

License: It is shared under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/vulnerabilities-in-the-uidai-implementation-not-addressed-by-the-aadhaar-bill-2016

Contestations of Data, ECJ Safe Harbor Ruling and Lessons for India

jyoti — 2015-10-14T14:40:08Z

The European Court of Justice has invalidated a European Commission decision, which had previously concluded that the 'Safe Harbour Privacy Principles' provide adequate protections for European citizens’ privacy rights for the transfer of personal data between European Union and United States. The inadequacies of the framework is not news for the European Commission and action by ECJ has been a long time coming. The ruling raises important questions about how the claims of citizenship are being negotiated in the context of the internet, and how increasingly the contestations of personal data are being employed in the discourse.

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has invalidated a European Commission (EC) decision¹ which had previously concluded that the 'Safe Harbor Privacy Principles'² provide adequate protections for European citizens’ privacy rights³ for the transfer of personal data between European Union and United States. This challenge stems from the claim that public law enforcement authorities in America obtain personal data from organisations in safe harbour for incompatible and disproportionate purposes in violation of the Safe Harbour Privacy Principles. The court's judgment follows the advice of the Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) who recently opined⁴ that US practices allow for large-scale collection and transfer of personal data belonging to EU citizens without them benefiting from or having access to judicial protection under US privacy laws. The inadequacies of the framework is not news for the Commission and action by ECJ has been a long time coming. The ruling raises important questions about how increasingly the contestations of personal data are being employed in asserting claims of citizenship in context of the internet.

As the highest court in Europe, the ECJ's decisions are binding on all member states. With this ruling the ECJ has effectively restrained US firms from indiscriminate collection and sharing of European citizens’ data on American soil. The implications of the decision are significant, because it shifts the onus of evaluating protections of personal data for EU citizens from the 4,400 companies⁵ subscribing to the system onto EU privacy watchdogs. Most significantly, in addressing the rights of a citizen against an established global brand, the judgement goes beyond political and legal opinion to challenge the power imbalance that exists with reference to US based firms.

Today, the free movement of data across borders is a critical factor in facilitating trade, financial services, governance, manufacturing, health and development. However, to consider the ruling as merely a clarification of transatlantic mechanisms for data flows misstates the real issue. At the heart of the judgment is the assessment whether US firms apply the tests of ‘necessity and proportionality’ in the collection and surveillance of data for national security purposes. Application of necessity and proportionality test to national security exceptions under safe harbor has been a sticking point that has stalled the renegotiation of the agreement that has been underway between the Commission and the American data protection authorities.⁶

For EU citizens the stake in the case are even higher, as while their right to privacy is enshrined under EU law, they have no administrative or judicial means of redress, if their data is used for reasons they did not intend. In the EU, citizens accessing and agreeing to use of US based firms are presented with a false choice between accessing benefits and giving up on their fundamental right to privacy. In other words, by seeking that governments and private companies provide better data protection for the EU citizens and in restricting collection of personal data on a generalised basis without objective criteria, the ruling is effectively an assertion of ‘data sovereignty’. The term ‘data sovereignty’, while lacking a firm definition, refers to a spectrum of approaches adopted by different states to control data generated in or passing through national internet infrastructure.⁷ Underlying the ruling is the growing policy divide between the US and EU privacy and data protection standards, which may lead to what is referred to as the balkanization⁸ of the internet in the future.

US-EU Data Protection Regime

The safe harbor pact between the EU and US was negotiated in the late 1990s as an attempt to bridge the different approaches to online privacy. Privacy is addressed in the EU as a fundamental human right while in the US it is defined under terms of consumer protection, which allow trade-offs and exceptions when national security seems to be under threat. In order to address the lower standards of data protection prevalent in the US, the pact facilitates data transfers from EU to US by establishing certain safeguards equivalent to the requirements of the EU data protection directive. The safe harbor provisions include firms undertaking not to pass personal information to third parties if the EU data protection standards are not met and giving users right to opt out of data collection.⁹

The agreement was due to be renewed by May 2015¹⁰ and while negotiations have been ongoing for two years, EU discontent on safe harbour came to the fore following the Edward Snowden revelations of collection and monitoring facilitated by large private companies for the PRISM program and after the announcement of the TransAtlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).¹¹ EU member states have mostly stayed silent as they run their own surveillance programs often times, in cooperation with the NSA. EU institutions cannot intervene in matters of national security however, they do have authority on data protection matters. European Union officials and Members of Parliament have expressed shock and outrage at the surveillance programs unveiled by Snowden's 2013 revelations. Most recently, following the CJEU Advocate General’s opinion, 50 Members of European Parliament (MEP) sent a strongly worded letter the US Congress hitting back on claims of ‘digital protectionism’ emanating from the US¹². In no uncertain terms the letter clarified that the EU has different ideas on privacy, platforms, net neutrality, encryption, Bitcoin, zero-days, or copyright and will seek to improve and change any proposal from the EC in the interest of our citizens and of all people.

Towards Harmonization

In November 2013, as an attempt to minimize the loss of trust following the Snowden revelations, the European Commission (EC) published recommendations in its report on 'Rebuilding Trust is EU-US Data Flows'.¹³ The recommendations revealed two critical initiatives at the EU level—first was the revision of the EU-US safe harbor agreement¹⁴ and second the adoption of the 'EU-US Umbrella Agreement¹⁵'—a framework for data transfer for the purpose of investigating, detecting, or prosecuting a crime, including terrorism. The Umbrella Agreement was recently initialed by EU and US negotiators and it only addresses the exchange of personal data between law enforcement agencies.¹⁶ The Agreement has gained momentum in the wake of recent cases around issues of territorial duties of providers, enforcement jurisdictions and data localisation.¹⁷ However, the adoption of the Umbrella Act depends on US Congress adoption of the Judicial Redress Act (JRA) as law.¹⁸

Judicial Redress Act

The JRA is a key reform that the EC is pushing for in an attempt to address the gap between privacy rights and remedies available to US citizens and those extended to EU citizens, including allowing EU citizens to sue in American courts. The JRA seeks to extend certain protections under the Privacy Act to records shared by EU and other designated countries with US law enforcement agencies for the purpose of investigating, detecting, or prosecuting criminal offenses. The JRA protections would extend to records shared under the Umbrella Agreement and while it does include civil remedies for violation of data protection, as noted by the Center for Democracy and Technology, the present framework does not provide citizens of EU countries with redress that is at par with that which US persons enjoy under the Privacy Act.¹⁹

For example, the measures outlined under the JRA would only be applicable to countries that have outlined appropriate privacy protections agreements for data sharing for investigations and ‘efficiently share’ such information with the US. Countries that do not have agreements with US cannot seek these protections leaving the personal data of their citizens open for collection and misuse by US agencies. Further, the arrangement leaves determination of 'efficiently sharing' in the hands of US authorities and countries could lose protection if they do not comply with information sharing requests promptly. Finally, JRA protections do not apply to non-US persons nor to records shared for purposes other than law enforcement such as intelligence gathering. JRA is also weakened by allowing heads of agencies to exercise their discretion to seek exemption from the Act and opt out of compliance.

Taken together the JRA, the Umbrella Act and the renegotiation of the Safe Harbor Agreement need considerable improvements. It is worth noting that EU’s acceptance of the redundancy of existing agreements and in establishing the independence of national data protection authorities in investigating and enforcing national laws as demonstrated in the Schrems and in the Weltimmo²⁰ case point to accelerated developments in the broader EU privacy landscape.

Consequences

The ECJ Safe Harbor ruling will have far-reaching consequences for the online industry. Often, costly government rulings solidify the market dominance of big companies. As high regulatory costs restrict the entrance of small and medium businesses the market, competition is gradually wiped out. Further, complying with high standards of data protection means that US firms handling European data will need to consider alternative legal means of transfer of personal data. This could include evolving 'model contracts' binding them to EU data protection standards. As Schrems points out, “Big companies don’t only rely on safe harbour: they also rely on binding corporate rules and standard contractual clauses.”²¹

The ruling is good news for European consumers, who can now approach a national regulator to investigate suspicions of data mishandling. EU data protection regulators may be be inundated with requests from companies seeking authorization of new contracts and with consumer complaints. Some are concerned that the ruling puts a dent in the globalized flow of data²², effectively requiring data localization in Europe.²³ Others have pointed out that it is unclear how this decision sits with other trade treaties such as the TPP that ban data localisation.²⁴ While the implications of the decision will take some time in playing out, what is certain is that US companies will be have to restructure management, storage and use of data. The ruling has created the impetus for India to push for reforms to protect its citizens from harms by US firms and improve trade relations with EU.

The Opportunity for India

Multiple data flows taking place over the internet simultaneously and that has led to ubiquity of data transfers o ver the Internet, exposing individuals to privacy risks. There has also been an enhanced economic importance of data processing as businesses collect and correlate data using analytic tools to create new demands, establish relationships and generate revenue for their services. The primary concern of the Schrems case may be the protection of the rights of EU citizens but by seeking to extend these rights and ensure compliance in other jurisdictions, the case touches upon many underlying contestations around data and sovereignty.

Last year, Mr Ram Narain, India Head of Delegation to the Working Group Plenary at ITU had stressed, “respecting the principle of sovereignty of information through network functionality and global norms will go a long way in increasing the trust and confidence in use of ICT.”²⁵ In the absence of the recognition of privacy as a right and empowering citizens through measures or avenues to seek redressal against misuse of data, the demand of data sovereignty rings empty. The kind of framework which empowered an ordinary citizen in the EU to approach the highest court seeking redressal based on presumed overreach of a foreign government and from harms abetted by private corporations simply does not exist in India. Securing citizen’s data in other jurisdictions and from other governments begins with establishing protection regimes within the country.

The Indian government has also stepped up efforts to restrict transfer of data from India including pushing for private companies to open data centers in India.²⁶ Negotiating data localisation does not restrict the power of private corporations from using data in a broad ways including tailoring ads and promoting products. Also, data transfers impact any organisation with international operations for example, global multinationals who need to coordinate employee data and information. Companies like Facebook, Google and Microsoft transfer and store data belonging to Indian citizens and it is worth remembering that the National Security Agency (NSA) would have access to this data through servers of such private companies. With no existing measures to restrict such indiscriminate access, the ruling purports to the need for India to evolve strong protection mechanisms. Finally, the lack of such measures also have an economic impact, as reported in a recent Nasscom-Data Security Council of India (DSCI) survey²⁷ that pegs revenue losses incurred by the Indian IT-BPO industry at $2-2.5 billion for a sample size of 15 companies. DSCI has further estimated that outsourcing business can further grow by $50 billion per annum once India is granted a “data secure” status by the EU.²⁸ EU’s refusal to grant such a status is understandable given the high standard of privacy as incorporated under the European Union Data Protection Directive a standard to which India does not match up, yet. The lack of this status prevents the flow of data which is vital for Digital India vision and also affects the service industry by restricting the flow of sensitive information to India such as information about patient records.

Data and information structures are controlled and owned by private corporations and networks transcend national borders, therefore the foremost emphasis needs to be on improving national frameworks. While, enforcement mechanisms such as the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) process or other methods of international cooperation may seem respectful of international borders and principles of sovereignty,²⁹ for users that live in undemocratic or oppressive regimes such agreements are a considerable risk. Data is also increasingly being stored across multiple jurisdictions and therefore merely applying data location lens to protection measures may be too narrow. Further it should be noted that when companies begin taking data storage decisions based on legal considerations it will impact the speed and reliability of services.³⁰ Any future regime must reflect the challenges of data transfers taking place in legal and economic spaces that are not identical and may be in opposition. Fundamentally, the protection of privacy will always act as a barrier to the free flow of information even so, as the Schrems case ruling points out not having adequate privacy protections could also restrict flow of data, as has been the case for India.

The time is right for India to appoint a data controller and put in place national frameworks, based on nuanced understanding of issues of applying jurisdiction to govern users and their data. Establishing better protection measures will not only establish trust and enhance the ability of users to control data about themselves it is also essential for sustaining economic and social value generated from data generation and collection. Suggestions for such frameworks have been considered previously by the Group of Experts on Privacy constituted by the Planning Commission.³¹ By incorporating transparency in mechanisms for data and access requests and premising requests on established necessity and proportionality Indian government can lead the way in data protection standards. This will give the Indian government more teeth to challenge and address both the dangers of theft of data stored on servers located outside of India and restrain indiscriminate access arising from terms and conditions of businesses that grant such rights to third parties.

1 Commission Decision of 26 July 2000 pursuant to Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the adequacy of the protection provided by the safe harbour privacy principles and related frequently asked questions issued by the US Department of Commerce (notified under document number C(2000) 2441) (Text with EEA relevance.) Official Journal L 215 , 25/08/2000 P. 0007 -0047 2000/520/EC: http ://eur -lex .europa .eu /LexUriServ /LexUriServ .do ?uri =CELEX :32000 D 0520:EN :HTML

2 Safe Harbour Privacy Principles Issued by the U.S. Department of Commerce on July 21, 2000 http ://www .export .gov /safeharbor /eu /eg _main _018475.asp

3 Megan Graham, Adding Some Nuance on the European Court ’s Safe Harbor Decision , Just security

https ://www .justsecurity .org /26651/adding -nuance -ecj -safe -harbor -decision /

4 Advocate General’s Opinion in Case C-362/14 Maximillian Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner Court of Justice of the European Union, Press Release, No 106/15 Luxembourg, 23 September 2015 http ://curia .europa .eu /jcms /upload /docs /application /pdf /2015-09/cp 150106 en .pdf

5 Jennifer Baker, ‘EU desperately pushes just-as-dodgy safe harbour alternatives’, The Register, October 7, 2015 http ://www .theregister .co .uk /2015/10/07/eu _pushes _safe _harbour _alternatives /

6 Draft Report, General Data Protection Regulation, Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, European Parliament, 2009-2014 http ://www .europarl .europa .eu /meetdocs /2009_2014/documents /libe /pr /922/922387/922387 en .pdf

7 Dana Polatin-Reuben, Joss Wright, ‘An Internet with BRICS Characteristics: Data Sovereignty and the Balkanisation of the Internet’, University of Oxford, July 7, 2014 https ://www .usenix .org /system /files /conference /foci 14/foci 14-polatin -reuben .pdf

8 Sasha Meinrath, The Future of the Internet: Balkanization and Borders, Time, October 2013 http ://ideas .time .com /2013/10/11/the -future -of -the -internet -balkanization -and -borders /

9 Safe Harbour Privacy Principles, Issued by the U.S. Department of Commerce, July 2001 http ://www .export .gov /safeharbor /eu /eg _main _018475.asp

10 Facebook case may force European firms to change data storage practices, The Guardian, September 23, 2015 http ://www .theguardian .com /us -news /2015/sep /23/us -intelligence -services -surveillance -privacy

11 Privacy Tracker, US-EU Safe Harbor Under Pressure, August 2, 2013 https ://iapp .org /news /a /us -eu -safe -harbor -under -pressure

12 Kieren McCarthy, Privacy, net neutrality, security, encryption ... Europe tells Obama, US Congress to back off, The Register, 23 September, 2015 http ://www .theregister .co .uk /2015/09/23/european _politicians _to _congress _back _off /

13 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council, Rebuilding Trust in EU-US Data Flows, European Commission, November 2013 http ://ec .europa .eu /justice /data -protection /files /com _2013_846_en .pdf

14 Safe Harbor on trial in the European Union, Access Blog, September 2014 https ://www .accessnow .org /blog /2014/11/13/safe -harbor -on -trial -in -the -european -union

15 European Commission - Fact Sheet Questions and Answers on the EU-US data protection "Umbrella agreement", September 8, 2015 http ://europa .eu /rapid /press -release _MEMO -15-5612_en .htm

16 McGuire Woods, ‘EU and U.S. reach “Umbrella Agreement” on data transfers’, Lexology, September 14, 2015 http ://www .lexology .com /library /detail .aspx ?g =422 bca 41-2 d 54-4648-ae 57-00 d 678515 e 1 f

17 Andrew Woods, Lowering the Temperature on the Microsoft-Ireland Case, Lawfare September, 2015 https ://www .lawfareblog .com /lowering -temperature -microsoft -ireland -case

18 Jens-Henrik Jeppesen, Greg Nojeim, ‘The EU-US Umbrella Agreement and the Judicial Redress Act: Small Steps Forward for EU Citizens’ Privacy Rights’, October 5, 2015 https ://cdt .org /blog /the -eu -us -umbrella -agreement -and -the -judicial -redress -act -small -steps -forward -for -eu -citizens -privacy -rights /

19 Ibid 18.

20 Landmark ECJ data protection ruling could impact Facebook and Google, The Guardian, 2 October, 2015 http ://www .theguardian .com /technology /2015/oct /02/landmark -ecj -data -protection -ruling -facebook -google -weltimmo

21 Julia Powles, Tech companies like Facebook not above the law, says Max Schrems, The Guardian, Octover 9, 2015 http ://www .theguardian .com /technology /2015/oct /09/facebook -data -privacy -max -schrems -european -court -of -justice

22 Adam Thierer, Unintended Consequences of the EU Safe Harbor Ruling, The Technology Liberation Front, October 6, 2015 http ://techliberation .com /2015/10/06/unintended -consequenses -of -the -eu -safe -harbor -ruling /#more -75831

23 Anupam Chander, Tweeted ECJ #schrems ruling may effectively require data localization within Europe, https ://twitter .com /AnupamChander /status /651369730754801665

24 Lokman Tsui, Tweeted, “If the TPP bans data localization, but the ECJ ruling effectively mandates it, what does that mean for the internet?” https ://twitter .com /lokmantsui /status /651393867376275456

25 Statement from Indian Head of Delegation, Mr Ram Narain for WGPL, Indian statement on ITU and Internet at the Working Group Plenary November 4, 2014 https ://ccgnludelhi .wordpress .com /author /asukum 87/page /2/

26 Sounak Mitra, Xiaomi bets big on India despite problems, Business Standard, December 2014 http ://www .business -standard .com /article /companies /xiaomi -bets -big -on -india -despite -problems -114122201023_1.html

27 Neha Alawadi, Ruling on data flow between EU & US may impact India’s IT sector, Economic Times,October 7, 2015 http ://economictimes .indiatimes .com /articleshow /49250738.cms ?utm _source =contentofinterest &utm _medium =text &utm _campaign =cppst

28 Pranav Menon, Data Protection Laws in India and Data Security- Impact on India and Data Security-Impact on India - EU Free Trade Agreement, CIS Access to Knowledge, 2011 http ://cis -india .org /a 2 k /blogs /data -security -laws -india .pdf

29 Surendra Kumar Sinha, India wants Mutual Legal Assistance treaty with Bangladesh, Economic Times, October 7, 2015 http ://economictimes .indiatimes .com /articleshow /49262294.cms ?utm _source =contentofinterest &utm _medium =text &utm _campaign =cppst

30 Pablo Chavez, Director, Public Policy and Government Affairs, Testifying before the U.S. Senate on transparency legislation, November 3, 2013 http ://googlepublicpolicy .blogspot .in /2013/11/testifying -before -us -senate -on .htm

31 Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy (Chaired by Justice A P Shah, Former Chief Justice, Delhi High Court), Planning Commission, October 2012 http ://planningcommission .nic .in /reports /genrep /rep _privacy .pdf

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/contestations-of-data-ecj-safe-harbor-ruling-and-lessons-for-india

Digital Markets and India: Demystifying the Draft DCB

Abhineet Nayyar and Isha Suri (in alphabetical order) — 2024-04-15T06:15:21Z

This document summarises the proceedings of the Roundtable on the draft Digital Competition Bill (DCB) [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Roundtable’]. The Roundtable was conducted online on April 1, 2024, and included representation from academia, law, civil society, and policy organisations. The primary objective of the Roundtable was to discuss the recent report published by the Committee on Digital Competition Law (CDCL) in March 2024 along with the draft of the DCB.

The event was organized by Abhineet Nayyar and Isha Suri.

The Roundtable began with a brief presentation by Abhineet Nayyar (Centre for Internet and Society - CIS) providing an overview of the various important themes identified by CIS during the course of their research. This introduction was followed by Roundtable discussions moderated by Isha Suri (CIS), focusing on important areas identified by CIS for the course of this discussion.

This summary seeks to crystallise the learnings that emanated from this Roundtable to inform the discourse and contribute to the ongoing public consultation for the draft DCB, due by April 15, 2024.

I. Ex-ante or ex-post

The initial parts of the discussion focused on the shift from a largely ex-post model to an ex-ante model to competition regulation in India. It was briefly summarised during the discussion that while the extant Competition Act of 2002 relied on ex-post methods to recognise anti-competitive practices, the proposed DCB adopts an ex-ante approach similar to what has been adopted or is being deliberated in other jurisdictions. Few participants highlighted the benefits and costs of switching from the former to the latter and highlighted specific learnings for digital markets in India, while some were sceptical of this shift towards an ex-ante model, given its potentially detrimental impact on MSMEs and lack of enforcement capacity in India.

The discussion began with the participants highlighting the gaps in the extant ex-post regulatory framework, including delayed enforcement and disposal of appeals, and its under-reliance on private enforcement techniques that increase the ecosystem’s dependence on CCI as a central node. Simultaneously, however, several participants also warned against potential issues in the ex-ante approach proposed under the draft DCB. While some of these concerns related to the general ineffectiveness of ex-ante regulations – as highlighted, for example, in data protection and broadcasting – many participants deliberated on specific sections of the draft DCB. It was also pointed out that telecom regulation does have ex-ante provisions to address competition concerns within the sector. One participant, for instance, highlighted the proposed bill’s wide scope and the risk it poses for an under-resourced regulatory regime.

Overall, the group emphasised the need to carefully consider the particulars of the ex-ante approach proposed under the draft DCB. While there was a broader consensus that this approach may address some issues with digital markets particularly, the discussion brought to the fore many concerns with how this approach is currently being articulated. In addition to the bill’s wide scope, the Roundtable also discussed the necessity for an impact assessment study to understand its effects better. Other concerns regarding the proposed threshold values and the draft DCB’s focus on ‘contestable’ markets were also tabled during the discussion.

II. Building Regulatory Capacity

The participants discussed existing regulatory capacity in light of the proposed ex-ante approach under the draft DCB. Several participants highlighted factors that currently inhibit CCI’s capacity, the foremost of them being the Commission’s reliance on enforcement by bureaucrats with time-bound deputations affecting continuity and sustained capacity. In the absence of professional capacity, particularly in digital markets, the wide scope proposed by the draft DCB is only likely to further test CCI’s ability to deliver on its mandate. Moreover, in discussing how to build CCI’s professional capacity, a participant also highlighted the risk of regulatory capture by the private sector if one were to follow a ‘revolving door’ approach.

Participants then delved into potential solutions for CCI’s constrained capacity. In addition to staffing the Commission with subject matter experts, a participant also stated that given the political economy, it may be prudent to design the regulatory ecosystem to work around the problem of legacy issues of lack of professional capacity and independence. The participants also briefly discussed the role of impact assessment in resolving this problem, specifically by including the effect of the draft DCB on CCI’s already strained capacity.

III. Proposed Threshold Values

Deliberations began with the rationale for the Threshold Values (TVs) proposed by the draft DCB. Several participants shared their reservations about the bill’s reliance on international standards, especially for metrics such as market capitalisation and global turnover. Some also identified certain areas where the proposed bill seeks to identify TVs that are more relevant to the Indian market. For example, a participant highlighted that the draft DCB, in Section 3(4) chooses to identify and calculate business users and end users for each of the core digital services separately.

In addition to discussing the rationale behind TVs, many participants also suggested avenues for potential improvement. For instance, one of the participants recommended the identification of threshold values for each of the core digital services, as opposed to the current service-agnostic thresholds. It was posited that the expedited timeline of three months may have constrained the committee from recommending nuanced thresholds suited for Indian contexts since that would require market studies or commissioned (independent) research for evidence gathering and analysis.

Some participants were optimistic that the currently open consultation process may leave room for further negotiation on the prescribed TVs. This includes, among other things, identifying more representative calculation methods for arriving at appropriate values and incorporating global best practices.

IV. Remedies and Penalties

The participants sought to ascertain the effectiveness of penalties in the form of fines as a tool for deterring abusive conduct by dominant entities in general, and digital behemoths, more specifically. On one hand, some participants highlighted the lack of evidence to support the assumption that currently imposed fines deter such abuse in the market. For instance, one of the participants referred to a recent incident where the Dutch competition regulator imposed a €5 million fine for every week Apple failed to comply with an antitrust decision by the regulator. In the end, Apple had accumulated fines worth €50 million, instead of allowing dating app providers to use alternative modes of payment, ostensibly indicating how companies perceive penalties as yet another operating cost.^{^[1]}

On the other hand, a few participants also underlined the need to look at ‘penalties’ as a part of a larger toolkit and not as a standalone deterrent. In this context, the draft DCB’s focus on settlements and commitments, and criminal penalisation were also highlighted by some attendees; while others pointed out the need for an institutional redesign – for example, by reviewing the current appellate process, or by potentially reintroducing the Competition Appellate Tribunal (COMPAT).

Additionally, the question of penalties led to a discussion on the calculation of the quantum of fines and the process followed therein. Stressing the need for more elaborate penalisation guidelines, one participant questioned CDCL’s choice of capping penalties at 10% of the enterprise’s global turnover, especially for industries that have comparatively higher profit margins. It was also pointed out that there is no empirical evidence suggesting the efficacy of the 10% cap, as a sufficient amount.

The discussion also briefly delved into the issue of structural remedies as a tool for correcting harms in digital markets, given the presence of strong network effects and winner-take-all outcomes. Even though there was not a deep dive into the issue of structural remedies, per se, a participant indicated that certain obligations under the DCB, such as the one on tying and bundling comprise a form of structural reform.

V. Digital Mergers and Acquisitions

Unlike the Competition Act 2002, the draft DCB explicitly excludes combination review from its scope, instead relying on the 2023 amendment to the Act. It was pointed out during the discussion that recent amendments in the merger review process such as the inclusion of deal value thresholds should check anticompetitive mergers. However, as highlighted by a few participants during the Roundtable – even though the amendment would potentially enable CCI to investigate digital M&As, the Commission would still have to rely on theories of harm established under the extant Act, which largely examines price-based effects of mergers. For instance, one participant highlighted the role of price-based assessments informing CCI’s working in many merger review cases and pointed out the limitations of these assessments in examining combinations in the digital market.

On the other hand, many obligations identified and elaborated under the proposed DCB are, in fact, better suited to support CCI’s regulation of such digital M&As. Another participant pointed out that while sections 3 and 4 of the extant Act can still, theoretically, allow CCI to borrow from the draft bill, the proposed regulatory landscape does not ensure this synergy between the two pieces of legislation.

VI. Gaps in the Consultation Process

Finally, the discussion highlighted the consultation process adopted by the CDCL during the drafting of this bill. While there was a general agreement that the process was not very representative, different participants brought up diverse perspectives. One participant, for instance, underlined the importance of including MSMEs in the drafting process, given their deep reliance on digital tools and technologies. Other attendees also echoed this viewpoint, highlighting that although the CDCL incorporated inputs from BigTech companies and industry associations, the perspectives of consumers, technology experts, and platform workers were missing from the list of stakeholders consulted during the process.

There was cautious optimism in the room that subsequent drafts of the Bill might address some of these concerns by including a diverse set of stakeholders and incorporating a bottom-up consultative process.

^{^[1]} https://www.reuters.com/technology/dutch-regulator-rejects-apples-objections-against-fines-2023-10-02/

To download the PDF, click here and the Presentation here

This report has been authored by (Abhineet Nayyar and Isha Suri)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/raw/digital-markets-and-india-demystifying-the-draft-dcb

India’s digital check

sunil — 2015-09-15T14:55:47Z

All nine pillars of Digital India directly correlate with policy research conducted at the Centre for Internet and Society, where I have worked for the last seven years. This allows our research outputs to speak directly to the priorities of the government when it comes to digital transformation.

The article was originally published by DNA on July 8, 2015.

Broadband Highways and Universal Access to Mobile Connectivity: The first two pillars have been combined in this paragraph because they both require spectrum policy and governance fixes. Shyam Ponappa, a distinguished fellow at our Centre calls for the leveraging of shared spectrum and also shared backhaul infrastructure. Plurality in spectrum management, for eg, unlicensed spectrum should be promoted for accelerating backhaul or last mile connectivity, and also for community or local government broadband efforts. Other ideas that have been considered by Ponappa include getting state owned telcos to exit completely from the last mile and only focus on running an open access backhaul through Bharat Broadband Limited. Network neutrality regulations are also required to mitigate free speech, diversity and competition harms as ISPs and TSPs innovate with business models such as zero-rating.

Public Internet Access Programme: Continuing investments into Common Service Centres (CSCs) for almost a decade may be questionable and therefore a citizen’s audit should be undertaken to determine how the programme may be redesigned. The reinventing of post offices is very welcome, however public libraries are also in need urgent reinventing. CSCs, post offices and public libraries should all leverage long range WiFi for Internet and intranet, empowering BYOD [Bring Your Own Device] users. Applications will take time to develop and therefore immediate emphasis should be on locally caching Indic language content. State Public Library Acts need to be amended to allow for borrowing of digital content. Flat-fee licensing regimes must be explored to increase access to knowledge and culture. Commons-based peer production efforts like Wikipedia and Wikisource need to be encouraged.

e-Governance: Reforming Government through Technology: DeitY, under the leadership of free software advocate Secretary RS Sharma, has accelerated adoption and implementation of policies supporting non-proprietary approaches to intellectual property in e-governance. Policies exist and are being implemented for free and open source software, open standards and electronic accessibility for the disabled. The proprietary software lobby headed by Microsoft and industry associations like NASSCOM have tried to undermine these policies but have failed so far.

The government should continue to resist such pressures. Universal adoption of electronic signatures within government so that there is a proper audit trail for all communications and transactions should be made an immediate priority. Adherence to globally accepted data protection principles such as minimisation via “form simplification and field reduction” for Digital India should be applauded. But on the other hand the mandatory requirement of Aadhaar for DigiLocker and eSign amounts to contempt of the Supreme Court order in this regard.

e-Kranti — Electronic Delivery of Services: The 41 mission mode projects listed are within the top-down planning paradigm with a high risk of failure — the funds reserved for these projects should instead be converted into incentives for those public, private and public private partnerships that accelerate adoption of e-governance. The dependency on the National Informatics Centre (NIC) for implementation of e-governance needs to be reduced, SMEs need to be able to participate in the development of e-governance applications. The funds allocated for this area to DeitY have also produced a draft bill for Electronic Services Delivery. This bill was supposed to give RTI-like teeth to e-governance service by requiring each government department and ministry to publish service level agreements [SLAs] for each of their services and prescribing punitive action for responsible institutions and individuals when there was no compliance with the SLAs.

Information for All: The open data community and the Right to Information movement in India are not happy with the rate of implementation of National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy (NDSAP). Many of the datasets on the Open Data Portal are of low value to citizens and cannot be leveraged commercially by enterprise. Publication of high-value datasets needs to be expedited by amending the proactive disclosure section of the Right to Information Act 2005.

Electronics Manufacturing: Mobile patent wars have begun in India with seven big ticket cases filed at the Delhi High Court. Our Centre has written an open letter to the previous minister for HRD and the current PM requesting them to establish a device level patent pool with a compulsory license of 5%. Thereby replicating India’s success at becoming the pharmacy of the developing world and becoming the lead provider of generic medicines through enabling patent policy established in the 1970s. In a forthcoming paper with Prof Jorge Contreras, my colleague Rohini Lakshané will map around fifty thousand patents associated with mobile technologies. We estimate around a billion USD being collected in royalties for the rights-holders whilst eliminating legal uncertainties for manufacturers of mobile technologies.

IT for Jobs: Centralised, top-down, government run human resource development programmes are not useful. Instead the government needs to focus on curriculum reform and restructuring of the education system. Mandatory introduction of free and open source software will give Indian students the opportunity to learn by reading world-class software. They will then grow up to become computer scientists rather than computer operators. All projects at academic institutions should be contributions to existing free software projects — these projects could be global or national, for eg, a local government’s e-governance application. The budget allocated for this pillar should instead be used to incentivise research by giving micro-grants and prizes to those students who make key software contributions or publish in peer-reviewed academic journals or participate in competitions. This would be a more systemic approach to dealing with the skills and knowledge deficit amongst Indian software professionals.

Early Harvest Programmes: Many of the ideas here are very important. For example, secure email for government officials — if this was developed and deployed in a decentralised manner it would prevent future surveillance of the Indian government by the NSA. But a few of the other low-hanging fruit identified here don’t really contribute to governance. For example, biometric attendance for bureaucrats is just glorified bean-counting — it does not really contribute to more accountability, transparency or better governance.

The author works for the Centre for Internet and Society which receives funds from Wikimedia Foundation that has zero-rating alliances with telecom operators in many countries across the world

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/dna-sunil-abraham-july-8-2015-india-digital-check

How does the government track all its legal cases?

praskrishna — 2016-09-14T10:17:07Z

The Legal Information Management and Briefing System , an integral part of the digital India initiative, aims to be a database of all the ongoing cases with the government.

The article by Shreeja Sen published by Livemint on September 13, 2016 has quoted Sunil Abraham.

More than one lakh cases currently exist on a law ministry platform curated in the last 13 months.The Legal Information Management and Briefing System (LIMBS), aimed to be a database of all the ongoing cases with the government as a party, is part of the government’s push towards digital India.

Law secretary Suresh Chandra said this is a big step under the Digital India project, intended to monitor and ultimately reduce spending on government litigation.

“The aim is to conduct cases properly. If our system works, along with the national litigation policy, we will be able to prevent 50% cases before they are even filed,” Chandra said.

According to the government, the project will help reduce delays in filing responses in cases , contempt notices because of such delays and consequent monetary penalties.

The website has also undergone the required security audit under the NIC (national informatics centre), to ensure the data is safe and protected. However, a database like this on the internet comes with its challenges.

“To ensure client confidentiality, communication should be bilateral between lawyer and client and should be encrypted and even watermarked. If this project allows access to documents by multiple stakeholders without encrypting it for the recipient, then if there is any leak, the documents cannot be traced back to the person who was responsible,” said Sunil Abraham, executive director at Centre for Internet and Society, a non-profit research organisation.

The LIMBS project began internally at the ministry of railway sometime in 2013, but was soon expanded as a single platform across ministries. In July 2015, it was hosted on the NIC server. The law ministry, by a gazette notification on 8 February, formally launched LIMBS to monitor cases filed against the Union government.

As of now, there is no special budget allocated for this project, which is being handled in house with a team of eight people – four developers on the technology side and four implementers for the case details. The development of the website is being handled by Ajay Gupta, deputy chief vigilance officer, northern railway. From the law ministry, Spriha Johari is the project director responsible for the website.

As of 12 September, the five ministries with the most uploads on the website were railways (69,469 cases), communications and information technology (7,830), finance (4452), environment (3,189) and defence (2,565).

Every day, nearly 400-500 cases are added to the portal. In all 58 ministries and their 202 departments have been brought under the LIMBS project.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/livemint-september-13-2016-shreeja-sen-how-does-govt-track-all-its-legal-cases

Workshop on Big Data in India: Benefits, Harms, and Human Rights (Delhi, October 01)

vanya — 2016-09-28T05:53:55Z

CIS welcomes you to participate in the workshop we are organising on Saturday, October 01 at India Habitat Centre, Delhi, to discuss benefits, harms, and human rights implications of big data technologies, and explore potential research questions. A quick RSVP will be much appreciated.

Workshop invitation: Download (PDF)

Workshop agenda: Download (PDF)

In the last few years, there has been an emergence of the discourse of big data viewing it as an instrument not just for ensuring efficient, targeted and personalised services in the private sector, but also for development, social and policy research, and formalising and monetising various sections of the economy. This possibility is premised upon the idea that there is great knowledge that resides in both traditional and new forms of data made possible by our digital selves, and that we may now have the capability to tap into that knowledge for insights across diverse sectors like healthcare, finance, e-governance, education, law enforcement and disaster management, to name but a few. Alongside, various commentators have also pointed to the new problems and risks that big data could create for privacy of individuals through greater profiling, for free speech and economic choice by strengthening monopolistic tendencies, and for socio-economic inequalities by making existing disparities more acute and facilitating algorithmic bias and exclusion.

From a regulatory perspective, big data technologies pose fundamental challenges to the national data regulatory frameworks that have existed since many years. The nature of collection and utilisation of big data, which is often not driven by immediate purpose of the collected data, conflict with the principles of data minimisation and collection limitation that have been integral to data protection laws globally. This compels us to revisit existing theories of data governance. Additionally, use of big data in public decision-making highlights the question of how algorithmic control and governance must be regulated. This raises concerns around taking determining a balanced position that recognises the importance of big data, including for development actions, and ensures unhindered innovation with simultaneous focus on greater transparency and anonymisation to protect individual privacy, and various big data risks faced by population groups. In order to answer these questions, we need to begin with identifying the different harms and benefits of big data that could arise through its use across sectors and disciplines, especially in the context of human rights.

This workshop is designed around an extensive study of current and potential future uses of big data for governance in India that CIS has undertaken over the last year. The study focused on key central government projects and initiatives like the UID project, the Digital India programme, the Smart Cities Challenge, etc.

We will initiate the workshop with a detailed presentation of our findings and key concerns, which will then shape the discussion agenda of the workshop. We look forward to discuss aspects of big data technologies through the entry points of harms, opportunities, and human rights.

The final session of the workshop will focus on identifying key research questions on the topic, and exploring potential alliances of scholars and organisations that can drive such research activities.

We look forward to making this a forum for knowledge exchange for our friends and colleagues attending the discussion and discuss the opportunity to for potential collaboration.

RSVP: Please send an email to Ajoy Kumar at <ajoy@cis-india.org>.

Organisers: Amber Sinha <amber@cis-india.org> and Sumandro Chattapadhyay <sumandro@cis-india.org>.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/big-data-in-india-benefits-harms-and-human-rights-oct-01-2016

Workshop on 'Privacy after Big Data' (Delhi, November 12)

sumandro — 2016-11-12T10:14:52Z

The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) and the Sarai programme, CSDS, invite you to a workshop on 'Privacy after Big Data: What Changes? What should Change?' on Saturday, November 12. This workshop aims to build a dialogue around some of the key government-led big data initiatives in India and elsewhere that are contributing significant new challenges and concerns to the ongoing debates on the right to privacy. It is an open event. Please register to participate.

Invitation note and agenda: Download (PDF)

Venue and RSVP

Venue: Centre for the Study of Developing Societies 29, Rajpur Road, Civil Lines, Delhi 110054.

Location on Google Maps: https://www.google.com/maps/place/CSDS/@28.677775,77.2162523,17z/.

Registration: Complete this form.

Concept Note

In this age of big data, discussions about privacy are intertwined with the use of technology and the data deluge. Though big data possesses enormous value for driving innovation and contributing to productivity and efficiency, privacy concerns have gained significance in the dialogue around regulated use of data and the means by which individual privacy might be compromised through means such as surveillance, or protected. The tremendous opportunities big data creates in varied sectors ranges from financial technology, governance, education, health, welfare schemes, smart cities to name a few.

With the UID (“Aadhaar”) project re-animating the Right to Privacy debate in India, and the financial technology ecosystem growing rapidly, striking a balance between benefits of big data and privacy concerns is a critical policy question that demands public dialogue and research to inform an evidence based decision.

Also, with the advent of potential big data initiatives like the ambitious Smart Cities Mission under the Digital India Scheme, which would rely on harvesting large data sets and the use of analytics in city subsystems to make public utilities and services efficient, the tasks of ensuring data security on one hand and protecting individual privacy on the other become harder.

As key privacy principles are at loggerheads with big data activities, it is important to consider privacy as an embedded component in the processes, systems and projects, rather than being considered as an afterthought. These examples highlight the current state of discourse around data protection and privacy in India and the shapes they are likely to take in near future.

This workshop aims to build a dialogue around some of the key government-led big data initiatives in India and elsewhere that are contributing significant new challenges and concerns to the ongoing debates on the right to privacy.

Agenda

09:00-09:30 Tea and Coffee

09:30-10:00 Introduction

Mr. Amber Sinha and Mr. Sandeep Mertia
This session will introduce the topic of the workshop in the context of the ongoing works at CIS and Sarai.

10:00-11:00 From Privacy Bill(s) to ‘Habeas Data’

Dr. Usha Ramanathan and Mr. Vipul Kharbanda
This session will present a brief history of the privacy bill(s) in India and end with reflections on ‘habeas data’ as a lens for thinking and actualising privacy after big data.

11:00-11:30 Tea and Coffee

11:30-12:30 Digital ID, Data Protection, and Exclusion

Ms. Amelia Andersdotter and Mr. Srikanth Lakshmanan
This session will discuss national centralised digital ID systems, often operating at a cross-functional scale, and highlight its implications for discussions on data protection, welfare governance, and exclusion from public and private services.

12:30-13:30 Digital Money and Financial Inclusion

Dr. Anupam Saraph and Ms. Astha Kapoor
This session will focus on the rise of digital banking and online payments as core instruments of financial inclusion in India, especially in the context of the Jan Dhan Yojana and UPI, and reflect on the concerns around privacy and financial data.

13:30-14:30 Lunch

14:30-15:30 Big Data and Mass Surveillance

Dr. Anja Kovacs and Mr. Matthew Rice
This session will reflect on the rise of mass communication surveillance across the world, and the evolving challenges of regulating il/legal surveillance by government agencies.

15:30-16:15 Privacy is (a) Right

Mr. Apar Gupta and Ms. Kritika Bhardwaj
This brief session is to share initial ideas and strategies for articulating and actualising a constitutional right to privacy in India.

16:15-16:30 Tea and Coffee

16:30-17:30 Round Table

An open discussion session to conclude the workshop.

Speakers

Mr. Amber Sinha

Amber works on issues surrounding privacy, big data, and cyber security. He is interested in the impact of emerging technologies like artificial intelligence and learning algorithms on existing legal frameworks, and how they need to evolve in response. Amber studied humanities and law at National Law School of India University, Bangalore.

E-mail: amber at cis-india dot org.

Twitter: @ambersinha07.

Ms. Amelia Andersdotter

Amelia Andersdotter has been a Member of the European Parliament. She works on practical implications of data protection laws and consumer information security in Sweden, and digital rights in the Europe in general. Presently she is residing in Bangalore, where she is a visiting scholar with Centre for Internet and Society. She holds a BSc in Mathematics.

URL: https://dataskydd.net.

Twitter: @teirdes.

Dr. Anja Kovacs

Dr. Anja Kovacs directs the Internet Democracy Project in Delhi, India, which works for an Internet that supports free speech, democracy and social justice in India and beyond. Anja’s research and advocacy focuses especially on questions regarding freedom of expression, cybersecurity and the architecture of Internet governance. She has been a member of the of the Investment Committee of the Digital Defenders Partnership and of the Steering Committee of Best Bits, a global network of civil society members. She has also worked as an international consultant on Internet issues, including for the Independent Commission on Multilateralism, the United Nations Development Programme Asia Pacific and the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, Mr. Frank La Rue, as well as having been a Fellow at the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore, India.

Internet Democracy Project: https://internetdemocracy.in.

Twitter: @anjakovacs.

Dr. Anupam Saraph

Anupam Saraph has extensively researched India's UID number that has been widely regarded as the game changer in development programs. It has come to be linked with both public and private databases and become the requirement for access to entitlements, benefits, services and rights. Dr. Saraph, who has the design of at least two identification programs to his credit has researched the UID’s functional creep since its inception.

He has been dissecting the myths of what the UID is or is not. He has also tracked the consequences of its linkages on databases that protect national security, sovereignty, democratic status and the entire banking and money system in India. He has also highlighted the implications of its use for targeted delivery of cash subsidies from the Consolidated Fund of India. He has written and lectured widely about the devastating impact of the UID number on development programs, national security and the governability of India.

As a Professor of Systems, Governance and Decision Sciences, Environmental Systems and Business he mentors students and teaches systems, information systems, environmental systems and sustainable development at universities in Europe, Asia and the Americas. He has worked with the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Rijksuniversitiet Groningen, RIVM, University of Edinburgh, Resource Use Institute, Systems Research Institute among others. Dr. Saraph has had the unique distinction of being India’s only person who has held the only office of a City CIO in India, in a PPP arrangement with government, industry and himself. He has also been the first e-governance Advisor to a State government. Dr. Saraph has held CxO and ministerial level positions and serves as an independent director on the boards of Public and Private Sector companies and NGOs. He is also the President of the Nagrik Chetna Manch, an NGO charged with the mission to bring accountability in governance.

Dr. Saraph is also actively engaged in civil society where he participates in several environmental, resource and nature conservation initiatives, has authored draft legislations for river and natural resource conservation, right to good governance and has contributed to governance, election and democratic reforms. Dr. Saraph is a regular columnist in newspapers and writes on issues of governance, future design, technology and education from a systems perspective.

As a future designer and recognized as a global expert on complex systems he helps individuals and organisations understand and design the future of their worlds. Together they address the toughest challenges, accomplish missions and achieve business goals. He also supports building capacity to address the challenges of today as well as to build future designs through teams and effective leadership. Since the eighties Dr. Saraph has modeled complex systems of cities, countries, regions and even the planet. His models have been awarded internationally and even placed in 10-year permanent exhibitions.

Dr Saraph works with business and government executives, civil society leaders, politicians, generals, civil servants, police, trade unionists, community activists, United Nations and ASEAN officials, judges, writers, media, architects, designers, technologists, scientists, entrepreneurs, board members and business leaders of small, mid and large single and trans-national companies, religious leaders and artists across a dozen countries and various industry sectors to help them and their organisations succeed in their missions. He advises the World Economic Forum through its Global Agenda Council for Complex Systems and the Club of Rome, Indian National Association as a founder life member.

Dr Saraph holds a PhD in designing sustainable systems from the faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences of the Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, the Netherlands.

Website: http://anupam.saraph.in.

Twitter: @anupamsaraph.

Mr. Apar Gupta

Apar Gupta practices law in Delhi. He is also one of the co-founders of the Internet Freedom Foundation. His work and writing on public interest issues can be accessed at his personal website www.apargupta.com.

Twitter: @aparatbar.

Ms. Astha Kapoor

Astha Kapoor is a public policy strategy consultant working on financial inclusion and digital payments. Currently, she is working with MicroSave. Her tasks involve a focus on government to people (G2P) payments - and her work spans strategy, advisory and evaluation with the DBT Mission, Office of the Chief Economic Advisor, NITI Aayog and ministries pertaining to food, fuel and fertilizer. She recently designed a pilot to digitize uptake of fertilizers in Krishna district, and evaluated the newly introduced coupon system in the Public Distribution System in Bengaluru.

Twitter: @kapoorastha.

Ms. Kritika Bhardwaj

Kritika Bhardwaj works as a Programme Officer at the Centre for Communication Governance (CCG), National Law University, Delhi. Her main areas of research are privacy and data protection. At CCG, she has written about the privacy implications of several contemporary issues such as Aadhaar (India's unique identification project), cloud computing and the right to be forgotten. A lawyer by training, Kritika has a keen interest in information law and human rights law.

Centre for Communication Governance, NLU Delhi: http://ccgdelhi.org.

Twitter: @Kritika12.

Mr. Matthew Rice

Matthew Rice is an Advocacy Officer at Privacy International working across the organisation engaging with international partners and strengthening their capacity on communications surveillance issues. He has previously worked at Privacy International as a consultant building the Surveillance Industry Index, the largest publicly available database on the private surveillance sector ever assembled. Matthew graduated from University of Aberdeen with an LLB (Hons.) and also has an MA in Human Rights from University College London.

Privacy International: https://privacyinternational.org.

Twitter: @mattr3.

Mr. Sandeep Mertia

Sandeep Mertia is a Research Associate at The Sarai Programme, Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, Delhi. He is an ICT engineer by training with research interests in Science & Technology Studies, Software Studies and Anthropology. He is conducting an ethnographic study of emerging modes of data-driven knowledge production in the social sector.

Sarai: http://sarai.net.

Twitter: @SandeepMertia.

Academia: https://daiict.academia.edu/SandeepMertia.

Mr. Srikanth Lakshmanan

Srikanth is a software professional with interests in Internet, follower of Internet policy discussions, volunteers for multiple online campaigns related to Internet. He is also fascinated by FOSS, opendata, localization, Wikipedia, maps, public transit, civic tech and occasionally contributes to them.

Site: http://www.srik.me.

Twitter: @logic.

Mr. Vipul Kharbanda

Vipul Kharbanda is a consultant with the Center for Internet and Society, Bangalore. After finishing his BA.LLB.(Hons.) from National Law School of India University in Bangalore, he worked for India’s largest corporate law firm for two and a half years in their Mumbai office for two years working primarily on the financing of various infrastructure projects such as Power Plants, Roads, Airports, etc. Since quitting his corporate law job, Vipul has been working as the Associate Editor in a legal publishing house which has been publishing legal books and journals for the last 90 years in India. He has also been involved with the Center for Internet and Society as a Consultant working primarily on issues related to privacy and surveillance.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/privacy-after-big-data-delhi-nov-12-2016

Regulating Bitcoin in India

vipul — 2017-04-20T13:17:37Z

The article discusses the possible contours of future bitcoin regulation in India. Bitcoin, often considered a ‘notorious’ virtual currency limited only to techies or speculators, is currently fighting a battle to become a bona fide mainstream means of exchange.

While most currencies in the real world have the backing of a central authority of some kind (such as a sovereign or a Central Bank) infusing them with an air of legitimacy, Bitcoin has no such central authority which issues or controls it. Additionally, the distributed and decentralised nature of the Bitcoin network makes regulation a tricky issue. This article seeks to touch upon the issue of Bitcoin regulation and makes certain broad suggestions for the future. It is a follow-up to a previous article by this author discussing the legal treatment of Bitcoin under Indian law, available at http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/bitcoin-legal-regulation-india.

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has not exactly been shy in recognising and even regulating technological advances in the financial sector as is evident from their detailed guidelines on Internet Banking,[1] Prepaid Payment Instruments[2] Account Aggregator Regulations,[3] and the consultation paper on proposed regulations for P2P lending platforms,[4] etc. However, though the RBI has acknowledged the existence of Bitcoin (it issued a note cautioning the public against dealing in virtual currencies including Bitcoin way back in 2013[5] and again in 2017[6]), there have been no clear guidelines regarding the same. Nevertheless, Bitcoin has come a long way since its inception and a consensus is emerging amongst the more technically inclined individuals that Bitcoin is infact here to stay.

Even if a sceptical view is taken that Bitcoin may not last for a long time, that does not mean that regulation is useless as there is already a large amount of money invested in Bitcoin entities in India and Bitcoin exchanges seem to be betting big on this sector really taking off - especially in the backdrop of the government’s recent push towards a more digital and less cash dependent economy.

While the Indian government is trying to hard sell the idea of digital payments, primarily using existing banking channels as well as the relatively new National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI) and the various applications that are cropping up around the NPCI’s UPI platform, one must note that going digital could involve high administrative costs. These costs are typically charged by banks and intermediary merchants, and may not be palatable to all stakeholders, as was evident in the recent fracas between petrol pump owners and banks over proposed transactional charges on card payments.[7]

It is this vacuum that alternatives such as prepaid payment instruments and virtual currencies can fill while addressing the concern of high administrative charges, which is likely to be a major hurdle in going digital. Administrative charges for most of these instruments are significantly lower than what existing payment channels charge for digital transactions.[8]

Legality of Bitcoin and the need for Regulation

Bitcoin technology is being widely embraced all over the world, including neighbouring China which has become one of the biggest markets for the uniquely decentralised currency. However the biggest hurdle that Bitcoin enthusiasts see in mainstreaming this technology is the fact that most countries are treading too cautiously around Bitcoin and therefore do not have regulation governing them.

The creation and transfer of Bitcoin is based on an open source cryptographic protocol and is not managed by any central authority.[9] It is the decentralized nature of this virtual currency that makes regulation a major challenge. This does not mean that regulators are not capable of regulating Bitcoin, in fact attempts have been made in several jurisdictions but these are mostly in the discussion stage, for eg. the Washington Department of Financial Institutions (“DFI”) introduced a bill in December, 2016 which proposes amendments to certain portions of the Washington Uniform Money Services Act and includes provisions specific to digital currencies;[10] the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has in a decision in September, 2016 taken the view that Bitcoin is money under the plain meaning of Section 1960, the federal money transmission statute.[11]

This article does not intend to undertake a discussion on how Bitcoin is dealt with in various jurisdictions, but instead is aimed at suggesting a possible way forward for Indian regulators to regulate Bitcoin in a manner that satisfies the regulatory zeal towards security as well as ensures that the technology does not get stifled through overregulation. It is important that the regulators create a balanced regulation because an impractical ecosystem for Bitcoin exchanges and their users, may lead to traders seeking alternative methods of purchasing Bitcoin such as P2P trading, over-the-counter (OTC) markets and underground trading platforms, which are significantly more difficult to regulate.[12]

Suggestions for Regulation

Since Bitcoin is a decentralised cryptocurrency, it is impossible to regulate it through one single centralised point for all transactions. Neither is it feasible to regulate each and every Bitcoin user. A pragmatic compromise between these two extremes could be to regulate the points at which fiat currency or valuable goods enter the Bitcoin system, i.e. the Bitcoin exchanges where people may buy and sell Bitcoin for actual real world money, or websites which offer Bitcoin as a means of payment. Such an approach would reduce the number of points of supervision and lead to effective enforcement of the regulations. The regulations may require any entity providing services such as buying and selling of Bitcoin for actual money, trading in Bitcoin (such as non-cash exchanges) or providing other Bitcoin related services (such as Bitcoin wallets, merchant gateways, remittance facilities, etc.) to be registered with a central government agency, preferably the Reserve Bank of India.

One legal issue regarding the regulation of companies transacting in Bitcoin is whether the RBI has the authority or jurisdiction to regulate Bitcoin in the first place. Without getting into the arguments regarding whether it is a dangerous trend or not, an easy way in which the RBI could ensure it has the authority to regulate Bitcoin would be to follow the path that the RBI adopted while regulating Account Aggregators under the Non-Banking Financial Company - Account Aggregator (Reserve Bank) Directions, 2016 wherein the RBI declared Account Aggregators as Non Banking Finance Companies under section 45-I(f)(iii) thereby getting the authority to regulate and supervise them under section 45JA of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934.

The Regulations, once issued by the Reserve Bank of India, can prescribe mandatory registration, capital adequacy provisions, corporate governance conditions, minimum security protocols, Know Your Customer (KYC) requirements and most importantly provide for regular and ongoing reporting requirements as well as supervision of the Reserve Bank of India over the activities of Bitcoin companies.

Any proposed Bitcoin regulatory framework would seek to address certain issues; for the purposes of this article, we will assume that the following three issues are the ones that must necessarily be addressed by a regulatory framework:

Security of the consumer’s property and prevention of fraud on the consumer. In the technology sector this translates into specific emphasis on increased security (against hacking) for accounts that the consumers maintain with the service provider.
India has robust exchange control laws and the inherently decentralised and digital nature of Bitcoin can enable transfer of value from one jurisdiction to another without any oversight by a central agency, potentially violating the exchange control laws of India.
Bitcoin has for long been associated with criminal and nefarious activities, infact many believe that the famous black market website “Silk Road” played a big role in making Bitcoin famous[13] and therefore preventing Bitcoin from being used for illegal activities (or creating a mechanism to ensure a digital trail to help investigations post facto) would be a major issue that the regulations would seek to tackle.

Given the above assumptions, let us examine whether the Regulations suggested above can satisfactorily address the concerns of security of consumers, exchange control, and keeping a tab on criminal activities.

If the regulations provide for minimum capital adequacy requirements as well as registration by the RBI or some other central agency, then the chances of consumers being duped by “fly-by-night” operators would be significantly reduced. The Regulations can also provide for minimum security protocols to be maintained by the companies, which protocols can themselves be developed in concert with Bitcoin experts. Critics may point to the hacking of various Bitcoin exchanges in the recent past, including that of MtGox, in which Bitcoin worth millions of dollars were siphoned off, and argue that the security protocols may not be enough to prevent future instances of hacking. But that is true even for the current security protocols for online banking; and that has not prevented a large number of banks from providing online banking facilities and the RBI regulating the same. The other vital issue that legally mandated security protocols would address (and potentially solve) is the issue of liability in case of hackings. Regulations may provide clarity on this issue and protect innocent customers from negligent companies while at the same time protecting entrepreneurs by defining and limiting the liability for bona fide and vigilant companies.

The other issue that may be of major concern to the authorities is exchange control. India has extremely specific exchange control laws, and if any person in India wants to transfer any amount to any person overseas, the only legal way to do so is through a bank transfer, which requires filling paperwork giving the reason for the transfer (although the RBI and banks usually don’t ask for any proof for small amounts upto a few lakhs). This means that all transfers outside India are done through proper banking channels and are therefore under the supervision of the RBI. However the decentralised nature of Bitcoin enables individuals to transfer money outside the borders of India without going through any banking channels and hence stay completely outside the purview of the RBI’s supervision. Such a system which lets users transfer money beyond national borders outside legal banking channels could be easily misused by nefarious actors and this is exactly what happened as international drug cartels turned to Bitcoin and other digital currencies to move their ill gotten wealth beyond the borders of various countries.[14] Regulating the entities which provide Bitcoin wallets and Bitcoin exchanges will ensure that the RBI can exercise its supervisory jurisdiction over Bitcoin transactions of individual customers even though these transactions do not go through the regular banking channels. The Regulations could impose an obligation on the companies to provide information on any suspicious activities or provide greater information about accounts which see very high volumes, etc. to ensure that Bitcoin is not used to finance organised crime. Thus, the regulations could have provisions that would require the companies providing the Bitcoin wallets or exchanges to flag and monitor customers whose trading accounts or Bitcoin wallets have transactions of an amount greater than a specified limit. This would provide the RBI with the ability to enquire as to the reasons for such high volumes and weed out illegal transactions while at the same time allowing bona fide transactions to continue.

Very closely linked to the issue of exchange control and supervision of transactions is the issue of checking the furtherance of criminal activities using the apparent anonymity offered by Bitcoin. However if the RBI has regulatory oversight over all the Bitcoin companies that are operating in India, then it would be possible for it to keep an eye on most Bitcoin transactions in India as long as the wallet that originates or terminates the transaction has been provided by a Bitcoin service provider located in India. An argument may be made that a criminal may use the services of Bitcoin wallet services provided by companies outside India and therefore outside the purview of the RBI and its regulations. However this argument may not be as plausible as it may seem at first look; if we assume that for any criminal activity the ultimate goal is to get the money in the form of recognizable legal tender (preferably cash or money in a bank account) then it stands to reason that the Bitcoin in the wallet would be exchanged for currency at some point or the other in the chain, which can only be done through a Bitcoin exchange if the transaction is of a fairly high value (which most criminal transactions are) and these exchanges as well as the accounts maintained by them will be under the purview of the RBI, thus providing the law enforcement agencies with the final link in the chain of transactions. Further, the public nature of the blockchain (the ledger where each Bitcoin trade is registered and verified) also makes it possible for the enforcement agencies to follow the trail of money for each and every Bitcoin or part thereof.

Conclusion

From the discussion above, we see that the major arguments that have been given by sceptics regarding Bitcoin and its attractiveness to criminals due to its decentralised nature are actually not very viable on a closer look. Bitcoin and the blockchain technology are extremely important steps in the direction of better and more efficient financial transactions in the global economy, which is why a number of mainstream banks are also showing a keen interest in the blockchain technology.[15] Regulations governing Bitcoin or virtual currencies would clear the air regarding their legal status so that consumers as well as entrepreneurs and investors can invest more money in this technology which could potentially change the way financial transactions are carried out across jurisdictions.

[1] https://www.rbi.org.in/scripts/NotificationUser.aspx?Id=414&Mode=0

[2] https://rbi.org.in/scripts/NotificationUser.aspx?Id=10799&Mode=0

[3] https://www.rbi.org.in/scripts/BS_ViewMasDirections.aspx?id=10598

[4] https://rbidocs.rbi.org.in/rdocs/content/pdfs/CPERR280416.pdf

[5] https://rbi.org.in/scripts/BS_PressReleaseDisplay.aspx?prid=30247

[6] https://rbi.org.in/Scripts/BS_PressReleaseDisplay.aspx?prid=39435

[7] http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/petrol-pumps-wont-accept-cards-from-monday-to-protest-banks-transaction-fee/articleshow/56402253.cms

[8] For example, currently the network fee for a person to person Bitcoin transfer is 0.0001 Bitcoin, which comes to roughly Rs. 6 per transaction irrespective of the amount involved.

[9] The processing of Bitcoin transactions is secured by servers called Bitcoin “miners”. These servers communicate over an internet-based network and confirm transactions by adding them to a ledger which is updated and archived periodically using peer-to-peer filesharing technology, also known as the “blockchain”. The integrity and chronological order of the blockchain is enforced with cryptography. In addition to archiving transactions, each new ledger update creates some newly-minted Bitcoins.

[10] https://www.virtualcurrencyreport.com/2017/01/washington-department-of-financial-institutions-proposes-virtual-currency-regulation/

[11] https://www.virtualcurrencyreport.com/2016/09/sdny-opinion-re-bitcoin/. For a discussion on how different States and agencies in the United States deal with Bitcoin, please see Misha Tsukerman, “THE BLOCK IS HOT: A SURVEY OF THE STATE OF BITCOIN REGULATION AND SUGGESTIONS FOR THE FUTURE, Berkeley Technology Law Journal, Vol. 30:385, 2015, p. 1127, available at http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2084&context=btlj .

[12] http://themerkle.com/why-china-isnt-interested-in-banning-bitcoin-importance-of-regulation/

[13] See generally, Nathaniel Popper, “Digital Gold: Bitcoin and the Inside Story of the Misfits and Millionaires Trying to Reinvent Money”, Harper Collins, 2015.

[14] https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2013-11-18/are-bitcoins-the-criminal-s-best-friend-

[15] http://www.morganstanley.com/ideas/big-banks-try-to-harness-blockchain.

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

WISER Lecture : Sumandro Chattapadhyay on Deregulation by Code

praskrishna — 2017-03-29T11:48:08Z

University of the Witwatersrand organized a talk by Sumandro Chattapadhyay on Derugulation by Code on March 8, 2017 in Johannesburg.

On November 08, 2017, the Government of India initiated a demonetisation process. It involved cancellation of Rs. 500 and Rs. 1,000 currency notes as legal tender, establishing of a time bound process for the notes to be returned to the banks, announcement of specific emergency services (such as hospitals and utilities) for which the canceled notes could still be used, and introduction of a new Rs. 2,000 note. While the purpose of the demonetisation move was publicly articulated in terms of removal of unaccounted wealth held in cash form, the state narrative quickly moved to being primarily focused on promotion of various forms of digital payments, especially mobile-based payments. The notion of a "WhatsApp moment" in Indian banking in particular, and in Asian banking in general, has been in circulation since 2015. Nandan Nilekani, a significant technocrat politician of India who has been CEO of Infosys (a major Indian IT company) and the Chairman of the UID/Aadhaar project, was one of the first persons to take note of this upcoming "revolution". In a lecture given by him on August 21, 2015, he described the technological and market forces, enabled by policy decision, that are going to disrupt the Indian banking landscape.

Sumandro's lecture discussed the linkages between this WhatsApp moment and the demonetisation move, and locate them in the context of institutional and technological changes happening in the Indian banking sector since 2008. The talk focused on the development and proliferation of the Unified Payments Interface - an universal, private-owned, government-backed, mobile-to-mobile payment infrastructure - as the key instrument through which the ongoing deregulation of banking in India is being driven.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/wiser-lecture-sumandro-chattapadhyay-on-deregulation-by-code

Digital native: Free speech? You must be joking!

nishant — 2017-06-08T01:16:01Z

India’s digital landscape is dotted with vigilante voices that drown out people’s right to free speech.

The article was published in the Indian Express on May 14, 2017.

Freedom of speech and expression has always been a tricky issue. While all of us are generally in favour of defending our rights to speak what is in our hearts, we are not equally thrilled about the speech of others that we might not enjoy. While we know that free speech and expression are not absolute — there are blurred lines of things that are offensive, might cause harm, and are directed with malice at different individuals or collectives — we also generally accept that this is a freedom that marks the maturity and sustainability of a stable democratic system.

Thus, even when confronted with speech and expression that might be undesirable: a political view that contradicts ours, an expression of blasphemy or profanity, a voice of dissent that questions the status quo, or an unsavoury information tidbit that mocks at somebody we admire, we generally take it in good stride, and learn to deal and engage with these actions. We do this, because we know that trying to curtail somebody else’s rights to free speech, would eventually restrict our own capacity for it, thus reducing the scope of an engaged and critical society. Especially in countries like India, where everybody has an opinion, where people offer critiques over chai and join heated debates over paan, there’s no denying that we are fond of our rights and capacity to speak
our minds.

However, within Digital India, these things seem to be changing fast. Every day we wake up to the cacophonous clamour of social media to realise that increasingly we are becoming an intolerant society filled with vigilantes bent on stopping people from saying things that we might just not like. In the ongoing saga of shrinking spaces of free speech, we now add the shameful incident at the Embassy of Sweden in India. On May 8, following mass populist trolling and complaints from the Twitteratti, the Embassy disinvited two women print and TV journalists — Swati Chaturvedi and Barkha Dutt — and cancelled their event, ironically, in the honour of World Press Freedom, on the topic of women’s participation in the online public space, to talk about trolls.

I shall wait here for the bitter irony to sink in: two of the strongest women voices in Indian public media, were disinvited to speak from an event where they were to talk about their experience of being trolled, harassed, bullied and intimidated in the newly emerging digital media landscape. Instead of giving them a voice, sharing their experiences, and engaging with their stories, the hypermasculine army of right wing vigilantes who object to these women’s history of critique of the current government and its leaders, decided to show their Twitter might, and celebrated as they succeeded in putting one more nail in the coffin of free and fearless speech in the country.

Some Twitter users went ahead and tagged their favourite leaders — @Narendramodi and @manekagandhibjp. They demanded, using their freedom of voice, to stop others from speaking. Social media networks have often been celebrated as alternative spaces where new, and unexpected voices can express their opinions without the fear of physical retribution or penalisation. While this has been consistently proven wrong by government authorities who have regularly policed, penalised and punished voices of dissent or disfavour, that at least is something we can notice, challenge and contest through legal redressal. However, with this new mob justice where the volume of voices engineered to amplify their disapproval, coupled with threats of violence and economic downfall (the users this time threatened to make a list of Swedish products and boycott them) is a recurring and disturbingly new phenomenon.

Crowds have always had the power to demand and leverage change of their liking. However, on social media, this can take up more sinister forms, because a handful of people through Twitter bots and chat scripts can create the illusion of a hugely amplified voice that can then be used to threaten and restrict the scope of free speech. The mass bullying effect needs a strong counterpoint in the form of better internet governance policies and regulations that nurture safe spaces for the tinier voices to be heard.

At the same time, however, the stifling attempts require another strategy — the need to speak up against such acts of intimidation and silencing, not only from the regular people on the web, but from the officials and leaders who have sworn to protect our constitutional rights. And this is, perhaps, where our leaders are failing us. Because, in an age of hypervisibility, where every step they take is a selfie moment, where every move they make makes it to the headlines, and they take pride in documenting their life in exceedingly boring detail, it creates a deafening silence when the leaders remain mute to the slow dissipation of the rights to free speech and expression by the angry mobs of networked digitality.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/raw/indian-express-nishant-shah-may-14-2017-digital-native-free-speech-you-must-be-joking

An Urgent Need for the Right to Privacy

sumandro — 2016-03-17T07:40:12Z

Along with a group of individuals and organisations from academia and civil society, we have drafted and are signatories to an open letter addressed to the Union government and urging the same to "urgently take steps to uphold the constitutional basis to the right to privacy and fulfil it’s constitutional and international obligations." Here we publish the text of the open letter. Please follow the link below to support it by joining the signatories.

Read and sign the open letter.

Text of the Open Letter

As our everyday lives are conducted increasingly through electronic communications the necessity for privacy protections has also increased. While several countries across the globe have recognised this by furthering the right to privacy of their citizens the Union Government has adopted a regressive attitude towards this core civil liberty. We urge the Union Government to take urgent measures to safeguard the right to privacy in India.

Our concerns are based on a continuing pattern of disregard for the right to privacy by several governments in the past. This trend has increased as can be plainly viewed from the following developments.

In 2015, the Attorney General in the case of *K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India*, argued before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that there is no right to privacy under the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Court was persuaded to re-examine the basis of the right to privacy upsetting 45 years of judicial precedent. This has thrown the constitutional right to privacy in doubt and the several judgements that have been given under it. This includes the 1997 PUCL Telephone Tapping judgement as well. We urge the Union Government to take whatever steps are necessary and urge the Supreme Court to hold that a right to privacy exists under the Constitution of India.

Recently Mr. Arun Jaitley, Minister for Finance introduced the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Bill, 2016. This bill was passed on March 11, 2016 in the middle of budget discussion on a short notice as a money bill in the Lok Sabha when only 73 of 545 members were present. Its timing and introduction as a money bill prevents necessary scrutiny given the large privacy risks that arise under it. This version of the bill was never put up for public consultation and is being rushed through without adequate discussion. Even substantively it fails to give accountable privacy safeguards while making Aadhaar mandatory for availing any government subsidy, benefit, or service.

We urge the Union Government to urgently take steps to uphold the constitutional basis to the right to privacy and fulfil it’s constitutional and international obligations. We encourage the Government to have extensive public discussions on the Aadhaar Bill before notifying it. We further call upon them to constitute a drafting committee with members of civil society to draft a comprehensive statute as suggested by the Justice A.P. Shah Committee Report of 2012.

Signatories:

Amber Sinha, the Centre for Internet and Society
Japreet Grewal, the Centre for Internet and Society
Joshita Pai, Centre for Communication Governance, National Law University
Raman Jit Singh Chima, Access Now
Sarvjeet Singh, Centre for Communication Governance, National Law University
Sumandro Chattapadhyay, the Centre for Internet and Society
Sunil Abraham, the Centre for Internet and Society
Vanya Rakesh, the Centre for Internet and Society

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/an-urgent-need-for-the-right-to-privacy

Press Release, March 15, 2016: The New Bill Makes Aadhaar Compulsory!

Amber Sinha — 2016-03-16T10:11:32Z

We published and circulated the following press release on March 15, 2016, to highlight the fact that the Section 7 of the Aadhaar Bill, 2016 states that authentication of the person using her/his Aadhaar number can be made mandatory for the purpose of disbursement of government subsidies, benefits, and services; and in case the person does not have an Aadhaar number, s/he will have to apply for Aadhaar enrolment.

Nandan Nilekani, the former chairperson of the Unique Identification Authority of India had repeatedly stated that Aadhaar is not mandatory. However, in the last few years various agencies and departments of the government, both at the central and state level, had made it mandatory in order to be able to avail beneficiary schemes or for the arrangement of salary, provident fund disbursals, promotion, scholarship, opening bank account, marriages and property registrations. In August 2015, the Supreme Court passed an order mandating that the Aadhaar number shall remain optional for welfare schemes, stating that no person should be denied any benefit for reason of not having an Aadhaar number, barring a few specified services.

The Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016, however, has not followed this mandate. Section 7 of the Bill states that “a person should be authenticated or give proof of the Aadhaar number to establish his/her identity” “as a condition for receiving subsidy, benefit or service”. Further, it reads, “In the case a person does not have an Aadhaar number, he/she should make an application for enrollment.” The language of the provision is very clear in making enrollment in Aadhaar mandatory, in order to be entitled for welfare services. Section 7 also says that “the person will be offered viable and alternate means of identification for receiving the subsidy, benefit or service. However, these unspecified alternate means will be made available in the event “an Aadhaar number is not assigned”. This language is vague and it is not clear whether it mandates alternate means of identification for those who choose not to apply for an Aadhaar number for any reason. The fact that it does make it mandatory to apply for an Aadhaar number for persons without it, may lead to the presumption that the alternate means are to be made available for those who may have applied for an Aadhaar number but it has not been assigned for any reason. It is also noteworthy that draft legislation is silent on what the “viable and alternate means of identification” could be. There are a number of means of identification, which are recognised by the state, and a schedule with an inclusive list could have gone a long way in reducing the ambiguity in this provision.

Another aspect of Section 7 which is at odds with the Supreme Court order is that it allows making an Aadhaar number mandatory for “for receipt of a subsidy, benefit or service for which the expenditure is incurred” from the Consolidated Fund of India. The Supreme Court had been very specific in articulating that having an Aadhaar number could not be made compulsory except for “any purpose other than the PDS Scheme and in particular for the purpose of distribution of foodgrains, etc. and cooking fuel, such as kerosene” or for the purpose of the LPG scheme. The restriction in the Supreme Court order was with respect to the welfare schemes, however, instead of specifying the schemes, Section 7 specified the source of expenditure from which subsidies, benefits and services can be funded, making the scope much broader. Section 7, in effect, allows the Central Government to circumvent the Supreme Court order if they choose to tie more subsidies, benefits and services to the Consolidated Fund of India.

These provisions run counter to the repeated claims of the government for the last six years that Aadhaar is not compulsory, nor is the specification by the Supreme Court for restricting use of Aadhaar to a few services only, reflected anywhere in the Bill. The “viable and alternate means” clause is too vague and inadequate to prevent denial of benefits to those without an Aadhaar number. The sum effect of these factors is to give the Central Government powers to make Aadhaar mandatory, for all practical purposes.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/press-release-aadhaar-15032016-the-new-bill-makes-aadhaar-compulsory

Analysis of Aadhaar Act in the Context of A.P. Shah Committee Principles

Vipul Kharbanda — 2016-03-17T19:43:53Z

Whilst there are a number of controversies relating to the Aadhaar Act including the fact that it was introduced in a manner so as to circumvent the majority of the opposition in the upper house of the Parliament and that it was rushed through the Lok Sabha in a mere eight days, in this paper we shall discuss the substantial aspects of the Act in relation to privacy concerns which have been raised by a number of experts. In October 2012, the Group of Experts on Privacy constituted by the Planning Commission under the chairmanship of Justice AP Shah Committee submitted its report which listed nine principles of privacy which all legislations, especially those dealing with personal should adhere to. In this paper, we shall discuss how the Aadhaar Act fares vis-à-vis these nine principles.

Introduction

The Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 (the “Aadhaar Act”) was introduced in the Lok Sabha (lower house of the Parliament) by Minister of Finance, Mr. Arun Jaitley, in on March 3, 2016, and was passed by the Lok Sabha on March 11, 2016. It was sent back by the Rajya Sabha with suggestions but the Lok Sabha rejected those suggestions, which means that the Act is now deemed to have been passed by both houses as it was originally introduced as a Money Bill. Whilst there are a number of controversies relating to the Aadhaar Act including the fact that it was introduced in a manner so as to circumvent the majority of the opposition in the upper house of the Parliament and that it was rushed through the Lok Sabha in a mere eight days, in this paper we shall discuss the substantial aspects of the Act in relation to privacy concerns which have been raised by a number of experts. In October 2012, the Group of Experts on Privacy constituted by the Planning Commission under the chairmanship of Justice AP Shah Committee submitted its report which listed nine principles of privacy which all legislations, especially those dealing with personal should adhere to. In this paper, we shall discuss how the Aadhaar Act fares vis-à-vis these nine principles.

In order for the reader to better understand the frame of reference on which we shall analyse the Aadhaar Act, the nine principles contained in the report of the Group of Experts on Privacy are explained in brief below:

Principle 1: Notice - Does the legislation/regulation require that entities governed by the Act give simple to understand notice of its information practices to all individuals, in clear and concise language, before any personal information is collected from them.
Principle 2: Choice and Consent - Does the legislation/regulation require that entities governed under the Act provide the individual with the option to opt in/opt out of providing their personal information.
Principle 3: Collection Limitation - Does the legislation/regulation require that entities governed under the Act collect personal information from individuals only as is necessary for a purpose identified.
Principle 4: Purpose Limitation - Does the legislation/regulation require that personal data collected and processed by entities governed by the Act be adequate and relevant to the purposes for which they are processed.
Principle 5: Access and Correction - Does the legislation/regulation allow individuals: access to personal information about them held by an entity governed by the Act; the ability to seek correction, amendments, or deletion of such information where it is inaccurate, etc.
Principle 6: Disclosure - Does the legislation ensure that information is only disclosed to third parties after notice and informed consent is obtained. Is disclosure allowed for law enforcement purposes done in accordance with laws in force.
Principle 7: Security - Does the legislation/regulation ensure that information that is collected and processed under that Act, is done so in a manner that protects against loss, unauthorized access, destruction, etc.
Principle 8: Openness - Does the legislation/regulation require that any entity processing data take all necessary steps to implement practices, procedures, policies and systems in a manner proportional to the scale, scope, and sensitivity to the data that is collected and processed and is this information made available to all individuals in an intelligible form, using clear and plain language?
Principle 9: Accountability - Does the legislation/regulation provide for measures that ensure compliance of the privacy principles? This would include measures such as mechanisms to implement privacy policies; including tools, training, and education; and external and internal audits.

Analysis of the Aadhaar Act

The Aadhaar Act has been brought about to give legislative backing to the most ambitious individual identity programme in the world which aims to provide a unique identity number to the entire population of India. The rationale behind this scheme is to correctly identify the beneficiaries of government schemes and subsidies so that leakages in government subsidies may be reduced. In furtherance of this rationale the Aadhaar Act gives the Unique Identification Authority of India (“UIDAI”) the power to enroll individuals by collecting their demographic and biometric information and issuing an Aadhaar number to them. Below is an analysis of the Act based on the privacy principles enumerated I the A.P. Shah Committee Report.

Collection Limitation

Collection of Biometric and Demographic Information: The Aadhaar Act entitles every “resident” [1] to obtain an Aadhaar number by submitting his/her biometric (photograph, finger print, Iris scan) and demographic information (name, date of birth, address [2]) [3]. It must be noted that the Act leaves scope for further information to be included in the collection process if so specified by regulations. It must be noted that although the Act specifically provides what information can be collected, it does not specifically prohibit the collection of further information. This becomes relevant because it makes it possible for enrolling agencies to collect extra information relating to individuals without any legal implications of such act.

Authentication Records: The UIDAI is mandated to maintain authentication records for a period which is yet to be specified (and shall be specified in the regulations) but it cannot collect or keep any information regarding the purpose for which the authentication request was made [4].

Unauthorized Collection: Any person who in not authorized to collect information under the Act, and pretends that he is authorized to do so, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with a fine which may extend to Rs. 10,000/- or both. In case of companies the maximum fine amount would be increased to Rs. 10,00,000/- [5]. It must be noted that the section, as it is currently worded seems to criminalize the act of impersonation of authorized individuals and the actual collection of information is not required to complete this offence. It is not clear if this section will apply if a person who is authorized to collect information under the Act in general, collects some information that he/she is not authorized to collect.

Notice

Notice during Collection: The Aadhaar Act requires that the agencies enrolling people for distribution of Aadhaar numbers should give people notice regarding: (a) the manner in which the information shall be used; (b) the nature of recipients with whom the information is intended to be shared during authentication; and (c) the existence of a right to access information, the procedure for making requests for such access, and details of the person or department in-charge to whom such requests can be made [6]. A failure to comply with this requirement will make the agency liable for imprisonment of upto 3 years or a fine of Rs. 10,000/- or both. In case of companies the maximum fine amount would be increased to Rs. 10,00,000/- [7]. It must be noted that the Act leaves the manner of giving such notice in the realm of regulations and does not specify how this notice is to be provided, which leaves important specifics to the realm of the executive.

Notice during Authentication: The Aadhaar Act requires that authenticating agencies shall give information to the individuals whose information is to be authenticated regarding (a) the nature of information that may be shared upon authentication; (b) the uses to which the information received during authentication may be put by the requesting entity; and (c) alternatives to submission of identity information to the requesting entity [8]. A failure to comply with this requirement will make the agency liable for imprisonment of upto 3 years or a fine of Rs. 10,000/- or both. In case of companies the maximum fine amount would be increased to Rs. 10,00,000/- [9]. Just as in the case of notice during collection, the manner in which the notice is required to be given is left to regulations leaving an unclear picture as to how comprehensive, accessible, and frequent this notice must be.

Access and Correction

Updating Information: The Aadhaar Act give the UIDAI the power to require residents to update their demographic and biometric information from time to time so as to maintain its accuracy [10].

Access to Information: The Aadhaar Act provides that Aadhaar number holders may request the UIDAI to provide access to their identity information expect their core biometric information [11]. It is not clear why access to the core biometric information [12] is not provided to an individual. Further, since section 6 seems to place the responsibility of updation and accuracy of biometric information on the individual, it is not clear how a person is supposed to know that the biometric information contained in the database has changed if he/she does not have access to the same. It may also be noted that the Aadhaar Act provides only for a request to the UIDAI for access to the information and does not make access to the information a right of the individual, this would mean that it would be entirely upon the discretion of the UIDAI to refuse to grant access to the information once a request has been made.

Alteration of Information: The Aadhaar Act gives individuals the right to request the UIDAI to alter their demographic if the same is incorrect or has changed and biometric information if it is lost or has changed. Upon receipt of such a request, if the UIDAI is satisfied, then it may make the necessary alteration and inform the individual accordingly. The Act also provides that no identity information in the Central database shall be altered except as provided in the regulations [13]. This section provides for alteration of identity information but only in the circumstances given in the section, for example demographic information cannot be changed if it has been lost, similarly biometric information cannot be changed if it is inaccurate. Further, the section does not give a right to the individual to get the information altered but only entitles him/her to request the UIDAI to make a change and the final decision is left to the “satisfaction” of the UIDAI.

Access to Authentication Record: Every individual is given the right to obtain his/her authentication record in a manner to be specified by regulations. [14]

Disclosure

Sharing during Authentication: The UIDAI is entitled to reply to any authentication query with a positive, negative or any other response which may be appropriate and may share identity information except core biometric information with the requesting entity [15]. The language in this provision is ambiguous and it is unclear what 'identity information' may be shared and why it would be necessary to share such information as Aadhaar is meant to be only a means of authentication so as to remove duplication.

Potential Disclosure during Maintenance of CIDR: The UIDAI has been given the power to appoint any one or more entities to establish and maintain the Central Identities Data Repository (CIDR) [16]. If a private entity is involved in the maintenance and establishment of the CIDR it can be presumed that there is the possibilty that they would, to some degree, have access to the information stored in the CIDR, yet there are no clear standards in the Act regarding this potential access. And the process for appointing such entities. The fact that the UIDAI has been given the freedom to appoint an outside entity to maintain a sensitive asset such as the CIDR raises security concerns.

Restriction on Sharing Information: The Aadhaar Act creates a blanket prohibition on the usage of core biometric information for any purpose other than generation of Aadhaar numbers and also prohibits its sharing for any reason whatsoever [17]. Other identity information is allowed to be shared in the manner specified under the Act or as may be specified in the regulations [18]. The Act further provides that the requesting entities shall not disclose the identity information except with the prior consent of the individual to whom the information relates [19]. There is also a prohibition on publicly displaying Aadhaar number or core biometric information except as specified by regulations [20]. Officers or the UIDAI or the employees of the agencies employed to maintain the CIDR are prohibited from revealing the information stored in the CIDR or authentication record to anyone [21]. It is not clear why an exception has been carved out and what circumstances would require publicly displaying Aadhaar numbers and core biometric information, especially since the reasons for which such important information may be displayed has been left up to regulations which have relatively less oversight. The section also provides the requesting entities with an option to further disclose information if they take consent of the individuals. This may lead to a situation where a requesting entity, perhaps the of an essential service, may take the consent of the individual to disclose his/her information in a standard form contract, without the option of saying no to such a request. It may lead to situations where the option is between giving consent to disclosure or denial or service altogether. For this reason it is necessary that there should be an opt in and opt out provision wherever a requesting entity has the power to ask for disclosure of information, so that people are not coerced into giving consent.

Disclosure in Specific Cases: The prohibition on disclosure of information (except for core biometric information) does not apply in case of any disclosure made pursuant to an order of a court not below that of a District Judge [22]. There is another exception to the prohibition on disclosure of information (including core biometric information) in the interest of national security if so directed by an officer not below the rank of a Joint Secretary to the Government of India specially authorised in this behalf by an order of the Central Government. Before any such direction can take effect, it will be reviewed by an oversight committee consisting of the Cabinet Secretary and the Secretaries to the Government of India in the Department of Legal Affairs and the Department of Electronics and Information Technology. Any such direction shall be valid for a period of three months and may be extended by another three months after the review by the Oversight Committee [23]. Although this provision has been criticized, and rightly so, for the lack of accountability since the entire process is being handled within the executive and there is no independent oversight, however it must be mentioned that the level of oversight provided here is similar to that provided to interception requests, which involve a much graver if not the same level of invasion of privacy.

Penalty for Disclosure: Any person who intentionally and in an unauthorized manner discloses, transmits, copies or otherwise disseminates any identity information collected in the course of enrolment or authentication shall be punishable with imprisonment of upto 3 years or a fine of Rs. 10,000/- or both. In case of companies the maximum fine amount would be increased to Rs. 10,00,000/ [24]. Further any person who intentionally and in an unathorised manner, accesses information in the CIDR [25], downloads, copies or extracts any data from the CIDR [26], or reveals or shares or distributes any identity information, shall be punishable with imprisonment of upto 3 years and a fine of not less than Rs. 10,00,000/-.

Consent

Consent for Authentication: A requesting entity has to take the consent of the individual before collecting his/her identity information for the purposes of authentication and also has to inform the individual of the alternatives to submission of the identity information [27]. Although this provision requires entities to take consent from the individuals before collecting information for authentication, however how useful this requirement of consent would be, still remains to be seen. There may be instances where a requesting entity may take the consent of the individual in a standard form contract, without the individual realizing what he/she is consenting to.

Note: The Aadhaar Act provides no requirement or standard for the form of consent that must be taken during enrollment. This is significant as it is the point at which individuals are providing raw biometric material and during previous enrollment, has been a point of weakness as the consent taken is an enabler to function creep as it allows the UIDAI to share information with engaged in delivery of welfare services [28].

Purpose

Use of Information: The authenticating entities are allowed to use the identity information only for the purpose of submission to the CIDR for authentication [29]. Further, the Act specifies that identity information available with a requesting entity shall not be used for any purpose other than that specified to the individual at the time of submitting the information for authentication [30]. The Act also provides that any authentication entity which uses the information for any purpose not already specified will be liable to punishment of imprisonment of upto 3 years or a fine of Rs. 10,000/- or both. In case of companies the maximum fine amount would be increased to Rs. 10,00,000/ [31].

Security

Security and Confidentiality of Information: It is the responsibility of the UIDAI to ensure the security and confidentiality of the identity and authentication information and it is required to take all necessary action to ensure that the information in the CIDR is protected against unauthorized access, use or disclosure and against accidental or intentional destruction, loss or damage [32]. The UIDAI is required to adopt and implement appropriate technical and organisational security measures and also ensure that its contractors do the same [33]. It is also required to ensure that the agreements entered into with its contractors impose the same conditions as are imposed on the UIDAI under the Act and that they shall act only upon the instructions of the UIDAI [34].

Biometric Information to be Electronic Record: The biometric information collected by the UIDAI has been deemed to be an “electronic record” as well as “sensitive personal data or information”, which would mean that in addition to the provisions of the Aadhaar Act, the provisions contained in the Information Technology Act, 2000 will also apply to such information [35]. It must be noted that while the Act lays down the principle that UIDAI is required to ensure the saecurity of the information, it does not lay down any guidelines as to the minimum security standards to be implemented by the Authority. However, through this section the legislature has linked the security standards contained in the IT Act to the information contained in this Act. While this is a clean way of dealing with the issue, some people may argue that the extremely sensitive nature of the information contained in the CIDR requires the standards for security to be much stricter than those provided in the IT Act. However, a perusal of Rule 8 of the Information Technology (Reasonable security practices and procedures and sensitive personal data or information) Rules, 2011 shows that the Rules themselves provide that the standard of security must be commensurate with the information assets being protected. It would thus seem that the Act provides enough room to protect such important information, but perhaps leaves too much room for interpretation for such an important issue.

Penalty for Unauthorised Access: Apart from the security provisions included in the legislation, the Aadhaar Act also provides for punishment of imprisonment of upto 3 years and a fine which shall not be less than Rs. 10,00,000/-, in case of the following offences:

introduction of any virus or other computer contaminant in the CIDR [36];
causing damage to the data in the CIDR [37];
disruption of access to the CIDR [38];
denial of access to any person who is authorised to access the CIDR [39];
destruction, deletion or alteration of any information stored in any removable storage media or in the CIDR or diminishing its value or utility or affecting it injuriously by any means [40];
stealing, concealing, destroying or altering any computer source code used by the Authority with an intention to cause damage [41].

Further, unauthorized usage or tampering with the data in the CIDR or in any removable storage medium with the intent of modifying information relating to Aadhaar number holder or discovering any information thereof, is also punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 years and also a fine which may extend to Rs. 10,000/- [42].

Accountability

Inspections and Audits: One of the functions listed in the powers and functions of the UIDAI is the power to call for information and records, conduct inspections, inquiries and audit of the operations of the CIDR, Registrars, enrolling agencies and other agencies appointed under the Aadhaar Act [43].

Grievance Redressal: Another function of the UIDAI is to set up facilitation centres and grievance redressal mechanisms for redressal of grievances of individuals, Registrars, enrolling agencies and other service providers [44]. It must be said here that considering the importance that the government has given to and intends to give to Aadhaar in the future, an essential task such as grievance redressal should not be left entirely to the discretion of the UIDAI and some grievance redressal mechanism should be incorporated into the Act itself.

Openness

There does not seem to be any provision in the Aadhaar Act which requires the UIDAI to make its privacy policies and procedure available to the public in general even though the UIDAI has the responsibility to maintain the security and confidentiality of the information.

Endnotes

[1] A resident is defined as any person who has resided in India for a period of atleasy 182 days in the previous 12 months.

[2] It has been specified that demographic information will not include race, religion, caste, tribe, ethnicity, language, records of entitlement, income or medical history.

[3] Section 3(1) of the Aadhaar Act.

[4] Section 32(1) and 32(3) of the Aadhaar Act.

[5] Section 36 of the Aadhaar Act.

[6] Section 3(2) of the Aadhaar Act.

[7] Section 41 of the Aadhaar Act.

[8] Section 8(3) of the Aadhaar Act.

[9] Section 41 of the Aadhaar Act.

[10] Section 6 of the Aadhaar Act.

[11] Section 28, proviso of the Aadhaar Act.

[12] Core biometric information is defined as fingerprints, iris scan or other biological attributes which may be specified by regulations.

[13] Section 31 of the Aadhaar Act.

[14] Section 32(2) of the Aadhaar Act.

[15] Section 8(4) of the Aadhaar Act.

[16] Section 10 of the Aadhaar Act.

[17] Section 29(1) of the Aadhaar Act.

[18] Section 29(2) of the Aadhaar Act.

[19] Section 29(3)(b) of the Aadhaar Act.

[20] Section 29(4) of the Aadhaar Act.

[21] Section 28(5) of the Aadhaar Act.

[22] Section 33(1) of the Aadhaar Act.

[23] Section 33(2) of the Aadhaar Act.

[24] Section 37 of the Aadhaar Act.

[25] Section 38(a) of the Aadhaar Act.

[26] Section 38(b) of the Aadhaar Act.

[27] Section 8(2)(a) and (c) of the Aadhaar Act.

[28] For example, see: http://www.karnataka.gov.in/aadhaar/Downloads /Application%20form%20-%20English.pdf.

[29] Section 8(2)(b) of the Aadhaar Act.

[30] Section 29(3)(a) of the Aadhaar Act.

[31] Section 37 of the Aadhaar Act.

[32] Section 28(1), (2) and (3) of the Aadhaar Act.

[33] Section 28(4)(a) and (b) of the Aadhaar Act.

[34] Section 28(4)(c) of the Aadhaar Act.

[35] Section 30 of the Aadhaar Act.

[36] Section 38(c) of the Aadhaar Act.

[37] Section 38(d) of the Aadhaar Act.

[38] Section 38(e) of the Aadhaar Act.

[39] Section 38(f) of the Aadhaar Act.

[40] Section 38(h) of the Aadhaar Act.

[41] Section 38(i) of the Aadhaar Act.

[42] Section 39 of the Aadhaar Act.

[43] Section 23(2)(l) of the Aadhaar Act.

[44] Section 23(2)(s) of the Aadhaar Act.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/analysis-of-aadhaar-act-in-context-of-shah-committee-principles