Centre for Internet and Society

Election Experiment Proves Facebook Just Doesn't Care About Fake News In India

Admin — 2018-05-31T22:56:48Z

Much-hyped fact-checking initiative identified only 30 bits of fake news in month-long Karnataka campaign. Yup — 30!

The article by Visvak was published in Huffington Post on May 30, 2018. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.

On April 16, a little less than a month before Karnataka went to the polls, Facebook announced a partnership with Boom Live, an Indian fact-checking website, to fight fake news during the Karnataka assembly polls.

Five days before the partnership was announced, an embattled Mark Zuckerberg stood before the the US Congress. Under fire for having allowed his platform to be used to manipulate elections, he declared that his company would do everything it could to protect the integrity of elections in India and elsewhere.

Facebook's press-release promised as much:

We have learned that once a story is rated as false, we have been able to reduce its distribution by 80%, and thereby improve accuracy of information on Facebook and reduce misinformation.

Yet, the pilot project in Karnataka suggests Facebook has a long way to go to keep Zuckerberg's promise. In an election cycle widely acknowledged as rife with misinformation, fake polls and surveys, communally coloured rumours, and blatant lies peddled by campaigners, rating stories as "false" proved to be so difficult and time consuming that the Facebook partnership was only able to debunk 30 pieces of misinformation — 25 in the run-up to the polls, and 5 in the immediate aftermath — in the month long campaign.

The much-ballyhooed partnership added up to a small financial contribution from Facebook that allowed Boom to hire two fact-checkers, one in its offices in Mumbai and one based on the ground in Bengaluru, specifically to track the election. The fact-checkers were also given access to a Facebook dashboard that could be used to discover and counter misinformation on the platform.

Boom did not reveal the sum involved or allow HuffPost India access to the dashboard, citing a non-disclosure agreement. Facebook's representatives declined comment on a detailed questionnaire sent to them.

A Gushing Sewer of Fake News

Globally, Facebook's fact-checking initiative is a little over a year old, but the partnership with Boom marks its advent in India, the company's largest market.

"It's a late start, a very late start." says Pratik Sinha, co-founder of AltNews, another prominent fact-checking website. "But they're doing something now, which is good."

Yet Govindraj Ethiraj, Founder-Editor of Boom Live, said the social networking giant's contribution to their fact-checking efforts was of limited utility. "Facebook's involvement didn't really help us," he said. "This was more about us helping them."

Ethiraj identified Facebook-owned WhatsApp as the primary medium for the propagation of fake news during the Karnataka election. Each of the three major parties in the fray reportedly set up tens of thousands of groups on the platform in an effort to spread their message. Facebook is yet to figure out a way to allow fact-checkers into the platform without breaking the end-to-end encryption which makes it impossible for messages to be tracked.

But even on Facebook, which lends itself far more easily to tracking and monitoring, the tools that the company has built to track fake news are not particularly effective.

Facebook allows advertisers to micro-target content at users using specific attributes, and users are unlikely to report content that agrees with their ideological biases.

In his office in the aging Sun Mill Compound in Mumbai's Lower Parel, Jency Jacob, Managing Editor of Boom logged into the dashboard and scrolled through the gushing sewer of user-flagged content pouring in from around the world: stories about dinosaur remains and ancient caves, tales of celebrities battling mysterious diseases, and ordinary people undergoing plastic surgeries to look like celebrities, mixed in with news – both real and fake – that users found objectionable. There's one about the rise in fuel prices and there's even a Huffpost India story, about a Dalit being flogged to death in Gujarat. (The HuffPost India story, the editorial board can affirm, is true.)

"I can't claim that it doesn't affect me," admitted Jacob. "This morning, the first thing I saw after waking up was a video of a woman kicking a 3-year-old baby and slamming her on the ground. We are in the rush of it right now, but I don't think we will enjoy doing this all our lives."

"A lot of it is dependent on how users are reporting," Jacob continued, explaining that the dashboard tool relies on users to flag potentially "fake" news. "If the users aren't reporting it, it isn't going to come into the queue."

This is a blind spot as Facebook allows advertisers to micro-target content at users using specific attributes, and users are unlikely to report content that agrees with their ideological biases.

Everything But English

Facebook's dashboard cannot be used to report non-English content. In India, local language users outnumber English language users and more are coming online every day. The dashboard is also unable to filter stories relevant to a specific location, despite Facebook allowing advertisers to geo-target their advertisements with reasonable accuracy.

Jacob reckons the tool will get better at dealing with the Indian context over time. "This was always intended to be a pilot project. It will take them time to figure out how to get us more relevant leads," he said.

With not much help forthcoming from Facebook, Boom relied on its own tried and tested methods of tracking misinformation. Its fact-checkers monitored pages and websites known to be potential sources of fake news, told friends and family to forward anything suspicious they came across, and maintained their own reporting channel - a dedicated WhatsApp helpline for users to direct suspicious looking links.

These methods threw up about 4-5 actionable leads every day. To fact-check them, Boom deployed a combination of old school journalistic practices, such as getting fact-checkers to call sources, and tech tools like video and image matching software.

Fact-checking is a painstaking process that involves a great deal of manual effort.

"The way we measure virality is a bit of a crude method. We check whether several of us have received it or not, and whether it is being shared on all three platforms."

"Essentially, we are saying what we are saying is true, don't believe others," said Sinha. "That's a very arrogant position to take. To say that in a world full of information, there has to be a process where we take the audience from the claim to the truth. Gathering the information required to do that takes a lot of time."

According to Jacob, it sometimes takes 2-3 people working all day to fact-check a single video. And Boom only has 6 fact-checkers in all, including the two Facebook-funded hires. Given these constraints, they could act on only a fraction of the tip-offs.

"We were not looking at volume, but at impact," said Jacob, indicating that they focused their attention on misinformation that was going viral. "The way we measure virality is a bit of a crude method. We check whether several of us have received it or not, and whether it is being shared on all three platforms."

Jacob admits that there were many more stories that they could have tackled, but he says that it was impossible to address them all with the limited resources available to them.

Sinha reckons that Facebook already has the technology to significantly alleviate the manpower issue. "If you upload a video to Facebook and there's a copyright violation, they pull the video. So they know how to match videos. If they leverage that technology and apply it to fake news, it'll reduce the mundane work we have to do by half," he said.

While Facebook's contribution to Boom's sourcing and fact-checking processes was minimal, it does seem to have had a significant impact on how fact-checks were disseminated. The Facebook dashboard allows fact-checkers to tag content with ratings ranging from 'true' to 'false' with a few options in between and also attach their fact-check articles to the content. The platform then attempts to reduce distribution of the content and display the fact-check article to users whenever they encounter it on the news feed or attempt to share it.

Major Victory

This system claimed its first major victory within a week of the partnership being announced when several major media outlets including NDTV India, India Today and Republic published a list of purported star campaigners for the Congress party that turned out to be fabricated.

Boom rated the articles false and linked their fact-check. Jacob could not verify if this reduced the articles' distribution by the 80% figure touted by Facebook, but said there was a clear impact.

"NDTV India carried the story and we noticed that their traffic dropped after we linked our fact-check to their article," said Jacob. With traffic plummeting and users being shown fake news warnings when interacting with their content, most of the media houses that published the list either issued clarifications or took their articles down.

After the initial success, Boom quickly ran into the limitations of the ratings system. Fact-checks could only be done on links and not on image, video, or text posts. Facebook eventually granted Boom access to image and video posts, but text posts are still beyond the purview of fact-checkers.

While that change was likely a simple fix that only required a switch to be flipped, there are other restrictions on the ratings system that are unlikely to be lifted as easily.

From the beginning of the election cycle, false statements by prominent politicians - including the Prime Minister - were an everyday affair. As is the norm, they were faithfully reported by most media outlets without critique or context. Misinformation masquerading as opinion, wherein a set of legimitate facts are presented out of context to arrive at a blatantly false conclusion, was also a persistent feature during the polls. Such articles add to the whirlwind of campaign misinformation, but are exempted from the rating system.

"Facebook needs to figure out a more aggressive model of showing the explanatory article to the reader."

Sinha believes that misinformation that falls into these grey areas cannot be laid at Facebook's door.

But Pranesh Prakash, Fellow at the Centre for Internet and Society, said such restrictions were "extraordinarily stupid."

"As long as the distinction is made that the publication isn't msiquoting and the politician is saying something that is false - and that's easy enough to do - I can't think of a possible justification," he said, regarding false statements made by public figures.

As for misleading opinion pieces Prakash said, "Most falsehoods are not just statements that present incorrect facts, but that present facts in an incorrect context. It's clearly the context that speaks to how people interpret facts. Fact checkers can't be people who only look at facts as black and white things."

Facebook's suggested method of dealing with such articles is to attach fact-check articles to them while assigning them a 'not eligible' rating. Jacob reckons that this is yet another blind spot.

"Facebook needs to figure out a more aggressive model of showing the explanatory article to the reader. The way it is designed now, with the article showing up below as a related link, not many people will bother to go and click on that."

The Whatsapp Problem

For all its flaws, the fact-checking initiative appears to be making an attempt at solving the problem of misinformation on Facebook's news feed. But the company hasn't even begun to address the 800-pound gorilla that is WhatsApp.

While Facebook has been castigated for playing fast and loose with privacy on its primary platform, the inherently better privacy features of the fully-encrypted Whatsapp platform have made it lethal when it comes to fake news. The lack of third party access, which has prevented Facebook from monetising WhatsApp chats - thus far - and security agencies from spying on them, has also made Whatsapp messages impossible to fact-check.

In Karnataka, WhatsApp was the primary vector for the spread of a series of fake polls, some of which were eventually picked up and published by mainstream media outlets. Unlike fake news that emerges on the Facebook and Twitter, it is impossible to trace the source of misinformation on Whatsapp.

"Just as spam can be flagged and people can be barred if they're flagged as spammers, similarly, if people have been flagged as serial promoters of fake news, you can use that to nudge people's behaviour."

"If Whatsapp had a trending list, our jobs would've been a lot easier," lamented Jacob. "By and large, we have figured out what goes viral on Facebook and Twitter. It might take a day to reach us, but eventually we catch anything that's going viral on these platforms. But Whatsapp is a black box."

Prakash asserts that while encryption is a barrier, it does not make it impossible to police fake news on WhatApp. "Just as spam can be flagged and people can be barred if they're flagged as spammers, similarly, if people have been flagged as serial promoters of fake news, you can use that to nudge people's behaviour."

There are indications that WhatsApp is attempting to develop features to tackle fake news. The platform has beta-tested features that would clearly identifyforwarded messages and warn users if a message has been forwarded more than 25 times. Jacob said that Facebook was working on a product that would throw up fact-check articles when a user interacts with a fake news URL on WhatsApp. If or when any of these features actually make it to users is a matter of conjecture.

Prakash said the slow pace of progress on WhatsApp is just a reflection of the company's priorities. "It speaks to how American a company a Facebook is. Whatsapp is the real network for fake news in India, but it gets the least amount of attention."

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/huffington-post-visvak-may-30-2018-election-experiment-proves-facebook-just-doesnt-care-about-fake-news-in-india

Press Coverage of Online Censorship Row

pranesh — 2011-12-08T11:31:30Z

We are maintaining a rolling blog with press references to the row created by the proposal by the Union Minister for Communications and Information Technology to pre-screen user-generated Internet content.

Monday, December 5, 2011

India Asks Google, Facebook to Screen Content | Heather Timmons (New York Times, India Ink)

Tuesday, December 6, 2011

Sibal warns social websites over objectionable content | Sandeep Joshi (The Hindu)

Hate speech must be blocked, says Sibal | Praveen Swami & Sujay Mehdudia (The Hindu)

Won't remove material just because it's controversial: Google | (Press Trust of India)

Any Normal Human Being Would Be Offended | Heather Timmons (New York Times, India Ink)

After Sibal, Omar too feels some online content inflammatory | (Press Trust of India)

Online uproar as India seeks social media screening | Devidutta Tripathy and Anurag Kotoky (Reuters)

Kapil Sibal for content screening: Facebook, Twitter full of posts against censorship | (IANS)

India May Overstep Its Own Laws in Demanding Content Filtering | John Ribeiro (IDG)

Kapil Sibal warns websites: Mixed response from MPs | (Press Trust of India)

Websites must clean up content, says Sibal | (NewsX)

Kapil Sibal warns websites; Google says won't remove material just because it's controversial | Press Trust of India

Censorship By Any Other Name... | Yamini Lohia (Mint)

Kapil Sibal: We have to take care of sensibility of our people | Associated Press

Kapil Sibal gets backing of Digvijaya Singh over social media screening | Press Trust of India

Sibal Gets What He Set Out To Censor | (Hindustan Times, Agencies)

Objectionable Matter Will Be Removed, Censorship Not in Picture Yet: Kapil Sibal | Amar Kapadia (News Tonight)

Wednesday, December 7, 2011

Kapil Sibal Doesn't Understand the Internet | Shivam Vij (India Today)

'Chilling' Impact of India's April Internet Rules | Heather Timmons (New York Times, India Ink)

Screening, not censorship, says Sibal | (Business Standard)

Chandni Chowk to China | Salil Tripathi (Mint)

Kapil Sibal vs the internet | Sandipan Deb (Mint)

No Need for Censorship of the Internet: Cyber Law Experts | (Times News Network)

Protest with flowers for Sibal | (The Hindu)

Kapil Sibal cannot screen this report | Team DNA, Blessy Chettiar & Renuka Rao (Daily News and Analysis)

Kapil Sibal warns websites, but experts say prescreening of user content not practical | (Reuters)

Sibal's Remarks Brought Disgust | Hitesh Mehta (News Tonight)

BJP backs mechanism to curb objectionable content on websites | (The Hindu)

Move to regulate networking sites should be discussed in Parliament: BJP | (Press Trust of India)

Sibal under attack in cyberspace | (Press Trust of India)

Kapil Sibal's web censorship: Indian govt wanted 358 items removed, says Google | (Press Trust of India)

Kapil Sibal gets BJP support but with rider | (Indo-Asian News Service)

Sibal's way of regulating web not okay, says BJP | (Indo-Asian News Service)

Censorship in Blasphemy's Clothings | Gautam Chikermane (Hindustan Times, Just Faith)

India wants Google, Facebook to screen content | Sharon Gaudin (Computer World)

Should we be taming social media? | Swati Prasad (ZDNet, Inside India)

Kapil Sibal gets lampooned for views on Web control | (Daily News and Analysis)

'We don't need no limitation' | Asha Prakash (Times of India)

Five reasons why India can't censor the internet | Prasanto K. Roy (Indo-Asian News Service)

We Are the Web | (Indian Express)

Thursday, December 8, 2011

Kapil Sibal under attack in cyberspace, (Press Trust of India)

Speak Up for Freedom | Pranesh Prakash (Indian Express)

Newswallah: Censorship | Neha Thirani (New York Times, India Ink)

No Question of Censoring the Internet, Says Sachin Pilot | (NDTV)

Mind Your Netiquette, or We'll Mind it for You | A.A.K. (The Economist)

Take Parliament's view to regulate social networking sites, BJP tells govt | (Times News Network)

India wanted 358 items removed | Priscilla Jebaraj (The Hindu)

Indian Government v Social Networking sites: Expert Views | (Bar & Bench News Network)

Can Government Muzzle Websites? | Priyanka Joshi & Piyali Mandal (Business Standard)

US concerned over internet curbs, sidesteps India move | (Indo-Asian News Service)

Why Internet Companies Are Upset with Kapil Sibal | (Rediff)

Why Censor Facebook When You Don't Censor Sunny Leone? | (Indo-Asian News Service)

Online content issue: Talks with India on, says U.S. | (Press Trust of India)

US calls for Internet freedom amid India plan | Agence France-Presse

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/press-coverage-online-censorship

Digital India: Did Modi get it wrong in Silicon Valley?

praskrishna — 2015-10-18T04:44:52Z

A bear hug, a photo filter and a new debate on net neutrality - Ayeshea Perera examines the domestic fallout of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Facebook townhall in US.

This was published by BBC News on October 16, 2015. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

It was supposed to be a moment that rocked the virtual world. Mr Modi, widely acknowledged as one of the world's most influential politicians on social media, enveloped a slightly stunned Mark Zuckerberg in a bear hug.

But what was it that really happened in Menlo Park? Why did some people think Mr Modi wasn't acting in India's best digital interests when he hugged Mr Zuckerberg?

India with an internet population of 354 million - which has already grown by 17% in the first six months of 2015 - is an obvious target for not only Facebook, but other Silicon Valley giants. And they have all been more than happy to pledge their support for digital India - a recently launched government initiative aimed at reinvigorating an $18bn (£11.6bn) campaign to strengthen India's digital infrastructure.

Google offered to provide 500 railway stations with free WiFi and Microsoft pledged to connect 500,000 Indian villages with cheap broadband access.

Digitally colonised?

But this huge show of support and the increased interest in India has caused some concern within the country.

"Is Digital India going to only make India a consumer of services offered by global tech companies in lieu of data? Personal data is the currency of the digital world. Are we going to give that away simply to become a giant market for a Facebook or a Google? Look at the way the tech world is skewed. Only China has been able to come up with companies that can take on these MNCs" Prabir Purkayasta, chairman of the Society for Knowledge Commons in India, told the BBC.

"The British ruled the world because they controlled the seas," he said. "Is India going to be content to just be a digital consumer? To being colonised once again?"

And in the aftermath of the Facebook townhall in particular, some talk has begun to surface about what Mr Zuckerberg's real India ambitions are.

Soon after the townhall ended, both Mr Modi and Mr Zuckerberg declared their support for digital India by using a special Facebook filter to tint their profile pictures in the tri-colour of the Indian flag.

Multitudes of Indians followed suit and timelines were awash with snazzy tinted profile pictures, all in support of "Digital India".

'Innocent mistake'

But then a tech website released what it claimed to be a portion of Facebook's source code, which allegedly "proved" that the "Support Digital India" filter was actually a "Support Internet.Org" filter.

Facebook quickly issued a denial, blaming the text in the code on an "engineer mistake" in choosing a shorthand name he used for part of the code.

But the "mistake" which has been coupled with a huge advertising blitz for Internet.Org across television channels and newspapers has raised suspicion about Facebook's motives. A Facebook poll on Internet.Org that frequently appears on Indian user timelines has also been ridiculed for not giving users an option to say no.

Instead the answer options to the poll question "Do you want India to have free basic services?" are "Yes" and "Not now".

Internet.org (now called free basics), aims to extend internet services to the developing world by offering a selection of apps and websites free to consumers.

Facebook's vice-president of infrastructure engineering, Jay Parikh has described the initiative as an "attempt to connect the two-thirds of the world who do not have access to the Internet" by trying to solve issues pertaining to affordability, infrastructure and access.

When Facebook launched the initiative in India in February, it was criticised by Indian activists who expressed concerns that the project threatened freedom of expression, privacy and the principle of net neutrality.

On the other end of the debate, Indian columnist Manu Joseph wrote in the Hindustan Times newspaper, hitting out at the "selfish" stand on net neutrality. He said concerns over the issue should be "subordinate to the fact that the poor have a right to some Internet".

Wrong signal

A massive campaign by India's Save the Internet Coalition exhorting Indians to speak out against initiatives threatening net neutrality caught public imagination and saw more than a million emails to India's regulator, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), demanding a free and fair internet in the country. Internet.Org was one of the initiatives immediately affected.

TRAI since released a draft policy on net neutrality, but a question that has been asked is whether it was appropriate for Mr Modi to visit Facebook given that the policy was still under consideration.

Mr Purkayasta is of the opinion that it could have been avoided. "It was not the time or the place to go. Even if it was simply a publicity gimmick, it still sends a signal to officials involved in drafting the policy," he said.

However, Sunil Abraham from the Centre for Internet and Society told the BBC he believed that while Facebook's intentions were suspect, Mr Modi's visit had the potential to safeguard net neutrality in India.

"India is a hugely important market for Facebook, and the prime minister has the power to force positive changes to its policies," he said. "We gain nothing by shutting them out."

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/bbc-october-16-2015-digital-india-did-modi-get-it-wrong-in-silicon-valley

How To Win Friends, FB Style

praskrishna — 2015-10-18T12:02:10Z

True to form—and Facebook—there was a warm, friendly and familial feel to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s townhall meeting at Melon, California, with Mark Zuckerberg on September 27. Modi got emotional (yet again) while talking about his mother. Zuckerberg, the youngish founder of the world’s largest social networking site, got his parents to meet and pose with Modi.

The article by Arindam Mukherjee was published in Outlook on October 12, 2015. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

“The most amazing moment was when I talked about our families,” Zuckerberg wrote in a post, “and he (Modi) shared stories of his childhood....” That’s just the kind of stuff we would see and post on Facebook—the benign visage of a profitable, all-pervasive US-based corporation. (Needless to say, everyone who has worked on this story is a registered user).

Of course, we know Modi too is on Facebook. No other Indian politician has so effectively utilised the power of ‘likes’: and he has got 30 million. The problem with this chummy approach is that one could almost forget that the PM is also the supreme leader of a country that is Facebook’s second-largest market in the world with 125 million users. A few days earlier, Zuckerberg flew to Seattle to meet Chinese President Xi Jinping. Facebook is not present in China. “On a personal note, this was the first time I’ve ever spoken with a world leader entirely in a foreign language,” wrote Zuckerberg in another post.

In contrast, Modi and Zuckerberg were speaking the same language. In fact, they even jointly updated their profile picture on Facebook—wrapped in the shades of the Indian tricolour—to support the Modi government’s Digital India initiative. Millions of Indians followed suit. And that’s when the shit hit the internet—it was discovered that people supporting the Digital India campaign were also putting in a ‘yes’ vote for Facebook’s contentious initiative internet.org (free but restricted net access; see accompanying faqs for all the details). Immediately, Modi became a party to the raging debate in India over net neutrality. This is unfortunate as the Modi government is yet to put on paper its stand on net neutrality. The nervous reaction to this engagement is also a function of the new truism of our times—“with this government, you never know”.

What we do know is that the internet.org class name was built into the code for support for Digital India. Many experts feel this is not a coincidence; rather a clever ploy by Facebook to get the support of Indians and promote its internet.org initiative. This upset a vocal community of activists who see internet.org on the opposite camp. This led to the charge that Facebook was trying to influence the debate. Says Sunil Abraham, executive director with the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), “The moves by Facebook are quite juvenile as it is trying to use the Modi visit to further muddy the net neutrality debate. We should be concerned about Facebook trying to damage the debate in India to spin the PM’s participation in its own favour.” Of course, there are two sides to this debate. There are many people within the government who feel net neutrality is an elitist concern—increasing internet penetration, which Facebook and other such initiatives promise, is the way forward in a poor, unconnected country like India. “Today to talk about net neutrality is to talk about the 20 per cent who have access to the internet,” says telecom expert Mahesh Uppal. “It is unreasonable to dismiss out of hand anybody who offers free service to a subset of websites or services. Eventually, access to internet must come first before we talk about net neutrality.”

Facebook promoted internet.org along with Samsung, Nokia, Qualcomm, Ericsson, MediaTek and Opera Software, the aim being to provide free internet service to developing nations. India, obviously, is a hot target for Facebook. Facebook has a partnership with Reliance in the country; the free internet service will be available only to Reliance users and the free access will be limited to Facebook’s partner sites. The debate over internet.org too has picked up steam in India—big media companies like NDTV and Times of India have pulled out of it on these issues. While Facebook has stressed that internet.org will ensure that the internet reaches people who do not have access to it, there have been concerns that it will restrict internet access only to sites that are internet.org’s partners.

On its part, Facebook has been quick to refute the charge. A spokesperson in the US said, “There is absolutely no connection between updating your profile picture for Digital India and internet.org. An engineer mistakenly used the words ‘internet.org profile picture’ as a shorthand name he chose for part of the code.” The code was changed soon after. Despite repeated requests, representatives from Facebook India were unavailable for comment.

But the damage has been done. Many now openly question Facebook’s motives in India and whether they have been truthful or not. Given all this brouhaha, questions will naturally be raised about Modi’s alignment with Facebook. Digital India is many things—but obviously increasing net penetration is one its goals. “Now whatever he does on net neutrality, it will be seen in terms of whether it will benefit Google or Facebook. That is the risk he took. I would like to know why the diplomatic advisors took the risk of putting the PM in a bargaining position instead of a bonus at the end of a deal,” says Prof Narendar Pani, who teaches at the National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bangalore.

All this matters because the Modi government positions itself as digital-friendly, even though its moves on this front have been invasive (the push for Aadhar despite a legal sanction and increasing reports of monitoring digital conversations), and contradictory (the abortive porn and WhatsApp bans, among others). “The PM is going way beyond the e-governance plan to a stage where the government will just sit and watch people speaking. It is scary,” says internet activist Usha Ramanathan. She feels it doesn’t make sense to have companies like Google sharing ideas with the government while Indian people are being kept out of the loop. “And now Facebook will be joining that gang, it doesn’t make sense. What has Facebook done to get that privilege?” she asks.

Here again there is a carefully worded counter-argument. Former telecom entrepreneur and Rajya Sabha MP Rajeev Chandrashekhar says, “Net neutrality is a definition that would be made in the public domain. It will not be influenced by the PM’s engagement with Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg. Anyone who tries to mess with the definition of net neutrality will be met with a public outcry and judicial intervention.” The substance of this view is that Modi was within his rights to speak to corporations to further Digital India, or Make in India for that matter, and that there should be an open debate on the future direction of net neutrality.

Clearly, the political knives are out. “Either the prime minister is not being briefed properly or he does not read his brief properly,” says former UPA minister Manish Tewari. Arguing that governments should be discussing rules of engagement in cyberspace, and not stakeholders, he asks, “Is India comfortable with that construct especially when the bulk of the technology companies, the root servers which form the underlying hardware of the internet, are all based in the US, and one being in Europe?”

Although the government is yet to firm up its decision on net neutrality and a policy on it is yet to be announced, the debate has already acquired political colour in India, with the Congress and Aam Aadmi Party putting their weight behind the people’s voice. This is the first time that there has been a nation-wide upsurge of such an unprecedented size and magnitude on an internet policy. Says AAP’s Adarsh Shastri, “Facebook, Google etc are just tools. People can use them at will. To make them the mainstay of your programme for digital empowerment is to step on the civil rights and liberties of citizens. Doing this is a complete no-no. Let people access internet as they want is the way to go.”

A consultation paper floated by telecom regulator Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) got almost 15 lakh responses from the Indian public in support of net neutrality. There was also strong opposition to zero rating platforms announced by telecom companies like Airtel which sought to provide free access to some websites on their platform in much the same way that internet.org proposes. And the reactions to the Facebook coding error are a pointer to what people in India think. Says Nikhil Pahwa, editor of Medianama and a leading net neutrality activist, “The reactions of the people to the Facebook event were heartening and showed that people are emotive and there is still mass support for net neutrality. The reaction to the TRAI paper was not a flash in the pan.”

Interestingly, a couple of months ago, a department of telecommunications committee had said that internet.org was a violation of net neutrality and should not be allowed. It will be difficult for Modi and the government to overrule that and give it full and free access in India. Internet experts feel that the engagement with India and Modi was a desperate move by Facebook to get numbers from India. Says internet expert Mahesh Murthy, “Facebook is pulling out all stops to get favour for internet.org and is desperate about it. If India says yes, many others will say yes, but if India says no, other countries will follow.”

Murthy says Facebook’s real problem is that it is finding it difficult to justify its price to earnings ratio as against its user numbers vis-a-vis Google which is much better in this respect. For this, it is desperately trying to get numbers, and with China banning Facebook, the only country left to get numbers is India. The massive electronic and print campaign at the cost of Rs 40-50 crore is a pointer towards this. He says everything about internet.org is about hooking Indians to it.

No wonder, Facebook has been cultivating Indian media. The Modi visit has also been tarnished by the news that Facebook paid for the travel and accommodation of journalists from three Indian newspapers and one magazine to go and cover the Facebook-Modi meeting and get favourable coverage. Says writer-activist Arundhati Roy, “Many journalists covering the event for the Indian media were flown in from India by Facebook. So were some who asked pre-assigned questions at the event. I don’t know who sponsored the crocodile tears and the clothes.” It is also quite strange that the entire display picture and source code controversy got almost no play in the national media which chose instead to talk about Modi’s speech and his tears.

All said and done, it is obvious that Facebook may be seeing India as an easy and vulnerable target which can be manipulated for its own advantage. Says Parminder Jeet Singh, executive director with IT for Change, an NGO working on information society, “India has low internet penetration and lots of people want to get on to the internet. There is low purchasing power but lots of aspiration. So the moment a free service is offered, a whole lot of people are likely to jump on it.” And that is something Facebook may be looking and aiming at.

Currently, three processes are on that will determine how India will look at net neutrality—one at the DoT, one at TRAI and a third one at a parliamentary standing committee. But given the massive people’s response net neutrality has got vis-a-vis TRAI’s paper and also during the present Facebook issue, the outcome is predictable. Or so it seems. There’s a lot of money power at stake. For now, millions of internet Indians have already voted with that dislike button. And then, governments move in mysterious ways.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/outlook-india-october-12-2015-arindam-mukherjee-how-to-win-friends-fb-style

What Bengaluru Thinks of the Big Tech Announcements in Silicon Valley

praskrishna — 2015-10-18T13:26:35Z

There is a split verdict on the big tech announcements made out of California during the Prime Minister's visit, in the desi version of Silicon Valley - Bengaluru.

This was published by NDTV on September 29, 2015. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.

Companies here are still assessing how they will be impacted by the big connectivity projects that Google, Microsoft and others announced when Prime Minister Narendra Modi dropped in at Silicon Valley, the global hub for innovation and technology, over the weekend.

CEO Sunder Pichai said Google would tie up with the government to provide free Wi-Fi at 500 railway stations across the country. Microsoft's Satya Nadela said his company would take broadband connectivity to five lakh villages across the country.

And that its cloud services would operate out of India's data centres.

Some smaller companies in Bengaluru hope they will get some business when these giant projects are implemented. "Smaller companies like ours would be hoping we get a share of the pie when it comes to implementation. The government should ensure that," said Soujanya Prakash, a General Manager at Vee Technologies, to NDTV. Vee one of the companies assigned to implement part of the massive Aadhar identity card project.

Ms Prakash said companies like Microsoft and Google bring great technological expertise with them.

Pranesh Prakash, Policy Director for the Centre for Internet and Technology, had a word of caution as he voiced concern about the privacy policies of some big global companies. "The government should push for a strong data protection regime in India and force these companies to abide by that," he said.

Mr Prakash also said, "These companies need India more than we need them since there are more than one billion customers here. The Indian government must be wise in using this bargaining power."

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/ndtv-maya-sharma-september-29-2015-what-bengaluru-thinks-of-big-tech-announcements-in-silicon-valley

After data leak row, Facebook imposes restrictions on user data access

Admin — 2018-04-07T15:30:31Z

MEIT issues notice to Facebook even as experts debate absolute impact on the second largest developer community.

The article by Romita Majumdar and Kiran Rathee was published in Business Standard on April 6, 2018.

Social media giant Facebook has finally reacted to the global storm around its data privacy policies by bringing in a new set of restrictions on developers and data aggregators using the platform for data harvesting.

“Two weeks ago we promised to take a hard look at the information apps can use when you connect them to Facebook as well as other data practices. We will remove a developer’s ability to request data people shared with them if it appears they have not used the app in the last 3 months,” said Facebook Chief Technology Officer Mark Schroepfer in a blog.

Facebook has also disabled the feature to search a user by their email address or phone number which has been abused by malicious actors and reduced the overall control that the app will have on user data.

Facebook has also submitted its response to the Indian government saying over 500,000 people in India have been potentially affected by the data breach involving Cambridge Analytica. The government sources said as the social networking firm has now accepted that Indians’ data was compromised; it makes the issue much more important and serious. “We will wait for Cambridge Analytica’s reply and then, we will take our stand,” sources in Electronics and IT Ministry said.

The Ministry had issued notices to both Facebook and Cambridge Analytica, seeking their responses regarding the data breach of Indians and if it was used to influence elections.

The new set of restrictions clamp down on how much data app developers access on the platform and also prevent third part data providers from offering targeted marketing services on Facebook.

"India is the second largest Facebook developer base and the restriction on users' data access is going to impact all of them. There will be more scrutiny in Facebook apps, leading to slower approvals. Virality will reduce as explicit consent will be required for accessing friends' data and contacts list, “ said Vivek Prakash, CTO and Co-Founder, HackerEarth.

He added that there could be tighter terms of service making developers also liable for unauthorized processing of data that they collect from the apps.

Executive Director of Center for Internet and Society Sunil Abraham says that while Facebook says “apps need to agree to strict requirements” and “tightening our review process” it is still not clear what these requirements are. “Instead of the promised link to whether user data was accessed by Cambridge Analytica, it would make sense for them to say Facebook holds W number of records across X databases over the time period Y, which totals Z Gb while explaining what these variables stand for,” he said.

Consumer data marketing company Hansa Cequity believes that digital marketing arms of most companies will finally have to consider building their own user database given the strict clampdown on third party data.“Businesses can no more use data from third party aggregators for targeted advertising. Consumer goods and entertainment related brands are likely to face some impact because they depend on access to such data,” said S Swaminathan, Co-Founder and CEO, Hansa Cequity.

Some experts also believe that this move might force platforms like Twitter, Google and YouTube to rethink their policies on how much access they give advertisers and data aggregators to user data. Abraham also added that app developers and their investors have to evaluate business models that depend more on value to user rather than the amount of personal data harvested. The data that has already been harvested by the likes of Cambridge Analytica and other unknown parties, however, is beyond user control forever.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/business-standard-romita-majumdar-and-kiran-rathee-after-data-leak-row-facebook-imposes-restrictions-on-user-data-access

Government gives free publicity worth 40k to Twitter and Facebook

Akriti Bopanna — 2018-04-27T09:52:26Z

We conducted a 2 week survey of newspapers for links between government advertisement to social media giants. As citizens, we should be worried about the close nexus between the Indian government and digital behemoths such as Facebook, Google and Twitter. It has become apparent to us after a 2 week print media analysis that our Government has been providing free publicity worth Rs 40,000 to these entities. There are multiple issues with this as this article attempts at pointing out.

We analyzed 5 English language newspapers daily for 2 weeks from March 12^th to 26^th, one week of the newspapers in Lucknow and the second week in Bangalore. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Alphabet backed services such as Youtube and Google Plus were part of our survey. Of a total of 33 advertisements (14 in Lucknow+19 in Bangalore), Twitter stands out as the most prominent advertising platform used by government agencies with 30 ads but Facebook at 29 was more expensive. In order to ascertain the rates of publicity, current advertisement rates for Times of India as our purpose was to solely give a rough estimation of how much the government is spending.

Advertising of this nature is not merely an inherent problem of favoring some social media companies over others but also symptomatic of a bigger problem, the lack of our native e-governance mechanisms which cause the Government to rely and promote others. Where we do have guidelines they are not being followed. By outsourcing their e-governance platforms to Twitter such as TwitterSeva, a feature created by the Twitter India team to help citizens connect better with government services, there is less of an impetus to construct better websites of their own.

If this is so because we currently do not have the capacity to build them ourselves then it is imperative that this changes. We should either be executing government functions on digital infrastructure owned by them or on open and interoperable systems. If anything, the surveyed social media platforms can be used to enhance pre-existing facilities. However, currently the converse is true with these platforms overshadowing the presence of e-governance websites. Officials have started responding to complaints on Twitter, diluting the significance of such complaint mechanisms on their respective department’s portal. Often enough such features are not available on the relevant government website. This sets a dangerous precedent for a citizen management system as the records of such interactions are then in the hands of these companies who may not exist in the future. As a result, they can control the access to such records or worse tamper with them. Posterity and reliability of such data can be ensured only if they are stored within the Government’s reach or if they are open and public with a first copy stored on Government records which ensures transparency as well. Data portability is an important facet to this issue as well as being a right consumers should possess. It provides for support of many devices, transition to alternative technologies and lastly, makes sure that all the data like other public records will be available upon request through the Right to Information procedure. The last is vital to uphold the spirit of transparency envisioned through the RTI process since interactions of government with citizens are then under its ambit and available for disclosure for whomsoever concerned.

Secondly, such practices by the Government are enhancing the monopoly of the companies in the market effectively discouraging competition and eventually, innovation. While a certain elite strata of the population might opt for Twitter or Facebook as their mode of conveying grievance, this may not hold true for the rest of the online India population.

Picking players in a free market is in violation of technology and vendor neutrality, a practice essential in e-governance to provide a level playing field for all and competing technologies. Projecting only a few platforms as de facto mediums of communication with the government inhibits the freedom of choice of citizens to air their grievances through a vendor or technology they are comfortable with. At the same time it makes the Government a mouthpiece for such companies who are gaining free publicity and consolidating their popularity. Government apps such as the SwachBharat one which is an e-governance platform do not offer much more in terms of functionality but either reflect the website or are a less mature version of the same. This leads to the problem of fracturing with many avenues of complaining such as the website, app, Twitter etc. Consequently, the priority of the people dealing with the complaints in terms of platform of response is unsure. Will I be responded to sooner if I tweet a complaint as opposed to putting it up on the app? Having an interoperable system can solve this where the Government can have a dashboard of their various complaints and responses are then made out evenly. Twitter itself could implement this by having complaints from Facebook for example and then the Twitter Seva would be an equal platform as opposed to the current issue where only they are favored.

Recent events have illustrated how detrimental the storage of data by these giants can be in terms of privacy. Data security concerns are also a consequence of such leaks. Not only is this a long overdue call for a better data protection law but at the same time also for the Government to realize that these platforms cannot be trusted. The hiring of Cambridge Analytica to influence voters in the US elections, based on their Facebook profiles and ancillary data, effectively put the governance of the country on sale by exploiting these privacy and security issues. By basing e-governance on their backbone, India is not far from inviting trouble as well. It is unnecessary and dangerous to have a go-between for matters that pertain between an individual and state.

As this article was being written, it was confirmed by the Election Commission that they are partnering with Facebook for the Karnataka Assemby Elections to promote activities such as encourage enrollment of Voter ID and voter participation. Initiatives like these tying the government even closer to these companies are of concern and cementing the latter’s stronghold.

Note: Our survey data and results are attached to this post. All research was collected by Shradha Nigam, a Vth year student at NLSIU, Bangalore.

Survey Data and Results

This report is based on a survey of government advertisements in English language newspapers in relation to their use of social media platforms and dedicated websites (“Survey”). For the purpose of this report, the ambit of the social media platforms has been limited to the use of Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Google Plus and Instagram. The report was prepared by Shradha Nigam, a student from National Law School of India University, Bangalore. Read the full report here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/government-giving-free-publicity-worth-40-k-to-twitter-and-facebook

The Competition Law Case Against Whatsapp’s 2021 Privacy Policy Alteration

Aman Nair and Arindrajit Basu — 2021-03-24T16:12:09Z

Having examined the privacy implications of Whatsapp's changes to its privacy policy in 2021, this issue brief is the second output in our series examining the effects of those changes. This brief examines the changes in the context of data sharing between Whatsapp and Facebook as being an anticompetitive action in violation of the Indian Competition Act, 2002.

Executive Summary

On January 4, 2021, Whatsapp announced a revised privacy policy through an in-app notification. It highlighted that the new policy would impact user interactions with business accounts, including those which may be using Facebook's hosting services. The updated policy presented users with the option of either accepting greater data sharing between Whatsapp and Facebook or being unable to use the platform post 15th May, 2021. The updated policy resulted in temporarily slowed growth for Whatsapp and increased growth for other messaging apps like Signal and Telegram. While Whatsapp has chosen to delay the implementation of this policy due to consumer outrage, it is important for us to unpack and understand what this (and similar policies) mean for the digital economy, and its associated competition law concerns. Competition law is one of the sharpest tools available to policy-makers to fairly regulate and constrain the unbridled power of large technology companies.

While it is evident the Indian competition landscape will benefit from revisiting the existing law and policy framework to reign in Big technology companies, we argue that the change in Whatsapp’s privacy policy in 2021 can be held anti-competitive using legal provisions as they presently stand. Therefore, in this issue brief, we largely limit ourselves to evaluating the legality of Whatsapp’s privacy policy within the confines of the present legal system.

First, we dive into an articulation of the present abuse of dominance framework in Indian Competition Law. Second, we analyze whether there was abuse of dominance-bearing in mind an economic analysis of Whatsapp’s role in the relevant market by using tests laid out in previous rulings of the CCI

The framework for determining abuse of dominance as per The Competition Act is based on three factors:

1. Determination of relevant market

2. Determination of dominant position

3. Abuse of the dominant position

In two previous orders in 2016 and 2020, CCI has held that Whatsapp is dominant in its relevant market based on several factors which we explore. These include:

Advantage in user base, usage and reach,
Barriers to entry for other competitors
Power of acquisition over competitors.

However, in both orders, CCI held that Whatsapp did not abuse its dominance by arguing that the practices in question allowed for user choice. We critique these judgments for not reflecting the market structures and exploitative practices of large technology companies. We also argue that even if we use the test of user choice laid down by the CCI in its previous orders concerning Whatsapp and Facebook, the changes made to the privacy policy in 2021 did abuse dominance,and should be held guilty of violating competition law standards.

Our analysis revolves around examining the explicit and implicit standards of user choice laid out by the CCI in its 2016 and 2020 judgements as the standard for evaluating fairness in an Abuse of Dominance claim.We demonstrate how the 2021 changes failed to meet these standards.

Finally, we conclude by noting that the present case offers a crucial opportunity for India to take a giant step forward in its regulation of big tech companies and harmonise its rulings with regulatory developments around the world.

The full issue brief can be found here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-competition-law-case-against-whatsapp2019s-2021-privacy-policy-alteration

India, Egypt say no thanks to free Internet from Facebook

praskrishna — 2016-02-03T01:49:25Z

ALWAR, India — Connecting people to the Internet is not easy in this impoverished farming district of wheat and millet fields, where working camels can be glimpsed along roads that curve through the low-slung Aravalli Hills.

The article by Annie Gowen was published in Washington Post on January 28, 2016. Sunil Abraham gave inputs.

So when Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg helicoptered in about a year ago to visit a small computer lab and tout Internet for all, Osama Manzar, director of India’s Digital Empowerment Foundation, was thrilled.

But when Manzar tried Facebook’s limited free Internet service, he was bitterly disappointed. The app, called Free Basics, is a pared-down version of Facebook with other services such as weather reports and job listings.

“I feel betrayed — not only betrayed but upset and angry,” Manzar said. “He said we’re going to solve the problem with access and bandwidth. But Facebook is not the Internet.”

Zuckerberg launched his sweeping Internet.org initiative in 2013 as a way to provide 4 billion people in the developing world with Web access, which he says he sees as a basic human right.

But the initiative has hit a major snag in India, where in recent months Free Basics has been embroiled in controversy — with critics saying that the app, which provides limited access to the Web, does a disservice to the poor and violates the principles of “net neutrality,” which holds that equal access to the Internet should be unfettered to all.

Activist groups such as Save the Internet, professors from leading universities and tech titans such as Nandan Nilekani, the co-founder of Infosys, have spoken out against it. Another well-known Indian entrepreneur dubbed it “poor Internet for poor people.”

The debate escalated in recent weeks after India’s telecommunications regulator suspended Free Basics as it weighs whether such plans are fair, with new rules expected by the end of the month.

A week later, Free Basics was banned in Egypt with little explanation, prompting concern that the backlash could spread to other markets. More recently, Google pulled out of the app in Zambia after a trial period. An estimated 15 million people are using Free Basics in 37 countries, including 1 million in India.

[India’s Modi wants to woo Silicon Valley, but privacy fears grow at home]

“It’s a very important test case for what will be India’s network neutrality regime,” said Sunil Abraham of the Center for Internet and Society in Bangalore.

India’s debate could affect the way other countries address the question of whether it is fair for Internet service providers to price websites differently. The U.S. Federal Communications Commission’s rules on net neutrality went into effect only in June.

Officials at Facebook launched an advertising blitz to counteract the negative publicity. “Who could possibly be against this?” Zuckerberg wondered in a Times of India editorial on Dec. 28.

“I think we’ve been a bit surprised by the strong reaction,” said Chris Daniels, Facebook’s vice president for Internet.org. “Fundamentally, the reason for the surprise is that the program is doing good. It’s bringing people online who are moving onto the broader Internet.”

India, a country of 1.2 billion, has the second-highest number of Internet users in the world, but an estimated 80 percent of the population does not have Internet access.

India’s tech-savvy prime minister, Narendra Modi, is trying to combat this with an ambitious “Digital India” plan to link 250,000 village centers with fiber-optic cable and extend mobile coverage. He has turned to the Indian tech community as well as Silicon Valley for help, securing an agreement with Google to provide free WiFi in railway stations.

India has 130 million Facebook users, second only to the United States, and is a key market as the social-media giant looks to expand beyond the developed world, where its growth has slowed.

“If Facebook manages to get another half a billion users in India, that’s a valuable set of eyeballs to sell to a political party or corporation,” Abraham said.

[Is India the next frontier for Facebook?]

Facebook has long said that its program is about altruism, not eyeballs.

But it does reap new customers. Those who buy a SIM card from Facebook’s local mobile partner, Reliance Communications, are then prompted to pay for additional data. About 40 percent who sign up for Free Basics buy a data plan to move to the wider Web after 30 days, Daniels said.

The service is still running despite the India suspension. A Reliance spokesman said it is in “testing mode” and is not being promoted.

“The thing people forget about Free Basics is that it’s intended to be a temporary transition for people to give them a taste of the Internet and sign up. It’s a marketing program for the carrier in some sense,” said David Kirkpatrick, author of “The Facebook Effect.” But he added: “The idea that it’s some kind of alternative Internet that’s a discriminatory gesture to the poor is the prevailing view among the Indian intelligentsia. It’s fundamentally misunderstood.”

Facebook has pledged to open up to new scrutiny the selection process for companies with new applications, Daniels said. That is a response to concerns by many in India’s tech community that Facebook’s process put India’s fledgling start-ups at a disadvantage.

The project’s proponents say that India’s needs are so great it cannot afford to suspend one program that could help.

Mahesh Uppal, a telecommunications consultant, notes that more than 10 percent of the country does not have mobile phone coverage and that India’s progress in extending fiber-optic cable to village centers is proceeding at a glacial pace. Modi had set a goal of linking all 250,000 by 2016, but only 27,000 have cable so far and it is ready for use in only 3,200, according to a government report.

In comparison, some 80 percent of China’s villages are linked by broadband.

[Inside the Indian temple that draws America’s tech titans]

In Alwar district in the northern state of Rajasthan, many remember when Zuckerberg came to visit but fewer know about Free Basics.

“I’ve heard it’s free and by Facebook and you don’t have to pay for it,” said Umer Farukh, 43, a folk musician. “But I don’t think Facebook should control it. The Internet should be for everybody.”

Farukh has only been computer literate for two years, but he’s already emailing and using YouTube to post videos and promote his band.

He’s become such a proponent that he has donated space for one of Manzar’s computer centers — part of a government initiative to build cyber-hubs in minority communities — and encouraged the female members of his family to take classes, which is rare in his conservative community.

Farukh says that challenges to connecting India go far beyond data plans and fiber-optic cable or the government broadband that often sputters out. Wages are low, and hours are long. Only about half of the women in his state are literate, and about a quarter of the young women in his neighborhood are kept at home and not educated.

“This place is very backward,” he said. “India as a society is lagging far behind in terms of Internet.”

In the small nearby community of Roja Ka Baas, ringed by fields of blooming mustard greens, residents are still awaiting the opening of their planned WiFi center. They are struggling along on cheap mobile phones with slow 2G spectrum until then, they said.

Sakir Khan, 14, said that once the Internet finally arrived in this village, the first thing he would do would be to sign up for Facebook.

Farheen Fatima and Subuhi Parvez contributed to this report.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/washington-post-annie-gowen-january-28-2016-india-egypt-say-no-thanks-to-free-internet-from-facebook

India bans Facebook’s ‘free’ Internet for the poor

praskrishna — 2016-02-10T02:53:49Z

India’s telecom regulator said Monday that service providers cannot charge discriminatory prices for Internet services, a blow to Facebook’s global effort to provide low-cost Internet to developing countries.

The article by Annie Gowen was published in Washington Post on February 8, 2016. Sunil Abraham gave inputs. The article was also mirrored by NDTV.

Facebook’s “Free Basics” program provides a pared-down version of Facebook and weather and job listings to some 15 million mobile-phone users in 37 countries around the world.

When it debuted in India in April, however, Free Basics immediately ran afoul of Internet activists who said it violated the principle of “net neutrality,” which holds that consumers should be able to access the entire Internet unfettered by price or speed.

On Monday, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India agreed, prohibiting data service providers from offering or charging different prices for data — even if it’s free. The Free Basics program has run into trouble elsewhere in the world recently — with Egypt banning it and Google clarifying that it pulled out of the application during a testing phase in Zambia.

In a statement, Facebook said that while the company was “disappointed with the outcome, we will continue our efforts to eliminate barriers and give the unconnected an easier path to the Internet.”

In an interview before the ruling, Chris Daniels, Facebook’s vice president for Internet.org — the umbrella organization of the global effort — said India’s negative reaction has been “unique versus other markets we’ve seen. We’ve been welcomed with open arms in many countries.”

Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg launched the program to great fanfare in 2013, partnering with other international tech firms on a mission to connect the 4 billion people in the world without Internet access — which he says is a basic human right.

India has 300 million mobile Internet users but still has close to 1 billion people without proper Internet access. But it is second only to the United States in number of Facebook users, with 130 million, with vast expansion potential as Facebook works to increase its user base beyond the developed world.

Yet the Free Basics program was controversial from the start in India, where critics accused Facebook of creating a “walled garden” for poor users that allowed them access to only a portion of the web that Facebook controlled.

Dozens of well-known tech entrepreneurs, university professors and tech industry groups spoke out against it, saying that the curated app, with its handpicked weather, job and other listings, put India’s scrappy start-ups and software developers at a disadvantage.

On Monday, Vijay Shekhar Sharma, the founder and creator of India’s payment application PayTM, applauded the regulator’s move.

He had been among the program’s fiercest critics, dubbing Free Basics “poor Internet for poor people” and comparing Facebook’s actions to that of British colonialists and their East India Co.

“India, Do u buy into this baby internet?” Sharma tweeted in December. “The East India company came with similar ‘charity’ to Indians a few years back!”

“In a country like India that’s just taking off, it’s important that there is an equal playground for every app developer,” he said in an interview.

In December, India’s regulator put out a position paper on differential pricing and asked for public comment on whether such programs were fair.

In response, Facebook launched a public relations blitz, with television and newspaper advertisements, billboards and an opinion piece by Zuckerberg in the Times of India in which he argued against criticism that the social-media giant was providing the service simply to expand its user base.

Facebook also engineered a prompt to users that sent “robo” letters of support for Free Basics to India’s telecommunications regulator. The regulator, flooded with form letters, was not amused.

Facebook’s behavior may not have helped its cause, some analysts said.

“Facebook went overboard with its propaganda [and] convinced ‘the powers that be’ that it cannot be trusted with mature stewardship of our information society,” said Sunil Abraham of the Center for Internet and Society in Bangalore.

Yet David Kirkpatrick, the author of “The Facebook Effect,” says that Zuckerberg is determined to see the program succeed.

“Facebook is relentless,” he said. “Zuckerberg has said from the beginning his goal is to make the world more open and connected. And that’s a phrase he continues to repeat 10 years later.”

The regulator had asked Facebook, and its local telecom partner, Reliance Communications, to suspend Free Basics’ operations during the public comment period. But the social-media giant and its partner appeared to flout the suspension order, with the program continuing to be operational on Reliance SIM cards.

A spokesman for Reliance earlier said that the applications was in “testing mode” and that it was not commercially promoting the product.

The regulatory body said Monday that anybody violating the order in the future will be subject to a fine of about $735 a day. It will return to review the policy in two years to see if it is effective.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/washington-post-annie-gowen-february-8-2016-india-bans-facebooks-free-internet-for-the-poor

India Sets Strict New Net Neutrality Rules

praskrishna — 2016-02-11T01:53:19Z

In India, advocates of net neutrality have welcomed new rules by the telecom regulator that have blocked efforts by Facebook to offer free but limited access to the web in the country’s fast growing Internet market.

The article by Anjana Pasricha was published in Voice of America on February 9, 2016. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

In a widely awaited ruling, the Telecom Regulator Authority of India (TRAI) said on Monday that “no service provider shall charge differential pricing on the basis of application, platforms or websites or sources." It will impose penalties of $735 a day if the regulations are broken.

Kiran Jonnalagadda, who was among a group of 10 that launched an impassioned campaign called Save the Internet, says they have won a “fabulous” victory against large corporations to ensure equal web access for millions.

“We were up against the most powerful companies in the world, we had no chance of fighting Airtel last year, we had no chance of fighting Facebook. I think the only reason it worked is that we were on the side of facts, the opposition was not,” says Jonnalagadda.

Debate on Airtel

The campaign on net neutrality snowballed into a nationwide public debate after an Indian telecom company, Airtel, launched a marketing platform last April on which it planned to offer customers access with no data charges to certain Internet services and sites.

In recent weeks, the focus turned to “Free Basics”, a service being offered by Facebook on mobile phones to a handful of sites in areas such as communication, healthcare, and education.

Saying it wanted to vastly expand Internet access in poor, rural areas, Facebook had launched a massive advertising campaign in support of the platform. Only about 300 million in the country of 1.2 billion people have access to the net, many just through mobile devices.

But campaigners slammed Free Basics as “poor Internet for poor people” and said it would create a “walled garden” in which Facebook would control the content it offered users. Leading Indian technology entrepreneurs and university professors also called on the government to guard against attempts by Internet giants to turn the country into a “digital colony.”

Many of them have applauded the regulator’s move to strengthen net neutrality.

Ban on differential pricing

However, some are raising questions about the the complete ban on differential pricing announced by the regulator. That includes the Bangalore-based Center for Internet and Society research group, which says India has put in place the most stringent net neutrality regulations across the world. Its executive director, Sunil Abraham, says TRAI cited the examples of the Netherlands and Chile, but the ban on differential pricing in those countries is not as absolute as the one notified in India.

“We think that if proper technological safeguards and other market safeguards are put in place, it would be possible to have both — to have rapid growth in Internet access and reduced harm that emerge[s] from network neutrality violations,” says Abraham.

Indeed, the last word may not have been said on net neutrality in India as big telecom operators are expected to mount legal challenges to the regulator’s ruling in the coming months.

Expressing disappointment with India’s ruling, the Cellular Operators Association of India has called the ban on differential pricing a “welfare reducing measure” that could block an avenue for “less advantaged citizens to move to increased economic growth and prosperity by harnessing the power of the Internet.”

In a statement, Facebook has said “we will continue our efforts to eliminate barriers and give the unconnected an easier path to the Internet.”

But after having tasted victory, the volunteers at Save the Internet, who have grown from about 10 to 100 in the last year, have already set their sights on another aspect of net neutrality besides differential pricing.

“The campaign is not going to retire because this is not the end of it. There is also discrimination on the basis of speed, which the regulator has not taken up yet,” says Jonnalagadda.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/voice-of-america-anjana-pasricha-february-9-2016-india-sets-strict-new-net-neutrality-rules

There is No Such Thing as Free Basics

subha — 2016-02-14T11:37:50Z

India would not see the rain of Free Basics advertisements on billboards with images of farmers and common people explaining how much they could benefit from this Firefox project. Because the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) has taken a historical step by banning the differential pricing without discriminating services.

The article was published in Bangalore Mirror on February 9, 2016.

In their notes, TRAI has explained, "In India, given that a majority of the population are yet to be connected to the Internet, allowing service providers to define the nature of access would be equivalent of letting TSPs shape the users' Internet experience." Not just that, violation of this ban would cost Rs 50,000 every day.

Facebook's earlier plan was to launch Free Basics in India by making a few websites—that are mostly partners with Facebook—available for free. The company not just advertised heavily on billboards and commercials across the nation, it also embedded a campaign inside Facebook asking users to vote in support of Free Basics.

TRAI criticised Facebook's attempt for such a manipulative public provocation. However, Facebook was heavily criticised by many policy and Internet advocates, including non-profits groups like Free Software Movement of India and Savetheinternet.in campaign.

The latter two collectives were strongly discouraging Free Basics by bringing public opinion wherein Savetheinternet.org was used to send over 10 lakh emails to TRAI to disallow Free Basics.

Furthermore 500 start ups including major ones like Cleartrip, Zomato, Practo, Paytm and Cleartax also wrote to prime minister Narendra Modi requesting continued support for Net Neutrality — a concept that advocates equal treating of websites — on the Republic Day.

Stand-up comedy groups like AIB and East India Comedy had created humorous but informative videos explaining the regulatory debate and supporting net neutrality which went viral.

Technology critic and Quartz writer Alice Truong reacted saying: "Zuckerberg almost portrays net neutrality as a first-world problem that doesn't apply to India because having some service is better than no service."

In the light of differential pricing, news portal Medianama's founder Nikhil Pawa, in his opinion piece in Times of India, emphasised the way Aircel in India, Grameenphone in Bangladesh and Orange in Africa were providing free access to Internet with a sole motif of access to Internet, and criticised the walled Internet of Facebook that confines users inside Facebook only.

Had the differential pricing been allowed, it would have affected start ups and content-based smaller companies adversely, as they could never have managed to pay the high price to a partner service provider to make their service available for free.

On the other hand, tech-giants like Facebook could have easily managed to capture the entire market. Since the inception of the Facebook-run non-profit Internet.org has run into a lot of controversies because of the hidden motive behind the claimed support for social cause.

The decision by the government has been welcomed largely in the country and outside.

In support of the move, Web We Want programme manager at the World Wide Web Foundation, Renata Avila, has shared saying,

"As the country with the second largest number of Internet users worldwide, this decision will resonate around the world.

"It follows a precedent set by Chile, the United States, and others which have adopted similar net neutrality safeguards. The message is clear: We can't create a two-tier Internet — one for the haves, and one for the have-nots. We must connect everyone to the full potential of the open Web."

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/bangalore-mirror-subhashish-panigrahi-february-9-2016-there-is-no-such-thing-as-free-basics

Digital AlterNatives with a Cause?

nishant — 2015-04-10T09:22:29Z

Hivos and the Centre for Internet and Society have consolidated their three year knowledge inquiry into the field of youth, technology and change in a four book collective “Digital AlterNatives with a cause?”. This collaboratively produced collective, edited by Nishant Shah and Fieke Jansen, asks critical and pertinent questions about theory and practice around 'digital revolutions' in a post MENA (Middle East - North Africa) world. It works with multiple vocabularies and frameworks and produces dialogues and conversations between digital natives, academic and research scholars, practitioners, development agencies and corporate structures to examine the nature and practice of digital natives in emerging contexts from the Global South.

Introduction

In the 21^st Century, we have witnessed the simultaneous growth of internet and digital technologies on the one hand, and political protests and mobilisation on the other. Processes of interpersonal relationships, social communication, economic expansion, political protocols and governmental mediation are undergoing a significant transition, across in the world, in developed and emerging Information and Knowledge societies.

The young are often seen as forerunners of these changes because of the pervasive and persistent presence of digital and online technologies in their lives. The “ Digital Natives with a Cause?” is a research inquiry that uncovers the ways in which young people in emerging ICT contexts make strategic use of technologies to bring about change in their immediate environments. Ranging from personal stories of transformation to efforts at collective change, it aims to identify knowledge gaps that existing scholarship, practice and popular discourse around an increasing usage, adoption and integration of digital technologies in processes of social and political change.

Methodology

In 2010-11, three workshops in Taiwan, South Africa and Chile, brought together around 80 people who identified themselves as Digital Natives from Asia, Africa and Latin America, to explore certain key questions that could provide new insight into Digital Natives research, policy and practice. The workshops were accompanied by a ‘Thinkathon’ – a multi-stakeholder summit that initiated conversations between Digital Natives, academic researchers, scholars, practitioners, educators, policy makers and corporate representatives to share learnings on new questions: Is one born digital or does one become a Digital Native? How do we understand our relationship with the idea of a Digital Native? How do Digital Natives redefine ‘change’ and how do they see themselves implementing it? What is the role that technologies play in defining civic action and social movements? What are the relationships that these technology based identities and practices have with existing social movements and political legacies? How do we build new frameworks of sustainable citizen action outside of institutionalisation?

Rationale

One of the knowledge gaps that this book tries to address is the lack of digital natives’ voices in the discourse around them. In the occasions that they are a part of the discourse, they are generally represented by other actors who define the frameworks and decide the issues which are important. Hence, more often than not, most books around digital natives concentrate on similar sounding areas and topics, which might not always resonate with the concerns that digital natives and other stake-holders might be engaged with in their material and discursive practice. The methodology of the workshops was designed keeping this in mind. Instead of asking the digital natives to give their opinion or recount a story about what we felt was important, we began by listening to their articulations about what was at stake for them as e-agents of change. As a result, the usual topics like piracy, privacy, cyber-bullying, sexting etc. which automatically map digital natives discourse, are conspicuously absent from this book. Their absence is not deliberate, but more symptomatic of how these themes that we presumed as important were not of immediate concerns to most of the participants in the workshop who are contributing to the book.

Structure

The conversations, research inquiries, reflections, discussions, interviews, and art practices are consolidated in this four part book which deviates from the mainstream imagination of the young people involved in processes of change. The alternative positions, defined by geo-politics, gender, sexuality, class, education, language, etc. find articulations from people who have been engaged in the practice and discourse of technology mediated change. Each part concentrates on one particular theme that helps bring coherence to a wide spectrum of style and content.

Book 1: To Be: Digital AlterNatives with a Cause? Download here

The first part, To Be, looks at the questions of digital native identities. Are digital natives the same everywhere? What does it mean to call a certain population ‘Digital Natives”? Can we also look at people who are on the fringes – Digital Outcasts, for example? Is it possible to imagine technology-change relationships not only through questions of access and usage but also through personal investments and transformations? The contributions help chart the history, explain the contemporary and give ideas about what the future of technology mediated identities is going to be.

Book 2: To Think: Digital AlterNatives with a Cause? Download here

In the second section, To Think, the contributors engage with new frameworks of understanding the processes, logistics, politics and mechanics of digital natives and causes. Giving fresh perspectives which draw from digital aesthetics, digital natives’ everyday practices, and their own research into the design and mechanics of technology mediated change, the contributors help us re-think the concepts, processes and structures that we have taken for granted. They also nuance the ways in which new frameworks to think about youth, technology and change can be evolved and how they provide new ways of sustaining digital natives and their causes.

Book 3: To Act: Digital AlterNatives with a Cause? Download here

To Act is the third part that concentrates on stories from the ground. While it is important to conceptually engage with digital natives, it is also, necessary to connect it with the real life practices that are reshaping the world. Case-studies, reflections and experiences of people engaged in processes of change, provide a rich empirical data set which is further analysed to look at what it means to be a digital native in emerging information and technology contexts.

Book 4: To Connect : Digital AlterNatives with a Cause? Download here

The last section, To Connect, recognises the fact that digital natives do not operate in vacuum. It might be valuable to maintain the distinction between digital natives and immigrants, but this distinction does not mean that there are no relationships between them as actors of change. The section focuses on the digital native ecosystem to look at the complex assemblage of relationships that support and are amplified by these new processes of technologised change.

We see this book as entering into a dialogue with the growing discourse and practice in the field of youth, technology and change. The ambition is to look at the digital (alter)natives as located in the Global South and the potentials for social change and political participation that is embedded in their interactions through and with digital and internet technologies. We hope that the book furthers the idea of a context-based digital native identity and practice, which challenges the otherwise universalist understanding that seems to be the popular operative right now. We see this as the beginning of a knowledge inquiry, rather than an end, and hope that the contributions in the book will incite new discussions, invoke cross-sectorial and disciplinary debates, and consolidate knowledges about digital (alter)natives and how they work in the present to change our futures.

Click here to order your copy. We invite readers to contribute reviews of an essay they found particularly interesting. Contact us: nishant@cis-india.org and fjansen@hivos.nl if you want more information, resources, or dialogues

Nishant Shah

Fieke Jansen

For media coverage and book reviews, read here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/digital-natives/blog/dnbook

ISIS and Recruitment using Social Media – Roundtable Report

Vidushi Marda, Aditya Tejus, Megha Nambiar and Japreet Grewal — 2016-12-16T02:19:16Z

The Centre for Internet and Society in collaboration with the Takshashila Institution held a roundtable discussion on “ISIS and Recruitment using Social Media” on 1 September 2016 from 5.00 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. at TERI in Bengaluru.

The objective of this roundtable was to explore the recruitment process and methods followed by ISIS on social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter and to understand the difficulties faced by law enforcement agencies and platforms in countering the problem while understanding existing counter measures, with a focus on the Indian experience.

Reviewing Existing Literature

To provide context to the discussion, a few key pieces of existing literature on online extremism were highlighted. Discussing Charlie Winter’s “Documenting the Virtual Caliphate”, a participant outlined the multiple stages of the radicalisation process that begins with a person being exposed to general ISIS releases, entering an online filter bubble of like minded people, initial contact, followed by persuasion by the contact person to isolate the potential recruit from his/her family and friends. This culminates with the assignment of an ISIS task to such person. The takeaway from the paper, was the colossal scale of information and events put out by ISIS on the social media. It was pointed out that contrary to popular belief, ISIS publishes content under six broad themes: mercy, belonging, brutality, victimhood, war and utopia, least of which falls under the category of brutality which in fact garners the most attention worldwide. It was further elaborated that ISIS employs positive imagery in the form of nature and landscapes, and appeals to the civilian life within its borders. This strategy is that of prioritising quantity, quality, adaptability and differentiation while producing media. This strategy of producing media that is precise, adaptable and effective, according to the author, must be emulated by Governments in their counter measures, although there is no universal counter narrative that is effective. This effort, he stressed cannot be exclusively state-driven.

JM Berger’s “Making Countering Violent Extremism Work” was also discussed. Here, a slightly different model of radicalisation has been identified with potential recruits going through 4 stages: the first being that of Curiosity where there is exposure to violent extremist ideology, the second stage is Consideration where the potential recruit evaluates the ideology, the third being Identification where the individual begins to self identify with extremist ideology, and the last being that of Self-Critique which is revisited periodically. According to Berger, law enforcement need only be involved in the third stage identified in this taxonomy, through situational awareness programs and investigations. This paper stated that counter-messaging policies need not mimic the ISIS pattern of slick messaging. A data-driven study had found that suspending and suppressing the reach of violent extremist accounts and individuals on online platform was effective in reducing the reach of these ideologies, though not universally so. It also found that generic counter strategies used in the US was more efficient than targeted strategies followed in Europe.

Lack of Co-ordination, Fragmentation between the States and Centre

Speaking of the Indian scenario in particular, another participant brought to light the lack of co-ordination and consensus between the State and Central Governments and law enforcement agencies with respect to countering violent extremism with leads to a breakage in the chain of action. Another participant added that the underestimation of the problem at the state level coupled with the theoretical and abstract nature of work done at the Centre is another pitfall. While the fragmentation of agencies was stated to be ineffective, bringing them under the purview of a single agency was also proposed as an ineffective measure. It was instead suggested that a neutral policy body, and not an implementing body, should coordinate the efforts of the multiple groups involved.

Unreliable Intelligence Infrastructure

It was pointed out that countries are presently underequipped due to the lack of intelligence infrastructure and technical expertise. This was primarily because agencies in India tend to use off-the shelf hardware and software produced by foreign companies, and such heavy dependence on unreliable parts will necessarily be detrimental to building reliable security infrastructure. Emphasis was laid on the significance of collaboration and open-source intelligence in countering online radicalisation. An appeal was made to inculcate a higher IT proficiency, indigenous production of resources, funding, collaboration, integration of lower level agencies and more research to be produced in this regard.

Proactive Counter Narratives

The importance of proactive counter-narratives to extremist content was stressed on, with the possibility of generating inputs from government agencies and private bodies backing the government being discussed. Another solution identified was the creation and internal circulation of a clear strategy to counter the ISIS narrative and the public dissemination of research on online radicalization in the Indian context.

Policies of Social Media Platforms

The conversation moved towards understanding policies of social media. One participant shed light on a popular platform’s strategies against extremism, wherein it was pointed out that the site’s tolerance policy extends not only to directly extremist content but also content created by people who support violent extremism .The involvement of the platform with several countries and platforms in order to create anti-extremist messaging and its intention to expand these initiatives was in furtherance of its philosophy to prevent any celebration of violence. The participant further explained that research shows that anti-extremist content that made use of humour and a lighter tone was more effective than media which relied on gravitas.

Having identified the existing literature and current challenges, the roundtable concluded with suggestions for further areas of research:

Understanding the use of encrypted messaging services like Whatsapp and Telegram for extremism, and an analysis of these platforms in the Indian context. A deeper understanding of these services is essential to gauge the dimensions of the problem and identify counter measures.
A lexical analysis of Indian social media accounts to identify ISIS supporters and group them into meta-communities, similar to research done by the RAND Corporation
Collation of ISIS media packages was also flagged off as an important measure in order to have a dossier to present to the government. This would help policymakers gain context around the issue, and also help them understand the scale of the problem.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/isis-and-recruitment-using-social-media-2013-roundtable-report

PDP Bill is coming: WhatsApp Privacy Policy analysis

Pallavi Bedi & Shweta Reddy — 2021-01-19T08:12:23Z

WhatsApp started off the new year with changes to its privacy policy that has several implications for data protection and the digital governance ecosystem at large. This post is the first in a series by CIS unpacking the various implications of the policy.

On January 4, 2021, WhatsApp announced a revised privacy policy. The announcement was through an in-app notification. Users were asked to agree to the policy by February 8, else they will lose access to their accounts. The announcement triggered a backlash, globally and in India and it led to millions of users in India migrating to other messaging platforms. In light of the backlash, WhatsApp had on January 15 announced that it will delay rolling out the new policy to May 15, 2021.

It is important to note that many users have also commented that the new explicit terms of mandatory data sharing with Facebook and the extent of metadata collection haven’t changed drastically from WhatsApp’s existing operations. In 2016, WhatsApp had revised its privacy policy to enable data sharing with Facebook. Users were provided 30 days to opt out of such data sharing. However, the option to opt out was not provided to users who joined the service after September 25, 2016 or who failed to exercise the opt-out option. The changes in the policy were challenged in the Delhi High Court. The High Court (i) directed WhatsApp to delete the complete information of users who exercised the option to opt out before September 25, 2016; and (ii) with respect to users who did not exercise the opt-out option, WhatsApp was directed to not share the information of users collected until September 25, 2016 with Facebook. The matter is currently pending before the Supreme Court.

The change in people’s reactions to the data processing from 2016 can partly be attributed to the change in the users perception of privacy and personal data protection. Conversations around privacy and data protection and harms arising out of unauthorized data collection are much more prevalent. What has also irked a large number of users is the difference between the privacy policy applicable to the European Region and the policy applicable to the rest of the world; There is a disparity in the two policies regarding the rights of the users in relation to sharing of data with Facebook Companies(Facebook payments inc, Facebook Payments International Limited, Onavo, Facebook technologies LLC, Facebook Technologies Ireland limited, WhatsApp inc. WhatsApp Ireland Limited and Crowdtangle) due to the application of the General Data Protection Regulation.

Currently, Indian users have a fundamental right to privacy and an overarching data protection framework is set to be tabled in the Parliament soon. The Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019, being deliberated by the Joint Parliamentary Committee, is expected to provide comprehensive requirements for authorized collection and management of personal data. The proposed Bill, despite several shortcomings, does offer significantly more protection than the current framework consisting of S. 43A of Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Information Technology (Reasonable Security practices and procedures and sensitive personal data or Information) Rules, 2011. This blogpost will examine the viability of the revised privacy policy of WhatsApp if the proposed bill is enacted in the currently available public version of the Bill. In the subsequent posts we will analyse the effect of the revised privacy policy on the pending litigation.

Privacy notice

Section 7 of the proposed bill puts an obligation on the data fiduciary to provide a privacy notice, i.e. a document containing granular details of the processing of personal data to the data principals. The details must be provided in a manner that is clear, concise and easily comprehensible to a reasonable person. The notice should also be provided in multiple languages where necessary and practicable. The importance of a clear and concise policy has been highlighted in the Justice Srikrishna Report on Data Protection. However, there is no guidance from the Indian authorities on what it constitutes. Guidance from the Article 29 working party in the EU suggests that the policy must be presented in a manner that avoids information fatigue. In the digital context, it has been recommended that presenting a policy in a layered format enhances readability. The guidance also suggests that policy should avoid reliance on complex sentences and abstract terms to convey the details of the processing operations. The revised privacy policy of WhatsApp cannot be termed a clear and concise policy. The purely text-based policy, containing around 3800 words, is not presented in a layered format resulting in shockingly low readability for the amount and type of personal data collection the policy is attempting to convey. In addition to improper design and structure, the policy contains vague language providing an average user a hazy understanding of the extent of data processing and can leave room for different interpretations. The earlier version of the policy also uses similar language and structure to convey details regarding the processing and doesn’t provide transparent details regarding its data sharing with Facebook. Relying on a similar format as its earlier versions without revising it based on global discussions around the best methods seems to be an opportunity lost to remedy the privacy policy. The structure, form and language of the policy will have to be revised if the Bill is enacted in its current form and the policy will also have to be provided in multiple languages.

Bundled consent

According to its policy, WhatsApp relies on the consent of the user for the purpose of providing messaging and communication services, sharing information with third party service providers that help WhatsApp “operate, provide, improve, understand, customize, support, and market” their Services, and sharing information with other Facebook companies for “providing integrations with Facebook Company products” to name a few. It is important to verify if the consent being obtained is valid according to the standard set by the proposed framework.

For consent to be valid under the proposed framework (Section 11(4)) , the provision and quality of services provided should not be linked to consenting to processing of personal data that is not directly necessary for that purpose. In WhatsApp’s case, the primary purpose of processing is to provide messaging and communication services on that particular platform. Neither sharing personal data with third party service providers for better marketing of their services on other platforms nor sharing it with Facebook company of products for better integration of services is incidental to the primary purpose of processing. The bundling of consent results in forcing individuals to either accept processing of personal data for all of the purposes outlined or lose the services altogether resulting in an invalid consent. An explicit opt-in mechanism for all those processing operations that are not compatible with the primary purpose of processing will have to be provided to the Indian users if the Bill is enacted in its current form and consent is being relied on as the lawful ground of processing.

Data sharing with Facebook

WhatsApp’s policy on sharing of information with Facebook has garnered a significant amount of attention and has also raised privacy concerns amongst WhatsApp users in non-European countries. This is because the policy applicable to non- European countries now does not provide the user option to opt out from sharing the information if the user wants to continue using and operating WhatsApp. The policy under the heading ‘How we work with other Facebook Companies’ states that “As part of the Facebook Companies, WhatsApp receives information from, and shares information (see here) with, the other Facebook Companies. We may use the information we receive from them, and they may use the information we share with them, to help operate, provide, improve, understand, customize, support, and market our Services and their offerings, including the Facebook Company Products.” The information that may be shared by WhatsApp with Facebook Companies includes; (i) users phone number; (ii) transaction data; (iii) service-related information, (iv) information on how the users interact with others (including businesses); (v) mobile device information; (vi) the user’s IP address; and (vii) and any other data covered by the privacy policy. All this information/data will fall within the ambit of personal data in terms of the current version of the Bill and therefore WhatsApp would have to comply with the obligations put on it under the Bill for it to be able to share personal data with other data fiduciaries including Facebook Companies.

As noted earlier, it is pertinent to note that the privacy policy is not the same globally. As per the privacy policy applicable to Europe, WhatsApp states that any information that it shares with Facebook Companies is to be used on WhatsApp’s behalf and in accordance with its instructions. Any such information cannot be used for the Facebook Companies own purposes. This statement is not reflected in the privacy policy applicable to non European countries. Facebook has in a statement stated that “For the avoidance of any doubt, it is still the case that WhatsApp does not share European region WhatsApp user data with Facebook for the purpose of Facebook using this data to improve its products or advertisements”

Data sharing with other third party service providers

It is also important to note that sharing of information is not limited to Facebook Companies, but also extends to other third party service providers. However, apart from a vaguely drafted statement stating that WhatsApp works with third party service providers as well as other Facebook Companies to help it to “operate, provide, improve, understand, customize, support, and market our Services”, the privacy policy is silent and does not provide any insight or clear information on (a) the nature of these third party entities; (b) extent of information shared with such third party entities. Further, even though the policy provides a link to the other Facebook Companies (Facebook Payments Inc, Facebook International Limited, Onavo CrowdTangle) that it works with; there is again no clarity as to what are the specific services provided by these companies.

One of the rights provided to a data principal under Section 17 (3) and Section 7 (1)(g) of the current version of the Bill, is the right to be informed and the consent to be obtained from the data principal about the individuals or entities with whom personal data may be shared. The data principal also has the right to be informed about and given access to the categories of personal data shared with the other data fiduciaries. However, the policy as it stands on date is silent about both the details of the third parties service providers as well as the categories of personal data that could be shared with them.

Metadata collection and data minimisation

The details on usage and log information in the previous version of the policy were rather vague as a result of which the extent of data collection was difficult to ascertain. The revised version indicates that WhatsApp’s metadata collection went further than most of the other popular messaging applications and the data being collected was linked back to the user and device identity. The principle of data minimisation (Section 6 of the proposed framework) limits the collection of personal data to that which is necessary for the purpose of processing. The compelling reasons that justify the metadata collection for the primary purpose of messaging and communication are so far unclear. The metadata collection section is similar in the privacy policy for the EU region and on the face of it doesn’t look GDPR compliant as well. Collection of those categories of personal data that are not necessary for processing of the primary purpose will need to be discontinued if the Bill is enacted in its current form.

Data Principal rights

The difference between the protection afforded to Indian resident users and European resident users is highlighted in the rights accorded to the data principal under the two privacy policies. The European privacy policy has a section dedicated to how users can exercise their rights and specifies that users have the right to access, rectify, port, and erase their information, as well as the right to restrict and object to certain processing of their information. These rights are a reflection of the protection afforded to data principles under the GDPR. As per the current version of the Bill, the data principal will have the right to (i) confirmation and access (Section 17); (ii) correction and erasure (Section 18); and (iii) data portability (Section 19). If the current version of the Bill is enacted, then WhatsApp will be required to amend its privacy policy regarding its applicability to India and incorporate the rights of data accorded to the data principal .

Grievance redressal

The European Region privacy policy specifies the entity within WhatsApp responsible for addressing the complaints of the users and it further also informs the user that they have the right to approach the Irish Data Protection Commission, or any other competent data protection supervisory authority. None of these provisions are specified in the Non-European Region privacy policy. The current version of the PDP Bill places an obligation on the data fiduciary to establish an effective grievance redressal mechanism (Section 32(1)) and to inform the data principal about their right to approach the Data Protection Authority (which is proposed to be established under the PDP Bill) (Section 7(k)). Additional details regarding the same will have to be provided if the Bill is enacted in its current form.

Clarifications from WhatsApp

On January 13, 2021, WhatsApp published a blog stating that the changes to the privacy policy will not affect users who use the platform messaging with friends and family, the changes will only apply to users who use the platform to communicate with business accounts. As per WhatsApp messages to business accounts on WhatsApp can be shared with third-party service providers, which may include Facebook itself. As per the blog, “But whether you communicate with a business by phone, email, or WhatsApp, it can see what you’re saying and may use that information for its own marketing purposes, which may include advertising on Facebook.” It is important to note that we recognise that the content of the messages and the call remains encrypted, however, the concern arises from the collection and use of ‘metadata.’

WhatsApp’s repeated assurances and clarifications asserting their commitment to data privacy falls short. Their insistence that their chats still use end to end encryption and that only interactions with WhatsApp Business will be shared with Facebook indicates ignorance with regard to the different contours of informational privacy. The expectations of privacy that individuals have over their personal data is linked to the extent of control they have over disclosure of such data. The mandatory metadata collection and lack of opt out clauses for data sharing for marketing purposes results in a mere illusion of control through its façade consent collecting process.

For the most part, the proposed framework should provide us the same level of protection offered to EU users of WhatsApp regarding some of the key contentions highlighted above. However, additional data principal rights such as the right to object and right to restrict processing will give additional protections to the data principal in case of data processing for marketing purposes. The uproar over the data collection practices of WhatsApp have cemented the immediate need for an effective data protection legislation in the country. The final draft of the Bill with 89 new amendments is expected to be released soon. Considering the renewed apprehensions regarding unwarranted processing of personal data, we can only hope that the amendments have taken into consideration the feedback and comments provided by relevant stakeholders.

(This post was edited and reviewed by Amber Sinha, Arindrajit Basu and Aman Nair)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/pdp-bill-is-coming-whatsapp-privacy-policy-analysis