Centre for Internet and Society

Letter to ICANN on NCSG

pranesh — 2011-08-02T07:41:11Z

The Centre for Internet and Society sent the following mail to ICANN regarding their attempt to impose their own charter for a Noncommercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG), instead of accepting the one drafted by the Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC).

Dear Sir or Madam,

Greetings from the Centre for Internet and Society - Bangalore. We are a Bangalore based research and advocacy organisation promoting consumer and citizen rights on the Internet. We currently focus on IPR reform, IPR alternatives and electronic accessibility by the disabled. Please see our website <http://cis-india.org> for more information about us and our activities.

It has come to our attention that ICANN is imposing the ICANN staff-drafted charter for a Noncommercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) and ignoring the version drafted by civil society. As you know, the civil society version was drafted using a consensus process and more than 80 international noncommercial organizations, including mine, support it.

This is an unacceptable situation since the governance structures contained within the NCSG charter determine how effectively noncommercial users can influence policy decisions at ICANN in years to come. On behalf of Internet users in India - I would strongly urge you to reject the staff drafted version of the charter and adopt the version drafted and endorsed by civil society.

Best wishes,

Sunil Abraham
Executive Director
Centre for Internet and Society

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/letter-to-icann-on-ncsg

Comments on the Draft Rules under the Information Technology Act

pranesh — 2011-09-21T06:13:42Z

The Centre for Internet and Society commissioned an advocate, Ananth Padmanabhan, to produce a comment on the Draft Rules that have been published by the government under the Information Technology Act. In his comments, Mr. Padmanabhan highlights the problems with each of the rules and presents specific recommendations on how they can be improved. These comments were sent to the Department of Information and Technology.

Comments on the Draft Rules under the Information Technology Act as Amended by the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008

Submitted by the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore

Prepared by Ananth Padmanabhan, Advocate in the Madras High Court

Interception, Monitoring and Decryption

Section 69

The section says:

Where the Central Government or a State Government or any of its officer specially authorised by the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, in this behalf may, if satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do in the interest of the sovereignty or integrity of India, defence of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to above or for investigation of any offence, it may subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), for reasons to be recorded in writing, by order, direct any agency of the appropriate Government to intercept, monitor or decrypt or cause to be intercepted or monitored or decrypted any information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource.
The procedure and safeguards subject to which such interception or monitoring or decryption may be carried out, shall be such as may be prescribed.
The subscriber or intermediary or any person in-charge of the computer resource shall, when called upon by any agency referred to in sub-section (1), extend all facilities and technical assistance to-

(a) provide access to or secure access to the computer resource generating transmitting, receiving or storing such information; or

(b) intercept, monitor, or decrypt the information, as the case may be; or

The subscriber or intermediary or any person who fails to assist the agency referred to in sub-section (3) shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.

Recommendation #1
Section 69(3) should be amended and the following proviso be inserted:

Provided that only those intermediaries with respect to any information or computer resource that is sought to be monitored, intercepted or decrypted, shall be subject to the obligations contained in this sub-section, who are, in the opinion of the appropriate authority, prima facie in control of such transmission of the information or computer resource. The nexus between the intermediary and the information or the computer resource that is sought to be intercepted, monitored or decrypted should be clearly indicated in the direction referred to in sub-section (1) of this section.

Reasons for the Recommendation
In the case of any information or computer resource, there may be more than one intermediary who is associated with such information. This is because “intermediary” is defined in section 2(w) of the amended Act as,

“with respect to any electronic record means any person who on behalf of another person receives, stores or transmits that record or provides any service with respect to that record, including telecom service providers, network service providers, internet service providers, webhosting service providers, search engines, online payment sites, online-auction sites, online-market places and cyber cafes”.

The State or Central Government should not be given wide-ranging powers to enforce cooperation on the part of any such intermediary without there being a clear nexus between the information that is sought to be decrypted or monitored by the competent authority, and the control that any particular intermediary may have over such information.

To give an illustration, merely because some information may have been posted on an online portal, the computer resources in the office of the portal should not be monitored unless the portal has some concrete control over the nature of information posted in it. This has to be stipulated in the order of the Central or State Government which authorizes interception of the intermediary.

Recommendation #2
Section 69(4) should be repealed.

Reasons for the Recommendation
The closest parallels to Section 69 of the Act are the provisions in the Telegraph Rules which were brought in after the decision in PUCL v. Union of India, (1997) 1 SCC 301, famously known as the telephone tapping case.

Section 69(4) fixes tremendous liability on the intermediary for non-cooperation. This is violative of Article 14. Similar provisions in the Indian Penal Code and Code of Criminal Procedure, which demand cooperation from members of the public as regards production of documents, letters etc., and impose punishment for non-cooperation on their part, impose a maximum punishment of one month. It is bewildering why the punishment is 7 years imprisonment for an intermediary, when the only point of distinction between an intermediary under the IT Act and a member of the public under the IPC and CrPC is the difference in the media which contains the information.

Section 69(3) is akin to the duty cast upon members of the public to extend cooperation under Section 39 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by way of providing information as to commission of any offence, or the duty, when a summons is issued by the Court or the police, to produce documents under Sections 91 and 92 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The maximum punishment for non-cooperation prescribed by the Indian Penal Code for omission to cooperate or wilful breach of summons is only a month under Sections 175 and 176 of the Indian Penal Code. Even the maximum punishment for furnishing false information to the police is only six months under Section 177 of the IPC. When this is the case with production of documents required for the purpose of trial or inquiry, it is wholly arbitrary to impose a punishment of six years in the case of intermediaries who do not extend cooperation for providing access to a computer resource which is merely apprehended as being a threat to national security etc. A mere apprehension, however reasonable it may be, should not be used to pin down a liability of such extreme nature on the intermediary.

This would also amount to a violation of Articles 19(1)(a) as well as 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, not to mention Article 20(3). To give an example, much of the information received from confidential sources by members of the press would be stored in computer resources. By coercing them, through the 7 year imprisonment threat, to allow access to this computer resource and thereby part with this information, the State is directly infringing on their right under Article 19(1)(a). Furthermore, if the “subscriber” is the accused, then section 69(4) goes against Article 20(3) by forcing the accused to bear witness against himself.

Draft Rules under Section 69

Rule 3
Directions for interception or monitoring or decryption of any information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource under sub- section (2) of section 69 of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) shall not be issued except by an order made by the concerned competent authority who is Union Home Secretary in case of Government of India; the Secretary in-charge of Home Department in a State Government or Union Territory as the case may be. In unavoidable circumstances, such order may be made by an officer, not below the rank of a Joint Secretary to the Government of India, who has been duly authorised by the Union Home Secretary or by an officer equivalent to rank of Joint Secretary to Government of India duly authorised by the Secretary in-charge of Home Department in the State Government or Union Territory, as the case may be:

Provided that in emergency cases –
(i) in remote areas, where obtaining of prior directions for interception or monitoring or decryption of information is not feasible; or
(ii) for operational reasons, where obtaining of prior directions for interception or monitoring or decryption of any information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource is not feasible;

the required interception or monitoring or decryption of any information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource shall be carried out with the prior approval of the Head or the second senior most officer of the Security and Law Enforcement Agencies (hereinafter referred to as the said Security Agencies) at the Central Level and the officers authorised in this behalf, not below the rank of Inspector General of Police or an officer of equivalent rank, at the State and Union Territory level. The concerned competent authority, however, shall be informed of such interceptions or monitoring or decryption by the approving authority within three working days and that such interceptions or monitoring or decryption shall be got confirmed by the concerned competent authority within a period of seven working days. If the confirmation from the concerned competent authority is not received within the stipulated seven working days, such interception or monitoring or decryption shall cease and the same information shall not be intercepted or monitored or decrypted thereafter without the prior approval of the concerned competent authority, as the case may be.

Recommendation #3
In Rule 3, the following proviso may be inserted:

“Provided that in the event of cooperation by any intermediary being required for the purpose of interception, monitoring or decryption of such information as is referred to in this Rule, prior permission from a Supervisory Committee headed by a retired Judge of the Supreme Court or the High Courts shall be obtained before seeking to enforce the Order mentioned in this Rule against such intermediary.”

Reasons for the Recommendation
Section 69 and the draft rules suffer from absence of essential procedural safeguards. This has come in due to the blanket emulation of the Telegraph Rules. Additional safeguards should have been prescribed to ensure that the intermediary is put to minimum hardship when carrying on the monitoring or being granted access to a computer resource. Those are akin to a raid, in the sense that it can stop an online e-commerce portal from carrying out operations for a day or even more, thus affecting their revenue. It is therefore recommended that in any situation where cooperation from the intermediary is sought, prior judicial approval has to be taken. The Central or State Government cannot be the sole authority in such cases.

Furthermore, since access to the computer resource is required, an executive order should not suffice, and a search warrant or an equivalent which results from a judicial application of the mind (by the Supervisory Committee, for instance) should be required.

Recommendation #4
The following should be inserted after the last line in Rule 22:

The Review Committee shall also have the power to award compensation to the intermediary in cases where the intermediary has suffered loss or damage due to the actions of the competent authority while implementing the order issued under Rule 3.

Reasons for the Recommendation
The Review Committee should be given the power to award compensation to the loss suffered by the intermediary in cases where the police use equipment or software for monitoring/decryption that causes damage to the intermediary’s computer resources / networks. The Review Committee should also be given the power to award compensation in the case of monitoring directions which are later found to be frivolous or even worse, borne out of mala fide considerations. These provisions will act as a disincentive against the abuse of power contained in Section 69.

Blocking of Access to Information

Section 69A

The section provides for blocking of websites if the government is satisfied that it is in the interests of the purposes enlisted in the section. It also provides for penalty of up to seven years for intermediaries who fail to comply with the directions under this section.
The rules under this section describe the procedure which have to be followed barring which the review committee may, after due examination of the procedural defects, order an unblocking of the website.

Section 69A(3)
The intermediary who fails to comply with the direction issued under sub-section (1) shall be punished with an imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and also be liable to fine.

Recommendation #5
The penalty for intermediaries must be lessened.

Reasons for Recommendations
The penal provision in this section which prescribes up to seven years imprisonment and a fine on an intermediary who fails to comply with the directions so issued is also excessively harsh. Considering the fact that various mechanisms are available to escape the blocking of websites, the intermediaries must be given enough time and space to administer the block effectively and strict application of the penal provisions must be avoided in bona fide cases.

The criticism about Section 69 and the draft rules in so far as intermediary liability is concerned, will also apply mutatis mutandis to these rules as well as Section 69A.

Draft Rules under Section 69A

Rule 22: Review Committee
The Review Committee shall meet at least once in two months and record its findings whether the directions issued under Rule (16) are in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 69A of the Act. When the Review Committee is of the opinion that the directions are not in accordance with the provisions referred to above, it may set aside the directions and order for unblocking of said information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in a computer resource for public access.

Recommendation #6
A permanent Review Committee should be specially for the purposes of examining procedural lapses.

Reasons for Recommendation
Rule 22 provides for a review committee which shall meet a minimum of once in every two months and order for the unblocking of a site of due procedures have not been followed. This would mean that if a site is blocked, there could take up to two months for a procedural lapse to be corrected and it to be unblocked. Even a writ filed against the policing agencies for unfair blocking would probably take around the same time. Also, it could well be the case that the review committee will be overborne by cases and may fall short of time to inquire into each. Therefore, it is recommended that a permanent Review Committee be set up which will monitor procedural lapses and ensure that there is no blocking in the first place before all the due procedural requirements are met.

Monitoring and Collection of Traffic Data

Draft Rules under Section 69B

The section provides for monitoring of computer networks or resources if the Central Government is satisfied that conditions so mentioned are satisfied.

The rules provide for the manner in which the monitoring will be done, the process by which the directions for the same will be issued and the liabilities of the intermediaries and monitoring officers with respect to confidentiality of the information so monitored.

Grounds for Monitoring
Rule 4
The competent authority may issue directions for monitoring and collection of traffic data or information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource for any or all of the following purposes related to cyber security:
(a) forecasting of imminent cyber incidents;
(b) monitoring network application with traffic data or information on computer resource;
(c) identification and determination of viruses/computer contaminant;
(d) tracking cyber security breaches or cyber security incidents;
(e) tracking computer resource breaching cyber security or spreading virus/computer contaminants;
(f) identifying or tracking of any person who has contravened, or is suspected of having contravened or being likely to contravene cyber security;
(g) undertaking forensic of the concerned computer resource as a part of investigation or internal audit of information security practices in the computer resource;
(h) accessing a stored information for enforcement of any provisions of the laws relating to cyber security for the time being in force;
(i) any other matter relating to cyber security.

Rule 6
No direction for monitoring and collection of traffic data or information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource shall be given for purposes other than those specified in Rule (4).

Recommendation #7
Clauses (a), (b), (c), and (i) of Rule 4 must be repealed.

Reasons for Recommendations
The term “cyber incident” has not been defined, and “cyber security” has been provided a circular definition. Rule 6 clearly states that no direction for monitoring and collection of traffic data or information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource shall be given for purposes other than those specified in Rule 4. Therefore, it may prima facie appear that the government is trying to lay down clear and strict safeguards when it comes to monitoring at the expense of a citizens' privacy. However, Rule 4(i) allows the government to monitor if it is satisfied that it is “any matter related to cyber security”. This may well play as a ‘catch all’ clause to legalise any kind of monitoring and collection and therefore defeats the purported intention of Rule 6 of safeguarding citizen’s interests against arbitrary and groundless intrusion of privacy. Also, the question of degree of liability of the intermediaries or persons in charge of the computer resources for leak of secret and confidential information remains unanswered.

Rule 24: Disclosure of monitored data
Any monitoring or collection of traffic data or information in computer resource by the employee of an intermediary or person in-charge of computer resource or a person duly authorised by the intermediary, undertaken in course of his duty relating to the services provided by that intermediary, shall not be unlawful, if such activities are reasonably necessary for the discharge his duties as per the prevailing industry practices, in connection with :
(vi) Accessing or analysing information from a computer resource for the purpose of tracing a computer resource or any person who has contravened, or is suspected of having contravened or being likely to contravene, any provision of the Act that is likely to have an adverse impact on the services provided by the intermediary.

Recommendation #8
Safeguards must be introduced with respect to exercise of powers conferred by Rule 24(vi).

Reasons for Recommendations
Rule 24(vi) provides for access, collection and monitoring of information from a computer resource for the purposes of tracing another computer resource which has or is likely to contravened provisions of the Act and this is likely to have an adverse impact on the services provided by the intermediary. Analysis of a computer resource may reveal extremely confidential and important data, the compromise of which may cause losses worth millions. Therefore, the burden of proof for such an intrusion of privacy of the computer resource, which is first used to track another computer resource which is likely to contravene the Act, should be heavy. Also, this violation of privacy should be weighed against the benefits accruing to the intermediary. The framing of sub rules under this clearly specifying the same is recommended.

The disclosure of sensitive information by a monitoring agency for purposes of ‘general trends’ and ‘general analysis of cyber information’ is uncalled for as it dissipates information among lesser bodies that are not governed by sufficient safeguards and this could result in outright violation of citizen’s privacy.

Manner of Functioning of CERT-In

Draft Rules under Section 70B(5)

Section 70B provides for an Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In) which shall serve as a national agency for performing duties as prescribed by clause 4 of this section in accordance to the rules as prescribed.
The rules provide for CERT-In’s authority, composition of advisory committee, constituency, functions and responsibilities, services, stakeholders, policies and procedures, modus operandi, disclosure of information and measures to deal with non compliance of orders so issued. However, there are a few issues which need to be addressed as under:

Definitions
In these Rules, unless the context otherwise requires, “Cyber security incident” means any real or suspected adverse event in relation to cyber security that violates an explicit or implied security policy resulting in unauthorized access, denial of service/ disruption, unauthorized use of a computer resource for processing or storage of information or changes to data, information without authorization.

Recommendation #9
The words ‘or implied’’ must be excluded from rule 2(g) which defines ‘cyber security incident’, and the term ‘security policy’ must be qualified to state what security policy is being referred to.

Reasons for Recommendation
“Cyber security incident” means any real or suspected adverse event in relation to cyber security that violates an explicit or implied security policy resulting in unauthorized access, denial of service/disruption, unauthorized use of a computer resource for processing or storage of information or changes to data, information without authorization.

Thus, the section defines any circumstance where an explicit or implied security policy is contravened as a ‘cyber security incident’. Without clearly stating what the security policy is, an inquiry into its contravention is against an individual’s civil rights. If an individual’s actions are to be restricted for reasons of security, then the restrictions must be expressly defined and such restrictions cannot be said to be implied.

Rule 13(4): Disclosure of Information
Save as provided in sub-rules (1), (2), (3) of rule 13, it may be necessary or expedient to so to do, for CERT-In to disclose all relevant information to the stakeholders, in the interest of sovereignty or integrity of India, defence of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of an offence relating to cognizable offence or enhancing cyber security in the country.

Recommendation #10
Burden of necessity for disclosure of information should be made heavier.

Reasons for the Recommendation
Rule 13(4) allows the disclosure of information by CERT-In in the interests of ‘enhancing cyber security’. This enhancement however needs to be weighed against the detriment caused to the individual and the burden of proof must be on the CERT-In to show that this was the only way of achieving the required.

Rule 19: Protection for actions taken in Good Faith
All actions of CERT-In and its staff acting on behalf of CERT-In are taken in good faith in fulfillment of its mandated roles and functions, in pursuance of the provisions of the Act or any rule, regulations or orders made thereunder. CERT-In and its staff acting on behalf of CERT-In shall not be held responsible for any unintended fallout of their actions.

Recommendation #11
CERT-In should be made liable for their negligent action and no presumption of good faith should be as such provided for.

Reasons for the Recommendation
Rule 19 provides for the protection of CERT-In members for the actions taken in ‘good faith’. It defines such actions as ‘unintended fallouts’. Clearly, if information has been called for and the same is highly confidential, then this rule bars the remedy for any leak of the same due to the negligence of the CERT-In members. This is clearly not permissible as an agency that calls for delicate information should also be held responsible for mishandling the same, intentionally or negligently. Good faith can be established if the need arises, and no presumption as to good faith needs to be provided.

Draft Rules under Section 52

These rules, entitled the “Cyber Appellate Tribunal (Salary, Allowances and Other Terms and Conditions of Service of Chairperson and Members) Rules, 2009” are meant to prescribe the framework for the independent and smooth functioning of the Cyber Appellate Tribunal. This is so because of the specific functions entrusted to this Appellate Tribunal. Under the IT Act, 2000 as amended by the IT (Amendment) Act, 2008, this Tribunal has the power to entertain appeals against orders passed by the adjudicating officer under Section 47.

Recommendation #12
Amend qualifications Information Technology (Qualification and Experience of Adjudicating Officers and Manner of Holding Enquiry) Rules, 2003, to require judicial training and experience.

Reasons for the Recommendation
It is submitted that an examination of these rules governing the Appellate Tribunal cannot be made independent of the powers and qualifications of Adjudicating Officers who are the original authority to decide on contravention of provisions in the IT Act dealing with damage to computer system and failure to furnish information. Even as per the Information Technology (Qualification and Experience of Adjudicating Officers and Manner of Holding Enquiry) Rules, 2003, persons who did not possess judicial experience and training, such as those holding the post of Director in the Central Government, were qualified to perform functions under Section 46 and decide whether there has been unauthorized access to a computer system. This involves appreciation of evidence and is not a merely administrative function that could be carried on by any person who has basic knowledge of information technology.

Viewed from this angle, the qualifications of the Cyber Appellate Tribunal members should have been made much tighter as per the new draft rules. The above rules when read with Section 50 of the IT Act, as amended in 2008, do not say anything about the qualification of the technical members apart from the fact that such person shall not be appointed as a Member, unless he is, or has been, in the service of the Central Government or a State Government, and has held the post of Additional Secretary or Joint Secretary or any equivalent post. Though special knowledge of, and professional experience in, information technology, telecommunication, industry, management or consumer affairs, has been prescribed in the Act as a requirement for any technical member.

Draft Rules under Section 54

These Rules do not suffer any defect and provide for a fair and reasonable enquiry in so far as allegations made against the Chairperson or the members of the Cyber Appellate Tribunal are concerned.

Penal Provisions

Section 66A

Any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication device,
    (a) any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character; or
    (b) any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will, persistently by making use of such computer resource or a communication device,
    (c) any electronic mail or electronic mail message for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages,
shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine.
Sec. 32 of the 2008 Act inserts Sec. 66A which provides for penal measures for mala fide use of electronic resources to send information detrimental to the receiver. For the section to be attracted the ‘information’ needs to be grossly offensive, menacing, etc. and the sender needs to have known it to be false.

While the intention of the section – to prevent activities such as spam-sending – might be sound and even desirable, there is still a strong argument to be made that words is submitted that the use of words such as ‘annoyance’ and ‘inconvenience’ (in s.66A(c)) are highly problematic. Further, something can be grossly offensive without touching upon any of the conditions laid down in Article 19(2). Without satisfying the conditions of Article 19(2), this provision would be ultra vires the Constitution.

Recommendation #13
The section should be amended and words which lead to ambiguity must be excluded.

Reasons for the Recommendation
A clearer phrasing as to what exactly could convey ‘ill will’ or cause annoyance in the electronic forms needs to be clarified. It is possible in some electronic forms for the receiver to know the content of the information. In such circumstances, if such a possibility is ignored and annoyance does occur, is the sender still liable? Keeping in mind the complexity of use of electronic modes of transmitting information, it can be said that several such conditions arise which the section has vaguely covered. Therefore, a stricter and more clinical approach is necessary.

Recommendation #14
A proviso should be inserted to this section providing for specific exceptions to the offence contained in this section for reasons such as fair comment, truth, criticism of actions of public officials etc.

Reasons for the Recommendation
The major problem with Section 66A lies in clause (c) as per which any electronic mail or electronic mail message sent with the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience is covered within the ambit of offensive messages. This does not pay heed to the fact that even a valid and true criticism of the actions of an individual, when brought to his notice, can amount to annoyance. Indeed, it may be brought to his attention with the sole purpose of causing annoyance to him. When interpreting the Information Technology Act, it is to be kept in mind that the offences created under this Act should not go beyond those prescribed in the Indian Penal Code except where there is a wholly new activity or conduct, such as hacking for instance, which is sought to be criminalized.

Offensive messages have been criminalized in the Indian Penal Code subject to the conditions specified in Chapter XXII being present. It is not an offence to verbally insult or annoy someone without anything more being done such as a threat to commit an offence, etc. When this is the case with verbal communications, there is no reason to make an exception for those made through the electronic medium and bring any electronic mail or message sent with the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience within the purview of an offensive message.

Section 66F

The definition of cyber-terrorism under this provision is too wide and can cover several activities which are not actually of a “terrorist” character.
Section 66F(1)(B) is particularly harsh and goes much beyond acts of “terrorism” to include various other activities within its purview. As per this provision,
“[w]hoever knowingly or intentionally penetrates or accesses a computer resource without authorisation or exceeding authorised access, and by means of such conduct obtains access to information, data or computer database that is restricted for reasons for the security of the State or foreign relations, or any restricted information, data or computer database, with reasons to believe that such information, data or computer database so obtained may be used to cause or is likely to cause injury to the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, group of individuals or otherwise, commits the offence of cyber terrorism.”

This provision suffers from several defects and hence ought to be repealed.

Recommendation #15
Section 66F(1)(B) has to be repealed or suitably amended to water down the excessively harsh operation of this provision. The restrictive nature of the information that is unauthorisedly accessed must be confined to those that are restricted on grounds of security of the State or foreign relations. The use to which such information may be put should again be confined to injury to the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, or public order. A mere advantage to a foreign nation cannot render the act of unauthorized access one of cyber-terrorism as long as such advantage is not injurious or harmful in any manner to the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, or public order. A mens rea requirement should also be introduced whereby mere knowledge that the information which is unauthorisedly accessed can be put to such uses as given in this provision should not suffice for the unauthorised access to amount to cyber-terrorism. The unauthorised access should be with the intention to put such information to this use. The amended provision would read as follows:

“[w]hoever knowingly or intentionally penetrates or accesses a computer resource without authorisation or exceeding authorised access, and by means of such conduct obtains access to information, data or computer database that is restricted for reasons for the security of the State or foreign relations, with the intention that such information, data or computer database so obtained may be used to cause injury to the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, or public order, commits the offence of cyber terrorism.”

Reasons for the Recommendation
The ambit of this provision goes much beyond information, data or computer database which is restricted only on grounds of security of the State or foreign relations and extends to “any restricted information, data or computer database”. This expression covers any government file which is marked as confidential or saved in a computer used exclusively by the government. It also covers any file saved in a computer exclusively used by a private corporation or enterprise. Even the use to which such information can be put need not be confined to those that cause or are likely to cause injury to the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, or friendly relations with foreign States. Information or data which is defamatory, amounting to contempt of court, or against decency / morality, are all covered within the scope of this provision. This goes way beyond the idea of a terrorist activity and poses serious questions. While there is no one globally accepted definition of cyberterrorism, it is tough to conceive of slander as a terrorist activity.

To give an illustration, if a journalist managed to unauthorisedly break into a restricted database, even one owned by a private corporation, and stumbled upon information that is defamatory in character, he would have committed an act of “cyber-terrorism.” Various kinds of information pertaining to corruption in the judiciary may be precluded from being unauthorisedly accessed on the ground that such information may be put to use for committing contempt of court. Any person who gains such access would again qualify as a cyber-terrorist. The factual situations are numerous where this provision can be put to gross misuse with the ulterior motive of muzzling dissent or freezing access to information that may be restricted in nature but nonetheless have a bearing on probity in public life etc. It is therefore imperative that this provision may be toned down as recommended above.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/comments-draft-rules

IT Act and Commerce

pranesh — 2011-08-02T07:41:45Z

This is a guest post by Rahul Matthan, partner in the law firm Trilegal, and widely regarded as one of the leading experts on information technology law in India. In this post, Mr. Matthan looks at the provisions in the amended Information Technology Act of interest to commerce, namely electronic signatures and data protection.

This post analyses the amendments brought about to the Information Technology Act, 2000 (“IT Act 2000”) through the recent 2008 amendments (“IT Act 2008”).

Definitions

The IT Act 2008 has introduced a few additional definitions to the list of definitions originally included in the IT Act 2000. These definitions have either amplified the existing provisions or been introduced in order to address new issues required to be defined in the context of the newly introduced provisions in the statute. Some of the significant definitions have been discussed below:

Computer Network

The definition of “computer network” has been amended to specifically include the wireless interconnection of computers. While wireless technology did fall within the scope of the IT Act under the rather generic head of “other communication media”, the Amendment Act clarifies the scope of the IT Act by expressly including the term “wireless”.

Communication Devices

The IT Amendment Bill, 2006, had provided an explanation for “communication devices” under Section 66A. This definition has been moved into the definition section and now applies across all sections of the IT Act 2008. “Communication devices” is defined to mean “a cell phone, personal digital assistance (PDA) device or combination of both or any device used to communicate, send or transmit any text, video, audio or image”.

There has been case law even under the IT Act that has held mobile phones to fall within the ambit of the IT Act, as a result of which all the provisions of the Act that apply to computers are equally applicable to mobile phones. This amendment only makes that position more explicit.

Electronic Signatures

One of the major criticisms of the IT Act 2000 was the fact that it was not a technology neutral legislation. This was specifically so in relation to the provisions in the IT Act 2000 relating to the use of digital signatures for the purpose of authentication of electronic records. The statute made specific reference to the use of asymmetric cryptosystem technologies in the context of digital signatures, and, in effect, any authentication method that did not use this technology was not recognised under the IT Act 2000.

The IT Act 2008 has attempted to make this more technology neutral. In doing so, the attempt has been to bring the law in line with the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Model Law on Electronic Signatures (“Model Law”).

Replacement of Digital Signatures

The first significant change in the IT Act 2008 is the replacement of the term “digital signatures” with “electronic signatures” in almost all the provisions in the IT Act 2000. In some provisions, reference continues to be made to digital signatures, but the net effect of the amendments is to treat digital signatures as a subset (or an example of one type) of electronic signatures.

Electronic signatures have been defined as the authentication of an electronic record using the authentication techniques specified in the 2nd Schedule to the Act, provided they are reliable.

The reliability criterion has been introduced, very much along the lines of the Model Law. However, the contents of the 2nd Schedule are yet to be stipulated, which means that despite the existence of a reliability standard, the only authentication method available at this point in time is the digital signature regime.

Dual Requirement

One significant implication of this amendment is the introduction of a dual requirement – to meet the reliability standard as well as to be included in the 2nd Schedule. However, structuring the authentication procedures in this manner offsets the objective tests of neutrality borrowed from the Model Law, since an authentication method may meet the reliability test but will not be deemed to be legally enforceable unless it is notified in the 2nd Schedule.

Additionally, there will be grounds for challenging electronic signatures that are notified to the 2nd Schedule, if it can be shown that the signature so notified is not reliable under the terms of the reliability criteria. This can act as an impediment to the recognition of electronic signatures by notification.

Emphasis on Digital Signatures

Another concern is the treatment of digital signatures in the post amendment statute. The IT Act 2008 continues to retain all the provisions relating to digital signatures within the main body of the statute. The term “digital signature” has not been uniformly substituted with “electronic signature” throughout the statute. In certain provisions this leads to a certain amount of absurdity, such as in those relating to representations made as to the issuance, suspension or revocation of digital signature certificates; due to the lack of uniformity, these principles now apply only to digital signatures and not to all types of electronic signatures.

It would have been preferable if the provisions relating to digital signatures had been moved in their entirety to the 2nd Schedule. Then, digital signatures would have become just another class of electronic signatures listed in the Schedule. By omitting to do this, the authors ensure that digital signature-specific provisions remaining in the main body of the statute challenge the technology neutrality of the statute.

Certifying Authorities

The IT Act 2008 has made the certifying authority the repository of all electronic signatures issued under the statute. Given that there are, at present, multiple certifying authorities, this provision is impractical. Instead, the statute should have either referred to the Controller of Certifying Authorities or should have been worded to state that each certifying authority would be the repository for all electronic signature certificates issued by it.

Impact on Other Statutes

Since the enactment of the IT Act 2000, amendments have been carried out in other statutes, relying on the concept of digital signatures. For instance, the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, makes the use of a digital signature essential for an electronic cheque.1 While the IT Act 2008 has expanded the scope of the available authentication measures, by introducing the technologically neutral concept of electronic signatures, corresponding amendments in other statutes like the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, will need to be carried out, so that they are not limited in their application to digital signatures.

Data Protection

Prior to the passing of the IT Act 2008, the concept of 'data protection' was not recognised in India. The amendments have now introduced some amount of legal protection for data stored in the electronic medium. This chapter analyses the changes sought to be introduced and their impact on data protection law in India.

Data under the IT Act 2000

The only provision under the IT Act 2000, which dealt with unauthorised access and damage to data, was Section 43. Under that section, penalties were prescribed in respect of any person who downloads copies or extracts data from a computer system, introduces computer contaminants or computer viruses into a computer system or damages any data residing in a computer system.

Data under the IT Act 2008

Under the IT Act 2008, far-reaching changes have been made in relation to data. Two sections have been inserted specifically for that purpose – Sections 43-A and 72-A, one dealing with the civil and the other with the criminal remedies in relation to the breach of data related obligations.

The Civil Remedies for Data Protection

The newly introduced Section 43-A reads as follows:

Compensation for failure to protect data - Where a body corporate, possessing, dealing or handling any sensitive personal data or information in a computer resource which it owns, controls or operates, is negligent in implementing and maintaining reasonable security practices and procedures and thereby causes wrongful loss or wrongful gain to any person, such body corporate shall be liable to pay damages by way of compensation, to the person so affected.

Explanation - For the purposes of this section:

(i) “Body Corporate” means any company and includes a firm, sole proprietorship or other association of individuals engaged in commercial or professional activities;

(ii) “Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures” means security practices and procedures designed to protect such information from unauthorised access, damage, use, modification, disclosure or impairment, as may be specified in an agreement between the parties or as may be specified in any law for the time being in force and in the absence of such agreement or any law, such reasonable security practices and procedures, as may be prescribed by the Central Government in consultation with such professional bodies or associations as it may deem fit; and

(iii) “Sensitive Personal Data or Information” means such personal information as may be prescribed by the Central Government in consultation with such professional bodies or associations as it may deem fit.

While at first this provision appears to address several long standing concerns relating to data protection in India, there are several insidious flaws that could affect the development of a data protection jurisprudence in the country.

Non-Electronic Data

In the first instance, there is no mention, under this provision, of non-electronic data. Most international data protection statutes recognise and protect data stored in any electronic medium or a relevant filing system (including, for instance, a salesperson's diary). The newly introduced provisions of the IT Act 2008 do not provide any protection for data stored in a non-electronic medium.

It could be argued that given the legislative focus of this statute (it has been called the Information Technology Act with a reason), it would be inappropriate to include within this statute protection for forms of data that do not relate to the digital or electronic medium. While that argument is valid to many who look to the new provisions introduced in the IT Act 2008 as the answer to the data protection concerns that the country has been facing all these years, their enthusiasm must be tempered as these new provisions merely provide solutions for electronic data.

Classification of Data

Most international data protection statutes distinguish between different levels of personal data – specifying difference levels of protection for personal information and sensitive personal information. Depending on whether the data can be classified as one or the other, they have different levels of protection, as loss, unauthorised access or disclosure of sensitive personal information is considered to have a deeper impact on the data subject.

The new provisions of the IT Act 2008 make no such distinction. Section 43-A applies to all “sensitive personal data or information” but does not specify how personal data not deemed to be sensitive is to be treated. In essence, personal information and sensitive personal information do not appear to be differentially treated in the context of data protection.

Consequences

Under most international data protection statutes, the person in “control” of the data is liable for the consequences of disclosure, loss or unauthorised access to such information. This ensures that liability is restricted to those who actually have the ability to control the manner in which the data is treated.

However, under the new provisions of the IT Act 2008, the mere possession of information and its subsequent misuse would render any person who possesses this data liable to damages. While there is likely to be a debate on what constitutes possession and how this differs from control, there can be little doubt that by referring to “possession” in addition to “operation” and “control”, the IT Act 2008 appears to have widened the net considerably.

Negligence in Implementing Security Practices

Section 43-A specifically places liability on a body corporate only if such body corporate has been negligent in implementing its security practices and procedures in relation to the data possessed, controlled or handled by it. The choice of language here is significant. The statute specifically refers to the term “negligence” in relation to the security practices and procedures as opposed to stipulating a clear, pass-fail type obligation to conform.

There is a significant difference between the terms “negligence to implement” and “failure to implement”. The former can only result in a breach if the body corporate that was required to follow reasonable security practices with regard to the data in its possession or control does not perform the required action and it can be proved that a reasonable man in the same circumstances would have performed the required action. If a body corporate is to be made liable under the provisions of this Section, it is not enough to demonstrate that security procedures were not followed; it has to be proved in addition that the body corporate was negligent.

Wrongful Loss and Gain

The Section appears to have been constructed on the basis that a breach has occurred in the event that any “wrongful gain” or “wrongful loss” was suffered. These terms have not been defined either under statutes or through any judicial precedents in the civil context. However, these terms do have a definition under criminal law in India. The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”), defines “Wrongful Gain” to mean gain, by unlawful means, of property to which the person gaining is not legally entitled; and “Wrongful Loss” to mean the loss by unlawful means of property to which the person losing it is legally entitled.

There does not appear to be any greater significance in the use of these terms even though they are typically found in criminal statutes. Therefore, apart from the slight ambiguity as to purpose, their use in the IT Act does not appear to have any great significance.

Limitation on Liability

The provisions of Section 43 originally had the total liability for a breach capped at Rs. 5,00,00,000 (five crore rupees). The original text of Section 43-A had the same limitation of liability in respect of its data protection provisions. Before the bill was passed into law, this limitation was removed and now a breach of Section 43-A is not subject to any limitation of liabilities.

Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures

Section 43-A makes a reference to “reasonable security practices and procedures” and stipulates that a breach has been caused only if such practices and procedures have not been followed. There are three methods by which reasonable security practices and procedures can be established:

By agreement;
By law; and
By prescription by the Central Government.

As there is no law in India which sets out an appropriate definition for the term and since it will be some time before which the Central Government comes out with necessary regulations, it would appear that the only option available is for the parties to arrive at an agreement as to how the sensitive personal data and information exchanged under their contract is to be handled.

As a corollary, till such time as the government establishes the necessary rules in relation to these security practices and procedures, if a body corporate does not enter into an agreement with the person providing the information as to the reasonable security practices and procedures that would apply, the body corporate cannot be brought within the purview of this section for any loss or damage to data.

The Criminal Remedies for Unlawful Disclosure of Information

In addition to the civil remedies spelled out in such detail in Section 43-A, the newly introduced provisions of Section 72-A of the IT Act 2008 could be used to impose criminal sanctions against any person who discloses information in breach of a contract for services. While not exactly a data protection provision in the same way that Section 43-A is, there are enough similarities in purpose to achieve the same result.

Section 72-A reads:

Punishment for Disclosure of information in breach of lawful contract - Save as otherwise provided in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, any person including an intermediary who, while providing services under the terms of lawful contract, has secured access to any material containing personal information about another person, with the intent to cause or knowing that he is likely to cause wrongful loss or wrongful gain discloses, without the consent of the person concerned, or in breach of a lawful contract, such material to any other person shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with a fine which may extend to Rupees five lakh, or with both.

In substance, this provision appears to be focused on providing criminal remedies in the context of breach of confidentiality obligations under service contracts; given that the section specifically refers to the disclosure of personal information obtained under that service contract, it is fair to classify this as a provision that addresses data protection issues.

Personal Information

The IT Act 2008 does not define “personal information”. Equally, there are no judicial precedents that provide any clarity on the term. The Right to Information Act, 2005 does provide a definition for “personal information”, but that definition is inappropriate in the context of the IT Act 2008. In the absence of a useable definition for the term “personal information”, it becomes difficult to assess the scope and ambit of the provision and in particular to understand the extent to which it is enforceable.

"Willful"

The section would only apply to persons who willfully disclose personal information and cause wrongful loss or gain. Hence, in order to make a person liable it has to be proved that the person disclosing the personal information did so with an intention to cause wrongful loss or gain. It would be a valid defense to claim that any loss caused was unintentional.

Service Contracts

The section appears to be particular about the fact that it only applies in the context of personal information obtained under a contract for services. This appears to rule out confidential information (that is not of a personal nature) that has been received under any other form of agreement (including, for example, a technology license agreement). The section is clearly intended to protect against the misuse of personal information and cannot be adapted to provide a wider level of protection against all breaches of confidential information. That said, employers now have a much stronger weapon against employees who leave with the personal records of other fellow employees.

Consent

This section also clearly applies only to those disclosures of personal information with the intent to cause wrongful loss or gain which have taken place without the consent of the person whose personal information is being disclosed. What remains to be seen is how the law will deal with situations where a general consent for disclosures has been obtained at the time of recruitment.

Such clauses are made effective around the world by including opt in and opt out clauses, to allow the employee to either expressly agree to the disclosure of his personal information or to specifically exclude himself from the ambit of any such disclosures.

Media of Material

This section, unlike several other provisions of the IT Act 2008, deals with all manner of materials without requiring them to be digital. However, while disclosure of information stored in the non-electronic medium has been recognised, in the absence of a clear definition of personal information, it is difficult to ascertain the application and enforcement of this section.

What’s Missing

In order to be a truly effective data protection statute, the IT Act 2008 must include provisions relating to the collection, circumstances of collection, control, utilisation and proper disposal of data. At present the statute is silent about these aspects. In many ways, the statute addresses the particular concerns of companies or corporate entities looking for protection in relation to data outsourced to any other corporate entity for processing. Within these specific parameters the statute works well. However it does little to protect the average citizen of the country from the theft of personal data. Until we have statutory recognition of these issues, we will not be able to say that we have an effective data protection law in India.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/it-act-and-commerce

Primer on the New IT Act

pranesh — 2011-08-02T07:41:54Z

With this draft information bulletin, we briefly discuss some of the problems with the Information Technology Act, and invite your comments.

The latest amendments to the Information Technology Act 2000, passed in December 2008 by the Lok Sabha, and the draft rules framed under it contain several provisions that can be abused and misused to infringe seriously on citizens' fundamental rights and basic civil liberties. We have already written about some of the problems with this Act earlier. With this information bulletin, drafted by Chennai-based advocate Ananth Padmanabhan, we wish to extend that analysis into the form of a citizens' dialogue highlighting ways in which the Act and the rules under it fail. Thus, we invite your comments, suggestions, and queries, as this is very much a work in progress. We will eventually consolidate this dialogue and follow up with the government on the concerns of its citizens.

Intermediaries beware

Internet service providers, webhosting service providers, search engines, online payment sites, online auction sites, online market places, and cyber cafes are all examples of “intermediaries” under this Act. The Government can force any of these intermediaries to cooperate with any interception, monitoring or decryption of data by stating broad and ambiguous reasons such as the “interest of the sovereignty or integrity of India”, “defence of India”, “security of the State”, “friendly relations with foreign States”, “public order” or for “preventing incitement to” or “investigating” the commission of offences related to those. This power can be abused to infringe on the privacy of intermediaries as well as to hamper their constitutional right to conduct their business without interference.

If a Google search on “Osama Bin Laden” throws up an article that claims to have discovered his place of hiding, the Government of India can issue a direction authorizing the police to monitor Google’s servers to find the source of this information. While Google can, of course, establish that this information cannot be attributed directly to the organization, making the search unwarranted, that would not help it much. While section 69 grants the government these wide-ranging powers, it does not provide for adequate safeguards in the form of having to show due cause or having an in-built right of appeal against a decision by the government. If Google refused to cooperate under such circumstances, its directors would be liable to imprisonment of up to seven years.

Pre-censorship

The State has been given unbridled power to block access to websites as long as such blocking is deemed to be in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, and other such matters.

Thus, if a web portal or blog carries or expresses views critical of the Indo-US nuclear deal, the government can block access to the website and thus muzzle criticism of its policies. While some may find that suggestion outlandish, it is very much possible under the Act. Since there is no right to be heard before your website is taken down nor is there an in-built mechanism for the website owner to appeal, the decisions made by the government cannot be questioned unless you are prepared to undertake a costly legal battle.

Again, if an intermediary (like Blogspot or an ISP like Airtel) refuses to cooperate, its directors may be personally liable to imprisonment for up to a period of seven years. Thus, being personally liable, the intermediaries are rid of any incentive to stand up for the freedom of speech and expression.

We need to monitor your computer: you have a virus

The government has been vested with the power to authorize the monitoring and collection of traffic data and information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource. This provision is much too widely-worded.

For instance, if the government feels that there is a virus on your computer that can spread to another computer, it can demand access to monitor your e-mails on the ground that such monitoring enhances “cyber security” and prevents “the spread of computer contaminants”.

Think before you click "Send"

If out of anger you send an e-mail for the purpose of causing “annoyance” or “inconvenience”, you may be liable for imprisonment up to three years along with a fine. While that provision (section 66A(c)) was meant to combat spam and phishing attacks, it criminalizes much more than it should.

A new brand of "cyber terrorists"

The new offence of “cyber terrorism” has been introduced, which is so badly worded that it borders on the ludicrous. If a journalist gains unauthorized access to a computer where information regarding corruption by certain members of the judiciary is stored, she becomes a “cyber terrorist” as the information may be used to cause contempt of court. There is no precedent for any such definition of cyberterrorism. It is unclear what definition of terrorism the government is going by when even unauthorized access to defamatory material is considered cyberterrorism.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/primer-it-act

Short note on IT Amendment Act, 2008

pranesh — 2011-06-01T14:45:34Z

Pranesh Prakash of the Centre for Internet and Society wrote a short note in February 2009 on the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008. This is being posted as a precursor to a more exhaustive analysis of the Act and the rules sought to be promulgated under the Act. Thus, this does not cover the regulations that have been drafted under the Act.

The new amendments to the Information Technology Act, 2000 that got passed by the Lok Sabha last December deserve a careful reading. There are a number of positive developments, as well as many which dismay. Positively, they signal an attempt by the government to create a dynamic policy that is technology neutral. This is exemplified by its embracing the idea of electronic signatures as opposed to digital signatures. But more could have been done on this front (for instance, section 76 of the Act still talks of floppy disks). There have also been attempts to deal proactively with the many new challenges that the Internet poses.

Freedom of Expression

The first amongst these challenges is that of child pornography. It is heartening to see that the section on child pornography (s.67B) has been drafted with some degree of care. It talks only of sexualized representations of actual children, and does not include fantasy play-acting by adults, etc. From a plain reading of the section, it is unclear whether drawings depicting children will also be deemed an offence under the section. Unfortunately, the section covers everyone who performs the conducts outlined in the section, including minors. A slight awkwardness is created by the age of "children" being defined in the explanation to section 67B as older than the age of sexual consent. So a person who is capable of having sex legally may not record such activity (even for private purposes) until he or she turns eighteen.

Another problem is that the word "transmit" has only been defined for section 66E. The phrase "causes to be transmitted" is used in section 67, 67A, and 67B. That phrase, on the face of it, would include the recipient who initiates a transmission along with the person from whose server the data is sent. While in India, traditionally the person charged with obscenity is the person who produces and distributes the obscene material, and not the consumer of such material. This new amendment might prove to be a change in that position.

Section 66A which punishes persons for sending offensive messages is overly broad, and is patently in violation of Art. 19(1)(a) of our Constitution. The fact that some information is "grossly offensive" (s.66A(a)) or that it causes "annoyance" or "inconvenience" while being known to be false (s.66A(c)) cannot be a reasons for curbing the freedom of speech unless it is directly related to decency or morality, public order, or defamation (or any of the four other grounds listed in Art. 19(2)). It must be stated here that many argue that John Stuart Mill's harm principle provides a better framework for freedom of expression than Joel Feinberg's offence principle. The latter part of s.66A(c), which talks of deception, is sufficient to combat spam and phishing, and hence the first half, talking of annoyance or inconvenience is not required. Additionally, it would be beneficial if an explanation could be added to s.66A(c) to make clear what "origin" means in that section. Because depending on the construction of that word s.66A(c) can, for instance, unintentionally prevent organisations from using proxy servers, and may prevent a person from using a sender envelope different form the "from" address in an e-mail (a feature that many e-mail providers like Gmail implement to allow people to send mails from their work account while being logged in to their personal account). Furthermore, it may also prevent remailers, tunnelling, and other forms of ensuring anonymity online. This doesn't seem to be what is intended by the legislature, but the section might end up having that effect. This should hence be clarified.

Section 69A grants powers to the Central Government to "issue directions for blocking of public access to any information through any computer resource". In English, that would mean that it allows the government to block any website. While necessity or expediency in terms of certain restricted interests are specified, no guidelines have been specified. Those guidelines, per s.69A(2), "shall be such as may be prescribed". It has to be ensured that they are prescribed first, before any powers of censorship are granted to any body. In India, it is clear that any law that gives unguided discretion on an administrative authority to exercise censorship is unreasonable (In re Venugopal, AIR 1954 Mad 901).

Intermediary Liability

The amendment to the provision on intermediary liability (s.79) while a change in the positive direction, as is seeks to make only the actual violators of the law liable for the offences committed, still isn't wide enough. This exemption is required to be widely worded to encourage innovation and to allow for corporate and public initiatives for sharing of content, including via peer-to-peer technologies.

Firstly, the requirement of taking down content upon receiving "actual knowledge" is much too heavy a burden for intermediaries. Such a requirement forces the intermediary to make decisions rather than the appropriate authority (which often is the judiciary). The intermediary is no position to decide whether a Gauguin painting of Tahitian women is obscene or not, since that requires judicial application of mind. Secondly, that requirement is vitiates the principles of natural justice and freedom of expression because it allows a communication and news medium to be gagged without giving it, or the party communicating through it, any due hearing. It has been held by our courts that a restriction that does not provide the affected persons a right to be heard is procedurally unreasonable (Virendra v. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 896).

The intermediary loses protection of the act if (a) it initiates the transmission; (b) selects the receiver of the transmission; and (c) selects or modifies the information. While the first two are required to be classified as true "intermediaries", the third requirement is a bit too widely worded. For instance, an intermediary might automatically inject advertisements in all transmissions, but that modification does not go to the heart of the transmission, or make it responsible for the transmission in any way. Similarly, the intermediary may have a code of conduct, and may regulate transmissions with regard to explicit language (which is easy to judge), but would not have the capability to make judgments regarding fair use of copyrighted materials. So that kind of "selection" should not render the intermediary liable, since misuse of copyright might well be against the intermediary's terms and conditions of use.

Privacy and Surveillance

While the threat of cyber-terrorism might be very real, blanket monitoring of traffic is not the way forward to get results, and is sure to prove counter-productive. It is much easy to find a needle in a small bale of hay rather than in a haystack. Thus, it must be ensured that until the procedures and safeguards mentioned in sub-sections 69(2) and 69B(2) are drafted before the powers granted by those sections are exercised. Small-scale and targetted monitoring of metadata (called "traffic data" in the Bill) is a much more suitable solution, that will actually lead to results, instead of getting information overload through unchannelled monitoring of large quantities of data. If such safeguards aren't in place, then the powers might be of suspect constitutionality because of lack of guided exercise of those powers.

Very importantly, the government must also follow up on these powers by being transparent about the kinds of monitoring that it does to ensure that the civil and human rights guaranteed by our Constitution are upheld at all times.

Encryption

The amending bill does not really bring about much of a change with respect to encryption, except for expanding the scope of the government's power to order decryption. While earlier, under section 69, the Controller had powers to order decryption for certain purposes and order 'subscribers' to aid in doing so (with a sentence of up to seven years upon non-compliance), now the government may even call upon intermediaries to help it with decryption (s.69(3)). Additionally, s.118 of the Indian Penal Code has been amended to recognize the use of encryption as a possible means of concealment of a 'design to commit [an] offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life'.

The government already controls the strength of permissible encryption by way of the Internet Service Provider licences, and now has explicitly been granted the power to do so by s.84A of the Act. However, the government may only prescribe the modes or methods of encryption "for secure use of the electronic medium and for promotion of e-governance and e-commerce". Thus, it is possible to read that as effectively rendering nugatory the government's efforts to restrict the strength of encryption to 40-bit keys (for symmetric encryption).

Other Penal Provisions

Section 66F(1)(B), defining "cyberterrorism" is much too wide, and includes unauthorised access to information on a computer with a belief that that information may be used to cause injury to decency or morality or defamation, even. While there is no one globally accepted definition of cyberterrorism, it is tough to conceive of slander as a terrorist activity.

Another overly broad provision is s.43, which talks of "diminish[ing] its value or utility" while referring information residing on a computer, is overly broad and is not guided by the statute. Diminishing of the value of information residing on a computer could be done by a number of different acts, even copying of unpublished data by a conscientious whistleblower might, for instance, fall under this clause. While the statutory interpretation principle of noscitur a socii (that the word must be understood by the company it keeps) might be sought to be applied, in this case that doesn't give much direction either.

While all offences carrying penalties above three years imprisonment have been made cognizable, they have also been made bailable and lesser offences have been made compoundable. This is a desirable amendment, especially given the very realistic possibility of incorrect imprisonments (Airtel case, for instance), and frivolous cases that are being registered (Orkut obscenity cases).

Cheating by personation is not defined, and it is not clear whether it refers to cheating as referred to under the Indian Penal Code as conducted by communication devices, or whether it is creating a new category of offence. In the latter case, it is not at all clear whether a restricted meaning will be given to those words by the court such that only cases of phishing are penalised, or whether other forms of anonymous communications or other kinds of disputes in virtual worlds (like Second Life) will be brought under the meaning of "personation" and "cheating".

While it must be remembered that more law is not always an answer to dealing with problems, whether online or otherwise, it is good to note that the government has sought to address the newer problems that have arisen due to newer technologies. But equally important is the requirement to train both the judiciary and the law enforcement personnel to minimize the possibility of innocent citizens being harassed.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/publications/it-act/short-note-on-amendment-act-2008

Information Technology Act

pranesh — 2009-06-15T12:12:00Z

The Information Technology Act, 2000 (amended in 2008) is the main statute that governs online behaviour in India, from e-commerce to cybercrimes, Internet surveillance, and intermediary liability. Thus, understanding that statute is of paramount interest to all Indian 'netizens'.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/publications/it-act

Software patenting will harm industry, consumer

pranesh — 2013-01-16T04:54:42Z

Report by Deepa Kurup in The Hindu dated 5th October 2008 as follow-up to the national meeting on software patents.

Original article on The Hindu website

BANGALORE: Living up to its status as the country’s Information Technology (IT) capital, Bangalore played host to a different kind of “software lobby” here on Saturday.

Unlike most lobbies, this one had no vested interests and no hard-line agenda. In a bid to raise awareness about software patenting and generate a debate among stakeholders, the Free Software community from across the country participated in a national-level meeting against software patents.

Public hearings

This open meeting comes in the wake of the public hearings being conducted by the Indian Patent Office to discuss the recently formulated patent manual. The office has shelved all discussion on software patents and promised an exclusive meeting with stakeholders. Nearly 20 organisations and various stakeholders who participated in the hearing threw up issues ranging from patent laws and principles in general, to specific issues of the “software per se” clause in the patent manual. Submissions made by many stakeholders to the patent office were also discussed.

The meeting was held to discuss the recent modification to the manual, which is being interpreted as a move to make “software in combination with hardware” patentable. As of now, software comes under the copyright law.

This move is significant because a similar ordinance was scrapped by the Parliament in 2005. The Free Software community feels that the clause panders to the powerful IT and multi-national companies lobby that has been rooting for this legislation.

Copyright

Speaking at the meeting, Venkatesh Hariharan of Red Hat said that software was protected by copyright and additional protection was more harmful for the industry and the consumer as a whole.

“Patent is a state-granted monopoly, but copyright protects the expression of an idea and a code is safe as long as one can prove that he has arrived at it independently,” he said.

As a sole representative of any government body, Joseph Mathew, Special IT advisor to the Government of Kerala, made a presentation of his government’s stand on software patents.

“The manual should not have brought this up again, considering Parliament scrapped it in 2005. We hope it is a clerical error and the Kerala Government will consider writing to the Union Government and the patent office informing them of our opposition to this issue,” Mr. Mathew said.

Small and medium enterprises which use Free Software such as Zyxware from Trivandrum, Deep Root Linux and Turtle Linux from Bangalore, among others made presentations at the meeting. Several research and advocacy organisations such as the Centre for Internet and Society and the Delhi Science Forum put forth various facets of this debate.

Lack of clarity

“The lack of clarity in the Patent Act results is being wrestled aggressively and effectively by corporate interests, patent attorneys and the patent office in favour of granting software patents. This meeting helped bring together the counter-opinions in this matter, and we will go ahead and participate in any meeting that will be called for by the authorities,” said Sunil Abraham of the Centre for Internet and Society.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/software-patenting-will-harm-industry-consumer

Visually impaired seek access to print materials

pranesh — 2013-01-16T06:20:49Z

An article in the Deccan Herald (November 3, 2008, page 4) by L. Subramani on the CIS signature campaign.

Rahul Cherian is quoted in this article published in the Deccan Herald.

Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), an organisation researching on the impact of internet on society, has initiated a signature campaign to persuade the Indian government to support the Treaty for the Improved Access for the Blind, Visually Impaired and other Reading Disabled Persons.

The treaty, drafted earlier this year by the World Blind Union (WBU) and Knowledge Ecology International (KEI), asks governments of various countries to change their copyright laws to allow free access to information of several print disabled persons.

The nation-wide campaign (in India) is being supported by organisations such as National Association of the Blind, Delhi and National Federation for the Blind (who is also an affiliate member of the WBU).

“Those who are visually challenged and otherwise print disabled are able to use computers independently with the help of screen readers and magnifiers (software technology), yet they are excluded from accessing copyrighted materials since such materials aren’t available in accessible formats,” said Nirmita Narasimhan, who oversees the campaign at CIS.

Treaty endorsement
Signatures are sought from individuals and organisations to urge the Government of India to endorse the treaty, which calls for copyright laws to be modified so that organisations of the blind and disabled can convert books available in the market into formats which can be accessed by persons with different visual and reading disabilities.

“The Indian Copyright Act (1957) is not taking into account recent technology advancements that has empowered the print disabled to access printed materials,” said Rahul Cherian, a Chennai-based copyrights lawyer involved in drafting the treaty.

“Collecting signatures from people would be an evidence of public opinion in India regarding the issue and would help us to persuade the Government to make our country a signatory to the treaty. This would mean that the government must make amending the national law a priority.”

Rahul said Indian publishers are largely willing to endorse changes to the law, since they view improved accessibility would bring more readers to the market (it is believed about 30 million persons are print disabled in the country). He also feels opposition from authors is unlikely as it doesn’t seriously threaten their incomes.

Interested can contact: Centre for Internet and Society, No D2, 3rd floor, Sheriff Chambers, 14, Cunningham Road, B’lore - 560 052. P: +91 80 4092 6283. M: 098458 68078. The current address of the Centre for Internet & Society is No. 194, Second 'C' Cross, Domlur, 2nd Stage, Bangalore - 560071, Ph: +91 80 4092 6283

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/deccan-herald-november-3-2008-l-subramani-visually-impaired-seek-access-to-print-materials

Indian surveillance laws & practices far worse than US

pranesh — 2013-07-12T11:09:39Z

Explosive would be just the word to describe the revelations by National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower Edward Snowden.

Pranesh Prakash's column was published in the Economic Times on June 13, 2013. This research was undertaken as part of the 'SAFEGUARDS' project that CIS is undertaking with Privacy International and IDRC.

Now, with the American Civil Liberties Union suing the Obama administration over the NSA surveillance programme, more fireworks could be in store. Snowden's expose provides proof of what many working in the field of privacy have long known. The leaks show the NSA (through the FBI) has got a secret court order requiring telecom provider Verizon to hand over "metadata", i.e., non-content data like phone numbers and call durations, relating to millions of US customers (known as dragnet or mass surveillance); that the NSA has a tool called Prism through which it queries at least nine American companies (including Google and Facebook); and that it also has a tool called Boundless Informant (a screenshot of which revealed that, in February 2013, the NSA collected 12.61 billion pieces of metadata from India).

Nothing Quite Private

The outrage in the US has to do with the fact that much of the data the NSA has been granted access to by the court relates to communications between US citizens, something the NSA is not authorised to gain access to. What should be of concern to Indians is that the US government refuses to acknowledge non-Americans as people who also have a fundamental right to privacy, if not under US law, then at least under international laws like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the ICCPR.

US companies such as Facebook and Google have had a deleterious effect on privacy. In 2004, there was a public outcry when Gmail announced it was using an algorithm to read through your emails to serve you advertisements. Facebook and Google collect massive amounts of data about you and websites you visit, and by doing so, they make themselves targets for governments wishing to snoop on you, legally or not.

Worse, Indian-Style

That said, Google and Twitter have at least challenged a few of the secretive National Security Letters requiring them to hand over data to the FBI, and have won. Yahoo India has challenged the authority of the Controller of Certifying Authorities, a technical functionary under the IT Act, to ask for user data, and the case is still going on.

To the best of my knowledge, no Indian web company has ever challenged the government in court over a privacy-related matter. Actually, Indian law is far worse than American law on these matters. In the US, the NSA needed a court order to get the Verizon data. In India, the licences under which telecom companies operate require them to provide this. No need for messy court processes.

The law we currently have â€” sections 69 and 69B of the Information Technology Act â€” is far worse than the surveillance law the British imposed on us. Even that lax law has not been followed by our intelligence agencies.

Keeping it Safe

Recent reports reveal India's secretive National Technical Research Organisation (NTRO) â€” created under an executive order and not accountable to Parliament â€” often goes beyond its mandate and, in 2006-07, tried to crack into Google and Skype servers, but failed. It succeeded in cracking Rediffmail and Sify servers, and more recently was accused by the Department of Electronics and IT in a report on unauthorised access to government officials' mails.

While the government argues systems like the Telephone Call Interception System (TCIS), the Central Monitoring System (CMS) and the National Intelligence Grid (Natgrid) will introduce restrictions on misuse of surveillance data, it is a flawed claim. Mass surveillance only increases the size of the haystack, which doesn't help in finding the needle. Targeted surveillance, when necessary and proportional, is required. And no such systems should be introduced without public debate and a legal regime in place for public and parliamentary accountability.

The government should also encourage the usage of end-to-end encryption, ensuring Indian citizens' data remains safe even if stored on foreign servers. Merely requiring those servers to be located in India will not help, since that information is still accessible to American agencies if it is not encrypted. Also, the currently lax Indian laws will also apply, degrading users' privacy even more.

Indians need to be aware they have virtually no privacy when communicating online unless they take proactive measures. Free or open-source software and technologies like Open-PGP can make emails secure, Off-The-Record can secure instant messages, TextSecure for SMSes, and Tor can anonymise internet traffic.

http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/economic-times-june-13-2013-pranesh-prakash-indian-surveillance-laws-and-practices-far-worse-than-us

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/economic-times-june-13-2013-pranesh-prakash-indian-surveillance-laws-and-practices-far-worse-than-us

Submission to TRAI Consultation on "Inputs for Formulation of National Telecom Policy - 2018"

pranesh — 2018-01-25T14:46:48Z

Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) made a submission to TRAI Consultation on inputs to the National Telecom Policy.

Preliminary

We welcome the TRAI consultation on the National Telecom Policy 2018.

We believe these should be among the objectives of the next NTP.

To enable inclusion through the provision of telecommunications infrastructure and services that are accessible to all, especially for the most marginalized.
To maximize the utility of telecom networks by increasing their capacity and throughput.
To maximize the socio-economic utility of of spectrum and rationalize the regulatory regime.
To re-energize the telecom sector, and to bring about a shift to a revenue-sharing model of revenue-generation for the exchequer.

NTP-12 does not include any policy mandate for providing accessibility for person with disabilities. The Policy should mandate implementation of systems that would enable better accessibility for persons with disabilities. This could have included formulation of a Code of good practice for manufactures and service providers, conduct surveys and gather statistics on use of telecommunication services by persons with disabilities, etc.

Resource and infrastructure sharing

Resource- and infrastructure-sharing among telecommunications companies and applications is crucial to ensure both eiciency of usage of a limited resource (whether it is cabling in underground ducts, or spectrum, or telecom towers), as well as to lower telecommunications costs (especially capital expenditure cost) and lowering barriers to entry, reducing environmental costs, and to maximize the beneits for consumers.[1]

Eforts must be taken to enable greater sharing of resources and infrastructure, without there being a negative impact on competition.[2]

As a telecom scholar points out, “[O]perators will sometimes share the cost of digging or deploying passive infrastructure, but will lay their own iber lines, which allows them to engage in full, facility-based competition. In these cases, there is no risk of coordination, as networks based on multiple iber lines ensure that access seekers can obtain full control over them. Under such conditions, co-investment agreements are more likely to lead to timelier and more intense competition on the downstream market.”[3]

For this, the separation between infrastructure and service must be maintained, with focus of competition at the service end with infrastructure being largely common. This is managed differently in different countries.[4]

Keeping all this in mind, we suggest that Strategies E(b) and F(c) be reworded to say, "By promoting both passive and active sharing of telecom infrastructure and resources among telecom service providers, while ensuring that doesn’t lead to a decrease in competition, and where appropriate making certain forms of infrastructure sharing mandatory."

Among the resources that require sharing is spectrum. In 2015, DoT guidelines allowed liberalised spectrum to be shared among operators.

Modernizing spectrum management

We are happy to note that the strategy of “ensuring adequate availability of contiguous, broader and globally harmonised spectrum” is listed under Strategy D(u). There are many opportunities for harmonisation of spectrum usage in India vis-a-vis global usage. For instance, currently in India, only 50 MHz of spectrum has been earmarked for unlicenced use outdoors in the 5 GHz band (5.825 GHz to 5.875 GHz). There is no rationale for this distinction between indoor and outdoor use, and this limits the usage of Wi-Fi outdoors. The US has delicensed 580 MHz in the 5GHz band which allows for the IEEE 802.11ac standard to be used on it, whereas India has only delicensed 300 MHz, whereas 1280 MHz is what is dictated by needs.[5] At a minimum 580 MHz (3x160 MHz) ought to be made available for unlicensed used.

Additionally, delicensing the 60 GHz band would bring us in line with global regimes,[6] where at least 19 countries have delicensed the 60 Ghz band for both access as well as backhaul purposes.[7]

The 60GHz band is ideal for delicensing since it there is virtually no interference since due to oxygen absorption and narrow antenna beam width the transmission distances

are short. We also need to liberalize the 70 and 80 GHz bands to enabling lower cost access for these frequencies to extend ibre connectivity where necessary by using other means, including through aerial systems.

While under Strategy D(v), TRAI proposes the “earmarking [of] unlicensed frequency bands periodically for operation of low power devices for public use”, it should instead be “earmarking unused, underused, and unlicensed frequency bands periodically for public use, with licence-exemption and light-licensing where possible, with safeguards to prevent interference”.

Even bands that have been allocated under the NFAP and licensed may lie unused or underused as well. According to a study by IIT-Hyderabad, unused TV spectrum in India amounts to between 85%-95% of the total TV spectrum. A large swath of 115 MHz — from 470 to 585 MHz — lies unused, and is available for alternative uses. Waiting for an ecosystem to develop around the 470- 698 MHz band,[8] is harming the government’s vision of Digital India and an urgent course correction is needed. As we have argued in the past, “[w]hereas Digital India needs low-cost wireless broadband, especially for long-distance links in rural India, because of the high cost and diiculty of building and maintaining ibre or wired networks in diicult terrain, and/or in sparsely populated areas. Therefore, access to TVWS needs to be bundled with BharatNet, and other shared backbone networks like ERNET.

Policies should permit diferent network design scenarios including transmission power and purpose. Point-to-point links are needed over long distances in place of ibre or microwave, and broad coverage is needed for contiguous areas like industrial developments, campuses, commercial complexes, or rural communities … TVWS does need tight radio ilters (unlike Wi-Fi) to minimise interference, the underlying consideration that drives spectrum management. There's also need for varying power speciications depending on the network design and purpose as described above, and policies for unlicensed sharing using geolocation databases, as deined by the US FCC."[9]

Further, following the lead of the FCC in the USA, and Ofcom in the UK, we in India should exempt low-power usage across all spectrum bands. The approach followed by Ofcom (which allows for powers between -90 dBm/MHz to -41 dBm/MHz (and on a sloping gradient from 10.6 GHz onwards), may be recommended. To reflect this, a strategy statement to “explore greater exemptions from licensing requirements where possible, including for low-power spectrum usage”, would be helpful.

The NTP should also lead the way in encouraging the government and the regulator to look to new ways of managing licence-exempt use of spectrum, as has been done, for example, in the UK.[10]

This allows for a movement away from power-oriented regulations to regulation on the basis of interference. For instance, shared spectrum databases may allow for coordinated usage of higher power but without interference. Further, this allows for bands to be categorized not by usage, but by transmit powers and duty cycles.

Accessibility

One of the lacunae in the NTP-12 is its lack of any policy mandate for providing accessibility for person with disabilities.[11] NTP-18 should not make the same mistake. The NTP should mandate implementation of systems that would enable better accessibility for persons with disabilities. This should include formulation of a code of good practice for manufactures and service providers, conducting surveys and gathering statistics on use of telecommunication services by persons with disabilities, etc.

Revenue maximization

We believe that Strategy D(r) (“reviewing the objectives of spectrum management to maximise socio-economic gains”) should explicitly mention that revenue maximization should not itself be a goal, since that may harm the socio-economic gains to be had from optimal usage of spectrum. We believe that it should be made explict that “ensuring revenue maximization for the exchequer will not be the main aim of spectrum management policy”.

Auctions, which ind mention in TRAI’s recommendations, ne — to favour a model of revenue sharing[12] — and at the least they need to be structured in such a manner as to avoid the “winner’s curse”.[13] Revenue-sharing, which was followed after NTP-99, allows for a more sustainable form of revenue generation for the government, while having transparent allocation systems or auctions designed in a manner not oriented towards maximizing the generation of auction proceeds for the government.[14] Just as increasing the USO fund by itself cannot be a goal — ensuring universal service is the goal — similarly, the generation of tax revenue by itself cannot be a goal.

Patents pools, local manufacturing, and cost of devices

Under “Strategies to become net positive in international trade of telecommunication systems and services”, the consultation paper proposes inancial incentives for development of SEPs, as well as “incentivising local manufacturing of network equipment and devices” as strategies. One concrete strategy to incentivise local manufacturing of telecommunications equipment and devices is to create government-controlled patent pools,[15] which can be used to ensure that patent-holders are paid a royalty on SEPs while also lowering the transaction costs and legal uncertainty for local device manufacturers, and ultimately lowering the price of devices for customers.[16]

Private patent pools do not suiciently take care of the legal risks created to manufacturers. If government intervention is not done, then Indian manufacturers will end up embroiled in legal battles as we have seen with Micromax, and others. CIS has provided a very detailed submission on TRAI’s Consultation Paper on Promoting Local Telecom Equipment Manufacturing.[17]

Internet connection and data centres

While under “Strategies to establish India as a global hub for data communication systems and services”, the problem of Internet interconnection is brought up, but the strategies don’t mention what needs to be done. One of the problems facing India currently is a low level of peering interconnection agreements and a high cost of transit interconnection agreements. This results in a higher cost of Internet for everyone. This needn’t be so. The NTP could establish that there should be no licensing required for running an interconnection point. Currently, there is a lack of clarity on the matter, with contrary suggestions having been provided by Trai in the past. Further, the NTP and that existing interconnection exchanges like NIXI should not discriminate between licensed telecom operators and unlicensed content providers, since it is crucial that the latter also be present at interconnection exchanges, and interconnection exchanges will not lourish unless the hurdles put in place, which favour incumbents, are reduced.

It is worrying that TRAI has suggested establishing a “licensing and regulatory framework for cloud service providers” (Strategy H(a)). While cloud service providers are subject to the regulations provided in the IT Act, and other legislations in India, they currently are not subject to any licensing requirements. No rationale has been provided by TRAI for this suggestion, and it would kill innovation in the sector, and would inhibit the emergence of India as a global hub for data communications systems and services. Similarly, while an overarching data protection and security legislation needs to be in place, the suggestion of a “licensing and regulatory framework for IoT/ M2M service providers” (Strategy G(a)) is worrying, and there is no suitable rationale for having licensing in this space, which will only serve to curb innovation without any corresponding or suitable benefit accruing to the public.

Given that telecommunications isn’t an end in itself, but is a means to an end, one of the missions of the NTP could be:

To enable inclusion through the provision of telecommunications infrastructure and services that is accessible for all, especially for the most marginalized, including those who are disabled, those who live in remote areas, those who are illiterate, scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, women, and transgender communities.

Once again, we are grateful to TRAI for having provided this opportunity to comment.

[]. GSMA, “Mobile Infrastructure Sharing,” 2008, https://www.gsma.com/publicpolicy/wpcontent/uploads/2012/09/Mobile-Infrastructure-sharing.pdf.

[]. José Carlos Laguna de Paz, “How Cooperation Between Telecom Firms Can Improve Efficiency,” The Regulatory Review, June 25, 2015, https://www.theregreview.org/2015/06/25/laguna-telecoms-cooperation/.

[]. Ibid.

[]. Jan Markendahl, Amirhossein Ghanbari, and Bengt G. Mölleryd, “Network Cooperation between Mobile Operators : Why and How Competitors Cooperate?,” in DIVA, 2013, http://urn.kb.se/resolve? urn=urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-134358.

[]. Parag Kar, “Response to TRAI’s Consultation Paper on Proliferation of Broadband through Public Wi-Fi Networks” (Qualcomm, August 10, 2016), http://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/201609011022542916621Qualcomm_india_pvt_ltd.pdf.

[]. See ITU-R Report “ITU-R M.2227 (11/2011)” and ITU-R Recommendation “ITU-R M.2003-1 (01/2015)” on “Multiple Gigabit Wireless Systems in frequencies around 60 GHz”.

[]. Broadband India Forum, “V Band - 60 GHz: The Key to Affordable Broadband in India” (Broadband India Forum, 2016), http://www.broadbandindiaforum.com/img/White%20Paper%20on%20V-BAND%20Revised%20Final.pdf.

[]. Varun Aggarwal, “DoT Says No to Releasing TV White Space Spectrum, Clarifies It Is for Experiments,” The Hindu Business Line, June 16, 2016, http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/info-tech/dot-says-no-to-releasing-tvwhite-space-spectrum-clarifies-it-is-for-experiments/article8737575.ece

[]. Shyam Ponappa, “The Buzz around TV White Space,” Business Standard, November 4, 2015, http://www.businessstandard.com/article/opinion/shyam-ponappa-the-buzz-around-tv-white-space-115110401618_1.html.

[]. “Better Managing Licence-Exempt Usage,” Ofcom, October 7, 2016, https://www.ofcom.org.uk/research-anddata/technology/radio-spectrum/exempt.

[]. Snehashish Ghosh, “National Telecom Policy 2012 — Issues and Concerns,” The Centre for Internet and Society, June 30, 2012, https://cis-india.org/telecom/national-telecom-policy-2012.

[]. David E. M. Sappington and Dennis L. Weisman, “Revenue Sharing in Incentive Regulation Plans,” Information Economics and Policy 8, no. 3 (September 1, 1996): 229–48, https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-6245(96)00010-8.

[]. Shyam Ponappa, “Richard Thaler’s Views on Auctions,” Business Standard, November 1, 2017, http://www.business-standard.com/article/opinion/richard-thaler-s-views-on-auctions-117110101558_1.html.

[]. Shyam Ponappa, “Breakthroughs Needed for Digital India,” Business Standard, April 6, 2016, http://www.businessstandard.com/article/opinion/shyam-ponappa-breakthroughs-needed-for-digital-india-116040601241_1.html.

[]. Sunil Abraham, “Letter for Establishment of Patent Pool for Low-Cost Access Devices through Compulsory Licenses,” The Centre for Internet and Society, accessed January 19, 2018, https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/letter-forestablishment-of-patent-pool-for-low-cost-access-devices

[]. Nehaa Chaudhari, “Pervasive Technologies: Patent Pools,” The Centre for Internet and Society, accessed January 19, 2018, https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/patent-pools

[]. Anubha Sinha, “Comments on TRAI’s Consultation Paper on Promoting Local Telecom Equipment Manufacturing” (Centre for Internet and Society, November 13, 2017), http://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/CentreInternetSocietyIndia_CP_PLTEM.pdf.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/telecom/blog/submission-to-trai-consultation-on-inputs-for-formulation-of-national-telecom-policy-2018

The Right to Information, The Right to Knowledge (Talk by Sam Pitroda & Carl Malamud)

pranesh — 2018-02-14T12:19:16Z

On October 15, 2017, Sam Pitroda and Carl Malamud will speak on open data and knowledge in India.

HasGeek and NUMA Bangalore are co-organizing a talk by two eminent internet pioneers — Sam Pitroda and Carl Malamud — on open data and knowledge in India. Pranesh Prakash of CIS will introduce the speakers and their work.

The Right to Information, The Right to Knowledge

Sam Pitroda and Carl Malamud will talk about their efforts in India, the U.S., and many other countries to help promote universal access to knowledge. They'll discuss the constitutional underpinnings of this right in India and some of the information they've been making available, including 3 lakh books from the Digital Library of India, 19,000 official standards from the Bureau of Indian Standards, and a raft of other resources such as the entire Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi.

They will discuss how key laws such as the Right to Information make this possible but will focus more on how the world of open source and the Internet can turn that promise into a reality. Universal access to knowledge is the great unmet promise of our times, and they will talk about what we can all do to make this dream possible.

About the speakers

Dr. Sam Pitroda was a senior advisor to Prime Ministers Rajiv Gandhi and Manmohan Singh and is widely credited for having led India’s telecommunications and technology revolutions in the 1980s. Dr. Pitroda holds 20 honorary PhDs, close to 100 worldwide patents, and helped create the first digital PBXs in the 1960s.

Carl Malamud started the first radio station on the Internet and is considered one of the pioneers of the U.S. open government movement. Carl runs Public.Resource.Org, an NGO which has placed hundreds of millions of pages of government information online, including all 19,000 Indian Standards.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/events/the-right-to-information-the-right-to-knowledge

Statement of Solidarity on Freedom of Expression and Safety of Internet Users in Bangladesh

pranesh — 2013-01-15T11:51:44Z

This is a statement on the violent attack on blogger Asif Mohiuddin by the participants to the Third South Asian Meeting on the Internet and Freedom of Expression that took place in Dhaka, Bangladesh, on January 14–15, 2013.

Bangladeshi blogger Asif Mohiuddin was brutally attacked in a stabbing last evening. His condition is currently said to be critical. Violent attacks on mediapersons have led to at least four deaths in the past year. This trend is now extending to those writing online.

It is the duty of societies at large to ensure that principles we universally consider sacrosanct, such as the right to life and liberty and of freedom of expression are in fact ideas, and of the government to actively protect the rights guaranteed under the Constitution of Bangladesh and to ensure they are not just words on paper.

Article 39 of the Constitution of Bangladesh—and Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights—guarantee both the freedom of thought and conscience, as well as the right of every citizen of freedom of speech and expression, and freedom of the press.

Article 32 of the Constitution of Bangladesh—and Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights—guarantee that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except by law.

The attack on Asif Mohiuddin constitutes a violation these fundamental principle by criminals, and we request the government to act decisively to show it will not tolerate such violations.

Reporters Without Borders note that "the ability of those in the media to work freely has deteriorated alarmingly in Bangladesh, which is now ranked 129th of 179 countries in the 2011-2012 World Press Freedom Index".

In general, the situation of those working as non-professional 'citizen journalists' is even worse. In a 2010 report, the UN Special Rapporteur wrote:

"Citizen journalists are by nature more isolated, they are more vulnerable to attack than professional journalists. However, citizen journalists enjoy less protection than their counterparts in traditional media, as they do not have the support of media organizations and networks, in particular the organizational resources, including lawyers and financial resources, which can help shield them from harassment."

This reality of greater vulnerability is equally applicable to those who do not self-identify as 'citizen journalists', but use social media to express unpopular opinions.

Keeping this in mind, we call upon the government on Bangladesh to carry out swift investigations into this particular incident and bring the perpetrators to justice, and to grant greater legal support to citizen journalists and ensure better protections for all those who use the Internet as a means of expression.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/statement-of-solidarity-asif-mohiuddin

Resources

pranesh — 2009-10-20T03:29:16Z

A collection of resources that will help one navigate through the arguments and evidence for and against the Indian "Bayh-Dole" bill.

PUPFIP

Bayh-Dole

Technology Transfer

Innovation's Golden Goose (The Economist)

Improving Innovation(The Economist)

Scientific Culture

Patents and America's Universities(The Economist)

When Academia Puts Profits Ahead of Wonder(The New York Times)

Bayhing for blood or Doling out cash?(The Economist)

Evaluative Pieces

University Licensing under Bayh-Dole: What are the Issues and Evidence?(Thursby and Thursby)

Is Bayh-Dole Good for Developing Countries? Lessons from the US Experience(So et al.)

The Law of Unintended Consequences(Fortune Magazine)

The Growth of patenting and licensing by U.S. universities and the Bayh-Dole Act (Mowery et al.)

Overall Assessment of the Bayh-Dole Act (Nelson, Mowery, et al.)

General Resources

Joint Ventures and Intellectual Property(Andreas Panagopoulos)

Patents vs. Other Knowledge Transfer(Agrawal and Henderson)

Incentives Structure and Licensing Success(Dan Elfenbein)

University Licensing and Research Behavior(Lach and Schankerman)

Open Science and Private Property(Paul David)

IP Alternatives

New Approaches to Filling the Gap in TB Drug Discovery (Casenghi, Cole and Nathan)

The Role of Prizes in Developing Low-Cost Point-of-Care Rapid Diagnostic Tests and Better Drugs for TB(James Love)

How to boost R&D for essential drugs and diagnostics

Scrooge and intellectual property rights (BMJ January 2006)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/publications/pupfip/resources

Arguments Against the PUPFIP Bill

pranesh — 2011-09-12T11:03:09Z

The Protection and Utilisation of Public Funded Intellectual Property Bill (PUPFIP Bill) is a new legislation being considered by Parliament, which was introduced in the 2008 winter session of the Rajya Sabha. It is modelled on the American Bayh-Dole Act (University and Small Business Patent Procedures Act) of 1980. On this page, we explore some of the reasons that the bill is unnecessary, and how it will be harmful if passed.

Summary

How is the legislation unnecessary?

The Indian government does not have vast reserves of underutilized patents, as the U.S. did in 1980.
Technology transfer is very important, but pushing IPRs aggressively is not the best way of ensuring technology transfer.

How is the legislation harmful?

Excessive patenting lead to gridlocks and retards innovation.
The legislation makes mandatory that which is optional now, and is anyway being followed in many institutions.
Copyright, trademark, etc., seem to be covered under the definition of “public funded IP”.
It will result in a form of double taxation for research, and will increase the consumer cost of all products based on publicly-funded research.
It could have unintended consequences of varied kinds, including discouraging fundamental research as well as discouraging industrial research.
Non-disclosure requirements in the Bill restricts the dissemination of research within the academic community, and curtails freedom of speech.
Exclusive licensing enables restriction on the dissemination of academic research in the marketplace, and increase in cost of products based on public-funded research.

Arguments

How is the legislation unnecessary?

1) The Indian government does not have vast reserves of underutilized patents, as the U.S. did in 1980.

The idea behind the Bayh-Dole Act was that the research funded by the government (and owned, in the US, by the government) was being underutilized. In 1980, over 28,000 unlicensed patents lay with the U.S. government.[1] The Act shifted the title of such works from the government to the University or small business that conducted the research, thus allowing them to take out patents on the research outputs. In India, under present laws, the researcher(s) own the rights over their research whether they be government-funded or not. Usually, due to employment contracts, the research institutes already have the right to patent their inventions. Thus, currently, there is no need for an enabling legislation in this regard, as there was in the U.S.

In fact, currently, the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) has over 5173 patents (counting both those in force and those under dispute), while only 222 patents are licensed (with 68 of them being under dispute). Thus, even with the IP being in the institute's hands, there is a "problem" situation similar to that which necessitated Bayh-Dole in the U.S. Thus, quite contrary to the aims of the Act, further patenting will only lead to a situation of even more underutilized patents.

2) Technology transfer is very important, but pushing IPRs aggressively is not the best way of ensuring technology transfer.

At a recent seminar held at NUJS Kolkata on the PUPFIP Bill, it was revealed that while IIT-Kharagpur’s TTO-equivalent (called the Sponsored Research & Industrial Consultancy division - SRIC) currently handles over Rs.300 crores through 850 projects, only around Rs. 5-15 crores (exact figures weren't available) are currently made through its patent portfolio.[2] Thus patents don't seem, on the face of things, to be the best way of ensuring technology transfer. Indeed, the oft-cited 28,0000 unlicensed patents held by the U.S. government were composed primarily of patents for which industry had refused to take exclusive licences.[3]

Many contend that one of the most important functions of a patent is to get inventors to disclose their inventions rather than keep them as secrets. This reason for awarding a patent is invalidated if stronger protection is granted to trade secrets (no term limit, for instance) than for patents. Secondly, this reason for granting patents is not valid in case of government-funded research in academia and research institutes. The culture of publication and the economy of reputation are sufficient to ensure disclosure. Even without these intrinsic factors, there grant requirements can necessitate publication. If mere publication is believed to be insufficient, then the government would do well to ask for technology dissemination plans before grants are made. At any rate, monopoly rights in the form of patents are thoroughly unnecessary.

How is the legislation harmful?

1) Excessive patenting lead to gridlocks and retard innovation.

It sees protection of IPR as the sole means of encouraging innovation and driving research to the doorstep of consumers. The trend around the world is that of exploring alternative forms of spurring innovation. Even in India, CSIR has gone for an innovative "Open Source Drug Discovery" project, which has proven very successful so far. Furthermore, recent literature shows that excessive patenting is harming research and innovation by creating gridlocks.[4] If platform technologies and basic research (such as SNP) gets mired in patents, then the transaction costs increase (not only in terms of money, but more importantly in administrative terms). This ends up in research clearances getting blocked, and thus retards innovation. It must be remembered that intellectual property is not only an output, but also an input. The more aggressively the outputs are guarded and prevented from being shared, the more the inputs will be affected. The study of patent thickets and gridlocks has reached such a stage that the U.S. law has been changed to reflect this. Firstly, the Bayh-Dole Act was amended in 2000 to state that the objectives of the Bayh-Dole Act were to be carried out "without unduly encumbering future research and discovery". Now, the courts (in the Bilski case) have increased the standard of obviousness in patent law (which means that less patents will be granted). Furthermore, the U.S.P.T.O. and the U.S. Senate are currently considering means of overhauling the U.S. patent system, which many fear is close to breaking down due to over-patenting. All these are signs that the footsteps we are seeking to follow are themselves turning back.

2) The legislation makes mandatory that which is optional now, and is anyway being followed in many institutions.

While the CSIR labs pursue patents aggressively, they also run the OSSD project. The latter might not be permissible if the Act is passed as it stands. Furthermore, this would increase the number of underutilized patents, which is a problem faced currently by CSIR, which has had an aggressive patent policy since the 1990s. Unlicensed patents constitute around 93% of CSIR's total patent portfolio. (In contrast, MIT averages around 50% licensing of patents.) If aggressive patenting is made mandatory, it adds substantially to administrative costs of all institutes which receive any grants from the government. These institutes might not be large enough to merit a dedicated team of professionals to handle

3) Copyright, trademark, etc., seem to be covered under the definition of "public funded IP".

This leads to a ridiculous need to attempt to commercialise all government-funded research literature (and the government funds science research, social sciences, arts, etc.). Furthermore, while the definition of "public funded IP" includes copyrights, trademarks, etc., yet the substantive provisions seem to only include those forms of IP which have to be registered compulsorily (copyright and trademark don't -- copyright comes into existence when an original work is expressed in a medium, and trademark can come into existence by use). Importantly, seeking to commercialise all copyrighted works of research would hamper the movement for open access to scholarly literature. The inititative towards open access to scholarly literature is something that National Knowledge Commission has recommended, and is a move that would result in increased dissemination of public-funded research, which seems to be an aim of the PUPFIP Bill as well.

4) It will result in a form of double taxation for research, and will increase the consumer cost of all products based on publicly-funded research.

This bill would increase the consumer cost of all products based on publicly-funded research, because of the additional burden of patent royalties.

Public funds research -> Institute patents research -> Pharma MNC gets exclusive license over research -> Drug reaches market.

Assuming an exclusive licence: Cost of the drug = cost of manufacturing, storage, etc. + mark-up (monopolistic) cost + cost of licence.

Thus, in effect, the public has to pay twice for the research: it pays once to enable the scientist to conduct the research, and once again in the form of royalties to have that research brought to the marketplace.

5) It could have unintended consequences of varied kinds, including discouraging fundamental research as well as discouraging industrial research.

The former could happen since institutions and individual scientists have a financial incentive to shift their focus away from fundamental research; the latter, conversely, because the filings and bureaucracy involved could drive scientists away from reporting or even engaging in industrial research [pdf]. Faculty and researcher involvement in the business of licensing is a sub-optimal usage of their talents, and there are scientists who would rather stay away from business (as is shown by the intake of former industry-researchers into government-funded labs such as those of CSIR).

6) Non-disclosure requirements in the Bill restricts the dissemination of research within the academic community, and curtails freedom of speech.

This will bring about a shift in science and research which is always done upon others' work. This is why in the U.S., the National Institute of Health (N.I.H.) has sought to ensure (without any legal authority) that it only finances that research that on single nucleotide polymorphism (S.N.P.) which is not patented, and is shared freely amongst scholars. Since this requirement of the N.I.H.'s does not have any legal backing (since it is contradictory to the Bayh-Dole Act), institutions are free to get the grant from N.I.H. and then go ahead and patent their inventions.

7) Exclusive licensing enables restriction on the dissemination of academic research in the marketplace, and increase in cost of products based on public-funded research.

The bill allows for both assignment of licences as well as exclusive licences. Both of these enable monopolistic pricing to be undertaken by the licensee/assignee. There are not even any mechanisms in the Act to ensure, for instance, that a public call is made to ascertain that no parties are willing to consider a non-exclusive licence. Patents are generally said to grant a monopoly right because of the opportunity to recover costs of research and development. When the research is being done by public-funded money, there is no justification for monopoly rights on that research, since there are no excessive costs to recover.

Footnotes:

[1] See So et al. and Thursby and Thursby, quoted in the National Knowledge Commission's letter to the Prime Minister.

[2] See Prof. Vivekanandans' presentation "Patenting and Technology Transfer-the IIT Khargpur Experience"

[3] See Anthony So et al., Is Bayh-Dole Good for Developing Countries, 6 PLoS Biol e262 (2008)

[4] See Michael A. Heller & Rebecca S. Eisenberg, Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research, 280 Science 698 (1998)

Additional Resources

On the PUPFIP Bill

February 5, 2004: NIPER holds parallel session of Indian Science Congress (Express Pharma)
October 27, 2006: Susan Finston, India to Propose New Technology Transfer Legislation (Bayh-Dole 25)
January 16, 2007: National Knowledge Commision's Letter to Indian Prime Minister (National Knowledge Commission)
April 15, 2007: Archita Bhatta, Proposed IPR law raises concern (Down to Earth)
May 31, 2007: Science & Technology needs to be core of the economic development says Kapil Sibal (PIB Press Release)
November 13, 2007: Government Accords Approval to National Biotechnology Development Strategy (PIB Press Release)
February 1, 2008: Yudhijit Bhattacharjee, Indian Government Hopes Bill Will Stimulate Innovation (Science)
February 19, 2008: Shamnad Basheer, Exporting Bayh Dole to India: Whither Transparency? (Part 1) (Part 2) (SpicyIP)
March 17, 2008: Kalpana Pathak, Varsities may soon own patent rights (Business Standard)
March 17, 2008: P.T. Jyothi Datta, Public-funded research may pay dividends for scientists (Business Line)
March 17, 2008: Joff Wild, India considers Bayh-Dole style legislation (IAM Magazine)
April 30, 2008: M.K. Unnikrishnan and Pradeepti Nayak, Lessons from Bayh Dole Act and its relevance to India (PharmaBiz)
July 2008: Sean M. O'Connor, Historical Context of U.S. Bayh-Dole Act: Implications for Indian Government Funded Research Patent Policy (STEM Newsletter)
July 7, 2008: Shamnad Basheer, Mysterious Indian "Bayh Dole" Bill: SpicyIP Procures a Copy (SpicyIP)
July 09, 2008: Latha Jishnu, Does India need a Bayh-Dole Act? (Business Standard)
September 2008: V.C. Vivekanandan, Transplanting Bayh-Dole Act- Issues at Stake Authors (13 Journal of Intell. Prop. 480)
September 18, 2008: Shamnad Basheer, Indian Patent Bill: Let's not be too hasty (SciDev.net)
October 28, 2008: Anthony So et al., Is Bayh-Dole Good for Developing Countries, 6 PLoS Biol e262 (2008)
October 31, 2008: Cabinet gives approval for Protection and Utilization of Public Funded Intellectual Property Bill, 2008 (PIB Press Release)
November 2008: Annette Lin et al., The Bayh-Dole Act and Promoting the Transfer of Technology of Publicly Funded-Research (UAEM White Paper on the Proposed Indian Bayh-Dole Analogue)
November 1, 2008: Editorial: Not in Public Interest (Mint)
November 12, 2008: Ben Butkus, As India Mulls Bill Modeled on Bayh-Dole, Critics Claim It May Stifle Innovation (Biotech Transfer Weekly)
December 16, 2008: Pranesh Prakash, Indian "Bayh Dole" Bill before Parliament (Commons Law)
January 23, 2009: Editorial: Time to Rethink Intellectual Property Laws (SciDev.net)
March 12, 2009: Feroz Ali Khader, Does Patenting Research Change the Culture of Science? (The Hindu)
April 24, 2009: Sunil Abraham & Pranesh Prakash, Does India Need Its Own Bayh-Dole? (Indian Express)
September 21, 2009: C.H. Unnikrishnan, Proposed Patent Bill Is Flawed, Say Experts (Mint)
September 23, 2009: Editorial: An Idea That's A Patent Misfit (Mint)
October 2009: Bhaven N. Sampat, The Bayh-Dole Model in Developing Countries: Reflections on the Indian Bill on Publicly Funded Intellectual Property (UNCTAD - ICTSD Policy Brief No. 5)
January 2010: Amit Shovon Ray & Sabyasachi Saha, Patenting Public-Funded Research for Technology Transfer: A Conceptual-Empirical Synthesis of US Evidence and Lessons for India (ICRIER Working Paper No. 244)
January 2010: Mrinalini Kochupillai, The Protection and Utilization of Public Funded Intellectual Property Bill, 2008: A Critique in the Light of India's Innovation Environment, 15 J. Intell. Prop. Rights 19 (2010)
January 16, 2010: Amit Shovon Ray & Sabyasachi Saha, Intellectual Bottlenecks (Financial Express)
January 21, 2010: Latha Jishnu, Perils of the US Model (Business Standard)
January 22, 2010: Rema Nagarajan, Scientists Fume Over New Patent Bill (Times of India)
January 26, 2010: Shamnad Basheer, The Problem with Patents (Mint)
February 5, 2010: Shalini Butani, Public Research May Become More Private (Business Line)
February 8, 2010: Anika Gupta, Scientists Want Changes in Innovation Bill (Mint)
February 9, 2010: C.H. Unnikrishnan, Parliament Panel Wants Govt Review on Innovation Bill (Mint)
February 15, 2010: Leena Menghaney, A Bad Example from the U.S. (Down to Earth)
February 19, 2010: Pranesh Prakash, A Patent Conundrum (Indian Express)
SpicyIP coverage by tag 'Bayh Dole'
Presentations from NUJS, Kolkata conference on the PUPFIP Bill

On Bayh-Dole

Newspapers and Magazines

Academic Journals

Amy Kapczynski et al., Addressing Global Health Inequities: An Open Licensing Approach for University Innovation, 20 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 1031 (2005)
Anthony So et al., Is Bayh-Dole Good for Developing Countries, 6 PLoS Biol. e262 (2008)
Arti K. Rai & Rebecca S. Eisenberg, Bayh-Dole Reform and the Progress of Biomedicine, 66 Law & Contemp. Probs. 289 (2003)
David C. Mowery & Arvids A. Aiedonis, Numbers, Quality, and Entry: How Has the Bayh-Dole Act Affected U.S. University Patenting and Licensing?, 1 Innovation Pol'y Econ. 187 (2000)
David C. Mowery, et al., Learning to Patent: Institutional Experience, Learning, and the Characteristics of U.S. University Patents After the Bayh-Dole Act, 1981-1992, 48 Mgmt. Sci. 73 (2002)
Donald Kennedy, Editorial: Enclosing the Research Commons, 294 Science 2249 (2001)
F.M. Scherer, The Political Economy of Patent Policy Reform in the United States, 7 Colorado J. Telecomm. High Tech. L. 167 (2009)
Henry Steck, Corporatization of the University: Seeking Conceptual Clarity, 585 Annals of Am. Acad. Pol. & Soc. Sci. 66 (2003)
Jason Owen-Smith, Trends and Transitions in the Institutional Environment for Public and Private Science, 49 Higher Educ. 91 (2005)
Jerry G. Thursby & Marie C. Thursby, University Licensing and the Bayh-Dole Act, 301 Science 1052 (2003)
Jerry G. Thursby & Marie C. Thursby, Who is Selling the Ivory Tower? Sources of Growth in University Licensing, 48 Mgmt. Sci. 90 (2002)
Josh Lerner, Review of 'Ivory Tower', 43 J. Econ. Litt. 510 (2005)
Joshua B. Powers, R&D Funding Source and University Technology Transfer: What is Stimulating Universities to Be More Entrepreneurial?, 45 Research in Higher Educ. 1 (2004)
Lita Nelsen, The Rise of Intellectual Property Protection in the American University, 279 Science 1460 (1998)
Marcia Angell & Arnold S. Relman, Patents, Profits & American Medicine: Conflicts of Interest in the Testing & Marketing of New Drugs, 131 Daedalus 102 (2002)
Maria Jelenik, Review: Two Books on Technology Transfer, 50 Admin. Sci. Q. 131 (2005) (Review of 'Ivory Tower')
Michael A. Heller & Rebecca S. Eisenberg, Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research, 280 Science 698 (1998)
Rebecca Henderson, et al., Universities as a Source of Commercia Technology: A Detailed Analsis of University Patenting, 1965-1988, 80 Rev. Econ. Statistics 119 (1998)
Rebecca S. Eisenberg, Public Research and Private Development: Patents and Technology Transfer in Government-Sponsorded Research, 82 Virginia L. Rev. 1663 (1996)
Rebecca S. Eisenberg & Richard R. Nelson, Public vs. Proprietary Science: A Fruitful Tension?, 131 Daedalus 89 (2002)
Richard Jensen & Marie Thursby, Proofs and Prototypes for Sale: The Licensing of University Inventions, 91 Am. Econ. Rev. 240 (2001)
Roberto Mazzoleni & Richard R. Nelson, Economic Theories about the Benefits and Costs of Patents, 32 J. Econ. Issues 1031 (1998)
Thomas A. Massaro, Innovation, Technology Transfer, and Patent Policy: The University Contribution, 82 Virginia L. Rev. 1729 (1996)
Walter W. Powell & Jason Owen-Smith, Universities and the Market for Intellectual Property in the Life Sciences, 17 J. Pol'y Analysis Mgmt. 253 (1998)
William M. Sage, Funding Fairness: Public Investment, Proprietary Rights and Access to Health Care Technology, 82 Virginia L. Rev. 1737 (1996)
Zach W. Hall & Christopher Scott, University-Industry Partnership, 291 Science 553 (2001)

Resources

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/publications/pupfip/why-no-pupfip

PUPFIP Bill

pranesh — 2011-08-20T15:15:08Z

A new bill which tries to promote innovation through privatization of public-funded research and is unnecessary, misguided, and will prove harmful to Indian research, innovation, and will harm the interests of taxpayers and consumers.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/publications/pupfip