Centre for Internet and Society

An 'app'ening world

praskrishna — 2016-10-05T00:24:19Z

A ‘forward’ has been doing the rounds on WhatsApp about the privacy concerns relating to that instant messaging app; it’s asking for permission to share user data with Facebook.

The article by Chetana Divya Vasudev was published in Deccan Herald on October 4, 2016. Rohini was quoted.

In the WhatsApp notification, asking users to agree to the terms and conditions again, the option to share these user details to help improve ads on Facebook is already selected. Those who are uncomfortable parting with this information have to uncheck it before clicking on the ‘I agree’ button.

“Agreeing to this would mean Facebook can see who you’re chatting with and what you’re talking about,” says tech expert Chinmayi S K. “So if you’re talking about cat adoption, the ads displayed on the side could be relevant to that.”

When it comes to other smartphone apps, she cites Zomato as an example. “It has been asking for user history — previous orders and other such details — to make recommendations,” she says. “This comes with the app update. Tinder, too, is asking for your location using wifi, which is more accurate than the GPRS location.”
It’s alright to agree to these permissions, she says, so long as you’re aware of what you’re signing up for and how that data is going to be used.

If you have qualms about agreeing to this, there are usually alternatives you can find, adds Rohini Lakshane, program officer, Centre for Internet and Society. “If not, it’s usually a trade-off: you have to see how much you want the app,” she points out.

There are, however, other apps that might be duplicates asking for access to your device or files, cautions Chinmayi.

“If a cooking app, a simple one that gives you recipes, asks for your call logs or other files, for example,” she says.

A discerning user, interjects Rohini, will check for permission to access files or functions that are not strictly necessary for the features the app supports. “I don’t want to name anything but some e-commerce and travel apps ask to access your browsing history and the other apps or networks you’re connect to. It could be to serve you contextual ads or content, like Zomato, or to sell it to someone. You never know,” she says. However, some devices or versions of the Android OS let you control what permissions you enable, she informs.

Aeronautical engineer Pavan Raj P V says he takes care not to compromise on his safety, whenever possible. “But there are a few apps that I have on my phone no matter what — Facebook, WhatsApp, LinkedIn, Instagram. Most of them auto-update and require no extra permissions.”

However, he has noticed that LinkedIn asks for access to Gmail contacts that you could accidentally accept “if you’re logging in mechanically”.

Varsha C V, communications specialist at Karnataka State Highways Improvement Project, says, “Last month, my husband asked me to download a Google app for free calls that required all sorts of permissions, such as access to your phone logs. When Skype offers the same features without asking for all this, why should anyone use this app?”

She believes privacy in India is not taken as seriously as it should be. “You should keep in mind that if you’re giving them access to your contacts, you’re also compromising on others’ privacy,” she points out.

Lokanand, a sound engineer, admits to not paying attention to what he’s giving apps access to. “I’m no expert but if you ask me, you download apps because they are useful. So I don’t really bother about what I’m saying yes to.”

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/deccan-herald-chetana-divya-vasudev-october-4-2016-an-appening-world

Not Everyone Plays by the Rules in the Digital Playground: Addressing Online Child Sexual Exploitation

praskrishna — 2016-10-05T15:08:40Z

Japreet Grewal spoke at a panel on 'Prevention through Awareness and Education' at a meeting titled 'Not Everyone Plays by the Rules in the Digital Playground:Addressing Online Child Sexual Exploitation' that was organised by the International Centre for Missing and Exploited Children, Singapore (ICMEC) and TULIR - Centre for the Prevention and Treatment of Child Sexual Abuse, India on October 3-4, 2016 at India Habitat Centre, New Delhi.

Click the links below to access:

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/not-everyone-plays-by-the-rules-in-the-digital-playground-addressing-online-child-sexual-exploitation

Internet Democratisation: IANA Transition Leaves Much to be Desired

vidushi — 2016-11-03T07:52:37Z

At best, the IANA transition is symbolic of Washington’s oversight over ICANN coming to an end. It is also symbolic of the empowerment of the global multistakeholder community. In reality, it fails to do either meaningfully.

The article was published in the Hindustan Times on October 6, 2016.

Many suspect Washington’s 2014 announcement of handing over control of the IANA contract to be fuelled by the outcry following Edward Snowden’s revelations of the extent of US government surveillance. Source: AFP

September 30, 2016, marked the expiration of a contract between the US government and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to carry out the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions.

In simpler, acronym-free terms, Washington’s formal oversight over the Internet’s address book has come to an end with the expiration of this contract, with control now being passed on to the “global multistakeholder community”.

ICANN was incorporated in California in 1998 to manage the backbone of the Internet, which included the domain name system (DNS), allocation of IP addresses and root servers. After an agreement with the US National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), ICANN was tasked with operating the IANA functions, which includes maintenance of the root zone file of the DNS. Over the years Washington has rejected calls to hand over the control of IANA functions, but in March 2014 it announced its intentions to do so and laid down conditions for the handover. Many suspect the driving force behind this announcement to be the outcry following Edward Snowden’s revelations of the extent of US government surveillance.

The conditions laid down by the NTIA were met, and the US government accepted the transition proposal, amidst much political pressure and opposition, most notably from Senator Ted Cruz.

This transition is a step in the right direction, but in reality, it changes very little as it fails to address two critical issues: Of jurisdiction and accountability.

Jurisdiction is important while considering the resolution of contractual disputes, application of labour and competition laws, disputes regarding ICANN’s decisions, consumer protection, financial transparency, etc. Many of these questions, although not all, will depend on where ICANN is located. ICANN’s new bylaws mention that it will continue to be incorporated in California, and subject to California law just as it was pre-transition. Having the DNS subject to the laws of a single country can only lend to its fragility. ICANN’s US jurisdiction also means that it is not free from the political pressures from the US Senate and in turn, the toxic effect of American party politics that were made visible in the events leading up to September 30.

Another critical issue that the transition does not address is that of ICANN accountability. Post-transition, ICANN’s board will continue to be the ultimate decision-making authority, thus controlling the organisation’s functioning, and ICANN staff will be accountable to the board alone.

To put things in perspective, look at the board’s track record in the recent past. In August, an Independent Review Panel (IRP) found that ICANN’s board had violated ICANN’s own bylaws and had failed to discharge its transparency obligations when it failed to look into staff misbehaviour. Following this, in September, ICANN decided to respond to such allegations of mismanagement, opacity and lack of accountability by launching a review. The review however, would not look into the issues, failures and false claims of the board, but instead focus on the process by which ICANN staff was able to engage in such misbehaviour. This ironically, will be in the form of an internal review that will pass through ICANN staff — the subjects of the investigation — before being taken up to the board.

At best, the transition is symbolic of Washington’s oversight over ICANN coming to an end. It is also symbolic of the empowerment of the global multistakeholder community. In reality, it fails to do either meaningfully.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/hindustan-times-october-6-2016-vidushi-marda-internet-democratisation

Tech companies like Gmail, WhatsApp may be asked to store user information

praskrishna — 2016-10-14T01:12:14Z

The government is moving to formulate rules that will require technology ‘intermediaries’— including email services like Gmail, chat apps such as WhatsApp and Snapchat or even ecommerce firms like Amazon — to retain user information, a development that is expected to be met with determined opposition.

The article by Surabhi Agarwal was published in Economic Times on October 14, 2016. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.

What the government is looking to do now is draft rules for Section 67C of the Information Technology Act, and this will be done by a committee that has been set up for the purpose. The rules — whose drafting has been waiting since 2008 — will spell out what type of data has to be stored, in which format, and for how long, according to three members of the newly-formed committee. All this so that law-enforcement agencies can access the information if they need it.

Sharing of information between foreign firms and the Indian government has been a contentious issue, and experts said the mandate may be impossible to implement for firms such as WhatsApp that promise end-to-end encryption. Or for Snapchat – a chat app where messages disappear within seconds and are not even stored on the company’s servers.

Firms may also oppose the diktat, especially since most of them are not governed by Indian laws and also due to the high cost of data retention.

The committee is headed by additional secretary in the ministry of electronics and IT (MEITY), Ajay Kumar, and has one representative each from the ministry of home affairs, department of telecom, department of personnel and training, Nasscom, Internet Service Provider Association of India (ISPAI), along with an advocate specialising in cyber law and a few officers from MEITY. The first meeting of the committee took place in the last week of September.

“This is a fairly complex issue, compounded by the general lack of understanding of mobile apps and over the top service providers,” said a person on the committee who did not wish to be identified. This person said that most technology players are based in the United States and they have always been at loggerheads about sharing of information with the government. “Even if it is for national security reasons, how much are these companies answerable to the Indian security establishment? And we do know how Apple refused to unlock the phone even for FBI."

Google and Facebook did not respond to requests for comment.

‘Huge balancing act’

Supreme Court lawyer and cyber law expert Pavan Duggal said the section has been drafted in very “broad” terms and the move may be driven by the realisation that these companies are huge data repositories – some of which might be relevant to law enforcement investigations. “It will have to be a huge balancing act and will be interesting to see what this committee decides,” added Duggal.

While Section 67C refers to the obligation of the service providers to retain information, the nature of the data to be retained and the time period is not specified. Companies which do not comply with the law can be levied fine and its officers sent to jail.

Another member on the committee said the ambit of this task is huge. “In the last meeting we argued that the rules should be the same for everybody and there should be no differential treatment for foreign companies such as Google or Microsoft,” he said. This person said that ambiguity is rampant as various government arms have different sets of rules for data retention.

For instance, the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) asks for data to be stored for six months, while the Registrar of Companies mandates some information to be retained for one year while the income-tax rules mandate data storage for six-seven years. “There has only been one meeting so far. It is a long procedure and will require several rounds of consultation,” said a third person on the committee.

Privacy activists like Pranesh Prakash of the Centre for Internet and Society said that one of the principles that’s frequently cited while discussing international practices on surveillance is that data retention should not be required of service providers.

And internationally too, there is no standard on this issue. “There were norms at the European Union-level regarding data retention, but they were struck down in 2014 by the European Court of Justice as being violative of human rights,” he said.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/economic-times-october-14-2016-surabhi-agarwal-tech-companies-like-gmail-whatsapp-may-be-asked-to-store-user-information

Here is why government twitter handles have been posting offensive and partisan messages

praskrishna — 2016-10-16T03:24:45Z

You have failed us big time Mr Kejriwal, for your petty political gains you can become headlines for Pakistani press,” read a tweet on October 5 from @IndiaPostOffice, the official twitter handle of the Indian postal service.

The article by Danish Raza was published in the Hindustan Times on October 15, 2016. Nishant Shah was quoted.

It was a reference to Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal urging the Prime Minister to counter Pakistan’s propaganda over surgical strikes.

Within hours, India Post tweeted an apology saying that the account was hacked.

This is the latest in a series of opinions and statements posted from official twitter handles of government departments and bodies. Of late, the Twitter handles meant to broadcast information related to government programmes have appeared like personal accounts tweeting slander and criticism.

Last month, the Twitter handle of Digital India tweeted a poem in Hindi calling on the Indian Army to persistently fire at protesters in Kashmir.

In August, the Twitter handle of Startup India retweeted a post suggesting that the Indian Army should ‘take care’ of #Presstitutes, a reference to sections of Indian media critical of the government.

The tweets expose loopholes in the government’s social media policy and raise questions about the norms followed in the recruitment of social media professionals for ministries and government institutions.

Work in Progress

The process of adopting new tools is work in progress. While the government agencies are trying to leverage social media to enhance citizen engagement, for the vast majority of government bodies, it is unexplored territory. Babus who have traditionally been dealing in paperwork and file notings are overwhelmed to see hash tags and trends. With a tech- savvy Prime Minister at the helm, every government department is trying to increase its digital footprint. At the same time, they face the challenge of reinterpreting existing work ethics and codes of conduct and applying them to the use of social media. Ministries such as the Ministry of External Affairs, Information & Broadcasting and the Prime Minister’s Office which have cohesive programmes and big mandate, have separate social media wings of their own with well- defined protocols. But these are exceptions.

Overall, the government bodies lack social media guidelines for their own efforts or which others can learn from. According to Chinmayi Arun, executive director, Centre for Communication Governance, National Law University, Delhi, mistakes are bound to happen given that everyone is new to social media. But it should be non-negotiable that when anything is said using an official governmental handle, the government should take more responsibility than just saying ‘oops’. “One of course is a clear and unequivocal statement apologising and taking back whatever was said. However, it should take pro-active measures to train and test people who handle its public-facing accounts and publish a clear monitoring and accountability mechanism by which they can be called to account. It should not be open to anyone to misuse the government’s official handles in this manner,” said Arun.

One of the areas where the lack of sensitisation is apparent is the usage of the same mobile device for multiple twitter handles – the most common reason for such goof-ups cited by social media consultants attached to various government departments. “I believe these were inadvertently posted by people handling these accounts. It may neither have been their mandate nor their intention. It happens when the person has configured multiple twitter handles from the same device and ends up posting from the wrong account,” said Amit Malviya, BJP’s National Convener, IT.

The majority of ministries and government departments do not give phones to members of the social media teams. It is up to the individual to use his personal device or get an additional one to manage the professional handle (s). A mistake will happen if a comment which was to be posted from the personal handle is posted from the official handle.

Twitter Goof-ups from GoI Accounts

“Because of the personalised and individual nature of social media, it is easy to forget that they are representing an institution and not themselves when using these handles. This also suggests the lack of public usage training in these organisations, and the need to educate our public actors in using social media with more responsibility as office bearers of an institution rather than a personal expression or an opinion,” said Nishant Shah, co-founder of the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore.

Another issue is that access to the account is given to multiple people. “Each one of them brings their individual personality and politics to their operation of the handle,” said Shah.

Hiring Issues

Part of the problem lies in the fact that there is no standard protocol on who can access the twitter handle of Indian government bodies and how this person or team is hired.

A few ministries (example: the ministry of railways) have a team comprising of government employees and staff of private agencies handling their account. Others have outsourced the job to agencies.

During the campaigning for the 2009 election, political parties got outside expertise to mark their presence online. The selection parameters of social media consultants – established public relations firms in some cases and individuals in others – was not uniform.

Unlike the traditional public relations officers who are from the Indian Information Services cadre, the social media consultants were selected based on their expertise in the field, political affiliation, and proximity to a party or leader.

Those who started handling social media accounts of political parties and leaders included trolls and social media influencers. “Parties got youngsters who were politically motivated and willing to work for political parties. They became cheaper alternatives for social media experts,” said Ishan Russel, political communication consultant.

After the NDA came to power, almost every ministry outsourced its digital expertise to agencies. Many individuals who were earlier directly working with leaders and parties got back with them via agencies. “If an agency is looking for people to handle the twitter account or Facebook page of a certain ministry in the BJP government, then those who are politically inclined towards the BJP will apply for the vacancies and their chances of getting hired are also much higher than someone who is neutral or known to be an AAP sympathiser,” said Vikas Pandey, 32-year-old software engineer, who headed the “I Support Namo” campaign on Facebook and Twitter, as a volunteer for the BJP.

Last year, the Prime Minister felicitated more than a dozen social media enthusiasts, including Vikas. The move raised eyebrows because many felt that the government was encouraging trolls. “It illuminates the fact that trolls have found gainful employment in the Government of India. Also that the entire edifice of the centre is being taken over by woefully undereducated bigots,” said Swati Chaturvedi, senior journalist and author.

Agency, the Soft Target

Till the time the government staff is well versed with social media tools, attributing the mistakes to an ‘outside agency’ appears to be the norm.

In the case of the twitter goof-up involving Startup India, Commerce and Industry minister Nirmala Sitharaman blamed a private agency that was managing the account of Startup India. “The retweets were done by an employee of the agency hired by the department of industrial policy and promotion. The person assigned by the agency for this particular job is not decided by the department and is the sole prerogative of the agency,” she said.

S Radha Chauhan, CEO of National e-Governance Division, attributed the controversial post from Digital India’s twitter handle to an agency called Trivone. “The person responsible had mistakenly tweeted from the official handle what he wanted to tweet from his personal account,” said Chauhan.

Those familiar with the functioning of the government’s social media verticals say that agencies are mentioned to cover up for mistakes often committed by someone from the government staff. “When in crisis, blame the agency, is the thumbrule the government follows. The fact is that each twitter post is approved by the client before it is posted,” said a senior executive with a digital marketing firm attached to a ministry which has recently earned lot of praise for its social media initiatives.

Nishtha Arora, social media and digital consultant in a reputed ad agency, was handling a political account till very recently. She said that the client required her to just randomly tweet or RT to be heard by the followers of a tech-savvy minister and be his digital mouthpiece. “I often had to draft tweets which looked like press releases,” she said.

“Digital faux pas is blamed on to someone who might be an expert in the field but yet has to bow down to the client pressure so that their agenda for the day is met and the said government body or ministry remains in the news,” she added.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/hindustan-times-danish-raza-october-15-2016-here-is-why-government-twitter-handles-have-been-posting-offensive-and-partisan-messages

New regulations in place; Aadhaar Card records to be preserved for 7 yrs by Centre

praskrishna — 2016-10-17T14:46:31Z

UIDAI chief executive office ABP Pandey said that the concerns regarding Aadhar card-related benefits were "exaggerated" and that the agency will keep the records in case any disputes arise in the future.

The article was published in the Financial Express on October 17, 2016. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

As per new regulations, the government will now keep a record for seven years of all services and benefits that are availed using Aadhaar number. Fearing that the database might be used for surveillance, the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) will preserve the records.

UIDAI chief executive office ABP Pandey said that the concerns regarding Aadhar card-related benefits were “exaggerated” and that the agency will keep the records in case any disputes arise in the future.

Pandey added that the information will be available online for two years and shall be shifted to the offline archives for the next five years. In that case, users will be able to check the records only for two years. However, the rules won’t apply for security agencies and that they will need a district judge’s permission to access the data.

According to HT, the rules allow designated joint secretary-level officers at the Centre to order access to information on the grounds of national security.

Talking about this Sunil Abraham, director of the Bengaluru-based think tank, Centre for Internet and Society said that once Aadhar becomes mandatory, it can be misused to conduct a 360-degree surveillance on any person.

Every time a person fingerprints and quotes the Aadhaar number, the agency concerned sends the data to UIDAI to crosscheck the particulars.
The UIDAI authenticates about five million Aadhaar numbers, which are quoted to avail LPG subsidy, cheap ration and even passport, a day against a capacity to verify 100 million requests daily, reports HT.

Meanwhile, The Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) has launched a drive to enrol any leftover population for Aadhaar in 22 states and UTs that have “statistically” hit 100 per cent coverage for adults.

The ‘Challenge drive’ starts from October 15 for a month, a UIDAI statement said, adding that as of today, over 106.69 crore Aadhaar numbers have been generated across the country.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/financial-express-october-17-2016-new-regulations-in-place-aadhaar-card-records-to-be-preserved-for-7-yrs-by-centre

MLATs and the proposed Amendments to the US Electronic Communications Privacy Act

Vipul Kharbanda and Elonnai Hickok — 2016-12-28T01:09:34Z

In continuance of our blog post on mutual legal assistance treaties (MLATs), we examine a new approach to international bilateral cooperation being suggested in the United States, by creating a mechanism for certain foreign governments to directly approach the data controllers.

Published under Creative Commons License CC BY-SA. Anyone can distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon this document, even for commercial purposes, as long as they credit the creator of this document and license their new creations under the terms identical to the license governing this document.

In the previous article on MLATs we discussed, in some detail, what MLATs are and why they are needed. One area which was briefly focused upon in that article was the limitations and criticisms of the MLAT mechanism, of which one of the main criticisms being the problems caused due to different legal standards in various jurisdictions as well as the time taken to process a request for information sent from one country to another. Talking specifically about the United States, where most internet companies are headquartered and hold large amounts of data, it typically takes months to process requests under MLATs and foreign governments often struggle to comprehend and comply with the legal standards in the United States for obtaining data for use in their investigations.[1] The requirement that a foreign government should take permission from, and comply with the requirements of a foreign government simply because the data needed happens to be controlled by a service provider based in a foreign country strikes many foreign law enforcement officials as damaging to security and law enforcement efforts, especially when they are requesting data pertaining to a crime between two of their own citizens that primarily took place on their soil.[2]

These inefficiencies of the MLAT process lead to further problems of foreign governments attempting to apply their search and surveillance laws in an extraterritorial manner for example in 2014 the UK passed the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act, 2014 with gives the government the power to directly access data from foreign service providers if sought for specific purposes and the request is approved by the Secretary of State or other specified executive branch official.[3] Another response that may occur is if, frustrated by such inefficiencies of the existing systems, courts in foreign states start assuming extra territorial jurisdiction, as happened when a District Court in Vishakhapatnam restrained Google from complying with a subpoena issued by the Superior Court of California, ordering Google to share the password of the Gmail account belonging to an Indian citizen residing in Vishakhapatnam.[4]

Solution proposed in the United States

In order to overcome these inefficiencies, at least in the American context, the Department of Justice has proposed a legislation which seeks to make the process of foreign governments getting information from US based entities more streamlined by amending the provisions of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) of the United States (the “Amendment”). These amendments have been proposed primarily for the US and UK to effectuate a proposed bilateral agreement whereby the UK government will be able to approach US companies directly with requests for information without going through the MLAT process or getting an order from a US court.

The Amendment seeks to ensure that requests from foreign governments for information from US entities get answered in a smooth manner by including those requests in the process for seeking information under the ECPA itself. This move would no doubt, make it easier for foreign governments to access data in the US, but such a move can be criticized on the ground that it would then allow all states, irrespective of their legal standards of privacy, etc. to get access to such information. This problem has been overcome in the amendment by adding a new section to Title 18 which would allow the Attorney General, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State to certify to the Congress that the legal standards in the contracting state which is being given access to the mechanism under the ECPA satisfies certain requirements specified in the chapter (and discussed below). Only after such a certification has been received by the Congress, a contracting state would be able to receive the benefits sought to be granted under the Amendment.

It is important to note that the US administration is looking to use the US-UK Agreement as a standard to be followed for similar potential agreements with a number of other countries wherein the agencies in those countries could request information from US based entities through court orders through a properly specified legal framework. Though to our knowledge India has not been formally approached by the US government to enter into such an agreement, it is important to ask the question viz. if approached:

Does India's present legal system meet the standards laid down in the amendment to the ECPA?
And if they do, should India also seek to enter into such an Agreement with the United States?
And if India does, what could be the implications for citizens and for countries in a similar position as India?

We hope to be able to answer the above three questions, or at least throw some light on them, in the conclusion of this paper by relying upon the discussions contained herein.

Criticisms of the Amendment

While such a mechanism may be very effective in addressing the needs of security agencies in investigation and prevention of criminal activities, one cannot accept such an overarching change in cross border enforcement without analyzing the consequences that such a proposal will have on the right to privacy. Some of these consequences have been highlighted by experts responding to the amendment:

Lack of Judicial Authorisation: The Amendment requires that the foreign governments have a process whereby a person could seek post-disclosure review by an independent entity instead of a warrant by a court.[5] Although a court order is not the norm for interception even in Indian law, however under American law such protection is given to data held by American companies even though the data may belong to Indian citizens and this protection will no longer be available if the Amendment is passed.

Vague Standard for requests: Under the domestic law of any state there is usually a large amount of jurisprudence regarding when search orders can be issued, such as the “probable cause” standard that is followed in the United States or similar standards that may be followed in other jurisdictions. This ensures that even when the wording of the law is not precise, which it cannot be for such a subjective issue, there is still some amount of clarity around when and under what circumstances such warrants may be issued. In contrast, the Amendment requires that the orders be based on “requirements for a reasonable justification based on articulable and credible facts, particularity, legality, and severity regarding the conduct under investigation.” Although the language here may seem reasonable but in the absence of any jurisprudence backing it, it becomes very vague and susceptible to misuse. Disclosure without a Warrant: Under the current MLAT process as followed in the United States, a judge in the U.S. must issue a warrant based on probable cause in order for a U.S. company to turn over content to a foreign government. This requirement protects individuals abroad by requiring their governments to meet certain standards when seeking information held by U.S. companies. The Amendment seeks to remove this essential safeguard for a judicial warrant. The Amendment does not require requests from foreign governments to be based on a prior judicial authorization, since a large number of countries (including India) do not always require judicial orders for such orders.[6]

Allows Real Time Surveillance by Foreign Governments: American privacy rights activists have raised the concern that the Amendment would allow foreign governments to conduct ongoing surveillance by asking American companies to turn over data in real time. The requirements that the foreign governments would have to fulfill to execute such an order are less stringent than those which have to be fulfilled by the American security agencies if they want to indulge in similar activities. When the U.S. government wants to conduct real-time surveillance, it must comply with the Wiretap Act, which imposes heightened privacy protections.[7] The court orders for this purpose also require minimization of irrelevant information, are strictly time-limited, only available for certain serious crimes, etc.[8] In Indian law any such request, apart from being time limited and being available only for certain specified purposes, also has to satisfy that interception is the only reasonable option to acquire such information.

Process to determine which countries can make demands is not credible: Under the Amendment, the Attorney General and the Secretary of State, would decide whether the laws and practices of the foreign government adequately meet the standards set forth in the legislation for entering into a bilateral agreement. Their decisions would not be liable to be reviewed by a court or in any administrative procedure. They could make their determinations based on information which is not available to the public and the criteria for making the decision are vague and flexible. Further these criteria have been described as “factors” and not “requirements”[9] so that even if some of them are not satisfied, the certification process can still be completed.

Companies do not have the resources to determine if a request complies with the terms of the agreement: The Amendment does not provide any oversight to ensure that technology companies are only turning over information permitted in a specific bilateral agreement. For example, a bilateral agreement may permit disclosure of information only in response to orders that do not discriminate on the basis of religion, however, it may not be possible for the companies receiving the request to determine whether a particular request complies with that condition or not. The Amendment does not require that individual companies put in place requisite processes to weed out requests that may be non compliant with the provisions of the agreement; nor are there periodic audits to ensure that companies are properly responding to foreign government information requests.[10]

Non compliance with Human Rights Standards: Under international human rights law, governments are allowed to conduct surveillance only based on individualized and sufficient suspicion; authorized by an independent and impartial decision-maker; necessary and proportionate to achieve a legitimate aim, including by being the least intrusive means possible.[11] However the mechanism proposed by the Amendment falls woefully short of these standards.[12]

One must not lose sight of the fact that most of the criticisms of the proposal that have been discussed above have been made in the context of, and based on the standards of privacy protection that are available to American citizens. If we look at it from an Indian perspective most of those protections are not available to Indian citizens in any case since independent judicial oversight is not a sine qua non for access to information by the security agencies in India. Although the Amendment leaves open the question of how a request would be made by the foreign government to the individual Agreements, it may be safe to assume that were India to enter into such an Agreement with the United States, it would require the orders for access to comply with the standards laid down under Indian law before the relevant authorities send the request to the US based data controllers. At the least, this would ensure that the rights of Indian citizens currently guaranteed under Indian law, howsoever flawed they might be, would in all likelihood be safeguarded as per Indian law.

Certification from the Attorney General to the US Congress

In the above background if India were to enter into the agreement with the U.S Government apart from actually negotiating and signing that Agreement, the Indian government will also have to ensure (if the Amendment is passed) that the Attorney General of the United States, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State gives a certificate to the Congress that Indian law satisfies the requirements set forth in the proposed section XXXX of Title 18.

It must be kept in mind that if the negotiations between India and the United States in this regard reach such a mature stage that the certification from the Attorney General is required, then that would mean that there is enough political will on both sides to ensure that such an arrangement actually comes to fruition. In this context it would not be unfair to assume that the Attorney General may have a slight bias towards opining that Indian laws do conform to the requirements of the Amendment, as the Attorney General would want to support the decision taken by the administration, and our analysis shall have a similar bias in order to be more contextual.

The certification would, inter alia, contain the determination of the Attorney General:

That the domestic law of India affords robust substantive and procedural protections for privacy and civil liberties in light of the data collection and activities of the Indian government that will be subject to the agreement.It should be noted that the Amendment specifies various factors that should be taken into account to reach such a determination, which include whether the Indian government:

(i) has adequate substantive and procedural laws on cybercrime and electronic evidence, as demonstrated through accession to the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, or through domestic laws that are consistent with definitions and the requirements set forth in Chapters I and II of that Convention; Although India is not a signatory to the Budapest Convention the Information Technology Act, 2000 (which is the main legislation dealing with cybercrime) has penal provisions which have borrowed heavily from the provisions of the Budapest Convention.

demonstrates respect for the rule of law and principles of nondiscrimination;

The provisions of Article 14 as well as Article 21 of the Constitution of India demonstrates that the legal regime in India is committed to the rule of law and principles of non discrimination.

adheres to applicable international human rights obligations and commitments or demonstrates respect for international universal human rights (including but not limited to protection from arbitrary and unlawful interference with privacy; fair trial rights; freedoms of expression, association and peaceful assembly; prohibitions on arbitrary arrest and detention; and prohibitions against torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment);

India is a signatory to a number of international human rights conventions and treaties, it has acceded to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), 1966, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), 1966, ratified the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), 1965, with certain reservations, signed the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), 1979 with certain reservations, Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), 1989 and signed the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), 1984. Further the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution takes within its fold a number of human rights such as the right to privacy. Freedom of expression, right to fair trial, freedom of assembly, right against arbitrary arrest and detention are all fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India.

has clear legal mandates and procedures governing those entities of the foreign government that are authorized to seek data under the executive agreement, including procedures through which those authorities collect, retain, use, and share data, and effective of oversight of these activities;

India has a number of legislations which govern the interception and request for information such as the Information Technology Act, 2000, the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, etc. which put in place mechanisms governing the authorities and entities which can ask for information.

has sufficient mechanisms to provide accountability and appropriate transparency regarding the government’s collection and use of electronic data; and

The Right to Information Act, 2005 provides the citizens the right to access any public document unless access to the same is prohibited due to the specific exemptions provided in the Act. It may be noted here that the provisions of the Right to Information Act are often frustrated by the bureaucracy by using exceptions such as “national security”, but for the purposes of this write up we are already assuming a bias towards fulfillment of these factors/conditions and therefore as long as there is even some evidence of compliance, the conditions will be considered as fulfilled by the Attorney General for the purposes of his certificate.

demonstrates a commitment to promote and protect the global free flow of information and the open, distributed, and interconnected nature of the Internet.

The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, which regulates telecom services in India has also issued the Prohibition of Discriminatory Tariffs for Data Services Regulations, 2016 which prohibits service providers from charging discriminatory tariffs for data services on the basis of content.

Other than Indian law, the certificate from the Attorney General will also have to certify certain issues which would have to be addressed in the bilateral agreement itself, viz.:

That the Indian government has adopted appropriate procedures to minimize the acquisition, retention, and dissemination of information concerning United States persons subject to the agreement.
That the agreement requires the following with respect to orders subject to the agreement:

(i) The Indian government may not intentionally target a United States person or a person located in the United States, and must adopt targeting procedures designed to meet this requirement;

(ii) The Indian government may not target a non–United States person located outside the United States if the purpose is to obtain information concerning a United States person or a person located in the United States;

(iii) The Indian government may not issue an order at the request of or to obtain information to provide to the United States government or a third-party government, nor shall the Indian government be required to share any information produced with the United States government or a third-party government;

(iv) Orders issued by the Indian government must be for the purpose of obtaining information relating to the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of serious crime, including terrorism;

(v) Orders issued by the Indian government must identify a specific person, account, address, or personal device, or any other specific identifier as the object of the Order;

(vi) Orders issued by the Indian government must be in compliance with the domestic laws of India, and any obligation for a provider of an electronic communications service or a remote computing service to produce data shall derive solely from Indian law;

(vii) Orders issued by the Indian government must be based on requirements for a reasonable justification based on articulable and credible facts, particularity, legality, and severity regarding the conduct under investigation;

(viii) Orders issued by the Indian government must be subject to review or oversight by a court, judge, magistrate, or other independent authority;

(ix) Orders issued by the Indian government for the interception of wire or electronic communications, and any extensions thereof, must be for a fixed, limited duration; interception may last no longer than is reasonably necessary to accomplish the approved purposes of the order; and orders may only be issued where that same information could not reasonably be obtained by another less intrusive method;

(x) Orders issued by the Indian government may not be used to infringe freedom of speech;

(xi) The Indian government must promptly review all material collected pursuant to the agreement and store any unreviewed communications on a secure system accessible only to those trained in applicable procedures;

(xii) The Indian government must segregate, seal, or delete, and not disseminate material found not to be information that is, or is necessary to understand or assess the importance of information that is, relevant to the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of serious crime, including terrorism, or necessary to protect against a threat of death or seriously bodily harm to any person;

(xiii) The Indian government may not disseminate the content of a communication of a U.S. person to U.S. authorities unless the communication (a) may be disseminated pursuant to Section 4(a)(3)(xii) and (b) relates to significant harm, or the threat thereof, to the United States or U.S. persons, including but not limited to crimes involving national security such as terrorism, significant violent crime, child exploitation, transnational organized crime, or significant financial fraud;

(xiv) The Indian government must afford reciprocal rights of data access to the United States government;

(xv) The Indian government must agree to periodic review of its compliance with the terms of the agreement by the United States government; and

(xvi) The United States government must reserve the right to render the agreement inapplicable as to any order for which it concludes the agreement may not properly be invoked.

Conclusion

It is clear from the discussion above that the proposed Amendment is a controversial piece of legislation which will affect the way law enforcement is carried out in the internet. While there is no doubt that proposing an alternate mechanism to the existing inefficient MLAT structure is definitely the need of the hour, whether the mechanism proposed in the proposed Amendment, with all the negative implications on privacy, is the right way forward is far from certain.

As for the three questions that we had sought out to answer in the beginning of this paper, we would not like to say that Indian law definitely conforms to all the requirements listed in the Amendments, but it can safely be said that it appears that if the governments of India and the United States so wish, it would not be difficult for the Attorney General of the United States to be able to give a certification to the Congress as required in the proposed Amendment.

The other two questions as to whether India should try to opt for such an arrangement if given a chance and what would be the consequence for its people are somewhat related, in the sense that it is only by examining the consequences on its citizens that we will arrive at an answer as to whether India should opt for such an arrangement or not. The level of protections offered to Indian citizens under India law in terms of protection of their private data from government surveillance is lower than that which is offered to American citizens under American law. The growing influence of the internet is changing the citizen-state dynamic giving rise to increasing incidents where the government has to approach private actors for permission in order to carry out their governmental functions of providing security. This is because more and more private data of individual citizens is being uploaded on to the internet and controlled by private actors such as telecom companies, social media sites, etc. and the governments have to approach these private actors in case they want access to this information. The fact that the government has to approach private actors to get access to data gives private citizens some leverage to ask for better privacy protections in the context of state surveillance.

Although this proposed Amendment may not affect the local surveillance laws in India, however it would definitely have an effect on the way that citizens’ data is protected and accessed by the government.

[1] Explanation by the Assistant Attorney General attached to the proposed Amendment.

[2] https://www.justsecurity.org/24145/u-s-u-k-data-sharing-treaty/

[3] https://www.justsecurity.org/24145/u-s-u-k-data-sharing-treaty/

[4] http://spicyip.com/2012/04/clash-of-courts-indian-district-court.html

[5] https://www.justsecurity.org/32529/foreign-governments-tech-companies-data-response-jennifer-daskal-andrew-woods/

[6] https://www.aclu.org/letter/aclu-amnesty-international-usa-and-hrw-letter-opposing-doj-proposal-cross-border-data-sharing

[7] https://www.aclu.org/letter/aclu-amnesty-international-usa-and-hrw-letter-opposing-doj-proposal-cross-border-data-sharing

[8] https://www.justsecurity.org/32529/foreign-governments-tech-companies-data-response-jennifer-daskal-andrew-woods/

[9] https://www.justsecurity.org/32529/foreign-governments-tech-companies-data-response-jennifer-daskal-andrew-woods/

[10] https://www.aclu.org/letter/aclu-amnesty-international-usa-and-hrw-letter-opposing-doj-proposal-cross-border-data-sharing

[11] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art. 17, Dec. 19, 1966, U.N.T.S 999, cf. https://www.aclu.org/letter/aclu-amnesty-international-usa-and-hrw-letter-opposing-doj-proposal-cross-border-data-sharing

[12] https://www.aclu.org/letter/aclu-amnesty-international-usa-and-hrw-letter-opposing-doj-proposal-cross-border-data-sharing

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/mlats-and-the-proposed-amendments-to-the-us-electronic-communications-privacy-act

The Big Debit Card Breach: Three Things Card Holders Need To Understand

praskrishna — 2016-10-21T13:43:17Z

A total of 32 lakh debit cards across 19 banks could have been compromised on account of a purported fraud, the National Payment Corporation of India said in a statement.

The article by Alex Mathew was published by Bloomberg on October 20, 2016. Udbhav Tiwari was quoted.

The issue was brought to light when State Bank of India blocked the debit cards of 6 lakh customers on October 14. This was done after the bank was alerted to a possible fraud by the National Payment Corporation of India, MasterCard and Visa, said Managing Director Rajnish Kumar in a telephonic interview with BloombergQuint.

In a statement released on Thursday evening, the NPCI clarified that the problem was brought to their attention when they received complaints from a few banks that customers’ cards were used fraudulently, mainly in China and the U.S., while those cardholders were in India.

“The complaints of fraudulent withdrawal are limited to cards of 19 banks and 641 customers. The total amount involved is Rs 1.3 crore as reported by various affected banks to NPCI,” the payments corporation said.

SISA Security, a Bengaluru-based company is currently undertaking a forensic study to identify the extent of the problem and will submit a final report in November.

Based on the advisory issued by NPCI and other schemes, it is gathered that banks have advised their customers to change their debit card PIN. In situations where customers could not be contacted, the cards have been blocked and fresh cards are being issued by member banks.

NPCI statement

State Bank of India has blocked 6 lakh cards, while other banks have sent notifications to customers advising them to change their personal identification numbers.

How The Breach Could Have Occured

The breach that has apparently given hackers access to the PIN codes of several bank customers is likely to be on account of a malware attack. This attack is believed to have originated at an ATM.

The actual modus operandi of the hackers will only become clear once the forensic audit is released in November, but BloombergQuint spoke to cyber security expert Udbhav Tiwari to find out how the attack could have been orchestrated.

First, the hacker would have had to gain physical access to an ATM. The malware was then likely injected by connecting a laptop or another special device to a port on the cash disbursing machine, said Tiwari, a consultant at Centre For Internet & Society in Bengaluru.

Once the malware is injected, it automatically spreads across the network and infects other devices that are not protected against it. In this case, the malware could have infected a payment switch provider’s network.

A payment switch provider is an entity that facilitates a transaction either from an ATM or an online payment gateway. The service provider decides to whom the request for authorisation will be sent and then transmits the request back to the merchant or the ATM where the transaction originated.

In this case, one payment switch provider, Hitachi Payment Services, which manages close to 50,000 ATMs across the country, was asked by banks to investigate 30 of its ATMs on account of around 400 suspicious transactions that took place outside India, Managing Director Loney Antony told BloombergQuint in a telephonic interview.

The company had earlier said in a statement that an interim report by the audit agency does not suggest any breach or compromise in its systems.

The Scale Of The Breach

According to a study conducted by NPCI in collaboration with the banks, the number of debit cards that were infected by the malware has been set at 32 lakh. But Tiwari said this number could be higher.

The hypothetical limit to how much the malware can spread is dependent on the vulnerability of the systems, and if one of the payment switch provider’s systems was vulnerable and they still haven’t decided how many systems are vulnerable, it is quite possible that the malware is spreading at this point.

Udbhav Tiwari, Consultant, Centre For Internet & Society

What A Customer Should Do

The first, and most important step a customer should take is to immediately change their debit card PIN, Tiwari pointed out.

State Bank of India has said that its customers can opt to restrict the usage of their debit cards, for example whether it can be used both internationally and domestically or only domestically. Also, the daily limit of the debit card can be changed.

Once these steps have been taken, according to Tiwari, it is most important that customers stay vigilant and keep monitoring their bank statements. If an unauthorised transaction takes place, a customer should immediately contact their bank and block their card.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/bloomberg-alex-mathew-october-20-2016-the-big-debit-card-breach

How Long Have Banks Known About The Debit Card Fraud?

tiwari — 2016-10-22T08:06:51Z

The recent security breach in an Indian payment switch provider, confirmed earlier this week by the National Payments Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL), has forced domestic banks into damage control mode over the past few days.

The article was published by Bloomberg on October 22, 2016.

The breach was detected when various customers began to lodge complaints with their banks about unauthorised transactions on their accounts, which upon investigation were said to originate from a foreign location such as China. The security breach has affected actively at least 641 customers to the tune of Rs 1.8 crore, with lakhs more being affected by the pro-active measures (including card revocation) being taken by banks to prevent further financial losses.

Surprisingly little is known, however, about the nature of the attack responsible for the breach, the extent or scope of damage it has caused and the sufficiency of the countermeasures being initiated by the banks against the attacks. This article will talk about these aspects of the attack and also suggest normative measures that can be carried out to minimize harm and prevent such attacks in the future.

The Modus Operandi

According to reports, the compromise may have happened at the level of the Hitachi Payment Services, which is a payment services provider which operates, among other financial services, ATMs for a variety of banks across the country. One or a certain number of ATMs were apparently compromised by a malware, which then infected the payment services provider network, leading to a far larger potential target area than just the physical ATMs for malware to act against. The malware could have infected the payment switch provider via physically being uploaded onto vulnerable ATM machines, which are known to run out-dated embedded operating systems with various documented loopholes that are rarely patched. The malware then could have recorded the details of the cards used on the infected ATMs (or even in the network generally) and then, via the same compromised network, transmitted confidential details, including ATM pins and CVV numbers, to the operators of the malware.

The attack could have also occurred from some other vulnerable part of the payment network, such as a payment switch within the bank itself, making it far more dangerous as it still maybe be active on parts of the network within the bank and would have access to a far wider range & variety of information than a mere ATM. There is no real way to know if the threat has been even contained, forget neutralised, as the audits being carried out by PCI-DSS authorised agencies have been on-going for the past month and their reports are not due at least another 15 days, as intimated by NPCIL.

Massive Financial Implications


Policemen guard the banking hall of a State Bank of India branch in New Delhi. (Photographer: Sondeep Shankar/Bloomberg News)

The compromise of these details, regardless of the source of the compromise, has massive financial implications. This is because various international services allow debit/credit cards to be used only with the card number, expiry date, name & CVV number. They do not require the use of ATM Pins or an OTP (one time password) sent to a mobile phone for online transactions. In fact, unlike India where the RBI mandates OTPs for debit cards, this CVV based simplified online usage is the standard practice of using ATM Cards digitally in most of the developed world.

This would mean that merely changing ATM pins, something which SBI alleges less than 7 percent of its customers had done prior to all 6 lakh cards being blocked, would serve as almost no protection if the cards are enabled for international online transactions. The fact that most of the dubious, unauthorised financial transactions are occurring from foreign locations probably demonstrates that it is these kinds of internationally enabled cards that are being targeted for this sort of an attack.

Are Banks Concealing Information?


A customer exits a Yes Bank Ltd. automated teller machine (ATM) in Ahmedabad. (Photographer: Dhiraj Singh/Bloomberg)

The absence of data/security breach laws in India is being sharply felt as there as has been an abject lack of clarity and information from the banking sector and the government regarding the attack. Over 47 states in the USA and most of the countries in the EU have enacted strict data security breach laws that mandate public intimation & disclosure of key information pertaining to the attack along with detailed containment measures. The presence of such a law in India would have gone a long way in preventing the breach from being under the wraps for so long (it occurred at the bank level in September, almost a month ago) and also ensured far more vigilant active compliance by corporations & banks to international security standards and best practices. For now, the only true countermeasure to prevent future harm to affected card holders is for all affected cards to be revoked by the banks and new cards being issued to affected customers.

Constant vigilance & comprehensive security audits by banks to detect affected cards and active protection for customers, using financial and identity insurance services such as AllClear ID Plus (used by Sony in the 2011 Playstation Hack) will go a long way in mitigating the harm of the breach. The banking industry, government & security agencies should all learn from this breach and a combination of new legislation, updated industry practices and consumer awareness is necessary for proactive & reactive actions in the future.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/bloomberg-udbhav-tiwari-october-22-2016-how-long-have-banks-known-about-debit-card-fraud

Some Key Words Are Missing

praskrishna — 2016-10-23T01:40:12Z

Google manipulating search results? The Competition Commission is on its case.

The article by Arindam Mukherjee was published by Outlook on October 23, 2016. Nehaa Chaudhari was quoted.

G’s Global Woes

Google’s problems aren’t restricted to India. It is facing similar cases around the world.

Europe: The search giant has been accused of using its dominant position on the web to dominate the market for online product searches. There’s another probe on possible abuse of dominant position with Android.

Brazil: Is being investigated for favouring its own services over others on the internet

Hong Kong & Argentina: Facing issues about collecting user data

Spain: Had to shut down Google News over copyright issues.

Germany: Its Google Street View navigation service got into problems over privacy issues

Mexico: The local regulator has brought up issues similar to those in Europe

***

There is an uneasy calm at Google’s India offices these days. Spokespersons are giving measured statements, watched over by an army of lawyers who are busy looking at the finer points. A case against Google’s advertising and search practices with the Competition Commission of India (CCI) has the potential to derail the search giant’s operations in India. Why, a nervous Google has even sought to make hearings in this case in-camera to totally shut out the media.

There is a lot at stake. An investigation report of the CCI has found Google squarely guilty of abusing its dominant position to manipulate search results on the internet and online advertising results to its own advantage and to those of companies paying for it. Google was found to “have abused its dominant position in the relevant markets of online general web search service in India and online search advertising in India in violation of the Competition Act 2002”.

Indeed, the report (which has been reviewed by Outlook) is blunt on many of the issues: “Google is found to be indulging in practices of search bias and by doing so it causes harm to its competitors as well as users.... Google steers users to its own products and services and produces biased results. This structure offers abundant opportunities for leveraging and has also raised issues of conflict of interest.” It says that through such practices Google was adversely affecting the competitive landscape in the markets for online general web search, search advertising as well as adjacent markets like travel, maps, social networking and e-commerce.

The whole brouhaha started with complaints from two parties—Chennai-based matchmaking portal Bharatmatrimony.com and Jaipur-based consumer rights organisation CUTS International—in 2012. “People who are subscribing to Google’s Adwords and are paying Google or are buying keywords are getting preference in their search results. Many of the search results on Google are either ads or sponsored links and not genuine search results. Google is pushing ads as news items which normal users would be unable to distinguish,” says Sharad Bhansali, managing partner, APJ SLG Law Offices which is representing CUTS.

CUTS also complained that Google was promoting its own products through search. Says Udai Singh Mehta, CUTS director, “Preference was being given by Google to its products and subsidiaries in search.” This, being a dominant player in search and online advertising, amounts to abusing its position. According to market estimates, Google enjoys a 93 per cent share of the search market and gets about 85 per cent of the revenues of online advertising. Says Nikhil Pahwa, editor-in-chief of Medianama: “In search cases, Google is clearly the dominant player in the market. So when they start integrating content into search, there is a problem and it becomes an issue.”

“In search cases, Google is clearly the dominant player. So when they integrate content into search, it’s a problem.”
Nikhil Pahwa, Medianama

In the course of the investigation, the CCI D-G also sought opinion from about 30 companies—most of them gave similar feedback about Google’s practices. The list includes Flipkart, mapmyindia.com, makemytrip.com, Microsoft and Nokia Maps.

Google will now have to appear before the full CCI bench on September 17 for a hearing based on the D-G report. After this, the CCI will take a final call on the issue. Of course, Google can seek an extension of this hearing. According to company insiders, they have not sought an extension yet. Google will have the right to appeal any order the CCI comes out with. The first appeal would be at the court of a competition appellate tribunal headed by a retired SC judge. The final appeal can happen only with the Supreme Court.

As expected, Google denies any wrongdoing and says the abuse of dominant position will need to be proved. Manas Chaudhuri, lawyer with Khaitan & Co which deals with competition cases, told Outlook, “The report says that Google is dominant, which is correct. If it is dominant, there is nothing wrong under the Competition Act. The issue is whether or not it has abused its dominance. The ‘abuse’ is a rule-of-reason argument and as such the CCI will have to assess quite a few international best practices theories eg, ‘objective justification’, ‘analysing the statutory mandate of meeting the competition in the relevant market’, ‘consumer harm’ and ‘counterfactuals’.”

In response to queries, a Google spokesperson said, “We’re currently reviewing the report from the CCI’s ongoing investigation. We continue to work closely with the CCI and remain confident that we comply fully with India’s competition laws. Regulators and courts around the world, including in the US, Germany, Taiwan, Egypt and Brazil, have looked into and found no concerns on many of the issues raised in this report.” Actually, Google is facing a similar case in the EU, while similar issues have been raised in Brazil, Hong Kong, Argentina and Mexico (see box).

Outlook’s cover from Oct 28, 2013

Sure, at first blush, the report appears tilted against Google. What may go in its favour is the CCI’s dismal record in treating such cases. Though it is the final investigation report, experts say it is not sacrosanct: the CCI bench might not agree with it. In the last six years, over 20 such investigation reports have been dismissed by the CCI after the final hearing. And Google will try its best to bring forth the fact that it has been exonerated in similar cases in the US, Germany and Taiwan.

But with the D-G’s final investigation report giving a clear verdict against Google’s practices, it might not be so easy for the search giant to come out cleanly from this one. Says Nehaa Chaudhari, lawyer with the Centre for Internet and Society (cis), “Given that India is not the only jurisdiction where Google is using its secret algorithm to promote its own products, there is enough for the CCI to proceed on against it.” What will also help is the testimony of several companies who have said that they have suffered because of Google’s web practices.

The entire world is watching India. Clearly, if the CCI upholds the D-G report and pronounces Google guilty, it could seriously affect the search giant’s growth in India, one of the fastest growing internet markets for Google with over 300 million internet users and an even faster growing Android landscape (where also it is a dominant player). With the final EU verdict on the case yet to come out, will India set a new example for the world to follow?

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/outlook-arindam-mukherjee-october-23-2016-some-key-words-are-missing

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

sumandro — 2016-11-12T10:14:52Z

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

Invitation note and agenda: Download (PDF)

Venue and RSVP

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

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

Registration: Complete this form.

Concept Note

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

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

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

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

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

Agenda

09:00-09:30 Tea and Coffee

09:30-10:00 Introduction

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

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

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

11:00-11:30 Tea and Coffee

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

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

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

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

13:30-14:30 Lunch

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

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

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

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

16:15-16:30 Tea and Coffee

16:30-17:30 Round Table

An open discussion session to conclude the workshop.

Speakers

Mr. Amber Sinha

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

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

Twitter: @ambersinha07.

Ms. Amelia Andersdotter

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

URL: https://dataskydd.net.

Twitter: @teirdes.

Dr. Anja Kovacs

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

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

Twitter: @anjakovacs.

Dr. Anupam Saraph

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Twitter: @anupamsaraph.

Mr. Apar Gupta

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

Twitter: @aparatbar.

Ms. Astha Kapoor

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

Twitter: @kapoorastha.

Ms. Kritika Bhardwaj

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

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

Twitter: @Kritika12.

Mr. Matthew Rice

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

Privacy International: https://privacyinternational.org.

Twitter: @mattr3.

Mr. Sandeep Mertia

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

Sarai: http://sarai.net.

Twitter: @SandeepMertia.

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

Mr. Srikanth Lakshmanan

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

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

Twitter: @logic.

Mr. Vipul Kharbanda

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

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

If the DIDP Did Its Job

asvatha — 2016-11-07T12:57:18Z

Over the course of two years, the Centre for Internet and Society sent 28 requests to ICANN under its Documentary Information Disclosure Policy (DIDP). A part of ICANN’s accountability initiatives, DIDP is “intended to ensure that information contained in documents concerning ICANN's operational activities, and within ICANN's possession, custody, or control, is made available to the public unless there is a compelling reason for confidentiality.”

Through the DIDP, any member of the public can request information contained in documents from ICANN. We’ve written about the process here, here and here. As a civil society group that does research on internet governance related topics, CIS had a variety of questions for ICANN. The 28 DIDP requests we have sent cover a range of subjects: from revenue and financial information, to ICANN’s relationships with its contracted parties, its contractual compliance audits, harassment policies and the diversity of participants in its public forum. We have blogged about each DIDP request where we have summarized ICANN’s responses.

Here are the DIDP requests we sent in:

Dec 2014	Jan/Feb 2015	Aug/Sept 2015	Nov 2015	Apr/May 2016
ICANN meeting expenditure	Revenue from gTLD auction	Implementation of NETmundial principles	IANA transition postponement	Board Governance Committee Reports
Granular revenue statements	Globalisation Advisory Groups	Raw data - Granular income data	Presumptive renewal of registries	Diversity Analysis
ICANN cyber attacks	Organogram	Compliance audits - registries	ICANN-RIR relationship	Compliance audits
Implementation of NETmundial outcome document	Involvement in NETmundial Initiative	Compliance audits - registrars		Harassment policy
Complaints to ICANN ombudsman	RIR contract fees	Registrar abuse contact		DIDP statistics *
		Verisign Contractual violations		gTLD applicant support program
		Contractual auditors		Root Zone Maintenance agreements
		Internal website

ICANN’s responses were analyzed and rated between 0-4 based on the amount of information disclosed. The reasons given for the lack of full disclosure were also studied.

DIDP response rating
0	No relevant information disclosed
1	Very little information disclosed; DIDP preconditions and/or other reasons for nondisclosure used.
2	Partial information disclosed; DIDP preconditions and/or other reasons for nondisclosure used.
3	Adequate information disclosed; DIDP preconditions and/or other reasons for nondisclosure used.
4	All information disclosed

ICANN has defined a set of preconditions under which they are not obligated to answer a request. These preconditions are generously used by ICANN to justify their lack of a comprehensive answer. The wording of the policy also allows ICANN to dodge answering a request if it doesn’t have the relevant documents already in its possession. The responses were also classified by the number of times a particular DIDP condition for non-disclosure was invoked. We will see why these weaken ICANN’s accountability initiatives.

Of the 28 DIDP requests, only 14% were answered fully, without the use of the DIDP conditions of non-disclosure. Seven out of 28 or 40% of the DIDPs received a 0-rated answer which reflects extremely poorly on the DIDP mechanism itself. Of the 7 responses that received 0-rating, 4 were related to complaints and contractual compliance. We had asked for details on the complaints received by the ombudsman, details on contractual violations by Verisign and abuse contacts maintained by registrars for filing complaints. We received no relevant information.

We have earlier written about the extensive and broad nature of the 12 conditions of non-disclosure that ICANN uses. These conditions were used in 24 responses out of 28. ICANN was able to dodge from fully answering 85% of the DIDP requests that they got from CIS. This is alarming especially for an organization that claims to be fully transparent and accountable. The conditions for non-disclosure have been listed in this document and can be referred to while reading the following graph.

On reading the conditions for non-disclosure, it seems like ICANN can refuse to answer any DIDP request if it so wished. These exclusions are numerous, vaguely worded and contain among them a broad range of information that should legitimately be in the public domain: Correspondence, internal information, information related to ICANN’s relationship with governments, information derived from deliberations among ICANN constituents, information provided to ICANN by private parties and the kicker - information that would be too burdensome for ICANN to collect and disseminate.

As we can see from the graph, the most used condition under which ICANN can refuse to answer a DIDP request is F. Predictably, this is the most vaguely worded DIDP condition of the lot: “Confidential business information and/or internal policies and procedures.” It is up to ICANN to decide what information is confidential with no justification needed or provided for it. ICANN has used this condition 11 times in responding to our 28 requests.

It is also necessary to pay attention to condition L which allow ICANN to reject “Information requests: (i) which are not reasonable; (ii) which are excessive or overly burdensome; (iii) complying with which is not feasible; or (iv) are made with an abusive or vexatious purpose or by a vexatious or querulous individual.” This is perhaps the weakest point in the entire list due its subjective nature. Firstly, on whose standards must this information request be reasonable? If the point of a transparency mechanism is to make sure that information sought by the public is disseminated, should they be allowed to obfuscate information because it is too burdensome to collect? Even if this is fair given the time constraints of the DIDP mechanism, it must not be used as liberally as has been happening. The last sub point is perhaps the most subjective. If a staff member dislikes a particular requestor, this point would justify their refusal to answer a request regardless of its validity. This hardly seems fair or transparent. This condition has been used 9 times in our 28 requests.

Besides the DIDP non-disclosure conditions, ICANN also has an excuse built into the definition of DIDP. Since it is not obliged to create or summarize documents under the DIDP process, it can simply claim to not have the specific document we request and thus negate its responsibility to our request. This is what ICANN did with one of our requests for raw financial data. For our research, we required raw data from ICANN specifically with regard to its expenditure on staff and board members for their travel and attendance at meetings. As an organization that is answerable to multiple stakeholders including governments and the public, it is justified to expect that they have financial records of such items in a systematic manner. However, we were surprised to learn that ICANN does not in fact have these stored in a manner that they can send as attachments or publish. Instead they directed us to the audited financial reports which did little for our research. However, in response to our later request for granular data on revenue from domain names, ICANN explained that while they do not have such a document in their possession, they would create one. This distinction between the two requests seems arbitrary to us since we consider both to be important to public.

Nevertheless, there were some interesting outcomes from our experience filing DIDPs. We learnt that there has been no substantive work done to inculcate the NETmundial principles at ICANN, that ICANN has no idea which regional internet registry contributes the most to its budget, and that it does not store (or is not willing to reveal) any raw financial data. These outcomes do not contribute to a sense of confidence in the organization.

ICANN has an opportunity to reform this particular transparency mechanism at its Workstream 2 discussions. ICANN must make use of this opportunity to listen and work with people who have used the DIDP process in order to make it useful, effective and efficient. To that effect, we have some recommendations from our experience with the DIDP process.

That ICANN does not currently possess a particular document is not an excuse if it has the ability to create one. In its response to our questions on the IANA transition, ICANN indicated that it does not have the necessary documents as the multi stakeholder body that it set up is the one conducting the transition. This is somewhat justified. However, in response to our request for financial details, ICANN must not be able to give the excuse that it does not have a document in its possession. It and it alone has the ability to create the document and in response to a request from the public, it should.

ICANN must also revamp its conditions for non-disclosure and make it tighter. It must reduce the number of exclusions to its disclosure policy and make sure that the exclusion is not done arbitrarily. Specifically with respect to condition F, ICANN must clarify how information was classified as confidential and why that is different from everything else on the list of conditions.

Further, ICANN should not be able to use condition L to outright reject a DIDP request. Instead, there must be a way for the requester and ICANN to come to terms about the request. This could happen by an extension of the 1 month deadline, financial compensation by requester for any expenditure on ICANN’s part to answer the request or by a compromise between the requester and ICANN on the terms of the request. The sub point about requests made “by a vexatious or querulous individual” must be removed from condition L or at least be separated from the condition so that it is clear why the request for disclosure was denied.

ICANN should also set up a redressal mechanism specific to DIDP. While ICANN has the Reconsideration Requests process to rectify any wrongdoing on the part of staff or board members, this is not adequate to identify whether a DIDP was rejected on justifiable grounds. A separate mechanism that deals only with DIDP requests and wrongful use of the non-disclosure conditions would be helpful. According to the icann bylaws, in addition to Requests for Reconsideration, ICANN has also established an independent third party review of allegations against the board and/or staff members. A similar mechanism solely for reviewing whether ICANN’s refusal to answer a DIDP request is justified would be extremely useful.

A strong transparency mechanism must make sure that its objective are to provide answers, not to find ways to justify its lack of answers. With this in mind, we hope that the revamp of transparency mechanisms after workstream 2 discussions leads to a better DIDP process than we are used to.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/if-the-didp-did-its-job

How Workstream 2 Plans to Improve ICANN's Transparency

Asvatha Babu — 2016-11-11T10:05:04Z

The Centre for Internet and Society has worked extensively on ICANN’s transparency policies. We are perhaps the single largest users of the Documentary Information Disclosure Policy. Our goal in doing so is not to be a thorn in ICANN’s side, but to try and ensure that ICANN, the organisation, as well as the ICANN community have access to the data required to carry out the task of regulating the global domain name system.

The transparency subgroup of ICANN’s Workstream 2 dialogue attempts to see how they could effectively improve the transparency and accountability of the organization. The main document under scrutiny at the moment is the draft Transparency Report published a few days before the 57th ICANN meeting in Hyderabad.

The report begins with an acknowledgement of the value of taking tips from the Right to Information policies of other institutions and governments. My colleague Padmini Baruah had earlier written a blog post comparing the exclusion policy of ICANN’s DIDP and the Indian Government’s RTI where she found that “the net cast by the DIDP exclusions policy is more vast than even than that of a democratic state’s transparency law.”[1] The WS2 report not only discusses the DIDP process, but also discusses ICANN’s proactive disclosures (with regard to lobbying etc) and whistleblower policies. This article focuses solely on the first.

As our earlier blog posts have mentioned, CIS sent in 28 DIDP requests over the last two years. Our experience with DIDP has been less than satisfactory and we are pleased that DIDP reform was an important part of the discussions of this subgroup. The report proposes some concrete structural changes to the DIDP process but skirts around some of the more controversial ones.

The recommendation to make the process of submitting requests clearer is a good one. There are currently no instructions on the follow-up process or what ICANN requires of the requestors. The report also recommends capping any extension to the original 30-day limit to an additional 30 days. While this is good, we further recommend that ICANN stay in touch with the requestor in order to help them to the best of its ability. The correspondence should ideally not be limited to a notification that they require an extension. Any clarifications on the part of the requestor must be resolved by ICANN. We commend the report for pointing out that the status quo – where there is no outside limit for extension of time beyond the mandated 30 days – is problematic as it allows the ICANN staff to give lesser priority to responding to DIDP requests. We strongly suggest that extensions of time on responding to DIDP requests be restricted to a maximum of 7 days after the passing of the 30-day period, after which liability should be strictly imposed on ICANN in the form of an individual fine, analogous to India’s RTI policy.[2]

One of the major areas of focus for this report and for our earlier analysis was the problematic nature of the exclusions to the DIDP. I had written that the conditions were "numerous, vaguely worded and contain among them a broad range of information that should legitimately be in the public domain.”[3] This is echoed by the report which calls for a deletion of two clauses that we found most used in denying our requests for information.

The report also calls into question the subjective nature of the last condition which states that ICANN can deny information if they find requests “not reasonable, excessive or overly burdensome, not feasible, abusive or vexatious or made by a vexatious or querulous individual.” As seen from our blog posts, we are of the firm belief that such a subjective condition has no place in a robust information disclosure policy. Requiring the Ombudsman’s consent to invoke it is a good first step. In addition to that, we strongly encourage that objective guidelines which specify when a requestor is considered “vexatious” be drawn up and made public.

The most disappointing aspect of this report is that it does not delve into details about having an independent party dedicated to reviewing the DIDP process to address grievances. We believe that this must not be left to the Ombudsman who cannot devote all their time to this process. We are of the opinion that an independent party would also be able to more effectively oversee the tracking and periodic review of the DIDP mechanism.

In conclusion, we believe that this report is a good start but does not comprehensively answer all of our issues with the DIDP process as it is. We look forward to more engagement with the Transparency subgroup to close all loopholes within the DIDP process.

[1] Padmini Baruah, Peering behind the veil of ICANN’s DIDP, (September 21, 2015), available at http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/peering-behind-the-veil-of-icann2019s-didp (Last visited on November 9, 2016).

[2] Section 20(1), Right to Information Act, 2005.

[3] Asvatha Babu, If the DIDP Did Its Job, (November 3, 2016), available at http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/if-the-didp-did-its-job (Last Visited on November 9, 2016).

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/how-workstream-2-plans-to-improve-icanns-transparency

Privacy after Big Data: Compilation of Early Research

Saumyaa Naidu — 2016-11-12T01:37:03Z

Download the Compilation (PDF)

Privacy after Big Data

Evolving data science, technologies, techniques, and practices, including big data, are enabling shifts in how the public and private sectors carry out their functions and responsibilities, deliver services, and facilitate innovative production and service models to emerge. For example, in the public sector, the Indian government has considered replacing the traditional poverty line with targeted subsidies based on individual household income and assets. The my.gov.in platform is aimed to enable participation of the connected citizens, to pull in online public opinion in a structured manner on key governance topics in the country. The 100 Smart Cities Mission looks forwards to leverage big data analytics and techniques to deliver services and govern citizens within city sub-systems. In the private sector, emerging financial technology companies are developing credit scoring models using big, small, social, and fragmented data so that people with no formal credit history can be offered loans. These models promote efficiency and reduction in cost through personalization and are powered by a wide variety of data sources including mobile data, social media data, web usage data, and passively collected data from usages of IoT or connected devices.

These data technologies and solutions are enabling business models that are based on the ideals of ‘less’: cash-less, presence-less, and paper-less. This push towards an economy premised upon a foundational digital ID in a prevailing condition of absent legal frameworks leads to substantive loss of anonymity and privacy of individual citizens and consumers vis-a-vis both the state and the private sector. Indeed, the present use of these techniques run contrary to the notion of the ‘sunlight effect’ - making the individual fully transparent (often without their knowledge) to the state and private sector, while the algorithms and means of reaching a decision are opaque and inaccessible to the individual.

These techniques, characterized by the volume of data processed, the variety of sources data is processed from, and the ability to both contextualize - learning new insights from disconnected data points - and de-contextualize - finding correlation rather than causation - have also increased the value of all forms of data. In some ways, big data has made data exist on an equal playing field as far as monetisation and joining up are concerned. Meta data can be just as valuable to an entity as content data. As data science techniques evolve to find new ways of collecting, processing, and analyzing data - the benefits of the same are clear and tangible, while the harms are less clear, but significantly present.

Is it possible for an algorithm to discriminate? Will incorrect decisions be made based on data collected? Will populations be excluded from necessary services if they do not engage with certain models or do emerging models overlook certain populations? Can such tools be used to surveil individuals at a level of granularity that was formerly not possible and before a crime occurs? Can such tools be used to violate rights – for example target certain types of speech or groups online? And importantly, when these practices are opaque to the individual, how can one seek appropriate and effective remedy.

Traditionally, data protection standards have defined and established protections for certain categories of data. Yet, data science techniques have evolved beyond data protection principles. It is now infinitely harder to obtain informed consent from an individual when data that is collected can be used for multiple purposes by multiple bodies. Providing notice for every use is also more difficult – as is fulfilling requirements of data minimization. Some say privacy is dead in the era of big data. Others say privacy needs to be re-conceptualized, while others say protecting privacy now, more than ever, requires a ‘regulatory sandbox’ that brings together technical design, markets, legislative reforms, self regulation, and innovative regulatory frameworks. It also demands an expanding of the narrative around privacy – one that has largely been focused on harms such as misuse of data or unauthorized collection – to include discrimination, marginalization, and competition harms.

In this compilation we have put together a series of articles that we have developed as we explore the impacts – positive and negative – of big data. This includes looking at India’s data protection regime in the context of big data, reviewing literature on the benefits of harms of big data, studying emerging predictive policing techniques that rely on big data, and analyzing closely the impact of big data on specific privacy principles such as consent. This is a growing body of research that we are exploring and is relevant to multiple areas of our work including privacy and surveillance. Feedback and comments on the compilation are welcome and appreciated.

Elonnai Hickok
Director - Internet Governance

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/privacy-after-big-data-compilation-of-early-research

Google, Facebook will not place ads on sites distributing fake news

praskrishna — 2016-11-15T13:59:40Z

Google plans to update its AdSense program policies to prevent placement of its ads on sites distributing fake news.

The article by John Riberio originally published by IDG News Service was mirrored on CIO on November 14, 2016. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.

Facebook also said Monday it had updated the policy for its Audience Network, which places ads on websites and mobile apps, to explicitly clarify that it applies to fake news.

“In accordance with the Audience Network Policy, we do not integrate or display ads in apps or sites containing content that is illegal, misleading or deceptive, which includes fake news,” Facebook said in a statement. The company said its team will continue to closely vet all prospective publishers and monitor existing ones to ensure compliance.

False news stories have become a sore point after the U.S. presidential elections with critics blaming internet companies like Twitter and Facebook for having had an influence on the outcome of the elections as a result of the fake content.

The controversy also reflects concerns about the growing power of social networks to influence people and events, as well as help people to communicate and organize. Facebook promotes democracy by letting candidates communicate directly with people, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said recently in an interview.

Google had its own embarrassing moments on Sunday with a false story that claimed that President-elect Donald Trump had won the popular vote in the U.S. presidential elections figuring atop some Google search results. Trump’s Democratic rival Hillary Clinton is leading in the popular vote.

“We've been working on an update to our publisher policies and will start prohibiting Google ads from being placed on misrepresentative content, just as we disallow misrepresentation in our ads policies,” Google said Monday in a statement. “Moving forward, we will restrict ad serving on pages that misrepresent, misstate, or conceal information about the publisher, the publisher's content, or the primary purpose of the web property.”

Google evidently expects that the threat of a cut in revenue from ads will dissuade sites from publishing fake content.

Zuckerberg has described as “crazy” the criticism that fake news on Facebook's news feed had influenced the vote in favor of Trump. “Of all the content on Facebook, more than 99% of what people see is authentic. Only a very small amount is fake news and hoaxes,” Zuckerberg said in a post over the weekend. The hoaxes are not limited to one partisan view, or even to politics, he added.

Identifying the "truth" is complicated, as while some hoaxes can be clearly identified, a greater amount of content, including from mainstream sources, often gets the basic idea right but some details wrong or omitted, or expresses a view that some people will disagree with and flag as incorrect even when it is factual, Zuckerberg wrote.

There are concerns that the monitoring of sites for fake news and the penalties could give internet companies more power. "We have to be wary of Facebook and Google being allowed to decide what's 'fake' and what's 'true' news. That only increases their power," said Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Centre for Internet & Society in Bangalore.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/cio-november-14-2016-john-riberio-google-facebook-will-not-place-ads-on-sites-distributing-fake-news