The Centre for Internet and Society
https://cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 11 to 25.
SoI’s Open Series Maps Fails to Implement Public Sharing of Govt Data
https://cis-india.org/openness/survey-of-india-open-series-maps-fails-to-implement-public-sharing-of-govt-data
<b>Although it has made the topographic maps or the Open Series Maps available to general public, Survey of India’s (SoI) Nakshe portal will have to go through a variety of litmus test, as the initiative fails to implement the mandates of public sharing of government data using open standards and open license as put forward by the NMP 2005 and NDSAP 2012, says Sumandro Chattapadhyay, Research Director, The Centre for Internet and Society. This interview was published by Geospatial World on May 02, 2017.</b>
<p> </p>
<p>Cross-posted from <a href="https://www.geospatialworld.net/sois-open-series-maps-fails-implement-public-sharing-govt-data/">Geospatial World</a>.</p>
<hr />
<h4>What are your views on the Nakshe Portal initiative from Survey of India?</h4>
<p>It is a most welcome initiative by the Survey of India to realize the mandate of the National Map Policy (NMP) 2005 to publicly distribute “Open Series Maps of scales larger than 1:1 million”. The Survey of India has also drawn from and implemented the mandate of the National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy (NDSAP) 2012 to make available the shareable and non-sensitive Open Series Maps documents without any necessary fees to access and use them.</p>
<p>The initiative, however, fails to achieve the goal of of public sharing of government data using open standards and open license as put forward by the NMP 2005 and NDSAP 2012. This substantively raises the barrier to access the Open Series Maps data and reduces its possibilities of reuse, especially for commercial innovation, in a very serious way. This undermining of the open data agenda is not only a concern for the Nakshe portal in particular, but also sets a dangerous precedent for future open government data initiatives in India.</p>
<h4>What is your view on the data provided and its usability?</h4>
<p>The Nakshe portal has created several barriers to access and use of the Open Series Maps data, all of which are in violation of the NMP 2005 and NDSAP 2012:</p>
<ul>
<li>
<p>NDSAP 2012 mandates that shareable and non-sensitive government data (such as Open Series Maps) are made public through the data.gov.in portal created under the guidance of the NDSAP 2012. Survey of India may of course decide to publish the Open Series Maps data on the Nakshe portal along with on the data.gov.in portal. Publishing of the data only through the Nakshe portal not only violates the mandate of NDSAP 2012, they make such data much less discoverable.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>NDSAP 2012 allows for “registered access” to open government data. That is, it allows for data to be shared only with users who have registered with the data publishing portal. Making registration only possible via Aadhaar number, however, significantly limits the number of users who can access this data. For example, non-Indian researchers form an important potential sub-section of users of Open Series Maps but they will not be able to access the data. The website neither has a privacy policy that clarifies how these submitted Aadhaar numbers will be stored, protected, and shared (if at all) by the Survey of India.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>NMP 2005 instructs Survey of India to “allow a user to add value to the maps obtained (either in analogue or digital formats) and prepare his own value-added maps”. The Government Open Data License has been recently notified under NDSAP 2012 to guide permitted uses of open government data in India.</p>
<p>The very restricted approach to permitted end-uses of Open Series Maps by the Survey of India neither follow the NMP instruction, nor adopt the Government Open Data License. Data available from Nakshe portal cannot be exported (which is technically an absurd demand due to globally distributed nature of servers), commercialized, or altered. This creates a most serious barrier to using the Open Series Maps data available via the Nakshe portal.</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>The Nakshe portal has published geospatial data in PDF format. This is a clear violation of open data practices globally and the NDSAP Implementation Guidelines more specifically, which states that open geospatial data standards, like GML and KML, should be used).</p>
</li></ul>
<h4>Does this fall in line with the larger government aim of having open and accessible data? If not why?</h4>
<p>In a nutshell, the Open Series Maps data being published on the Nakshe portal is neither open (as it does not use open standards to share the data and does not share the data under an open licenses) nor universally accessible (due to the requirement for registration via Aadhaar number).</p>
<h4>What improvements do you suggest in the approach of SoI about the portal?</h4>
<p>I have listed four major conflicts that the Nakshe portal has with the directives and guidelines offered by the NMP 2005 and NDSAP 2012. I sincerely hope that the Survey of India and the Department of Science and Technology will address them soon, as they significantly limit the ability of users to access and use the Open Series Maps data.</p>
<p>These changes will make the Open Series Maps data open, and ensure that the data can be accessed and innovated with by various stakeholders.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/openness/survey-of-india-open-series-maps-fails-to-implement-public-sharing-of-govt-data'>https://cis-india.org/openness/survey-of-india-open-series-maps-fails-to-implement-public-sharing-of-govt-data</a>
</p>
No publishersumandroOpen DataOpen Government DataGeospatial DataOpenness2017-05-04T12:19:01ZBlog EntryComments on the Statistical Disclosure Control Report
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/comments-on-the-statistical-disclosure-control-report
<b>This submission presents comments by the Centre for Internet and Society, India (“CIS”) on the Statistical Disclosure Control Report published on March 30th by Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation.
</b>
<p><strong id="docs-internal-guid-a12fe2b3-c746-4c1a-0287-1814414668af"><br /></strong></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;" dir="ltr">1. PRELIMINARY</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify;" dir="ltr">This submission presents comments by the Centre for Internet and Society, India (“CIS”) on the Statistical Disclosure Control Report published on March 30th by Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;" dir="ltr">CIS is thankful for the opportunity to put forth its views.<br class="kix-line-break" />This submission is divided into three main parts. The first part, ‘Preliminary’, introduces the document; the second part, ‘About CIS’, is an overview of the organization; and, the third part contains the ‘Comments’.<br class="kix-line-break" /><br class="kix-line-break" /></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;" dir="ltr">2. ABOUT CIS</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify;" dir="ltr">CIS is a non-profit organisation that undertakes interdisciplinary research on internet and digital technologies from policy and academic perspectives. The areas of focus include digital accessibility for persons with diverse abilities, access to knowledge, intellectual property rights, openness (including open data, free and open source software, open standards, open access, open educational resources, and open video), internet governance, telecommunication reform, freedom of speech and expression, intermediary liability, digital privacy, and cybersecurity.<br class="kix-line-break" /><br /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;" dir="ltr">CIS values the fundamental principles of justice, equality, freedom and economic development. This submission is consistent with CIS' commitment to these values, the safeguarding of general public interest and the protection of India's national interest at the international level. Accordingly, the comments in this submission aim to further these principles.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;" dir="ltr">3. Comments</h3>
<h4 style="text-align: justify;" dir="ltr">3.1 General Comments</h4>
<p style="text-align: justify;" dir="ltr">As a non-profit organisation we recognize the importance of the efforts by the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (MoSPI) to make the data you collect available to the public in open formats with relevant information about reliability of statistical estimates.</p>
<p><span style="text-align: justify;">We at CIS have recently released a report titled “Information Security Practices of Aadhaar (or lack thereof): A documentation of public availability of Aadhaar Numbers with sensitive personal financial information”. We encountered several central and state government departments collecting socioeconomic data from citizens, linking it with Aadhaar and even publishing them in exportable data formats like EXCEL and MS ACCESS Databases. </span><span style="text-align: justify;">While we understand this issue primarily concerns to Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), the lack of standards around information/statistical disclosure are a general threat to transparency in a democracy and privacy of individuals. </span><span style="text-align: justify;">Going through the report we understand the committee is unable to prescribe a standard for other ministries and departments until they try and pilot these standards within Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation. This delay in prescribing the standards can be really dangerous in the current circumstances of massive data collection by government departments and linking all the databases with a unique identifier, Aadhaar Number. </span><span style="text-align: justify;">At the same time we understand the importance of data dissemination to be carried out and we recommend the following for improving the standards around data disclosure control.</span></p>
<h4 style="text-align: justify;" dir="ltr">3.2 Integrity of Information and Data</h4>
<p style="text-align: justify;" dir="ltr">We agree with the committee that the error rates need to be kept in mind while designing practices to convert raw data. But we request the process of changes being made be actively measured and documented. In case of errors being computed, guidelines can be made to decrease the possibilities of misinterpretation of errors causing loss of integrity of information. Statistics are important for decision making in governance, errors in computations can be biased towards millions of people. Statistical biases are important to be looked into while converting data from its raw format to make sure there are no damage caused by information.</p>
<h4 style="text-align: justify;" dir="ltr">3.3 Data Security</h4>
<p style="text-align: justify;" dir="ltr">One of the important issues around storage and publication of Aadhaar information is the lack of masking standards. With the availability of data from multiple departments, it is possible to reconstruct identification details by linking data from multiple databases. It is recommended to bring masking standards while personally identifiable micro data is being published. There is an urgent need for departments to also look at auditing access to information and tracking sharing of information. It is recommended the department digitally signs all the information and documents being published or shared by them to keep track of who had accessed the information and verifying the authenticity of information.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;" dir="ltr">We request the department to define what exactly is “usage for statistical purposes only” and recommend standards to control and restrict usage of information for this purpose. It is important they design frameworks or mechanisms to allow others to report violations around this. This process should be transparent and documented heavily.</p>
<h4 style="text-align: justify;" dir="ltr">3.4 Anonymization of microdata</h4>
<p style="text-align: justify;" dir="ltr">We recommend the data being collected be anonymized at source to evade the possibility of the accidental disclosure of personally identifiable information. While the current anonymization efforts have been helpful, with steady increase in data mining and classification algorithms and practices it is recommended to evolve the standards around this area.</p>
<h4 style="text-align: justify;" dir="ltr">3.5 Data Dissemination</h4>
<p style="text-align: justify;" dir="ltr">Data dissemination is an important aspect for district statistics officers, we recommend they actively communicate their work through monthly newsletters, quarterly workshops to help improve the conversations around statistics and at the same time engage with the users who would benefit from the data.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;" dir="ltr">We also recommend that data when being published includes metadata of collection, modification, storage and other important information. Also the information needs to be published in open formats which does not require proprietary software to be used to open them. At the same time data should be published in multiple formats like CSV, XLS, PDF,</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;" dir="ltr">The committee also recognizes the need for having data users part of discussions around important decisions and be part of committees. We would like the department to recognize our efforts and consider us for future committee representations.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;" dir="ltr"> </p>
<p style="text-align: justify;" dir="ltr">Thank you for this opportunity and we look forward to work with you in future.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/comments-on-the-statistical-disclosure-control-report'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/comments-on-the-statistical-disclosure-control-report</a>
</p>
No publisherSrinivs Kodali and Amber SinhaCall for CommentsDigital AccessOpen DataOpen Government DataData ProtectionData GovernanceAadhaarDigitisationInformation SecurityOpennessInternet GovernanceData Management2019-03-13T00:28:44ZBlog EntryCBGA - Consultation on Opening Up Access to Budget Data in India (Delhi, January 27)
https://cis-india.org/openness/news/cbga-consultation-on-opening-up-access-to-budget-data-in-india-delhi-jan-27-2017
<b>Open Budgets India, a comprehensive and user-friendly open data portal to provide free, easy, and timely access to relevant data on budgets, has been developed by the Centre for Budget and Governance Accountability (CBGA) in collaboration with a number of other organisations. CBGA is organising a Consultation on “Opening Up the Access to Budget Data in India” on Friday, January 27, 2017, to launch the beta version of the portal. Sumandro Chattapadhyay will be a speaker in the panel discussion that will follow the launch.</b>
<p> </p>
<h4>Venue and time: Juniper Hall, India Habitat Centre (IHC), Lodhi Road, New Delhi, 1:30 pm to 5:00 pm</h4>
<h4>Event details: <a href="http://www.cbgaindia.org/event/2797/" target="_blank">Link</a> (External)</h4>
<h4>Event agenda: <a href="https://cis-india.org/openness/files/cbga-consultation-on-opening-up-access-to-budget-data-in-india-delhi-january-27-agenda/at_download/file">Download</a> (PDF)</h4>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/openness/news/cbga-consultation-on-opening-up-access-to-budget-data-in-india-delhi-jan-27-2017'>https://cis-india.org/openness/news/cbga-consultation-on-opening-up-access-to-budget-data-in-india-delhi-jan-27-2017</a>
</p>
No publishersumandroOpen DataOpen Government DataOpenness2017-01-27T05:45:30ZBlog EntryComments on the Draft National Policy on Software Products
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/comments-on-draft-national-policy-on-software-products
<b>The Centre for Internet & Society submitted public comments to the Department of Electronics & Information Technology (DeitY), Ministry of Information & Communications Technology, Govt. of India on the National Policy of Software
Products on December 9, 2016. </b>
<p> </p>
<h2>I. Preliminary</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>1.</strong> This submission presents comments by the Centre for Internet and Society, India (“<strong>CIS</strong>”) on the Draft National Policy on Software Products <a name="fr1" href="#fn1">[1]</a> (“<strong>draft policy</strong>”), released by the Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology (“<strong>MeitY</strong> ”).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>2.</strong> CIS commends MeitY on its initiative to present a draft policy, and is thankful for the opportunity to put forth its views in this public consultation period.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>3.</strong> This submission is divided into three main parts. The first part, ‘Preliminary’, introduces the document; the second part, ‘About CIS’, is an overview of the organization; and, the third part contains the comments by CIS on the Draft National Policy on Software Products.</p>
<h2>II. About CIS</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>4.</strong> CIS is a non-profit organisation <a name="fr2" href="#fn2">[2]</a> that undertakes interdisciplinary research on internet and digital technologies from policy and academic perspectives. The areas of focus include digital accessibility for persons with diverse abilities, access to knowledge, intellectual property rights, openness (including open data, free and open source software, open standards, open access, open educational resources, and open video), internet governance, telecommunication reform, freedom of speech and expression, intermediary liability, digital privacy, and cyber security.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>5.</strong> CIS values the fundamental principles of justice, equality, freedom and economic development. This submission is consistent with CIS' commitment to these values, the safeguarding of general public interest and the protection of India's national interest at the international level. Accordingly, the comments in this submission aim to further these principles.</p>
<h2>III. Comments on the Draft National Policy on Software Products</h2>
<h3><strong>General Comments</strong></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>6.</strong> CIS commends MeitY on its initiative to develop a consolidated National Policy on Software Products. We believe that there are certain salient points in the draft policy that deserve particular appreciation for being in the interest of all stakeholders, especially the public. An indicative list of such points include:</p>
<ol style="text-align: justify;"><li>A focus on aiding digital inclusion via software, especially in the fields of finance, education and healthcare.</li>
<li>The recognition of the need for openness and application of open data principles in the private and public sector. Identifying the need for diversification of the information technology sector into regions outside the developed cities in India.</li>
<li>Identifying the need for innovation and original research in emerging fields such as Internet of Things and Big Data.</li></ol>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>7.</strong> We observe that the draft policy weighs in the favour of creating a thriving digital economy, which indeed is a commendable objective per se. However, there are certain aspects which remain to be addressed by the draft policy, to ensure that the growth of our domestic software industry truly achieves the vision set out in Digital India for better delivery of government services and maximisation of the public interest.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>8.</strong> We submit that the proposed policy should include certain additional guiding principles to direct creation of software and its end-utilisation. These principles would ensure responsible, inclusive, judicious and secure software product life cycle by all the relevant stakeholders, including the industry, the government and especially the public. An indicative list of such principles that we believe should be explicitly included in the policy are:</p>
<ol style="text-align: justify;"><li>Ensuring that internationally accepted principles of privacy are followed in software development and utilisation, including public awareness.</li>
<li>Requiring basic yet sufficient standards of information security to ensure protection of user data at all stages of the software product life cycle.</li>
<li>Enforcing lingual diversity in software to allow for India’s diverse population to operate indigenous software in an inclusive manner.</li>
<li>Mandating minimum standards on accessibility in software creation, procurement and implementation to ensure sustainable use by the differently-abled.</li>
<li>Focusing on transparency & accountability in software procurement for all public funded projects.</li>
<li>Implementing the utilisation of Free and Open Source Software (“<strong>FOSS</strong>”) in the execution of public funded projects as per the mandate of the Policy on Adoption of Open Source Software for Government of India; thereby incentivising the creation of FOSS for use in both private and public sector.</li>
<li>For software to be truly inclusive of the goals of Digital India, it is essential that to provide supports to Indic languages and scripts without yielding an inferior experience or results for the end user in non-English interfaces. Software already deployed should be translated and localised.</li></ol>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>9.</strong> The inclusion of these principles in substantive clauses of the policy will go a long way in ensuring the sustainable and transparent growth of domestic software product ecosystem.</p>
<h3><strong>Specific Comments</strong></h3>
<h4><strong>10.</strong> Development of a robust Electronic Payment Infrastructure</h4>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>10.1.</strong> CIS observes that clauses 5.4 and 6.7 of the draft policy aim to establish a seamless electronic payment infrastructure. We submit that an electronic payment infrastructure should be designed with strong standards of information security, privacy and inclusivity (both accessibility and lingual).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>10.2.</strong> We recommend that the policy mandate minimum standards of information security, privacy and inclusivity in all payment systems across private and public sectors. The policy should, therefore, ideally specify the respective standards for these categories, for instance ISO 27001 and National Policy on Universal Electronics Accessibility <a name="fr3" href="#fn3">[3]</a>, alongside other industry standards for Electronic Payment Infrastructure.</p>
<h4>11. Government Procurement</h4>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>11.1.</strong> CIS observes that clause 6.1 of the draft policy seeks to develop a framework for inclusion of Indian software in government procurement. It is commendable that the draft policy identifies the need for a better framework. CIS notes that the existing procurement procedure allows for usage of Indian software. In fact, the Government e-Marketplace(eGM) already has begun to incorporate some of these principles in general procurement.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>11.2.</strong> Indeed, the presence of a transparent and accountable government procurement, which leverages technology and the internet, is key to ensuring a sustainable and fair market. CIS recommends that the policy refer to these guiding principles to enable the development of a viable cache of Indian software products by creating more avenues, including government procurement.</p>
<h4>12. Incentives for Digital India oriented software</h4>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>12.1.</strong> CIS observes that clause 6.3 of the draft policy incentivises the creation of software addressing the action pillars of the commendable Digital India programme.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>12.2.</strong> For development of superior quality software which will ensure excellent success of the Digital India programme, CIS recommends that the incentives should be provided <em>contingent </em>to the incorporation of certain minimum standards of software development. Such products and services should, <em>inter alia</em>, adhere to the stipulations under National Policy on Universal Electronics Accessibility, the Guidelines for Indian Government Websites, Information Technology (Reasonable security practices and procedures and sensitive personal data or information) Rules, 2011, etc. In the process, the software should be subjected to reviews by a neutral entity to gauge the compliance with the abovementioned minimum standards.</p>
<h4>13. Increasing adoption of Open APIs and Open Data</h4>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>13.1.</strong> CIS observes that clause 6.6 of the draft policy promotes the use of open APIs and open data in development of e-government services.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>13.2.</strong> We strongly recommend that open APIs and open data principles be adopted by software used in all government organizations, and non-commercial software . Open Data and Open APIs can serve a vital role in ensuring transparent, accountable and efficient governance, which can be leveraged in a major way within the policy by the public and civil society.</p>
<h4>14. Creation of Enabling Environment for Innovation, R&D, and IP Creation and Protection</h4>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>14.1.</strong> CIS observes that clause 8.1 of the draft policy seeks to create an enabling environment for innovation, R&D, and IP creation and protection.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>14.2.</strong> CIS submits that the existing TRIPS-compliant Indian intellectual property law regime is adequately designed to incentivise creativity and innovation in the area of software development. The Indian Patents Act, 1970 read with the Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions, 2016 do not permit the patenting of <em>computer programmes per se</em>. Several Indian software developers, notably small and medium sized development companies have made evidence-based submissions to the government previously on the negative impact of software patenting on software innovation <a name="fr4" href="#fn4">[4]</a>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>14.3.</strong> CIS recommends that the proposed policy re-affirm the adequacy of the Indian intellectual property regime to protect software development, in compliance with the TRIPS Agreement.</p>
<h2>IV. Conclusion</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>15.</strong> CIS commends the MeitY on the development of the draft policy. We strongly urge MeitY to address the issues highlighted above, especially emphasising the incorporation of essential principles such as information security, privacy, accessibility, etc. Adoption of such measures will ensure a fair balance between commercial growth of domestic software industry and the maximisation of public interest.</p>
<hr style="text-align: justify;" />
<p>[<a name="fn1" href="#fr1">1</a>]. National Policy on Software Products (2016, Draft internal v1. 15) available at <a class="external-link" href="http://meity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/National%20Policy%20on%20Software%20Products.pdf">http://meity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/National%20Policy%20on%20Software%20Products.pdf</a></p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="http://meity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/National%20Policy%20on%20Software%20Products.pdf">[</a><a name="fn2" href="#fr2">2</a>]. See The Centre for Internet and Society, available at <a class="external-link" href="http://cis- india.org">http://cis- india.org</a> for details of the organization,and our work.</p>
<p>[<a name="fn3" href="#fr3">3</a>]. See <a class="external-link" href="http://meity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/Accessible-format-National%20Policy%20on%20Universal%20Electronics.pdf">http://meity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/Accessible-format-National%20Policy%20on%20Universal%20Electronics.pdf</a></p>
<p>[<a name="fn4" href="#fr4">4</a>]. See <a class="external-link" href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/52159304.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&amp;utm_me%20dium=text&amp;utm_campaign=cppst">http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/52159304.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_me dium=text&utm_campaign=cppst</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/comments-on-draft-national-policy-on-software-products'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/comments-on-draft-national-policy-on-software-products</a>
</p>
No publisherAnubha Sinha, Rohini Lakshané, and Udbhav TiwariOpen StandardsNational Software PolicyOpen SourceOpen DataInternet GovernanceOpenness2016-12-12T14:45:11ZBlog EntryICANN Begins its Sojourn into Open Data
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/icann-begins-its-sojourn-into-open-data
<b>The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) recently announced that it will now set up a pilot project in order to introduce an Open Data initiative for all data that it generates. We would like to extend our congratulations to ICANN on the development of this commendable new initiative, and would be honoured to support the creation of this living document to be prepared before ICANN 58.</b>
<p> </p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">To quote the ICANN blog directly, the aim of this project is to “<em>bring selected data sets into the open, available through web pages and programming APIs, for the purposes of external party review and analysis</em>” <a href="#ftn1">[1]</a>. This will play out through the setting up of three components:</p>
<ol><li>Development of a catalogue of existing data sets which will be appropriate for publication</li>
<li>Selection of the technology necessary for managing the publication of these data sets.</li>
<li>Creation of a process to prioritise the order in which the data sets are made available <a href="#ftn2">[2]</a>.</li></ol>
<h3><strong>Principles in Question</strong></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The Centre for Internet and Society firmly believes in the value of accessible, inclusive open data standards as a tool for enhancing transparency in any system. Greater transparency goes a long way towards bringing a regulatory authority closer to those who are governed under it – be it a state or a body such as ICANN. It is, in fact, an indispensable component of a multistakeholder model of governance to facilitate informed participation by all parties concerned in the decision making process.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The right to information that a regulatory authority owes those it regulates has two kinds of components. The first may be described as reactive disclosure – “<em>when individual members of the public file requests for and receive information</em>” <a href="#ftn#3">[3]</a>. The second is disclosure that is more proactive in nature – “<em>when information is made public at the initiative of the public body, without a request being filed</em>” <a href="#ftn4">[4]</a>. The former is epitomized by initiatives such as the Freedom of
Information Act <a href="#ftn5">[5]</a> in the United States, the Right to Information Act in India <a href="#ftn6">[6]</a>, or ICANN’s very own Documentary Information Disclosure Policy <a href="#ftn7">[7]</a>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Proactive disclosure policies, on the other hand, operate out of the principle that the provision of information by those in positions of regulatory authority will ensure free and timely flow of information to the public, and the information so provided will be equally accessible to everyone, without the need for individual requests being filed <a href="#ftn8">[8]</a>. Proactive disclosure also goes a long way towards preventing officials from denying or manipulating information subsequent to publication <a href="#ftn9">[9]</a>. Scholars have touted proactive disclosure as the “<em>future of the right to know</em>” <a href="#ftn10">[10]</a>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">At the Centre for Internet and Society, much of our research has pointed towards the direction of creating better open data standards for governments (Please see “<a href="http://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/open-government-data-study">Open Data Government Study: India</a>”). We are one of the Lead Stewards of the International Open Data Charter <a href="#ftn11">[11]</a> and have maintained that it is crucial for governments to maintain open data standards in the interest of transparency and accountability. We firmly believe that the same principles extend also to ICANN – a body which, as per its own by-laws commits towards operating “…<em>to the maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner and consistent with procedures designed to ensure fairness</em>”<a href="#ftn12">[12]</a>.</p>
<h3><strong>Suggestions</strong></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify;">While this policy is in its nascent stage, we would like to put forward certain principles which we believe ought to be kept in mind before it gets chalked out, in the best interest of the ICANN community:</p>
<ol><li>To determine what data sets should be made publicly accessible, it would be useful to carry out an analysis of existing DIDP requests to understand trends in the kind of information that the ICANN community is interested in accessing, which can then be proactively disclosed. It would be redundant on ICANN’s part to disclose, under this Open Data Policy, data which is already publicly available.</li>
<li>ICANN should first develop a catalog of all existing data sets with ICANN, apply the principles for deciding appropriateness for publication, then make publicly available both the full catalog, and the actual data sets identified for publication. ICANN should make clear the kind of information it is not going to make accessible
under this open data standards, and justify the principles on the basis of which it is choosing to do so (analogous to the exceptions clauses under the DIDP).</li>
<li>With respect to technology to be selected for managing the publication of data sets, free and open source software (such as CKAN) ought to be used, and open standards should be adopted for the use and licensing of such data.</li>
<li>Such data ought to be downloadable in bulk in CSV/JSON/XML formats.</li>
<li>DIDP responses and the open data work flows ought to be integrated so that all the responses to DIDP requests are automatically published in a machine-readable format as open data.</li>
<li>Qualitative (text of speeches, slides from presentations, recordings of sessions, etc.) and quantitative data should both be included under this new policy.</li></ol>
<p style="text-align: justify;">In conclusion, we would like to extend our congratulations to ICANN on the development of this commendable new initiative, and would be honoured to support the creation of this living document before ICANN 58.</p>
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<h3><strong>Endnotes</strong></h3>
<div id="ftn1">
<p>[1] Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, <em>ICANN Kicks off Open Data Initiative Pilot</em>, (November 6, 2016), available at <a href="https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-kicks-off-open-data-initiative-pilot">https://www.icann.org/news/blog/icann-kicks-off-open-data-initiative-pilot</a> (Last visited on November 9, 2016).</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn2">
<p>[2] Id.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn3">
<p>[3] Naniette Coleman, <em>Proactive vs. Reactive Transparency</em>, (February 8, 2010), available at: <a href="http://blogs.worldbank.org/publicsphere/proactive-vs-reactive-transparency">http://blogs.worldbank.org/publicsphere/proactive-vs-reactive-transparency</a> (Last visited on November 9, 2016).</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn4">
<p>[4] Id.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn5">
<p>[5] Freedom of Information Act, 1966, 5 U.S.C. § 552.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn6">
<p>[6] Right to Information Act, 2005 <em>available at</em> http://righttoinformation.gov.in/rti-act.pdf</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn7">
<p>[7] ICANN, <em>Documentary Information Disclosure Policy</em>, available at <a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/didp-2012-02-25-en">https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/didp-2012-02-25-en</a> (Last visited on November 9, 2016).</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn8">
<p>[8] Helen Darbishire, <em>Proactive Transparency: The future of the right to information?</em> Working paper. N.p.: World Bank, (2009).</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn9">
<p>[9] Id.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn10">
<p>[10] Darbishire, <em>supra</em> note 8.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn11">
<p>[11] Open Data Charter, <em>Who We Are</em>, available at <a href="http://opendatacharter.net/who-we-are/">http://opendatacharter.net/who-we-are/</a> (Last visited on November 10, 2016).</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn12">
<p>[12] Article III(1), Bylaws For Internet Corporation For Assigned Names And Numbers</p>
</div>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/icann-begins-its-sojourn-into-open-data'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/icann-begins-its-sojourn-into-open-data</a>
</p>
No publisherPadmini Baruah and Sumandro ChattapadhyayOpen DataICANNinternet governance2016-11-12T01:17:24ZBlog EntryOpenData Week in Madrid - OD4D Summit, Open Data Charter Meetings, and IODC16
https://cis-india.org/openness/news/opendata-week-in-madrid-od4d-summit-open-data-charter-meetings-and-iodc16
<b>Sumandro Chattopadhyay took part in three open data events in Madrid in the first week of October 2016. </b>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">OD4D Summit</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Sumandro Chattopadhyay has been a member of the Open Data Research Network (funded by IDRC), which is now part of the Open Data for Development (OD4D) Network. The Network completed 2 years and held its first summit on October 3, 2016. <a class="external-link" href="https://www.eventbrite.ca/e/od4d-summit-tickets-26804581224">The event</a> was organized by IDRC. Participants discussed the way forward for the Network. Among other things the need for regional cooperation in open data policies and practices in the South, South East, and East Asia was noted.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Open Data Charter Meeting</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Sumandro represented CIS in the Open Data Charter Lead Stewards' meeting held on October 5, 2016. The meeting was focused on finalising the business plan of the Charter for 2017-2020, including setting up a secretariat for coordinating and leading the work. The document was thoroughly discussed and will be revised further by the Lead Stewards during the next month, before sharing the draft version with the General Stewards in mid-November.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A meeting was held with the General Stewards and other participants on the evening of the same day. For more info, <a class="external-link" href="http://opendatacharter.net/">click here</a>.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">IODC 16</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The 4th International Open Data Conference (IODC 16) organized by red.es, IDRC, the World Bank and Open Data in Madrid on October 6 and 7, 2016 brought out a lot of real concerns, sometimes even slightly bitter and worried, about the actual state of open data across the world and the relevance/implications of open data for various stakeholders. More info on IODC <a class="external-link" href="http://opendatacon.org/iodc16/about/">here</a>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Sumandro spoke at the Regional Talk session focusing on Asia. He spoke on <a class="external-link" href="https://internationalopendataconfer2016.sched.org/speaker/sumandrochattapadhyay1">Opening Data for innovation: from supply-driven to demand-driven Open Data strategies</a> and moderated the <a class="external-link" href="https://internationalopendataconfer2016.sched.org/event/7PVe">session on demand-driven open data strategies</a>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Collected tweets from IODC can be <a class="external-link" href="https://storify.com/ajantriks/iodc16">accessed here</a>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/openness/news/opendata-week-in-madrid-od4d-summit-open-data-charter-meetings-and-iodc16'>https://cis-india.org/openness/news/opendata-week-in-madrid-od4d-summit-open-data-charter-meetings-and-iodc16</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaOpen DataOpenness2016-10-16T03:11:54ZNews ItemSubmitted Comments on the Telangana State Open Data Policy 2016
https://cis-india.org/openness/comments-on-the-telangana-state-open-data-policy-2016
<b>Last month, the Information Technology, Electronics & Communications Department of the Government of Telangana released the first public draft of the Telangana State Open Data Policy 2016, and sought comments from various stakeholders in the state and outside. The draft policy not only aims to facilitate and provide a framework for proactive disclosure of data created by the state government agencies, but also identify the need for integrating such a mandate within the information systems operated by these agencies as well. CIS is grateful to be invited to submit its detailed comments on the same. The submission was drafted by Anubha Sinha and Sumandro Chattapadhyay.</b>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Download the submitted document: <a href="http://cis-india.org/openness/files/cis-telangana-state-open-data-policy-v-1-submission/at_download/file">PDF</a>.</strong></p>
<hr />
<h3><strong>1. Preliminary</strong></h3>
<p><strong>1.1.</strong> This submission presents comments and recommendations by the Centre for Internet and Society (“CIS”) <strong>[1]</strong> on the proposed draft of the Telangana Open Data Policy 2016 (“the draft policy”). This submission is based on Version 1 of the draft policy shared by the Information Technology, Electronics & Communications Department, Government of Telangana (“the ITE&C Department”).</p>
<p><strong>1.2.</strong> CIS commends the ITE&C Department for its generous efforts at seeking inputs from various stakeholders to draft an open data policy for the state of Telangana. CIS is thankful for this opportunity to provide a clause-by-clause submission.</p>
<h3><strong>2. The Centre for Internet and Society</strong></h3>
<p><strong>2.1.</strong> The Centre for Internet and Society, CIS, is a non-profit organisation that undertakes interdisciplinary research on internet and digital technologies from policy and academic perspectives. The areas of focus include digital accessibility for persons with diverse abilities, access to knowledge, intellectual property rights, openness (including open data, free and open source software, open standards, open access, open educational resources, and open video), internet governance, telecommunication reform, digital privacy, and cyber-security. The academic research at CIS seeks to understand the reconfiguration of social processes and structures through the internet and digital media technologies, and vice versa.</p>
<p>2.2. This submission is consistent with CIS’ commitment to safeguarding general public interest, and the interests and rights of various stakeholders involved. The comments in this submission aim to further the principle of citizens’ right to information, instituting openness-by-default in governmental activities, and to realise the various kinds of public goods that can emerge from greater availability of open (government) data. The submission is limited to those clauses that most directly have an impact on these principles.</p>
<h3><strong>3. Comments and Recommendations</strong></h3>
<p><em>This section presents comments and recommendations directed at the draft policy as a whole, and in certain places, directed at specific clauses of the draft policy.</em></p>
<h3>3.1. Defining the Scope of the Policy in the Preamble</h3>
<p><strong>3.1.1.</strong> CIS observes and appreciates that the ITE&C Department has identified the open data policy as a catalyst for, and as dependent upon, a larger transformation of the information systems implemented in the state, to specifically ensure that these information systems.</p>
<p><strong>3.1.2.</strong> CIS commends the endeavour of the draft policy to share data in open and machine-readable standards. To further this, it will be useful for the preamble to explicitly mandate proactive disclosure in both human-readable and machine-readable formats, using open standards, and under open license(s).</p>
<p><strong>3.1.3.</strong> CIS recommends that the draft policy state the scope of the policy at the outset, i.e. in the Preamble section of the document. This will provide greater clarity to the stakeholders who are trying to ascertain applicability of the draft policy to their data.</p>
<p><strong>3.1.4.</strong> CIS commends the crucial mandate of creating data inventory within every state government ministry / department. We further recommend that the draft policy also expressly states the need to make these inventories publicly accessible.</p>
<p><strong>3.1.5.</strong> CIS commends the draft policy’s aim to build a process to engage with data users for better outcomes. We suggest that the draft policy also enumerates the “outcomes” of such engagement, in order to provide more clarity. We recommend that these “outcomes” include greater public supply of open government data in an effective, well-documented, timely, and responsible manner.</p>
<p><strong>3.1.6.</strong> Further, CIS suggests that the draft policy define “information centric and customer centric data” to provide more clarity to the document, as well as its scope and objectives.</p>
<h3>3.2. Provide Legal and Policy References</h3>
<p><strong>3.2.1.</strong> Strengthening transparency, predictability, and legal certainty of rules benefits all stakeholders. Thus, as far as possible, terms in the draft policy should use pre-existing legal definitions. In case of ambiguities arising after the implementation of the policy, consistency in definitions will also lead to greater interpretive certainty. It must be noted that good quality public policies which promote legal certainty, lead to better implementation.</p>
<p><strong>3.2.2.</strong> CIS observes that the draft policy re-defines various terms in Section 4 that have already been defined in National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy (“NDSAP”) 2012 <strong>[2]</strong>, the Right to Information 2005 (“RTI Act”) <strong>[3]</strong>, and IT (Reasonable security practices and procedures and sensitive personal data or information) Rules 2011 <strong>[4]</strong>. We strongly recommend that the draft policy uses the pre-existing definitions in these acts, rules, and policies.</p>
<p><strong>3.2.3.</strong> Further, CIS observes that while certain sections accurately reflect definitions and parts from other acts, rules and policies, such sections are not referenced back to the latter. These sections include, but are not limited to: Sections 3, 7, 8, 4 (definitions of Data set, Data Archive, Negative list, Sensitive Personal data). We strongly recommend that accurate legal references be added to the draft policy after careful study of the language used.</p>
<h3>3.3. Need for More Focused Objective Statement</h3>
<p><strong>3.3.1.</strong> While the draft policy has a very comprehensive statement of its objectives, including "<em>all issues related to data in terms of the available scope of sharing and accessing spatial and non-spatial data under broad frameworks of standards and interoperability</em>," it may consider offering a more focused statement of its key objective, which is to provide a policy framework for proactive disclosure of government data by the various agencies of the Government of Telangana.</p>
<p><strong>3.3.2.</strong> Further, the objective statement must clearly state that the policy enables publication of data created by the agencies of the Government of Telangana, and/or by private agencies working in partnership with public agencies, using public funds as open data (that is, using open standards, and under open license). The present version of the objective statement mentions "<em>sharing</em>" and "<em>accessing</em>" the data concerned under "<em>broad frameworks of standards and interoperability</em>" but does not make it clear if such shared data will be available in open standards, under open licenses, and for royalty-free adaptation and redistribution by the users concerned.</p>
<h3>3.4. Suggestions related to the Definitions</h3>
<p><strong>3.4.1.</strong> The term “Data” has not been defined in accordance with NDSAP 2012. We suggest that the definition provided in NDSAP is followed so as to ensure legal compatibility.</p>
<p><strong>3.4.2.</strong> The term “Sensitive Personal Data” seems to have been defined on the basis of the definition provided in the IT (Reasonable security practices and procedures and sensitive personal data or information) Rules 2011. Please add direct reference so as to make this clear. We further suggest that the term “Personal Information”, also defined in the same IT Rules, is also included and referred to in the draft policy, so that not only Sensitive Personal Data is barred from disclosure under this policy, but also Personal Information (that is "<em>any information that relates to a natural person, which, either directly or indirectly, in combination with other information available or likely to be available with a body corporate, is capable of identifying such person</em>") <strong>[5]</strong>.</p>
<p><strong>3.4.3.</strong> The term “Negative List” is defined in a manner that allows the state government ministries and agencies to identify which data are to be considered as non-shareable without any reference to an existing policy framework that list acceptable grounds for such identification. The term must be defined more restrictively, as this definition can allow an agency to avoid disclosure of data that may not be legally justifiable as non-shareable or sensitive. Thus, we recommend a more limited definition which may draw upon the RTI Act 2005, and specifically consider the factors mentioned in Sections 8 and 9 of the Act as the (only) set of acceptable reasons for non-disclosure of government data.</p>
<p><strong>3.4.4.</strong> The terms “Shareable Data” and “Sensitive Data” are used in several places in the draft policy but are not defined in Section 4. Both these terms are defined in NDSAP 2012. We suggest that both these terms be listed in Section 4, in accordance with the respective definitions provided in NDSAP 2012.</p>
<p><strong>3.4.5.</strong> The terms “Data Archive”, “Data Acquisition”, “Raw Data”, “Standards-Compliant Applications”, and “Unique Data” are defined in Section 4, but none of these terms appear elsewhere in the draft policy. We suggest that these terms are either better integrated into the document, or may not be defined at all.</p>
<h3>3.5. Rename Section 6 to Focus on Implementation of the Policy</h3>
<p><strong>3.5.1.</strong> Though the Section 6 is named as “Shareable Data”, it instead categorically lists down how the policy is to be implemented. This is a very welcome step, but the Section title should reflect this purpose of the Section.</p>
<p><strong>3.5.2.</strong> The decision proposed in the draft policy to make it mandatory for "<em>each funding organization</em>" to "<em>highlight data sharing policy as preamble in its RFPs as well as Project proposal formats</em>" is much appreciated and commendable. For a clearer and wider applicability of this measure, we recommend that this responsibility should apply to all state government agencies, including agencies where the state government enjoys significant stake, and all public-private partnerships entered into by the state government agencies, and not only to "<em>funding organizations</em>" (a term that has also not been defined in the draft policy).</p>
<p><strong>3.5.3.</strong> While the Section details out various measures and steps of implementation of the policy, it does not clarify which agency and/or committee would have the authority and responsibility to coordinate, monitor, facilitate, and ensure these measures and steps. Not only governmental representatives but also non-governmental representatives may be considered for such a committee.</p>
<h3>3.6. Host All Open Government Data in the State Portal</h3>
<p><strong>3.6.1.</strong> We observe that the Section 6 indicates that , the designated domain for the open government data portal for the state of Telangana, will only store metadata related to the proactive disclosed data sets but not the data sets themselves. This is further clarified in Section 10. We strongly urge the ITE&C Department to reconsider this decision to not to store the actual open data sets in the state open government data portal itself but in the departmental portals. A central archive of the open data assets, hosted by the state open government data portal, will allow for more effective and streamlined management of the open data assets concerned, including their systematic backing-up, better security and integrity, permanent and unique disclosure, and rule-driven updation. This would also reduce the burden upon all the government agencies, especially those that do not have a substantial IT team, to run independent department-specific open data portals.</p>
<h3>3.7. Reconsider the Section on Data Classification</h3>
<p><strong>3.7.1.</strong> While it is clear that the Section 7 on Data Classification follows the classification of various data sets created, managed, and/or hosted by government agencies offered in the NDSAP 2012, it is not very clear what role this classification plays in functioning and implementation of the draft policy. While Open Access and Registered Access data may both be considered as open government data that is to be proactively disclosed by the state government agencies via the state open government data portal, the Restricted Access data overlaps with the kinds of data already included in the Negative List defined in the draft policy (and elsewhere, like the RTI Act 2005). Further, the final sentence in this Section ensures that all data users provide appropriate attribution of the source(s) of the data set concerned, which (though is an important statement) should not be part of this Section on Data Classification. We suggest reconsideration of inclusion of this Section.</p>
<h3>3.8. Reconsider the Section on Technology for Sharing and Access</h3>
<p><strong>3.8.1.</strong> While it is clear that the Section 8 on Technology for Sharing and Access is adapted from the Section 9 of the NDSAP 2012, the text in this Section seems to be not fully compatible with other statements in this draft policy. For example, the Section states that "<em>[t]his integrated repository will hold data of current and historical nature and this repository over a period of time will also encompass data generated by various State Government departments</em>." However, the draft policy states in Section 10 that "<em>data.telangana.gov.in will only have the metadata and data itself will be accessed from the portals of the departments</em>."</p>
<p><strong>3.8.2.</strong> We strongly urge the ITE&C Department to revise this Section through close discussion with the NDSAP Project Management Unit, National Informatics Centre, which is the technical team responsible for developing and managing the portal, since the present version of this Section lists the original feature set of the portal as envisioned in 2012 but does not reflect the most recent feature set that has been already implemented in the portal concerned.</p>
<h3>3.9. Current Legal Framework (Section 9) should List to Relevant Acts, Rules, Policies, and Guidelines</h3>
<p><strong>3.9.1.</strong> CIS observes that the draft policy attempts to lay out the applicable legal framework in Section 2 and 9 of the draft policy, and submits that the legal framework is incomplete and recommends that the draft policy lists all the following relevant acts, rules, policies and guidelines:</p>
<ol type="A">
<li>National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy, 2012<br /><br /></li>
<li>Right to Information Act, 2005<br /><br /></li>
<li>Information Technology Act, 2002<br /><br /></li>
<li>Information Technology (Reasonable security practices and procedures and sensitive personal data or information) Rules, 2011.<br /></li></ol>
<p><strong>3.9.2.</strong> CIS submits that apart from the policies mentioned above, the implementation of the draft policy is intricately linked to concepts of "open standards," "open source software," "open API," and "right to information." These concepts are governed by specific acts and policies, and are applicable to government owned data, as follows:</p>
<ol type="A">
<li><strong>Adoption of Open Standards:</strong> CIS observes that the draft policy draws on the importance of building information systems for interoperability and greater information accessibility. Interoperability is achieved by appropriate implementation of open standards. Thus, CIS submits that the Policy on Open Standards for e-Governance <strong>[6]</strong> which establishes the guidelines for usage of open standards to ensure seamless interoperability, and the Implementation Guidelines of the National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy, 2012 <strong>[7]</strong> should be mentioned in the draft policy.<br /><br /></li>
<li><strong>Adoption of Open Source Software:</strong> The Policy on Adoption of Open Source Software for Government of India states that the "<em>Government of India shall endeavour to adopt Open Source Software in all e-Governance systems implemented by various Government organizations, as a preferred option in comparison to Closed Source Software</em> <strong>[8]</strong>." As the draft policy proposed to guide the development of information systems to share open data is being developed and implemented both by the Government of Telangana and by other agencies (academic, commercial, and otherwise), it must include an explicit reference and embracing of this mandate for adoption of Open Source Software, for reasons of reducing expenses, avoiding vendor lock-ins, re-usability of software components, enabling public accountability, and greater security of software systems.<br /><br /></li>
<li><strong>Implementation of Open APIs:</strong> CIS observes that the draft policy refers to Standard compliant applications in Section 4. CIS suggests that final version of the policy refer to and operationalise the Policy on Open Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) for Government of India <strong>[9]</strong>. This will ensure that the openly available data is available to the public, as well as to all the government agencies, in a structured digital format that is easy to consume and use on one hand, and is available for various forms of value addition and innovation on the other. Refer to Official Secrets Act, 1923: The Official Secrets Act penalises a person if he/she "<em>obtains, collects, records or publishes or communicates to other person any secret official code or password, or any sketch, plan, model, article or note or other document or information which is calculated to be or might be or is intended to be, directly or indirectly, useful to an enemy for which relates to a matter the disclosure of which is likely to affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State or friendly relations with foreign States</em> <strong>[10]</strong>." CIS submits that this Act should be referred to in this context of ensuring non-publication of the aforementioned data.<br /></li></ol>
<h3>3.10. Mandate a Participatory Process for Developing the Implementation Guidelines</h3>
<p><strong>3.10.1.</strong> We highly appreciate and welcome the fact that the draft policy emphasises rapid operationalisation of the policy by mandating that the ITE&C Department will prepare a detailed implementation guideline within 6 months of the notification of this policy, and all state government departments will publish at least 5 high value datasets within the next three months. Just as an addition to this mandate, we would like to propose that it can be suggested that the ITE&C Department undertakes a participatory process, with contributions from both government agencies and non-government actors, to develop this implementation guideline document. We believe that opening up government data in an effective and sustainable manner, for most government agencies, involves a systematic change in how the agency undertakes day-to-day data management practices. Hence, to develop productive and practical implementation guidelines, the ITE&C Department needs to gather insights from the other state government agencies regarding their existing data (and metadata) management practices <strong>[11]</strong>. Further, participation of the non-government actors in this process is crucial to ensure that the implementation guidelines appropriately identify the high value data sets, that is data sets that should be published on a priority basis.</p>
<h3>3.11. Defer the Decision about Roles of Data Owners, Generators, and Controllers</h3>
<p><strong>3.11.1.</strong> As the draft policy does not specifically define the terms “Data Owners”, “Data Generators”, and “Data Controllers”, and the Section 11 only briefly describes some of the roles of these types of actors, we suggest removal of this discussion and the decision regarding the specific roles and functions of the Data Owners / Generators / Controllers from the draft policy itself. It will be perhaps more appropriate and effective to define these terms, as well as their roles and functions, in the implementation guidelines to be prepared by the ITE&C Department after the notification of the open data policy, since these terms relate directly to the final designing of the implementation process.</p>
<p><strong>3.12.</strong> CIS is grateful to the ITE&C Department for this opportunity to provide comments, and would be honoured to provide further assistance on the matter.</p>
<h3><strong>Endnotes</strong></h3>
<p><strong>[1]</strong> See: <a href="http://cis-india.org/" target="_blank">http://cis-india.org/</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[2]</strong> See: <a href="http://data.gov.in/sites/default/files/NDSAP.pdf" target="_blank">http://data.gov.in/sites/default/files/NDSAP.pdf</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[3]</strong> See: <a href="http://rti.gov.in/webactrti.htm" target="_blank">http://rti.gov.in/webactrti.htm</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[4]</strong> See: <a href="http://meity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/GSR313E_10511(1).pdf" target="_blank">http://meity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/GSR313E_10511(1).pdf</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[5]</strong> See Section 2 (1) (i) of IT (Reasonable security practices and procedures and sensitive personal data or information) Rules 2011.</p>
<p><strong>[6]</strong> See: <a href="https://egovstandards.gov.in/sites/default/files/Published%20Documents/Policy_on_Open_Standards_for_e-Governance.pdf" target="_blank">https://egovstandards.gov.in/sites/default/files/Published%20Documents/Policy_on_Open_Standards_for_e-Governance.pdf</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[7]</strong> See: <a href="https://data.gov.in/sites/default/files/NDSAP_Implementation_Guidelines_2.2.pdf" target="_blank">https://data.gov.in/sites/default/files/NDSAP_Implementation_Guidelines_2.2.pdf</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[8]</strong> See: <a href="http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/policy_on_adoption_of_oss.pdf" target="_blank">http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/policy_on_adoption_of_oss.pdf</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[9]</strong> See: <a href="http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/Open_APIs_19May2015.pdf" target="_blank">http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/Open_APIs_19May2015.pdf</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[10]</strong> See: <a href="http://www.archive.india.gov.in/allimpfrms/allacts/3314.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.archive.india.gov.in/allimpfrms/allacts/3314.pdf</a>, Sections 2 (2) and 3 (1) (c).</p>
<p><strong>[11]</strong> A similar process was undertaken by the IT Department of the Government of Sikkim when developing the implementation guideline document. The ITE&C Department may consider discussing the matter with the said department to exchange relevant learnings.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/openness/comments-on-the-telangana-state-open-data-policy-2016'>https://cis-india.org/openness/comments-on-the-telangana-state-open-data-policy-2016</a>
</p>
No publishersumandroOpen DataOpen Government DataFeaturedPoliciesOpennessHomepage2016-09-01T05:49:51ZBlog EntryOpen Data Charter Lead Stewards In-Person Meeting
https://cis-india.org/openness/news/open-data-charter-lead-stewards-in-person-meeting
<b>Sunil Abraham participated remotely in this meeting which was held in Mexico on July 4 and 5, 2016. The event was organized by Open Data Charter. </b>
<h3>The Open Data Charter and Open Data for Development Network</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Open Data Charter (ODC) and the Open Data for Development Network (OD4D) are two highly complementary assets for the open data field. The Charter has developed a sound and widely acceptable set of principles, and is building on its momentum to scale adoption and support implementation. The OD4D Network has brought together a broad range of programming from across the field, providing funding and networking activities, and enabling research and on-the-ground work to take place.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The following were the list of attendees for the meeting in Mexico:</p>
<ul>
<li>Ania</li>
<li>Enrique</li>
<li>Fabrizio</li>
<li>Fernando</li>
<li>Josema</li>
<li>Martin</li>
<li>Richard S.</li>
<li>Randall</li>
<li>Sanjeev</li>
<li>Canada, UK, Pavel, Sunil. </li>
<li>Pablo</li>
</ul>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/openness/news/open-data-charter-lead-stewards-in-person-meeting'>https://cis-india.org/openness/news/open-data-charter-lead-stewards-in-person-meeting</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaOpen DataOpenness2016-08-04T02:21:14ZNews ItemSubmitted Comments on the 'Government Open Data Use License - India'
https://cis-india.org/openness/submitted-comments-on-the-government-open-data-use-license-india
<b>The public consultation process of the draft open data license to be used by Government of India has ended yesterday. Here we share the text of the submission by CIS. It was drafted by Anubha Sinha, Pranesh Prakash, and Sumandro Chattapadhyay.</b>
<p> </p>
<p><em>The following comments on the 'Government Open Data Use License - India' was drafted by Anubha Sinha, Pranesh Prakash, and Sumandro Chattapadhyay, and submitted through the <a href="https://www.mygov.in/group-issue/public-consultation-government-open-data-use-license-india/">MyGov portal</a> on July 25, 2016. The original submission can be found <a href="https://www.mygov.in/sites/default/files/mygov_146946521043358971.pdfh">here</a>.</em></p>
<hr />
<h2>I. Preliminary</h2>
<ol>
<li>This submission presents comments by the Centre for Internet and Society (“<strong>CIS</strong>”) <strong>[1]</strong> on the draft Government Open Data Use License - India (“<strong>the draft licence</strong>”) <strong>[2]</strong> by the Department of Legal Affairs.<br /><br /></li>
<li>This submission is based on the draft licence released on the MyGov portal on June 27, 2016 <strong>[3]</strong>.<br /><br /></li>
<li>CIS commends the Department of Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India for its efforts at seeking inputs from various stakeholders prior to finalising its open data licence. CIS is thankful for the opportunity to have been a part of the discussion during the framing of the licence; and to provide this submission, in furtherance of the feedback process continuing from the draft licence.</li></ol>
<h2>II. Overview</h2>
<ol start="4">
<li>The Centre for Internet and Society is a non-governmental organisation engaged in research and policy work in the areas of, inter alia, access to knowledge and openness. This clause-by-clause submission is consistent with CIS’ commitment to safeguarding general public interest, and the interests and rights of various stakeholders involved. Accordingly, the comments in this submission aim to further these principles and are limited to those clauses that most directly have an impact on them.</li></ol>
<h2>III. Comments and Recommendations</h2>
<ol start="5">
<li><strong>Name of the Licence:</strong> CIS recommends naming the licence “Open Data Licence - India” to reflect the nomenclature already established for similar licences in other nations like the UK and Canada. More importantly, the inclusion of the word ‘use’ in the original name “Government Open Data Use License” is misleading, since the licence permits use, sharing, modification and redistribution of open data.<br /><br /></li>
<li><strong>Change Language on Permissible Use of Data:</strong> The draft licence uses the terms “Access, use, adapt, and redistribute,” which are used in UNESCO’s definition of open educational resources, whereas, under the Indian Copyright Act <strong>[4]</strong>, it should cover “reproduction, issuing of copies,” etc. To resolve this difference, we suggest the following language be used: “Subject to the provisions of section 7, all users are provided a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive licence to all rights covered by copyright and allied rights, for the duration of existence of such copyright and allied rights over the data or information.”<br /><br /></li>
<li><strong>Add Section on the Scope of Applicability of the Licence:</strong> It will be useful to inform the user of the licence on its applicability. The section may be drafted as: “This licence is meant for public use, and especially by all Ministries, Departments, Organizations, Agencies, and autonomous bodies of Government of India, when publicly disclosing, either proactively or reactively, data and information created, generated, collected, and managed using public funds provided by Government of India directly or through authorized agencies.”<br /><br /></li>
<li><strong>Add Sub-Clause Specifying that the Licence is Agnostic of Mode of Access:</strong> As part of the section 4 of the draft licence, titled ‘Terms and Conditions of Use of Data,’ a sub-clause should be added that specifies that users may enjoy all the freedom granted under this licence irrespective of their preferred mode of access of the data concerned, say manually downloaded from the website, automatically accessed via an API, collected from a third party involved in re-sharing of this data, accessed in physical/printed form, etc.<br /><br /></li>
<li><strong>Add Sub-Clause on Non-Repudiability and Integrity of the Published Data:</strong> To complement the sub-clause 6.e. that notes that data published under this licence should be published permanently and with appropriate versioning (in case of the published data being updated and/or modified), another sub-clause should be added that states that non-repudiability and integrity of published data must be ensured through application of real/digital signature, as applicable, and checksum, as applicable. This is to ensure that an user who has obtained the data, either in physical or digital form, can effectively identify and verify the the agency that has published the data, and if any parts of the data have been lost/modified in the process of distribution and/or transmission (through technological corruption of data, or otherwise).<br /><br /></li>
<li><strong>Combine Section 6 on Exemptions and Section 7 on Termination:</strong> Given that the licence cannot reasonably proscribe access to data that has already been published online, it is suggested that it would be better to simply terminate the application of the licence to that data or information that ought not to have been published for grounds provided under section 8 of the RTI Act, or have been inadvertently published. It should also be noted that section 8 of the RTI Act cannot be “violated” (as stated in Section 6.g. of the draft licence), since it only provides permission for the public authority to withhold information, and does not impose an obligation on them (or anyone else) to do so. The combined clause can read: “Upon determination by the data provider that specific data or information should not have been publicly disclosed for the grounds provided under Section 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the data provider may terminate the applicability of the licence for that data or information, and this termination will have the effect of revocation of all rights provided under Section 3 of this licence.”<br /><br /></li>
<li>It will be our pleasure to discuss these submissions with the Department of Legal Affairs in greater detail, supplement these with further submissions if necessary, and offer any other assistance towards the efforts at developing a national open data licence.</li></ol>
<hr />
<p><strong>[1]</strong> See: <a href="http://cis-india.org/">http://cis-india.org/</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[2]</strong> See: <a href="https://www.mygov.in/sites/default/files/mygov_1466767582190667.pdf">https://www.mygov.in/sites/default/files/mygov_1466767582190667.pdf</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[3]</strong> See: <a href="https://www.mygov.in/group-issue/public-consultation-government-open-data-use-license-india/">https://www.mygov.in/group-issue/public-consultation-government-open-data-use-license-india/</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[4]</strong> See: <a href="http://www.copyright.gov.in/Documents/CopyrightRules1957.pdf">http://www.copyright.gov.in/Documents/CopyrightRules1957.pdf</a>.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/openness/submitted-comments-on-the-government-open-data-use-license-india'>https://cis-india.org/openness/submitted-comments-on-the-government-open-data-use-license-india</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaOpen Government DataOpen LicenseOpen DataNDSAPFeaturedOpennessHomepage2016-07-26T09:23:48ZBlog EntryPublic Consultation for the First Draft of 'Government Open Data Use License - India' Announced
https://cis-india.org/openness/public-consultation-for-the-first-draft-of-government-open-data-use-license-india-announced
<b>The first public draft of the open data license to be used by Government of India was released by the Department of Legal Affairs earlier this week. Comments are invited from general public and stakeholders. These are to be submitted via the MyGov portal by July 25, 2016. CIS was a member of the committee constituted to develop the license concerned, and we contributed substantially to the drafting process.
</b>
<p> </p>
<h4>Please read the call for comments <a class="external-link" href="https://www.mygov.in/group-issue/public-consultation-government-open-data-use-license-india/">here</a>.</h4>
<h4>The PDF version of the draft license document can be accessed <a class="external-link" href="https://www.mygov.in/sites/default/files/mygov_1466767582190667.pdf">here</a>.</h4>
<h4><em>Comments are to be submitted by July 25, 2016.</em></h4>
<hr />
<h4 style="text-align: center;"><strong>Government Open Data Use License - India</strong></h4>
<h4 style="text-align: center;"><strong>National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy</strong></h4>
<h4 style="text-align: center;"><strong>Government of India</strong></h4>
<h2>1. Preamble</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Structured data available in open format and open license for public access and use, usually termed as “Open Data,” is of prime importance in the contemporary world. Data also is one of the most valuable resources of modern governance, sharing of which enables various and non-exclusive usages for both commercial and non-commercial purposes. Licenses, however, are crucial to ensure that such data is not misused or misinterpreted (for example, by insisting on proper attribution), and that all users have the same and permanent right to use the data.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The open government data initiative started in India with the notification of the National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy (NDSAP), submitted to the Union Cabinet by the Department of Science and Technology, on 17th March 2012 <strong>[1]</strong>. The NDSAP identified the Department of Electronics & Information Technology (DeitY) as the nodal department for the implementation of the policy through National Informatics Centre, while the Department of Science and Technology continues to be the nodal department on policy matters. In pursuance of the Policy, the Open Government Data Platform India <strong>[2]</strong> was launched in 2012.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">While, the appropriate open formats and related aspects for implementation of the Policy has been defined in the “NDSAP Implementation Guidelines” prepared by an inter- ministerial Task Force constituted by the National Informatics Centre <strong>[3]</strong>, the open license for data sets published under NDSAP and through the OGD Platform remained unspecified till now.</p>
<h2>2. Definitions</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify;">a. <strong>“Data”</strong> means a representation of Information, numerical compilations and observations, documents, facts, maps, images, charts, tables and figures, concepts in digital and/or analog form, and includes metadata <strong>[4]</strong>, that is all information about data, and/or clarificatory notes provided by data provider(s), without which the data concerned cannot be interpreted or used <strong>[5]</strong>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">b. <strong>“Information”</strong> means processed data <strong>[6]</strong>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">c. <strong>“Data Provider(s)”</strong> means person(s) publishing and providing the data under this license.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">d. <strong>“License”</strong> means this document.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">e. <strong>“Licensor”</strong>means any data provider(s) that has the authority to offer the data concerned under the terms of this licence.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">f. <strong>“User”</strong> means natural or legal persons, or body of persons corporate or incorporate, acquiring rights in the data (whether the data is obtained directly from the licensor or otherwise) under this licence.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">g. <strong>“Use”</strong> includes lawful distribution, making copies, adaptation, and all modification and representation of the data, subject to the provisions of this License.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">h. <strong>“Adapt”</strong> means to transform, build upon, or to make any use of the data by itsre-arrangement or alteration <strong>[7]</strong>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">i. <strong>“Redistribute”</strong> means sharing of the data by the user, either in original or in adapted form (including a subset of the original data), accompanied by appropriate attribute statement, under the same or other suitable license.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">j. <strong>“Attribution Statement”</strong> means a standard notice to be published by all users of data published under this license, that contains the details of the provider, source, and license of the data concerned <strong>[8]</strong>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">k. <strong>“Personal Information”</strong> means any Information that relates to a natural person,which, either directly or indirectly, in combination with other Information available or likely to be available with a body corporate, is capable of identifying such person <strong>[9]</strong>.</p>
<h2>3. Permissible Use of Data</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Subject to the conditions listed under section 7, the user may:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">a. Access, use, adapt, and redistribute data published under this license for all lawful and non-exclusive purposes, without payment of any royalty or fee;</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">b. Apply this license worldwide, and in perpetuity;</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">c. Access, study, copy, share, adapt, publish, redistribute and transmit the data in any medium or format; and</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">d. Use, adapt, and redistribute the data, either in itself, or by combining it with other data, or by including it within a product/application/service, for all commercial and/or non-commercial purposes.</p>
<h2>4. Terms and Conditions of Use of Data</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify;">a. <strong>Attribution:</strong> The user must acknowledge the provider, source, and license of data by explicitly publishing the attribution statement, including the DOI (Digital Object Identifier), or the URL (Uniform Resource Locator), or the URI (Uniform Resource Identifier) of the data concerned.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">b. <strong>Attribution of Multiple Data:</strong> If the user is using multiple data together and/or listing of sources of multiple data is not possible, the user may provide a link to a separate page/list that includes the attribution statements and specific URL/URI of all data used.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"> c. <strong>Non-endorsement:</strong> The User must not indicate or suggest in any manner that the data provider(s) endorses their use and/or the user.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">d. <strong>No Warranty:</strong> The data provider(s) are not liable for any errors or omissions, and will not under any circumstances be liable for any direct, indirect, special, incidental, consequential, or other loss, injury or damage caused by its use or otherwise arising in connection with this license or the data, even if specifically advised of the possibility of such loss, injury or damage. Under any circumstances, the user may not hold the data provider(s) responsible for: i) any error, omission or loss of data, and/or ii) any undesirable consequences due to the use of the data as part of an application/product/service (including violation of any prevalent law).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">e. <strong>Permanent Disclosure and Versioning:</strong> The data provider(s) will ensure that a data package once published under this license will always remain publicly available for reference and use. If an already published data is updated by the provider, then the earlier appropriate version(s) must also be kept publicly available with accordance with the archival policy of the National Informatics Centre.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">f. <strong>Continuity of Provision:</strong>The data provider(s) will strive for continuously updating the data concerned, as new data regarding the same becomes available. However, the data provider(s) do not guarantee the continued supply of updated or up-to-date versions of the data, and will not be held liable in case the continued supply of updated data is not provided.</p>
<h2>5. Template for Attribution Statement</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Unless the user is citing the data using an internationally accepted data citation format <strong>[10]</strong>, an attribution notice in the following format must be explicitly included:</p>
<p>“Data has been published by [Name of Data Provider] and sourced from Open Government Data (OGD) Platform of India: [Name of Data]. ([date of Publication: dd/mm/yyyy]) .[DOI / URL / URI]. Published under Open Government Data License - India: [URL of Open Data License – India].”</p>
<p>For example, “Data has been published by Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation and sourced from Open Government Data (OGD) Platform of India: Overall Balance of Payments. (08/09/2015). <a href="https://data.gov.in/catalog/overall-balance-payments">https://data.gov.in/catalog/overall-balance-payments</a>. Published under Open Government Data License - India: [URL of Open Data License - India].”</p>
<h2>6. Exemptions</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The license does not grant the right to access, use, adapt, and redistribute the following kinds of data:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">a. Personal information;</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">b. Data that the data provider(s) is not authorised to licence;</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">c. Names, crests, logos and other official symbols of the data provider(s);</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">d. Data subject to other intellectual property rights, including patents, trade-marks and official marks;</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">e. Military insignia;</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">f. Identity documents; and</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">g. Any data publication of which may violate section 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 <strong>11</strong>.</p>
<h2>7. Termination</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify;">a. Failure to comply with stipulated terms and conditions will cause the user’s rights under this license to end automatically.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">b. Where the user’s rights to use data have terminated under the aforementioned clauses or any other Indian law, it reinstates:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">i. automatically, as of the date the violation is cured, provided it is cured within 30 days of the discovery of the violation; or</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">ii. upon express reinstatement by the Licensor.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">c. For avoidance of doubt, this section does not affect any rights the licensor may have to seek remedies for violation of this license.</p>
<h2>8. Dispute Redressal Mechanism</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify;">This license is governed by Indian law, and the copyright of any data shared under this license vests with the licensor, under the Indian Copyright Act.</p>
<h2>9. Endnotes</h2>
<p><strong>[1]</strong> Ministry of Science and Technology. 2012. National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy (NDSAP) 2012. Gazette of India. March 17. <a href="http://data.gov.in/sites/default/files/NDSAP.pdf">http://data.gov.in/sites/default/files/NDSAP.pdf</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[2]</strong> See: <a href="https://data.gov.in/">https://data.gov.in/</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[3]</strong> See section 3.2 of the Implementation Guidelines for National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy (NDSAP) Version 2.2. <a href="https://data.gov.in/sites/default/files/NDSAP_Implementation_Guidelines_2.2.pdf">https://data.gov.in/sites/default/files/NDSAP_Implementation_Guidelines_2.2.pdf</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[4]</strong> See section 2.1 of NDSAP 2012.</p>
<p><strong>[5]</strong> See section 2.6 of NDSAP 2012.</p>
<p><strong>[6]</strong> See section 2.7 of NDSAP 2012.</p>
<p><strong>[7]</strong> See section 2 (a) of Indian Copyright Act 1957. <a href="http://copyright.gov.in/Documents/CopyrightRules1957.pdf">http://copyright.gov.in/Documents/CopyrightRules1957.pdf</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[8]</strong> The template of the attribution statement is given in section 5 of the license.</p>
<p><strong>[9]</strong> See section 2 (i) of Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal Data or Information) Rules, 2011. <a href="http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/GSR313E_10511%281%29.pdf">http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/GSR313E_10511%281%29.pdf</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[10]</strong>For example, those listed in the DOI Citation Formatter tool developed by DataCite, CrossRef and others: <a href="http://crosscite.org/citeproc/">http://crosscite.org/citeproc/</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[11]</strong> See: <a href="http://rti.gov.in/webactrti.htm">http://rti.gov.in/webactrti.htm</a>.</p>
<div> </div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/openness/public-consultation-for-the-first-draft-of-government-open-data-use-license-india-announced'>https://cis-india.org/openness/public-consultation-for-the-first-draft-of-government-open-data-use-license-india-announced</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaOpen Government DataOpen LicenseOpen DataNDSAPFeaturedOpenness2016-06-30T09:41:07ZBlog EntryComments on the National Geospatial Policy (Draft, V.1.0), 2016
https://cis-india.org/openness/comments-on-the-national-geospatial-policy-draft-v-1-0-2016
<b>The Department of Science and Technology published the first public draft of the National Geospatial Policy (v.1.0) on May 05, 2016, and invited comments from the public. CIS submitted the following comments in response. The comments were authored by Adya Garg, Anubha Sinha, and Sumandro Chattapadhyay.</b>
<p> </p>
<h2>1. Preliminary</h2>
<p><strong>1.1.</strong> This submission presents comments and recommendations by the Centre for Internet and Society (<strong>"CIS"</strong>) on the proposed draft of the National Geospatial Policy 2016 (<strong>"the draft Policy / the draft NGP"</strong>) <strong>[1]</strong>. This submission is based on Version 1.0 of the draft Policy released by the Department of Science and Technology (<strong>"DST"</strong>) on May 5, 2016.</p>
<p><strong>1.2.</strong> CIS commends the DST under the aegis of the Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India, for its efforts at seeking inputs from various stakeholders to draft a National Geospatial Policy. CIS is thankful for this opportunity to provide a clause-by-clause submission.</p>
<h2>2. The Centre for Internet and Society</h2>
<p><strong>2.1.</strong> The Centre for Internet and Society, CIS, <strong>[2]</strong> is a non-profit organisation that undertakes interdisciplinary research on internet and digital technologies from policy and academic perspectives. The areas of focus include digital accessibility for persons with diverse abilities, access to knowledge, intellectual property rights, openness (including open data, free and open source software, open standards, open access, open educational resources, and open video), internet governance, telecommunication reform, digital privacy, and cyber-security. The academic research at CIS seeks to understand the reconfiguration of social processes and structures through the internet and digital media technologies, and vice versa.</p>
<p><strong>2.2.</strong> This submission is consistent with CIS’ commitment to safeguarding general public interest, and the interests and rights of various stakeholders involved. The comments in this submission aim to further the principle of citizens’ right to information, instituting openness-by-default in governmental activities, and the various kinds of public goods that can emerge from greater availability of open (geospatial) data created by both public and private agencies and crucially, by the citizens. The submission is limited to those clauses that most directly have an impact on these principles.</p>
<h2>3. Comments and Recommendations</h2>
<p><em>This section presents comments and recommendations directed at the draft policy as a whole, and in certain places, directed at specific clauses of the draft policy.</em></p>
<p><strong>3.1.</strong> The draft policy should make references to five policies applicable to geospatial data, products, services, and solutions</p>
<p><strong>3.1.1.</strong> CIS observes that the draft policy lists the key policies related to geospatial information and sharing of government data, namely the National Map Policy 2005, the Civil Aviation Requirement 2012, the Remote Sensing Data Policy 2011 and 2012, and the National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy 2012 (“NDSAP”).</p>
<p><strong>3.1.2.</strong> CIS submits that apart from the policies mentioned above, Geospatial Data,Products, Services and Solutions (“GDPSS”) are also intricately linked to concepts of “open standards,” “open source software,” “open API,” “right to information,” and prohibited places” These concepts are governed by specific acts and policies, and are applicable to geospatial data, as follows:</p>
<ul><li>Adoption of Open Standards: CIS observes that the draft policy captures the importance of open standards in the section 1.4 of the draft policy. It states that “A very high resolution and highly accurate framework to function as a national geospatial standard for all geo-referencing activity through periodically updated National Geospatial Frame [NGF] and National Image Frame [NIF] by ensuring open standards based seamless interoperable geospatial data.”<br /><br />CIS submits that the Policy on Open Standards for e-Governance <strong>[3]</strong> which establishes the Guidelines for usage of open standards to ensure seamless interoperability, and the Implementation Guidelines of the National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy, 2012 <strong>[4]</strong> listing two key open standards for geospatial data - KML and GML, should be mentioned in the draft policy.<br /><br />CIS recommends that the final version of the NGP embrace open standards as a key principle of all software projects and infrastructures within the purview of the Policy. This is essential for easier sharing and reuse of open (geospatial) data.<br /><br /></li>
<li>Adoption of Open Source Software: The Policy on Adoption of Open Source Software for Government of India states that the “Government of India shall endeavour to adopt Open Source Software in all e-Governance systems implemented by various Government organisations, as a preferred option in comparison to Closed Source Software” <strong>[5]</strong>. As the draft policy proposed to guide the development of GDPSS being developed and implemented both by the Government of India and by other agencies (academic, commercial, and otherwise), it must include an explicit reference and embracing of this mandate for adoption of Open Source Software, for reasons of reducing expenses, avoiding vendor lock-ins, re-usability of software components, enabling public accountability, and greater security of software systems.<br /><br /></li>
<li>Implementation of Open APIs: To actualise the stated principle to “[e]nable promotion, adoption and implementation of emerging / state of the art technologies” as well as to ensure the “[a]vailability of all geospatial data collected through public funded mechanism to all users,” CIS suggests that final version of the NGP must refer to and operationalise the Policy on Open Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) for Government of India <strong>[6]</strong>. This will ensure that the openly available geospatial data is available to the public, as well as to all the government agencies, in a structured digital format that is easy to consume and use on one hand, and is available for various forms of value addition and innovation on the other.<br /><br /></li>
<li>Right to Information Act 2005: The framework for reactive disclosure of information and data collected and held by the Government of India, as well as the basis for proactive disclosure of the same, is enshrined in the Right to Information Act 2005 <strong>[7]</strong>. The draft NGP, CIS proposes, should refer to this Act, and ensure that whenever an Indian citizen request for such government data and/or information that is of geospatial in nature, and the requested data and/or information is both shareable and non-sensitive, the citizen must be provided with the geospatial data and/or information in an open standard and under open license, as applicable.<br /><br /></li>
<li>Refer to Official Secrets Act, 1923: The Official Secrets Act defines “Prohibited Places” and prohibits all activities involving “sketch, plan, model, or note which is calculated to be or might be or is intended to be, directly; or indirectly, useful to an enemy or (c) obtains collects, records or publishes or communicates to any other person any secret official code or password, or any sketch, plan, model, article or note or other document or information which is calculated to be or might be or is intended to be, directly or indirectly, useful to an enemy” <strong>[8]</strong>. This provides the fundamental legal basis for regulation, expunging, and stopping circulation of geospatial data containing information about Vulnerable Points and Vulnerable Areas. CIS submits that this Act should be referred to in this context of ensuring non-publication of sensitive geospatial data (that is geospatial data related to Prohibited Places).<br /><br /></li></ul>
<h3>3.2. Grant adequate permissions to the public to re-use geospatial data</h3>
<p><strong>3.2.1.</strong> CIS observes that section 1.4 of the draft policy states that, “Geospatial data of any resolution being disseminated through agencies and service providers, both internationally and nationally be treated as unclassified and made available and accessible by Indian Mapping and imaging agencies.”</p>
<p><strong>3.2.2.</strong> CIS recommends the abovementioned section be broadened to include not only availability and accessibility of geospatial data, but also its re-use. Further, such accessibility, availability and re-use should not be only limited to public and private entities such as Indian mapping and imaging agencies, but as well as to Indian people in general.</p>
<p><strong>3.2.3.</strong> CIS further submits that section 1.4 be revised as “[g]eospatial data of any resolution being disseminated through agencies and service providers, both internationally and nationally be treated as unclassified and made available, accessible, and reusable by Indian mapping and imaging agencies in particular, and by the people of India in general.”</p>
<h3>3.3. Ensure Open Access to shareable and non-sensitive geospatial data</h3>
<p><strong>3.3.1.</strong> CIS observes that the draft policy directs all “geospatial data generating agencies” to classify their data into “open access,” “registered access,” and “restricted access.” The document, however, neither defines “geospatial data generating agencies”, nor does it clarify what conditions the data must satisfy to be classified as one of the three types. Without a listing of such conditions (at least necessary, and not sufficient, conditions), nothing restricts the agencies from classifying all generated geospatial data as “restricted.”</p>
<p><strong>3.3.2.</strong> Further, CIS observes that the draft policy aims to provide geospatial data acquired through public funded mechanism to be made available to the public at free of cost. It is submitted that the policy should not only be made available for free of cost, but it should also be made available in open standard format under an open license.</p>
<p><strong>3.3.3.</strong> As defined in the section 1.3, the National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy (“NDSAP”) applies to “all shareable non-sensitive data available either in digital or analog forms but generated using public funds” <strong>[9]</strong>. Clearly all shareable <strong>[10]</strong> and non-sensitive <strong>[11]</strong> geospatial data, either in digital or analog forms, and generated using public funds should be proactively disclosed by the government agency concerns in accordance to the NDSAP. CIS recommends that the draft policy makes an explicit reference to NDSAP when discussing the topic of Open Access geospatial data, and re-iterates the mandate of proactive publication of shareable and non-sensitive government data.</p>
<p><strong>3.3.4.</strong> Further, the process for defining an open government data license to be applied to all open government data sets being published under the NDSAP, and through the Open Government Data Platform India, is in progress. Given this, it is absolutely crucial important that the draft NGP takes this into consideration, and mandates that Open Access geospatial data must be published using the open government data license to be defined by the Implementation Guidelines of the NDSAP, when applicable.</p>
<h3>3.4. Lack of clarity regarding the clearances and permits required for data acquisition and dissemination, and the procedures thereof</h3>
<p><strong>3.4.1.</strong> Section 1.8 of the draft policy states that “[a]ll clearances / permits, as necessary, for data acquisition and dissemination be through a single window, online portal. These clearances be provided within a time span of 30 days of filing the online request.” CIS observes that the draft policy does not specify the kind of clearances/permits needed before a public or private entity, or an individual, can undertake acquisition and dissemination of geospatial data. It neither clarifies under what circumstances and conditions application for such clearance / permits would be required for users.</p>
<p><strong>3.4.2.</strong> Since the recently published draft Geospatial Information Regulation Bill (“GIRB”) 2016, directly addresses this topic of clearance / permit required to acquire and share geospatial information <strong>[12]</strong>, it will be effective if the NGP can refer to this Bill and provide an overall governance framework for the same. Further, CIS noted that the time span of 30 days mentioned in the draft policy is inconsistent with the time period specified in the GIRB (which is 90 days).</p>
<p><strong>3.4.3.</strong> CIS recommends that the draft policy also be amended suitably to include the circumstances and conditions under which required permissions shall be issued. Accordingly, the draft policy should reference the standardised and time bound security vetting process envisaged in the GIRB.</p>
<h3>3.5. Clarification Needed regarding “Cybersecurity is to be ensured through … use of Digital Watermarks for authentication of GDPSS”</h3>
<p><strong>3.5.1.</strong> CIS submits that the draft policy does not elaborate on the use of “Digital Watermarks” to ensure cybersecurity, neither it is explained who will authenticate GDPSS, under what conditions, and for what reasons. CIS recommends that the draft policy be amended suitably to specify the same.</p>
<h3>3.6. Remove Classification of Non-Public (at Present) Satellite / Aerial Imagery as Restricted by Default</h3>
<p><strong>3.6.1.</strong> CIS observes that the draft policy recommends that “[s]atellite/aerial images of resolution other than those currently made available on websites” should all be “classified for restricted access.”</p>
<p><strong>3.6.2.</strong> CIS submits that blanket categorisation of all satellite / aerial imagery of resolution that is not currently available through a public website (for whatever reason it might be) as “restricted access” should be re-evaluated, given the immense importance of such imagery to mapping agencies and industry participants using GDPSS.</p>
<p><strong>3.6.3.</strong> CIS recommends that the section be revised to define clear principles for defining satellite /aerial imagery as “open,” “registered,” and “restricted.”</p>
<h3>3.7. Governance of User-contributed Geospatial Data</h3>
<p><strong>3.7.1.</strong> A key resource and feature of contemporary geospatial industry in particular, and the digital economy in general, is the proliferation of user-contributed and user-generated geospatial data and information. CIS observes that this crucial topic, as well as the unique governance concerns that it raises, has not been addressed in the draft policy at all. CIS requests the DST to consider this matter with due attention to the specific nature and values of such user-contributed and user-generated in the digital economy on one hand, and in emergency contexts such as natural disasters on the other, and prepare a framework for its appropriate governance as part of the NGP itself.</p>
<h3>3.8. Protect Geospatial Privacy of Citizens by Defining Sensitive Personal Geospatial Data and Information</h3>
<p><strong>3.8.1.</strong> CIS observes that the draft policy lacks rules for collection, use, storage, and distribution of geospatial data from an individual’s privacy standpoint. Further, neither does the Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal Data or Information) Rules, 2011 address these concerns <strong>[13]</strong>. Section 3 of the Rules define “Sensitive personal data or information”, which do not include geospatial information.</p>
<p><strong>3.8.2.</strong> The argument of violation of constitutional right to privacy was pleaded in a case against Google and other private mapping agencies in 2008 <strong>[14]</strong>. In the judgment, Madras HIgh Court noted that there existed no legislation/guidelines to prohibit mapping programmes from conducting their activities indiscriminately, and the lack of one thereof prevented the Court from injuncting such activities. Thus, there exists a judicial ambiguity on the aspect of collection and use of geospatial data.</p>
<p><strong>3.8.3.</strong> CIS submits that the draft policy may be suitably amended to ensure that collection, processing and dissemination of geospatial information is in consonance with the constitutionally protection of an individual’s privacy.</p>
<h3>3.9. Clarification Needed regarding “Mechanisms to be put in place to evaluate / audit GDPSS creation, consumption and distribution”</h3>
<p><strong>3.9.1.</strong> The draft policy suggests that “mechanisms to be put in place to evaluate/audit GDPSS creation, consumption and distribution” without clarifying the scope, purpose, and purview of this mechanism, and most crucially it does not describe what exactly will be evaluated / audited. CIS submits that this section is revised and expanded.</p>
<p><strong>3.9.2.</strong> The same section also identifies the need for a “framework to be put in place to assess the data collection versus its utilization towards government program and socio-economic development.” CIS observes that this is a very promising and much welcome gesture by the DST, but this section must be developed as a separate and detailed mandate. At the least, the NGP may suggest that a more detailed guideline document regarding this framework will be developed in near future.</p>
<h3>3.10. Data Taxation and Geospatial Cess</h3>
<p><strong>3.10.1.</strong> The draft policy refers to imposition of “data taxation (geospatial cess)” and use of “licensing” of geospatial data to raise money for geospatial activities of the Government of India. CIS is of the opinion will severely affect the geospatial industry in the country in particular, and will raise the monetary barrier to public use of geospatial data and maps in general; and hence must be strictly avoided.</p>
<h3>3.11. Data Dissemination Cell</h3>
<p><strong>3.11.1.</strong> CIS submits that instead of development of a separate Data Dissemination Cell within all government agencies to operationalise the mandate of the NGP, the Chief Data Officers within all government agencies identified under the implementation process of the NDSAP be given this complementary responsibility. This would ensure effective channelisation of human and financial resources to take forward the joint mandate of NGP and NDSAP towards greater public availability and use of (shareable and non-sensitive) government data.</p>
<h3>3.12. Special Infrastructure for Governance, Management, and Publication of Real-time Geospatial Data</h3>
<p><strong>3.12.1.</strong> A key term that the draft policy does not talk about is “big data.” The static or much-slowly-changing geospatial data such as national boundaries and details of Vulnerable Points and Vulnerable Areas are really a very small part of of the global geospatial information. The much larger and crucial part is the real-time (that is continuously produced, stored, analysed, and used in almost real-time) big geospatial data – from geo-referenced tweets, to GPS systems of cars, to mobile phones moving through the cities and regions. Addressing such networked data systems, where all data collected by digital devices can quite easily be born-georeferenced, and the security and privacy concerns that are engendered by them, should be the ultimate purpose of, and challenge for, a future-looking NGP.</p>
<p><strong>3.12.2.</strong> Further, with increasing number of government assets being geo-referenced for the purpose of more effective and real-time management, especially in the transportation sector, the corresponding agencies (which are often not mapping agencies) are acquiring a vast amount of high-velocity geospatial data, which needs to be analysed and (sometimes) published in the real-time. CIS submits a sincere request to DST to highlight the crucial need for special infrastructure for such data, as well as its governance, and identify the key principles concerned in the next version of the draft NGP.</p>
<h3>3.13. Sincere Request for Preparation and Circulation of a Second Public Draft of the National Geospatial Policy</h3>
<p><strong>3.13.1.</strong> CIS commends the DST for publishing the draft policy, and facilitating a consultation process inviting stakeholders and civil society to submit feedback. The NGP envisages to address crucial concepts of privacy, licensing, intellectual property rights, liability, national security, open data, which cut across and impact various technology platforms, industries and the citizens.</p>
<p><strong>3.13.2.</strong> In view of the multifarious issues highlighted that arise at the intersection of various legal and ethical concepts, CIS respectfully requests the DST to conduct another round of consultation after the publication of the second draft of the NGP. Multiple rounds of consultation and feedback would contribute to the robustness of the lawmaking process and ensure that the final policy safeguards the general public interest, and the interests and rights of various stakeholders involved.</p>
<p><strong>3.13.3.</strong> CIS is thankful to DST for the opportunity to provide comments, and would be privileged to provide further assistance on the matter to DST.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Endnotes</h2>
<p><strong>[1]</strong> See: <a href="http://www.dst.gov.in/sites/default/files/Draft-NGP-Ver%201%20ammended_05May2016.pdf">http://www.dst.gov.in/sites/default/files/Draft-NGP-Ver%201%20ammended_05May2016.pdf</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[2]</strong> See: <a href="http://cis-india.org/">http://cis-india.org/</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[3]</strong> See: <a href="https://egovstandards.gov.in/sites/default/files/Published%20Documents/Policy_on_Open_Standards_for_e-Governance.pdf">https://egovstandards.gov.in/sites/default/files/Published%20Documents/Policy_on_Open_Standards_for_e-Governance.pdf</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[4]</strong> See: <a href="http://data.gov.in/sites/default/files/NDSAP.pdf">http://data.gov.in/sites/default/files/NDSAP.pdf</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[5]</strong> See: <a href="http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/policy_on_adoption_of_oss.pdf">http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/policy_on_adoption_of_oss.pdf</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[6]</strong> See: <a href="http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/Open_APIs_19May2015.pdf">http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/Open_APIs_19May2015.pdf</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[7]</strong> See: <a href="http://rti.gov.in/webactrti.htm">http://rti.gov.in/webactrti.htm</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[8]</strong> See: <a href="http://www.archive.india.gov.in/allimpfrms/allacts/3314.pdf">http://www.archive.india.gov.in/allimpfrms/allacts/3314.pdf</a>, sections 2(d) and 3(b).</p>
<p><strong>[9]</strong> See: <a href="https://data.gov.in/sites/default/files/NDSAP.pdf">https://data.gov.in/sites/default/files/NDSAP.pdf</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[10]</strong> See section 2.11 of NDSAP.</p>
<p><strong>[11]</strong> See section 2.10 of NDSAP.</p>
<p><strong>[12]</strong> See: <a href="http://mha.nic.in/sites/upload_files/mha/files/GeospatialBill_05052016_eve.pdf">http://mha.nic.in/sites/upload_files/mha/files/GeospatialBill_05052016_eve.pdf</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[13]</strong> See: <a href="http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/GSR313E_10511%281%29.pdf">http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/GSR313E_10511%281%29.pdf</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[14]</strong> J. Mohanraj v (1) Secretary To Government, Delhi; (2) Indian Space Research Organisation, Bangalore; (3) Google India Private Limited, Bangalore, 2008 Indlaw MAD 3562.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/openness/comments-on-the-national-geospatial-policy-draft-v-1-0-2016'>https://cis-india.org/openness/comments-on-the-national-geospatial-policy-draft-v-1-0-2016</a>
</p>
No publishersumandroOpen StandardsOpen DataOpen Government DataFeaturedGeospatial DataNational Geospatial PolicyOpenness2016-06-30T09:40:59ZBlog EntryProtecting the Territory, Killing the Map
https://cis-india.org/openness/protecting-the-territory-killing-the-map
<b>The politics of making and using maps in India has taken a sudden and complex turn with the publication of the draft Geospatial Information Regulation Bill, 2016. Contrary to the expectations arising out of several government schemes that are promoting the development of the new digital economy in India – from start-ups to the ongoing expansion of connectivity network – the Bill seems to be undoing various economic and humanitarian efforts, and other opportunities involving maps. This article by Sumandro Chattapadhyay and Adya Garg was published by The Wire on May 16, 2016.</b>
<p> </p>
<p>Published by and cross-posted from <a href="http://thewire.in/2016/05/16/before-geospatial-bill-a-long-history-of-killing-the-map-in-order-to-protect-the-territory-36453/">The Wire</a>.</p>
<hr />
<p>The global history of cartography is intimately linked with political needs and economic interests, from the public depiction of sovereign territories to navigating treacherous seas to (wrongly) ‘discover’ the land of spices. In India, the politics of making and using maps has taken a sudden and complex turn with the publication of the draft Geospatial Information Regulation Bill, 2016. Contrary to the expectations arising out of several government schemes that are promoting the development of the new digital economy in India – from start-ups to the ongoing expansion of connectivity network – the Bill seems to be undoing various economic and humanitarian efforts, and other opportunities involving maps, by imposing strict guidelines and harsh penalties on the use of maps by private actors, commercial or otherwise.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://mha.nic.in/sites/upload_files/mha/files/GeospatialBill_05052016_eve.pdf">introductory note to the Bill</a> clearly states its primary objective is to ensure the protection of ‘security, sovereignty and integrity of India.’ The concern around ‘security’ is not new when it comes to regulating cartographic activities. It is prominently addressed across the current set of policies and guidelines that govern mapping in India: 1) the National Map Policy, 2005 (“NMP”) and associated guidelines issued by the Survey of India, 2) the Remote Sensing Data Policy, 2011 that regulates satellite-based mapping, and 3) the Civil Aviation Requirement, 2012, which regulates mapping and photography using flights and drones. Protection of ‘sovereignty and integrity,’ however, does not find a mention in any of these map-related policies.</p>
<p>There have of course been several incidents where the government has taken steps (including the temporary blocking of service) against companies that have represented Indian national boundaries that are not in accordance with official maps. Such companies include Google, The Economist, and Al Jazeera. Two companies that have gotten away with no consequences after publicly showing maps of India without certain border regions, interestingly, are <a href="http://www.scoopwhoop.com/news/kashmir-missing-from-india-map/">Facebook</a> and <a href="http://thewire.in/2015/05/14/chinese-state-owned-television-shows-india-map-sans-jammu-kashmir-arunachal-1698/">CCTV</a>.</p>
<p>In the absence of such provisions in the existing map-related policies, thus far, the government has pursued legal action against such ‘anti-national’ depiction of Indian territory under Section 69A of the IT Act, 2000, the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (restricting the collection and sharing of information about ‘prohibited places’), the Customs Act, 1962 (prohibiting the export and import of certain maps), and the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1990.</p>
<p>Though this present Bill has come into public attention rather suddenly, the Indian State has been planning for a comprehensive legal framework for both enabling and restricting mapping, since the coming of the NMP itself. The first avatar of this effort was the Indian Survey Act that was heard about in 2007, but was never made public. More recently, the first report towards the National Geospatial Information Policy (now called the National Geospatial Policy) came out in 2012. Instead of waiting for this comprehensive policy to be discussed and notified, the Bill seems to have come in a hurry to propose a narrowly designed legal instrument. As is often the problem with such precise devices that also want to be exhaustive, the Bill promises much more collateral damage than actual solutions – it ends up killing the map in the name of protecting the territory.</p>
<p>A quick look at case law on map-related disputes informs us about the motivations of the state in enacting this Bill. A major controversy around ‘sovereignty’ in the field of mapping has been about the depiction of international boundaries of India by Google. After several incidents of conflicts between Google’s map makers and the Indian State regarding the depiction of India’s national boundary, the Survey of India filed a police complaint in 2014. As a result, Google presently shows different map tiles to users from India (according to the boundary specified by the Indian State) and different tiles to users from elsewhere. This geo-targeted solution to the depiction of international borders under dispute has been practiced by Google in the case of other countries too, most notably for Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Ukraine and (independent) Crimea.</p>
<p>The internal security concerns have also fuelled conflicts with mapping companies. In 2013, the ‘mapathon’ organised by Google faced a lawsuit for not asking for prior permission from the Survey of India for this exercise in user-contributed mapping. This was preceded by a petition filed by J. Mohanraj in the Madras High Court seeking a complete ban on the Google Earth and Bhuvan (run by ISRO) map applications on the ground that they were both providing information that could be used for planning acts of terror. The petitioner’s argument referred to the provisions of the NMP, and also alleged that such mapping practices violated the individual rights of a person under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court, however, held (2008) that the petitioner was unable to produce any specific “Guidelines/Rules/Law laid down by the Central/State Governments, prohibiting the private organisations or any other individuals to Interactive Mapping Program, covering vast majority of the Planet”.</p>
<p>The trouble with Google re-opened earlier this year as the Pathankot air base was attacked. Incidentally, Vishal Saini, the winner of the 2013 mapathon by Google, contributed to mapping the features of the very same city. Promptly after the attack in January, Lokesh Kumar Sharma filed a case in the Delhi High Court alleging that the availability of sensitive information (from an internal security point-of-view) on Google Maps created security vulnerabilities. In a rather curious manner, the court disposed of the case on February 24, claiming that it has learned from the Additional Solicitor General that ‘steps are in progress to regulate the publication of aerial/satellite geospatial data.’ In hindsight, we see that this was in reference to the draft Bill.</p>
<p>This Bill, evidently, is a product of the Indian State’s inefficient attempts at regulating the making and circulation of maps and geospatial data in digital times. The Bill ends up disregarding the actual features of digital geospatial data and how it forms a fundamental basis (and asset) for today’s digital economy, and, instead, decides to settle for a form of regulation that is much better suited (if at all) to a pre-digital and pre-liberalisation condition. The regulatory measures proposed by the Bill do not only cause worry but also bewilderment. Take for example Section 3 that states that ‘no person shall acquire geospatial imagery or data including value addition of any part of India’ without being expressly given permission for the same or being vetted by the nodal agency set up by the Bill. If implemented strictly, this may mean that you will have to ask for permission and/or security vetting before dropping a pin on the map and sharing your coordinates with your friend or a taxi service. Both involve creating/acquiring geospatial information, and potentially adding value to the map/taxi service as well.</p>
<p>Let’s take an even more bizarre hypothetical situation – the Security Vetting Agency being asked to go through the entire geospatial data chest of Google everyday (or as soon as it is updated) and it taking up to ‘ three months from the date of receipt’ of the data to complete this checking so that Google Maps can tell you how crowded a particular street was three months ago.</p>
<p>Further, a key term that the Bill does not talk about is ‘big data.’ The static or much-slowly-changing geospatial data such as national boundaries and which-military-institute-is-located-where are really the tiny minority of the global geospatial information. The much larger and crucial part is of course the fast-moving big geospatial data – from geo-referenced tweets, to GPS systems of cars, to mobile phones moving through the cities and regions. Addressing such networked data systems, where all data can quite easily be born-georeferenced, and the security and privacy concerns that are engendered by them, should be the ultimate purpose of, and challenge for, a future-looking Geospatial Information Regulation Act.</p>
<p>The present Bill imposes an undesirable bureaucratic structure of licenses and permits upon the GIS industry in the country in particular, and on all sections of the economy using networked devices in general. This will only end up restricting the size of the GIS industry to a few dominant players. For all creators and users of maps for non-commercial, developmental, and humanitarian interests, this Bill appears to be an imminent threat, even if it is never actually applied.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/openness/protecting-the-territory-killing-the-map'>https://cis-india.org/openness/protecting-the-territory-killing-the-map</a>
</p>
No publishersumandroGeospatial Information Regulation BillOpen DataOpen Government DataGeospatial DataOpenness2016-05-17T10:37:14ZBlog EntryLegal Challenges to Mapping in India #1 - Laws, Policies, and Cases
https://cis-india.org/openness/legal-challenges-to-mapping-in-india-1-laws-policies-cases
<b>Responding to the draft Geospatial Information Regulation Bill and the draft National Geospatial Policy made public recently, this post provides an overview of the present configuration of laws, policies, and guidelines that provides the legal framework in India for governance of creation and sharing of geospatial data in India. The post also studies these policies in action by describing the key legal cases around the creation and use of geospatial data. The next post of this series will document the reflections and opinions of the key geospatial industry actors in India, as well as the free and open source mapping community.</b>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>1.</strong> <a href="#1">Introduction</a></p>
<p><strong>2.</strong> <a href="#2">Mapping the Legal Journey of Geospatial Data: Past to Present</a></p>
<p><strong>2.1.</strong> <a href="#2-1">National Map Policy, 2005</a></p>
<p><strong>2.2.</strong> <a href="#2-2">Guidelines issued by Survey of India</a></p>
<p><strong>2.3.</strong> <a href="#2-3">Remote Sensing Data Policy (RSDP)</a></p>
<p><strong>2.4.</strong> <a href="#2-4">Civil Aviation Rules</a></p>
<p><strong>3.</strong> <a href="#3">Incidents of Legal Actions Faced by Agencies</a></p>
<p><strong>3.1.</strong> <a href="#3-1">Google's Mapathon in Legal Trouble</a></p>
<p><strong>3.2.</strong> <a href="#3-2">One Country - Two Boundaries</a></p>
<p><strong>3.3.</strong> <a href="#3-3">J. Mohanraj v Google and Others</a></p>
<p><strong>4.</strong> <a href="#4">Conclusion</a></p>
<p><strong>5.</strong> <a href="#5">References</a></p>
<p><strong>6.</strong> <a href="#6">Author Profile</a></p>
<hr />
<h2 id="1">1. Introduction</h2>
<blockquote>“Maps, like faces, are the signature of history.” – Will Durant <strong>[1]</strong></blockquote>
<p>Throughout the course of history geospatial information has played an important role in technological, economic, political and cultural dimensions of the human society. With technological developments taking place, the field of mapping – that is collection, analysis, and representation of geospatial data – is continuously evolving. On the face of it, creation of geospatial data seems to be an exclusive scientific and technological matter. However, the political and economic facets of geospatial data are often as predominant and complex as its scientific practice. Continuing from the colonial era, the political facet of mapping emerged significantly in the public discourse from the 1990s onwards as digital technologies amplified the ability of non-governmental actors to collect, generate, and share geospatial data, in the form of maps or otherwise <strong>[2]</strong>. This 'democratisation' of the ability to map and share private/user-generated maps structurally undermined the government's ability to have an authoritative and universal voice when it comes to geospatial depiction of the nation and its various components. Similar to the other upsurges in the digitized world, which is often followed by an introduction of legal provisions in order to keep access to and use of digital data under mechanisms of monitoring and permission, mapping in India has also has subsequently been governed under policies addressing both terrestrial mapping and remote sensing. Concerns of national security, naturally, have driven much of these policies.</p>
<p>This post focuses on providing an overview of the present configuration of laws, policies, and guidelines that provides the legal framework in India for governance of creation and sharing of geospatial data in India. The post also studies these policies in action by describing the key legal cases around the creation and use of geospatial data. The next post of this series will document the reflections and opinions of the key geospatial industry actors in India, as well as the free and open source mapping community.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2 id="2">2. Mapping the Legal Journey of Geospatial Data: Past to Present</h2>
<blockquote>“We know every inch of the nation, because we map every inch of it!” – Survey of India <strong>[3]</strong></blockquote>
<p>Aforementioned slogan adopted by the primary organization responsible for mapping all geospatial data in India indicates the importance of the geospatial data and mapping the same. While it indicates the importance of having access to mapping data in order to be aware of the geospatial features of one’s country, it also cleverly reveals the vulnerability that having access to mapped data brings. The phrase can be said to imply that mapping every inch of the country leads to information about every inch of the nation which is useful if in the hands of government agency but repugnant to security if in the hands of external agencies. This conflict between access to information about the country and the security concerns arising from such an open access has led to a rich evolution of legal policies governing the same.</p>
<p>Set up in 1767, Survey of India (hereinafter “SOI”) was required to map the terrains of India to fulfill the commercial and political convenience of the East India Company <strong>[4]</strong>. During these colonial times, maps were considered to be essential for governmental purposes and thus their dissemination to unauthorized persons was barred by Clause 5 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 <strong>[5]</strong>. Thus, till 1950s mapping was being governed by the colonial provisions which maps restricted to official use only <strong>[6]</strong>. With independence, the functions of the SOI shifted mainly towards providing information for the defense forces <strong>[7]</strong>.</p>
<p>An important change came in the form of orders and notifications by Ministry of Defence (hereinafter “MOD”) during 1960s, the major one being the 1965 order that permitted distribution of maps of scale 1:4 M <strong>[8]</strong>. The Map Restriction Policy of the MOD, however, imposed categorical restrictions on sharing of maps, aerial photos, and all geophysical data for various parts of India - with a focus on international border areas in the North-Eastern state, and the coastal zone that included several large cities like Chennai, Kochi, Kolkata, and Mumbai <strong>[9]</strong>. Dr. Manosi Lahiri notes that "[t]his had a far reaching effect on the mapping culture of independent India and perpetuated the perception among many that maps were a security threat" <strong>[10]</strong>." By 1971, however, the functions of SOI extended to catering to inter alia all development activities and was hence brought under the ambit of Department of Science and Technology <strong>[11]</strong>.</p>
<p>However, the catalytic transformation came in the form of National Map Policy, 2005 which made SOI the nodal governmental agency for dealing with all processes involving geospatial data. While harping for open access to geospatial data, the policy accompanied by corresponding guidelines have largely restricted the power to map geospatial data to SOI. The Policy and the guidelines have been discussed in detail as under.</p>
<h3 id="2-1">2.1. National Map Policy, 2005</h3>
<p>The National Map Policy, 2005 (hereinafter, “NMP”) was announced by the Central Government on May 19, 2005 <strong>[12]</strong>. The preamble of the policy identifies the importance of high quality spatial data in various facets such as socio-economic development, conservation of natural resources, infrastructure development etc <strong>[13]</strong>. Topographic map database constitutes the foundation of all spatial data and its production, maintenance, and dissemination has been assigned as a responsibility to SOI, which is to "liberalize access" to spatial data without compromising upon security concerns. Thus, the conflict between national security and right to have access to information regarding one’s country is clearly highlighted in the policy as a need for enactment of the same. Thus, the policy objectives include access to National Topographic Database (NTDB) <strong>[14]</strong> and promotion of geospatial based intelligence, subject to confirmation to national standards of SOI.</p>
<p>In order to realize the security concerns, inter alia, a dual-classification was created amongst the maps, namely - i) <strong>Defence Series Maps (“DSM”)</strong> and ii) <strong>Open Series Maps (“OSM”)</strong>. While the former constitutes of topographical maps that mainly cater to defence and security requirements of the country, the latter supports developmental activities. Hence, DSMs whether in analogue or digital form, fall under the classified category and the power to issue guidelines pertaining to their use vests digit mainly for developmental purposes, they are not openly accessible by ipso facto and need to gain the ‘unrestricted’ tag after clearance from MOD. A table specifying the distinction between DSMs and OSMs in detail has been provided below:</p>
<hr />
<table>
<tbody>
<tr>
<th>Sub-Topic</th>
<th>Defence Series Maps (“DSM”)</th>
<th>Open Series Maps (“OSM”)</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Why are these maps used?</td>
<td>The maps under this series cater to defence and security requirements of the country.</td>
<td>The maps under this series are useful in supporting various developmental activities in the country.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>What are the technical classifications?</td>
<td>Everest/WGS-84 Datum and Polyconic/UTM Projection) on various scales (with heights, contours and full content without dilution of accuracy).</td>
<td>In UTM Projection on WGS-84 datum, bearing different map sheet numbers. (And as provided in Annexure B of the NMP)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Who can use these maps?</td>
<td>Maps (in analogue or digital forms) for the entire country will be classified.</td>
<td>Both hard copy and digital form will become “Unrestricted” after obtaining a one-time clearance of the Ministry of Defence.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>How can the maps be used?</td>
<td>Guidelines regarding the use of DSMs will be formulated by the Ministry of Defence.</td>
<td>Guidelines regarding the use of OSMs will be formulated by SOI regarding aspects like procedure for access, further dissemination /sharing, ways and means of protecting business and commercial interests of SOI etc.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<hr />
<p>While the DSMs are completely classified, restrictive provisions regarding usage and dissemination of OSMs have also been incorporated in the policy. OSMs are not allowed to show any civil and military Vulnerable Areas and Vulnerable Points (VA’s/VP’s). OSMs on a scale larger than 1:1 needs to be disseminated either by sale or an agreement, which will allow the agency to add its own value to the maps obtained, and to share these maps with others.</p>
<p>The primary transaction between SOI and the agency as well as all the subsequent transactions between the agency and other users have to be registered in the Map Transaction Registry for records. While the Map Transaction Registry forms an important part of the NMP, no such registry information has been made available on the official website of SOI as indicated by the screenshot below.</p>
<img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/cis-india/website/master/img/SurveyOfIndia_MapTransactionRegistry.png" alt="Map Transaction Registry, Survey of India" />
<h6>Map Transaction Registry, Survey of India, URL: <a href="http://www.surveyofindia.gov.in/pages/view/48">http://www.surveyofindia.gov.in/pages/view/48</a></h6>
<p> </p>
<p>The policy allows users to publish maps on hard copy or web (with or without GIS interface) subject to a certification from SOI in case of depiction of international boundaries. The policy also upholds the validity of the previous MOD notifications pertaining to mapping subject to the modifications introduced by the policy and authorises SOI to issue further guidelines corresponding to the policy.</p>
<h3 id="2-2">2.2. Guidelines issued by Survey of India</h3>
<p>Under the powers vested by the NMP, SOI has issued detailed clarificatory guidelines in furtherance of the policy <strong>[15]</strong>. The restrictions arising on mapping of geospatial data can be attributed to two major factors namely, Security concerns and Copyright provisions <strong>[16]</strong>. Under the guidelines, copyright of both digital and analogue maps has been vested with the SOI. Penal consequences have been mentioned as a result of violation of SOI’s copyrights. In furtherance of security concerns, the guidelines uphold the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Notification No. 118-Cus./F.No.21/ 5/62-Cus. I/VIII dated 4th May 1963 which prohibits the export of all maps/digital data in 1: 250K and larger scales through any means. Digital Topographical data has been an exclusive licensing domain of only Indian individuals, organisations, firms or companies.</p>
<p>While paper maps can be accessed from SOI offices against payment of price, digitisation of maps has been strictly made forbidden by the guidelines. Ownership of digital data has been vested completely with the SOI and can only be gained against payment after application through a specified proforma.</p>
<h3 id="2-3">2.3 Remote Sensing Data Policy (RSDP)</h3>
<p>In 2011, the confusion pertaining to applicability of NMP to both territorial and satellite mapping was resolved with the release of the Remote Sensing Data Policy (RSDP). The policy recognized the importance of remote sensing data and noted that it was largely used by government and non-government users from Indian and foreign remote sensing satellites. However, again banking upon the need for security considerations, the policy was released with the purpose of “…managing and/ or permitting the acquisition/dissemination of remote sensing data in support of developmental activities" <strong>[17]</strong>. Department of Science (DOS) was made the nodal government agency for all actions pertaining to remote sensing data under the policy.</p>
<p>A basic perusal of the policy indicates a parallelism between the RSDP and the NMP. Thus, similar to NMP, RSDP assures of a government managed Indian Remote Sensing Satellites (IRS) Programme, the data produced by which will be solely owned by the government and other users could only be provided with licences if need be. Any attempt at acquiring and/or dissemination of remote sensing data within India requires permission through the nodal government agency. National Remote Sensing Centre (NRSC) of the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO)/ DOS is vested with the authority to acquire and disseminate all satellite remote sensing data in India, both from Indian and foreign satellites. NRSC is also supposed to maintain a systematic National Remote Sensing Data Archive, and a log of all acquisitions/ sales of data for all satellites. Thus, nodal government agencies were created for both terrestrial mapping and satellite imagery, former being SOI and latter NRSC.</p>
<h3 id="2-4">2.4 Civil Aviation Rules</h3>
<p>Aerial instruments and aircrafts act as important instruments for geophysical surveys and mapping. Thus, this area does not go ungoverned. While, till date, India doesn’t impose an explicit bar on foreign registered aircraft overflying its territory for aerial photography and geo-physical survey, the same is subject to prior clearance under rule 158 and 158A of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 on account of safety and security concerns, the procedure for which has been given under Civil Aviation Rules (CAR) <strong>[18]</strong>. CAR is applicable to inter alia agencies undertaking aerial photography, geophysical surveys etc. An application is required to be made as per Annexure E which inter alia requires confinement of photography/sensing to the exact area as applied and cleared by the Ministry of Defence. The application is forwarded by DGCA to the Ministry of Defence and other agencies responsible for issuing NOC.</p>
<p>DGCA’s restrictions extends to voluntary geographic information with prohibition of civilian drones in India. Unmanned drones are an important equipment used for the purpose of collecting geo-spatial data. The ban on flying drones in India exist from October, 2014 but is not in common knowledge <strong>[19]</strong>. While it is argued that drones could harm people and lead to chances of crashing, the major argument has always been the use of drones by anti-national elements to peruse sensitive places for plotting terror attacks <strong>[20]</strong>. While there is an ambiguity regarding using drones in India, flying drones over defence establishments and historical places is completely banned <strong>[21]</strong>. Thus, civilians using drones for clicking pictures of monuments etc. have often been confronted by the police <strong>[22]</strong>.</p>
<p>Thus, there is no single policy that acts as a deterrent for mapping in India but an accumulation of multiple policies, guidelines and legal provisions that are used by departments of government to restrict mapping in the name of security. These restrictions have also witnessed incidents in their furtherance as detailed below.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2 id="3">3. Incidents of Legal Actions Faced by Agencies</h2>
<p>Since the advent of restrictive mapping policies, numerous incidents have come forth when agencies have found themselves faced by legal actions for violating such policies. In recent times, these incidents were publicly highlighted in 1998 when the sale of the CD-Roms of Delhi Guide Maps created by Eicher were prohibited <strong>[23]</strong>. Eicher has been one of the oldest players of the private mapping market, creating city and road maps for India in the private sector for public distribution. While having faced a ban in earlier times, it is also one of the few companies been able to access the SOI data for value addition. It works in collaboration with SOI now, often launching products in ‘strategic alliance’ with them. After the implementation of NMP, we have witnessed two major legal controversies, both involving SOI on one hand and Google on the other.</p>
<h3 id="3-1">3.1. Google's Mapathon in Legal Trouble</h3>
<p>In furtherance of Google’s constant endeavour to have every nook and corner mapped, Google holds a competition called ‘Mapathon’ each year <strong>[2]</strong>. The competition invites people to map their local surroundings incentivised by lucrative prizes to winners. However, an initiative launched for purely mapping purposes had to face a large legal hurdle in the year of 2013. Google-Mapathon, 2013, held in February-March, had declared Vishal Saini as the 1st winner who had mapped the military-prone city of Pathankot. According to legal provisions governing mapping practices in India, civil and military Vital Areas (VAs) /Vital Points (VPs) cannot be shown on maps in public domain <strong>[25]</strong>. Thus, the tech-giant found itself amidst legal controversy for having held the competition without permission from Survey of India after a concern raised by BJP’s Tarun Vijay. A case was filed by SOI at the R.K. Puram Police Station. The primary contention was that the “Mapathon 2013 activity is likely to jeopardise national security interest and violates the National Map Policy. Citizens of the country, who are ignorant of the legal consequences, are likely to violate the law of the land” <strong>[26]</strong>.</p>
<p>Considering the involvement of a U.S. based company, the investigation was handed over to CBI During the probe, it was alleged by then Surveyor General of India Swarna Subba Rao that Google did not refrain from “polluting” <strong>[27]</strong> the internet with classified material despite having been asked so. Further, then Additional Surveyor-General of India R.C. Padhi wrote claimed that “The Survey of India is only mandated to undertake ‘Restricted’ category surveying and mapping, and no other government/private organisations or any individual are authorised to do so” <strong>[28]</strong>. He told Reuters that some of the information provided by locals to Google could be ‘sensitive’ and the security of the nation could not be compromised at any cost <strong>[29]</strong>.</p>
<p>Google on the other hand said that its primary motive was to map local information of daily needs such as hospitals, restaurants, markets etc. and the competition was in tandem with national laws. Further, it was heard that Google had been approached regarding Mapathon by SOI and it had replied with intimation of willingness to talk to SOI. However, SOI had not reverted back and Google was always ready and willing to talk out the matter. However, the much hyped case did not have a substantial result and CBI had to close the probe on account of lack of evidence <strong>[30]</strong>.</p>
<p>Considered a thing of past, the controversy resurfaced in the recent times of January, 2016 post the Pathankot Air Base strike <strong>[31]</strong>. Google was dragged to the court for having displayed sensitive geospatial data regarding Pathankot that made possible an airstrike at the location. An injunction was sought to refrain Google from showing sensitive military areas and defence establishments on the maps made available by it. While the injunction was refused, Delhi High Court had asked the centre and the additional solicitor to look into the same and keep the court apprised. Thus, this can be termed as an open and unfinished matter ongoing legal contemplation.</p>
<p>While it is understandable that some areas are considered as vulnerable due to security concern. The lost keeps changing often leading to transgression into security places. But the major point being the list of vulnerable areas is classified and not released to public. In absence of such a list, how is it possible for google to vet its data to comply with security concerns.</p>
<h3 id="3-2">3.2. One Country - Two Boundaries</h3>
<p>Another major legal controversies in the field of geospatial mapping has been with regards to wrong depiction of international boundaries of India by Google. A basic perusal of the official website of SOI provides a list of only three documents under the tab of ‘Public Awareness’, all dealing with the crime of depicting wrong Indian boundaries <strong>[32]</strong>. While one of them includes the certified map with correct boundaries, to be complied with, other is a gazette notification bringing the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1961 which criminalized the act of showing wrong depiction of boundaries. Section 69A of the IT Act has also been used earlier to restrict access to links depicting incorrect maps of India <strong>[33]</strong> though it only speaks about restricting public access to data, necessary in the interest of Sovereignty and Integrity inter alia, the section per se does not deal with dissemination of geos-spatial data.</p>
<p>It was in the year of 2014, that on the directions of Department of Science and Technology, SOI filed a complaint against Google at the Dehradun Police Station for depiction of international boundaries not in a “wrong manner” i.e. not in compliance with Government of India authentication <strong>[34]</strong>. The result was that today Google shows different boundaries on Indian domain, in compliance with SOI and different on International domain.</p>
<p>Google was also involved in a controversy when in 2009, Google maps for India marked areas of Arunachal Pradesh, including its capital Itanagar and Tawang, in China <strong>[35]</strong>. It was followed by an apology from Google and an immediate rectification for Indian users. However, Google uses a different version for China and the world creating disparity in the boundary depiction <strong>[36]</strong>.</p>
<p>Google has not been the only platform having faced the anger of Indian community for wrong depiction. In 2011, copies of the Economist Magazine were seized for having depicted the map of Kashmir divided between India, Pakistan and China <strong>[37]</strong>. For similar reasons, Al-Jazeera was taken off air by the Indian government after a 5-day ban imposed under Section 69A of the IT Act <strong>[38]</strong>. Modi’s visit to Queensland University of Technology was accompanied by an “unqualified apology” from the authorities for having depicting Indian map without portions of Kashmir <strong>[39]</strong>. Urban Development Department of Bihar also ended up show-causing one of its employees for putting up wrong map on its website and substituting the same with SOI’s version after media attention <strong>[40]</strong>. India seems to be the country often having been angered due to wrong depictions of maps.</p>
<p>While India seems to be actively involved in Geo-politics, it isn’t the only country Google has fallen in legal trouble with, for wrongly depicting International Boundaries. In 2010, Google gained a lot of media attention for allegedly starting the ‘First Google Maps War’ <strong>[41]</strong>. It occurred when a Nicaraguan official led his forces to the Costa Rican territory on other side of the customary border and used Google Maps as a proof to deny trespassing. Nicaragua and Costa Rica have a long territorial dispute and Google seem to have fuelled it by depicting the Nicaraguan version of border according to which that area of Cost Rican territory came within the boundaries of Nicaragua <strong>[42]</strong>. Despite Nicaragua’s petition to Google to not accept Costa Rica’s petition to shift borders, Google voluntarily changed its borders to comply with the Costa Rican stance <strong>[43]</strong>.</p>
<p>Another such incident followed in the case of Google’s depiction of Dutch-German border with respect to Dollart Bay <strong>[44]</strong>. Germany claimed the border to be closer to Dutch land while Dutch claimed it to be more towards centre. Google, however, chose to depict a self-version that transferred the German city of Emden to the territorial control of Netherlands. This infuriated the city which resorted to expressing its displeasure and asking Google to change the depiction. Google, this time, however remained dormant and no amendment in the depiction of Dutch-German border could be witnessed.</p>
<p>At the time of Crimean referendum supporting independence, U.N. had passed a resolution condemning the same and supporting territorial integrity of Ukraine. Google, however, believed in the contrary and was quick to bring changes into its maps to depict formation of independent Crimea <strong>[45]</strong>. Rather than a mistake, this time, Google had adopted a stance against the UN resolution and used its maps to vocalize the same.</p>
<p>Similarly during the inclusion of South Sudan in the U.N.G.A., while members voted, they were unaware of the exact territorial division between North and South Sudan. It was then that Google initiated the process of collecting geo-spatial information regarding South Sudan from locals in order to better the territorial integrity <strong>[46]</strong>.</p>
<p>Thus, Google has times and again fallen into criticism for wrong depiction of international boundaries and even varied depictions of boundaries as per the perspective of the political entity. However, “Popularity does not bestow authority” <strong>[47]</strong> and Google’s maps cannot be accurately relied upon for proving sovereign territorial holds. Thus, most of the international incidents have witnessed countries resorting to peaceful petitions to Google informing it regarding the inaccuracy of the border and requesting a shift in the same. Hardly has the world witnessed penal provisions being invoked against Google for depicting versions other than the perceived ones.</p>
<h3 id="3-3">3.3. J. Mohanraj v Google and Others</h3>
<p>Apart from the above two incidents, another pertinent case is the 2008 judgment by the Madras High Court in J. Mohanraj v (1) Secretary To Government, Delhi; (2) Indian Space Research Organisation, Bangalore; (3) Google India Private Limited, Bangalore . A writ petition was filed by Mohanraj seeking a complete ban on Google Earth and ‘Bhuvan’; mapping initiatives by Google and ISRO respectively <strong>[48]</strong>.</p>
<p>The petition was allegedly filed in public interest considering the security apparatus of Indian Government along with the threat posed by the terrorists. The petitioner claimed that the initiatives such as Google Earth used high quality satellite imagery to display bird’s eye view of various establishments including minute details and were bound to cover defense establishments and sensitive areas, posing a threat to Indian security. Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam’s speech was referred to indicate his views against such open creation of geospatial data. The provisions of the NMP was highlighted and it was alleged that such mapping practices violated the individual rights of a person under Article 21 of the Constitution. Further, it was claimed that such practices could only be taken up by SOI and were outside the purview of private organizations.</p>
<p>However, the Court held that the petitioner was unable to produce any specific “Guidelines/Rules/Law laid down by the Central/State Governments, prohibiting the private organisations or any other individuals to Interactive Mapping Program, covering vast majority of the Planet”. Since the court could only interpret existing provisions and not lay down guidelines, passed the judgment against the petitioners.</p>
<p>From the above explained incident it seems that the NMP per se does not refrain creation of mapping data by agencies other than SOI. The centre of the conflict seems to lie with the interpretation of the policy by SOI claiming itself to be the exclusive agency entitled to map data. Hence, often though complaints and cases are filed against such activities, no concrete consequence emerges from the same. Further, the courts have also neglected the grievance of the issue and given ambiguous judgments in most cases. Thus no judicial sanction or opposition to the SOI’s guidelines exist till date often allowing SOI to continue with following its own version. While these cannot be termed as a solution, they definitely indicate towards the root of the problem.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2 id="4">4. Conclusion</h2>
<p>It can be concluded from above compilation of legal provisions and incidents that it is perhaps SOI’s interpretation to NMP that gives rise to exclusive authority to map geospatial data and not the policy per se. The objective of the policy clearly advocates for promotion of the use of geospatial knowledge and intelligence. More than one provision under the SOI guidelines indicate towards the arbitrary abuse of power. First, a provision regarding ‘Settlement of disputes’ has been included in the guidelines. Secretary, Department of Science & Technology has been vested with binding decision making powers in case of a dispute on the applicability or interpretation of the guidelines between the SOI and any other person. Thus, instead of a judicial forum, an executive authority has been vested with quasi-judicial powers. Such a dispute resolution mechanism cannot be considered as devoid of bias towards the governmental agency, hampering fair and equal justice. Second, SOI assumed the power of mapping data but under the guidelines considers itself devoid of complete responsibility for the loss caused to any person on account of failure of proper dissemination of data. Third, the SOI has reserved the right to add, delete, modify or amend every provision of the guidelines at any time without assigning any reason or notice.</p>
<p>While depiction of wrong boundaries has been specifically been criminalized and can be accepted as symbolic of sovereign hold over contentious territorial areas, it hardly fulfills a security purpose other than acting as a proof to the international community. The incident regarding Mapathon, on the other hand, though did not result in penal consequences towards Google, seem counterproductive in the first place for asking for a ban on increase of geospatial resource data. Considering the same, prudency demands that India also adopt policies and measures that are more peaceful and accommodating in nature such as resolving territorial matters by talking out with Google and other agencies. The current and proposed stringent penal provisions only act as dis-incentivising measures for geo-spatial agencies to map India, which is not the motive sought to be achieved by the bill.</p>
<p>However, the interpretation of the policy cannot be blamed alone for restrictions such as depiction of VAs and VPs have been specifically mentioned in the policy. Above mentioned policies and guidelines have often been criticized for being overly restrictive in nature and a consequence of colonial hangover. In times of crowdsourcing of mapping data, the need of the hour exist in critically analysing the existent policies and their interpretation. The same is especially so in the absence of a high quality digital version of the correct boundary of India. While a map in PDF form has been put up by Survey of India, the same cannot be converted to digital form to be complied with or used to resolve territorial disputes of detailed nature. This makes it absolutely impossible to completely comply with the Indian version of the boundaries without a proper resource acting as a comparison check. The need of the hour is for the Government to release less ambiguous and specific details as to what it considers to be outside the scope of private mapping and the correct boundaries along with a less stringent policy framework so that India can protect its security, sovereignty and integrity while promoting creation and dissemination of geo-spatial data.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2 id="5">5. References</h2>
<p><strong>[1]</strong> SV Srikantia, 'Restriction on maps: A denial of valid geographic information,' [2000] 79(4), Current Science 484.</p>
<p><strong>[2]</strong> Fatima Alam, 'Mapping the politics of cartography,' Infosys Science Foundation, 31 March 2015, <a href="http://www.infosysblogs.com/infosysprize/2015/03/mapping_the_politics_of_cartog_2.html">http://www.infosysblogs.com/infosysprize/2015/03/mapping_the_politics_of_cartog_2.html</a>, accessed 11 May 2016.</p>
<p><strong>[3]</strong> 'About Us,' Survey of India, <a href="http://www.surveyofindia.gov.in/pages/view/10-about-us">http://www.surveyofindia.gov.in/pages/view/10-about-us</a>, accessed 11 May 2016.</p>
<p><strong>[4]</strong> Ibid.</p>
<p><strong>[5]</strong> R Ramachandran, 'Public Access to Indian Geographical Data,' [2000] 79(4) Current Science 450.</p>
<p><strong>[6]</strong> Ibid.</p>
<p><strong>[7]</strong> Supra, 4.</p>
<p><strong>[8]</strong> “Scale represents the relationship of the distance on the map/data to the actual distance on the ground. Map detail is determined by the source scale of the data: the finer the scale, the more detail.” Seen at <a href="http://gif.berkeley.edu/documents/Scale_in_GIS.pdf">http://gif.berkeley.edu/documents/Scale_in_GIS.pdf</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[9]</strong> Dr. Manosi Lahiri, 'Survey & Mapping in India: The Regulatory Framework,' Directions Magazine India, <a href="https://www.mlinfomap.com/Pdf/Survey&Mapping-Lahiri%202.1.pdf">https://www.mlinfomap.com/Pdf/Survey&Mapping-Lahiri%202.1.pdf</a>, accessed 11 May 2016.</p>
<p><strong>[10]</strong> Ibid.</p>
<p><strong>[11]</strong> Supra, 2.</p>
<p><strong>[12]</strong> ‘Guidelines for implementing National Map Policy,’ Survey of India, <a href="http://surveyofindia.gov.in/files/nmp/Guidlines%20for%20Implementing%20National%20Map%20policy.pdf">http://surveyofindia.gov.in/files/nmp/Guidlines%20for%20Implementing%20National%20Map%20policy.pdf</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[13]</strong> 'National Map Policy, 2005, Preamble,' Survey of India, <a href="http://surveyofindia.gov.in/files/nmp/National%20Map%20Policy.pdf">http://surveyofindia.gov.in/files/nmp/National%20Map%20Policy.pdf</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[14]</strong> Ibid, Objectives.</p>
<p><strong>[15]</strong> Supra, 11.</p>
<p><strong>[16]</strong> Supra, 5.</p>
<p><strong>[17]</strong> 'Remote Sensing Data Policy, 2011,' National Remote Sensing Centre, Indian Space Research Organisation, <a href="http://www.nrsc.gov.in/Remote_Sensing_Data_Policy">http://www.nrsc.gov.in/Remote_Sensing_Data_Policy</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[18]</strong> Civil Aviation Requirement Section 3 Air Transport Series ‘F’ Part I Issue I, 12th October 2010.</p>
<p><strong>[19]</strong> Nandagopal Rajan, 'Why India needs rules for flying drones, soon' (The Indian Express, 9 July, 2015) <a href="http://indianexpress.com/article/technology/gadgets/why-india-needs-rules-for-flying-drones-soon/">http://indianexpress.com/article/technology/gadgets/why-india-needs-rules-for-flying-drones-soon/</a> accessed 11 May 2016.</p>
<p><strong>[20]</strong> TNN, 'Now, flying a drone can land you in prison' (The Times of India, 15 February, 2016) <a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/jaipur/Now-flying-a-drone-can-land-you-in-prison/articleshow/50990613.cms">http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/jaipur/Now-flying-a-drone-can-land-you-in-prison/articleshow/50990613.cms</a>, accessed 11 May 2016.</p>
<p><strong>[21]</strong> Ibid.</p>
<p><strong>[22]</strong> Supra, 19; 20.</p>
<p><strong>[23]</strong> Supra, 5.</p>
<p><strong>[24]</strong> tech2 news staff, 'Why is Google’s Mapathon in hot waters in India? All you need to know' (Tech-2, 12 Aug, 2015) <a href="http://tech.firstpost.com/news-analysis/why-is-googles-mapathon-in-hot-waters-in-india-all-you-need-to-know-228810.html">http://tech.firstpost.com/news-analysis/why-is-googles-mapathon-in-hot-waters-in-india-all-you-need-to-know-228810.html</a>, accessed 6 May 2016</p>
<p><strong>[25]</strong> Supra, 12.</p>
<p><strong>[26]</strong> Supra, 24.</p>
<p><strong>[27]</strong> ‘PTI, 'Google ‘polluted Internet’ with classified material: Survey of India' (The Hindu, 10 August, 2014) <a href="http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/internet/mapathon-2013-row-google-polluted-internet-with-classified-material-says-survey-of-india/article6300853.ece">http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/internet/mapathon-2013-row-google-polluted-internet-with-classified-material-says-survey-of-india/article6300853.ece</a>, accessed 11 May 2016.</p>
<p><strong>[28]</strong> Sandeep Joshi, ‘Google didn’t take permission for Mapathon’ (The Hindu, 24 April, 2013) <a href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/google-didnt-take-permission-for-mapathon/article4648589.ece">http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/google-didnt-take-permission-for-mapathon/article4648589.ece</a>, accessed 6 May 2016.</p>
<p><strong>[29]</strong> Supra, 24.</p>
<p><strong>[30]</strong> Abhishek Sharan, 'CBI may close probe against Google in Mapathon case' (Hindustan Times, 12 February, 2015) <a href="http://www.hindustantimes.com/india/cbi-may-close-probe-against-google-in-mapathon-case/story-CgZYWoP9NgYA3xVepjr5bN.html">http://www.hindustantimes.com/india/cbi-may-close-probe-against-google-in-mapathon-case/story-CgZYWoP9NgYA3xVepjr5bN.html</a>, accessed 6 May 2016.</p>
<p><strong>[31]</strong> PTI, 'Pathankot attack: Sensitive sites on Google Maps under Delhi HC scanner' (Times of India, 15 January, 2016) <a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/Pathankot-attack-Sensitive-sites-on-Google-Maps-under-Delhi-HC-scanner/articleshow/50596143.cms">http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/Pathankot-attack-Sensitive-sites-on-Google-Maps-under-Delhi-HC-scanner/articleshow/50596143.cms</a>, accessed 6 May 2016.</p>
<p><strong>[32]</strong> ‘Public Awareness,' Survey of India, <a href="http://www.surveyofindia.gov.in/pages/display/190-public-awareness">http://www.surveyofindia.gov.in/pages/display/190-public-awareness</a>), accessed 6 May 2016.</p>
<p><strong>[33]</strong> Aman Sharma, '7-year jail, Rs 100 crore fine soon for showing PoK, Arunachal as disputed' (The Economic Times, 05 May 2016) <a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/7-year-jail-rs-100-crore-fine-soon-for-showing-pok-arunachal-as-disputed/articleshow/52117889.cms">http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/7-year-jail-rs-100-crore-fine-soon-for-showing-pok-arunachal-as-disputed/articleshow/52117889.cms</a>, accessed 6 May 2016.</p>
<p><strong>[34]</strong> Jaspreet Sahni 'Survey of India files complaint against Google maps for wrong depiction of India's boundaries' (News18, 13 December 2014) <a href="http://www.news18.com/news/india/survey-of-india-files-complaint-against-google-maps-for-wrong-depiction-of-indias-boundaries-731101.html">http://www.news18.com/news/india/survey-of-india-files-complaint-against-google-maps-for-wrong-depiction-of-indias-boundaries-731101.html</a>, accessed 6 May 2016.</p>
<p><strong>[35]</strong> Itanagar agencies, 'Arunachal fumes over wrong map on iPhone4' (Deccan Herald, 04 October, 2010) <a href="http://www.deccanherald.com/content/101784/F">http://www.deccanherald.com/content/101784/F</a>, accessed 6 May 2016.</p>
<p><strong>[36]</strong> CC, 'How Google represents disputed borders between countries' (The Economist, 04 September, 2014) <a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/09/economist-explains-1">http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/09/economist-explains-1</a>, accessed 6 May 2016.</p>
<p><strong>[37]</strong> The Kashmir Walla, 'Ten Maps of Kashmir That Angered India' (The Kashmir Walla, 14 May, 2015) <a href="http://thekashmirwalla.com/2015/05/ten-maps-of-kashmir-that-angered-india/">http://thekashmirwalla.com/2015/05/ten-maps-of-kashmir-that-angered-india/</a>accessed 11 May 2016.</p>
<p><strong>[38]</strong> Ibid.</p>
<p><strong>[39]</strong> Ibid.</p>
<p><strong>[40]</strong> Ibid.</p>
<p><strong>[41]</strong> Frank Jacobs, 'The First Google Maps War' (The New York Times, 28 February, 2012) <a href="http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/28/the-first-google-maps-war/">http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/28/the-first-google-maps-war/</a>, accessed 11 May 2016.</p>
<p><strong>[42]</strong> Ethan Merel, 'Google’s World: The Impact of "Agnostic Cartographers" on the State-Dominated International Legal System' [2016] <em>Columbia Journal of Transnational Law</em> 442-444.</p>
<p><strong>[43]</strong> Ibid.</p>
<p><strong>[44]</strong> Europe, 'Google map gives German harbour to Netherlands' (BBC, 23 February, 2011) <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-12558741">http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-12558741</a>, accessed 11 May 2016.</p>
<p><strong>[45]</strong> Supra, 42, 448.</p>
<p><strong>[46]</strong> Ibid, 449.</p>
<p><strong>[47]</strong> Supra, 47.</p>
<p><strong>[48]</strong> <em>J. Mohanraj v (1) Secretary To Government, Delhi; (2) Indian Space Research Organisation, Bangalore; (3) Google India Private Limited, Bangalore, 2008 Indlaw MAD 3562</em>.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2 id="6">6. Author Profile</h2>
<p><strong>Adya Garg</strong> is a law student at West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata and has completed her second year. An ardent *SRK fan*, and a dancer at heart, she loves reading books in her free time. Always excited about exploring new fields, she never misses an opportunity to work on areas outside her legal curriculum.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/openness/legal-challenges-to-mapping-in-india-1-laws-policies-cases'>https://cis-india.org/openness/legal-challenges-to-mapping-in-india-1-laws-policies-cases</a>
</p>
No publisherAdya GargGeospatial Information Regulation BillOpen DataOpen Government DataGeospatial DataOpenness2016-05-11T13:43:11ZBlog EntryGoogle, Apple and Microsoft may need licence for satellite mapping in India
https://cis-india.org/openness/news/economic-times-aman-sharma-neha-alawadhi-may-9-2016-google-apple-and-microsoft-may-need-licence-for-satellite-mapping-in-india
<b>Cold response from MNCs like Google to India's security concerns is seen as a prime reason for the proposed legislation to regulate mapping of the country, a move that critics call "return of the Licence Raj" and "digital nationalism".</b>
<p>The article by Aman Sharma and Neha Alawadhi was published in <a class="external-link" href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/google-apple-and-microsoft-may-need-licence-for-satellite-mapping-in-india/articleshow/52180349.cms">Economic Times</a> on May 9, 2016. Sumandro Chattapadhyay was quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>A draft of Geospatial Information Regulation Bill, released last week seeking public comments, says anyone mapping India by a satellite or aerial platform will need a licence from a government "security vetting authority". "India as a responsible power must have established guidelines," Kiren Rijiju, MoS for Home, told ET, reacting to the criticism to the move.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>"We won't create hurdles for business and technological development, but national security considerations must not be compromised either," said Rijiju. Non-compliance could land you in jail for seven years. On the top of that would be a fine of up to Rs 100 crore. BJP MP Tarun Vijay, who has long been campaigning for such a law, said "patriotic Indians" should use the country's own 'Bhuvan' software application for maps.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>"Why do we need Google? We should stop becoming Google's instruments," he told ET. "The patriotic government of Narendra Modi has taken a right step in a big relief to the security establishment. UPA did not take any action despite my pleas to the then Defence Minister AK Antony. I congratulate the Modi government for showing spine in face of arrogance of these IT giants," he said, adding: Google has been "behaving as if it were above Indian law".</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>A top government official involved in the move said maps of India's sensitive installations were available on Google Maps, increasing the security risk of those sites. Demand to mask those were never complied to. "Pathankot air base, which was recently attacked, can be seen on Google Maps. Terrorists plot strikes on sensitive targets studying Google Maps," he told ET.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>"Our plea to black out sensitive installations do not yield results. This Bill is now sending a strong message that US companies cannot be running roughshod over Indian security interests." Companies such as Google, Microsoft and Apple, which have millions of Indians using their maps, would be hit directly by the legislation if it is pushed through. Firms that depend on these maps to provide their services, such as Uber, Zomato and Ola, too would be affected. Google, Apple and Microsoft didn't respond to emails seeking comment.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Mishi Choudhary, legal director at Software Freedom Law Centre, said almost all online businesses today depend on geo-location and provide maps for the use of their services, and that all of them will be forced to seek a licence under the proposed law. "This kind of digital nationalism is a way to create a government-controlled monopoly on all geographical information about the country, conveniently transforming Digital India to Licence India, digitally this time," said Choudhary, who was part<span> </span>of the successful legal fight to scrap Section 66A of the IT Act to ensure freedom of expression on the Internet. An executive at one of the big tech companies said the draft Bill raised far too many questions.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>"On the face of it, the Bill will kill any and every use of the maps. It is also unclear if you get a licence for maps, only you can use it or others can use it, too," he said. "Also, whether every time you update a map, does one have to get a security clearance? Maps have to be live and dynamic, so getting it approved from government each time may not be feasible."</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Those working on mapping and geospatial technology said services such as Google Maps are popular because they are faster and easier to use compared to government-prescribed process.<span> </span>"According to Indian law...if I have to buy certain data, I will have to go to the concerned department, like ISRO's National Remote Sensing Agency, or the Survey of India. In the case of NRSC (for satellite data), they will purchase the data for me, and then I will have to pay. That's a long process and hence people went to services like Google Maps, which are easier," said Devdatta Tengshe, a freelance geospatial information systems consultant.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>The agency removes sensitive zones from the data and takes about two-three months or even more to respond, which is an unrealistic timeline for people working with digital data, he said. There is also apprehension that the Bill will undermine rescue and humanitarian efforts, such as during disasters like the Nepal earthquake.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>"It was user-generated geospatial data that was used by the humanitarian response teams. This situation of lack of openly usable geospatial data holds true for large parts of India, and especially Himalayan India," said Sumandro Chattapadhyay, research director at Centre for Internet and Society. Also of concern is the lack of court's jurisdiction in matters related to the proposed legislation, said SFLC's Choudhary.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>A senior government official, however, said companies should not have a problem to come under regulations on security considerations and that the Bill was up for public comments where the companies can lodge their apprehensions. "We are not banning anyone from mapping India — only that the mapping has to be in line with Indian security considerations regarding sensitive installations and correct boundaries being depicted like not showing PoK and Arunachal Pradesh as out of India," this official said.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>A group of techies have, meanwhile, got together to create a website called savethemap.in, which aims to educate people and make them send out responses to the draft Bill. It will likely come up with a template response, along the lines as the savetheinternet. in campaign that was instrumental in taking the net neutrality debate to the people.</span></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/openness/news/economic-times-aman-sharma-neha-alawadhi-may-9-2016-google-apple-and-microsoft-may-need-licence-for-satellite-mapping-in-india'>https://cis-india.org/openness/news/economic-times-aman-sharma-neha-alawadhi-may-9-2016-google-apple-and-microsoft-may-need-licence-for-satellite-mapping-in-india</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaOpen StandardsOpen DataOpen Government DataOpenness2016-05-10T15:20:39ZNews ItemMonitoring Sustainable Development Goals in India: Availability and Openness of Data (Part II)
https://cis-india.org/openness/monitoring-sustainable-development-goals-in-india-availability-and-openness-02
<b>The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are an internationally agreed upon set of developmental targets to be achieved by 2030. There are 17 SDGs with 169 targets, and each target is mapped to one or more indicators as a measure of evaluation. In this and the next blog post, Kiran AB is documenting the availability and openness of data sets in India that are relevant for monitoring the targets under the SDGs. This post offers the findings for the last 10 Goals. The first 7 has already been discussed in the earlier post.</b>
<p> </p>
<p><em>The first part of the post can be accessed <a href="http://cis-india.org/openness/monitoring-sustainable-development-goals-in-india-availability-and-openness-01/">here</a>.</em></p>
<hr />
<h3>Goal #08: <em>Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all</em></h3>
<p>There are fourteen indicators to monitor the goal 8 and the data is available for all the indicators mapped to their respective targets. For most of the indicators, the data availability is not what the indicator demands, but has to be derived from the available dataset.</p>
<p>The data can be accessed freely in the public domain for all the indicators. However, for the subparts in some of the indicators, the data is not accessible freely. There is a cross agency dependency over the data, to arrive at the required indicator.</p>
<p>Data is collected annually for most of the indicators, while the indicators, viz., Indicator 8.3.1.: Share of informal employment in non-agriculture employment by sex; Indicator 8.5.2: Unemployment rate by sex, age-group and persons with disabilities, which are measured by the Census or the planning commission the frequency of data collection becomes decennial or quinquennial. And the Indicator 8.8.2 : Number of ILO conventions ratified by type of convention, which lists the number of conventions the frequency cannot be determined as it's just a list updated whenever there is a ratification of any ILO conventions. Some of the available data are restricted to particular years and most of them are not till date.</p>
<p>Two indicators, i.e., Indicator 8.5.2 and Indicator 8.10.1: Number of commercial bank branches and ATMs per 100,000 adults, which are measured at the level of districts, whereas Indicator 8.7.1: Percentage and number of children aged 5-17 years engaged in child labour, per sex and age group; Indicator 8.8.1: Frequency rates of fatal and non-fatal occupational injuries by sex and migrant status, are measured at the state level. The remaining are measured only at the national level.</p>
<p>Most of the data are collected from the international organisations like ILO, UNEP, UNWTO, etc., from whose source the data are not updated regularly. There is also a need to disaggregate according to the indicator.</p>
<p> </p>
<h3>Goal #09: <em>Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation</em></h3>
<p>When development is through industrialization, sustainable and inclusiveness should be the necessary conditions to attain it. Having said this, the data is available for all the indicators, i.e., twelve indicators, corresponding to the targets as defined for the goal 9. For most of the indicators, the data have to be derived for the required measure to monitor the goal.</p>
<p>From among these indicators, the data is collected annually for most of the indicators, while for the two indicators, Indicator 9.3.1: Percentage share of small scale industries in total industry value added; Indicator 9.3.2: Percentage of small scale industries with a loan or line of credit, the frequency of data collection is once in five years.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Excluding two indicators, i.e., Indicator 9.2.2: Manufacturing employment as a percentage of total employment; Indicator 9.1.1: Share of the rural population who live within 2km of an all season road, for which the data is available at the state level and district level respectively, for the remaining indicators the data is available only at the national level.</p>
<p>The data pertaining to eleven indicators are freely accessible in the public domain, however, for the Indicator 9.b.1: Percentage share of medium and high-tech (MHT) industry value added in total value added, the data is not freely accessible. Most of the freely available data are obtained from the international organisations, along with the official data from the government in India.</p>
<p> </p>
<h3>Goal #10: <em>Reduce inequality within and among countries</em></h3>
<p>Bridging the gap between the global north-south divide through co-operation – social, economical, political, etc., would promote equality. There are twelve indicators for measuring this goal, of which the data is not available for one of the indicators and are available for the remaining indicators.</p>
<p>From the data available, for six of the indicators the data is accessible freely in the public domain, whereas for the five of the indicators – Indicator 10.2.1; Indicator 10.3.1; Indicator 10.4.1; Indicator 10.7.3; Indicator 10.a.1, the data is closed.</p>
<p>Most of the data available are of the national level and for the Indicator 10.7.3: Number of detected and non-detected victims of human trafficking per 100,000, the data includes from the states as well. However, since the goal refers to inequalities within the country as well, the granularity of the data should have been from the state/district level as well.</p>
<p>And, the frequency of data collected are annually for some of the indicators and for some the details cannot be determined or not valid. For most of the indicators the data has to be derived from the available dataset and disaggregated as needed. Also, for some indicators the data is partially available.</p>
<p><strong>Data Not Available:</strong></p>
<ul><li>Indicator 10.7.1: Recruitment cost borne by employee as percentage of yearly income earned in country of destination</li></ul>
<p> </p>
<h3>Goal #11: <em>Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable</em></h3>
<p>Housing and the type of settlements determines the human development and the progress of development of a nation. Therefore for monitoring the goal 11 is implicit to human development. There are thirteen indicators to monitor this goal and out of which the data is available for ten indicators and for the three indicators the data is not available.</p>
<p>For three of the indicators the available data is not freely accessible, while for the remaining ones the data is accessible. And for most of the indicators the data has to be derived as needed.</p>
<p>The data is collected annually for most of the indicators and quinquennially for the Indicator 11.5.1, and for some data the data pertains to particular year and there lacks a sequence of data availability.</p>
<p>For four of the indicators – Indicator 11.2.1; Indicator 11.3.1; Indicator 11.6.1; Indicator 11.a.1, the data is available at the state/city level along with national level. And for the remaining indicators the data is available at the national level alone. Also, some of the data are not up-to-date and refers to data more than 3 or years old.</p>
<p><strong>Data Not Available:</strong></p>
<ul><li>Indicator 11.3.2: Percentage of cities with direct participation structure of civil society in urban planning and management, which operate regularly and democratically</li>
<li>Indicator 11.7.1: The average share of the built-up areas of cities that is open space in public use for all, disaggregated by age, sex, and persons with disabilities</li>
<li>Indicator 11.b.1: Percentage of cities implementing risk reduction and resilience strategies aligned with accepted international frameworks (such as the successor to the Hyogo Framework for Action on Disaster Risk Reduction) that include vulnerable and marginalised groups in their design, implementation and monitoring</li></ul>
<p> </p>
<h3>Goal #12: <em>Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns</em></h3>
<p>Production and consumption should go hand in hand, but over consumption or over production would only lead to destruction of the environment. Therefore goal 12 seeks to ensure a sustainability in both. The data is available for ten indicators out of twelve indicators, and for the two indicators the data is not available, so as to monitor the respective goals. Some of the data are partially available and using the available data the indicators can be derived.</p>
<p>Moreover, the data for six of the indicators which are available are freely accessible in the public domain whereas for the remaining four indicators – Indicator 12.4.1; Indicator 12.4.2; Indicator 12.5.1; Indicator 12.b.1, the data is not open.</p>
<p>While for most of the indicators say, Indicator 12.2.1; Indicator 12.3.1; Indicator 12.5.1; Indicator 12.a.1; Indicator 12.c.1, the data is collected annually, whereas for the others, the data which are available are for particular years or cannot be determined. Except for the Indicator 12.5.1, for which the data is available at the city level, the data for the remaining are of the national order. The data is collected from both the national institutions, ministries and also from the international organisations.</p>
<p><strong>Data Not Available:</strong></p>
<ul><li>Indicator 12.1.1: Number of countries with SCP National Actions Plans or SCP mainstreamed as a priority or target into national policies.</li>
<li>Indicator 12.8.1: Percentage of educational institutions with formal and informal education curricula on sustainable development and lifestyle topics</li></ul>
<p> </p>
<h3>Goal #13: <em>Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts</em></h3>
<p>The impact of climate change is severe, therefore taking an urgent action ensures could reduce the impact. The data is available for four of the indicators out of five, and for one of indicators the data is not available.</p>
<p>The data for three indicators are freely accessible in the public domain, whereas for the Indicator 13.3.1: Number of countries that have integrated mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction and early warning into primary, secondary and tertiary curricula, the data is not open and also not specific to the indicator. The data for some of the indicators are partially available and have to be derived.</p>
<p>The frequency of the data is not uniform and cannot be determined, by the virtue of the indicator itself. For example, the occurrence of a disaster event is random. However, for some of the indicators the reporting is either annual or quadrennial.</p>
<p>The data availability is at the national level and in case of the Indicator 13.3.1., the data is available for two states – Orissa and Tamil Nadu. Data for almost all the indicators are obtained from international organizations and very less data availability from the national databases.</p>
<p><strong>Data Not Available:</strong></p>
<ul><li>Indicator 13.2.1.: Number of countries that have formally communicated the establishment of integrated low-carbon, climate-resilient, disaster risk reduction development strategies</li></ul>
<p> </p>
<h3>Goal #14: <em>Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development</em></h3>
<p> </p>
<p>Oceans are the torchbearers for all the countries. Therefore everything related to oceans, seas and marine resources have an impact on the human life. There are ten indicators corresponding to the targets, of which the data is available for nine indicators and for one indicator the data is not available. The data for some of the indicators are not direct, but need to be derived, while for some indicators the data is partially available. To derive some indicators we need to rely on cross agency data.</p>
<p>For the Indicator 14.a.1: Budget allocation to research in the field of marine technology as a percentage of total budget to research, the data on budgetary allocation doesn't specify to marine technology.</p>
<p>The frequency of data collected for most of the indicators are not available or cannot be determined or not applicable, whereas for some the data is collected annually. And for most of the indicators the data is available at the national level and for the Indicator 14.5.1: Coverage of protected areas in relation to marine areas, the data is available for the states also.</p>
<p><strong>Data Not Available:</strong></p>
<ul><li>Indicator 14.6.1: Dollar value of negative fishery subsidies against 2015 baseline</li></ul>
<p> </p>
<h3>Goal #15: <em>Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss</em></h3>
<p> </p>
<p>This goal on restoring, promoting ecosystem and stopping biodiversity loss, etc., has fifteen indicators mapped to twelve corresponding targets. Of which, the data is available for fourteen of the indicators and the data is not available for the one of the indicators. Data for some of the indicators exist partially and for some the data has to be derived to match the indicators. To arrive at the indicators, the data has to be derived from different datasets available.</p>
<p>Most of the data which are available are closed and only five are accessible in the public platform – Indicator 15.1.1 : Forest area as a percentage of total land area; Indicator 15.4.2: Mountain Green Cover Index; Indicator 15.8.1: Adoption of national legislation relevant to the prevention or control of invasive alien species; Indicator 15.9.1: Number of national development plans and processes integrating biodiversity and ecosystem services values; Indicator 15.a.1: Official development assistance and public expenditure on conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystems.</p>
<p>The frequency of data collected is not available or cannot be determined for majority of the indicators, while the data is annually collected for the ones which can be determined. Furthermore, the data is available at the national level for all the indicators, except the Indicator 15.b.1: Forestry official development assistance and forestry FDI, for which the data is available at the level of states as well.</p>
<p>The data available are collected by international organisations like OECD, FAO, Convention on Biological Diversity, etc., as well as by the national institutions and ministries like Planning Commission, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, etc.</p>
<p><strong>Data Not Available:</strong></p>
<ul><li>Indicator 15.2.2: Net permanent forest loss</li></ul>
<p> </p>
<h3>Goal #16: <em>Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels</em></h3>
<p> </p>
<p>A society which is inclusive, peaceful, provides justice and accountable in all its forms would ensure sustainable development, therefore to promote the aforementioned parameters one has to monitor them through an established measure. There are twenty-one indicators for this goal mapped to the respective targets and out of which the data is not available for five indicators to monitor the goal. From the available dataset, the values need to be derived for some of the indicators and for some indicators the data is directly/partially available.</p>
<p>From among the data which are available, for nine indicators the data is not freely accessible in the public platform, while the remaining six data set are open to access. They are available both from national and international agencies and most of the data are not up to the date.</p>
<p>The data which are available are collected/reported annually. And, excluding four indicators. i.e.; Indicator 16.1.3, Indicator 16.3.1, Indicator 16.4.2, Indicator 16.b.1, the data is available at the state level, while for the remaining indicators the data is available only at the national level. Most of the indicators require data from past 12 months, but the available dataset does not cater the needs, as they are not updated regularly. Finally, the indicators seeks disaggregated data for monitoring the goal.</p>
<p><strong>Data Not Available:</strong></p>
<ul><li>Indicator 16.1.4: Proportion of people that feel safe walking alone around the area they live</li>
<li>Indicator 16.2.3. Percentage of young women and men aged 18-24 years who experienced sexual violence by age 18</li>
<li>Indicator 16.6.2: Percentage of population satisfied with their last experience of public services</li>
<li>Indicator 16.7.2: Proportion of countries that address young people's multisectoral needs with their national development plans and poverty reduction strategies</li>
<li>Indicator 16.a.1: Percentage of victims who report physical and/or sexual crime to law enforcement agencies during past 12 months disaggregated by age, sex, region and population group</li></ul>
<p> </p>
<h3>Goal #17: <em>Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development</em></h3>
<p> </p>
<p>Moving towards achieving SDGs in the global scenario requires support – financial, technological, etc. This support can be strengthened the relationship between the developing and the developed countries. There are twenty-four indicators to monitor the goal 17, out of which the data is available for twenty-three of the indicators and for one of the indicators the data does not exist.</p>
<p>The data which are available are direct as per the indicators, whereas for most of the indicators the data need to be derived. Data is partially available for the Indicator 17.16.1: Indicator 7 from Global Partnership Monitoring Exercise: Mutual accountability among development co-operation actors is strengthened through inclusive reviews.</p>
<p>From the data available for twenty-three indicators, fourteen of the data set are freely accessible and the nine are not open. Also, some of the data which are open are not up to date or the latest data is not open.</p>
<p>The data is collected annually for most of the indicators and for some the data is available for particular year. Also for some of the indicators like Indicator 17.5.1: Number of national & investment policy reforms adopted that incorporate sustainable development objectives or safeguards x country; Indicator 17.6.1: Access to patent information and use of the international intellectual property (IP) system; Indicator 17.18.2: Number of countries that have national statistical legislation that complies with the Fundamental Principles of Official statistics, the frequency cannot be determined or not valid.</p>
<p>Since this indicator speaks at the national level, the granularity of the data pertains to the nation. Most of the data are obtained from the international organisations say UN, World Bank, IMF, OECD, etc., and some are from the national institutions/ministries like Planning Commission, Finance Ministry, etc.</p>
<p><strong>Data Not Available:</strong></p>
<ul><li>Indicator 17.17.1: Amount of US$ committed to public-private partnerships and civil society partnerships</li></ul>
<p> </p>
<h3>Conclusion</h3>
<p>Decision making depends on data, a data should be representative, with high quality and has to be timely collected, which ensures precise assessment of the decision being made. From the analysis it was found that, most of the data which are available are either not freely accessible, outdated and not precise to the need. Most of the SDG indicators are based on disaggregation. The disaggregation is a key to measure to the precision, especially incidences like poverty, food security, health, etc. Therefore, to monitor different parameters we need to identify the different levels prevailing in the parameter to ensure inclusivity.</p>
<p>Said above, the frequency of data collection is either annual, quinquennial and decennial. To enable real time evaluation, the data should be up-to-date. Moreover, for most of the indicators the data availability is at the national level or at the state level and sometimes at the district level. The granularity of data ensures geographic inclusiveness.</p>
<p>In a country like India for close monitoring of progress/development of any sort the data availability should be;</p>
<ul><li>at a granular level of district/block,</li>
<li>collected and updated regularly,</li>
<li>disaggregated by age, sex, and also by social group, and</li>
<li>the data should be open to be able to access in the public domain freely.</li></ul>
<p>Open data will be a crucial tool for governments to meet the transparency and efficiency challenges. For this reason, government data should be open – freely accessible, presented in a format that is comparable and reusable and, ideally, released in a timely manner.</p>
<p> </p>
<h3>Author</h3>
<p>Kiran A B, is a student of Master of Public Policy (MPP) at the National Law School of India University, Bengaluru. Kiran has an undergraduate degree in electronics and communications engineering, and he has three years full-time work experience as a software engineer, working in different technological platforms. His research interest includes interdisciplinary linkages between policy, law and technology.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/openness/monitoring-sustainable-development-goals-in-india-availability-and-openness-02'>https://cis-india.org/openness/monitoring-sustainable-development-goals-in-india-availability-and-openness-02</a>
</p>
No publishersumandroDevelopmentOpen DataOpen Government DataData RevolutionOpennessSustainable Development Goals2016-04-12T04:14:27ZBlog Entry