Centre for Internet and Society

Open Government Data

praskrishna — 2011-08-23T02:42:46Z

pdf

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/publications/open-government-data.pdf

Open Government Data

praskrishna — 2011-08-23T02:43:15Z

pdf

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/publications/open-government.pdf

Open Government Data Study: India

pranesh — 2011-08-23T02:43:49Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/publications/open_data_india_final.pdf

Draft Report on Open Government Data in India (v2)

pranesh — 2011-08-23T02:47:22Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/publications/ogd-draft-v2

Open access to government data on the cards

praskrishna — 2012-03-26T07:31:48Z

The way has been cleared for public access to the data collected by Union government ministries and departments, with official approval being accorded to the National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy (NDSAP). T Ramachandran's article was published in the Hindu on March 25, 2012. Pranesh Prakash is quoted in it.

Following its recent approval by the Union Cabinet, the policy has been notified and is in the process of being gazetted, said R. Siva Kumar, CEO of the National Spatial Data Infrastructure, and head of the Natural Resources Data Management System, Department of Science and Technology.

The use of open data as a tool for promoting governmental transparency and efficiency has been gaining ground in some parts of the world. An Open Government Partnership was launched last year by the United States and seven other governments. Forty-three other governments have joined the partnership, which has endorsed an Open Government Declaration, expressing a commitment to better “efforts to systematically collect and publish data on government spending and performance for essential public services and activities.” It acknowledges the ‘right' of citizens to seek information on governmental activities.

India has not joined the partnership, but is collaborating with the U.S. in developing an open source version of software for a data portal.

The NDSAP states that at least five ‘high value' data sets should be uploaded to a newly created portal, data.gov.in, in three months of the notification of the policy. Uploading of the remaining data sets should be completed within a year.

The Department of Science and Technology will co-ordinate the effort and create the portal through the National Informatics Centre. The Department of Information Technology will work out the implementation guidelines, including those related to technology and data standards.

Welcoming the approval for the NDSAP, Pranesh Prakash, programme manager at the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), a Bangalore-based NGO, said the removal of “a few good aspects” in an earlier draft of the policy — such as linkage with Sections 8 and 9 of the Right to Information Act that specify the kinds of information exempt from disclosure by the authorities — had weakened it “even further.” “None of the criticisms the CIS had sent in as part of the feedback requested on the draft have been addressed,” he said.

The NDSAP seeks “to provide an enabling provision and platform for providing proactive and open access to the data generated through public funds available with various departments/organisations of the government of India.”

However, the Ministries and Departments can draw up, within six months of the notification of the policy, a negative list of data-sets that will not be shared, subject to periodic review by an ‘oversight committee.'

The policy envisages three types of access to data: open, registered and restricted. Access to data in the open category will be “easy, timely, user-friendly and web-based without any process of registration/authorisation.” But data in the registered access category will be accessible “only through a prescribed process of registration/authorisation by respective departments/organisations” and available to “recognised institutions/organisations/public users, through defined procedures.” Data categorised as restricted will be made available only “through and under authorisation.”

The policy also provides for pricing, with the Ministries and Departments being asked to formulate their norms for data in the registered and restricted access categories within three months of the notification of the policy.

Read the original published in the Hindu

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/open-access-to-govt-data

Whose Open Data Community is it? - Accepted Abstract

sumandro — 2015-11-13T05:41:15Z

My paper titled 'Whose Open Data Community is it? Reflections on the Open Data Ecosystem in India' has been accepted for presentation at the Open Data Research Symposium to be held during the 3rd International Open Data Conference in Ottawa, Canada, on May 28-29 2015. The final paper will be shared by second week of May. Here is the accepted abstract.

Where are the NGOs?

On February 04, 2013, several members of the DataMeet group <http://datameet.org/> were invited by the National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy Project Management Unit (NDSAP-PMU) – the nodal agency responsible for developing, implementing, and managing the Open Government Data Platform of India <https://data.gov.in/> – to share thoughts on the status of the implementation of the National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy (NDSAP), the open data policy of India, and discuss potentials for collaboration. A key proposal made by the NDSAPPMU team regarding how DataMeet can contribute to the implementation process, involved DataMeet mobilising the developer community connected to the group to build applications that use the opened up data and demonstrate the value of open government data to drive greater contribution by government agencies and greater utilisation by citizen groups. For DataMeet, a network of open data users and advocates, this invitation to collaborate sets up a slightly different problematic than that in most of the cases of free and open source software development project. The task here is to develop projects that use already available data, which may not offer significantly return to investment at present, but will accellerate the process of opening up of more valuable government data.

However, building an application that effectively utilise government data to foreground a compelling argument or story requires more than a team of developers – it also require domain experts with a deep sense of the context from which the data is emanating. With a vibrant scene of nongovernmental organisations involved in monitoring, analysis, and implementation of developmental projects, many of such domain experts in India are located within such organisations, with some being in the academic institutes too. Reporting from an open data community meeting organised by the World Bank at Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, on December 10, 2014, Isha Parihar asks: “Where are the NGOs?” She points out that “[t]he discussions around open data [in India] also highlight the absence of nonprofit organisations among the technologyfocused groups, entrepreneurs, and businesses [1].” This observation is especially critical as the meeting was organsied by World Bank not only to gather public responses to be presented to Government of India, but also to take stock of the open data community in India. The absence of NGOs, although, does not indicate at the lack of interest of the nongovernmental research and advocacy organisations in India to work with government data. Such organisations, on the contrary, have a long history of accessing, using, sharing, and communicating government data obtained through both proactive and reactive disclosure mechanism. While surveying such practices in a recent report, Sumandro Chattapadhyay argues [2] that the lack of a common understanding of the open data community in India emerges from both the lack of an established forum where commercial and non-commercial reusers of data discuss and articulate their requirements and demands, and the existence of an established range of actors accessing, using, and resharing government data for commercial and noncommercial purposes who are still uncertain regarding how open government data will exactly transform and augment their existing practices.

Whose Open Data Community is it?

In the context of the emerging open data ecosystem in India, thus, the notion of the open data community comes forward as both the problem – in terms of the community not yet being there to effectively take forward the open data agenda – and the solution – as the component of the ecosystem that can successfully bridge gaps between interests and capacities of various stakeholders. Given the gap and the stakeholder concerned, the open data community is expected to perform various critical functions. This paper tracks these conceptualisations of open data community in India. Based upon conversations with fourteen organisations working across four cities in India, the question of 'whose open data community is it' is explored in this paper following three pathways – (1) by documenting how the understanding of the open data community, and the location of the organisation concerned in reference to that, changes across these organisations, (2) by describing how the idea of who all are included in the open data community in India changes across these organisations, and (3) by identifying how different organisations formulate the intended audiences of the open data community in India. In doing so, I argue that a range of critical challenges being experienced by the open data ecosystem in India often gets articulated as things that can be resolved by a more active and effective open data community. This distorts the distribution of responsbilities across various kinds of stakeholders for contributing to the open data ecosystem. In conclusion, I note the need to stop using open data community as a solution-for-all-open-data-evils, and for a pragmatic approach to understand the kinds of open data challenges it can address, and those that it cannot.

Endnotes

[1] Parihar, Isha. 2015. On the Road to Open Data: Glimpses of the Discourse in India. Akvo. January 14. Accessed on March 02, 2015, from http://akvo.org/blog/on-the-road-to-open-data-glimpses-of-the-discourse-in-india/

[2] Chattapadhyay, Sumandro. 2014. Opening Government Data through Mediation: Exploring Roles, Practices and Strategies of (Potential) Data Intermediary Organisations in India. Accessed on March 02, 2015, from http://ajantriks.github.io/oddc/report/sumandro_oddc_project_report.pdf

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/raw/whose-open-data-community-is-it-abstract

Open Data and Land Ownership

sumandro — 2019-05-22T11:32:18Z

In this chapter of the recently published volume on State of Open Data, Tim Davies and Sumandro Chattapadhyay discuss how the lessons from the land ownership field highlight the political nature of data, and illustrate the importance of politically aware interventions when creating open data standards, infrastructure, and ecosystems. State of Open Data, edited by Tim Davies, Stephen B. Walker, Mor Rubinstein, and Fernando Perini, is published by African Minds and International Development Research Centre, Canada.

State of Open Data: Website and Book (Open Access)

Chapter on Open Data and Land Ownership: Zenodo (PDF)

Key Points

- Global availability of land ownership and land deals data is patchy, but, when available, it has been used by individual citizens, entrepreneurs, civil society, and journalists.

- Over the last decade, a number of responsible data lessons have been learned. These lessons can provide guidance on how to balance transparency and privacy and on how to draw research conclusions from partial data.

- In spite of large donor investments in land registration systems, few resources are currently made available to enable open data related to these projects. There are untapped opportunities as a result.

- Lessons from the land ownership field highlight the political nature of data, and illustrate the importance of politically aware interventions when creating open data standards, infrastructure, and ecosystems.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/open-data-and-land-ownership

Ethical Issues in Open Data

kovey — 2013-08-07T09:19:54Z

On August 1, 2013, I took part in a web meeting, organized and hosted by Tim Davies of the World Wide Web foundation. The meeting, titled “Ethical issues in Open Data,” had an agenda focused around privacy considerations in the context of the open data movement.

The main panelists, Carly Nyst and Sam Smith from Privacy International, as well as Steve Song from the International Development Research Centre, were joined by roughly a dozen other privacy and development researchers from around the globe in the hour long session.

The primary issue of the meeting was the concern over modern capabilities of cross-analytics for de-anonymizing data sets and revealing personally identifiable information (PII) in open data. Open data can constitute publicly available information such as budgets, infrastructures, and population statistics, as long as the data meets the three open data characteristics: accessibility, machine readability, and availability for re-use. “Historically,” said Tim Davies, “public registers have been protected through obscurity.” However, both the capabilities of data analysts and the definition of personal data have continued to expand in recent years. This concern thus presents a conflict between researchers who advocate governments releasing open data reports, and researchers who emphasize privacy in the developing world.

Steve Song, advisor to IDRC Information & Networks program, spoke of the potential collateral damage that comes with publishing more and more types of information. Song addressed the imperative of the meeting in saying, “privacy needs to be a core part of open data conversation.” In his presentation, he gave a particularly interesting example of the tensions between public and private information implications. Following the infamous 2012 school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, the information on Newtown’s gun permit owning citizens (made publicly available through America’s Freedom of Information Act) was aggregated into an interactive map which revealed the citizens’ addresses. This obviously became problematic for the Newtown community, as the map not only singled out homes which exercised their right to bear arms but also indirectly revealed which homes were without firearm protection and thereby more vulnerable to theft and crime. The Newtown example clearly demonstrates the relationship (and conflict) between open data and privacy; it resolves to the conflict between the right to information and the right to privacy.

An apparent issue surrounding open data is its perceived binary nature. Many advocates either view data as being open, or not; any intermediary boundaries are only forms of governments limiting data accessibility. Therefore, a point raised by meeting attendee Raed Sharif aptly presented an open data counter-argument. Sarif noted how, inversely, privacy conceptions may form a threat to open data. He mentioned how governments could take advantage of privacy arguments to justify their refusal to publish open reports.

However, Carly Nyst summarized the privacy concern and argument in her remarks near the end of the meeting. Namely, she reasoned that the open data mission is viable, if only limited to generic data, i.e., data about infrastructure, or other information that is in no way personal. Doing so will avoid obstructions of individual privacy. Until more advanced anonymization techniques can be achieved, which can overcome modern re-identification methods, publicly publishing PII may prove too risky. It was generally agreed upon during the meeting that open data is not inherently bad, and in fact its analysis and availability can be beneficial, but the threat of its misuse makes it dangerous. For the future of open data, researchers and advocates should perhaps consider more nuanced approaches to the concept in order to respect considerations for other ethical issues, such as privacy.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/ethical-issues-in-open-data

Comments on the Draft National Policy on Software Products

Anubha Sinha, Rohini Lakshané, and Udbhav Tiwari — 2016-12-12T14:45:11Z

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.

I. Preliminary

1. This submission presents comments by the Centre for Internet and Society, India (“CIS”) on the Draft National Policy on Software Products [1] (“draft policy”), released by the Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology (“MeitY ”).

2. 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.

3. 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.

II. About CIS

4. CIS is a non-profit organisation [2] 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.

5. 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.

III. Comments on the Draft National Policy on Software Products

General Comments

6. 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:

A focus on aiding digital inclusion via software, especially in the fields of finance, education and healthcare.
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.
Identifying the need for innovation and original research in emerging fields such as Internet of Things and Big Data.

7. 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.

8. 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:

Ensuring that internationally accepted principles of privacy are followed in software development and utilisation, including public awareness.
Requiring basic yet sufficient standards of information security to ensure protection of user data at all stages of the software product life cycle.
Enforcing lingual diversity in software to allow for India’s diverse population to operate indigenous software in an inclusive manner.
Mandating minimum standards on accessibility in software creation, procurement and implementation to ensure sustainable use by the differently-abled.
Focusing on transparency & accountability in software procurement for all public funded projects.
Implementing the utilisation of Free and Open Source Software (“FOSS”) 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.
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.

9. 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.

Specific Comments

10. Development of a robust Electronic Payment Infrastructure

10.1. 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).

10.2. 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 [3], alongside other industry standards for Electronic Payment Infrastructure.

11. Government Procurement

11.1. 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.

11.2. 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.

12. Incentives for Digital India oriented software

12.1. 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.

12.2. For development of superior quality software which will ensure excellent success of the Digital India programme, CIS recommends that the incentives should be provided contingent to the incorporation of certain minimum standards of software development. Such products and services should, inter alia, 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.

13. Increasing adoption of Open APIs and Open Data

13.1. 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.

13.2. 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.

14. Creation of Enabling Environment for Innovation, R&D, and IP Creation and Protection

14.1. 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.

14.2. 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 computer programmes per se. 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 [4].

14.3. 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.

IV. Conclusion

15. 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.

[1]. National Policy on Software Products (2016, Draft internal v1. 15) available at http://meity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/National%20Policy%20on%20Software%20Products.pdf

[2]. See The Centre for Internet and Society, available at http://cis- india.org for details of the organization,and our work.

[3]. See http://meity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/Accessible-format-National%20Policy%20on%20Universal%20Electronics.pdf

[4]. See http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/52159304.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_me dium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/comments-on-draft-national-policy-on-software-products

Adoption of Standards in Smart Cities - Way Forward for India

vanya — 2016-04-11T03:04:46Z

With a paradigm shift towards the concept of “Smart Cities’ globally, as well as India, such cities have been defined by several international standardization bodies and countries, however, there is no uniform definition adopted globally. The glue that allows infrastructures to link and operate efficiently is standards as they make technologies interoperable and efficient.

Click here to download the full file

Globally, the pace of urbanization is increasing exponentially. The world’s urban population is projected to rise from 3.6 billion to 6.3 billion between 2011 and 2050. A solution for the same has been development of sustainable cities by improving efficiency and integrating infrastructure and services [1]. It has been estimated that during the next 20 years, 30 Indians will leave rural India for urban areas every minute, necessitating smart and sustainable cities to accommodate them [2]. The Smart Cities Mission of the Ministry of Urban Development was announced in the year 2014, followed by selection of 100 cities in the year 2015 and 20 of them being selected for the first Phase of the project in the year 2016. The Mission [3] lists the “core infrastructural elements” that a smart city would incorporate like adequate water supply, assured electricity, sanitation, efficient public transport, affordable housing (especially for the poor), robust IT connectivity and digitisation, e-governance and citizen participation, sustainable environment, safety and security for citizens, health and education.

With a paradigm shift towards the concept of “Smart Cities’ globally, as well as India, such cities have been defined by several international standardization bodies and countries, however, there is no uniform definition adopted globally. The envisioned modern and smart city promises delivery of high quality services to the citizens and will harness data capture and communication management technologies. The performance of such cities would be monitored on the basis of physical as well as the social structure comprising of smart approaches and solution to utilities and transport.

The glue that allows infrastructures to link and operate efficiently is standards as they make technologies interoperable and efficient. Interoperability is essential and to ensure smart integration of various systems in a smart city, internationally agreed standards that include technical specifications and classifications must be adhered to. Development of international standards ensure seamless interaction between components from different suppliers and technologies [4].

Standardized indicators within standards benefit smart cities in the following ways:

Effective governance and efficient delivery of services.
International and Local targets, benchmarking and planning.
Informed decision making and policy formulation.
Leverage for funding and recognition in international entities.
Transparency and open data for investment attractiveness.
A reliable foundation for use of big data and the information explosion to assist cities in building core knowledge for city decision-making, and enable comparative insight.

The adoption of standards for smart cities has been advocated across the world as they are perceived to be an effective tool to foster development of the cities. The Director of the ITU Telecommunication Standardization Bureau Chaesub Lee is of the view that “Smart cities will employ an abundance of technologies in the family of the Internet of Things (IoT) and standards will assist the harmonized implementation of IoT data and applications , contributing to effective horizontal integration of a city’s subsystems” [5].

Smart Cities standards in India

National Association of Software and Services Companies (NASSCOM) partnered with Accenture [6] to prepare a report called ‘Integrated ICT and Geospatial Technologies Framework for 100 Smart Cities Mission’ [7] to explore the role of ICT in developing smart cities [8], after the announcement of the Mission by Indian Government. The report, released in May 2015, lists down 55 global standards, keeping in view several city sub-systems like urban planning, transport, governance, energy, climate and pollution management, etc which could be applicable to the smart cities in India.

Though NASSCOM is working closely with the Ministry of Urban Development to create a sustainable model for smart cities [9], due to lack of regulatory standards for smart cities, the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) in India has undertaken the task to formulate standardised guidelines for central and state authorities in planning, design and construction of smart cities by setting up a technical committee under the Civil engineering department of the Bureau. However, adoption of the standards by implementing agencies would be voluntary and intends to complement internationally available documents in this area [10].

Developing national standards in line with these international standards would enable interoperability (i.e. devices and systems working together) and provide a roadmap to address key issues like data protection, privacy and other inherent risks in the digital delivery and use of public services in the envisioned smart cities, which call for comprehensive data management standards in India to instill public confidence and trust [11].

Key International Smart Cities Standards

Following are the key internationally accepted and recognized Smart Cities standards developed by leading organisations and the national standardization bodies of several countries that India could adopt or develop national standards in line with these.

The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) - Smart Cities Standards

ISO is an instrumental body advocating and developing for smart cities to safeguard rights of the people against a liveable and sustainable environment. The ISO Smart Cities Strategic Advisory Group uses the following working definition: A ‘Smart City’ is one that dramatically increases the pace at which it improves its social, economic and environmental (sustainability) outcomes, responding to challenges such as climate change, rapid population growth, and political and economic instability by fundamentally improving how it engages society, how it applies collaborative leadership methods, how it works across disciplines and city systems, and how it uses data information and modern technologies in order to transform services and quality of life for those in and involved with the city (residents, businesses, visitors), now and for the foreseeable future, without unfair disadvantage of others or degradation of the natural environment. [For details see ISO/TMB Smart Cities Strategic Advisory Group Final Report, September 2015 ( ISO Definition, June 2015)].

The ISO Technical Committee 268 works on standardization in the field of Sustainable Development in Communities [12] to encourage the development and implementation of holistic, cross-sector and area-based approaches to sustainable development in communities. The Committee comprises of 3 Working Groups [13]:

Working Group 1: System Management ISO 37101- This standard sets requirements, guidance and supporting techniques for sustainable development in communities. It is designed to help all kinds of communities manage their sustainability, smartness and resilience to improve the contribution of communities to sustainable development and assess their performance in this area [14].
Working Group 2 : City Indicators- The key Smart Cities Standards developed by ISO TC 268 WG 2 (City Indicators) are:

ISO 37120 Sustainable Development of Communities — Indicators for City Services and Quality of Life

One of the key standards and an important step in this regard was ISO 37120:2014 under the ISO’s Technical Committee 268 (See Working on Standardization in the field of Sustainable Development in Communities) providing clearly defined city performance indicators (divided into core and supporting indicators) as a benchmark for city services and quality of life, along with a standard approach for measuring each for city leaders and citizens [15]. The standard is global in scope and can help cities prioritize city budgets, improve operational transparency, support open data and applications [16]. It follows the principles [17] set out and can be used in conjunction with ISO 37101.

ISO 37120 was the first ISO Standard on Global City Indicators published in the year 2014, developed on the basis of a set of indicators developed and extensively tested by the Global City Indicators Facility (a project by University of Toronto) and its 250+ member cities globally. GCIF is committed to build standardized city indicators for performance management including a database of comparable statistics that allow cities to track their effectiveness on everything from planning and economic growth to transportation, safety and education [18].

The World Council on City Data (WCCD) [19] - a sister organization of the GCI/GCIF - was established in the year 2014 to operationalize ISO 37120 across cities globally. The standards encompasses 100 indicators developed around 17 themes to support city services and quality of life, and is accessible through the WCCD Open City Data Portal which allows for cutting-edge visualizations and comparisons. Indian cities are not yet listed with WCCD [20].

The indicators are listed under the following heads [21]:

Economy
Education
Environment
Energy
Finance
Fire and Emergency Responses
Governance
Health
Safety
Shelter
Recreation
Solid Waste
Telecommunication and innovation
Transportation
Urban Planning
Waste water
Water and Sanitation

This International Standard is applicable to any city, municipality or local government that undertakes to measure its performance in a comparable and verifiable manner, irrespective of size and location or level of development. City indicators have the potential to be used as critical tools for city managers, politicians, researchers, business leaders, planners, designers and other professionals [22]. The WCCD forum highlights need for cities to have a set of globally standardized indicators to [23]:

Manage and make informed decisions through data analysis
Benchmark and target
Leverage Funding with senior levels of government
Plan and establish new frameworks for sustainable urban development
Evaluate the impact of infrastructure projects on the overall performance of a city.

ISO/DTR 37121- Inventory and Review of Existing Indicators on Sustainable Development and Resilience in Cities

The second standard under ISO TC 268 WG 2 is ISO 37121, which defines additional indicators related to sustainable development and resilience in cities. Some of the indicators include: Smart Cities, Smart Grid, Economic Resilience, Green Buildings, Political Resilience, Protection of biodiversity, etc. The complete list can be viewed on the Resilient Cities website [24].

Working Group 3: Terminology - There are no publicly available documents so far, giving details about the status of the activities of this group. The ISO Technical Committee 268 also includes Sub Committee 1 (Smart Community Infrastructure) [25], comprising of the following Working Groups: 1) WG 1 Infrastructure metrics, and 2) WG 2 Smart Community Infrastructure.

The key Smart Cities Standards developed by ISO under this are:

ISO 37151:2015 Smart community infrastructures — Principles and Requirements for Performance Metrics
In the year 2015, a new ISO technical specification for smart cities- 37151:2015 for Principles and requirements for performance metrics was released. The purpose of standardization in the field of smart community infrastructures such as energy, water, transportation, waste, information and communications technology (ICT), etc. is to promote the international trade of community infrastructure products and services and improve sustainability in communities by establishing harmonized product standards [26]. The metrics in this standard will support city and community managers in planning and measuring performance, and also compare and select procurement proposals for products and services geared at improving community infrastructures [27].
This Technical Specification gives principles and specifies requirements for the definition,identification, optimization, and harmonization of community infrastructure performance metrics, and gives recommendations for analysis, regarding interoperability, safety, security of community infrastructures [28]. This new Technical Specification supports the use of the ISO 37120 [29].
ISO/TR 37150:2014 Smart Community Infrastructures - Review of Existing Activities Relevant to Metrics
This standard addresses community infrastructures such as energy, water, transportation, waste and information and communications technology (ICT). Smart community infrastructures take into consideration environmental impact, economic efficiency and quality of life by using information and communications technology (ICT) and renewable energies to achieve integrated management and optimized control of infrastructures. Integrating smart community infrastructures for a community helps improve the lifestyles of its citizens by, for example: reducing costs, increasing mobility and accessibility, and reducing environmental pollutants.
ISO/TR 37150 reviews relevant metrics for smart community infrastructures and provides stakeholders with a better understanding of the smart community infrastructures available around the world to help promote international trade of community infrastructure products and give information about leading-edge technologies to improve sustainability in communities [30]. This standard, along with the above mentioned standards [31] supports the multi-billion dollar smart cities technology industry.

Several other ISO Working Groups developing standards applicable to smart and sustainable cities have been listed in our website [32].

The International Telecommunications Union (ITU)

The ITU is another global body working on development of standards regarding smart cities.

A study group was formed in the year 2015 to tackle standardization requirements for the Internet of Things, with an initial focus on IoT applications in smart cities to address urban development challenges [33], to enable the coordinated development of IoT technologies, including machine-to-machine communications and ubiquitous sensor networks. The group is titled “ITU-T Study Group 20: IoT and its applications, including smart cities and communities”, established to develop standards that leverage IoT technologies to address urban-development challenges and the mechanisms for the interoperability of IoT applications and datasets employed by various vertically oriented industry sectors [34].

ITU-T also concluded a focused study group looking at smart sustainable cities in May 2015, acting as an open platform for smart city stakeholders to exchange knowledge in the interests of identifying the standardized frameworks needed to support the integration of ICT services in smart cities. Its parent group is ITU-T Study Group 5, which has agreed on the following definition of a Smart Sustainable City:
"A smart sustainable city is an innovative city that uses information and communication technologies (ICTs) and other means to improve quality of life, efficiency of urban operation and services, and competitiveness, while ensuring that it meets the needs of present and future generations with respect to economic, social, environmental as well as cultural aspects".

UK - British Standards Institution

Apart from the global standards setting organisations, many countries have been looking at developing standards to address the growth of smart cities across the globe. In the UK, the British Standards Institution (BSI) has been commissioned by the UK Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) to conceive a Smart Cities Standards Strategy to identify vectors of smart city development where standards are needed. The standards would be developed through a consensus-driven process under the BSI to ensure good practise is shared between all the actors. The BIS launched the City's Standards Institute to bring together cities and key industry leaders and innovators to work together in identifying the challenges facing cities, providing solutions to common problems and defining the future of smart city standards [35].

PAS 181 Smart city framework- Guide to establishing strategies for smart cities and communities establishes a good practice framework for city leaders to develop, agree and deliver smart city strategies that can help transform their city’s ability to meet challenges faced in the future and meet the goals. The smart city framework (SCF) does not intend to describe a one-size-fits-all model for the future of UK cities but focuses on the enabling processes by which the innovative use of technology and data, together with organizational change, can help deliver the diverse visions for future UK cities in more efficient, effective and sustainable ways [36].
PD 8101 Smart cities- Guide to the role of the planning and development process gives guidance regarding planning for new development for smart city plans and provides an overview of the key issues to be considered and prioritized. The document is for use by local authority planning and regeneration officers to identify good practice in a UK context, and what tools they could use to implement this good practice. This aims to enable new developments to be built in a way that will support smart city aspirations at minimal cost [37].
PAS 182 Smart city concept model. Guide to establishing a model for data establishes an interoperability framework and data-sharing between agencies for smart cities for the following purposes:
1. To have a city where information can be shared and understood between organizations and people at each level
2. The derivation of data in each layer can be linked back to data in the previous layer
3. The impact of a decision can be observed back in operational data. The smart city concept model (SCCM) provides a framework that can normalize and classify information from many sources so that data sets can be discovered and combined to gain a better picture of the needs and behaviours of a city’s citizens (residents and businesses) to help identify issues and devise solutions. PAS 182 is aimed at organizations that provide services to communities in cities, and manage the resulting data, as well as decision-makers and policy developers in cities [38].
PAS 180 Smart cities Vocabulary helps build a strong foundation for future standardization and good practices by providing an industry-agreed understanding of smart city terms and definitions to be used in the UK. It provides a working definition of a Smart City- “Smart Cities” is a term denoting the effective integration of physical, digital and human systems in the built environment to deliver a sustainable, prosperous and inclusive future for its citizens [39]. This aims to help improve communication and understanding of smart cities by providing a common language for developers, designers, manufacturers and clients. The standard also defines smart city concepts across different infrastructure and systems’ elements used across all service delivery channels and is intended for city authorities and planners, buyers of smart city services and solutions [40], as well as product and service providers.

Endnotes

[1] See: http://www.iec.ch/whitepaper/pdf/iecWP-smartcities-LR-en.pdf.

[2] See: http://www.ibm.com/smarterplanet/in/en/sustainable_cities/ideas/.

[3] See: http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/economy/smart-cities-mission-welcome-to-tomorrows-world/article8163690.ece.

[4] See: http://www.iec.ch/whitepaper/pdf/iecWP-smartcities-LR-en.pdf.

[5] See: http://www.iso.org/iso/news.htm?refid=Ref2042.

[6] See: http://www.livemint.com/Companies/5Twmf8dUutLsJceegZ7I9K/Nasscom-partners-Accenture-to-form-ICT-framework-for-smart-c.html.

[7] See: http://www.nasscom.in/integrated-ict-and-geospatial-technologies-framework-100-smart-cities-mission.

[8] See: http://www.cxotoday.com/story/nasscom-creates-framework-for-smart-cities-project/.

[9] See: http://www.livemint.com/Companies/5Twmf8dUutLsJceegZ7I9K/Nasscom-partners-Accenture-to-form-ICT-framework-for-smart-c.html.

[10] See: http://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/in-a-first-bis-to-come-up-with-standards-for-smart-cities-115060400931_1.html.

[11] See: http://www.longfinance.net/groups7/viewdiscussion/72-financing-financing-tomorrow-s-cities-how-standards-can-support-the-development-of-smart-cities.html?groupid=3.

[12] See: http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_technical_committee?commid=656906.

[13] See: http://cityminded.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Patricia_McCarney_PDF.pdf.

[14] See: http://www.iso.org/iso/news.htm?refid=Ref1877.

[15] See: http://smartcitiescouncil.com/article/new-iso-standard-gives-cities-common-performance-yardstick.

[16] See: http://smartcitiescouncil.com/article/dissecting-iso-37120-why-new-smart-city-standard-good-news-cities.

[17] See: http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=62436.

[18] See: http://www.cityindicators.org/.

[19] See: http://www.dataforcities.org/.

[20] See: http://news.dataforcities.org/2015/12/world-council-on-city-data-and-hatch.html.

[21] See: http://news.dataforcities.org/2015/12/world-council-on-city-data-and-hatch.html.

[22] See: http://www.iso.org/iso/37120_briefing_note.pdf.

[23] See: http://www.dataforcities.org/wccd/.

[24] See: http://resilient-cities.iclei.org/fileadmin/sites/resilient-cities/files/Webinar_Series/HERNANDEZ_-_ICLEI_Resilient_Cities_Webinar__FINAL_.pdf.

[25] See: http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_technical_committee?commid=656967.

[26] See: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:ts:37151:ed-1:v1:en.

[27] See: http://www.iso.org/iso/home/news_index/news_archive/news.htm?refid=Ref2001&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ISO+Newsletter+November&utm_content=ISO+Newsletter+November+CID_4182720c31ca2e71fa93d7c1f1e66e2f&utm_source=Email%20marketing%20software&utm_term=Read%20more.

[28] See: http://www.iso.org/iso/37120_briefing_note.pdf.

[29] See: http://standardsforum.com/isots-37151-smart-cities-metrics/.

[30] See: http://www.iso.org/iso/executive_summary_iso_37150.pdf.

[31] See: http://standardsforum.com/isots-37151-smart-cities-metrics/.

[32] See: http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/database-on-big-data-and-smart-cities-international-standards.

[33] See: http://smartcitiescouncil.com/article/itu-takes-internet-things-standards-smart-cities.

[34] See: https://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2015/22.aspx.

[35] See: http://www.bsigroup.com/en-GB/smart-cities/.

[36] See: http://www.bsigroup.com/en-GB/smart-cities/Smart-Cities-Standards-and-Publication/PAS-181-smart-cities-framework/.

[37] See: http://www.bsigroup.com/en-GB/smart-cities/Smart-Cities-Standards-and-Publication/PD-8101-smart-cities-planning-guidelines/.

[38] See: http://www.bsigroup.com/en-GB/smart-cities/Smart-Cities-Standards-and-Publication/PAS-182-smart-cities-data-concept-model/.

[39] See: http://www.iso.org/iso/smart_cities_report-jtc1.pdf.

[40] See: http://www.bsigroup.com/en-GB/smart-cities/Smart-Cities-Standards-and-Publication/PAS-180-smart-cities-terminology/.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/adoption-of-standards-in-smart-cities-way-forward-for-india

Google, Apple and Microsoft may need licence for satellite mapping in India

praskrishna — 2016-05-10T15:20:39Z

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".

The article by Aman Sharma and Neha Alawadhi was published in Economic Times on May 9, 2016. Sumandro Chattapadhyay was quoted.

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.

"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.

"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".

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.

"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.

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 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.

"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."

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. "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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

For more details visit 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

Legal Challenges to Mapping in India #1 - Laws, Policies, and Cases

Adya Garg — 2016-05-11T13:43:11Z

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.

1. Introduction

2. Mapping the Legal Journey of Geospatial Data: Past to Present

2.1. National Map Policy, 2005

2.2. Guidelines issued by Survey of India

2.3. Remote Sensing Data Policy (RSDP)

2.4. Civil Aviation Rules

3. Incidents of Legal Actions Faced by Agencies

3.1. Google's Mapathon in Legal Trouble

3.2. One Country - Two Boundaries

3.3. J. Mohanraj v Google and Others

4. Conclusion

5. References

6. Author Profile

1. Introduction

“Maps, like faces, are the signature of history.” – Will Durant [1]

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 [2]. 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.

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.

2. Mapping the Legal Journey of Geospatial Data: Past to Present

“We know every inch of the nation, because we map every inch of it!” – Survey of India [3]

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.

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 [4]. 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 [5]. Thus, till 1950s mapping was being governed by the colonial provisions which maps restricted to official use only [6]. With independence, the functions of the SOI shifted mainly towards providing information for the defense forces [7].

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 [8]. 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 [9]. 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" [10]." 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 [11].

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.

2.1. National Map Policy, 2005

The National Map Policy, 2005 (hereinafter, “NMP”) was announced by the Central Government on May 19, 2005 [12]. 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 [13]. 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) [14] and promotion of geospatial based intelligence, subject to confirmation to national standards of SOI.

In order to realize the security concerns, inter alia, a dual-classification was created amongst the maps, namely - i) Defence Series Maps (“DSM”) and ii) Open Series Maps (“OSM”). 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:

Sub-Topic	Defence Series Maps (“DSM”)	Open Series Maps (“OSM”)
Why are these maps used?	The maps under this series cater to defence and security requirements of the country.	The maps under this series are useful in supporting various developmental activities in the country.
What are the technical classifications?	Everest/WGS-84 Datum and Polyconic/UTM Projection) on various scales (with heights, contours and full content without dilution of accuracy).	In UTM Projection on WGS-84 datum, bearing different map sheet numbers. (And as provided in Annexure B of the NMP)
Who can use these maps?	Maps (in analogue or digital forms) for the entire country will be classified.	Both hard copy and digital form will become “Unrestricted” after obtaining a one-time clearance of the Ministry of Defence.
How can the maps be used?	Guidelines regarding the use of DSMs will be formulated by the Ministry of Defence.	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.

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.

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.

Map Transaction Registry, Survey of India, URL: http://www.surveyofindia.gov.in/pages/view/48

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.

2.2. Guidelines issued by Survey of India

Under the powers vested by the NMP, SOI has issued detailed clarificatory guidelines in furtherance of the policy [15]. The restrictions arising on mapping of geospatial data can be attributed to two major factors namely, Security concerns and Copyright provisions [16]. 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.

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.

2.3 Remote Sensing Data Policy (RSDP)

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" [17]. Department of Science (DOS) was made the nodal government agency for all actions pertaining to remote sensing data under the policy.

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.

2.4 Civil Aviation Rules

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) [18]. 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.

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 [19]. 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 [20]. While there is an ambiguity regarding using drones in India, flying drones over defence establishments and historical places is completely banned [21]. Thus, civilians using drones for clicking pictures of monuments etc. have often been confronted by the police [22].

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.

3. Incidents of Legal Actions Faced by Agencies

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 [23]. 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.

3.1. Google's Mapathon in Legal Trouble

In furtherance of Google’s constant endeavour to have every nook and corner mapped, Google holds a competition called ‘Mapathon’ each year [2]. 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 [25]. 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” [26].

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” [27] 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” [28]. 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 [29].

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 [30].

Considered a thing of past, the controversy resurfaced in the recent times of January, 2016 post the Pathankot Air Base strike [31]. 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.

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.

3.2. One Country - Two Boundaries

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 [32]. 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 [33] 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.

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 [34]. The result was that today Google shows different boundaries on Indian domain, in compliance with SOI and different on International domain.

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 [35]. 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 [36].

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 [37]. 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 [38]. 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 [39]. 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 [40]. India seems to be the country often having been angered due to wrong depictions of maps.

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’ [41]. 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 [42]. 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 [43].

Another such incident followed in the case of Google’s depiction of Dutch-German border with respect to Dollart Bay [44]. 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.

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 [45]. Rather than a mistake, this time, Google had adopted a stance against the UN resolution and used its maps to vocalize the same.

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 [46].

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” [47] 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.

3.3. J. Mohanraj v Google and Others

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 [48].

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.

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.

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.

4. Conclusion

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.

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.

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.

5. References

[1] SV Srikantia, 'Restriction on maps: A denial of valid geographic information,' [2000] 79(4), Current Science 484.

[2] Fatima Alam, 'Mapping the politics of cartography,' Infosys Science Foundation, 31 March 2015, http://www.infosysblogs.com/infosysprize/2015/03/mapping_the_politics_of_cartog_2.html, accessed 11 May 2016.

[3] 'About Us,' Survey of India, http://www.surveyofindia.gov.in/pages/view/10-about-us, accessed 11 May 2016.

[4] Ibid.

[5] R Ramachandran, 'Public Access to Indian Geographical Data,' [2000] 79(4) Current Science 450.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Supra, 4.

[8] “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 http://gif.berkeley.edu/documents/Scale_in_GIS.pdf.

[9] Dr. Manosi Lahiri, 'Survey & Mapping in India: The Regulatory Framework,' Directions Magazine India, https://www.mlinfomap.com/Pdf/Survey&Mapping-Lahiri%202.1.pdf, accessed 11 May 2016.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Supra, 2.

[12] ‘Guidelines for implementing National Map Policy,’ Survey of India, http://surveyofindia.gov.in/files/nmp/Guidlines%20for%20Implementing%20National%20Map%20policy.pdf.

[13] 'National Map Policy, 2005, Preamble,' Survey of India, http://surveyofindia.gov.in/files/nmp/National%20Map%20Policy.pdf.

[14] Ibid, Objectives.

[15] Supra, 11.

[16] Supra, 5.

[17] 'Remote Sensing Data Policy, 2011,' National Remote Sensing Centre, Indian Space Research Organisation, http://www.nrsc.gov.in/Remote_Sensing_Data_Policy.

[18] Civil Aviation Requirement Section 3 Air Transport Series ‘F’ Part I Issue I, 12th October 2010.

[19] Nandagopal Rajan, 'Why India needs rules for flying drones, soon' (The Indian Express, 9 July, 2015) http://indianexpress.com/article/technology/gadgets/why-india-needs-rules-for-flying-drones-soon/ accessed 11 May 2016.

[20] TNN, 'Now, flying a drone can land you in prison' (The Times of India, 15 February, 2016) http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/jaipur/Now-flying-a-drone-can-land-you-in-prison/articleshow/50990613.cms, accessed 11 May 2016.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Supra, 19; 20.

[23] Supra, 5.

[24] tech2 news staff, 'Why is Google’s Mapathon in hot waters in India? All you need to know' (Tech-2, 12 Aug, 2015) http://tech.firstpost.com/news-analysis/why-is-googles-mapathon-in-hot-waters-in-india-all-you-need-to-know-228810.html, accessed 6 May 2016

[25] Supra, 12.

[26] Supra, 24.

[27] ‘PTI, 'Google ‘polluted Internet’ with classified material: Survey of India' (The Hindu, 10 August, 2014) http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/internet/mapathon-2013-row-google-polluted-internet-with-classified-material-says-survey-of-india/article6300853.ece, accessed 11 May 2016.

[28] Sandeep Joshi, ‘Google didn’t take permission for Mapathon’ (The Hindu, 24 April, 2013) http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/google-didnt-take-permission-for-mapathon/article4648589.ece, accessed 6 May 2016.

[29] Supra, 24.

[30] Abhishek Sharan, 'CBI may close probe against Google in Mapathon case' (Hindustan Times, 12 February, 2015) http://www.hindustantimes.com/india/cbi-may-close-probe-against-google-in-mapathon-case/story-CgZYWoP9NgYA3xVepjr5bN.html, accessed 6 May 2016.

[31] PTI, 'Pathankot attack: Sensitive sites on Google Maps under Delhi HC scanner' (Times of India, 15 January, 2016) http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/Pathankot-attack-Sensitive-sites-on-Google-Maps-under-Delhi-HC-scanner/articleshow/50596143.cms, accessed 6 May 2016.

[32] ‘Public Awareness,' Survey of India, http://www.surveyofindia.gov.in/pages/display/190-public-awareness), accessed 6 May 2016.

[33] Aman Sharma, '7-year jail, Rs 100 crore fine soon for showing PoK, Arunachal as disputed' (The Economic Times, 05 May 2016) 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, accessed 6 May 2016.

[34] Jaspreet Sahni 'Survey of India files complaint against Google maps for wrong depiction of India's boundaries' (News18, 13 December 2014) http://www.news18.com/news/india/survey-of-india-files-complaint-against-google-maps-for-wrong-depiction-of-indias-boundaries-731101.html, accessed 6 May 2016.

[35] Itanagar agencies, 'Arunachal fumes over wrong map on iPhone4' (Deccan Herald, 04 October, 2010) http://www.deccanherald.com/content/101784/F, accessed 6 May 2016.

[36] CC, 'How Google represents disputed borders between countries' (The Economist, 04 September, 2014) http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/09/economist-explains-1, accessed 6 May 2016.

[37] The Kashmir Walla, 'Ten Maps of Kashmir That Angered India' (The Kashmir Walla, 14 May, 2015) http://thekashmirwalla.com/2015/05/ten-maps-of-kashmir-that-angered-india/accessed 11 May 2016.

[38] Ibid.

[39] Ibid.

[40] Ibid.

[41] Frank Jacobs, 'The First Google Maps War' (The New York Times, 28 February, 2012) http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/28/the-first-google-maps-war/, accessed 11 May 2016.

[42] Ethan Merel, 'Google’s World: The Impact of "Agnostic Cartographers" on the State-Dominated International Legal System' [2016] Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 442-444.

[43] Ibid.

[44] Europe, 'Google map gives German harbour to Netherlands' (BBC, 23 February, 2011) http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-12558741, accessed 11 May 2016.

[45] Supra, 42, 448.

[46] Ibid, 449.

[47] Supra, 47.

[48] J. Mohanraj v (1) Secretary To Government, Delhi; (2) Indian Space Research Organisation, Bangalore; (3) Google India Private Limited, Bangalore, 2008 Indlaw MAD 3562.

6. Author Profile

Adya Garg 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.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/legal-challenges-to-mapping-in-india-1-laws-policies-cases

Data-Driven Journalism, Data Literacy & Open Government — Talk at CIS

pranesh — 2012-07-31T06:08:55Z

The Open Knowledge Foundation and the Centre for Internet and Society invite you to an informal talk by Lucy Chambers and Laura Newman on 'Data-Driven Journalism, Data Literacy, and Open Government'.

The Government of India recently passed a policy that requires all departments to start opening up data to the public, and NIC is working towards consolidating this on a single website. This workshop would focus on exchanging information on how such data are used by journalists elsewhere, and what can be done in India to drive journalism using data.

Details

The Open Knowledge Foundation is an international not-for-profit with a mission to open up the world's data, build data-literacy and promote evidence-based policy making. Working in 3 broad fields open-government, open research and open cultural heritage the activities of the foundation are focused around projects, working groups and local meetups.

The talk will be very informal, and focus on Data Journalism (datajournalismhandbook.org), but will also touch on data management for governments (ckan.org), the teaching of data literacy (schoolofdata.org) and explaining the meaning of the numbers behind government expenditure (openspending.org).

More Details

The Data Journalism Handbook was born at a 48-hour workshop at MozFest 2011 in London. It subsequently spilled over into an international, collaborative effort involving dozens of data journalism's leading advocates and best practitioners including from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the BBC, the Chicago Tribune, Deutsche Welle, the Guardian, the Financial Times, Helsingin Sanomat, La Nacion, the New York Times, ProPublica, the Washington Post, the Texas Tribune, Verdens Gang, Wales Online, Zeit Online and many others. Ms. Chambers was one of the
editors of the book.

Additional Links

Data Journalism Handbook - Online Version:http://bit.ly/Istv8c

Examples of data-driven journalism:http://bit.ly/8KwHR

Data-Driven Journalism mailing list: http://bit.ly/hUOQX3

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/data-driven-journalism-data-literacy-and-open-govt

Monitoring Sustainable Development Goals in India: Availability and Openness of Data (Part I)

Kiran AB — 2017-01-02T14:12:58Z

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 first 7 Goals, while the next post will cover the last 10.

The second part of the post can be accessed here.

Monitoring Sustainable Development Goals

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are an internationally agreed upon set of developmental targets to be achieved by 2030. These are universal goals and targets which involve the entire world, developed and developing countries alike. They aim at integrating and balancing the three dimensions of the sustainable development – economic development, social inclusion, and environmental sustainability. There are 17 SDGs with 169 targets, and each target is mapped to one or more indicators as a measure of evaluation, covering a broad range of sustainable development issues [1].

To initiate the visioning process for the SDGs, the United Nations established a High Level Panel in the year 2012, comprising of 27 members. The notion of "data revolution for sustainable development" has been one of the most remarkable categories of imagination and operational requirement to emerge from the final report of this High Level Panel. It identified a significant need for massive restructuring of infrastructures for generating global, reliable, comparable, and timely data. The Independent Expert Advisory Group (IEAG) on "data revolution for sustainable development" has also raised the need for opening up development data. It proposes that open data must be considered as an instrument of ensuring transparency and accountability of the government [2]. Further, in a recent post from the World Economic Forum meeting, Stephen Walker and Jose Alonso have noted that "Not only will governments that embrace open data improve their public accountability and efficiency, they will also reap the social and economic benefits of opening up data for citizens" [3]. Opening up of government data is expected to transform the relationship between the government and the various stakeholders.

Currently the data is used by the governmental institutions for self-monitoring and making only a limited data available for public access and usage. But SDGs are not only for the government to monitor and realise, the responsibility lies with various other actors as well.

Open data has a major role to play in transforming the vision of the SDGs into reality, by enabling the informed participation of multiple actors – private companies, non-government organisations, academic and research institutes, civic activists, etc. To plan, monitor, and actualise the path being traversed by a country, open data becomes essential. Also to facilitate public participation in the governance.

In this and the next blog post, I am documenting the availability and openness of data sets in India, which are relevant for the indicators identified for monitoring of targets under the 17 SDGs. This post offers the findings for the first 7 Goals, while the next post will cover the last 10. Along with questions of availability and openness, I have also documented the technical format of the available data, the level of granularity, and also the frequency of its collection, when applicable. The chart below describe the overall situation of availability and openness of data for monitoring SDGs in India.

Goal #01: End poverty in all its forms everywhere

The data is available for most of the indicators either directly or need to be derived, however, data doesn't exist for one of the indicators.

The data exists at the national level and at the state level or both, but data availability at the district/city level would give a better picture. Though NSSO sample survey data includes representative data at the state/UT level, such data is often not made freely accessible. Not all data which have been collected, i.e., from agencies like NSSO, National Family Health Survey, etc., are open in the public domain.

Also, the frequency of data collected for most of the indicators are either decennial or quinquennial, rather an annual survey would facilitate better/close monitoring. Health is an important measure associated with poverty, but the data is decennially collected. There is a need for regular data updation, while considering those data which are supposed to be collected annually.

In this context, to derive certain indicators, say Indicator 1.3.1., there is a cross agency dependency on data, and lacks disaggregation of data. The disaggregation is a key to measure inequality, especially incidences like poverty. So to monitor poverty we need to identify the different strata of poverty and policy can be formulated accordingly.

Data Not Available:

Indicator 1.3.1. Percentage of population covered by social protection floors /systems disaggregated by sex, and distinguishing children, unemployed, old age, people with disabilities, pregnant women/new-borns, work injury victims, poor and vulnerable

Goal #02: End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture

Indicators and the data corresponding to them reflects two things, what has been done and what has to be done. The data for fifteen indicators mapped to the targets in goal 2 are available for thirteen of the indicators. The data which are available are likely to match the indicator directly or the data has to be derived for most of the indicators. And for the remaining two indicators the data is not available.

For most of the indicators that have to be derived, there is a strong dependency on the dataset from NSSO sample survey for arriving at the requirement. This dependency comes at a cost, as NSSO sample data are not freely available in the public domain, thus making the overall monitoring dependent on closed data. There is a cross agency reliance on data, for arriving at the indicator, and the data on public platform are not up to date.

Also, the data for majority of the indicators are measured at the national as well as state level, but a goal like ending hunger – providing food security, would definitely require data in the order of district/village level. Though data is available for the Indicator 2.2.1: Prevalence of stunting (height for age <-2 SD from the median of the WHO Child Growth Standards) among children under five years of age, but, the data is from eight states only and the national data is derived from it, too small sample size to extrapolate as the nation's data.

On the frequency of data collection, Indicator 2.c.1: Indicator of (food) Price Anomalies (IPA), are collected monthly and some of the data are quinquennial or decennial. However, most of them are annually collected, enabling better accountability and close monitoring of the goals and to frame actionable policy steps.

Data Not Available:

Indicator 2.5.1: Ex Situ Crop Collections Enrichment index
b. Indicator 2.5.2: Percentage of local crops and breeds and their wild relatives, classified as being at risk, not-at-risk or unknown level of risk of extinction

Goal #03: Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages

Data is available for all the twenty-five indicators corresponding to the thirteen targets set to measure goal 3 on health and well-being. Some of the data are direct to the indicator, while some have to be derived from various data set to arrive at the indicator.

Data is open and accessible freely in the public domain for all the indicators, most of the data are from World Health Organisation (WHO) database. However, for finer tunings and up to date data there is dependency on National Family Health Survey (NFHS) which is collected decennially.

The WHO data lacks updation and ones which are available are pertaining to an year, thus making the analysis of the annual trend difficult. While the frequency of data collected for most of the data are annual.

The dataset available are at the national and state level, and two of the data set is measured in the order of cities. Most of the WHO dataset provides data at the national level, whereas NFHS, District Family Health Surveys and other agencies provide data at the lowest order, but such dataset are not freely accessible on the public domain. The updated data on health are not made available freely accessible in the public domain which are derived through health surveys.

Goal #04: Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all

Education in India is a fundamental right of every citizen, therefore achieving inclusive, equitable and quality education for all becomes necessary. Said this, to monitor goal 4, data is available for nine indicators out of eleven indicators, and for the remaining two indicators, the data is not accessible or in public domain for free access, and for the sub-part of the indicator on proficiency level. Though data exists for all the indicators, however, for most of the indicators we need to derive from multiple sources. Data does not exist for subparts like psychosocial wellbeing, in the Indicator 4.2.1 and proficiency in functional literacy and numeracy skills as in the Indicator 4.6.1.

The data are collected annually for seven indicators and for the two indicators Indicator 4.3.1 and Indicator 4.6.1, which relies on NFHS and Census data respectively, the data is collected decennially. Also, for some of the indicators the data availability is restricted to particular years or are not up to date.

The data which exists are collected at the national and state level for some of them and for some data set the data exists at the national level only, whereas for the Indicator 4.6.1, the data set is of the order of city. And the disaggregation issue prevails here as well, so to sort data based on the given parameter one has to consult NSSO sample survey or derive from the existing data.

Data Not Available:

Indicator 4.7.1: Percentage of 15-year old students enrolled in secondary school demonstrating at least a fixed level of knowledge across a selection of topics in environmental science and geo science. The exact choice/range of topics will depend on the survey or assessment in which the indicator is collected. Disaggregation: sex and location
Indicator 4.a.1: Percentage of schools with access to (i) electricity; (ii) Internet for pedagogical purposes; (iii) computers for pedagogical purposes; (iv) adapted infrastructure and materials for students with disabilities; (v) single-sex basic sanitation facilities; (vi) basic hand washing facilities

Goal #05: Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls

Gender as a social construct has been deprived of equality and equity, therefore, achieving equality and empowering women and girls lays down the path for an inclusive development. In this direction, to monitor the goal 5, data is available for eleven indicators and do not exist for three indicators out of fourteen indicators. However, the Indicator 5.3.2, is not relevant as India does not acknowledge FGM/C. Also, for most of the indicators, the data need to be derived from the given dataset.

For most of the data, the data is collected at the National or state level. Whereas for the Indicator 5.a.1, the data is available at the district/tehasil level and it is based on Agricultural census of India, carried out once in five years.

The collection of data is annual in most cases, decennial in the cases of NFHS data, quinquennial with regard to data on land ownership and rights based on gender. Also, in cases of proportion of women in parliament or number of legal framework – domestic/international, the frequency cannot be determined as its subject to change.

Regarding openness, though data exists, the data is not available to access freely. These data are either from NSSO sample survey and NFHS. For most of the indicators the data exists in general without disaggregation, but, as the goal demands sex based disaggregation, we need to derive from the existing data.

Data Not Available:

Indicator 5.3.2: Percentage of girls and women aged 15-49 who have undergone female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C), by age group (for relevant countries only)
Indicator 5.6.2. Number of countries with laws and regulations that guarantee women aged 15-49 access to sexual and reproductive health care, information and education
Indicator 5.c.1: Percentage of countries with systems to track and make public allocations for gender equality and women’s empowerment

Goal #06: Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all

Water is a life giving source, but ensuring water and sanitation in a sustainable way is a challenge indeed. Data is available for all the ten indicators to monitor the goal 6. While for most of the indicators the data has to be derived from the given data set or from other data set. The data set available are in absolute numbers, need to modify as per the indicators.

The data is collected annually for most of the indicators, however, for the indicators, Indicator 6.3.2: Percentage of water bodies with good ambient water quality; Indicator 6.4.1: Percentage change in water use efficiency over time, the data pertains to the specific year, without a time series.

Three of the data are measured at the state level, one at the district level – Indicator 6.2.1, and another at the level of cities – Indicator 6.3.1. For most of the indicators, the data are from international agencies like WHO, UNEP, FAO, etc.

The data for four of the indicators are not freely accessible on the public domain, though data exists. Also, for the Indicator 6.a.1, the available data is not specific to it, but gives an overview. Overall, for the close monitoring of the goal 6, the granularity of the data should be at the district/block level, and must be freely accessible.

Goal #07: Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all

Energy is considered one of the basic needs of human life, therefore, providing energy which is reliable and affordable has to ensure sustainability and the kind of energy being produced. The data exists for five of the indicators out of six indicators, however, the data does not exist for one of the indicators. The data for two of the indicators – Indicator 7.2.1, Indicator 7.3.1, have to be derived from the given data set.

For most of the data, the data is collected annually and the data is collected at the national level. However, as to the data availability for the Indicator 7.2.1, the data is available at the state level.

To arrive at the required indicator, there is a dependency over other dataset. Though most of the data are available, for three of the indicators – Indicator 7.2.1: Renewable energy share in the total final energy consumption (%); Indicator 7.3.1. Energy intensity (%) measured in terms of primary energy and GDP; Indicator 7.a.1: Mobilized amount of USD per year starting in 2020 accountable towards the US 100 billion commitment, the data is not freely accessible.

Data Not Available:

Indicator 7.b.1. Ratio of value added to net domestic energy use, by industry

References

[1] "Indicators and a Monitoring Framework for the Sustainable Development Goals." Sustainable Development Solutions Network. March 20, 2015. Accessed February 16, 2016. http://unsdsn.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/150320-SDSN-Indicator-Report.pdf.

[2] "A World That Counts - Mobilising the Data Revolution for Sustainable Development." Report. Independent Expert Advisory Group Secretariat, 2014. Accessed February 19, 2016. http://www.undatarevolution.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/A-World-That-Counts.pdf.

[3] Walker, Stephen, and Jose M. Alonso. "Data Will Only Get Us so Far. We Need It to Be Open." World Economic Forum. January 29, 2016. Accessed February 16, 2016. http://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/data-will-only-get-us-so-far-we-need-it-to-be-open.

Author

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.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/monitoring-sustainable-development-goals-in-india-availability-and-openness-01

Steps towards Integrated Open Water Data

sumandro — 2017-11-02T09:58:13Z

Multiplicity of data collection agencies, formats, and disclosure practices and conditionalities make it very difficult to access interoperable and open data about water resources and systems in India. Barriers to accessing water data impede not only academic and applied research on related topics but also public consumption of information and critical decision making. DataMeet and CIS are proud to collaborate on identifying and addressing the challenges to open up and integrate data and information in the water sector. Supported by a generous grant from Arghyam, we are undertaking an initial study of open water data resources in India and taking first steps towards developing a Free and Open Source data portal for water resources information in India. Here is an initial note about the project. The key leaders and contributors of this project are Craig Dsouza, Namita Bhatawdekar, Riddhi Munde, and Jinda Sandbhor, all of whom are members of the Pune Chapter of DataMeet.

Project website: https://datameet-pune.github.io/open-water-data/

Contact: pune@datameet.org

The problem statement

Following devastating precipitation of more than 300mm in 24 hours in early December 2015 the city of Chennai was flooded unlike anything it had seen in recent history. A combination of bad urban planning along with heavy precipitation events had made such eventualities all the more likely. But in the case of such storms what parts of the city are likely to flood? What parts will remain unaffected by the deluge. Specific answers to these questions would help city planners plan better for such emergencies.

Only two months after Chennai was waist deep in water, the city of Latur in 2016 ran dry. The Manjara reservoir, on the river of the same name, the city's source of municipal water supply had not a drop left. With more than 4 months left until the rains would replenish the waters of the dam, the city was now reliant on water being transported in bulk via train tankers from more than 300 kms away, news that made daily headlines. The scale of sugarcane cultivation in the region was being called into question.. Was it possible that lowering the allocation of water to irrigation could have preserved enough water for the city's domestic water needs?

Each of these questions call for answers relating to the exact stock of water resources, and how fast the water flows from one part of the water cycle to another. For example, knowing current soil moisture levels and daily precipitation can we estimate groundwater recharge with a high degree of accuracy? If seasonal groundwater fluctuations and river flows in a watershed or sub-basin is known can we estimate actual quantum groundwater footprint of the crop irrigated with groundwater in that river basin? If new industries are being set up in close proximity to each other what might be the effect of these industries on groundwater stocks in the vicinity.

Towards an (integrated and open) data solution

Deriving cause-effect links between the scale of use of water in a particular region and its possible effect on the status of water resources in the vicinity is an extremely difficult exercise because water stocks and flows are affected by so many causal links which need to be studied and quantified in an integrated manner. An integral part of any water resource study is developing a water balance model to estimate water availability and water demand.

Water availability

Precipitation in the form of rainfall and snowfall,
Live storage capacity in reservoirs,
Soil moisture,
Groundwater levels (and fluctuation), and
Surface water flows in rivers.

Water use/demand

Domestic water use: Human Population x estimated per capita consumption (or prescribed norm for domestic water consumption),
Livestock water use: Livestock population x estimated per capita requirement,
Agriculture and Forests: Evapotranspiration data (derived from temperatures (daily/monthly), wind speeds, humidity (daily/monthly), soil moisture & type, type of Agricultural land use, stage of plant growth, and
Industry: Nature of industry and annual production x water required per unit of production.

Overcoming the data challenge

Unknown to many, reasonably high resolution data does exist of these variables both across space and time, as described in detail below. Much of this data though hasn't been made inter-operable. We need tools to model water data, putting together real-time data for water availability and demand onto one platform that can facilitate discussions around it. However what we have are either proprietary river basin modeling software (expensive) OR free open source tools (programming/skill intensive).

They demand:

knowledge of programming or know-how of technical tools and unavoidably
knowledge of the various data sources (to piece together the puzzle)

What if instead, we had access to a tool, open, free, accessible to everyone through a browser (hence no need to download software) and most importantly intuitive to use and understand to someone with little technical or programming knowledge.

What we propose and who is it for?

To understand and take the first steps towards developing a completely free and open source data portal for water resources information in India.

Different groups would have different kinds of needs for water data. Researchers for instance tend to think of larger scales (river basins, sub-basins) whereas Gram Panchayat members may not think beyond the village or watershed scale. Hence this proposal aims at macro and micro scales, trying to determine needs at each level and enhancing our platform to meet these different needs.

The project will generate:

A web app prototype that will collate secondary data,
A paper that outlines sources of data, type of data, level to which available (GP, village, etc.) and nature of the source (Paid/ unpaid/ format available etc.), and
A model WSP format, along with indications for what data already exists in secondary sources.

The users of this work will be:

Researchers/Journalists in the water sector, and
Gram Panchayat Members (to effectively develop water security plans, monitor and govern their local water resources).

Project Team

The project team is supported by Nisha Thompson (Director, DataMeet) and Sumandro Chattapadhyay.

Craig Dsouza

Craig is an independent researcher in the development sector with a keen interest in water resources and agriculture. He has a Master’s degree in Energy and Environmental Policy (2013) and has worked as a researcher with the Society for Promoting Participative Ecosystem Mgmt, undertaking river basin studies in central and eastern India. Craig believes that the democratization of data and tools to derive insights from it holds tremendous potential for addressing issues of inequity and environmental sustainability in India. He contributes to these efforts as co-ordinator of Datameet-Pune, a city chapter of datameet.org.

GitHub: https://github.com/craigdsouza
Twitter: https://twitter.com/dsouza_craig
Website: http://unravellingindia.in/

Namita Bhatawdekar

Namita is a web developer with 10 years of experience developing web applications and web-based data visualizations. She has worked on developing data Visuaizations for corporate businesses as well as in the research sector. She worked with Singapore-MIT Alliance for Research and Development (MIT's research lab in Singapore) as a Data Visualization expert where she visualized simulation outputs of autonomous vehicles to evaluate urban transport policies. Her work was showcased in many national and international conferences. She has a keen interest in solving social problems using data and is part of Datameet Pune, city chapter of datameet.org.

GitHub: https://github.com/bnamita
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/namitabhatawdekar/
Website: https://bnamita.github.io/Portfolio/

Riddhi Munde

Riddhi is a GIS and Remote Sensing professional with 2.5 yrs of experience. She has a Master's degree in Geoinformatics and Earth Observation from ITC, University of Twente, The Netherlands. Her project experience includes implementing GIS and remote sensing solutions across a number of industries. She is interested in location and remote sensing analytics, ML, Image processing, web based visualizations and is proficient in ArcGIS, QGIS, PostGIS, Web mapping, algorithm development in Python and R and cloud computing. At Datameet she contributes with her know how of remote sensing to further improve data access in water and agriculture.

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/riddhimunde/

Jinda Sandbhor

Jinda Sandbhor is an action researcher associated with Manthan Adhyayan Kendra, Pune, where he works to document and analyze issues related to the water and energy sectors in India. He actively supports socio-political movements in Maharashtra, Odisha and North Karnataka. In the past he has conducted research studies on water conflicts around rivers and major dams, socio-economic impacts of droughts, impacts of coal based thermal power on water and the local environment. He has been associated with the Datameet-Pune chapter since its beginning in 2015 and here seeks to improve access to data on social and environmental subjects.

Website: http://jinda.manthan-india.org/author/jinda/

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/steps-towards-integrated-open-water-data