Centre for Internet and Society

Beyond Public Squares, Dumb Conduits, and Gatekeepers: The Need for a New Legal Metaphor for Social Media

amber — 2021-05-31T10:23:36Z

In the past few years, social networking sites have come to play a central role in intermediating the public’s access to and deliberation of information critical to a thriving democracy. In stark contrast to early utopian visions which imagined that the internet would create a more informed public, facilitate citizen-led engagement, and democratize media, what we see now is the growing association of social media platforms with political polarization and the entrenchment of racism, homophobia, and xenophobia.

There is a dire need to think of regulatory strategies that look beyond the ‘dumb conduit’ metaphors that justify safe harbor protection to social networking sites. Alongside, it is also important to critically analyze the outcomes of regulatory steps such that they do not adversely impact free speech and privacy. By surveying the potential analogies of company towns, common carriers, and editorial functions, this essay provides a blueprint for how we may envision differentiated intermediary liability rules to govern social networking sites in a responsive manner.

Introduction

Only months after Donald Trump’s 2016 election victory — a feat mired in controversy over alleged Russian interference using social media, specifically Facebook — Mark Zuckerberg remarked that his company has grown to serve a role more akin to government, rather than a corporation. Zuckerberg argued that Facebook was responsible for creating guidelines and rules that governed the exchange of ideas of over two billion people online. Another way to look at the same argument is to acknowledge that, today, a quarter of the world’s population (and of India) are subject to the laws of Facebook’s terms and conditions and privacy policies, and public discourse around the globe is shaped within the constraints and conditions they create. Social media platforms, like Facebook, wield hitherto unimaginable power to catalyze public opinions, causing a particular narrative to gather steam — that Big Tech can pose an existential threat to democracy.

This, of course, is in absolute contrast to the early utopian visions which imagined that the internet would create a more informed public, facilitate citizen-led engagement, and democratize media. Instead, what we see now is the growing association of social media platforms with political polarization and the entrenchment of racism, homophobia, and xenophobia. The regulation of social networking sites has emerged as one of the most important and complex policy problems of this time. In this essay, I will explore the inefficacy of the existing regulatory framework, and provide a blueprint for how to think of appropriate regulatory metaphors to revisit it.

Click on to read the article published by IT for Change
Download the PDF (34,328 Kb) to read the full article, pages 126 - 138.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/it-for-change-amber-sinha-beyond-public-squares-dumb-conduits-and-gatekeepers

Beyond Public Squares, Dumb Conduits, and Gatekeepers: The Need for a New Legal Metaphor for Social Media

amber — 2021-05-31T10:19:33Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/beyond-public-squares-dumb-conduits-and-gatekeepers.pdf

Amber Sinha and Pooja Saxena - The Fundamental Right to Privacy: A Visual Guide

amber — 2018-04-18T05:44:23Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/amber-sinha-and-pooja-saxena-the-fundamental-right-to-privacy-a-visual-guide

The Fundamental Right to Privacy - A Visual Guide

amber — 2018-02-16T05:31:37Z

Privacy is the ability of an individual or group to seclude themselves, or information about themselves, and thereby express themselves selectively. This visual guide to the story of privacy law in India and the recent judgement of the Puttaswamy v. Union of India case is developed by Amber Sinha (research and content) and Pooja Saxena (design and conceptualisation).

The Fundamental Right to Privacy - A Visual Guide: Download (PDF)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-fundamental-right-to-privacy-a-visual-guide

A Series of Op-eds on Data Protection

amber — 2018-02-19T02:08:28Z

I wrote a short series of three op-eds for Asia Times this week.

The first article "User consent is the key to data protection in India" examines the debate around consent and the arguments made to discard it. I question the premise of big data exceptionalism, particularly in the absence of any mature governance models which address use regulation.

In the second article "Robust economic argument for a sound Indian data protection law", I examine the substance of the argument of 'innovation' as a legitimate competing interest with respect to privacy, and questionthe economic arguments made in support of innovation enabled by unregulated access to data.

In the third article "India’s data protection law needs graded enforcement mechanism", I look at the two competing arms of regulation - enforcement and compliance, and how a balance of two is need in India,with an empowered regulator and drawing from the principles from responsive regulation theory.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/a-series-of-op-eds-on-data-protection

The Appropriate Use of Digital Identity

amber — 2019-08-08T10:24:40Z

As governments across the globe implement new, foundational, digital identification systems (“Digital ID”), or modernize existing ID programs, there is dire need for greater research and discussion about appropriate uses of Digital ID systems. This significant momentum for creating Digital ID in several parts of the world has been accompanied with concerns about the privacy and exclusion harms of a state issued Digital ID system, resulting in campaigns and litigations in countries such as UK, India, Kenya, and Jamaica. Given the very large range of considerations required to evaluate Digital ID projects, it is necessary to think of evaluation frameworks that can be used for this purpose.

At RightsCon 2019 in Tunis, we presented working drafts on appropriate use of Digital ID by the partner organisations of this three-region research alliance - ITS from Brazil, CIPIT from Kenya, and CIS from India.

In the draft by CIS, we propose a set of principles against which Digital ID may be evaluated. We hope that these draft principles can evolve into a set of best practices that can be used by policymakers when they create and implement Digital ID systems, provide guidance to civil society examinations of Digital ID and highlight questions for further research on the subject. We have drawn from approaches used in documents such as the necessary and proportionate principles, the OECD privacy guidelines and scholarship on harms based approach.

Read and comment on CIS’s Draft framework here.

Download Working drafts by CIPIT, CIS, and ITS here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-appropriate-use-of-digital-identity

Programme Officer - Privacy

amber — 2019-04-15T06:53:44Z

The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) is seeking applications for the position of Programme Officer, to undertake public policy research on privacy and related themes. For this position, we will hire one full time researcher, to be based in the Delhi office of CIS, for the duration of one year.

To apply for this position please write to amber@cis-india.org along with a CV, two writing samples and contact details of two references, Interested candidates are invited to send their applications at the earliest — latest by April 30th.

Organisation Profile

The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) is a non-profit organisation that undertakes interdisciplinary research on internet and digital technologies from policy and academic perspectives. The areas of focus include digital accessibility for persons with disabilities, access to knowledge, intellectual property rights, openness (including open data, free and open source software, open standards, open access, open educational resources, and open video), internet governance, telecommunication reform, digital privacy, and cyber-security. The academic research at CIS seeks to understand the reconfiguration of social processes and structures through the internet and digital media technologies, and vice versa. Through its diverse initiatives, CIS explores, intervenes in, and advances contemporary discourse and practices around internet, technology and society in India, and elsewhere.

Privacy Research at CIS

While privacy has been a key subject of study for digital rights and development organisations in India for the last decade, recent and ongoing legal and policy developments have placed this issue at the forefront of human rights and regulatory research. CIS has conducted extensive research into the areas of privacy, data protection, data security, and was also a member of the Committee of Experts constituted under Justice A P Shah. CIS has also been cited multiple times in the Report of the Committee of Experts led by Justice Srikrishna. CIS values the fundamental principles of justice, equality, freedom and economic development and strongly advocates the right to privacy.

Over the next year, CIS intends to look at several research questions on data protection which may include the global experience with privacy enforcement, need for effective redressal mechanisms, documenting the design of business models and data flows, regulation of social media big data, how data of disadvantaged groups including children may be protected. Additionally, while we now have the Supreme Court’s unanimous and emphatic recognition of the fundamental right to privacy, there is a need for research enquiry into several issues such as a clarification of the scope of the Puttaswamy judgment, unpacking the different dimensions of privacy, how state actions interact with privacy.

The Role

Research and analysis: Literature review, policy design, detailed analysis of research topics
Knowledge management: Staying up-to-date on developments of interest to the project, and sharing/debating these with the team. Contributing to documentary and knowledge management processes
Policy outreach and stakeholder engagement: Supporting the project manager in the dissemination of research findings in innovative formats. Attending, planning and executing events
Writing op-eds, short notes, policy briefs and longer form academic writing for a range of audiences
Presentations and formal discussions: Preparing and delivering presentations to various audiences
Helping manage communications with stakeholders including international experts, regulators and policy makers
Managing interns and team: Managing work outputs with our interns; coordinating research with team members and the project manager

Qualifications and Skills

We are looking for professionals from law, regulatory theory and public policy backgrounds.

We are looking for candidates who are interested in studying the regulatory challenges of notice and consent, state capacity, how business models thwart privacy and the future of privacy post Puttaswamy.

This is a full-time position based out of Delhi. The position is for a duration of one year. Salary will be commensurate with qualifications and experience.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/jobs/programme-officer-privacy-2019

Should Aadhaar be mandatory?

amber — 2017-12-18T15:54:39Z

This week, a constitutional bench of the Supreme Court will adjudicate on limited questions of stay orders in the Aadhaar case. After numerous attempts by the petitioners in the Aadhaar case, the court has agreed to hear this matter, just shy of the looming deadline of December 31 for the linking of Aadhaar numbers to avail government services and benefits.

The article was published in Deccan Herald on December 9, 2017.

Getting their day in the court to hear interim matters is but a small victory in what has been a long and frustrating fight for the petitioners. In 2012, Justice K S Puttaswamy, a former Karnataka High Court judge, filed a petition before the Supreme Court questioning the validity of the Aadhaar project due its lack of legislative basis (the Aadhaar Act was passed by Parliament in 2016) and its transgressions on our fundamental rights.

Over time, a number of other petitions also made their way to the apex court challenging different aspects of the Aadhaar project. Since then, five different interim orders of the Supreme Court have stated that no person should suffer because they do not have an Aadhaar number.

Aadhaar, according to the Supreme Court, could not be made mandatory to avail benefits and services from government schemes. Further, the court has limited the use of Aadhaar to only specific schemes, namely LPG, PDS, MNREGA, National Social Assistance Program, the Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojna and EPFO.

The then Attorney General, Mukul Rohatgi, in a hearing before the court in July 2015 stated that there is no constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy. But the judgement by the nine-judge bench earlier this year was an emphatic endorsement of the constitutional right to privacy.

In the course of a 547-page judgement, the bench affirmed the fundamental nature of the right to privacy, reading it into the values of dignity and liberty.

Yet months after the judgement, the Supreme Court has failed to hear arguments in the Aadhaar matter. The reference to a larger bench and subsequent deferrals have since delayed the entire matter, even as the government has moved to make Aadhaar mandatory for a number of government schemes.

At this point, up to 140 government services have made linking with Aadhaar mandatory to avail these services. Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra has promised a constitution bench this week, likely to look only into interim matters of stay on the deadline of Aadhaar-linking. It is likely that the hearings for the final arguments are still some months away. The refusal of the court to adjudicate on this issue has been extremely disappointing, and a grave disservice to the court's intended role as the champion of individual rights.

It is worth noting that the interim orders by the Supreme Court that no person should suffer because they do not have an Aadhaar number, and limiting its use only to specified schemes, still stand.

However, since the passage of the Aadhaar Act, which allows the use of Aadhaar by both private and public parties, permits making it mandatory for availing any benefits, subsidies and services funded by the Consolidated Fund of India, the spate of services for which Aadhaar has been made mandatory suggests that as per the government, the Aadhaar Act has, in effect, nullified the orders by the Supreme Court.

This was stated in so many words by Union Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad in the Rajya Sabha in April. This view is an erroneous one. While acts of Parliament can supersede previous judicial orders, they must do so either through an express statement in the objects of the Act, or implied when the two are mutually incompatible. In this case, the Aadhaar Act, while permitting the government authorities to make Aadhaar mandatory, does not impose a clear duty to do so.

Therefore, reading the orders and the legislation together leads one to the conclusion that all instances of Aadhaar being made mandatory under the Aadhaar Act are void.

The question may be more complicated for cases where Aadhaar has been made mandatory through other legislations, such as Prevention of Money Laundering Act, as they clearly mandate the linking of Aadhaar numbers, rather than merely allowing it. However, despite repeated appeals of the petitioners, the court has so far refused to engage with the question of the legality of such instances.

How may the issues finally be resolved? When the court deigns to hear final arguments, the Aadhaar case will be instructive in how the court defines the contours of the right to privacy. The right to privacy judgement, while instructive in its exposition of the different aspects of privacy, does not delve deeply into the question of what may be legitimate limitations on this right.

In one of the passages of the judgement, "ensuring that scarce public resources are not dissipated by the diversion of resources to persons who do not qualify as recipients" is mentioned as an example of a legitimate incursion into the right to privacy. However, it must be remembered that none of the opinions in the privacy judgement were majority judgements.

Therefore, in future cases, lawyers and judges must parse through the various opinions to arrive at an understanding of the majority opinion, supported by five or more judges. While the privacy judgement was a landmark one, its actual impact on the rights discourse and on matters like Aadhaar will depend extensively on the how the judges choose to interpret it.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/should-aadhaar-be-mandatory

India’s Data Protection Regime Must Be Built Through an Inclusive and Truly Co-Regulatory Approach

amber — 2018-01-01T16:18:54Z

We must move India past its existing consultative processes for rule-making, which often prompts stakeholders to take adversarial and extremely one-sided positions.

The article was published in the Wire on December 1, 2017.

Earlier this week, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology released a white paper by a “committee of experts” appointed a few months back led by former Supreme Court judge, Justice B.N. Srikrishna, on a data protection framework for India. The other members of the committee are Aruna Sundararajan, Ajay Bhushan Pandey, Ajay Kumar, Rajat Moona, Gulshan Rai, Rishikesha Krishnan, Arghya Sengupta and Rama Vedashree.

With the exception of Justice Srikrishna and Krishnan, the rest of the committee members are either part of the government or part of organisations that have worked closely with the government on separate issues relating to technology, with some of them also having taken positions against the fundamental right to privacy.

Refreshingly, the committee and the ministry has opted for a consultative process outlining the issues they felt relevant to a data protection law, and espousing provisional views on each of the issues and seeking public responses on them. The paper states that on the basis of the response received, the committee will conduct public consultations with citizens and stakeholders. Legitimate concerns were raised earlier about the constitution of the committee and the lack of inclusion of different voices on it. However, if the committee follows an inclusive, transparent and consultative process in the drafting of the data protection legislation, it would go a long way in addressing these concerns.

The paper seeks response to as many as 231 questions covering a broad spectrum of issues relating to data protection – including definitions of terms such as personal data, sensitive personal data, processing, data controller and processor – the purposes for which exemptions should be available, cross border flow of data, data localisation and the right to be forgotten.

While a thorough analysis of all the issues up for discussion would require a more detailed evaluation, at this point, the process of rule-making and the kind of governance model envisaged in this paper are extremely important issues to consider.

In part IV of the paper on ‘Regulation and Enforcement’, there is a discussion on a co-regulatory approach for the governance of data protection in India. The paper goes so far as to provisionally take a view that it may be appropriate to pursue a co-regulatory approach which involves “a spectrum of frameworks involving varying levels of government involvement and industry participation”.

However, the discussion on co-regulation in the white paper is limited to the section on regulation and enforcement. A truly inclusive and co-regulatory approach ought to involve active participation from non-governmental stakeholders in the rule-making process itself. In India, unfortunately, we lack a strong tradition of lawmakers engaging in public consultations and participation of other stakeholders in the process of drafting laws and regulation. One notable exception has been the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), which periodically seeks public responses on consultation papers it releases and also holds open houses occasionally. It is heartening to see the committee of experts and the ministry follow a similar process in this case.

However, these are essentially examples of ‘notice and comment’ rulemaking where the government actors stand as neutral arbiters who must decide on written briefs submitted to it in response to consultation papers or draft regulations that it notifies to the public.

This process is, by its very nature, adversarial, and often means that different stakeholders do not reveal their true priorities but must take extreme one-sided positions, as parties tend to at the beginning of a negotiation.This also prevents the stakeholders from sharing an honest assessment of the actual regulatory challenge they may face, lest it undermine their position.

This often pits industry and public interest proponents against each other, sometimes also leading to different kinds of industry actors in adversarial positions. An excellent example of this kind of posturing, also relevant to this paper, is visible in the responses submitted to the TRAI on the its recent consultation paper on ‘Privacy, Security and Ownership of data in Telecom Sector’. One of the more contentious issue raised by the TRAI was about the adequacy of the existing data protection framework under the license agreement with telecom companies, and if there was a need to bring about greater parity in regulation between telecom companies and over-the-top (OTT) service providers. Rather than facilitating an actual discussion on what is a complex regulatory issues, and the real practical challenges it poses for the stakeholders, this form of consultation simply led to the telecom companies and OTT services providers submitting contrasting extreme positions without much scope for engagement between two polar arguments.

A truly co-regulatory approach which also extends to rulemaking would involve collaborative processes which are far less adversarial in their design and facilitate joint problem solving through multiple face to face meetings. Such processes are also more likely to lead to better rule making by using the more specialised knowledge of the different stakeholders about technology, domain-specific issues, industry realities and low cost solutions. Further, by bringing the regulated parties into the rulemaking process, the ownership of the policy is shared, often leading to better compliance.

Within the domain of data protection law itself, we have a few existing models of robust co-regulation which entail the involvement of stakeholders not just at the level of enforcement but also at the level of drafting. The oldest and most developed form of this kind of privacy governance can be seen in the study of the Dutch privacy statute. It involved a central privacy legislations with broad principles, sectoral industry-drafted “codes of conduct”, government evaluations and certifications of these codes; and a legal safe harbour for those companies that follow the approved code for their sector. Over a period of 20 years, the Dutch experience saw the approval of 20 sectoral codes across a variety of sectors such as banking, insurance, pharmaceuticals, recruitment and medical research.

Other examples of policies espousing this approach include two documents from the US – first, a draft bill titled ‘Commercial Privacy Bill of Rights Act of 2011’ introduced before the Congress by John McCain and John Kerry, and second, a White House Paper titled ‘Consumer Data Privacy In A Networked World: A Framework For Protecting Privacy And Promoting Innovation In The Global Digital Economy’ released by the Obama administration. Neither of these documents have so far led to a concrete policy. Both of these policies envisioned broadly worded privacy requirements to be passed by the Congress, followed by the detailed rules to be drafted. The Obama administration white paper is more inclusive in mandating that ‘multi-stakeholder groups’ draft the codes that include not only industry representatives but also privacy advocates, consumer groups, crime victims, academics, international partners, federal and state civil and criminal law enforcement representatives and other relevant groups.

The principles that emerge out this consultative process are likely to guide the data protection law in India for a long time to come. Among democratic regimes with a significant data-driven market, India is extremely late in arriving at a data protection law. The least that it can do at this point is to learn from the international experience and scholarship which has shown that merits of a co-regulatory approach which entails active participation of the government, industry, civil society and academia in the drafting and enforcement of a robust data protection law.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-wire-amber-sinha-december-1-2017-inclusive-co-regulatory-approach-possible-building-indias-data-protection-regime

CIS Submission to the Committee of Experts on a Data Protection Framework for India

amber — 2018-04-18T16:39:11Z

This submission presents comments by the Centre for Internet and Society, India (“CIS”) on the ‘White Paper of the Committee of Experts on a Data Protection Framework for India’ (“White Paper”) released by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology. The White paper was drafted by a Committee of Expert (“Committee”) constituted by the Ministry. CIS has conducted research on the issues of privacy, data protection and data security since 2010 and is thankful for the opportunity to put forth its views. The submission was made on January 31, 2018.

The submission is divided into four parts — I. Preliminary, II. Scope and Exemption, III. Grounds of Processing, Obligations of Entities and Individual Rights and IV. Regulation and Enforcement. The submission follows the same the order as adopted by the White Paper.

Please access the full submission here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-submission-to-the-committee-of-experts-on-a-data-protection-framework-for-india

Submission to the Committee of Experts on a Data Protection Framework for India

amber — 2018-02-05T13:39:00Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/submission-to-the-committee-of-experts-on-a-data-protection-framework-for-india

Design Public Conclave, 6th Edition

amber — 2016-06-18T16:45:05Z

The 6th edition of the Design Public Conclave was hosted by Civic Labs, an initiative of the Center for Knowledge Studies, and part of the Vihara Innovation Network, in partnership with Social Innovation Exchange, Okapi, Business World, Business World for Smart Cities, and the Delhi Jal Board.

This edition of the conclave was focused on the challenges and opportunities faced by Indian cities. It sought to explore new mechanisms for integrating collaborative dialogue and problem solving into processes of government and citizen interaction. Participants included individuals from organisations such as Okapi, Hyderabad Urban Labs, Fields of View, Innovation Academy, Hewlett Packard, LIRNEasia, among others.

The conclave began with a round of light yoga before moving into the introductory session. Namit Arora, a member of the Delhi Dialogue Commission, who gave the opening remarks introduced some of the subjects to be discussed and raised issues of citizen engagement, massive migration, pollution, unplanned growth, housing, water and power shortage, social problems like sectarianism and crime as some of the challenges faced in civic innovation. He stressed the lack of engagement between public and private parties and the issue of having no sense of commons in civic life in India.

What is Civic Innovation?

The first panel titled “What is civic innovation?” comprised Diastika Rahwidiati from Pulse Lab, Pavan Srinath from Takshashila Institution, Sriganesh Lokanathan from LIRNEasia and Aditya Dev Sood from Vihara Innovation Network. Pavan raised questions about how more people can be involved in civic issues, and spoke about the training program for public governance run by the Takshashila Institution as a means towards that. He also shared the example of Bangalore Political Action Committee, a citizen’s collective that includes several eminent personalities from the city that aims to improve the quality of life in the city. The panel continued to discuss how technology can be harnessed for social activism, and how the data revolution and data sciences can be used for civic innovation. Questions were asked about whether digital activism, such as civic hackathons, is not just a passing fad. A lot of solutions that are only technological in nature, can be misinformed, and so it is essential that other actors are involved along with technologists.

The Vision of a Smart City

Next, Sumit D. Chowdhury from the Ministry of Urban Development, Karuna Gopal from Foundation for Futuristic Cities, Parvathi Menon from Innovation Alchemy, Debashish Rao from HP, Bharath Palavalli from Fields of View and Namrata Mehta from CivicLabs spoke about how smart cities can be built. Parvathi Menon kicked off the conversation by saying that while it is impossible to design smart cities, it is possible to design smart communities. Sumit Chowdhury shared some of the factors that, in his opinion, make a smart city—the creation of scalable infrastructure, transparency in governance, velocity of business and quality of life. A city that can measure itself and use that knowledge to improve itself is a true smart city. Bharat Palavalli chimed in that while technology can make cities more efficient, efficiency can be dangerous. It can become easy to forget who the city is becoming more efficient for. Here, Sumit brought up the example of Shivpur in Maharashtra, where there are water meters in every village, public consciousness about planning and services and timely payment of taxes by citizen to drive the point that smart cities are driven by communities, and technology plays a role in enabling processes and the State in institutionalizing successful solutions. Finally, it was pointed out that under the 100 Smart Cities Initiative, the MoUD does not have a consistent understanding of what smart cities should be.

Dialogue between Society and State

This panel was followed by Elizabeth Elson’s keynote talk, “The dialogue between society and the state.” She spoke about the the power struggle between citizens and the government even in the case of technological application about who brings about change. She shared her experiences from the MAMPU programme. She pointed out some issues faced during the programme like too much focus on symptoms without really understanding the underlying causes, the use of intermediaries, creating mutually empowering coalitions. Elizabeth Elson pointed out that the terms, innovation and technology are used interchangeably . She pointed out that this was problematic as all technological solutions were not innovative. Another important issue that she raised was the need for technological intervention make media more accountable to the society. This session was followed by lunch.

Changing Society and Governments

The next session was moderated by Sumadro Chattapadhyay of Centre for Internet and Society. This panel included Garima Agarwal from Ashoka Innovators, Bangalore and Maesy Angelina from MAMPU programme, Jakarta. The session focussed on what were the appropriate modes of dialogues between civil society, private sector and government. Maesy Angelina focussed on design thinking as one of key methodologies for social innovation. Garima Agarwal emphasised on the importance of developing empathy as an institution. The panel said that while civil society and private sector could continue to point out the issues to the government, very often there is a failure of the government apparatus in that they do not know how to respond to these issues.

Civic Tech Demos

After lunch, there was a small session of brief pitches of examples of civic technological innovations. These include Local Circles, Meri Awaaz, SocialCops, On Track Media and BusBud. The issues that the solutions sought to addressed ranged from citizen engagement, awareness about reproductive issues, MNREGA, public transport and parking. I was reminded of the words of Pia Mancini who felt that she had failed in leveraging technology to solve governance issues as those problems were not technological but cultural. Having said that, a number of the ideas and the desire of use technology to solve social problems were laudable and one hopes to see more applications like these in future.

Breakout Sessions

This was followed by three simultaneous breakout sessions on the following topics – 1) Form and Function: Data Protocols for Civic Innovation, 2) Water Management for Improved Urban Health, and 3) Gaming for Decentralized Waste Management. I was part of the group discussing data protocols for civic innovation. Various question were raised with the implications of open data. One of the recurring themes was the question of ownership of data and who had a rightful claim over it. We broke the discussion down into two heads – risks of data and opportunities for governance and solutions. Among risks, we discussed issues such as privacy risks, chilling effects on free speech, reliability of data, profusion of data without clear insights, social profiling and re-identification of anonymised data. We look at different forms and opportunities for governance including licensing and control, cross linking of data silos, clear guidelines on who controls and owns data. The failure of conventional data protection principles like collection limitation and data minimisation principles were also considered and alternate models which involved having hierarchies of different kinds of data based on potential harm through misuse were discussed. After the breakout sessions, each group made a presentation of their observation.

Concluding

The final session was on accelerating civic innovation. The panel comprised Kartik Desai from ASHA Impact, Delhi, Nishesh Mehta from Water Co-Lab, Ahmedabad, AIyong Paul Seong from USAID, Delhi, Santosh Singh from World Bank, Delhi and Aditya Dev Sood from Vihara Innovation Network. The discussion was focussed on what kinds of services can have an impact on the way citizens interact with the state. Elizabeth Elson’s keynote on the dialogues between the state and the citizens is also relevant with regard to this discussion. Different actors including citizens, civil society actors, government institutions and industry were discussed as agents who may create the new platforms for interaction. The conclave concluded with dinner and drinks in the lawns of the Vihara Innovation Campus.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/design-public-conclave-6th-edition