Centre for Internet and Society

The All India Privacy Symposium: Conference Report

natasha — 2012-04-30T05:16:41Z

Privacy India, the Centre for Internet and Society and Society in Action Group, with support from the International Development Research Centre, Privacy International and Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative had organised the All India Privacy Symposium at the India International Centre in New Delhi, on February 4, 2012. Natasha Vaz reports about the event.

The symposium was organized around five thematic panel discussions:
Panel 1: Privacy and Transparency
Panel 2: Privacy and E-Governance Initiatives
Panel 3: Privacy and National Security
Panel 4: Privacy and Banking
Panel 5: Privacy and Health

Introduction

Elonnai Hickok (Policy Advocate, Privacy India) introduced the objectives of Privacy India. The primary objectives were to raise national awareness about privacy, do an in-depth study of privacy in India and provide feedback on the proposed ‘Right to Privacy’ Bill. Privacy India has reviewed case laws, legislations, including the upcoming policy and conducted state-level privacy workshops and consultations across India in Kolkata, Bangalore, Ahmedabad, Guwahati, Chennai, and Mumbai. India like the rest of the world is answering some fundamental questions about the powers of the government and citizen’s rights and complications that arise from emerging technologies. Through our research we have come to understand that privacy varies across cultures and contexts, and there is no one concept of privacy but instead several distinct core notions that serve as complex duties, claims and obligations.

Privacy and Transparency

Panelists: Ponnurangam K, (Assistant Professor, IIIT New Delhi), ), Chitra Ahanthem (Journalist, Imphal), Nikhil Dey (Social & Political Activist), Deepak Maheshwari (Director, Corporate Affairs, Microsoft), Gus Hosein (Executive Director, Privacy International, UK), and Prashant Bhushan, (Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India).
Moderator: Sunil Abraham (Executive Director, Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore)
Poster: Srishti Goyal (Law Student, NUJS)

Srishti Goyal provided the general contours, privacy protections, limits to privacy and loopholes of policy relating to transparency and privacy, specifically analyzing the Right to Information Act, Public Interest Disclosures Act, and the Official Secrets Act.

Nikhil Dey commented on the interaction between the right to privacy and the right to information (RTI). He referred to Gopal Gandhi, the former Governor of West Bengal, “we must ensure that tools like the UID must help the citizen watch every move of government; not allow the government watch every move of the citizen.” Currently, the RTI and the UID stand on contrary sides of the information debate. A privacy law could allow for a backdoor to curb RTI. So, utmost care has to be taken while drafting legislation with respect to right to privacy.

Data and information has leaked furiously in India and it has leaked to the powerful. A person who is in a position of power can access private information irrespective of any laws in place to safeguard privacy. It is necessary to look at the power dynamics, which exists in the society before formulating legislation on right to privacy. According to Nikhil Dey, there should be different standards of privacy with respect to public servants. A citizen should be entitled to information related to funds, functions and functionaries. The main problem arises while defining the private space of a public servant or functionaries.

The RTI Act has failed to address the legal protection for the right to privacy. Perhaps, rules regarding privacy can be added to the Act. It can be defined by answering the questions: (i) what is ‘personal information’? (ii) what is it’s relation to public activity or public interest? (iii) what is the unwarranted invasion of the privacy of an individual? and (iv) what is the larger public good? Expanding on these four points can provide greater legal protection for the right to privacy.

Gus Hosein described the intersection and interaction of the right to information and the right to privacy. He referred to a petition filed by Privacy International requesting information on the expenses of members of parliament. Privacy and transparency of the government are compatible in the public interest. Gross abuse of the public funds by MPs was revealed by this particular petition such as pornography or cleaning of moats of MPs homes. Privacy advocates are supporters of RTI, however, it cannot be denied that there is no tension between transparency and privacy. In order chalk out the differences, there is a need of a legal framework. According to Gus Hosein, in many countries the government office that deals with right to information also deals with cases related to right to privacy.

Mumbai and New Delhi police have started using social media very aggressively, encouraging citizens to take photographs of traffic violations and upload them to Facebook or Twitter. In reference to this, Ponnurangam described the perceptions of privacy and if it agreed or conflicted with his research findings. Ponnurangam has empirically explored the awareness and perspective of privacy in India with respect to other countries. He conducted a privacy survey in Hyderabad, Chennai and Mumbai. People are very comfortable in posting pictures of others committing a traffic violation or running a red light. Ironically, many people have posted pictures of police officers committing a traffic violation such as not wearing a helmet or running a red light.

Chitra Ahanthem described the barriers and challenges of using RTI in Manipur. There are more than 40 armed militia groups, which are banned by the central and state government. The central government provides economic packages for the development of the north-east region. However, the state government officials and armed groups pocket the economic packages. These armed groups have imposed a ban on RTI. Furthermore, Manipur is a very small community. If people try and access information through RTI they risk getting threatened by the Panchayat members and being ostracized from the community or their clan.

People are apprehensive about filing RTI because they believe that these procedures are costly and the police and government may also get involved. Officials use the privacy plea to avoid giving out information. Since certain information are private and not in the public domain, government officials, use the defense of privacy to hide information. In addition, the police brutality prevalent in the area deters people to even have interactions with government officials.

According to Deepak Maheshwari, the open data initiative is a subset within the larger context of open information. There is an onus on the government to publish information, which is in the public domain. As a result, one does not necessarily have to go through the entire process of filing an RTI to get information, which is already there in the public domain. Moreover, if it is freely available in public domain, then one can anonymously access such information; this further strengthens the privacy aspects of requesting information and facilitating anonymity with respect to access to such information in the public domain. It has also to be noted that it is not sufficient to put data out in the public domain but it should also disclose the basis of the data for example, if there is representation of a data on a pie chart, the data which was used to arrive at the pie chart should also be available in the public domain. The main intention of releasing data to the public domain or having open data standards should not only be to provide access to such data but also should be in such a fashion so as to enable people to use the data for multiple purposes.

Prashant Bhushan noted that one of the grounds for withholding information in the RTI Act is privacy. An RTI officer can disclose personal information if he feels that larger public interest warrants the disclosure, even if it is personal information, which has no relationship to public activity or interest. This raises the important question, “what constitutes personal information?” He referred to the Radia Tapes controversy. Ratan Tata has filed a petition in the Supreme Court on the grounds that the Nira Radia tapes contained personal information and that the release of these tapes into the public domain violated his privacy. The Centre for Public Interest Litigation has filed a counter petition on the grounds that the nature of the conversations was not personal but in relation to public activity. They were between a lobbyist and bureaucrats, journalists and ministers. Prashant Bhushan stressed the importance of releasing these tapes into the public domain to show glimpses of all kinds of fixing, deal-making and show how the whole ruling establishment functions. It is absurd for Ratan Tata to claim that this is an invasion of privacy. Lastly, he felt when drafting a privacy law, clearly defining and distinguishing personal information and public is extremely important.

One of the interesting comments made during the panel was on the assumption that data is transparent. Transparency can be staged; questions have to be asked around whether the word is itself transparent.

Privacy and E-Governance Initiatives

Panelists: Anant Maringanti, (Independent Social Researcher), Usha Ramanathan, (Advocate & Social Activist), Gus Hosein, (Executive Director, Privacy International, UK), Apar Gupta, (Advocate, Supreme Court of India), and Elida Kristine Undrum Jacobsen (Doctoral Researcher, The Peace Research Institute Oslo).
Moderator: Sudhir Krishnaswamy (Centre for Law and Policy Research)
Poster: Adrija Das (Law Student, NUJS)

Adrija Das discussed the legal provision relating to identity projects and e-governance initiatives in India. The objective of any e-governance project is to increase efficiency and accessibility of public services. However, a major problem that arises is the linkage of the data results in the creation of a central database, accessible by every department of the government. Furthermore, implementing data protection and security standards are very expensive.

Sudhir Krishnaswamy highlighted the default assumptions surrounding e-governance initiatives: e-governance initiatives solve governance problems, increase efficiency, increase transparency and increase accountability. It is important to analyze the problems that arise from e-governance initiatives, such as privacy.

Usha Ramanathan described the increased number and vastness of e-governance initiatives such as UID, NPR, IT Rules and NATGRID. There are also many burdens on privacy that emanate from the introduction and existence of electronic data management systems. Electronic data management systems have allowed state to collect, store and use personal information of individual. Currently, the DNA Profiling Bill is pending before the Parliament. It is important to question the purpose and need for the government to collect such personal information. It is also to be noted that, there are certain laws such as Collection of Statistics Act, 2008 that penalize individuals if they do not comply with the information requests of the government.

Anant Maringanti discussed the limitations of data sharing that once existed. Currently, data can move across space in a very short time. He analyzed the state and market rationalities involved in e-governance initiatives, which raise the question “who can access data and at what price?”. Data may seem to be innocent or neutral, but data in the hands of wrong people becomes very crucial due to abuse and misuse. For example, Andhra Pradesh was praised as the model state for UID implementation. However, during the process of collecting data for UID a company bought personal information and sold the data to third parties.

Apar Gupta discussed the dilemmas of e-governance. Generally information in the form of an electronic record is presumed to be authentic. The data which government collects is most often inaccurate and wrong. So the digital identity of a person can be totally different from the real identity of that particular person. The process for correcting such information is also very inconvenient and sometimes impossible.
Under the evidence law any electronic evidence is presumed to be authentic and admissible as evidence. The Bombay High Court decided a case involving the authenticity of a telephone bill generated by a machine. The judgment said that since it is being generated by a machine, through and automated process, there is no need to challenge the authenticity of the document, it is presumed to true and authentic. The main danger in such case is that one does away with the process of law and attaches certain sanctity to the electronic record and evidence.

It should be also observed that how government maintains secrecy as to the ways in which it collects data. For example, the Election Commission has refused to disclose the functioning and design of electronic voting machines. The reason given for such secrecy is that if such information is put in the public domain then the electronic voting machines will be vulnerable and can be tampered with. But we, who use the voting machines, will never find out its vulnerabilities.

According to Gus Hosein, politicians generally have this wrong notion that technology can solve complex administrative problems. Furthermore, the industry is complicit; they indulge in anti-competitive market practice to sell these technologies as a solution to problems. However, such technology does not solve any problems rather it gives rise to problems.

Huge amount of government funds is associated with collection of personal data but such data is rendered useless or rather misused, because the government does not have clue as to how to use the data for development and security purposes. The UK National Health Records project estimated to cost around twelve to twenty billion pounds. However, a survey carried out by a professor in University College London showed that the hospital and other health institutions do not use the information collected by the National Health Records. Similarly, the UK Identity Card scheme was estimated to cost 1.3 billion pounds and finally it was estimated to cost five billion pounds. The identity cards are rendered obsolete, the sole department interested in the identity card was the Home Office Department, no other department intended on using it.

Technology should be built in such a manner that it empowers the individual. Technology should allow the individual to control his identity and as well as access all kinds of information available to the government and private bodies on that individual.

According to Elida Kristine Undrum Jacobsen, technology is regarded in this linear manner. It is increasingly being naturalized and as an all-encompassing solution. The use of biometric systems in the UID raises three areas of concern: power, value and social relationships.

With regards to power, there is a difference between providing documentation and information for identification. However, problems arise when the mode of identification becomes one’s body. It also leads to absolute reliance on technology, if the machine says that this is an individual’s identity then it is considered to be the absolute truth and it does not matter even if the individual is someone else. It becomes furthermore problematic with biometric system because it is generally used for forensic purposes.

The other component of UID or any national identification scheme is the question of consent and its relationship to privacy. In the case of UID project, people are totally unaware about how their information will be used and what purposes can it be used or misused for. Therefore, there is no informed consent when it comes to collection of biometric data under the UID project.

On the issue of social value it is to be noted that the value of efficiency becomes the most important value, which is valued. Many of the UIDAI documents state that the UID will provide a transactional identity. However, at the same time it takes away societal layers, which is inherently part of one’s identity. In addition, it makes it possible for the identity of a person to become a commodity to be sold. This also means that the personal information has economic value and players in the market such as insurance companies, banks can buy and sell the information.

When there is identification projects using biometrics it gives the State a lot of power; the power to determine and dictate one’s identity irrespective of the difference in real identity. Moreover, when such identifications projects are carried out at a national level it also gives rise to problem related to exclusion and inclusion of people or various purposes. The classification of the society based on various factors becomes easy and there is a huge risk involved with such classification.

The issues, which came out from the Q&A session, were:

The interplay between fairness and lawfulness in the context of privacy and data collection. There has to be a question asked as to why certain information is required by the State and how is it lawful.
In the neo-liberal era corporations are generally considered to be private. This has to be questioned and furthermore the difference between what is private and what is public. There are also concerns about corporations increasingly collaborating with the State. Can it be still considered as private?

Privacy and National Security

Panelists: PK Hormis Tharakan (Former Chief of Research and Analysis Wing, Government of India), Saikat Datta (Journalist), Menaka Guruswamy, (Advocate, Supreme Court, New Delhi), Prasanth Sugathan, (Legal Counsel, Software Freedom Law Center), and Oxblood Ruffin, (Cult of the Dead Cow Security and Publishing Collective).
Moderator: Danish Sheikh (Alternative Law Forum)
Poster: Suchitra Menon (Law Student, NUJS)

Suchitra Menon discussed the legal provisions for national security in relation to privacy. Specifically, she described the guidelines and procedural safeguards with respect to phone tapping and interception of communication decisional jurisprudence.

In the year 2000, the Information Technology Act (IT Act), 2000 was enacted, this Act had under section 69 allowed the State to monitor and intercept information through intermediaries. Prasanth Sugathan described how the government has been trying to bypass the procedural safeguard laid down by the Supreme Court in the PUCL case by using Section 28 of the IT Act, 2000. The provision deals with certifying authority for digital signatures. The certifying authority under the Act also has the authority to investigate offences under the Act. The provision mainly deals with digital signature but it is used by the government to intercept communication without implementing the procedural safeguards laid down for such interception. Furthermore, the IT Rules which was notified by the government in April, 2007 allows the government to intercept any communication with the help of the intermediaries. The 2008 amendment to the IT Act was an after effect of the 26/11 attacks in Mumbai. The legislation has become draconian since then and privacy has been sacrificed to meet the ends of national security.

Oxblood Ruffin read out his speech and the same is reproduced below.

“The online citizenry of any country is part of its national security infrastructure. And the extent to which individual privacy rights are protected will determine whether democracy continues to succeed, or inches towards tyranny. The challenge then is to balance the legitimate needs of the state to secure its sovereignty with protecting its most valuable asset: The citizen.

It has become trite to say that 9/11 changed everything. Yet it is as true for the West as it is for the global South. 9/11 kick started the downward spiral of individual privacy rights across the entire internet. It also ushered in a false dichotomy of choice, that in choosing between security and privacy, it was privacy that had adapted to the new realities, or so we’ve been told.

Let’s examine some of the fallacies of this argument.

The false equation which many argue is that we must give up privacy to ensure security. But no one argues the opposite. We needn’t balance the costs of surveillance over privacy, because rarely banning a security measure protects privacy. Rather, protecting privacy typically means that government surveillance must be subjected to judicial oversight and justification of the need to surveillance. In most cases privacy protection will not diminish the state’s effectiveness to secure itself.

The deference argument is that security advocates insist that the courts should defer to elected officials when evaluating security measures. But when the judiciary weighs privacy against surveillance, privacy almost always loses. Unless the security measures are explored for efficacy they will win every time, especially when the word terrorism is invoked. The courts must take on a more active role to balance the interests of the state and its citizens.

For the war time argument security proponents argue that the war on terror requires greater security and less privacy. But this argument is backwards. During times of crisis the temptation is to make unnecessary sacrifices in the name of security. In the United States, for example, we saw that Japanese-American internment and the McCarthy-era witch-hunt for communists was in vain. The greatest challenge for safeguarding privacy comes during times when we are least inclined to protect it. We must be willing to be coldly rational and not emotional during such times.

We are often told that if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. This is the most pervasive argument the average person hears. But isn’t privacy a little like being naked? We might not be ashamed of our bodies but we don’t walk around naked. Being online isn’t so different. Our virtual selves should be as covered as our real selves. It’s a form of personal sovereignty. Being seen should require our consent, just as in the real world. The state has no business taking up the role of Peeping Tom.

I firmly believe that the state has a right and a duty to secure itself. And I equally believe that its citizens are entitled to those same rights. Citizens are part of the national security infrastructure. They conduct business; they share information; they are the benefactors of democratic values. Privacy rights are what, amongst others, separate us from the rule of tyrants. To protect them is to protect and preserve democracy. It is a fight worth dying for, as so many have done before us.

PK Hormis Tharakan discussed the importance of interception communication in intelligence gathering. In the western liberal democracies, restrictions of privacy were introduced for the anti-terrorism campaigns and these measures are far restrictive than what the Indian legislations contemplate. Preventive intelligence is a major component in maintenance of national security and this intelligence is generated and can be procured through interception.

We do need laws to make sure that the power of interception is not excessive or out of proportion. But the graver issue is that the equipment used for interception of communication is freely available in the market at a cheap price. This allows private citizens also to snoop into others conversation. So, interception by civilians should be the main concern.

Menaka Guruswamy discussed the lack of regulation of Indian intelligence agencies that creates burdens on privacy. When there is a conflict between individual privacy and national security, the court will always rule in favour of the national security. Public interest always takes precedence over individual interest.

When there is a claim right to privacy vis-à-vis national security, generally these claims are characterized by dissent, chilling effects on freedom of expression and government accountability. In India, privacy is fragile and relatively a less justifiable right. Another challenge to privacy is that, when communication is intercepted, which part of the conversation can be considered to be private and which part cannot be considered so.

Saikat Datta described his experience of being under illegal surveillance by an unauthorized intelligence agency. When a person is under surveillance, he or she is already considered to be suspect. If the State commits any mistake as to surveillance, carrying surveillance, who is not at all a person of interest in such case upon discovery, there is no penalty for such discrepancy.
He warned of the dangers of excessive wiretapping, a practice that currently generates such a “mountain” of information that anything with real intelligence value tends to be ignored until it is too late, as happened with the Mumbai bombings in 2008. It is clear that the Indian government’s surveillance and interception programmes far exceed what is necessary for legitimate law enforcement.

The issues, which came during the Q&A session was:

In case of national security vis-à-vis privacy in heavily militarized zone, legislations such as Armed Forces Special Powers Act actually give authority to the army to search and seizure on mere suspicion? This amounts gross violation of privacy.

Privacy and Banking

Panelists: M R Umarji, (Chief Legal Advisor, Indian Banks Associations), N A Vijayashankar, (Cyber Law Expert), Malavika Jayaram, (Advocate, Bangalore)
Moderator: Prashant Iyengar (Associate Professor, Jindal Law University)
Poster: Malavika Chandu (Law Student, NUJS)

Prashant Iyengar highlighted how privacy has been a central feature in banking and finance. Even before the notion of privacy came into existence, banks had developed an evolved notion of secrecy and confidentiality, which was fairly robust. Every legislation dealing with banking and finance generally have a clause related to privacy and confidentiality. It might seem that it would be easy to implement privacy in banking and finance given the long relationship between banking and secrecy and confidentiality. However, this is not the case in the contemporary times. Specifically, with the growth in issues related to national security, transparency and technology, the highly regarded notion of privacy seems to be slowly depleting.

Malavika Chandu described the data protection standards that govern the banking industry. As part of the know-you-customer guidelines, banks are required to provide the Reserve Bank with customer profiles and other identification information. Lastly, she described case laws in relation to privacy with respect to financial records.

N A Vijayashankar noted that the confidentiality and secrecy practices in the banking sector emanate from the banker-customer relationship. In the present context, secrecy and privacy maintained by the banks should be analyzed from the perspective of the right of the customer to safeguard his or her information from any third party. Generally, banks and other financial institutions protect personal information as a fraud control measure and not as duty to protect the privacy of a customer.

There has been a paradigm shift in banking practices from traditional banking practices to more efficient but less secure banking practice. Some of the terms and conditions of internet banking are illegal and do not stand the test of law. In contemporary times, banking institutions use confidentiality to cover up problems and data breach rather than protecting the customer. But the banks are not ready to disclose data breach as it apprehends that it will result in public losing faith in the system. The Reserve Bank of India, has recently notified that protection which is provided to the customers in banking services should also be extended to e-banking services. However, the banks have not properly implemented this.

M R Umarji highlighted fourteen laws related to banking which carries confidentiality clauses. In India, public sector banks dominate the market. These banks are created under a statute and such statute governs them. Therefore, they are duty bound to maintain secrecy and confidentiality. Private banks and cooperative banks are not bound by any statute. They do not have any obligations to maintain secrecy, but they do strictly observe confidentiality as a form of banking practice.

Banks are not allowed to reveal any personal information of an individual unless it is sought by some authority that has a legitimate right to claim such information. There has been a constant erosion of confidentiality due to various laws which empowers authorities to seek confidential information from the banks. Recently, in the light of the growing national security concerns, banks also have an obligation to report suspicious transactions. These have caused heavy burdens on right to privacy of an individual.

Under the Right to Information Act, 2005 public sector banks are considered to be public authorities. By the virtue of the Statute, any person can access information from banks. For example, in a recent case an information officer directed Reserve Bank of India, to disclose Inspection Reports. These reports generally contain information regarding doubtful accounts, non-performing account, etc. There is a need that banks should be exempted from the Right to Information Act, 2005. Since they are not dealing with public funds there is no need to apply transparency law to the banks.

Malavika Jayaram described the major conflicts and tensions with respect to privacy vis-à-vis banking and financial systems and financial data. Other privacy and transparency issues include: the publication of online tax information and income data.

Surveillance is built in the design of banking system, so it is capable of tracking personal information and activity. There is a need to implement more privacy friendly and privacy by design systems in the banking sector. Customers are generally ignorant about privacy policies and this influences informed consent and furthermore marketing institution may influence customers to behave in a particular manner. In this context privacy by design becomes very important.

Data minimization principles should be applied; since the more data collected the more there is a risk of data breach and misuse. In case of data retention it is necessary that person giving such data should know how much proportion of the data is being retained and for how long it is stored and also what is the scope of the data and for what purpose will it be used.

Personal information and data, which was previously collected by the government, are gradually being outsourced to private bodies. On one hand it is a good thing that private sector get their technology and security measures right as compared to the government agencies but it comes with the risk that it can be sold out by private bodies as commodities in the market. Private bodies that are harvesting the data can also be forced by the government to disclose it under a particular law or statute without taking into consideration the consent of the individual whose personal information is sought for.

There is multiplicity of documentation for identification, which makes transactions less efficient. This has attracted customers to more convenient systems such as one-access point systems, but people tend to forget the issues related to privacy, in using such a system. What is portrayed as efficient for the consumer is a tool for social control and who has access and authority to use such information.

Often the reason given for collecting information is that it will help the service provider to combat fraud. However, studies have shown people more often fake situation rather than identity. The other concerns are that of sharing of information and lack of choice with respect to such sharing. There should be check as to sharing of personal information as the data belongs to the individual and not the bank or any other institution which requires furnishing personal information in lieu of services. This gives rise to a binary choice to the user; either the individual has to provide information to avail the service or else one cannot avail the services.

There is supposed to be market for privacy. The notion of personal information is subjective and varies from person to person. For example, one might be comfortable to share certain information. However, others might not be.

The issues that came out of the Q&A sessions are:

The default settings are generally put at the low protection settings. Unless the user is aware of the privacy protection setting, he or she is prone to breach of privacy. Should the default privacy setting be set to maximum security and option can be given to the user to change it according to his or her preference?
Is there any system in the banks, which allows the customers of bank to know about which all third parties the bank has shared his or her personal information with?

Health Privacy

Panelists: K. K. Abraham, (President, Indian Network for People with HIV), Dr. B. S. Bedi, (Advisor, CDAC & Media Lab Asia), and Raman Chawla, (Senior Advocacy Officer, Lawyers Collective).
Moderator: Ashok Row Kavi (Journalist and LGBT Activist)
Poster: Danish Sheikh (Researcher, Alternative Law Forum)

Danish Sheikh outlined the possible health privacy violations. These included the disclosure of personal health information to third parties without consent, inadequate notification to a patient of a data breach, the purpose of collecting data is not specified and improper security standards, storage and disposal. The disclosure of personal health information has the potential to be embarrassing, stigmatizing or discriminatory.

Subsequently, Danish Sheikh examined the status of sexual minorities’ vis-à-vis the privacy framework. Culling out some real life examples based on various studies, media reports and judgments from the Supreme Court and the High Courts of Delhi and Allahabad, he also described privacy violations committed by both individuals as well as state authorities.

Ashok Row Kavi recounted how privacy was very contextual when debating section 377 in the LGBT community. The paradigm upon which they were going to fight the anti-sodomy law was that it was consenting sex between two adults in private space. However, this paradigm was not well received by women, as women did not see private space as safe space, due to domestic violence. Perceptions of privacy are very subjective and it differs from person to person.

Raman Chawla recounted the history of the Draft HIV/AIDS Bill. In 2002, the need for law related to HIV/AIDS was realized in order to protect right to consent, right against discrimination and right to confidentiality of HIV patients. The bill was finalized in the year 2006. Alarmingly, it is yet to be tabled before the Parliament.

The privacy provisions in the HIV bill clearly state that no person can be tested, treated or researched for HIV without the consent of the patient. It also casts that in a fiduciary relationship the health care provider must maintain confidentiality, however if the patient provides written consent then their status may be disclosed. The HIV condition of the patient can also revealed by the doctor if there is a court order demanding such disclosure. The doctor may disclose the status of the patient to his or her partner but he has to follow a particular protocol. The doctor should have sufficient belief that his or her partner is at risk of contracting HIV. The person who is infected will be asked for his/her views and counseled before his/her partner is informed. However, there are doubts as to the implementation and enforcement of this protocol.

Conclusion

Natasha Vaz (Policy Advocate, Privacy India) brought the symposium to a close by thanking the partners, the panelists, the moderators and the participants for their sincere efforts in making the All India Privacy Symposium a grand success. In India, a public discussion regarding privacy has been long over due. The symposium provided a platform for dialogue and building greater awareness around privacy issues in health, banking, national security, transparency and e-governance. Using our research, expert opinions, personal experiences, questions and comments various facets of privacy were explored.

Press Coverage

The event was featured in the media as well:

India needs an independent privacy law, says NGO Privacy India, Economic Times, February 2, 2012
New Bill to decide on individual’s right to privacy, Tehelka, February 6, 2012
Lack of strong privacy law in healthcare a big worry, Daily News & Analysis, February 13, 2012
Privacy concerns grow in India, Washington Post, February 3, 2012

Click to download the Agenda and Profile of Speakers (PDF, 1642 Kb)

Download the PDF (555 Kb)
Follow the webcast of the event

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/all-india-privacy-delhi-report

Will Only Legal Backing For Aadhaar Suffice?

praskrishna — 2016-03-16T02:31:52Z

Aadhaar is set to become mandatory, but the opponents of the scheme are not amused. Concerns about privacy of the Aadhaar number and the authenticity of the biometric data being collected have been expressed by people right from the beginning. But the government has not done much to address these issues.

The article was published in New Indian Express on March 14, 2016. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

“It does not matter what legislative backing they give it, it is still a surveillance programme. How can you have a privacy Bill for a surveillance programme? Legislative backing would be band-aid. I do not agree with it,” says Sunil Abraham, Executive Director of The Centre for Internet and Society. The society is a Bengaluru-based organisation looking at multi-disciplinary research and advocacy.

Abraham says that ever since the Aadhaar scheme was implemented, there was a massive degradation of civil liberties. “It is an opaque technology. Why should the government have such a database?” he asks.

Abraham says that the keys to the data should not have rested with the government where it is vulnerable. Instead, the government should have explored the concept of introducing smart cards issued to the citizen with the data stored on it.

Access to this data could not be had without the permission of the citizen, he says. At present, if something goes wrong or if the data is compromised, the government can always blame a lapse in technology, Abraham adds.

He questions the government’s logic where it assumes that only the poor section of society can misuse the benefits and says that it is well known that the problem exists in the supply chain and that the government has done nothing to address this.

Mathew Thomas of The Fifth Estate, an NGO, wonders what advantage the BJP suddenly found that they decided to pursue Aadhaar rather than send it to the trash bin as they had promised before the general elections.

Thomas says Aadhaar is flawed and is a fraud on the Constitution and the government has taken the money bill route simply to avoid a debate on it.

“Just passing a Bill is meaningless. This is radically wrong and we all know that protection of privacy is nonsense. How do they plan to plug the leakages? Have they even conducted a study, because there is no evidence of it. The correct beneficiary can get an LPG cylinder, but what is stopping the person from using it for an auto or for his car? That the government can lie to its own people is terrible,” he says.

A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court, which is hearing the matter on privacy concerns about Aadhaar, is expected to have a hearing by the end of this month.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/new-indian-express-march-14-2016-will-only-legal-backing-for-aadhaar-suffice

Press Release, March 11, 2016: The Law cannot Fix what Technology has Broken!

Japreet Grewal and Sunil Abraham — 2016-03-16T10:10:40Z

We published and circulated the following press release on March 11, 2016, as the Lok Sabha passed the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Bill, 2016. This Bill was proposed by finance minister, Mr. Arun Jaitley to give legislative backing to Aadhaar, being implemented by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI).

The Lok Sabha passed the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Bill, 2016 today. This Bill was proposed by finance minister, Mr. Arun Jaitley to give legislative backing to Aadhaar, being implemented by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI).

The Bill was introduced as a money bill and there was no public consultation to evaluate the provisions therein even though there are very serious ramifications for the Right to Privacy and the Right to Association and Assembly. The Bill has made it compulsory for an individual to enrol under Aadhaar in order to receive any subsidy, benefit or service from the Government. Biometric information that is required for the purpose of enrolment has been deemed "sensitive personal information" and restrictions have been imposed on use, disclosure and sharing of such information for purposes other than authentication, disclosure made pursuant to a court order or in the interest of national security. Here, the Bill has acknowledged the standards of protection of sensitive personal information established under Section 43A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The Bill has also laid down several penal provisions for acts that include impersonation at the time of enrolment, unauthorised access to the Central Identities Data Repository, unauthorised use by requesting entity, noncompliance with intimation requirements, etc.

Key Issues

1. Identification without Consent

Before the Aadhaar project it was not possible for the Indian government to identify citizens without their consent. But once the government has created a national centralized biometric database it will be possible for the government to identify any citizen without their consent. Hi-resolution photography and videography make it trivial for governments and also any other actor to harvest biometrics remotely. In other words, the technology makes consent irrelevant. A German ministers fingerprints were captured by hackers as she spoke using hand gesture at at conference. In a similar manner the government can now identify us both as individuals and also as groups without requiring our cooperation. This has direct implications for the right to privacy as we will be under constant government surveillance in the future as CCTV camera resolutions improve and there will be chilling effects on the right to free speech and the freedom of association. The only way to fix this is to change the technology configuration and architecture of the project. The law cannot be used as band-aid on really badly designed technology.

2. Fallible Technology

The technology used for collection and authentication as been said to be fallible. It is understood that the technology has been feasible for a population of 200 million. The Biometrics Standards Committee of UIDAI has acknowledged the lack of data on how a biometric authentication technology will scale up where the population is about 1.2 billion. Further, a report by 4G Identity Solutions estimates that while in any population, approximately 5% of the people have unreadable fingerprints, in India it could lead to a failure to enroll up to 15% of the population.

We know that the Aadhaar number has been issued to dogs, trees (with the Aadhaar letter containing the photo of a tree). There have been slip-ups in the Aadhaar card enrolment process, some cards have ended up with pictures of an empty chair, a tree or a dog instead of the actual applicants. An RTI application has revealed that the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) has identified more than 25,000 duplicate Aadhaar numbers in the country till August 2015.

At the stage of authentication, the accuracy of biometric identification depends on the chance of a false positiveâ€” the probability that the identifiers of two persons will match. For the current population of 1.2 billion the expected proportion of duplicates is 1/121, a ratio which is far too high. In a recent paper in EPW by Hans Mathews, a mathematician with CIS, shows that as per UIDAI's own statistics on failure rates, the programme would badly fail to uniquely identify individuals in India. [1]

Endnote

[1] See: http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/epw-27-february-2016-hans-varghese-mathews-flaws-in-uidai-process

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/press-release-aadhaar-11032016-the-law-cannot-fix-what-technology-has-broken

List of Recommendations on the Aadhaar Bill, 2016 - Letter Submitted to the Members of Parliament

Amber Sinha, Sumandro Chattapadhyay, Sunil Abraham, and Vanya Rakesh — 2016-03-21T08:50:09Z

On Friday, March 11, the Lok Sabha passed the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Bill, 2016. The Bill was introduced as a money bill and there was no public consultation to evaluate the provisions therein even though there are very serious ramifications for the Right to Privacy and the Right to Association and Assembly. Based on these concerns, and numerous others, we submitted an initial list of recommendations to the Members of Parliaments to highlight the aspects of the Bill that require immediate attention.

Download the submission letter: PDF.

Text of the Submission

On Friday, March 11, the Lok Sabha passed the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Bill, 2016. The Bill was introduced as a money bill and there was no public consultation to evaluate the provisions therein even though there are very serious ramifications for the Right to Privacy and the Right to Association and Assembly. The Bill has made it compulsory for all Indian to enroll for Aadhaar in order to receive any subsidy, benefit, or service from the Government whose expenditure is incurred from the Consolidate Fund of India. Apart from the issue of centralisation of the national biometric database leading to a deep national vulnerability, the Bill also keeps unaddressed two serious concerns regarding the technological framework concerned:

Identification without Consent: Before the Aadhaar project it was not possible for the Indian government or any private entity to identify citizens (and all residents) without their consent. But biometrics allow for non-consensual and covert identification and authentication. The only way to fix this is to change the technology configuration and architecture of the project. The law cannot be used to correct the problems in the technological design of the project.
Fallible Technology: The Biometrics Standards Committee of UIDAI has acknowledged the lack of data on how a biometric authentication technology will scale up where the population is about 1.2 billion. The technology has been tested and found feasible only for a population of 200 million. Further, a report by 4G Identity Solutions estimates that while in any population, approximately 5% of the people have unreadable fingerprints, in India it could lead to a failure to enroll up to 15% of the population. For the current Indian population of 1.2 billion the expected proportion of duplicates is 1/121, a ratio which is far too high. [1]

Based on these concerns, and numerous others, we sincerely request you to ensure that the Bill is rigorously discussed in Rajya Sabha, in public, and, if needed, also by a Parliamentary Standing Committee, before considering its approval and implementation. Towards this, we humbly submit an initial list of recommendations to highlight the aspects of the Bill that require immediate attention:

Implement the Recommendations of the Shah and Sinha Committees: The report by the Group of Experts on Privacy chaired by the Former Chief Justice A P Shah [2] and the report by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance (2011-2012) chaired by Shri Yashwant Sinha [3] have suggested a rigorous and extensive range of recommendations on the Aadhaar / UIDAI / NIAI project and the National Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010 from which the majority sections of the Aadhaar Bill, 2016, are drawn. We request that these recommendations are seriously considered and incorporated into the Aadhaar Bill, 2016.
Authentication using the Aadhaar number for receiving government subsidies, benefits, and services cannot be made mandatory: Section 7 of the Aadhaar Bill, 2016, states that authentication of the person using her/his Aadhaar number can be made mandatory for the purpose of disbursement of government subsidies, benefits, and services; and in case the person does not have an Aadhaar number, s/he will have to apply for Aadhaar enrolment. This sharply contradicts the claims made by UIDAI earlier that the Aadhaar number is “optional, and not mandatory”, and more importantly the directive given by the Supreme Court (via order dated August 11, 2015). The Bill must explicitly state that the Aadhaar number is only optional, and not mandatory, and a person without an Aadhaar number cannot be denied any democratic rights, and public subsidies, benefits, and services, and any private services.
Vulnerabilities in the Enrolment Process: The Bill does not address already documented issues in the enrolment process. In the absence of an exhaustive list of information to be collected, some Registrars are permitted to collect extra and unnecessary information. Also, storage of data for elongated periods with Enrollment agencies creates security risks. These vulnerabilities need to be prevented through specific provisions. It should also be mandated for all entities including the Enrolment Agencies, Registrars, CIDR and the requesting entities to shift to secure system like PKI based cryptography to ensure secure method of data transfer.
Precisely Define and Provide Legal Framework for Collection and Sharing of Biometric Data of Citizens: The Bill defines “biometric information” is defined to include within its scope “photograph, fingerprint, iris scan, or other such biological attributes of an individual.” This definition gives broad and sweeping discretionary power to the UIDAI / Central Government to increase the scope of the term. The definition should be exhaustive in its scope so that a legislative act is required to modify it in any way.
Prohibit Central Storage of Biometrics Data: The presence of central storage of sensitive personal information of all residents in one place creates a grave security risk. Even with the most enhanced security measures in place, the quantum of damage in case of a breach is extremely high. Therefore, storage of biometrics must be allowed only on the smart cards that are issued to the residents.
Chain of Trust Model and Audit Trail: As one of the objects of the legislation is to provide targeted services to beneficiaries and reduce corruption, there should be more accountability measures in place. A chain of trust model must be incorporated in the process of enrolment where individuals and organisations vouch for individuals so that when a ghost is introduced someone has can be held accountable blame is not placed simply on the technology. This is especially important in light of the questions already raised about the deduplication technology. Further, there should be a transparent audit trail made available that allows public access to use of Aadhaar for combating corruption in the supply chain.
Rights of Residents: There should be specific provisions dealing with cases where an individual is not issued an Aadhaar number or denied access to benefits due to any other factor. Additionally, the Bill should make provisions for residents to access and correct information collected from them, to be notified of data breaches and legal access to information by the Government or its agencies, as matter of right. Further, along with the obligations in Section 8, it should also be mandatory for all requesting entities to notify the individuals of any changes in privacy policy, and providing a mechanism to opt-out.
Establish Appropriate Oversight Mechanisms: Section 33 currently specifies a procedure for oversight by a committee, however, there are no substantive provisions laid down that shall act as the guiding principles for such oversight mechanisms. The provision should include data minimisation, and “necessity and proportionality” principles as guiding principles for any exceptions to Section 29.
Establish Grievance Redressal and Review Mechanisms: Currently, there are no grievance redressal mechanism created under the Bill. The power to set up such a mechanism is delegated to the UIDAI under Section 23 (2) (s) of the Bill. However, making the entity administering a project, also responsible for providing for the frameworks to address the grievances arising from the project, severely compromises the independence of the grievance redressal body. An independent national grievance redressal body with state and district level bodies under it, should be set up. Further, the NIAI Bill, 2010, provided for establishing an Identity Review Committee to monitor the usage pattern of Aadhaar numbers. This has been removed in the Aadhaar Bill 2016, and must be restored.

Endnotes

[1] See: http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/Flaws_in_the_UIDAI_Process_0.pdf.

[2] See: http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/genrep/rep_privacy.pdf.

[3] See: http://164.100.47.134/lsscommittee/Finance/15_Finance_42.pdf.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/list-of-recommendations-on-the-aadhaar-bill-2016

A scheme in India to help the poor raises privacy concerns

praskrishna — 2016-03-17T03:08:33Z

India’s legislators are on Wednesday debating a law that would allow the government to collect biometric and demographic information from people in return for distributing to them government benefits and subsidies.

The article by John Ribeiro published by IDG News Service on March 16, 2016 was also mirrored on CSO.

A number of legislators and civil rights activists are concerned about the absence of strong privacy safeguards in the legislation and a provision in the law that allows the government to access the data collected for national security reasons. There is also concern that such a large centralized database of personal information could be hacked and critical information leaked.

Biometric information, once leaked cannot be 'revoked,' and identity fraud may in fact become harder to detect if Aadhaar is used for authentication of transactions, said Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore, in an email.

Activists are also wary that the program could be extended by the government to make it a mandatory digital ID card for people in the country. Already some telecommunications services and financial services companies use the biometric identity as an optional way for verifying customers. Currently, people can keep their personal information in silos, as for example their insurance company can't combine their database with that of a hospital, Prakash said. "However, with Aadhaar as a unique linking factor, they could, even without the person's consent," he added.

The biometric ID, which assigns a person a 12-digit number called the Aadhaar number, requires the collection of photos, fingerprints, iris scans and other information such as the name, date of birth and address of the individual. Every time a person has to be verified, he has to present the Aadhaar number, and his biometric information has to match the data stored in a centralized repository.

The digital identity is expected to provide proof of identification to the large number of poor Indians who do not have house addresses, school certificates, birth certificates or other documents that are usually used to prove identity in India.

The traditional paper ration books used in the country are notoriously stuffed with people who are nonexistent or who do not typically qualify for benefits, so the government hopes to save some money by linking the benefits to a digital identity. But the new scheme addresses only end-user fraud and not the large-scale theft prevalent in the entire supply chain, according to analysts.

Rajeev Chandrasekhar, a member of India’s Parliament, has proposed amendments to the bill that would ensure that Aadhaar numbers should not be used as proof of identity for purposes other than subsidies and benefits. Chandrasekhar also wants the Unique Identification Authority of India that manages the project to be responsible for ensuring the security and privacy of the biometric and demographic information of the account holder, with liability for damages in a civil court in the case of a breach.

The Aadhaar program has been allotting IDs for a number of years, even under a previous government, but the program was the offshoot of an executive order and had no legal sanction. The country’s Supreme Court ruled in 2013 in an interim order that people cannot be required to have Aadhaar identification to collect state subsidies. Aware of the legal minefield it was treading on, the government had said the scheme was voluntary.

The Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Bill, 2016 passed recently in the Lok Sabha, one of the houses of India’s parliament, now aims to make the scheme mandatory. The bill sailed through the Lok Sabha where the government has a majority, but will likely meet with strong opposition from the other house, the Rajya Sabha. But the government has classified the bill as a money bill and the Rajya Sabha does not have the final say on such bills. So the legislation is likely to be passed in any case despite its limitations.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/a-scheme-in-india-to-help-the-poor-raises-privacy-concerns

Vulnerabilities in the UIDAI Implementation Not Addressed by the Aadhaar Bill, 2016

Pooja Saxena and Amber Sinha — 2016-03-21T08:33:53Z

In this infographic, we document the various issues in the Aadhaar enrolment process implemented by the UIDAI, and highlight the vulnerabilities that the Aadhaar Bill, 2016 does not address. The infographic is based on Vidushi Marda’s article 'Data Flow in the Unique Identification Scheme of India,' and is designed by Pooja Saxena, with inputs from Amber Sinha.

Download the infographic: PDF and PNG.

Credits: The illustration uses the following icons from The Noun Project - Thumpbrint created by Daouna Jeong, Duplicate created by Pham Thi Dieu Linh, Copy created by Mahdi Ehsaei.

License: It is shared under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/vulnerabilities-in-the-uidai-implementation-not-addressed-by-the-aadhaar-bill-2016

The National Privacy Principles

Pooja Saxena and Amber Sinha — 2016-03-21T09:48:23Z

In this infographic, we try to break down the National Privacy Principles developed by the Group of Experts on Privacy led by the Former Chief Justice A.P. Shah in 2012.

License: It is shared under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-national-privacy-principles

Aadhaar: Govt will not compromise on national security

praskrishna — 2016-03-22T15:51:13Z

The government is confident that the Aadhaar Bill will be passed.

The article by Shreeja Sen was published by Livemint on March 9, 2016. Pranesh Prakash gave inputs.

In what could raise concerns of privacy activists questioning India’s unique identification project Aadhaar, the government on Tuesday said national security will not be compromised at all.

“We will not compromise on national security; certainly we will not compromise. The Supreme Court has already highlighted certain areas for consideration. We are going ahead taking into consideration all the suggestions of the Supreme Court,” law minister D.V. Sadananda Gowda said at a press conference, when asked how the Aadhaar bill tabled in Parliament last week will balance the protection of core biometrics and national security concerns.

Under the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Bill, 2016, there are measures to protect core biometric information like fingerprints and iris scans of the unique identification number holders.

However, Section 33 says for the purposes of national security, officials at the joint secretary level and above can access this information. The section has caused some worry to experts. In this analysis , policy director of the Centre for Internet and Society Pranesh Prakash says that the national security clause is worrisome. Adding to their concerns, the bill does not define what national security means.

The government is, however, confident that the bill will be passed. “Certainly it will be passed. The benefits that go from the exchequer to the beneficiaries will be taken care of by this bill,” Gowda said.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/livemint-march-9-2016-shreeja-sen-aadhaar-govt-will-not-compromise-on-national-security

India Still Trying To Turn Optional Aadhaar Identification Number Into A Mandatory National Identity System

praskrishna — 2016-03-24T06:34:21Z

from the sliding-down-the-slippery-slope-to-disaster dept

The blog post was published by Tech Dirt on March 22, 2016. CIS research on Aadhaar was quoted.

Last year, we wrote about India's attempt to turn the use of its Aadhaar system, which assigns a unique 12-digit number to all Indian citizens, into a requirement for accessing government schemes. An article in the Hindustan Times shows that the Indian government is still pushing to turn Aadhaar into a mandatory national identity system. A Bill has just been passed by both houses of the country's parliament, which seeks to give statutory backing to the scheme -- in the teeth of opposition from India's Supreme Court:

There have been orders passed by the Supreme Court that prohibit the government from making Aadhaar mandatory for availing government services whereas this Bill seeks to do precisely that, contrary to the government's argument that Aadhaar is voluntary.

The article notes that in some respects, the new Bill brings improvements over a previous version:

It places stringent restrictions on when and how the UID [Unique Identification] Authority (UIDAI) can share the data, noting that biometric information -- fingerprint and iris scans -- will not be shared with anyone. It seeks prior consent for sharing data with third party. These are very welcome provisions.

But it also contains some huge loopholes:

The government will get sweeping power to access the data collected, ostensibly for "efficient, transparent, and targeted delivery of subsidies, benefits and services" as it pleases "in the interests of national security", thus confirming the suspicions that the UID database is a surveillance programme masquerading as a project to aid service delivery.

The fact that an optional national numbering system now seems to be morphing into a way to monitor what people are doing will hardly come as a surprise to Techdirt readers, but this continued slide down the slippery slope is still troubling, as are other aspects of the new legislation. For example, it was introduced as a "Money Bill," which is normally reserved for matters related to taxation, not privacy. That suggests a desire to push it through without real scrutiny. What makes this attempt to give the Aadhaar number a much larger role in Indian society even more dangerous is the possibility that it won't work:

A recent paper in the Economic and Political Weekly by Hans Mathews, a mathematician with the [Centre for Internet and Society], shows the programme would fail to uniquely identify individuals in a country of 1.2 billion.

A mandatory national identity system that can't even uniquely identify people: sounds like a recipe for disaster.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/tech-dirt-march-22-2016-india-still-trying-to-turn-optional-aadhaar-identification-number-into-mandatory-national-identity-system

‘By weakening our security, govt is putting us at risk of espionage’

praskrishna — 2015-10-02T03:09:46Z

After the BlackBerry encryption and IT Act fiascos of recent years, the government last week sent yet another cyber policy howler, the Draft National Encryption Policy, only to withdraw it in the face of severe protests. S. Raghotham and Mayukh Mukherjee spoke with Pranesh Prakash, policy director, Centre for Internet & Society, on the government’s continued misadventures with data privacy and encryption.

This interview of Pranesh Prakash was published in Asian Age on September 27, 2015.

First we had Section 66A in the Information Technology Act. Now we have these attempts at breaking encryption and invading privacy. Your comment.
The Draft National Encryption Policy (DNEP) was not only an invasion of privacy and a restriction on anonymous speech, but was, most importantly, a direct assault on national security. It was quite clearly drafted by people who did not understand encryption, who think that encryption is something that only a handful of people do, without realising that encryption is baked into most of our technologies.

It is clear that the government’s cyber-law division needs people who are better versed in both the law (including constitutional rights) as well as technical aspects of IT. It’s not just Section 66A, but a host of other provisions in the IT Act which display a similar cluelessness. For instance, gaining unauthorised access to a protected system for purposes of defamation is, as per Indian law, sufficient to commit the offence of “cyber terrorism”.

How does this compare with the previous government’s attempts to gain access to BlackBerry communications?
L’affaire BlackBerry concluded with the government realising that while they could get BlackBerry to locate a network operations centre in India, they still couldn’t decrypt everything since BlackBerry Enterprise Service allowed enterprises to control the encryption. However, the government seems to have drawn the wrong lesson from that, and wants to prevent end-users from using encryption the way they have already managed with telecom companies and Internet service providers, who are not allowed to deploy bulk encryption which saves their customers’ data from being intercepted by attackers.

The government seems to be saying, if the US National Security Agency (NSA) doesn’t get you, we will. How are we to respond to this?
If you’re using Gmail, Yahoo Mail, Hotmail, etc., you already have opportunistic traffic-level encryption for email. Ironically, no @deity.gov.in or @nic.in address has even this basic level of encryption. This is the shocking state of affairs even many years after National Informatics Centre (NIC) publicly acknowledged that multiple email accounts that they host were hacked into. National security is a collective form of security — we can’t increase national security by making individuals less secure. We can’t, for instance, improve national security by telling people not to use locks on their houses. That will only decrease security, not increase it. And we are in a situation where our government conducts all their email communications using the online equivalent of postcards, rather than using sealed envelopes. The Central government urgently needs to appoint a group of security experts who work with NIC to shore up our defensive security.

A slide on an NSA programme called BOUNDLESSINFO-RMANT showed that in the month of February 2013, the NSA has collected 12.5 billion data records relating to phone calls from India, far more than what they had collected from China. The fact that our government mandates weak telecom security (by restricting bulk encryption) might account for this. By weakening our security, the government is putting us at greater risk of espionage and at the hands of hackers.

What are some of the ramifications for businesses and individuals if the government were to have keys to all encrypted information as it seeks?
The government, in the DNEP, did not even seek key escrow (which is what the debate was about in the 1990s in the US’ “crypto war”). Here the government more or less sought to tell companies and individuals that they have to keep plain text, making storage-level encryption pointless. This means that all your company’s information — emails, passwords and financial records — would be vulnerable to compromise by hackers. It is like telling a company that it is allowed to own a government-approved safe for storing important documents, but it has to keep a copy of all the important documents outside the safe.

Is the encryption policy fiasco some junior bureaucrat’s ignorance of what he was proposing or is it part of the government’s continued efforts to somehow gain control over information flows?
The government intended to gain greater access to everyday transactions. This would violate citizens’ privacy, which the government has been arguing is not a fundamental right. They went about it in a manner that is absurd in its consequences. The policy would have required you to record every mobile phone call and Skype call, to keep a plain text version of communications, which would harm national security. While I don’t believe the government would intentionally weaken national security, as they would have had this draft policy been carried forward, one cannot say that the government wouldn’t do so wantonly, much in the same way that they haven’t even employed basic security in their email systems.

Do you perceive a higher level of desire in the current government to control information flows?
The Indian government’s pursuance of harmful technology policies is nothing new. However, I hope that as a tech-savvy person heading an ostensibly tech-savvy government, Prime Minister Narendra Modi steps in and halts these deleterious policies. One disappointment of the last year has been the lack of progress on the Privacy Act, which seems to have been shelved for the time being. I believe the government’s motivations are genuine and grounded in the public interest. However, as in any constitutional democracy, the citizenry ought to be engaged in both defining the public interest as well as in debating how we best protect and uphold it within the norms laid down in our Constitution, which includes guarantees of fundamental rights which are inviolable except in limited circumstances.

For most of these policy problems, the best way forward is to ensure that the government follow a system of issuing green papers — essentially non-papers meant to stimulate public discussion — before it issues white papers which contain statements of policy intent, based on which it finally formulates policies or laws. Currently, interaction between policymakers and civil society is far too infrequent. The government needs to inject far more subject-matter expertise into policymaking.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/asian-age-september-27-2015-s-raghotham-and-mayukh-mukherjee-by-weakening-our-security-govt-is-putting-us-at-risk-of-espionage

Contestations of Data, ECJ Safe Harbor Ruling and Lessons for India

jyoti — 2015-10-14T14:40:08Z

The European Court of Justice has invalidated a European Commission decision, which had previously concluded that the 'Safe Harbour Privacy Principles' provide adequate protections for European citizens’ privacy rights for the transfer of personal data between European Union and United States. The inadequacies of the framework is not news for the European Commission and action by ECJ has been a long time coming. The ruling raises important questions about how the claims of citizenship are being negotiated in the context of the internet, and how increasingly the contestations of personal data are being employed in the discourse.

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has invalidated a European Commission (EC) decision¹ which had previously concluded that the 'Safe Harbor Privacy Principles'² provide adequate protections for European citizens’ privacy rights³ for the transfer of personal data between European Union and United States. This challenge stems from the claim that public law enforcement authorities in America obtain personal data from organisations in safe harbour for incompatible and disproportionate purposes in violation of the Safe Harbour Privacy Principles. The court's judgment follows the advice of the Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) who recently opined⁴ that US practices allow for large-scale collection and transfer of personal data belonging to EU citizens without them benefiting from or having access to judicial protection under US privacy laws. The inadequacies of the framework is not news for the Commission and action by ECJ has been a long time coming. The ruling raises important questions about how increasingly the contestations of personal data are being employed in asserting claims of citizenship in context of the internet.

As the highest court in Europe, the ECJ's decisions are binding on all member states. With this ruling the ECJ has effectively restrained US firms from indiscriminate collection and sharing of European citizens’ data on American soil. The implications of the decision are significant, because it shifts the onus of evaluating protections of personal data for EU citizens from the 4,400 companies⁵ subscribing to the system onto EU privacy watchdogs. Most significantly, in addressing the rights of a citizen against an established global brand, the judgement goes beyond political and legal opinion to challenge the power imbalance that exists with reference to US based firms.

Today, the free movement of data across borders is a critical factor in facilitating trade, financial services, governance, manufacturing, health and development. However, to consider the ruling as merely a clarification of transatlantic mechanisms for data flows misstates the real issue. At the heart of the judgment is the assessment whether US firms apply the tests of ‘necessity and proportionality’ in the collection and surveillance of data for national security purposes. Application of necessity and proportionality test to national security exceptions under safe harbor has been a sticking point that has stalled the renegotiation of the agreement that has been underway between the Commission and the American data protection authorities.⁶

For EU citizens the stake in the case are even higher, as while their right to privacy is enshrined under EU law, they have no administrative or judicial means of redress, if their data is used for reasons they did not intend. In the EU, citizens accessing and agreeing to use of US based firms are presented with a false choice between accessing benefits and giving up on their fundamental right to privacy. In other words, by seeking that governments and private companies provide better data protection for the EU citizens and in restricting collection of personal data on a generalised basis without objective criteria, the ruling is effectively an assertion of ‘data sovereignty’. The term ‘data sovereignty’, while lacking a firm definition, refers to a spectrum of approaches adopted by different states to control data generated in or passing through national internet infrastructure.⁷ Underlying the ruling is the growing policy divide between the US and EU privacy and data protection standards, which may lead to what is referred to as the balkanization⁸ of the internet in the future.

US-EU Data Protection Regime

The safe harbor pact between the EU and US was negotiated in the late 1990s as an attempt to bridge the different approaches to online privacy. Privacy is addressed in the EU as a fundamental human right while in the US it is defined under terms of consumer protection, which allow trade-offs and exceptions when national security seems to be under threat. In order to address the lower standards of data protection prevalent in the US, the pact facilitates data transfers from EU to US by establishing certain safeguards equivalent to the requirements of the EU data protection directive. The safe harbor provisions include firms undertaking not to pass personal information to third parties if the EU data protection standards are not met and giving users right to opt out of data collection.⁹

The agreement was due to be renewed by May 2015¹⁰ and while negotiations have been ongoing for two years, EU discontent on safe harbour came to the fore following the Edward Snowden revelations of collection and monitoring facilitated by large private companies for the PRISM program and after the announcement of the TransAtlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).¹¹ EU member states have mostly stayed silent as they run their own surveillance programs often times, in cooperation with the NSA. EU institutions cannot intervene in matters of national security however, they do have authority on data protection matters. European Union officials and Members of Parliament have expressed shock and outrage at the surveillance programs unveiled by Snowden's 2013 revelations. Most recently, following the CJEU Advocate General’s opinion, 50 Members of European Parliament (MEP) sent a strongly worded letter the US Congress hitting back on claims of ‘digital protectionism’ emanating from the US¹². In no uncertain terms the letter clarified that the EU has different ideas on privacy, platforms, net neutrality, encryption, Bitcoin, zero-days, or copyright and will seek to improve and change any proposal from the EC in the interest of our citizens and of all people.

Towards Harmonization

In November 2013, as an attempt to minimize the loss of trust following the Snowden revelations, the European Commission (EC) published recommendations in its report on 'Rebuilding Trust is EU-US Data Flows'.¹³ The recommendations revealed two critical initiatives at the EU level—first was the revision of the EU-US safe harbor agreement¹⁴ and second the adoption of the 'EU-US Umbrella Agreement¹⁵'—a framework for data transfer for the purpose of investigating, detecting, or prosecuting a crime, including terrorism. The Umbrella Agreement was recently initialed by EU and US negotiators and it only addresses the exchange of personal data between law enforcement agencies.¹⁶ The Agreement has gained momentum in the wake of recent cases around issues of territorial duties of providers, enforcement jurisdictions and data localisation.¹⁷ However, the adoption of the Umbrella Act depends on US Congress adoption of the Judicial Redress Act (JRA) as law.¹⁸

Judicial Redress Act

The JRA is a key reform that the EC is pushing for in an attempt to address the gap between privacy rights and remedies available to US citizens and those extended to EU citizens, including allowing EU citizens to sue in American courts. The JRA seeks to extend certain protections under the Privacy Act to records shared by EU and other designated countries with US law enforcement agencies for the purpose of investigating, detecting, or prosecuting criminal offenses. The JRA protections would extend to records shared under the Umbrella Agreement and while it does include civil remedies for violation of data protection, as noted by the Center for Democracy and Technology, the present framework does not provide citizens of EU countries with redress that is at par with that which US persons enjoy under the Privacy Act.¹⁹

For example, the measures outlined under the JRA would only be applicable to countries that have outlined appropriate privacy protections agreements for data sharing for investigations and ‘efficiently share’ such information with the US. Countries that do not have agreements with US cannot seek these protections leaving the personal data of their citizens open for collection and misuse by US agencies. Further, the arrangement leaves determination of 'efficiently sharing' in the hands of US authorities and countries could lose protection if they do not comply with information sharing requests promptly. Finally, JRA protections do not apply to non-US persons nor to records shared for purposes other than law enforcement such as intelligence gathering. JRA is also weakened by allowing heads of agencies to exercise their discretion to seek exemption from the Act and opt out of compliance.

Taken together the JRA, the Umbrella Act and the renegotiation of the Safe Harbor Agreement need considerable improvements. It is worth noting that EU’s acceptance of the redundancy of existing agreements and in establishing the independence of national data protection authorities in investigating and enforcing national laws as demonstrated in the Schrems and in the Weltimmo²⁰ case point to accelerated developments in the broader EU privacy landscape.

Consequences

The ECJ Safe Harbor ruling will have far-reaching consequences for the online industry. Often, costly government rulings solidify the market dominance of big companies. As high regulatory costs restrict the entrance of small and medium businesses the market, competition is gradually wiped out. Further, complying with high standards of data protection means that US firms handling European data will need to consider alternative legal means of transfer of personal data. This could include evolving 'model contracts' binding them to EU data protection standards. As Schrems points out, “Big companies don’t only rely on safe harbour: they also rely on binding corporate rules and standard contractual clauses.”²¹

The ruling is good news for European consumers, who can now approach a national regulator to investigate suspicions of data mishandling. EU data protection regulators may be be inundated with requests from companies seeking authorization of new contracts and with consumer complaints. Some are concerned that the ruling puts a dent in the globalized flow of data²², effectively requiring data localization in Europe.²³ Others have pointed out that it is unclear how this decision sits with other trade treaties such as the TPP that ban data localisation.²⁴ While the implications of the decision will take some time in playing out, what is certain is that US companies will be have to restructure management, storage and use of data. The ruling has created the impetus for India to push for reforms to protect its citizens from harms by US firms and improve trade relations with EU.

The Opportunity for India

Multiple data flows taking place over the internet simultaneously and that has led to ubiquity of data transfers o ver the Internet, exposing individuals to privacy risks. There has also been an enhanced economic importance of data processing as businesses collect and correlate data using analytic tools to create new demands, establish relationships and generate revenue for their services. The primary concern of the Schrems case may be the protection of the rights of EU citizens but by seeking to extend these rights and ensure compliance in other jurisdictions, the case touches upon many underlying contestations around data and sovereignty.

Last year, Mr Ram Narain, India Head of Delegation to the Working Group Plenary at ITU had stressed, “respecting the principle of sovereignty of information through network functionality and global norms will go a long way in increasing the trust and confidence in use of ICT.”²⁵ In the absence of the recognition of privacy as a right and empowering citizens through measures or avenues to seek redressal against misuse of data, the demand of data sovereignty rings empty. The kind of framework which empowered an ordinary citizen in the EU to approach the highest court seeking redressal based on presumed overreach of a foreign government and from harms abetted by private corporations simply does not exist in India. Securing citizen’s data in other jurisdictions and from other governments begins with establishing protection regimes within the country.

The Indian government has also stepped up efforts to restrict transfer of data from India including pushing for private companies to open data centers in India.²⁶ Negotiating data localisation does not restrict the power of private corporations from using data in a broad ways including tailoring ads and promoting products. Also, data transfers impact any organisation with international operations for example, global multinationals who need to coordinate employee data and information. Companies like Facebook, Google and Microsoft transfer and store data belonging to Indian citizens and it is worth remembering that the National Security Agency (NSA) would have access to this data through servers of such private companies. With no existing measures to restrict such indiscriminate access, the ruling purports to the need for India to evolve strong protection mechanisms. Finally, the lack of such measures also have an economic impact, as reported in a recent Nasscom-Data Security Council of India (DSCI) survey²⁷ that pegs revenue losses incurred by the Indian IT-BPO industry at $2-2.5 billion for a sample size of 15 companies. DSCI has further estimated that outsourcing business can further grow by $50 billion per annum once India is granted a “data secure” status by the EU.²⁸ EU’s refusal to grant such a status is understandable given the high standard of privacy as incorporated under the European Union Data Protection Directive a standard to which India does not match up, yet. The lack of this status prevents the flow of data which is vital for Digital India vision and also affects the service industry by restricting the flow of sensitive information to India such as information about patient records.

Data and information structures are controlled and owned by private corporations and networks transcend national borders, therefore the foremost emphasis needs to be on improving national frameworks. While, enforcement mechanisms such as the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) process or other methods of international cooperation may seem respectful of international borders and principles of sovereignty,²⁹ for users that live in undemocratic or oppressive regimes such agreements are a considerable risk. Data is also increasingly being stored across multiple jurisdictions and therefore merely applying data location lens to protection measures may be too narrow. Further it should be noted that when companies begin taking data storage decisions based on legal considerations it will impact the speed and reliability of services.³⁰ Any future regime must reflect the challenges of data transfers taking place in legal and economic spaces that are not identical and may be in opposition. Fundamentally, the protection of privacy will always act as a barrier to the free flow of information even so, as the Schrems case ruling points out not having adequate privacy protections could also restrict flow of data, as has been the case for India.

The time is right for India to appoint a data controller and put in place national frameworks, based on nuanced understanding of issues of applying jurisdiction to govern users and their data. Establishing better protection measures will not only establish trust and enhance the ability of users to control data about themselves it is also essential for sustaining economic and social value generated from data generation and collection. Suggestions for such frameworks have been considered previously by the Group of Experts on Privacy constituted by the Planning Commission.³¹ By incorporating transparency in mechanisms for data and access requests and premising requests on established necessity and proportionality Indian government can lead the way in data protection standards. This will give the Indian government more teeth to challenge and address both the dangers of theft of data stored on servers located outside of India and restrain indiscriminate access arising from terms and conditions of businesses that grant such rights to third parties.

1 Commission Decision of 26 July 2000 pursuant to Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the adequacy of the protection provided by the safe harbour privacy principles and related frequently asked questions issued by the US Department of Commerce (notified under document number C(2000) 2441) (Text with EEA relevance.) Official Journal L 215 , 25/08/2000 P. 0007 -0047 2000/520/EC: http ://eur -lex .europa .eu /LexUriServ /LexUriServ .do ?uri =CELEX :32000 D 0520:EN :HTML

2 Safe Harbour Privacy Principles Issued by the U.S. Department of Commerce on July 21, 2000 http ://www .export .gov /safeharbor /eu /eg _main _018475.asp

3 Megan Graham, Adding Some Nuance on the European Court ’s Safe Harbor Decision , Just security

https ://www .justsecurity .org /26651/adding -nuance -ecj -safe -harbor -decision /

4 Advocate General’s Opinion in Case C-362/14 Maximillian Schrems v Data Protection Commissioner Court of Justice of the European Union, Press Release, No 106/15 Luxembourg, 23 September 2015 http ://curia .europa .eu /jcms /upload /docs /application /pdf /2015-09/cp 150106 en .pdf

5 Jennifer Baker, ‘EU desperately pushes just-as-dodgy safe harbour alternatives’, The Register, October 7, 2015 http ://www .theregister .co .uk /2015/10/07/eu _pushes _safe _harbour _alternatives /

6 Draft Report, General Data Protection Regulation, Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, European Parliament, 2009-2014 http ://www .europarl .europa .eu /meetdocs /2009_2014/documents /libe /pr /922/922387/922387 en .pdf

7 Dana Polatin-Reuben, Joss Wright, ‘An Internet with BRICS Characteristics: Data Sovereignty and the Balkanisation of the Internet’, University of Oxford, July 7, 2014 https ://www .usenix .org /system /files /conference /foci 14/foci 14-polatin -reuben .pdf

8 Sasha Meinrath, The Future of the Internet: Balkanization and Borders, Time, October 2013 http ://ideas .time .com /2013/10/11/the -future -of -the -internet -balkanization -and -borders /

9 Safe Harbour Privacy Principles, Issued by the U.S. Department of Commerce, July 2001 http ://www .export .gov /safeharbor /eu /eg _main _018475.asp

10 Facebook case may force European firms to change data storage practices, The Guardian, September 23, 2015 http ://www .theguardian .com /us -news /2015/sep /23/us -intelligence -services -surveillance -privacy

11 Privacy Tracker, US-EU Safe Harbor Under Pressure, August 2, 2013 https ://iapp .org /news /a /us -eu -safe -harbor -under -pressure

12 Kieren McCarthy, Privacy, net neutrality, security, encryption ... Europe tells Obama, US Congress to back off, The Register, 23 September, 2015 http ://www .theregister .co .uk /2015/09/23/european _politicians _to _congress _back _off /

13 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council, Rebuilding Trust in EU-US Data Flows, European Commission, November 2013 http ://ec .europa .eu /justice /data -protection /files /com _2013_846_en .pdf

14 Safe Harbor on trial in the European Union, Access Blog, September 2014 https ://www .accessnow .org /blog /2014/11/13/safe -harbor -on -trial -in -the -european -union

15 European Commission - Fact Sheet Questions and Answers on the EU-US data protection "Umbrella agreement", September 8, 2015 http ://europa .eu /rapid /press -release _MEMO -15-5612_en .htm

16 McGuire Woods, ‘EU and U.S. reach “Umbrella Agreement” on data transfers’, Lexology, September 14, 2015 http ://www .lexology .com /library /detail .aspx ?g =422 bca 41-2 d 54-4648-ae 57-00 d 678515 e 1 f

17 Andrew Woods, Lowering the Temperature on the Microsoft-Ireland Case, Lawfare September, 2015 https ://www .lawfareblog .com /lowering -temperature -microsoft -ireland -case

18 Jens-Henrik Jeppesen, Greg Nojeim, ‘The EU-US Umbrella Agreement and the Judicial Redress Act: Small Steps Forward for EU Citizens’ Privacy Rights’, October 5, 2015 https ://cdt .org /blog /the -eu -us -umbrella -agreement -and -the -judicial -redress -act -small -steps -forward -for -eu -citizens -privacy -rights /

19 Ibid 18.

20 Landmark ECJ data protection ruling could impact Facebook and Google, The Guardian, 2 October, 2015 http ://www .theguardian .com /technology /2015/oct /02/landmark -ecj -data -protection -ruling -facebook -google -weltimmo

21 Julia Powles, Tech companies like Facebook not above the law, says Max Schrems, The Guardian, Octover 9, 2015 http ://www .theguardian .com /technology /2015/oct /09/facebook -data -privacy -max -schrems -european -court -of -justice

22 Adam Thierer, Unintended Consequences of the EU Safe Harbor Ruling, The Technology Liberation Front, October 6, 2015 http ://techliberation .com /2015/10/06/unintended -consequenses -of -the -eu -safe -harbor -ruling /#more -75831

23 Anupam Chander, Tweeted ECJ #schrems ruling may effectively require data localization within Europe, https ://twitter .com /AnupamChander /status /651369730754801665

24 Lokman Tsui, Tweeted, “If the TPP bans data localization, but the ECJ ruling effectively mandates it, what does that mean for the internet?” https ://twitter .com /lokmantsui /status /651393867376275456

25 Statement from Indian Head of Delegation, Mr Ram Narain for WGPL, Indian statement on ITU and Internet at the Working Group Plenary November 4, 2014 https ://ccgnludelhi .wordpress .com /author /asukum 87/page /2/

26 Sounak Mitra, Xiaomi bets big on India despite problems, Business Standard, December 2014 http ://www .business -standard .com /article /companies /xiaomi -bets -big -on -india -despite -problems -114122201023_1.html

27 Neha Alawadi, Ruling on data flow between EU & US may impact India’s IT sector, Economic Times,October 7, 2015 http ://economictimes .indiatimes .com /articleshow /49250738.cms ?utm _source =contentofinterest &utm _medium =text &utm _campaign =cppst

28 Pranav Menon, Data Protection Laws in India and Data Security- Impact on India and Data Security-Impact on India - EU Free Trade Agreement, CIS Access to Knowledge, 2011 http ://cis -india .org /a 2 k /blogs /data -security -laws -india .pdf

29 Surendra Kumar Sinha, India wants Mutual Legal Assistance treaty with Bangladesh, Economic Times, October 7, 2015 http ://economictimes .indiatimes .com /articleshow /49262294.cms ?utm _source =contentofinterest &utm _medium =text &utm _campaign =cppst

30 Pablo Chavez, Director, Public Policy and Government Affairs, Testifying before the U.S. Senate on transparency legislation, November 3, 2013 http ://googlepublicpolicy .blogspot .in /2013/11/testifying -before -us -senate -on .htm

31 Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy (Chaired by Justice A P Shah, Former Chief Justice, Delhi High Court), Planning Commission, October 2012 http ://planningcommission .nic .in /reports /genrep /rep _privacy .pdf

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/contestations-of-data-ecj-safe-harbor-ruling-and-lessons-for-india

Privacy International's Trip to Asia

praskrishna — 2012-04-25T09:58:12Z

In February 2012, the PI team travelled to India, Bangladesh and Hong Kong to meet with our local partners in the region and speak at four conferences they had organized. We also got the chance to interview our partners in India and Bangladesh on the privacy issues facing them at the moment - this video is the result of those conversations.

PI spent the first half of February in Asia, visiting our regional partners and speaking at events. Our trip began in Delhi, where the Centre for Internet and Society (in collaboration with the Society in Action Group) had organized two consecutive privacy conferences – an invite-only conclave on Friday 3rd February and a free symposium open to the public on Saturday 4th February. The conclave consisted of two panels, the first focusing on the relationship between national security and privacy, the second on privacy and the Internet. We were seriously impressed with the calibre of the speakers CIS and SAG had gathered – the panels included a Supreme Court Advocate, a Member of Parliament and the Former Chief of the Research and Analysis Wing (the Indian equivalent of MI-6 and the CIA) – but Gus and Eric held their own!

The All India Privacy Symposium the next day was partly intended as a public showcase of the amazing research Privacy India, CIS and SAG have conducted over the past two years, including consultations in Kolkata, Bangalore, Ahmedabad, Guwahati, Chennai and Mumbai. The event was organized into five panels: Privacy and Transparency, Privacy and E-Governance Initiatives, Privacy and National Security, Privacy and Banking, and Privacy and Health. A few themes recurred throughout the day – perhaps the most prominent being the repeated allegation that the Indian government's technological illiteracy is putting its citizens at risk. One panellist described how an RTI (right to information) request had recently revealed that the government had no idea how many of its own computers had been hacked or how much data had been stolen – even though this information has been in the public domain since the Wikileaks diplomatic cable releases.

On Sunday, our IDRC funder in Delhi very kindly lent us his beautiful house for a PrivAsia strategy meeting. We chatted about how the Indian project had gone thus far, and the sort of activities our partners would like to undertake over the next couple of years. Their main priority at the moment is India's proposed UID (Unique Identification) project, which is riddled with flaws, inconsistencies and logical gaps. The project is also extremely expensive, with estimates ranging from just under $4 billion to $33 billion. Our partners strongly oppose the programme in its current form, and are exploring a number of strategies for fighting it - we'll keep you appraised of their progress...

PI then parted ways – Gus headed to Hong Kong and Eric and I flew to Dhaka to meet up with Simon and Ahmed Swapan of Voices for Interactive Choice and Empowerment (VOICE), our partner in Bangladesh. We spent a day at the VOICE offices, getting extremely jealous of their huge kitchen and the fact that they all sit down to a freshly cooked lunch every day. That evening, Ahmed took us to a book fair, which was much livelier than we were expecting! It was held outside and was packed with people socialising, eating deep-fried crayfish and (occasionally) perusing the books and pamphlets on display. The fair is apparently an annual event and VOICE have had their own stand there for the past few years.

The following day was the National Convention on the Right to Privacy and Data Protection, organized by VOICE and a group of other Bangladeshi NGOs. We were delighted by the turnout - over 80 people showed up to listen and to voice their own opinions - but Ahmed was unsurprised, explaining that privacy was a hot topic in Bangladesh at the moment. Several issues were clearly extremely controversial, and the debate became very heated when it turned to the relationship between privacy and the right to information (recently enshrined in law in the RTI Act 2009). It was amazing to see how passionate people were, and how eager to improve things. The debate was presided over by retired Justice Golam Rabbani, who urged the government to create a national tribunal for the protection of the citizen's right to privacy.

Gus spent a brief 36 hours in Hong Kong but was able to participate in a symposium run by our partners at Hong Kong University's Faculty of Law. The participants at the symposium included the Privacy Commissioner of Hong Kong, academics and industry experts from China, Macau and Taiwan, and guest speakers from Switzerland and Canada. The slides of many of the presentations are available online. Apparently the level of sophistication in the academic research that is now starting to influence the legislative environment in Hong Kong and China is astonishing.

Trips like these are exhausting but invaluable - they allow us to see the PrivAsia work in action rather than hearing about it in emails and phone calls, and to discuss progress and problems face-to-face. Eric and Gus are already looking forward to Pakistan in April...

This blog post by Emma Draper was published on the Privacy International blog

Watch the video about contemporary privacy issues in India and Bangladesh below

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/privacy-internationals-trip-to-asia

Supreme Court Order is a Good Start, but is Seeding Necessary?

Elonnai Hickok and Rohan George — 2015-09-07T13:21:58Z

This blog post seeks to unpack the ‘seeding’ process in the UIDAI scheme, understand the implications of the Supreme Court order on this process, and identify questions regarding the UID scheme that still need to be clarified by the court in the context of the seeding process.

Introduction

On August 11th 2015, in the writ petition Justice K.S Puttaswamy (Retd.) & Another vs. Union of India & Others1, the Supreme Court of India issued an interim order regarding the constitutionality of the UIDAI scheme. In response to the order, Dr. Usha Ramanathan published an article titled  'Decoding the Aadhaar judgment: No more seeding, not till the privacy issue is settled by the court' which, among other points, highlights concerns around the seeding of Aadhaar numbers into service delivery databases. She writes that "seeding' is a matter of grave concern in the UID project. This is about the introduction of the number into every data base. Once the number is seeded in various databases, it makes convergence of personal information remarkably simple. So, if the number is in the gas agency, the bank, the ticket, the ration card, the voter ID, the medical records and so on, the state, as also others who learn to use what is called the 'ID platform', can 'see' the citizen at will."2

Building off of this statement, this article seeks to unpack the 'seeding' process in the UIDAI scheme, understand the implications of the Supreme Court order on this process, and identify questions regarding the UID scheme that still need to be clarified by the Court in the context of the seeding process.

What is Seeding?

In the UID scheme, data points within databases of service providers and banks are organized via individual Aadhaar numbers through a process known as 'seeding'. The UIDAI has released two documents on the seeding process - "Approach Document for Aadhaar Seeding in Service Delivery Databases version 1.0" (Version 1.0)3 and "Standard Protocol Covering the Approach & Process for Seeding Aadhaar Number in Service Delivery Databases June 2015 Version 1.1" (Version 1.1)4

According to Version 1.0 "Aadhaar seeding is a process by which UIDs of residents are included in the service delivery database of service providers for enabling Aadhaar based authentication during service delivery."5 Version 1.0 further states that the "Seeding process typically involves data extraction, consolidation, normalization, and matching".6 According to Version 1.1, Aadhaar seeding is "a process by which the Aadhaar numbers of residents are included in the service delivery database of service providers for enabling de-duplication of database and Aadhaar based authentication during service delivery".7 There is an extra clause in Version 1.1's definition of seeding which includes "de-duplication" in addition to authentication.

Though not directly stated, it is envisioned that the Aadhaar number will be seeded into the databases of service providers and banks to enable cash transfers of funds. This was alluded to in the Version 1.1 document with the UIDAI stating "Irrespective of the Scheme and the geography, as the Aadhaar Number of a given Beneficiary finally has to be linked with the Bank Account, Banks play a strategic and key role in Seeding."8

How does the seeding process work?

The seeding process itself can be done through manual/organic processes or algorithmic/in-organic processes. In the inorganic process the Aadhaar database is matched with the database of the service provider - namely the database of beneficiaries, KYR+ data from enrolment agencies, and the EID-UID database from the UIDAI. Once compared and a match is found - for example between KYR fields in the service delivery database and KYR+ fields in the Aadhaar database - the Aadhaar number is seeded into the service delivery database.9

Organic seeding can be carried out via a number of methods, but the recommended method from the UIDAI is door to door collection of Aadhaar numbers from residents which are subsequently uploaded into the service delivery database either manually or through the use of a tablet or smart phone. Perhaps demonstrating the fact that technology cannot be used as a 'patch' for a broken or premature system, organic (manual) seeding is suggested as the preferred process by the UIDAI due to challenges such as lack of digitization of beneficiary records, lack of standardization in Name and Address records, and incomplete data.10

According to the 1.0 Approach Paper, to facilitate the seeding process, the UIDAI has developed an in house software known as Ginger. Service providers that adopt the Aadhaar number must move their existing databases onto the Ginger platform, which then organizes the present and incoming data in the database by individual Aadhaar numbers. This 'organization' can be done automatically or manually. Once organized, data can be queried by Aadhaar number by person's on the 'control' end of the Ginger platform.11

In practice this means that during an authentication in which the UIDAI responds to a service provider with a 'yes' or 'no' response, the UIDAI would have access to at least these two sets of data: 1.) Transaction data (date, time, device number, and Aadhaar number of the individual authenticating) 2.) Data associated to an individual Aadhaar number within a database that has been seeded with Aadhaar numbers (historical and incoming). According to the Approach Document version 1.0, "The objective here is that the seeding process/utility should be able to access the service delivery data and all related information in at least the read-only mode." 12 and the Version 1.1 document states "Software application users with authorized access should be able to access data online in a seamless fashion while providing service benefit to residents." 13

What are the concerns with seeding?

With the increased availability of data analysis and processing technologies, organisations have the ability to link disparate data points stored across databases in order that the data can be related to each other and thereby analysed to derive holistic, intrinsic, and/or latent assessments. This can allow for deeper and more useful insights from otherwise standalone data. In the context of the government linking data, such "relating" can be useful - enabling the government to visualize a holistic and more accurate data and to develop data informed policies through research14. Yet, allowing for disparate data points to be merged and linked to each other raises questions about privacy and civil liberties - as well as more intrinsic questions about purpose, access,  consent and choice.  To name a few, linked data can be used to create profiles of individuals, it can facilitate surveillance, it can enable new and unintended uses of data, and it can be used for discriminatory purposes.

The fact that the seeding process is meant to facilitate extraction, consolidation, normalization and matching of data so it can be queried by Aadhaar number, and that existing databases can be transposed onto the Ginger platform can give rise to Dr. Ramanthan's concerns. She argues that anyone having access to the 'control' end of the Ginger platform can access all data associated to a Aadhaar number, that convergence can now easily be initiated with databases on the Ginger platform,  and that profiling of individuals can take place through the linking of data points via the Ginger platform.

How does the Supreme Court Order impact the seeding process and what still needs to be clarified?

In the interim order the Supreme Court lays out four welcome clarifications and limitations on the UID scheme:

The Union of India shall give wide publicity in the electronic and print media including radio and television networks that it is not mandatory for a citizen to obtain an Aadhaar card;
The production of an Aadhaar card will not be condition for obtaining any benefits otherwise due to a citizen;
The Unique Identification Number or the Aadhaar card will not be used by the respondents for any purpose other than the PDS Scheme and in particular for the purpose of distribution of foodgrains, etc. and cooking fuel, such as kerosene. The Aadhaar card may also be used for the purpose of the LPG Distribution Scheme;
The information about an individual obtained by the Unique Identification Authority of India while issuing an Aadhaar card shall not be used for any other purpose, save as above, except as may be directed by a Court for the purpose of criminal investigation."15

In some ways, the court order addresses some of the concerns regarding the seeding of Aadhaar numbers by limiting the scope of the seeding process to the PDS scheme, but there are still a number of aspects of the scheme as they pertain to the seeding process that need to be addressed by the court.

These include:

The Process of Seeding

Prior to the Supreme Court interim order, the above concerns were quite broad in scope as Aadhaar could be adopted by any private or public entity - and the number was being seeded in databases of banks, the railways, tax authorities, etc. The interim order, to an extent, lessens these concerns by holding that  "The Unique Identification Number or the Aadhaar card will not be used by the respondents for any purpose other than the PDS Scheme…".

However, the Court could have perhaps been more specific regarding what is included under the PDS scheme, because the scheme itself is broad. That said, the restrictions put in place by the court create a form of purpose limitation and a boundary of  proportionality on the UID scheme. By limiting the purpose of the Aadhaar number to use in the PDS system, the  Aadhaar number can only be seeded into the databases of entities involved in the PDS Scheme, rather than any entity that had adopted the number. Despite this, the seeding process is an issue in itself for the following reasons:

Access: Embedding service delivery databases and bank databases with the Aadhaar number allows for the UIDAI or authorized users to access information in these databases. According to version 1.1 of the seeding document from the UIDAI - the UIDAI is carrying out the seeding process through 'seeding agencies'. These agencies can include private companies, public limited companies, government companies, PSUs, semi-government organizations, and NGOs that are registered and operating in India for at least three years.16 Though under contract by the UIDAI, it is unclear what information such organizations would be able to access. This ambiguity leaves the data collected by UIDAI open to potential abuse and unauthorized access. Thus, the Court Ruling fails to provide clarity on the access that the seeding process enables for the UIDAI and for private parties.

Consent: Upon enrolling for an Aadhaar number, individuals have the option of consenting to the UIDAI sharing information in three instances:

"I have no objection to the UIDAI sharing information provided by me to the UIDAI with agencies engaged in delivery of welfare services."

"I want the UIDAI to facilitate opening of a new Bank/Post Office Account linked to my Aadhaar Number.

"I have no objection to sharing my information for this purpose""I have no objection to linking my present bank account provided here to my Aadhaar number"17

Aside for the vague and sweeping language of actions users provide consent for, which raises questions about how informed an individual is of the information he consents to share, at no point is an individual provided the option of  consenting  to the UIDAI accessing data - historic or incoming - that is stored in the database of a service provider in the PDS system seeded with the Aadhaar number. Furthermore, as noted earlier, the fact that the UIDAI concedes that a beneficiary has to be linked with a bank account raises questions of consent to this process as linking one's bank account with their Aadhaar number is an optional part of the enrollment process. Thus, even with the restrictions from the court order, if individuals want to use their Aadhaar number to access benefits, they must also seed their number with their bank accounts. On this point, in an order from the Finance Ministry it was clarified that the seeding of Aadhaar numbers into databases is a voluntary decision, but if a beneficiary provides their number on a voluntary basis - it can be seeded into a database.18

Withdrawing Consent: The Court also did not directly address if individuals could withdraw consent after enrolling in the UID scheme - and if they did - whether Aadhaar numbers should be 'unseeded' from PDS related databases. Similarly, the Court did not clarify whether services that have seeded the Aadhaar number, but are not PDS related, now need to unseed the number. Though news items indicate that in some cases (not all) organizations and government departments not involved in the PDS system are stopping the seeding process19, there is no indication of departments undertaking an 'unseeding' process. Nor is there any indication of the UIDAI allowing indivduals enrolled to 'un-enroll' from the scheme. In being silent on issues around consent, the court order inadvertently overlooks the risk of function creep possible through the seeding process, which "allows numerous opportunities for expansion of functions far beyond those stated to be its purpose"20.

Verification and liability: According to Version 1.0 and Version 1.1 of the Seeding documents, "no seeding is better than incorrect seeding". This is because incorrect seeding can lead to inaccuracies in the authentication process and result in individuals entitled to benefits being denied such benefits. To avoid errors in the seeding process the UIDAI has suggested several steps including using the "Aadhaar Verification Service" which verifies an Aadhaar number submitted for seeding against the Aadhaar number and demographic data such as gender and location in the CIDR. Though recognizing the importance of accuracy in the seeding process, the UIDAI takes no responsibility for the same. According to Version 1.1 of the seeding document, "the responsibility of correct seeding shall always stay with the department, who is the owner of the database."21 This replicates a disturbing trend in the implementation of the UID scheme - where the UIDAI 'initiates' different processes through private sector companies but does not take responsibility for such processes. 22

The Scope of the UIDAI's mandate and the necessity of seeding

Aside from the problems within the seeding process itself, there is a question of the scope of the UIDAI's mandate and the role that seeding plays in fulfilling this. This is important in understanding the necessity of the seeding process.

On the official website, the UIDAI has stated that its mandate is "to issue every resident a unique identification number linked to the resident's demographic and biometric information, which they can use to identify themselves anywhere in India, and to access a host of benefits and services." 23 Though the Supreme Court order clarifies the use of the Aadhaar number, it does not address the actual legality of the UIDAI's mandate - as there is no enabling statute in place -and it does not clarify or confirm the scope of the UIDAI's mandate.

In Version 1.0 of the Seeding document the UIDAI has stated the "Aadhaar numbers of enrolled residents are being 'seeded' ie. included in the databases of service providers that have adopted the Aadhaar platform in order to enable authentication via the Aadhaar number during a transaction or service delivery."24 This statement is only partially correct. For only providing and authenticating of an Aadhaar number - seeding is not necessary as the Aadhaar number submitted for verification alone only needs to be compared with the records in the CIDR to complete authentication of the same. Yet, in an example justifying the need for seeding in the Version 1.0 seeding document the UIDAI states "A consolidated view of the entire data would facilitate the social welfare department of the state to improve the service delivery in their programs, while also being able to ensure that the same person is not availing double benefits from two different districts."25 For this purpose, seeding is again unnecessary as it would be simple to correlate PDS usage with a Aadhaar number within the PDS database. Even if limited to the PDS system,  seeding in the databases of service providers is only necessary for the creation and access to comprehensive information about an individual in order to determine eligibility for a service. Further, seeding is only necessary in the databases of banks if the Aadhaar number moves from being an identity factor - to a transactional factor - something that the UIDAI seems to envision as the Version 1.1 seeding document states that Aadhaar is sufficient enough to transfer payments to an individual and thus plays a key role in cash transfers of benefits.26

Conclusion

Despite the fact that adherence to the interim order from the Supreme Court has been adhoc27, the order does provide a number of welcome limitations and clarifications to the UID Scheme. Yet, despite limited clarification from the Supreme Court and further clarification from the Finance Ministry's Order, the process of seeding and its necessity remain unclear. Is the UIDAI taking fully informed consent for the seeding process and what it will enable? Should the UIDAI be liable for the accuracy of the seeding process? Is seeding of service provider and bank databases necessary for the UIDAI to fulfill its mandate? Is the UIDAI's mandate to provide an identifier and an authentication of identity mechanism or is it to provide authentication of eligibility of an individual to receive services? Is this mandate backed by law and with adequate safeguards? Can the court order be interpreted to mean that to deliver services in the PDS system, UIDAI will need access to bank accounts or other transactions/information stored in a service provider's database to verify the claims of the user?

Many news items reflect a concern of convergence arising out of the UID scheme.28 To be clear, the process of seeding is not the same as convergence. Seeding enables convergence which can enable profiling, surveillance, etc. That said, the seeding process needs to be examined more closely by the public and the court to ensure that society can reap the benefits of seeding while avoiding the problems it may pose.

[1]. Justice K.S Puttaswamy & Another vs. Union of India & Others. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 494 of 2012. Available at: http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=42841

[2]. Usha Ramanthan. Decoding the Aadhaar judgment: No more seeding, not till the privacy issues is settled by the court. The Indian Express. August 12^th 2015. Available at: http://indianexpress.com/article/blogs/decoding-the-aadhar-judgment-no-more-seeding-not-till-the-privacy-issue-is-settled-by-the-court/

[3]. UIDAI. Approach Document for Aadhaar Seeding in Service Delivery Databases. Version 1.0. Available at: https://authportal.uidai.gov.in/static/aadhaar_seeding_v_10_280312.pdf

[4]. UIDAI. Standard Protocol Covering the Approach & Process for Seeding Aadhaar Numbers in Service Delivery Databases. Available at: https://uidai.gov.in/images/aadhaar_seeding_june_2015_v1.1.pdf

[5]. Version 1.0 pg. 2

[6]. Version 1.0 pg. 19

[7]. Version 1.1 pg. 3

[8]. Version 1.1 pg. 7

[9]. Version 1.1 pg. 5 -7

[10]. Version 1.1 pg. 7-13

[11]. Version 1.0 pg 19-22

[12]. Version 1.0 pg. 4

[13]. Version 1.1 pg. 5, figure 3.

[14]. David Card, Raj Chett, Martin Feldstein, and Emmanuel Saez. Expanding Access to Adminstrative Data for Research in the United States. Available at: http://obs.rc.fas.harvard.edu/chetty/NSFdataaccess.pdf

[15]. Justice K.S Puttaswamy & Another vs. Union of India & Others. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 494 of 2012. Available at: http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=42841

[16]. Version 1.1 pg. 18

[17]. Aadhaar Enrollment Form from Karnataka State. http://www.karnataka.gov.in/aadhaar/Downloads/Application%20form%20-%20English.pdf

[18]. Business Line. Aadhaar only for foodgrains, LPG, kerosene, distribution. August 27^th 2015. Available at: http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/economy/aadhaar-only-for-foodgrains-lpg-kerosene-distribution/article7587382.ece

[19]. Bharti Jain. Election Commission not to link poll rolls to Aadhaar. The Times of India. August 15^th 2015. Available at: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Election-Commission-not-to-link-poll-rolls-to-Aadhaar/articleshow/48488648.cms

[20]. Graham Greenleaf. “Access all areas': Function creep guaranteed in Australia's ID Card Bill (No.1) Computer Law & Security Review. Volume 23, Issue 4. 2007. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0267364907000544

[21]. Version 1.1 pg. 3

[22]. For example, the UIDAI depends on private companies to act as enrollment agencies and collect, verify, and enroll individuals in the UID scheme. Though the UID enters into MOUs with these organizations, the UID cannot be held responsible for the security or accuracy of data collected, stored, etc. by these entities. See draft MOU for registrars: https://uidai.gov.in/images/training/MoU_with_the_State_Governments_version.pdf

[23]. Justice K.S Puttaswamy & Another vs. Union of India & Others. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 494 of 2012. Available at: http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1.aspx?filename=42841

[24]. Version 1.0 pg.3

[25]. Version 1.0 pg.4

[26]. Version 1.1 pg. 3

[27]. For example, there are reports of Aadhaar being introduced for different services such as education. See: Tanu Kulkarni. Aadhaar may soon replace roll numbers. The Hindu. August 21^st, 2015. For example: http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/bangalore/aadhaar-may-soon-replace-roll-numbers/article7563708.ece

[28]. For example see: Salil Tripathi. A dangerous convergence. July 31^st. 2015. The Live Mint. Available at: http://www.livemint.com/Opinion/xrqO4wBzpPbeA4nPruPNXP/A-dangerous-convergence.html

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/supreme-court-order-is-a-good-start-but-is-seeding-necessary

CIS Comments and Recommendations to the Human DNA Profiling Bill, June 2015

Elonnai Hickok, Vipul Kharbanda and Vanya Rakesh — 2015-09-02T17:09:04Z

The Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) submitted a clause-by-clause comments on the Human DNA Profiling Bill that was circulated by the Department of Biotechnology on June 9, 2015.

The Centre for Internet and Society is a non-profit research organisation that works on policy issues relating to privacy, freedom of expression, accessibility for persons with diverse abilities, access to knowledge, intellectual property rights and openness. It engages in academic research to explore and affect the shape and form of Internet, along with its relationship with the Society, with particular emphasis on South-South dialogues and exchange. The Centre for Internet and Society was also a member of the Expert Committee which was constituted in the year 2013 by the Department of Biotechnology to discuss the draft Human DNA Profiling Bill.

Missing aspects from the Bill

The Human DNA Profiling Bill, 2015 has overlooked and has not touched upon the following crucial factors :

Objects Clause

An ‘objects clause,’ detailing the intention of the legislature and containing principles to inform the application of a statute, in the main body of the statute is an enforceable mechanism to give directions to a statute and can be a formidable primary aid in statutory interpretation. [See, for example, section 83 of the Patents Act, 1970 that directly informed the Order of the Controller of Patents, Mumbai, in the matter of NATCO Pharma and Bayer Corporation in Compulsory Licence Application No. 1 of 2011.] Therefore, the Bill should incorporate an objects clause that makes clear that

“DNA profiles merely estimate the identity of persons, they do not conclusively establish unique identity, therefore forensic DNA profiling should only have probative value and not be considered as conclusive proof.

The Act recognises that all individuals have a right to privacy that must be continuously weighed against efforts to collect and retain DNA and in order to protect this right to privacy the principles of notice, confidentiality, collection limitation, personal autonomy, purpose limitation and data minimization must be adhered to at all times.”

Collection and Consent

The Bill does not contain provisions regarding instances when the DNA samples can be collected from the individuals without consent (nor does the Bill establish or refer to an authorization procedure for such collection), when DNA samples can be collected from individuals only with informed consent, and how and in what instances individuals can withdraw their consent. The issue of whether DNA samples can be collected without the consent of the individual is a vexed one and requires complex questions relating to individual privacy as well as the right against self incrimination. While the question of whether an accused can be made to give samples of blood, semen, etc. which had been in issue in a wide gamut of decisions in India has finally been settled by section 53 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allows collection of medical evidence from an accused, thus laying to rest any claims based on the right against self incrimination. However there are still issues dealing with the right to privacy and the violation thereof due to the non-consensual collection of DNA samples. This is an issue which needs to be addressed in this Act itself and should not be left unaddressed as this would only lead to a lack of clarity and protracted court cases to determine this issue. An illustration of this problem is where the Bill allows for collection of intimate body samples. There is a need for inclusion of stringent safeguard measures regarding the same since without such safeguards, the collection of intimate body samples would be an outright infringement of privacy. Further, maintaining a database for convicts and suspects is one thing, however collecting and storing intimate samples of individuals is a gross violation of the citizens’ right to privacy, and without adequate mechanisms regarding consent and security, stands at a huge risk of being misused.

Privacy Safeguards

Presently, the Bill is being introduced without comprehensive privacy safeguards in place on issues such as consent, collection, retention, etc. as is evident from the comments made below. Though the DNA Board is given the responsibility of recommending best practices pertaining to privacy (clause 13 (l)) – this is not adequate given the fact that India does not have a comprehensive privacy legislation. Though section 43A and associated Rules of the Information Technology Act would apply to the collection, use, and sharing of DNA data by DNA laboratories (as they would fall under the definition of ‘body corporate’ under the IT Act), the National and State Data Banks and the DNA Board would not clearly be body corporate as per the IT Act and would not fall under the ambit of the provision or Rules. Safeguards are needed to protect against the invasion of informational privacy and physical privacy at the level of these State controlled bodies. The fact that the Bill is to be introduced into Parliament prior to the enactment of a privacy legislation in India is significant as according to discussions in the Record Notes of the 4h Meeting of the Expert Committee - “the Expert Committee also discussed and emphasized that the Privacy Bill is being piloted by the Government. That Bill will over-ride all the other provisions on privacy issues in the DNA Bill.”

Lack of restriction on type of analysis to be performed

The Bill currently does not provide any restriction on the types of analysis that can be performed on a DNA sample or profile. This could allow for DNA samples to be analyzed for purposes beyond basic identification of an individual – such as for health, genetic, or racial purposes. As a form of purpose limitation the Bill should define narrowly the types of analysis that can be performed on a DNA sample.

Purpose Limitation

The Bill does not explicitly restrict the use of a DNA sample or DNA profile to the purpose it was originally collected and created for. This could allow for the re-use of samples and profiles for unintended purposes.

Annual Public Reporting

The Bill does not require the DNA Board to disclose publicly available information on an annual basis regarding the functioning and financial aspects of matters contained within the Bill. Such disclosure is crucial in ensuring that the public is able to make informed decisions. Categories that could be included in such reports include: Number of DNA profiles added to each indice within the databank, total number of DNA profiles contained in the database, number of DNA profiles deleted from the database, the number of matches between crime scene DNA profiles and DNA profiles, the number of cases in which DNA profiles were used in and the percentage in which DNA profiles assisted in the final conclusion of the case, and the number and categories of DNA profiles shared with international entities.

Elimination Indice

An elimination indice containing the profiles of medical professionals, police, laboratory personnel etc. working on a case is necessary in case they contaminate collected samples by accident.

Clause by Clause Recommendations

As stated the Human DNA Profiling Bill 2015 is to regulate the use of DNA analysis of human body substances profiles and to establish the DNA Profiling Board for laying down the standards for laboratories, collection of human body substances, custody trail from collection to reporting and also to establish a National DNA Data Bank.

Comment:

As stated, the purpose of the DNA Human Profiling Bill is to broadly regulate the of DNA analysis and establish a DNA Data Bank. Despite this, the majority of provisions in the Bill pertain to the collection, use, access etc. of DNA samples and profiles for civil and criminal purposes. The result of this is an 'unbalanced Bill' - with the majority of provisions focusing on issues related to forensic use. At the same time the Bill is not a comprehensive forensic bill – resulting in legislative gaps.
Additionally, the Bill contains provisions beyond the stated purpose. These include:

Facilitating the creation of a Data Bank for statistical purposes (Clause 33(e))
Establishing state and regional level databanks in addition to a national level databank (Clause 24)
Developing procedure and providing for the international sharing of DNA profiles with foreign Governments, organizations, institutions, or agencies. (Clause 29)

Recommendation:

The Bill should ideally be limited to regulating the use of DNA samples and profiles for criminal purposes. If the scope remains broad, all purposes should be equally and comprehensively regulated.
The stated purpose of the Bill should address all aspects of the Bill. Provisions beyond the scope of the Bill should be removed.

Chapter 1: Preliminary

Clause 2: This clause defines the terms used in the Bill.

Comment: A number of terms are incomplete and some terms used in the Bill have not been included in the list of definitions.

Recommendation:

The definition of DNA Data bank manager - clause 2 (1)(g) - must be renamed as National DNA Data bank manager.
The definition of “DNA laboratory” in clause 2(1)(h) should refer to the specific clauses that empower the Central Government and State Governments to license and recognise DNA laboratories. This is a drafting error.

The definition of “DNA profile” in clause 2(1)(i) is too vague. Merely the results of an analysis of a DNA sample may not be sufficient to create an actual DNA profile. Further, the results of the analysis may yield DNA information that, because of incompleteness or lack of information, is inconclusive. These incomplete bits of information should not be recognised as DNA profiles. This definition should be amended to clearly specify the contents of a complete and valid DNA profile that contains, at least, numerical representations of 17 or more loci of short tandem repeats that are sufficient to estimate biometric individuality of a person. The definition of “DNA profile” does not restrict the analysis to forensic DNA profiles: this means additional information, such as health-related information could be analyzed and stored against the wishes of the individual, even though such information plays no role in solving crimes.

The term “known sample” that is defined in clause 2(1)(m) is not used anywhere outside the definitions clause and should be removed.

The definition of “offender” in clause 2(1)(q) is vague because it does not specify the offenses for which an “offender” needs to be convicted. It is also linked to an unclear definition of the term “under trial”, which does not specify the nature of pending criminal proceedings and, therefore, could be used to describe simple offenses such as, for example, failure to pay an electricity bill, which also attracts criminal penalties.

The term “proficiency testing” that is defined in clause 2(1)(t) is not used anywhere in the text of the DNA Bill and should be removed.

The definitions of “quality assurance”, “quality manual” and “quality system” serve no enforceable purpose since they are used only in relation to the DNA Profiling Board’s rule making powers under Chapter IX, clause 58. Their inclusion in the definitions clause is redundant. Accordingly, these definitions should be removed.

The term “suspect” defined in clause 2(1)(za) is vague and imprecise. The standard by which suspicion is to be measured, and by whom suspicion may be entertained – whether police or others, has not been specified. The term “suspect” is not defined in either the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("CrPC") or the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC").

The term volunteer defined in clause 2(zf) only addresses consent from the parent or guardian of a child or an incapable person. This term should be amended to include informed consent from any volunteer.

Chapter II: DNA Profiling Board

Clause 4: This clause addresses the composition of the DNA Profiling Board.

Comment: The size and composition of the Board that is staffed under clause 4 is extremely large. The number of members remains to be 15, as it was in the 2012 Bill.

Recommendation: Drawing from the experiences of other administrative and regulatory bodies in India, the size of the Board should be reduced to no more than five members. The Board must contain at least:

One ex-Judge or senior lawyer
Civil society – both institutional and non-institutional
Privacy advocates

Note: The reduction of the size of the Board was agreed upon by the Expert Committee from 16 members (2012 Bill) to 11 members. This recommendation has not been incorporated.

Clause 5(1): The clause specifies the term of the Chairperson of the DNA Profiling Board to be five years and also states that the person shall not be eligible for re-appointment or extension of the term so specified.

Comment: The Chairperson of the Board, who is first mentioned in clause 5(1), has not been duly and properly appointed.

Recommendation: Clause 4 should be amended to mention the appointment of the Chairperson and other Members.

Clause 7: The clause requires members to react on a case-by-case basis to the business of the Board by excusing themselves from deliberations and voting where necessary.

Comment: This clause addresses the issue of conflict of interest only in narrow cases and does not provide penalty if a member fails to adhere to the laid out procedure.

Recommendation: The Bill should require members to make full and public disclosures of their real and potential conflicts of interest and the Chairperson must have the power to prevent such members from voting on interested matters. Failure to follow such anti-collusion and anti-corruption safeguards should attract criminal penalties.

Clause 12(5): The clause states that the board shall have the power to co-opt such number of persons as it may deem necessary to attend the meetings of the Board and take part in the proceedings of the board, but such persons will not have the right to vote.

Comment: While serving on the Expert Committee, CIS provided language regarding how the Board could consult with the public. This language has not been fully incorporated.

Recommendation: As per the recommendation of CIS, the following language should be adopted in the Bill: The Board, in carrying out its functions and activities, shall be required to consult with all persons and groups of persons whose rights and related interests may be affected or impacted by any DNA collection, storage, or profiling activity. The Board shall, while considering any matter under its purview, co-opt or include any person, group of persons, or organisation, in its meetings and activities if it is satisfied that that person, group of persons, or organisation, has a substantial interest in the matter and that it is necessary in the public interest to allow such participation. The Board shall, while consulting or co-opting persons, ensure that meetings, workshops, and events are conducted at different places in India to ensure equal regional participation and activities.

Clause 13: The clause lays down the functions to be performed by the DNA Profiling Board, which includes it’s role in regulation of the DNA Data Banks, DNA Laboratories and techniques to be adopted for collection of the DNA samples.

Comment: While serving on the Expert Committee, CIS recommended that the functions of the DNA Profiling Board should be limited to licensing, developing standards and norms, safeguarding privacy and other rights, ensuring public transparency, promoting information and debate and a few other limited functions necessary for a regulatory authority.

Furthermore, this clause delegates a number of functions to the Board that places the Board in the role of a manager and regulator for issues pertaining to DNA Profiling including functions of the DNA Databases, DNA Laboratories, ethical concerns, privacy concerns etc.

Recommendation: As per CIS’s recommendations the functions of the Board should be limited to licensing, developing standards and norms, safeguarding privacy and other rights, ensuring public transparency, promoting information and debate and a few other limited functions necessary for a regulatory authority.

Towards this, the Board should be comprised of separate Committees to address these different functions. At the minimum, there should be a Committee addressing regulatory issues pertaining to the functioning of Data Banks and Laboratories and an Ethics Committee to provide independent scrutiny of ethical issues. Additionally:

Clause 13(j) allows the Board to disseminate best practices concerning the collection and analysis of DNA samples to ensure quality and consistency. The process for collection of DNA samples and analysis should be established in the Bill itself or by regulations. Best practices are not enforceable and do not formalize a procedure.
Clause 13(q) allows the Board to establish procedure for cooperation in criminal investigation between various investigation agencies within the country and with international agencies. This procedure, at the minimum, should be subject to oversight by the Ministry of External Affairs.

Chapter III: Approval of DNA Laboratories

Clause 15: This clause states that every DNA Laboratory has to make an application before the Board for the purpose of undertaking DNA profiling and also for renewal.

Comment: Though the Bill requires DNA Laboratories to make an application for the undertaking DNA Profiling, it does not clarify that the Lab must receive approval before collection and analysis of DNA samples and profiles.

Recommendation: The Bill should clarify that all DNA Laboratories must receive approval for functioning prior to the collection or analysis of any DNA samples and profiles.

Chapter IV: Standards, Quality Control and Quality Assurance Obligations of DNA Laboratory and Infrastructure and Training

Clause 19: This clause defines the obligations of a DNA laboratory. Sub-section (d) maintains that one such obligation is the sharing of the 'DNA data' prepared and maintained by the laboratory with the State DNA Data Bank and the National DNA Data Bank.

Comment: ‘DNA Data’ is a new term that has not been defined under Clause 2 of the Bill. It is thus unclear what data would be shared between State DNA data banks and the National DNA data bank - DNA samples? DNA profiles? associated records? It is also unclear in what manner and on what basis the information would be shared.

Recommendation: The term ‘DNA Data’ should be defined to clarify what information will be shared between State and National DNA Data Banks. The flow of and access to data between the State DNA Data Bank and National DNA Data Bank should also be established in the Bill.

Clause 22: The clause lays down the measures to be adopted by a DNA Laboratory and 22(h) includes a provision requiring the conducting of annual audits according to prescribed standards.

Comment:

The definition of “audit” under Chapter VI in clause 22 under ‘Explanation’ is relevant for measuring the training programmes and laboratory conditions. However, the term “audit” is subsequently used in an entirely different manner in Chapter VII which relates to financial information and transparency.
The standards for the destruction of DNA samples have not been included within the list of measures that DNA laboratories must take.

Recommendation:

The definition of ‘audit’ must be amended or removed as it is being used in different contexts. The term “audit” has a well established use for financial information that does not require a definition.
Standards for the destruction of DNA samples should be developed and included as a measure DNA laboratories must take.
Clause 23: This clause lays down the sources for collection of samples for the purpose of DNA profiling. 23(1)(a) includes collection from bodily substances and 23(1)(c) includes clothing and other objects. Explanation (b) provides a definition of 'intimate body sample'.

Comment:

Permitting the collection of DNA samples from bodily substances and clothing and other objects allows for the broad collection of DNA samples without contextualizing such collection. In contrast 23(b) Scene of occurrence or scene of crime limits the collection of samples to a specific context.
This clause also raises the issue of consent and invasion of privacy of an individual. If “intimate body samples” are to be taken of individuals, then this would be an invasion of the person’s right to bodily privacy if such collection is done without the person’s consent (except in the specific instance when it is done in pursuance of section 53 of the Criminal Procedure Code).

Recommendation:

Sources for the collection of DNA samples should be contextualized to prevent broad, unaccounted for, or unregulated collection. Clause (a) and (c) should be deleted and replaced with contexts in which the collection DNA collection would be permitted.
The Bill should specify circumstances on which non-intimate samples can be collected and the process for the same.
The Bill should specify that intimate body samples can only be taken with informed consent except as per section 53 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The Bill should require that any individual that has a sample taken (intimate and non-intimate) is provided with notice of their rights and the future uses of their DNA sample and profile.

Chapter V: DNA Data Bank

Clause 24:This clause addresses establishment of DNA Data Banks at the State and National Level. 24(5) establishes that the National DNA Data Bank will receive data from State DNA Data Banks and store the approved DNA Profiles as per regulations.

Comment:

As noted previously, ‘DNA Data’ is a new term that has not been defined in the Bill. It is thus unclear what data would be shared between State DNA data banks and the National DNA data bank - DNA samples? DNA profiles? associated records?
The process for sharing Data between the State and National Data Banks is not defined.

Recommendation:

The term ‘DNA Data’ should be defined to clarify what information will be shared between State and National DNA Data Banks.
The process for the National DNA Data Bank receiving DNA data from State DNA Data Banks and DNA laboratories needs to be defined in the Bill or by regulation. This includes specifying how frequently information will be shared etc.

Clause 25: This clause establishes standards for the maintenance of indices by DNA databanks. 25(1) states that every DNA Data Bank needs to maintain the prescribed indices for various categories of data including an index for a crime scene, suspects, offenders, missing persons, unknown deceased persons, volunteers, and other indices as may be specified by regulation. 25(2) states that in addition to the indices, the DNA Data Bank should contain information regarding each of the DNA profiles. It can either be the identity of the person from whose bodily substance the profile was derived in case of a suspect or an offender, or the case reference number of the investigation associated with such bodily substances in other cases. 25(3) states that the indices maintained shall include information regarding the data which is based on the DNA profiling and the relevant records.

Comment:

25(1): The creation of multiple indices cannot be justified and must be limited since collection of biological source material is an invasion of privacy that must be conducted only in strict conditions when the potential harm to individuals is outweighed by the public good. This balance may only be struck when dealing with the collection and profiling of samples from certain categories of offenders. The implications of collecting and profiling DNA samples from corpses, suspects, missing persons and others are vast. Specifically a 'volunteer' index could possibly be used for racial/community/religious profiling.
25(2): This clause requires the names of individuals to be connected to their profiles, and hence accessible to persons having access to the databank.
25(3) The clause states that only information related to DNA profiling and will be stored in an indice. Yet, it is unclear what such information might be. This could allow inconsistencies in data stored in an indice and could allow for unnecessary information to be stored on an indice.

Recommendation:

25(1) Ideally, DNA databanks should be created for dedicated purposes. This would mean that a databank for forensic purposes should contain only an offenders’ index and a crime scene index while a databank for missing persons would contain only a missing persons indice etc. If numerous indices are going to be contained in one databank, the Bill needs to recognize the sensitivity of each indice as well as the difference between each indice and lay down appropriate and strict conditions for collection of data for such indice, addition of data into the indice, as well as use, access, and retention of data within the indice.
25(2) DNA profiles, once developed, should be maintained with complete anonymity and retained separate from the names of their owners. This amendment becomes even more important if we consider the fact that an “offender” may be convicted by a lower court and have his profile included in the data bank, but may get acquitted later. However, till the time that such person is acquitted, his/her profile with the identifying information would still be in the data bank, which is an invasion of privacy.
25(3) What information will be stored in indices should be clearly defined in the Bill and should be tailored appropriately to each category of indice.

Clause 28: This clause addresses the comparison and communication of DNA profiles. 28(1) states that the DNA profile entered in the offenders or crime scene index shall be compared by the DNA Data Bank Manger against profiles contained in the DNA Data Bank and the DNA Data Bank Manager will communicate such information with any court, tribunal, law enforcement agency, or approved DNA laboratory which he may consider appropriate for the purpose of investigation. 28(2) allows for any information relating to a person's DNA profile contained in the suspect's index or offenders' index to be communicated to authorised persons.

Comment:

28(1) (a-c) allows for the DNA Bank Manager to communicate the following: 1.) if the DNA profile is not contained in the Data Bank and what information is not contained, 2.) if the DNA profile is contained in the data bank and what information is contained, and if in the opinion of the Manager, 3.) the DNA profile is similar to one stored in the Databank. These options of communication are problematic as they 1. allow for all associated information to be communicated – even if such information is not necessary, 2.) Allows for the DNA Databank Manager to communicate that a profile is 'similar' without defining what 'similar' would constitute.
28(1) only addresses the comparison of DNA profiles entered into the offenders index or the crime scene index against all other profiles entered into the DNA Data Bank.
28(1) gives the DNA Data Bank manager broad discretion in determining if information should be communicated and requires no accountability for such a decision.
28(2) only addresses information in the suspect's and offender's index and does not address information in any other index.

Recommendation:

Rather than allowing for broad searches across the entire database, the Bill should be clear about which profiles can be compared against which indices. Such distinctions must take into consideration if a profile was taken on consent and what was consented to.
Ideally, the response from the DNA Databank Manager should be limited to a 'yes' or 'no' response and only further information should be revealed on receipt of a court order.
The Bill should define what constitutes 'similar'
A process for determining if information should be communicated should be established in the Bill and followed by the DNA Data Bank Manager. The Manager should also be held accountable through oversight mechanisms for such decisions. This is particularly important, as a DNA laboratory would be a private body.
Information stored in any index should be disclosed to only authorized parties.

Clause 29: This clause provides for comparison and sharing of DNA profiles with foreign Government, organisations, institutions or agencies. 29(1) allows the DNA Bank Manager to run a comparison of the received profile against all indices in the databank and communicate specified responses through the Central Bureau of Investigation.

Comment: This clause allows for international disclosures of DNA profiles of Indians through a procedure that is to be established by the Board (see clause 13(q))

Recommendation: The disclosure of DNA profiles of Indians with international entities should be done via the MLAT process as it is the typical process followed when sharing information with international entities for law enforcement purposes.

Clause 30: This clause provides for the permanent retention of information pertaining to a convict in the offenders’ index and the expunging of such information in case of a court order establishing acquittal of a person, or the conviction being set aside.

Comment: This clause addresses only the retention and expunging of records of a convict stored in the offenders index upon the receipt of a court order or the conviction being set aside. This implies that records in all other indices - including volunteers - can be retained permanently. This clause also does not address situations where an individuals DNA profile is added to the databank, but the case never goes to court.

Recommendation: The Bill should establish retention standards and deletion standards for each indice that it creates. Furthermore, the Bill should require the immediate destruction of DNA samples once a DNA profile for identification purposes has been created. An exception to this should be the destruction of samples stored in the crime scene index.

Chapter VI: Confidentiality of and Access to DNA Profiles, Samples, and Records

Clause 33: This provision lays down the cases and the persons to which information pertaining to DNA profiles, samples and records stored in the DNA Data Bank shall be made available. Specifically, 33(e) permits disclosure for the creation and maintenance of a population statistics Data Bank.

Comment:

This clause addresses disclosure of information in the DNA Data Bank, but does not directly address the use of DNA samples or DNA profiles. This allows for the possibility of re-use of samples and profiles.
There is no limitation on the information that can be disclosed. The clause allows for any information stored in the Data Bank to be disclosed for a number of circumstances/to a variety of people.
There is no authorization process for the disclosure of such information. Of the circumstances listed – an authorization process is mentioned only for the disclosure of information in the case of investigations relating to civil disputes or other civil matters with the concurrence of the court. This implies that there is no procedure for authorizing the disclosure of information for identification purposes in criminal cases, in judicial proceedings, for facilitating prosecution and adjudication of criminal cases, for the purpose of taking defence by an accused in a criminal case, and for the creation and maintenance of a population statistics Data Bank.

Recommendation:

The Bill should establish an authorization process for the disclosure of information stored in a data bank. This process must limit the disclosure of information to what is necessary and proportionate for achieving the requested purpose.
Clause 33(e) should be deleted as the non-consensual disclosure of DNA profiles for the study of population genetics is specifically illegal. The use of the database for statistical purposes should be limited to purposes pertaining to understanding effectiveness of the databank.
Clause 33(f) should be deleted as it is not necessary for DNA profiles to be stored in a database to be useful for civil purposes. Instead samples for civil purposes are only needed as per the relevant case and specified persons.
Clause 33(g) should be deleted as it allows for the scope of cases in which DNA can be disclosed to by expanded as prescribed.

Clause 34: This clause allows for access to information for operation maintenance and training.
Comment: This clause would allow individuals in training access to data stored on the database for training purposes. This places the security of the databank and the data stored in the databank at risk.
Recommendation: Training of individuals should be conducted via simulation only.

Clause 35: This clause allows for access to information in the DNA Data Bank for the purpose of a one time keyboard search. A one time keyboard search allows for information from a DNA sample to be compared with information in the index without the information from the DNA sample being included in the index. The clause allows for an authorized individual to carry out such a search on information obtained from an DNA sample lawfully collected for the purpose of criminal investigation, except if the DNA sample was submitted for elimination purposes.
Comment: The purpose of this clause is unclear as is the scope. The clause allows for the sample to be compared against 'the index' without specifying which index. The clause also allows for 'information obtained from a DNA sample' rather than a profile. Thus, the clause appears to allow for any information derived from a DNA sample collected for a criminal investigation to be compared against all data within the databank – without recording such information. Such a comparison is vast in scope and open to abuse.
Recommendation: To ensure that this provision is not used for conducting searches outside of the scope of the original purpose, only DNA profiles, rather than 'information derived from a sample' should be allowed to be compared, only the indices relevant to the sample should be compared, and the search should be authorized and justified.
Clause 36 : This clause addresses the restriction of access to information in the crime scene index if the individual is a victim of a specified offense or if the person has been eliminated as a suspect of an investigation.

Comment:

This clause only addresses restriction of access to the crime scene index and does not address restriction of access to other indices.
This clause only restricts access to the indice for certain category of individual and for a specific status of a person. Oddly, the clause does not include authorization or rank as a means for determining or restricting access.

Recommendation:

This clause should be amended to lay down standards for restriction of access for all indices.
Access to all information in the databank should be restricted by default and permission should be based on authorization rather than category or status of individual.

Clause 38: This clause sets out a post-conviction right related to criminal procedure and evidence.

Comment: This clause would fundamentally alter the nature of India’s criminal justice system, which currently does not contain specific provisions for post-conviction testing rights.

Recommendation: This clause should be deleted and the issue of post conviction rights related to criminal procedure and evidence referenced to the appropriate legislation. Clause 38 is implicated by Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India and by section 300 of the CrPC. The principle of autrefois acquit that informs section 300 of the CrPC specifically deals with exceptions to the rule against double jeopardy that permit re-trials. [See, for instance, Sangeeta Mahendrabhai Patel (2012) 7 SCC 721.] The person must be duly accorded with a right to know rules may provide for- the authorized persons to whom information relating to a person’s DNA profile contained in the offenders’ index shall be communicated. Alternatively, this right could be limited only to accused persons who’s trial is still at the stage of production of evidence in the Trial Court. This suggestion is being made because unless the right as it currently stands, is limited in some manner, every convict with the means to engage a lawyer would ask for DNA analysis of the evidence in his/her case thereby flooding the system with useless requests risking a breakdown of the entire machinery.

Chapter VII: Finance, Accounts, and Audit

Clause 39: This clause allows the Central Government to make grants and loans to the DNA Board after due appropriation by Parliament.

Comment: This clause allows the Central Government to grant and loan money to the DNA Board, but does not require any proof or justification for the sum of money being given.

Recommendation: This clause should require a formal cost benefit analysis, and financial assessment prior to the giving of any grants or loans.

Chapter VIII: Offences and Penalties

Chapter IX: Miscellaneous

Clause 53: This clause allows protects the Central Government and the Members of the Board from suit, prosecution, or other legal proceedings for actions that they have taken in good faith.

Comment: Though it is important to take into consideration if an action has been taken in good faith, absolving the Government and Board from accountability for actions leaves little course of redress for the individual. This is particularly true as the Central Government and the Board are given broad powers under the Bill.

Recommended: If the Central Government and the Board will be protected for actions taken in good faith, their powers should be limited. Specifically, they should not have the ability to widen the scope of the Bill.

Clause 57: This clause states that the Central Government will have the powers to make Rules for a number of defined issues.

Comment: 57(d) allows for the regulations to be created regarding the use of population statistics Data Bank created and maintained for the purposes of identification research and protocol development or quality control.

Recommendation: 57(d) should be deleted as any use for the creation of a population statistics Data Bank created and maintained for the purposes of identification research and protocol development or quality control is beyond the scope of the Bill.

Clause 58: This clause empowers the Board to make regulations regarding a number of aspects related to the Bill.
Comment: There a number of functions that the Board can make regulations for that should be defined within the Bill itself to ensure that the scope of the Bill does not expand without Parliamentary oversight and approval.
Recommendation: 58(2)(g) should be deleted as it allows the Board to create regulations for other relevant uses of DNA techniques and technologies, 58(2)(u) should be deleted as it allows the Board to include new categories of indices to databanks, and 58(2) (aa) should be deleted as it allows the Board to decide which other indices a DNA profile may be compared with in the case of sharing of DNA profiles with foreign Governments, organizations, or institutions.

Clause 61: This clause states that no civil court will have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which the Board is empowered to determine and no injunction shall be granted.

Comment: This clause in practice will limit the recourse that individuals can take and will exclude the Board from the oversight of civil or criminal courts.

Recommendation: The power to collect, store and analyse human DNA samples has wide reaching consequences for people whose samples are being utilised for this purpose, specially if their samples are being labeled in specific indexes such as “index of offenders”, etc. The individual should therefore have a right to approach the court of law to safeguard his/her rights. Therefore this provision barring the jurisdiction of the courts should be deleted.

Schedule

Schedule A: The schedule refers to section 33(f) which allows for disclosure of information in relation to DNA profiles, DNA samples, and records in a DNA Data Bank to be communicated in cases of investigations relating to civil disputes or other civil matters or offenses or cases listed in the schedule with the concurrence of the court.

Comment: As 33(f) requires the concurrence of the court for disclosure of information, it is unclear what purpose the schedule serves. If the Schedule is meant to serve as a guide to the Court on appropriate instances for the disclosure of information stored in the DNA databank – the schedule is too general by listing entire Acts, while at the same time being too specific by naming specific Acts. Ideally, courts should use principles and the greater public interest to reach a decision as to whether or not disclosure of information in the DNA databank is appropriate. At a minimum these principles should include necessity (of the disclosure) and proportionality (of the type/amount of information disclosed).

Recommendation: As we recommended the deletion of clause 33(f) as it is not necessary to databank DNA profiles for civil purposes, the schedule should also be deleted.

Note: The schedule differs drastically from previous drafts and from discussions held in the Expert Committee and recommendations agreed upon. As per the Meeting Minutes of the Expert Committee meeting held on November 10th 2014 “The Committee recommended incorporation of the comments received from the members of the Expert Committee appropriately in the draft Bill...Point no. 1 suggested by Mr. Sunil Abraham in the Schedule of the draft Bill to define the cases in which DNA samples can be collected without consent by incorporating point no. 1 (I.e 'Any offence under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 if it is listed as a cognizable offence in Part I of the First Schedule of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973)”

Download CIS submission here. See the cover letter here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-comments-and-recommendations-to-human-dna-profiling-bill-2015

Data Flow in the Unique Identification Scheme of India

vidushi — 2015-09-03T17:02:44Z

This note analyses the data flow within the UID scheme and aims at highlighting vulnerabilities at each stage. The data flow within the UID Scheme can be best understood by first delineating the organizations involved in enrolling residents for Aadhaar. The UIDAI partners with various Registrars usually a department of the central or state Government, and some private sector agencies like LIC etc– through a Memorandum of Understanding for assisting with the enrollment process of the UID project.

Many thanks to Elonnai Hickok for her invaluable guidance, input and feedback

These Registrars then appoint Enrollment Agencies that enroll residents by collecting the necessary data and sharing this with the UIDAI for de-duplication and issuance of an Aadhaar number, at enrolment centers that they set up. The data flow process of the UID is described below:[1]

Data Capture

Filling out an enrollment form – To enroll for an Aadhaar number, individuals are required to provide proof of address and proof of identity. These documents are verified by an official at the enrollment center.

Vulnerability: Though an official is responsible for verifying these documents, it is unclear how this verification is completed. It is possible for fraudulent proof of address and proof of identity to be verified and approved by this official.

The 'introducer' system: For individuals who do not have a Proof of Identity, Proof of Address etc the UIDAI has established an 'introducer' system. The introducer verifies that the individual is who they claim to be and that they live where they claim to live.

Vulnerability: This introducer is akin to the introducer concept in banking; except that here, the introducer must be approved by the Registrar, and need not know the person bring enrolled. This leads to questions of authenticity and validity of the data collected and verified by an 'introducer'. The Home Ministry in 2012, indicated that this must be reviewed.[2]

Categories of data for enrollment: The UIDAI has a standard enrollment form and list of documents required for enrollment. This includes: name, address, birth date, gender, proof of address and proof of identity. Some MoUs (Memorandum of Understanding) permit for the Registrars to collect additional information in addition to what is required by the UIDAI. This could be any information the Registrar deems necessary for any purpose.

Vulnerability: The fact that a Registrar may collect any information they deem necessary and for any purpose leads to concerns regarding (1) informed consent – as individuals are in placed in a position of having to provide this information as it is coupled with the Aadhaar enrollment process (2) unauthorized collection - though the MOU between the UIDAI and the Registrar has authorized the Registrar to collect additional information – if the information is personal in nature and the Registrar is a body corporate it must be collected as per the Information Technology Rules 2011 under section 43A. It is unclear if Registrars that are body corporates are collecting data in accordance to these rules. (3) As Registrars are permitted to collect any data they deem necessary for any purpose – this leads to concerns regarding misuse of this data..[3]

Verification of Resident’s Documents: true copies of original documents, after verification are sent to the Registrar for “permanent storage.”[4]

Vulnerability: It is unclear as to what extent and form this storage takes place. There is no clarity on who is responsible for the data once collected, and the permissible uses of such data are also unclear. The contracts between the UID and Registry claim that guidelines must be followed, while the guidelines state that, “The documents are required to be preserved by Registrar till the UIDAI finalizes its document storage agency” and states that the “Registrars must ensure that the documents are stored in a safe and secure manner and protected from unauthorized access.” [5] The question of what is “unauthorized access”, “secure storage”, when is data transferred to the UIDAI and when the UIDAI will access it and why remain unanswered. Moreover, there is nothing about deleting documents once the MoU lapses. The guidelines in question were also developed post facto.

Data collection for enrollment: After verification of proof of address and proof of identity, operators at the enrolling the agency will be enrolling individuals. Data Collection is completed by operators at the enrolling agency. This includes the digitization of enrollment forms and collection of biometrics. Enrollment information is manually collected and entered into computers operating software provided by the UIDAI and then transferred to the UIDAI. Biometrics are collected through devices that have been provided by third parties such as Accenture and L1Identity Solutions.

Vulnerability: After data is collected by enrollment operators it is possible for data leakage to occur at the point of collection or during transfer to the Registrar and UIDAI. Data operators, are therefore not answerable to the UIDAI, but to a private agency; a fact which has been the cause of concern even within the government.[6] There have also been instances of sub contracting which leads to more complications in respect of accountability. Misuse[7] and loss of data is a very real possibility, and irregularities have been reported as well.[8] By relying on technology that is provided by third parties (in many cases foreign third parties) data collected by these devices is also available to these companies while at the same time the companies are not regulated by Indian law.

Import pre-enrolment data into Aadhaar enrollment client, Syncing NPR/census data into the software: The National Population Register (NPR) enrolls usual residents, and is governed by the Citizenship Rules, which prescribe a penalty for non disclosure of information.

Vulnerability: Biometrics does not form part of the Rules that govern NPR data collection; the Citizenship Rules, 2003. In many ways, collection of biometrics without amending the citizenship laws amounts to a worrying situation. The NPR hands over information that it collects to UIDAI, biometrics collected as part of the UIDAI is included in the NPR, leading to concerns surrounding legality and security of such data.

Resident’s consent: for “whether the resident has agreed to share the captured information with organizations engaged in delivery of welfare services.”

Vulnerability: This allows the UIDAI to use data in an almost unfettered fashion. The enrolment form reads, “‘‘I have no objection to the UIDAI sharing information provided by me to the UIDAI with agencies engaged in delivery of welfare services.” Informed consent, Vague. What info and with whom. Why is necessary for the UIDAI to share this information, when the organization is only supposed to be a passive intermediary? Does beyond the mandate of the UIDAI, which is only to provide and authenticate the number.

Biometric exceptions: The operator checks if the resident’s eyes/hands are amputated/missing, and after the Supervisor verifies the same, the record is made as an exception and only the individuals photograph is recorded.

Vulnerability: There has widespread misuse of this clause, with data being fabricated to fall into this category, making it unreliable as a whole. In March 2013, 3.84 lakh numbers were cancelled as they were based on fraudulent use of the exception clause. [9]

Operator checks if resident wants Aadhaar enabled bank account: The UID project was touted to be a scheme that would ensure access to benefits and subsidies that are provided through cash transfers as well as enabling financial inclusion. Subsequently, the need for a Aadhaar embedded bank account was made essential to avail of these benefits. The operator at this point checks whether the resident would like to open such a bank account.

Vulnerability: The data provided at the time of linking UID with a bank account cannot be corrected or retracted. Although this has the vision of financial inclusion, it is now a threat of exclusion.

Capturing biometrics- The UIDAI scheme includes assigning each individual a unique identification number after collecting their demographic and biometric information. One Time Passwords are used to manually override a situation in which biometric identification fails.[10] The UIDAI data collection process was revamped in 2012 to include best finger detection and multiple try method.[11]

Vulnerabilities: The collection process is not always accurate, in fact, 70% of the residents who enrolled in Salt Lake, will have to re-enroll due to discrepancies at the time of enrollment.[12] Further, a large number of people in India are unable to give biometric information due to manual labour, or cataracts etc.

After such data is entered, the Operator shows such data to the Resident or Introducer or Head of the Family (as the case may be) for validation.

Operator Sign off – Each set of data needs to be verified by an Operator whose fingerprint is already stored in the system.

Vulnerability: Vesting authority to sign off in an operator allows for signing off on inaccurate or fraudulent data. For example, the issuance of aadhaar numbers to biometric exceptions highlight issues surrounding misuse and unreliability of this function.[13]

After this, the Enrolment operator gets supervisor’s sign off for any exceptions that might exist, Acknowledgement and consent for enrolment is stored. Any correction to specified data can be made within 96 hours.

Document Storage, Back up and Sync

After gathering and verifying all the information about the resident, the Enrolment Agency Operator will store photocopies of the documents of the resident. These Agencies also backup data “from time to time” (recommended to be twice a day), and maintain it for a minimum of 60 days. They also sync with the server every 7-10 days.

Vulnerability: The security implications of third party operators storing information is greatly exacerbated by the fact that these operators use technology and devices from companies have close ties to intelligence agencies in other countries; L-1 Identity Solutions have close ties with America’s CIA, Accenture with French intelligence etc. [14]

Transfer of Demographic and Biometric Data Collected to CIDR

“First mile logistics” include transferring data by using Secure File Transfer Protocol) provided by UIDAI or through a “suitable carrier” such as India Post.

Vulnerability: There is no engagement between the UIDAI and the enrolling agencies; the registrars engage private enrolment agencies, and not the UIDAI. Further, the scope of people authorized to collect information, the information that can be collected, how such information is stored etc are all vague. In 2009, there was a notification that claimed that the UIDAI owns the database[15] but there is no indication on how it may be used, how this might react to instances of identity fraud, etc.

Data De-duplication and Aadhar Generation at CIDR

On receiving biometric information, the de-duplication is done to ensure that each individual is given only one UID number.

Vulnerability:

This de-duplication is carried out by private companies, some of which are not of indian origin and thus are also not bound by Indian law. Also, the volume of Aadhaar numbers rejected due to quality or technical reasons is a cause of worry; the count reaching 9 crores in May 2015.[16]
The MoUs promise registrars access to information contained in the Aadhaar letter, although individuals are ensured that such letter is only sent to them. [17]
General compliance and de-duplication has been an issue, with over 34,000 people being issued more than one Aadhaar number,[18] and innumerable examples of faulty Aadhaar cards being issued.[19]

[1] Enrolment Process Essentials : UIDAI , (December 13,2012), http://nictcsc.com/images/Aadhaar%20Project%20Training%20Module/English%20Training%20Module/module2_aadhaar_enrolment_process17122012.pdf

[2] UIDAI to review biometric data collection process of 60 crore resident Indians: P Chidambaram, Economic Times, (Jan 31, 2012), http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-01-31/news/31010619_1_biometrics-uidai-national-population-register.

[3]See: an MoU signed between the UIDAI and the Government of Madhya Pradesh. Also see: Usha Ramanathan, “States as handmaidens of UIDAI”, The Statesman (August 8, 2013).

[4]http://nictcsc.com/images/Aadhaar%20Project%20Training%20Module/English%20Training%20Module/module2_aadhaar_enrolment_process17122012.pdf

[5] Document Storage Guidelines for Registrars – Version 1.2, https://uidai.gov.in/images/mou/D11%20Document%20Storage%20Guidelines%20for%20Registrars%20final%2005082010.pdf

[6] Arindham Mukherjee, Lola Nayar, Aadhaar,A Few Basic Issues, Outlook India, (December 5, 2011), http://dataprivacylab.org/TIP/2011sept/India4.pdf.

[7] Aadhaar: UIDAI probing several cases of misuse of personal data, The Hindu, (April 29, 2012), http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/economy/aadhar-uidai-probing-several-cases-of-misuse-of-personal-data/article3367092.ece.

[8] Harsimran Julka, UIDAI wins court battle against HCL technologies, The Economic Times, (October 4, 2011), http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2011-10-04/news/30242553_1_uidai-bank-guarantee-hp-and-ibm.

[9] Chetan Chauhan, UIDAI cancels 3.84 lakh fake Aadhaar numbers, The Hindustan Times, (December 26, 2012), http://www.hindustantimes.com/newdelhi/uidai-cancels-3-84-lakh-fake-aadhaar-numbers/article1-980634.aspx.

[10] Usha Ramanathan, “Inclusion project that excludes the poor”, The Statesman (July 4, 2013).

[11] UIDAI to Refresh Data Collection Process, Zee News, (February 7, 2012) http://zeenews.india.com/news/delhi/uidai-to-refresh-data-collection-process_757251.html.

[12] Snehal Sengupta, Queue up again to apply for Aadhaar, The Telegraph, (February 27, 2015), http://www.telegraphindia.com/1150227/jsp/saltlake/story_5642.jsp#.VayjDZOqqko

[13] Chauhan, supra note 7.

[14] Usha Ramanathan, Three Supreme Court Orders Later, What’s the Deal with Aadhaar? Yahoo News, (April 13, 2015), https://in.news.yahoo.com/three-supreme-court-orders-later--what-s-the-deal-with-aadhaar-094316180.html.

[15] Usha Ramanathan, “Threat of Exclusion and of Surveillance”, The Statesman (July 2, 2013).

[16] Over 9 Crore Aadhaar enrolments rejected by UIDAI, Zee News (May 8, 2015).

[17] Usha Ramanathan, “States as handmaidens of UIDAI”, The Statesman (August 8, 2013).

[18] Surabhi Agarwal, Duplicate Aadhar numbers within estimate, Live Mint (March 5, 2013).

[19] Usha Ramanathan, “Outsourcing enrolment, gathering dogs and trees”, The Statesman (August 7, 2013).

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/data-flow-in-unique-identification-scheme-of-india