Centre for Internet and Society

From 1 March, only registered devices to be used to authenticate Aadhaar

Admin — 2018-02-24T07:59:39Z

UIDAI directive to Aadhaar authentication agencies aims to avoid putting citizens’ biometric data at risk

The article by Komal Gupta was published in Livemint on February 8, 2018.

The Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) has directed all Aadhaar authentication agencies to use only registered biometric devices from 1 March to avoid putting residents’ data at risk.

The initial deadline to upgrade these devices was 1 June 2017, but it has been extended several times. The latest is the sixth extension.

The UIDAI wants the biometric devices registered with the Aadhaar system for encryption key management. The Aadhaar authentication server can individually identify and validate these devices and manage encryption keys on each registered device.

“It is reiterated that to ensure encryption of biometrics of residents at time of capture, it is absolutely essential to use only the registered devices. Any further use of non-registered devices will be putting residents’ privacy at risk,” a UIDAI circular dated 2 February said.

In January last year, UIDAI had instructed all the authentication user agencies (AUAs) and authentication service agencies (ASAs) to adhere to its new encryption standards and accordingly upgrade the devices to the new norms.

The AUA is an entity engaged in providing Aadhaar-enabled services. It may be a government, public or a private legal agency registered in India which uses Aadhaar authentication services provided by UIDAI.

The ASA is any entity that transmits authentication requests to the Central Identities Data Repository (CIDR) on behalf of one or more AUAs.

Requests from AUAs to extend the timeline has been cited as the reason for delay by UIDAI. The last deadline was 31 January.

Still, UIDAI claims most of the entities have migrated to registered devices and “no further extension will be given in this regard.” Failure to meet the February-end deadline will lead to loss or disruption of services, the circular added.

A privacy expert called for better security in the Aadhaar system.

“The UIDAI should have gone in for smart cards, which are inherently more secure and would have proven a better basis for a national ID system. Given its choice of biometrics, UIDAI should have required hardware-level encryption — the yet-to-be-specified (Level 1) security standard— from 2010,” said Pranesh Prakash, policy director at think tank Centre for Internet and Society.

“Making the much-delayed Level 1 mandatory is what UIDAI should be focusing on; sadly, even basic registration and easily-defeated software-level encryption (Level 0) is yet to be made mandatory,” he said.

UIDAI has been under the scanner over the past few months over charges that random entities have been accessing personal information without the consent of individual Aadhaar number holders.

Last month, UIDAI put in place a two-layer security to reinforce privacy protections for Aadhaar holders—it introduced a virtual identification so that the actual number need not be shared to authenticate their identity. Simultaneously, it further regulated the storage of the Aadhaar numbers within various databases.
There are more than 1.2 billion Aadhaar holders in the country.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/livemint-komal-gupta-february-8-2018-from-march-1-only-registered-devices-to-be-used-to-authenticate-aadhaar

Quantified identities as a global phenomenon: analyzing the impact of biometric systems in our societies

Admin — 2018-03-01T00:56:20Z

A session by Amber Sinha and Leandro Ucciferri of ADC, Argentina at the Internet Freedom Festival to be held in Valencia, Spain in March has been selected. Amber Sinha will make a presentation.

In the last decade, societies all around the world have seen an exponential growth in the implementation of biometric identification systems, used from the most complex to the most mundane activities that we perform in our daily lives. The research work being carried out by ADC in Argentina, and more broadly in Latin America, allowed us to reach certain observations: In general, public policies related to the use of these types of technologies are carried out with little or no transparency vis-à-vis society; the lack of precise information, which varies country to country, about the technologies and mechanisms being used for the collection, analysis and storage of the biometric data, and the use cases behind such technologies (e.g. the purpose of the data, who will have access to it, if it will be shared and transferred between different public or private bodies); and finally the lack of sufficient legal frameworks to guarantee an adequate treatment of the biometric data collected, both by the State and the private sector.

Additionally, the research by CIS in India and other jurisdictions in Asia shows that biometric identification systems are being portrayed as critical to the use of online services such as e-governance or e-commerce platforms, and facilitates the generation of enormous amounts of transactional data. In India, the biometric identity is envisioned as a ‘cradle to grave’ identity. This unique identifier is key to the integration of different government and private sector databases and poses serious risks of profiling, function creep, lack of accountability and regulation by code.

With this session we aim to address some of the more pressing issues regarding the implementation of biometric technologies in our societies, specifically: a) Threats to bodily integrity and dignity: how biometrics reduce an individual to a number represented through a biometric sequence. b) Irreversible damages in case of breach: unlike passwords, biometrics –such as our fingerprints, our faces, iris or voice– cannot be changed; so once compromised, the damage is irreversible. c) Are biometrics appropriate forms of identifiers? How can we answer questions around uniqueness, discrimination and bias, resolving false positives and false negatives, as well as the change of biometrics over time (e.g. age or medical conditions that may affect our bodies). d) How biometrics are changing our perception of public spaces, specially due to technologies such as facial recognition? e) How are biometric based identification systems reconfiguring the relationship between citizen and state? Together with CIS, we will give a brief overview of the current trends in Latin America and Asia, in order to set the context of the conversation and then allow participants to freely express their own personal/professional expertise to learn about their concerns and experiences in terms of how biometric technologies have affected their day to day lives.

For more info, click here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/quantified-identities-as-a-global-phenomenon-analyzing-the-impact-of-biometric-systems-in-our-societies

Roundtable on A.I. and Governance in India

pranav — 2018-04-20T07:41:21Z

The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), Bangalore is organizing a roundtable on ‘A.I. and Governance in India' at India Islamic Cultural Centre in New Delhi on March 16, 2018 from 10.00 a.m. to 1.30 p.m.

Download the Event Report

The Roundtable seeks to discuss the various issues and challenges surrounding the design, development and use of AI in Governance (including law enforcement and legal institutions).

In line with the changing times, the government, as well as its agencies, have started using technology and digitization to make governance more efficient and accessible. For example,through its flagship project Digital India, the Indian government has undertaken digitization and revamping of systems related to railways, land records, educational resource etc. As the government pursues its digital agenda, artificial intelligence can be a tool for efficiency and decision making. To realize the potential of AI, a clear understanding of the technology and how it can and should be used is necessary. The first step towards a robust AI policy is a sound Information and Communication Technology (ICT) policy that lays the edifice for algorithmic decision making using AI.

Though the adoption of AI in the public sector is still in its nascent stages, the government of India is taking various steps to increase the scale of adoption. The Union Ministry of Commerce and Industry has constituted a task force on AI to facilitate India's economic transformation. This year’s Union Budget also recognised the need for government investment in research, training and skill development in robotics, AI, digital manufacturing, Big Data intelligence and Quantum communications. Though the adoption of AI in the public sector is still in its nascent stages, the government of India is taking various steps to increase the scale of adoption. The Union Ministry of Commerce and Industry has constituted a task force on AI to facilitate India's economic transformation. This year’s Union Budget also recognised the need for government investment in research, training and skill development in robotics, AI, digital manufacturing, Big Data intelligence and Quantum communications.

Our research on the application of AI in Indian governance aims to examine five broad sectors of application: law enforcement, discharge of governmental functions, defense,judicial/administrative decision making, and education. A few of the existing government research initiatives identified by CIS include the Center for Artificial Intelligence and Robotics (CAIR) hosted by the Indian Defense Research and Development Organization which focuses on research and development of ICT solutions for defense, and the Ministry of Finance’s use of geospatial analytics for their economic survey on human settlements. There are already instances where government bodies are using AI, an example being the case of the Indian Police force, which is revamping its investigation procedures by using Big Data and Artificial Intelligence. The Delhi police has already started using data and analytics to control crime. In the field of agriculture too, the Indian government has partnered with Microsoft to use AI to improve crop production.

While AI can aid governance in numerous ways, there needs to be a system of checks and balances in order to ensure effectiveness, transparency, and accountability. Hence,governance mechanisms must be able to ensure inclusiveness, while minimising the risks that might arise with the use of the technology. Experts have also predicted that, as the government incorporates AI into specific areas of governance- such as service delivery, it will simultaneously need to incorporate it into broader policy structures such as cyber security and the national education framework.

The process of designing a governance ecosystem is a complex one, and AI poses several pre-existing ethical and legal for each application within this ecosystem. The effectiveness ofAI and Machine learning inherently depends on the availability of data, and it is predicted that the most imminent challenge will also involve the same, especially as India becomesincreasingly data dense and the government is entrusted with its citizens’ data. These challenges could range from the collection, storage, and use of data, to having to answerquestions of fairness, safety, and prevention of misuse. This roundtable seeks to deliberate on these questions and more so as to understand how to optimise the use of AI ingovernance for the public interest. In doing so, the roundtable will use preliminary research that CIS has undertaken into the use of AI and governance in India as an entry point into broader discussions on the challenges and benefits and way forward for AI.

Agenda

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/roundtable-on-a-i-and-governance-in-india

Aadhaar unique IDs in India: a qualified success?

Admin — 2018-03-17T12:49:51Z

Anshuman Jaswal form Kapronasia shares insights into the security and privacy concerns related to Aadhaar, which are often overlooked

This editorial was first published in our Web Fraud Prevention and Online Authentication Market Guide 2017/2018. The Guide is a complete overview of the fraud management, digital identity verification and authentication ecosystem provided by thought leaders in the industry from leading solution providers (both established and new players) to associations and experts.

The Digital India project initiated by the Government of India has made significant headway in the last few years. As part of this project, the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) has presided over the allotment of unique identification numbers to all Indian residents since 2009. Currently, more than 1.1 billion Indian citizens and residents have Aadhaar IDs, making this the largest exercise of this kind the world has ever seen. There are many potential benefits of such a scheme, but there are also concerns and pitfalls. Besides the advantages, this article also focuses on some of the security and privacy concerns related to Aadhaar, which are often overlooked.

Benefits of Aadhaar

India is the second most populous nation on earth, with more than 1.3 billion people. Having a unique identification system in place would be a fillip for the government, as it would allow government schemes for poverty alleviation and improvement in health and educational well-being to be better targeted. For example, if a needy person’s bank account is linked to their Aadhaar biometric ID, then it would be easier for the government to provide funds to the individual without using any intermediary. In a country struggling with corruption throughout the government machinery, being able to reach the target audience directly is a significant benefit. Similarly, if both the bank accounts and the tax IDs of individuals are linked to the Aadhaar ID, then the government can trace the income and expenditure of its citizens, thereby obtaining vital information that would allow it to counter money-laundering and the shadow economy.

Security challenges are paramount

Creating a monumental technology infrastructure to meet the requirements of a population of more than 1.3 billion people does not come without its problems. Many people have questioned the wisdom of concentrating so much critical personal information in a government platform that is not known for having a robust security framework. There have been two prominent instances in which the Aadhaar database has been compromised.

In May 2017, the Bengaluru-based Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) alleged that there had been an illegal breach of the database, and Aadhaar identity numbers of more than 130 million people had been leaked online, along with their dates of birth, addresses, and tax IDs (PAN). It is believed that the revealed information did not include the biometric identification of the people affected, but the breach was significant nonetheless as it exposed millions of people to possible fraud.

The response of the UIDAI was also insightful, because it asked the CIS to reveal on which servers the data was stored, and who might have been responsible for the breach. The UIDAI response quoted the relevant laws, namely sections of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Aadhaar Act, underlining the liability under law. The aggressive approach of the UIDAI forced the CIS to retract some of its claims, but then the focus of the discussion was shifted from the loss of critical information to the semantics of the claims of CIS. Instead of calling the breach a “leak”, after receiving the letter from UIDAI, CIS stated that it was merely an “illegal disclosure”.

The second instance of a breach occurred between January to July 2017, when an IT expert hacked into the Aadhaar-enabled e-hospital system created under the Digital India project of the Government of India. His intention was to access the central identities data repository of UIDAI for verification of Aadhaar numbers, to be used for an ‘eKYC Verification’ app created by him. The UIDAI database gave him access considering that it was the e-hospital system that was requesting the Aadhaar identity verification. The hack shows that the security protocols of the UIDAI require significant overhaul before it can be trusted to protect the hundreds of millions of digital identities in its database.

Aadhaar and the right to privacy

The Indian constitution does not mention a right to privacy. This has been raised as a serious concern by the critics of Aadhaar, since there is no related privacy framework that outlines how the government can use the Aadhaar information. However, the Supreme Court of India addressed some of these concerns when it stated, in August 2017, that privacy is a fundamental right under the Constitution with reasonable restrictions. It was a landmark decision in the Indian context, since it could affect the way in which the unique identification data is collected, and especially the means for which it is used. For example, in the past, the government has mandated that Aadhaar data to be linked to citizens’ information from bank accounts, tax filings, medical records and phone numbers. Once this is achieved, the government would have unregulated access to such information. There is currently no statute or legal precedent to guard against abuse or to allow an individual to file a complaint.

The Supreme Court decision gives encouragement to citizens and institutions that are concerned about the rights of ordinary individuals, while also laying the groundwork for further work that needs to be done to create a robust legal framework in this field.

Read the original blog post published by the Paypers here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-paypers-march-16-2018-aadhaar-unique-ids-in-india-a-qualified-success

New Lock For EU’s Digital Mines

Admin — 2018-03-17T13:10:52Z

Indian companies dealing with European data wait anxiously as the EU pushes in new security rules

The article by Arindam Mukherjee was published in the Outlook in March 26, 2018 issue. Elonnai Hickok was quoted.

Pretty soon, Indian companies, especially those associated with European companies, will have to walk that extra mile to protect personal data. Come May 25, the European Union (EU) will enact a new set of regulations, called the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which will impose stringent conditions for personal data protection and privacy laws.

What’s more, any violation of or non-compliance with the new regulations will attract the strictest of penalties and fines. On an average, the new regulations call for up to 4 per cent of a company’s global revenue as penalty.

With the already huge and rapidly expanding field of big data play across companies and industries, data protection has come under the limelight and many countries are talking in terms of putting in place stringent rules for personal data protection. The EU will be the first off the block with GDPR, which comes into effect in less than three months. It is expected that following the EU’s example, similar regulations will start coming up in other countries as well.

The GDPR will replace the 1995 Data Protection Directive currently operational in the EU.

The GDPR will replace the 1995 Data Protection Directive currently operational in the EU and its regulations will cover all EU member states and citizens. Accordingly, all companies operating in the EU and having customers there, or even having work outsourced from the EU which involves its citizens’ personal data, will have to fall in line and comply.

The rules under GDPR will be relevant for businesses collecting, processing, storing, and sharing data of EU data subjects. This would include all businesses located in India providing services directly or indirectly to EU data subjects, as well as Indian companies with a presence in Europe.

This has put a lot of Indian IT and ITES companies in a bind given that few Indian companies are in a position to comply with the new GDPR rules and regulations within the given deadline. GDPR necessitates that adequate steps have to be taken to secure EU data wherever it is stored or processed.

At present, India does not have any data privacy law. However, the government has set up a committee of experts under former Supreme Court Justice B.N. Srikrishna to look into matters related to data protection and privacy in the country. The committee has so far come up with a draft protection bill. But it is unlikely that the committee will be able to come out with its final report before the GDPR deadline of May 25.

Huzefa Goawala, who heads GRC, India & SAARC, RSA, says the impact of GDPR will be heavy on India. “A sizeable chunk of Indian companies operate out of the EU including IT/ITeS, manufacturing, financial services and telecom companies,” he adds. “The GDPR will apply to personally identifiable information and internal facing data and external facing data, and organisations will have to protect data on all these fronts. Unfortunately, very few organisations have taken measures to become GDPR compliant at the ground level and are waiting for others to make a move. Larger, tier 1 organisations are in a consultation mode at the moment and are in a preliminary stage of compliance.”

According to Ernst & Young’s forensic data analytics survey (2018) done among Indian companies, 60 per cent of Indian respondents are still not familiar with the GDPR, while only a little over 23 per cent have heard of it but have done nothing about it. “This puts India in a precarious position, especially because it takes time for a company to prepare for GDPR compliance, which involves identifying where all the data resides and taking measures to safeguard it,” says Mukul Shrivastava, partner, Fraud Investigation and Dispute Services, Ernst & Young. “Many large IT-ITeS companies have secure servers in the EU or on cloud. But a lot of EU data processing is either done in India or is outsourced to India. That data needs to be protected under the GDPR.”

Experts say that under GDPR, a company will have to report any breach of data security within 72 hours. In case it fails to do so, stiff penalties will be imposed. With GDPR, the EU wants to stress on how important personally identifiable information is and see what companies are doing to protect it. It calls for deployment of ground level technologies by companies to ensure data security.

To ensure full compliance under GDPR will be a difficult task. “It is not possible to check 100 per cent compliance,” says Vijayshankar Na, cyber law and international information security expert. “There can be multiple versions of personal data in a process. To tap this data and see where all it is flowing in the system will be the toughest part under GDPR. Companies will have to identify all this in order to protect data.”

To help Indian companies, India’s IT representative body Nasscom has sought a “data secure” status for its companies from the EU. The EU has given a similar status to American companies, which ensures some concessions for them. Indian companies would be entitled to similar concessions under GDPR if they get the data secure status. But a decision on this is yet to come.

“As India has not attained data secure status, the collection, processing, storing, and sharing of EU data subjects by Indian companies will continue to be through ‘binding corporate rules’,” says Elonnai Hickok, chief operating officer, CIS (Centre For Internet and Society), Bangalore. “Though GDPR will affect any company handling EU data, the IT sector in India could potentially be impacted the most given the amount of business that it does and potentially could do with the region. For instance, a Deloitte report has estimated the outsourcing opportunity of the Indian IT industry with Europe at $45 billion.”

Hickok says India’s legal regime around privacy, consisting primarily of section 43A of the IT Act and associated rules, has not been found to be data secure by the EU in past assessments. This means that unless practices are guided by binding corporate rules, the standard of practice in India is lower than required by the previous Data Protection Directive (1995) as well as the GDPR. Some of the potentially challenging requirements in the GDPR will include the requirement for reporting breaches, new standards for consent, ensuring the rights of data subjects including access and correction, portability, erasure and deletion, the right to objection, and, if the need arises, the right to request human intervention in automated decisions.

What could also hit Indian companies is that the cost of GDPR compliance will be high—there will be costs related to human capital, periodic updates, IT infrastructure around the data (both hardware and software) and setting up cyber security and incident response programs.

“Europe is an important market for Indian companies,” says Vinayak Godse, senior director, Data Security Council of India (DSCI). “This heightened threshold of privacy may lead to some top line compromise for Indian IT companies. The compliance burden is also bound to increase. The small and mid-size companies looking at the EU as a market may struggle to comply with the new rules.”

The Indian government is trying to bring some order vis a vis data privacy and the Justice Srikrishna panel is expected to expedite the process. “The Government of India is currently developing a national data protection framework, following the Supreme Court judgment of August 2017 recognising an individual’s privacy as a fundamental right,” says Keshav Dhakad, director & assistant general counsel, corporate, External & Legal Affairs, Microsoft India. “The coming of GDPR will help galvanise the discussion in countries outside of Europe and in India.”

As of now though, there is a lot of confusion and Indian companies, staring at a tight deadline, are under stress. If they can speed up the process and comply, they will be safe, but if they fail, they could lose business in one of India’s most promising markets.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/outlook-march-26-2018-new-lock-for-eu-digital-mines

Facebook breach: Privacy advocates in India seek stronger data laws

Admin — 2018-03-20T23:37:04Z

Privacy advocates in India underlined the urgent need for stronger data privacy laws in India with the debate coming under focus after reports alleged that British data analysis firm Cambridge Analytica had tapped into the profiles of more than 50 million Facebook users, without their permission, during the last US elections.

The article by Surabhi Agarwal and Devina Sengupta was published in the Economic Times on March 20, 2018. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.

Advocates of data privacy told ET that even in India — where issues around data privacy have been on the boil — voter opinion may be targeted by using their personal information without their approval. “The government has not moved with necessary pace on data protection,” said advocate Apar Gupta.

“Election commission (EC) has not taken up this issue of data protection for regulatory scrutiny. EC has in the past issued guidelines to protect election integrity and restrained exit polls and also required candidates to disclose social media handles. However, much more needs to be done,” he added.

His concerns around India’s voting process being potentially vulnerable to similar influence like in the US come amid a “case study” on the Cambridge Analytica website said the company had worked for Indian political parties as well.

It said that the British firm was “contracted to undertake an indepth electorate analysis for the Bihar Assembly Election in 2010…Our client achieved a landslide victory, with over 90% of total seats targeted by CA being won”.

Media reports quoted sources at Cambridge Analytica, and its Indian partner, Oveleno Business Intelligence, as saying that the local company was in talks with leading Indian political parties for a pact for their 2019 parliamentary poll campaigns.

“This shows integrity of elections and voter trust may be undermined through data analytics and target voters on the basis of their personal data,” said Gupta Pranesh Prakash, policy director at Center for Internet and Society, said India urgently needs a strong data protection regulation, that require companies to have oversight and pin liabilities on them if they fail to have oversight over data they transact with.

“So, in this case for instance, the companies that provided Cambridge Analytica DATA are seriously culpable and Facebook --right now it is unclear if under any current law it is culpable --there are some discussions in the US etc. Regardless of it, they should be required to exercise greater diligence when it comes to personable data that they have taken consent for,” said Prakash.

“Protecting people’s information is at the heart of everything we do, and we require the same from people who operate apps on Facebook. If these reports are true, it's a serious abuse of our rules.

All parties involved — including the SCL Group/Cambridge Analytica, Christopher Wylie and Aleksandr Kogan — certified to us that they destroyed the data in question. In light of new reports that the data was not destroyed, we are suspending these three parties from Facebook, pending further information. We will take whatever steps are required to see that the data in question is deleted once and for all —and take action against all offending parties.”

In a statement to ET, Facebook said there was no breach of its data base and that protecting people’s information was core to the company. “Like all app developers, Aleksandr Kogan requested and gained access to information from users who chose to sign up to his app, and everyone involved gave their consent. People knowingly provided their information, no systems were infiltrated, and no passwords or sensitive pieces of information were stolen or hacked,” Paul Grewal, VP & Deputy General Counsel, Facebook said.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/economic-times-march-20-2018-surabhi-agarwal-devina-sengupta-facebook-breach-privacy-advocates-in-india-seek-stronger-data-laws

Siri, did you hear me? Adapting Privacy to New Technologies, Automated Decision-making, and Cloud Computing

Admin — 2018-03-25T03:21:24Z

Amber Sinha participated as a panelist in the discussion on adapting privacy to new technologies organised by the USIBC on March 6, 2018 in New Delhi.

The way consumers interact with technology is quickly evolving, and there are distinct implications for privacy as these new applications and products become embedded in our daily lives. Many new technologies eliminate the need for consumers to interface with a screen, relying on sensor data, verbal interactions, or innate human communications – a grin or hand gesture. As technology evolves, so must the privacy protections.

Moderator: Ashutosh Chadha, Group Director, government Affairs & Public policy, Microsoft India

Panelists:

Shaundra Watson, Director, Policy, BSA | The Software Alliance
Betsy Broder, Counsel for International Consumer Protection, U.S. FTC
Amber Sinha, Senior Programme Manager, Centre for Internet and Society (CIS)
Riccardo Masucci, Global Director of Privacy Policy, Intel
Srinivas Poosarla, Vice President & Head (Global), Privacy & Data Protection, Infosys Limited

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/siri-did-you-hear-me-adapting-privacy-to-new-technologies-automated-decision-making-and-cloud-computing

Aadhaar safety

Admin — 2018-03-26T17:09:26Z

We get experts to give their take on a current issue each week and lend their perspective to a much-discussed topic.

The article was published in Asian Age on March 25, 2018.

Attorney General K. K. Venugopal claiming before a five-judge constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court that Aadhaar data remains safe and secure behind a complex with 13-ft high and 5-ft thick walls has resulted in a series of trolls and hilarious responses. We ask tech experts if this is the proper way to ensure safety of digital data and their opinions on alternatives, if any, to keep public data safe.

‘Safety claims are bogus’
Hrishikesh Bhaskaran, Privacy Activist
Aadhaar safety claims are bogus. It is vulnerable and its vulnerabilities were pointed out by many information security experts in the past. If someone says that a 13-ft high 5-ft thick wall complex is protecting your digital data (which is well connected to the outside network) be sure that a village is missing its idiot. Digital data leak almost always happens through the network. Multiple cases were reported about the Aadhaar data leak (The Tribune report for example). Many government sites are leaking Aadhaar details of citizens and are available publicly through a simple Google search. (Read as the data are already in public without anyone hacking into it).

The system is defective by design and is maintained by mediocre talents and technology. I feel that their claims about the huge walled protection are a tactic to divert discussion on the human rights angle because otherwise, the government will have no choice but to scrap the whole Aadhaar idea. The only way to protect the personal data of citizens is to start afresh.

‘Multi-level security assumes added significance’
Jaideep Mehta, CEO of VCCircle.com
Physical security is an important component in the overall security architecture. In addition there is a need to protect the data with multiple levels of cyber security including data encryption, bio-metric driven access, protection against malware and so on. Multi-dimensional security assumes added significance as this is a nationally important database.

‘Tightening system, or line of human command more important’
Ershad Kaleebullah, Technology Editor
There are right ways to secure digital data. I know of solutions at the individual user level. But for something of Aadhaar’s size the security of digital data will obviously happen at a much, much larger scale. All the resident data and raw biometrics are stored in UIDAI’s datacentre and even fortifying it with the world’s thickest and tallest wall is not going to protect them. I’m really not sure of any foolproof data security systems in the world at that scale. Tightening the system or the line of human command is more important. If Snowden can walk out of NSA with highly confidential information on a lowly thumb drive, Aadhaar data can be easily hacked. If I have to be blunt here, Indians can’t keep a secret to save their lives.

‘Your data security is in your hands, always be cautious’
Viraj Kumar Pratapwant, Senior Software Design Engineer
First off, no hacker is going to run into a data center and rob data disks. The idea to construct high and thick walls will make anyone chuckle. Speaking about alternatives, let's talk about data. Basically there are two types of data: Data in Motion and Data at Rest. With the right set of firewalls guarding these two kinds will ensure some amount of security. Sensitive and vital information should always be encrypted and kept out of reach for any external source to access this data. Having multiple steps of verification could help the user safeguard his authenticity. Your data and privacy are the most important factor, they should only be shared with trusted sources and with your consent. A lot of data are going digital and soon our lives will completely rely on digital data. The government should enforce strict vigilance to public data. They should make sure that the consumers should follow all the security guidelines and must prove that the data will be saved responsibly. Any compromise caused by any sources should be penalised by law. Lastly, your data security is in your hands, always be cautious about who and where you are giving the data.

Sunil Abraham, Executive Director at Centre for Internet and Society
Encryption, regardless of the key length, is only useful when citizens have absolute control of the private key. If the UIDAI had gone with smart cards my private key would have only been stored on my smart card. Even though the data in encrypted in the CIDR - the deduplication software needs to compare the bio metric of the person getting enrolled with the unencrypted bio metric of others already in the database. This means that the engineer who controls the software has access to the whole bio metric database. If a foreign state installs a Trojan on the engineer's system it can get into the CIDR. The deduplication software is a proprietary black box software which is owned by a foreign corporation. We don't know what hidden capabilities are there in this software.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/asian-age-march-25-2018-aadhaar-safety

Security experts say need to secure Aadhaar ecosystem, warn about third party leaks

Admin — 2018-03-26T22:37:30Z

The public reckoning of data leaks in India’s national ID database, Aadhaar is still on hold while reports of data leakage through third-parties keep coming.

The article by Nilesh Christopher was published in Economic Times on March 26, 2018. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

While the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) has maintained that its database is secure and there are no breaches of Aadhaar data from its system, security researchers warn that leaks are happening in third-party sites and it is important for the agency to ensure that its ecosystem adopts measures to keep data safe.

“Securing an entire ecosystem is more important than secure individual databases,” said security researcher Srinivas Kodali. Over the weekend, technology publication ZDnet citing an Indian security researcher said that it identified Aadhaar data leaks on a system run by a state-owned utility company Indane that allowed anyone to access sensitive information like a name, Aadhar number, bank details. The leak was plugged soon after the report appeared.

UIDAI came out with a strong statement denying the breach. “There is no truth in the story as there has been absolutely no breach of UIDAI’s Aadhaar database. Aadhaar remains safe and secure,” the government agency said.

There have been no reports of any breach in the core database so far. However, it is the third-parties that have acted as weak links.

“The simple parallel that can be drawn is, though Facebook’s core database of users information was secure, the data leak happened through third-party developers and organisation like Cambridge Analytica that have allegedly misused it,” Kodali said.

In case of Aadhar too, the allegations of breaches have not been on ‘Aadhaar database’ but rather at insecure government websites and third-parties with API access to the database. “In this aspect, the issue in Facebook and Aadhaar is similar. In both the cases there was no breach of database, but it was third parties that acted as the weakest link. In both cases, it was a legitimate means of access through API that was open for abuse,” said Sunil Abraham, executive director, Center for Internet and Society.

UIDAI could take a leaf from Indian Space Research Organisation while handling data breach reports. The state-run space agency put out a note appreciating security researches for their efforts. An email ID to report flaws is more important than summoning people regarding data breaches.

“The fear of criminal prosecution hanging over the heads of ethical hackers would not help us develop a robust and strong security architecture,” said Karan Saini, a Delhi-based security researcher who first highlighted the Aadhaar leak at Indane.

“UIDAI is working on a policy to enable security experts to report issues in a legal and safe manner,” tweeted Ajay Bhushan Pandey, chief executive of India's Unique Identification Authority (UIDAI), the government department that administers the Aadhaar database. Seven months after the tweet, Pandey’s promise of a bug-reporting mechanism has still has not fructified.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/economic-times-march-26-2018-nilesh-christopher-security-experts-say-need-to-secure-aadhaar-ecosystem-warn-about-third-party-leaks

UIDAI servers or third parties, Aadhaar leaks are dangerous: Experts

Admin — 2018-03-27T02:16:55Z

Even though the UIDAI has denied these reports, its arguments rest on shaky grounds, according to experts.

The article by Mayank Jain was published in Business Standard on March 27, 2018. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.

The government has told the Supreme Court that the Aadhaar data “remains safely behind 13-feet high walls” and it will take “the age of the universe” to break one key in the Unique Identification Authority of India’s (UIDAI’s) encryption.

Even if this claim is taken at face value, experts suggest leaks from third-party databases seeded with Aadhaar numbers are equally dangerous and the UIDAI is responsible for the damage. The most recent case came from a report published online and it said random numbers could provide access to the Aadhaar data, which also includes people’s financial information, from a state-owned company’s database. Even though the UIDAI has denied these reports, its arguments rest on shaky grounds, according to experts.“There is no truth in this story as there has been absolutely no breach of the UIDAI’s Aadhaar database.

Aadhaar remains safe and secure,” the UIDAI said on Twitter shortly after the story broke on ZDNet.The authority added even if the report was taken to be true, “it would raise security concerns on the database of that Utility Company and has nothing to do with the security of the UIDAI’s Aadhaar database”.This has been the authority’s defence in several such cases but those in the know of things say it doesn’t hold water simply because the Aadhaar data is not concentrated in the UIDAI’s complexes anymore and has spread across various databases.“Publishing this by the state entities is a violation under the Aadhaar Act.

Even if you publish your Aadhaar number, it is a violation of the law,” said Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Centre for Internet and Society.“Saying that the UIDAI has not been compromised is thoroughly insufficient because for customers, it doesn’t matter if the leak comes from servers operated by the UIDAI or from others holding copies of the UIDAI database.”Prakash said it should be the authority’s responsibility to help others comply with the law and prevent data leaks.

He gave the example of biometric leaks from Gujarat government servers and how criminals used them to forge fingerprints.The possibility of data leaks was demonstrated when Robert Baptiste, purportedly a French app developer, announced on Twitter how he got access to thousands of scanned Aadhaar card copies through simple Google searches.In an interview to Business Standard, Baptiste said the major threat was data handling by third parties, which could lead to identity theft.Even the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016, has provisions that debar making public citizens’ Aadhaar-related information public unless required for certain purposes.

“Whoever intentionally discloses, transmits, copies or otherwise disseminates any identity information collected in the course of enrolment or authentication to any person not authorised under this Act” can be in jail for three years and pay a fine of ~10,000 under the Act.A lawyer appearing on the petitioners’ side in the ongoing Supreme Court case on the constitutional validity of Aadhaar said only the UIDAI had the powers to file cases against people who published Aadhaar information. Hence everyone else is helpless despite the leaks.

The UIDAI’s argument that Aadhaar information can’t be misused is duplicitous because the regulations under the Aadhaar Act assure individuals that if biometric authentication fails, they should have other means of identifying themselves, says Kiran Jonnalagadda, founder of HasGeek.“So the regulations guarantee that anyone in possession of stolen identity information will be able to misuse it without biometric authentication,” he said.Prakash agreed with this. He said demographic authentication, which is an acceptable authentication method under the Aadhaar Act, was prone to misuse as long as Aadhaar numbers remained public.“Aadhaar is used as just a piece of paper, unlike security features embedded in passports or even permanent account number cards. Thus, demographic authentication merely involves providing Aadhaar numbers and details like addresses, which can be used even for things like getting entry into an airport by just printing a ticket and having a fake Aadhaar,” he said.

Queries sent to the UIDAI were not answered till the time of going to press

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/business-standard-mayank-jain-march-27-2018-uidai-servers-or-third-parties-aadhaar-leaks-are-dangerous-experts

Narendra Modi’s personal app sparks India data privacy row

Admin — 2018-03-28T16:17:32Z

PM’s NaMo app sends user data to third party in US, says researcher.

Sunil Abraham was quoted in the article published by Financial Times on March 28, 2018.

“People are outraged that there is a peephole,” says Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society, a non-profit research organisation. “They are not outraged that anyone has looked into the peephole — because there is no evidence of that yet.”

For Mr Abraham, however, the controversy demonstrates that “Indian political parties have a voracious appetite for political data. If unchecked by law or public outrage, they will continue to hoover up as much data as they can from our devices.”

“Privacy is definitely a political issue,” says Mr. Abraham. “Political parties are reacting not because they will get into trouble under the law. They are reacting because they areafraid their supporters may not like it.”

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/financial-times-march-28-2018-narendra-modi-personal-app-sparks-india-data-privacy-row

Your mobile apps have the permission to spy on you

Admin — 2018-04-03T15:48:47Z

The top applications on the Android Play store in India seek permission like access to your camera, microphone, modify contacts and download files without notifications depending on the use of the app.

The article was published in the Economic Times on March 30, 2018. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.

“What we need is, not just knowing what permissions are being sought, but why they need such permissions,” said Pranesh Prakash, policy director of the Centre for Internet and Society.

Companies such as TrueCaller say that app developers should only be permitted to collect data that they can demonstrate as proportionate and “necessary for the stated purpose of their service”.

An Uber spokesperson said they provide users with an option to turn off certain permissions like location and phone contacts within the privacy settings on app along with explanations on what data they collect and the reason behind it. Others declined comment.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/economic-times-march-30-2018-your-mobile-apps-have-the-permission-to-spy-on-you

It Took Just 355 Indians to Mine the Data of 5.6 Lakh Facebook Users. Here's How

Admin — 2018-04-07T15:33:46Z

Data privacy in India is still a nascent subject. Experts say cheap data has led to unprecedented Facebook penetration. Often, it is seen that those who open an account are not aware of the privacy concerns.

The blog post by Subhajit Sengupta was published in CNN-News 18 on April 7, 2018. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

Over 5.6 lakh Indian Facebook profiles have allegedly been compromised and their data leaked to the controversial data analytics firm Cambridge Analytica. As per the company, only 335 people in India installed the App yet they managed to penetrate over half a million profiles.

So, how does this work?

Once a user downloaded the quiz app called “thisisyourdigitallife”, Global Science Research Limited got access to the entire treasure trove of data. There are two mechanisms which are used for this.

First, the Application Program Interface (API) of Facebook called ‘Social Graph’ allows any app to harvest the entire contact list and everything else that could be seen on a users’ friend’s profile. This would take place even for private profiles, says Sunil Abraham, Executive Director of Bangalore based research organization ‘Centre for Internet and Society’.

The second way is when users have a public profile. The algorithm seeks out public profiles from the friend list and would go on multiplying from one public profile to another without any of the users even coming to know what is happening. This is like the ‘True Caller’ application, for it to get your number, you don’t need to download the software. If anyone has the app and your number, then it gets automatically logged there.

Facebook says "Cambridge Analytica’s acquisition of Facebook data through the app developed by Dr Aleksandr Kogan and his company Global Science Research Limited (GSR) happened without our authorisation and was an explicit violation of our Platform policies."

GSR continued to access this data from all the Facebook profiles throughout the entire lifespan of the app on the Facebook platform, which was roughly two years between 2013 and 2015. This means, even if a user is careful enough to not download the application but his/her profile’s privacy settings are weak, the algorithm would infiltrate the data bank.

Amit Dubey, a Cyber Security Expert goes into the details of what the app did, “The app called 'thisisyourdigitallife', which was created for research work by Aleksandr Kogan, was eventually used for psychometric profiling of users and then manipulating their political biases. The app was offered to users on the pretext to take a personality test and it agreed to have their data collected for academic use only. But the app has exploited a security vulnerability of Facebook application.”

Facebook “platform policy” allowed only collection of friends’ data to improve user experience in the app and barred it from being sold or used for advertising.

But this kind of data scrapping is not just limited to Cambridge Analytica. The Social Media Algorithm is often abused in the world of data scavenging and analytics. Even law enforcement agencies have often used similar means to locate possible miscreants.

According to Shesh Sarangdhar, Chief Executive Officer in Seclabs & Systems Pvt Ltd, similar data scrapping helped them unearth the terror module behind one of the attacks at an airbase last year. Shesh said that through Social Media Algorithm they would often narrow down on unknown terror modules. What his team did was to connect to the profile the whereabouts of multiple known nods converging. That is how the mastermind was located.

Data privacy in India is still a nascent subject. Experts say cheap data has led to unprecedented Facebook penetration.

Often, it is seen that those who open an account are not aware of the privacy concerns. But as Sunil Abraham puts it, Caveat emptor or ‘Let the Buyers Beware’ does not even apply here. It is not possible for anyone to go through the entire privacy policy.

“So it is not even right to ask if the consumer can protect his/her own interest. Thus, the state should proactively regulate the industry,” said Abraham.

Facebook has brought in a number of changes to its privacy settings. It now allows you to remove third-party apps in bulk. This welcome change has come after sustained pressure on the tech giant from users and a number of regulatory bodies across the world.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/news-18-subhajit-sengupta-how-just-355-indians-put-data-of-5-6-lakh-facebook-users-at-risk

Does the Safe-Harbor Program Adequately Address Third Parties Online?

rebecca — 2011-08-02T07:19:34Z

While many citizens outside of the US and EU benefit from the data privacy provisions the Safe Harbor Program, it remains unclear how successfully the program can govern privacy practices when third-parties continue to gain more rights over personal data. Using Facebook as a site of analysis, I will attempt to shed light on the deficiencies of the framework for addressing the complexity of data flows in the online ecosystem.

To date, the EU-US Safe Harbor Program leads in governing the complex and multi-directional flows of personal information online. As commerce began to thrive in the online context, the European Union was faced with the challenge of ensuring that personal information exchanged through online services were granted levels of protect on par with provisions set out in EU privacy law. This was important, notably as the piecemeal and sectoral approach to privacy legislation in the United states was deemed incompatible with the EU approach. While the Safe Harbor program did not aim to protect the privacy of citizens outside of the European Union per say, the program has in practice set minimum standards for online data privacy due to the international success of American online services.

While many citizens outside of the US and EU benefit from the Safe Harbor Program, it remains unclear how successful the program will be in an online ecosystem where third-parties are being granted increasingly more rights over the data they receive from first parties. Using Facebook as a site of analysis, I will attempt to shed light on the deficiencies of the framework for addressing the complexity of data flows in the online ecosystem. First, I will argue that the safe harbor program does not do enough to ensure that participants are held reasonably responsible third party privacy practices. Second, I will argue that the information asymmetries created between first party sites, citizens, and governance bodies vis-à-vis third parties obscures the application of the Safe Harbor Model.

The EU-US Safe-Harbor Agreement

In 1995, and based on earlier OECD guidelines, the EU Data Directive on the “protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and the free movement of such data” was passed [1]. The original purpose of the EU Privacy Directive was not only to increase privacy protection within the European Union, but to also promote trade liberalization and a single integrated market in the EU. After the Data Directive was passed, each member state of the EU incorporated the principles of the directive into national laws accordingly.

While the Directive was successful in harmonizing data privacy in the European Union, it also embodied extraterritorial provisions, giving in reach beyond the EU. Article 25 of the Directive states that the EU commission may ban data transfers to third countries that do not ensure “an adequate level of protect’ of data privacy rights [2]. Also, Article 26 of the Directive, expanding on Article 25, states that personal data cannot be transferred to a country that “does not ensure an adequate level of protection” if the data controller does not enter into a contract that adduces adequate privacy safeguards [3].

In light of the increased occurrence of cross-border information flows, the Data Directive itself was not effective enough to ensure that privacy principles were enforced outside of the EU. Articles 25 and 26 of the Directive had essentially deemed all cross-border data-flows to the US in contravention of EU privacy law. Therefor, the EU-US Safe-Harbor was established by the EU Council and the US Department of Commerce as a way of mending the variant levels of privacy protection set out in these jurisdictions, while also promoting online commerce.

Social Networking Sites and the Safe-Harbor Principles

The case of social networking sites exemplifies the ease with which data is transferred, processed, and stored between jurisdictionas. While many of the top social networking sites are registered American entities, they continue to attract users not only from the EU, but also internationally. In agreement to the EU law, many social networking sites, including LinkedIn, Facebook, Myspace, and Bebo, now adhere to the principles of the program. The enforcement of the Safe Harbor takes place in the United States in accordance with U.S. law and relies, to a great degree, on enforcement by the private sector. TRUSTe, an independent certification program and dispute mechanism, has become the most popular governance mechanism for the safe harbor program among social networking sites.

Drawing broadly on the principles embodied within the EU Data Directive and the OECD Guidelines, the seven principles of the Safe-Harbor were developed. These principles include Notice, Choice, Onward Transfer, Access and Accuracy, Security, Data Integrity and Enforcement. The principle of “Notice” sets out that organizations must inform individuals about the purposes for which it collects and uses information about them, how to contact the organization with any inquiries or complaints, the types of third parties to which it disclosures the information, and the choices and means the organization offers individuals for limiting its use and disclosure.

“Choice” ensures that individuals have the opportunity to choose to opt out whether their personal information is disclosed to a third party, and to ensure that information is not used for purposes incompatible with the purposes for which it was originally collected. The “Onward Transfer” principle ensures that third parties receiving information subscribes to the Safe Harbor principles, is subject to the Directive, or enters into a written agreement which requires that the third party provide at least the same level of privacy protection as is requires by the relevant principles.

The principles of “Security” and “Data Integrity” seek to ensure that reasonable precautions are taken to protect the loss or misuse of data, and that information is not used in a manner which is incompatible with the purposes for it is has been collected—minimizing the risk that personal information would be misused or abused. Individuals are also granted the right, through the access principle, to view the personal information about them that an organization holds, and to ensure that it is up-to-date and accurate. The “Enforcement” principle works to ensure that an effective mechanism for assuring compliance with the principles, and that there are consequences for the organization when the principles are not followed.

The principles of the program are rather quite clear and enforceable in the first party context, despite some prevailing ambiguities. The privacy policies of most social networking services have become increasingly clear and straightforward since their inception. Facebook, for example, has revamped its privacy regime several times, and gives explicit notice to users how their information is being used. The privacy policy also explains the relationship between third parties and your personal information—including how it may be used by advertisers, search engines, and fellow members.

With respect to third party advertisers, principles of “choice” are clearly granted by most social networking services. For example, the Network Advertising Initiative, a self-regulatory initiative of the online advertising industry, clearly lists its member websites and allows individuals to opt out of any targeted advertising conducted by its members. In Facebook’s description of “cookies” in their privacy policy, a direct link to NAI’s opt out features is given, allowing individuals to make somewhat informed choices about their participation in such programs. This point is, of course, in light of the fact that most users do not read or understand the privacy policies provided by social networking sites [4]. It is also important to note that Google—a major player in the online advertising business, does not grant users of Buzz and Orkut the same “opt-out” options as sites such as Facebook and Bebo.

Under the auspices of the US Federal Trade Commission, the Safe Harbor Program has also successfully investigated and settled several privacy-related breaches which have taken place on social networking sites. Of the most famous cases is Lane et al. v. Facebook et al., which was a class action suit brought against Facebook’s Beacon Advertising program. The US Federal Trade Commission was quick to insight an investigation of the program after many privacy groups and individuals became critical of its questionable advertising practices. The Beacon program was designed to allow Facebook users to share information with their friends about actions taken on affiliated, third party sites. This had included, for example, the movie rentals a user had made through the Blockbuster website.

The Plaintiffs filed a suit, alleging that Facebook and its affiliates did not give users adequate notice and choice about Beacon and the collection and use of users’ personal information. The Beacon program was ultimately found to be in breach of US law, including the Video Privacy Protection Act, which bans the disclosure of personally identifiable rental information. Facebook has announced the settlement of the lawsuit, not bringing individual settlements, but a marked end to the program and the development of a 9.5 million dollar Facebook Privacy Fund dedicated to privacy and data-related issues. Other privacy related investigations of social networking sites launched by the FTC under the Safe Harbor Program include Facebook’s privacy changes in late 2009, and the Google’s recently released Buzz application.

Despite the headway the Safe Harbor is making, many privacy related questions remain ambiguous with respect to the responsibilities social networking sites through the program. For example, Bebo reserves the right to supplement a social profile with addition information collected from publicly available information and information from other companies. Bebo’s does adhere to the “notice principle”—as it makes know to users how their information will be used through their privacy policy. However, it remains unclear if appropriate disclosures are given by Bebo as required by Safe Harbor Framework, notably as the sources of “publicly available information” as a concept remains broad and obscured in the privacy policy. It is also unclear whether or not Bebo users are able to, under the “Choice” principle, refuse to having their profiles from being supplemented by other information sources. Also, under the “access principle”, do individuals have the right to review all information held about them as “Bebo users”? The right to review information held by a social networking site is an important one that should be upheld. This is most notable as supplementary information from outside social networking services is employed to profile individual users in ways which may work to categorize individuals in undesirable ways.

The Third Party Problem

Cooperation between social networking sites and the Safe Harbor has improved, and most of these sites now have privacy policies which explicitly address the principles of the Program. It should also be noted that public interest groups, such as Epic, the Center for Digital Democracy, and The Electronic Frontier Foundation, have played a key role in ensuring that data privacy breaches are brought to the attention of the FTC under the program. While the program has somewhat adequately addressed the privacy practices of first party participants, the number of third parties on social networking sites calls into question the comprehensiveness and effectiveness of the Safe Harbor program. Facebook itself as a first party site may adhere to the Safe Harbor Program. However, its growing number third party platform members may not always adhere to best practices in the field, nor can Facebook or the Safe Harbor Program guarantee that they do so.

The Safe Harbor Program does require that all participants take certain security measures when transferring data to a third party. Third parties must either subscribe to the safe harbor principles, or be subject to the EU Data Directive. Alternatively, an organization can may also enter into a written agreement with a third party requiring that they provide at least the same level of privacy protection as is required by program principles. Therefore, third parties of participating program sites are, de facto, bound by the safe harbor principles by the way of entering into agreement with a first party participant of the program. This is the approach taken by most social networking sites and their third parties.

It is important to note, however, that third parties are not governed directly by the regulatory bodies, such as the FTC. The safe harbor website also explicitly notes that the program does not apply to third parties. Therefore, as per these provisions, Facebook must adhere to the principles of the program, while its third party platform members (such as social gaming companies), only must do so indirectly as per a separate contract with Facebook. The effectiveness of this indirect mode of governing of third party privacy practices is questionable for numerous reasons.

Firstly, while Facebook does take steps to ensure that third parties use information from Facebook in a manner which is consistent to the safe harbor principles, the company explicitly waives any guarantee that third parties will “follow their rules”. Prior to allowing third parties to access any information about users, Facebook requires third parties to agree to terms that limit their use of information, and also use technical measures to ensure that they only obtain authorized information. Facebook also warns users to “always review the policies of third party applications and websites to make sure you are comfortable with the ways in which they use information”. Not only are users required to read the privacy policies of every third party application, but are also expected to report applications which may be in violation of privacy principles. In this sense, Facebook not only waives responsibility for third party privacy breaches, but also places further regulatory onus upon the user.

As the program guidelines express, the safe harbor relies to a great degree on enforcement by the private sector. However, it is likely that a self-regulatory framework may lead the industry into a state of regulatory malaise. Under the safe harbor program, Facebook must ensure that the privacy practices of third parties are adequate. However, at the same time, the company may simultaneously waiver their responsibility for third party compliance with safe harbor principles. Therefore, it remains questionable as to where responsibility for third parties exactly lies. When third parties are not directly answerable to the governing bodies of safe harbor program, and when first parties can to waive responsibility for their practices, from where does the incentive to effectively regulate third parties to come from?

While Facbeook may in fact take reasonable legal and technical measures to ensure third party compliance, the room for potential dissonance between speech and deed is worrisome. Facebook is required to ensure that third parties provide “at least the same level of privacy protection” as they do. However, in practice, this has yet to become the case. A quick survey of twelve of the most popular Platform Applications in the gaming category showed that third parties are not granting their users the “same level of privacy protection”[5]. For example, section 9.2.3 of Facebooks “Rights and Responsibilities” for Developers/Operators of applications/sites states that they must “have a privacy policy or otherwise make it clear to users what user data you are going to use and how you will use, display, or share that data”.

However, out of the 12 gaming applications surveyed, four companies failed to make privacy policies available to users before they granted the application access to the personal information, including that of their friends [6]. After searching for the privacy policies on the websites of each of the four social gaming companies, two completely failed to post privacy policies on their central websites. This practice is in direct breach of the contract made between these companies and Facebook, as mentioned above. In addition to many applications failing to clearly post privacy policies, many of provisions set out in these policies were questionable vis-à-vis safe harbor principles.

For example Zynga, makes of popular games Mafia Wars and Farmville, reserve the right to “maintain copies of your content indefinitely”. This practice remains contrary to Safe Harbor principles which states that information should not be kept for longer than required to run a service. Electronic Arts also maintains similar provisions for data retention in its privacy policy. Such practices are rather worrisome also in light of the fact that both companies also reserve the right to collect information on users from other sources to supplement profiles held. This includes (but is not limited to) newspapers and Internet sources such as blogs, instant messaging services, and other games. It is also notable to mention that only one of the twelve social gaming companies surveyed directly participates in the safe harbor program.

In addition to the difficulties of ensuring that safe harbor principles are adhered to by third parties, the information asymmetries which exist between first party sites, citizens, and governance bodies vis-à-vis third parties complicate this model. Foremost, it is clear that Facebook, despite its resources, cannot keep tabs on the practices of all of their applications. This puts into question if industry self-regulation can really guarantee that privacy is respected by third parties in this context. Furthermore, the lack of knowledge or understanding held by citizens about how third parties user their information is particularly problematic when a system relies so heavily on users to report suspected privacy breaches. The same is likely to be true for governments, too. As one legal scholar, promoting a more laisse-fair approach to third party regulation, notes—multiple and invisible third party relationships presents challenges to traditional forms of legal regulation [7].

In an “open “social ecosystem, the sheer volume of data flows between users of social networking sites and third party players appears to have become increasingly difficult to effectively regulate. While the safe harbor program has been successful in establishing best practices and minimum standards for data privacy, it is also clear that governance bodies, and public interest groups, have focused most attention on large industry players such as Facebook. This has left smaller third party players on social networking sites in the shadows of any substantive regulatory concern. If one this has become clear, it is the fact that governments may no longer be able to effectively govern the flows of data in the burgeoning context of “open data”.

As I have demonstrated, it remains questionable whether or not Facebook can regulate third parties data collection practices effectively. Imposing more stringent responsibilities on safe harbor participants could be a positive step. It is reasonable to assume that it would be undue to impose liability on social networking sites for the data breaches of third parties. However, it is not unreasonable to require sites like Facebook go beyond setting “minimum standards” for data privacy, towards taking a more active enforcement, if even through TRUSTe or another regulatory body. If the safe harbor is to be effective, it cannot allow program participants to simply wave the liability for third party privacy practices. The indemnity granted to third parties on social networking sites may deem the safe harbor program more effective in sustaining the non-liability of third parties, rather than protecting the data privacy of citizens.

[1] Official Directive 95/46/EC

[2] 95/46/EC

[3] Ibid

[4] See Acquisit, A. a. (n.d.). Imagined Communities: Awareness, Information Sharing, and Privacy on Facebook. PET 2006

[5] Of the Privacy Policy browsed include, Zynga, Rock You!, Crowdstar, Mind Jolt, Electronic Arts, Pop Cap Games, Slash Key, Playdom, Meteor Games, Broken Bulb Studios, Wooga, and American Global Network.

[6] By adding an application, users are also sharing with third parties the information of their friends if they do not specifically opt out of this practice.

[7]See Milina, S. (2003). Let the Market Do its Job: Advocating an Integrated Laissez-Faire Approach to Online Profiling. Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Law Journal .

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/does-the-safe-harbor-program-adequately-address-third-parties-online

No UID Campaign in New Delhi - A Report

praskrishna — 2012-06-20T03:51:45Z

The Unique Identification (UID) Bill is not pro-citizen. The scheme is deeply undemocratic, expensive and fraught with unforseen consequences. A public meeting on UID was held at the Constitution Club, Rafi Marg in New Delhi on 25 August, 2010. The said Bill came under scrutiny at the meeting which was organised by civil society groups from Mumbai, Bangalore and Delhi campaigning under the banner of "No UID". The speakers brought to light many concerns, unanswered questions and problems of the UID scheme.

Since 2009, when the UID Bill was presented to the general public by Nandan Nilekani, the project has been characterized as a landmark initiative that will transform India, bring in good governance, and provide relief and basic services for the poor. The scheme is rapidly being put in place; the draft Bill has been put before the Parliament of India and the resident numbers and data have been collected.

The UID proposes to take the finger prints and iris scans of every resident of India for authentication of each individual. J. T. D'Souza, an expert in free software technology exposed the flaws of the entire technical aspect of the UID project. He presented the risks and loopholes that technology such as iris and fingerprint scanners pose, and the risks in using a biometric system as a form of identification system. Contrary to the claim of the UID authority, that a scheme based on biometrics is foolproof, he explained how fingerprints are not unchanging, both fingerprints and iris scans can be easily spoofed (with a budget of only $10), and there are many ways in which the technology can break, be inconsistent, or be inaccurate.

From a human rights perspective the lack of democracy in the entire project was stressed. Usha Ramanathan reiterated the fact that no white paper was issued, the Bill has not gone through the Parliament and yet citizens’ data is being collected, citizens were given only a two week period to comment on the Bill, and in practice the UID number will not be voluntary for individuals.

The UID authority has posited the scheme as bringing benefits to the poor, plugging leakages in the Public Distribution System and the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS), as well as enabling inclusive growth by providing each citizen with a verifiable and portable identity. These claims were debunked. An identity number will not fix the waste of grain that takes place every day, the portability of the number raises new problems of accessibility and distribution of resources, and the MGNREGS system is already working to be financially inclusive with a majority of its members already having a bank account.

In response to hearing the presentations of the speakers and the comments by the audience, senior Member of Parliament of the Revolutionary Socialist Party of India (RSP), Abani Roy called for the launching of a massive campaign to resist this expensive and dangerous project through which several companies will gain massive contracts from the public exchequer.

The campaigners for No UID plans to hold further meetings across the country and lobby Parliamentarians in the coming months.

For more information contact: Mathew Thomas (Bangalore) mathew111983@gmaill.com, Elonnai Hickok (Bangalore) elonnai@cis-india.org , Sajan Venniyoor (Delhi): +91-9818453483 - Bobby Kunhu (Delhi): +91-9654510398

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/no-uid-campaign