Centre for Internet and Society

Programme Officer - Privacy

amber — 2019-04-15T06:53:44Z

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

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

Organisation Profile

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

Privacy Research at CIS

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

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

The Role

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

Qualifications and Skills

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

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

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

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

Stockholm Internet Forum 2019

Admin — 2019-06-05T04:15:00Z

Swedish International Development Agency (Sida) organized the Stockholm Internet Forum 2019 in Stockholm from 16 - 17 May 2019. Gurshabad Grover was a panelist in the discussion on 'Influencing Internet Governance' co-organised by Article 19. The other panelists were Sylvie Coudray (UNESCO), Grace Githaiga (Kictanet), J. Carlos Lara (Derechos Digitales) and Charles Bradley (GPD). The discussion was moderated by Mallory Knodel (Article 19).

Gurshabad's primary contributions were around the motivations for civil society organisations to participate in technical internet governance fora, and how their role has matured at such fora in the last couple of years. Gurshabad extends his thanks to the inputs of Akriti Bopanna and Arindrajit Basu primarily for their contributions around the motivations for civil society organisations to participate in technical internet governance fora, and how their role has matured at such fora in the last couple of years.

Click to view the agenda. See the concept note here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/stockholm-internet-forum-2019

ABLI Privacy Workshop

Admin — 2019-06-05T07:29:18Z

On May 21 and 22, 2019, Elonnai Hickok, participated in the ABLI privacy workshop along with side events in Singapore.

Click to view the agenda.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/abli-privacy-workshop

HillHacks 2019

Admin — 2019-06-05T14:41:44Z

Karan Saini was a speaker at HillHacks 2019 organized by HillHacks in Bir, Himachal Pradesh from May 24 to May 26, 2019.

Karan's talk was on using web applications for intelligence gathering purposes. For more info on the event, click here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/hillhacks-2019

India's Rs 400-crore Central Monitoring System to snoop on all communication

praskrishna — 2013-06-05T10:39:19Z

Latest reports confirm that the government's longstanding aim of initiating the Central Monitoring System in the country is materialising now.

This was published in Tech 2 on May 9, 2013. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

The Times of India reports that the government began rolling out the project last month, and it lets them access all communication in the country – comprising online activities, phone calls, SMSes, social media conversations and even the geographical location of individuals. Using the Central Monitoring System, officials with the National Investigation Agency or tax officials will have access to "every byte of communication".

Pavan Duggal, an advocate with the Supreme Court, believes that the new system "is capable of tremendous abuse". He went on to say that the government hasn't revealed much on what it intends to monitor with this new system, and under what criteria.

The Centre for Development of Telematics has been given the task of putting this system in place to give government officials this crucial access to communication in the country. In his statement to the Parliament in December last year, IT minister Milind Deora had said that the Central Monitoring System will "lawfully intercept Internet and telephone services".

This system was initiated in the wake of the horrying bomb blast in Mumbai in November 2008. Post that incident, the government reportedly took on the task of making itself technologically adept to "eavesdrop on digital communications".

It would be important to quote here that the IT law – enacted in 2000, amended in 2008 and in 2011 – confers upon government officials the authority to intercept phone calls, SMSes, emails and even monitor websites. That, however, can only be done for "reasonable security practices and procedures".

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/tech-2-may-9-2013-indias-rs-400-crore-central-monitoring-system-to-snoop-on-all-communication

Messaging apps find another foe in India’s market regulator

praskrishna — 2013-06-05T10:46:32Z

Paranoid governments and mobile operators aren’t the only one that dislike messaging apps. Regulatory bodies aren’t crazy about them either. The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) is worried that attempts to pass on confidential information or manipulate markets are originating from within services like WhatsApp and Blackberry Messenger.

This blog post was published in Quartz on May 8, 2013. Elonnai Hickok is quoted.

The regulator already analyzes data from trades for irregularities through its “integrated market surveillance system”. That gives it an idea of what stocks are being manipulated. Now it wants to expand its horizons. The Press Trust of India reports that SEBI has looked into tracking Twitter and Facebook and is grappling with messaging apps—though as yet it has no systems in place for doing either, according to Elonnai Hickok of the Center for Internet Studies in Bangalore. A SEBI spokesperson could not be reached for comment.

Even if SEBI did start following you on Twitter, it cannot snoop on your WhatsApp messages. That sort of power is the preserve of intelligence and police authorities. And there is good reason for SEBI’s restricted powers. Keeping the markets clean may be an honorable pursuit, but the regulator hasn’t always used honorable means.

India’s finance minister last year said that SEBI would be allowed to request call records, which are the data kept by operators about who called whom, for how long and from where. Such information can help investigators discover sources of leaked information. It can also be used to figure out whether traders are trying to influence other investigators. But a freedom-of-information request recently revealed that SEBI had been requesting—and receiving—such data from carriers at least since 2009, well before it was supposedly allowed to do so.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/quartz-may-8-2013-leo-mirani-messaging-apps-find-another-foe-in-indias-market-regulator

Privacy Policy Framework for Indian Mental Health Apps

Chakshu Sang and Shweta Mohandas — 2025-01-10T00:11:24Z

This report analyses the privacy policies of mental health apps in India and provides recommendations for making the policies not only legally compliant but also user-centric

The report’s findings indicate a significant gap in the structure and content of privacy policies in Indian mental health apps. This highlights the need to develop a framework that can guide organisations in developing their privacy policies. Therefore, this report proposes a holistic framework to guide the development of privacy policies for mental health apps in India. It focuses on three key segments that are an essential part of the privacy policy of any mental health app. First, it must include factors considered essential by the Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 (DPDPA) such as consent mechanisms, rights of the data principal, provision to withdraw consent etc. Second, the privacy policy must state how the data provided by them to these apps will be used. Finally, developers must include key elements, such as provisions for third-party integrations and data retention policies.”

Click to download the full research paper here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/privacy-policy-framework-for-indian-metal-health-apps

Report on the 4th Privacy Round Table meeting

maria — 2013-07-12T11:04:25Z

This report entails an overview of the discussions and recommendations of the fourth Privacy Round Table in Mumbai, on 15th June 2013.

This research was undertaken as part of the 'SAFEGUARDS' project that CIS is undertaking with Privacy International and IDRC

In furtherance of Internet Governance multi-stakeholder Initiatives and Dialogue in 2013, the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) in collaboration with the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI), and the Data Security Council of India (DSCI), is holding a series of six multi-stakeholder round table meetings on “privacy” from April 2013 to August 2013. The CIS is undertaking this initiative as part of their work with Privacy International UK on the SAFEGUARD project.

In 2012, the CIS and DSCI were members of the Justice AP Shah Committee which created the “Report of Groups of Experts on Privacy”. The CIS has recently drafted a Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013, with the objective of contributing to privacy legislation in India. The CIS has also volunteered to champion the session/workshops on “privacy” in the meeting on Internet Governance proposed for October 2013.

At the roundtables the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy, DSCI´s paper on “Strengthening Privacy Protection through Co-regulation” and the text of the Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013 will be discussed. The discussions and recommendations from the six round table meetings will be presented at the Internet Governance meeting in October 2013.

The dates of the six Privacy Round Table meetings are enlisted below:

New Delhi Roundtable: 13 April 2013
Bangalore Roundtable: 20 April 2013
Chennai Roundtable: 18 May 2013
Mumbai Roundtable: 15 June 2013
Kolkata Roundtable: 13 July 2013
New Delhi Final Roundtable and National Meeting: 17 August 2013

Following the first three Privacy Round Tables in Delhi, Bangalore and Chennai, this report entails an overview of the discussions and recommendations of the fourth Privacy Round Table meeting in Mumbai, on 15th June 2013.

Discussion of the Draft Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013

Discussion of definitions: Chapter 1

The fourth Privacy Round Table meeting began with a discussion of the definitions in Chapter 1 of the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013. In particular, it was stated that in India, the courts argue that the right to privacy indirectly derives from the right to liberty, which is guaranteed in article 21 of the constitution. However, this provision is inadequate to safeguard citizens from potential abuse, as it does not protect their data adequately. Thus, all the participants in the meeting agreed with the initial notion that India needs privacy legislation which will explicitly regulate data protection, the interception of communications and surveillance within India. To this extent, the participants started a thorough discussion of the definitions used in the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013.

It was specified in the beginning of the meeting that the definition of personal data in the Bill applies to natural persons and not to juristic persons. A participant argued that the Information Technology Act refers to personal data and that the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013 should be harmonised with existing rules. This was countered by a participant who argued that the European Union considers the Information Technology Act inadequate in protecting personal data in India and that since India does not have data secure adequacy, the Bill and the IT Act should not be harmonised.

Other participants argued that all other relevant acts should be quoted in the discussion so that it does not overlap with existing provisions in other rules, such as the IT Act. Furthermore, this was supported by the notion that the Bill should not clash with existing legislation, but this was dismissed by the argument that this Bill – if enacted into law – would over right all other competing legislation. Special laws over right general laws in India, but this would be a special law for the specific purpose of data protection.

The definition of sensitive personal data includes biometric data, political affiliation and past criminal history, but does not include ethnicity, caste, religion, financial information and other such information. It was argued that one of the reasons why such categories are excluded from the definition of sensitive personal data is because the government requests such data on a daily basis and that it is not willing to take any additional expense to protect such data. It was stated that the Indian government has argued that such data collection is necessary for caste census and that financial information, such as credit data, should not be included in the definition for sensitive personal data, because a credit Act in India specifically deals with how credit data should be used, shared and stored.

Such arguments were backlashed by participants arguing that definitions are crucial because they are the “building blocks” of the entire Bill and that ethnicity, caste, religion and financial information should not be excluded from the Bill, as they include information which is sensitive within the Indian context. In particular, some participants argued that the Bill would be highly questioned by countries with strong privacy legislation, as certain categories of information, such as ethnicity and caste, are definitely considered to be sensitive personal information within India. The argument that it is too much of a bureaucratic and financial burden for the Indian government to protect such personal data was countered by participants who argued that in that case, the government should not be collecting that information to begin with – if it cannot provide adequate safeguards.

The debate on whether ethnicity, religion, caste and financial information should be included in the definition for sensitive personal data continued with a participant arguing that no cases of discrimination based on such data have been reported and that thus, it is not essential for such information to be included in the definition. This argument was strongly countered by participants who argued that the mere fact that the government is interested in this type of information implies that it is sensitive and that the reasons behind the governments´ interest in this information should be investigated. Furthermore, some participants argued that a new provision for data on ethnicity, religion, caste and financial information should be included, as well as that there is a difference between voluntarily handing over such information and being forced to hand it over.

The inclusion of passwords and encryption keys in the definition of sensitive personal data was highly emphasized by several participants, especially since their disclosure can potentially lead to unauthorised access to volumes of personal data. It was argued that private keys in encryption are extremely sensitive personal data and should definitely be included within the Bill.

In light of the NSA leaks on PRISM, several participants raised the issue of Indian authorities protecting data stored in foreign servers. In particular, some participants argued that the Bill should include provisions for data stored in foreign servers in order to avoid breaches for international third parties. However, a participant argued that although Indian companies are subject to the law, foreign data processors cannot be subject to Indian law, which is why they should instead provide guarantees through contracts.

Several participants strongly argued that the IT industry should not be subject to some of the privacy principles included in the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy, such as the principle of notice. In particular, they argued that customers choose to use specific services and that by doing so, they trust companies with their data; thus the IT industry should not have to comply with the principle of notice and should not have to inform individuals of how they handle their data.

On the issue of voluntary disclosure of personal data, a participant argued that, apart from the NPR and UID, Android and Google are conducting the largest data collection within India and that citizens should have the jurisdiction to go to court and to seek that data. The issue of data collection was further discussed over the next sessions.

Right to Privacy: Chapter 2

The discussion of the right to privacy, as entailed in chapter 2 of the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013, started with a participant stating that governments own the data citizens hand over to them and that this issue, along with freedom from surveillance and illegal interception, should be included in the Bill.

Following the distinction between exemptions and exceptions to the right to privacy, a participant argued that although it is clear that the right to privacy applies to all natural persons in India, it is unclear if it also applies to organizations. This argument was clarified by a participant who argued that chapter 2 clearly protects natural persons, while preventing organisations from intervening to this right. Other participants argued that the language used in the Bill should be more gender neutral and that the term “residential property” should be broadened within the exemptions to the right to privacy, to also include other physical spaces, such as shops. On this note, a participant argued that the word “family” within the exemptions should be more specifically defined, especially since in many cases husbands have controlled their wives when they have had access to their personal accounts.

The definition of “natural person” was discussed, while a participant raised the question of whether data protection applies to persons who have undergone surgery and who have changed their sexual orientation; it was recommended that such provisions are included within the Bill. The above questions were answered by a participant who argued that the generic European definitions for “natural persons” and “family” could be adopted, as well as that CCTV cameras used in public places, such as shops, should be subject to the law, because they are used to monitor third parties.

Other participants suggested that commercial violations are not excluded from the Bill, as the broadcasting of people, for example, can potentially lead to a violation of the right to privacy. In particular, it was argued that commercial establishments should not be included in the exemptions section of the right to privacy, in contrast to other arguments that were in favour of it. Furthermore, participants argued that the interaction between transparency and freedom of information should be carefully examined and that the exemptions to the right to privacy should be drafted accordingly.

Protection of Personal Data: Chapter 3

Some of the most important discussions in the fourth Privacy Round Table meeting revolved around the protection of personal data.

Collection of personal data

The discussion on the collection of personal data started with a statement that the issue of individual consent prior to data collection is essential and that in every case, the data subject should be informed of its data collection, data processing, data sharing and data retention.

It was pointed out that, unlike most privacy laws around the world, this Bill is affirmative because it states that data can only be collected once the data subject has provided prior consent. It was argued that if this Bill was enacted into law, it would probably be one of the strictest laws in the world in terms of data collection, because data can only be collected with individual consent and a legitimate purpose. Data collection in the EU is not as strict, as there are some exemptions to individual consent; for example, if someone in the EU has a heart attack, other individuals can disclose his or her information. It was emphasized that as this Bill limits data collection to individual consent, it does not serve other cases when data collection may be necessary but individual consent is not possible. A participant pointed out that, although the Justice AP Shah Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy states that “consent may not be acquired in some cases”, such cases are not specified within the Bill.

Other issues that were raised are that the Bill does not specify how individual consent would be obtained as a prerequisite to data collection. In particular, it remains unclear whether such consent would be acquired through documentation, a witness or any other way. Thus it was emphasized that the method for acquiring individual consent should be clearly specified within the Bill, especially since it is practically hard to obtain consent for large portions of the Indian population that live below the line of poverty.

A participant argued that data collection on private detectives, from reality TV shows and on physical movement and location should also be addressed in the Bill. Furthermore, other participants argued that specific explanations to exempt medical cases and state collection of data which is directly related to the provision of welfare should be included in the Bill. Participants recommended that individuals should have the right to opt out from data collection for the purpose of providing welfare programmes and other state-run programmes.

The need to define the term “legitimate purpose” was pointed out to ensure that data is not breached when it is being collected. A participant recommended the introduction of a provision in the Bill for anonymising data in medical case studies and it was pointed out that it is very important to define what type of data can be collected. In particular, it was argued that a large range of personal data is being collected in the name of “public health” and “public security” and that, in many cases, patients may provide misinformed consent, because they may think that the revelation of their personal data is necessary, when actually it might not be. It was recommended that this issue is addressed and that necessary provisions are included in the Bill.

In the cases where data is collected for statistics, individuals may not be informed of their data being collected and may not provide consent. It was also recommended that this issue is addressed and included in the Bill. However, it was also pointed out that in many cases, individuals may choose to use a service, but they may not be able to consent to their data collection and Android is an example of this. Thus it was argued that companies should be transparent about how they handle users´ data and that they should require individuals´ consent prior to data collection.

It was emphasized that governments have a duty of transparency towards their citizens and that the fact that, in many cases, citizens are obliged to hand over their data without giving prior consent to how their data is being used should be taken into consideration. In particular, it was argued that many citizens need to use specific services or welfare programmes and that they are obliged to hand over their personal information. It was recommended that the Bill incorporates provisions which would oblige all services to acquire individual consent prior to data collection. However, the issue that was raised is that often companies provide long and complicated contracts and policy guides which discourage individuals from reading them and thus from providing informed consent; it was recommended that this issue is addressed as well.

Storage and destruction of personal data

The discussion on the storage and destruction of personal data started with a statement that different sectors should have different data retention frameworks. The proposal that a ubiquitous data retention framework should not apply to all sectors was challenged by a participant who stated that the same data retention period should apply to all ISPs and telecoms. Furthermore, it was added that regulators should specify the data retention period based on specific conditions and circumstances. This argument was countered by participants who argued that each sector should define its data retention framework depending on many variables and factors which affect the collection and use of data.

In European laws, no specific data retention periods are established. In particular, European laws generally state that data should only be retained for a period related to the purpose of its collection. Hence it was pointed out that data retention frameworks should vary from sector to sector, as data, for example, may need to be retained longer for medical cases than for other cases. This argument, however, was countered by participants who argued that leaving the prescription of a data retention period to various sectors may not be effective in India.

Questions of how data retention periods are defined were raised, as well as which parties should be authorised to define the various purposes for data retention. One participant recommended that a common central authority is established, which can help define the purpose for data retention and the data retention period for each sector, as well as to ensure that data is destroyed once the data retention period is over. Another participant recommended that a three year data retention period should be applied to all sectors by default and that such periods could be subject to change depending on specific cases.

Security of personal data and duty of confidentiality

Participants recommended that the definition of “data integrity” should be included in Chapter 1 of the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013. Other participants raised the need to define the term “adequacy” in the Bill, as well as to state some parameters for it. It was also suggested that the term “adequacy” could be replaced by the term “reasonable”.

One of the participants raised the issue of storing data in a particular format, then having to transfer that data to another format which could result in the modification of that data. It was pointed out that the form and manner of securing personal data should be specifically defined within the Bill. However, it was argued that the main problem in India is the implementation of the law, and that it would be very difficult to practically implement the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill in India.

Disclosure of personal data

The discussion on the disclosure of personal data started with a participant arguing that the level of detail disclosed within data should be specified within the Bill. Another participant argued that the privacy policies of most Internet services are very generic and that the Bill should prevent such services from publicly disclosing individuals´ data. On this note, a participant recommended that a contract and a subcontract on the disclosure of personal data should be leased in order to ensure that individuals are aware of what they are providing their consent to.

It was recommended that the Bill should explicitly state that data should not be disclosed for any other purpose other than the one for which an individual has provided consent. Data should only be used for its original purpose and if the purpose for accessing data changes within the process, consent from the individual should be acquired prior to the sharing and disclosure of that data. A participant argued that banks are involved with consulting and other advisory services which may also lead to the disclosure of data; all such cases when information is shared and disclosed to (unauthorised) third parties should be addressed in the Bill.

Several participants argued that companies should be responsible for the data they collect and that should not share it or disclose it to unauthorised third parties without individuals´ knowledge or consent. On this note, other participants argued that companies should be legally allowed to share data within a group of companies, as long as that data is not publicly disclosed. An issue that was raised by one of the participants is that online companies, such as Gmail, usually acquire consent from customers through one “click” to a huge document which not only is usually not read by customers, but which vaguely entails all the cases for which individuals would be providing consent for. This creates the potential for abuse, as many specific cases which would require separate, explicit consent, are not included within this consent mechanism.

This argument was countered by a participant who stated that the focus should be on code operations for which individuals sign and provide consent, rather than on the law, because that would have negative implications on business. It was highlighted that individuals choose to use specific services and that by doing so they trust companies with their data. Furthermore, it was argued that the various security assurances and privacy policies provided by companies should suffice and that the legal regulation of data disclosure should be avoided.

Consent-based sharing of data should be taken into consideration, according to certain participants. The factor of “opt in” should also be included when a customer is asked to give informed consent. Participants also recommended that individuals should have the power to “opt out”, which is currently not regulated but deemed to be extremely important. Generally it was argued that the power to “opt in” is a prerequisite to “opt out”, but both are necessary and should be regulated in the Bill.

A participant emphasized the need to regulate phishing in the Bill and to ensure that provisions are in place which could protect individuals´ data from phishing attacks. On the issue of consent when disclosing personal data, participants argued that consent should be required even for a second flow of data and for all other flows of data to follow. In other words, it was recommended that individual consent is acquired every time data is shared and disclosed. Moreover, it was argued that if companies decide to share data, to store it somewhere else or to disclose it to third parties years after its initial collection, the individual should have the right to be informed.

However, such arguments were countered by participants who argued that systems, such as banks, are very complex and that they don´t always have a clear idea of where data flows. Thus, it was argued that in many cases, companies are not in a position to control the flow of data due to a lack of its lack of traceability and hence to inform individuals every time their data is being shared or disclosed.

Participants argued that the phrase “threat to national security” in section 10 of the Bill should be explicitly defined, because national security is a very broad term and its loose interpretation could potentially lead to data breaches. Furthermore, participants argued that it is highly essential to specify which authorities would determine if something is a threat to national security.

The discussion on the disclosure of personal data concluded with a participant arguing that section 10 of the Bill on the non-disclosure of information clashes with the Right to Information Act (RTI Act), which mandates the opposite. It was recommended that the Bill addresses the inevitable clash between the non-disclosure of information and the right to information and that necessary provisions are incorporated in the Bill.

Presentation by Mr. Billy Hawkes – Irish Data Protection Commissioner

The Irish Data Protection Commissioner, Mr. Billy Hawkes, attended the fourth Privacy Round Table meeting in Mumbai and discussed the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013.

In particular, Mr. Hawkes stated that data protection law in Ireland was originally introduced for commercial purposes and that since 2009 privacy has been a fundamental right in the European Union which spells out the basic principles for data protection. Mr. Hawkes argued that India has successful outsourcing businesses, but that there is a concern that data is not properly protected. India has not been given data protection adequacy by the European Union, mainly because the country lacks privacy legislation.

There is a civic society desire for better respect for human rights and there is the industrial desire to be considered adequate by the European Union and to attract more international customers. However, privacy and data protection are not covered adequately in the Information Technology Act, which is why Mr. Hawkes argued that the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013 should be enacted in compliance with the principles from the Justice AP Shah Report on the Group of Experts on Privacy. Enacting privacy legislation in India would, according to Mr. Hawkes, be a prerequisite so that India can potentially be adequate in data protection in the future.

The Irish Data Protection Commissioner referred to the current negotiations taking place in the European Union for the strengthening of the 1995 Directive on Data Protection, which is currently being revisited and which will be implemented across the European Union. Mr. Hawkes emphasized that it is important to have strong enforcement powers and to ask companies to protect data. In particular, he argued that data protection is good customer service and that companies should acknowledge this, especially since data protection reflects respect towards customers.

Mr. Hawkes highlighted that other common law countries, such as Canada and New Zealand, have achieved data secure adequacy and that India can potentially be adequate too. More and more countries in the world are seeking European adequacy. Privacy law in India would not only safeguard human rights, but it´s also good business and would attract more international customers, which is why European adequacy is important. In every outsourcing there needs to be a contract which states that the requirements of the data controller have been met. Mr. Hawkes emphasized that it is a competitive disadvantage in the market to not be data adequate, because most countries will not want their data outsourced to countries which are inadequate in data security.

As a comment to previous arguments stated in the meeting, it was pointed out that in Ireland, if companies and banks are not able to track the flow of data, then they are considered to be behaving irresponsibly. Furthermore, Mr. Hawkes states that data adequacy is a major reputational issue and that inadequacy in data security is bad business. It is necessary to know where the responsibility for data lies, which party initially outsourced the data and how it is currently being used. Data protection is a fundamental right in the European Union and when data flows outside the European Union, the same level of protection should apply. Thus other non-EU countries should comply with regulations for data protection, not only because it is a fundamental human right, but also because it is bad business not to do so.

The Irish Data Protection Commissioner also referred to the “Right to be Forgotten”, which is the right to be told how long data will be retained for and when it will be destroyed. This provides individuals some control over their data and the right to demand this control.

On the funding of data protection authorities, Mr. Hawkes stated that funding varies and that in most cases, the state funds the data protection authority – including Ireland. Data protection authorities are substantially funded by their states across the European Union and they are allocated a budget every year which is supposed to cover all their costs. The Spanish data protection authorities, however, are an exception because a large amount of their activities are funded by fines.The data protection authorities in the UK (ICO) are funded through registration fees paid by companies and other organizations.

When asked about how many employees are working in the Irish data protection commissioner´s office, Mr. Hawkes replied that only thirty individuals are employed. Employees working in the commissioner´s office are responsible for overseeing the protection of the data of Facebook users, for example. Facebook-Ireland is responsible for handling users´ data outside of North America and the commissioner´s office conducted a detailed analysis to ensure that data is protected and that the company meets certain standards. Facebook´s responsibility is limited as a data controller as individuals using the service are normally covered by the so-called "household exemption" which puts them outside the scope of data protection law. The data protection commissioner conducts checks and balances, writes reports and informs companies that if they comply with privacy and data protection, then they will be supported.

Data protection in Ireland covers all the organizations, without exception. Mr. Hawkes stated that EU data protection commissioners meeting in the "Article 29" Working Party spend a significant amount of their time dealing with companies like Google and Facebook and with whether they protect their customers´ data.

The Irish Data Protection Commissioner recommended that India establishes a data protection commission based on the principles included in the Justice AP Shah Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy. In particular, an Indian data protection commission would have to deal with a mix of audit inspections, complaints, greater involvement with sectors, transparency, accountability and liability to the law. Mr. Hawkes emphasized that codes of practice should be implemented and that the focus should not be on bureaucracy, but on accountability. It was recommended that India should adopt an accountability approach, where punishment will be in place when data is breached.

On the recent leaks on the NSA´s surveillance programme, PRISM, Mr. Hawkes commented that he was not surprised. U.S. companies are required to give access to U.S. law enforcement agencies and such access is potentially much looser in the European Union than in the U.S., because in the U.S. a court order is normally required to access data, whereas in the European Union that is not always the case. Mr. Hawkes stated that there needs to be a constant questioning of the proportionality, necessity and utility of surveillance schemes and projects in order to ensure that the right to privacy and other human rights are not violated.

Mr. Hawkes stated that the same privacy law should apply to all organizations and that India should ensure its data adequacy over the next years. The Irish Data Protection Commissioner is responsible for Facebook Ireland and European law is about protecting the rights of any organisation that comes under European jurisdiction, whether it is a bank or a company. Mr. Billy Hawkes emphasized that the focus in India should be on adequacy in data security and in protecting citizens´ rights.

Meeting conclusion

The fourth Privacy Round Table meeting entailed a discussion of the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013 and Mr. Billy Hawkes, the Irish Data Protection Commissioner, gave a presentation on adequacy in data security and on his thoughts on data protection in India. The discussion on the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013 led to a debate and analysis of the definitions used in the Bill, of chapter 2 on the right to privacy, and on data collection, data retention, data sharing and data disclosure. The participants provided a wide range of recommendations for the improvement of the draft Privacy (Protection) Bill and all will be incorporated in the final draft. The Irish Data Protection Commissioner, Mr. Billy Hawkes, stated that the European Union has not given data adequacy to India because it lacks privacy legislation and that data inadequacy is not only a competitive disadvantage in the market, but it also shows a lack of respect towards customers. Mr. Hawkes strongly recommended that privacy legislation in compliance with the Justice AP Shah report is enacted, to ensure that India is potentially adequate in data security in the future and that citizens´ right to privacy and other human rights are guaranteed.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/report-on-the-4th-privacy-round-table-meeting

SEBI and Communication Surveillance: New Rules, New Responsibilities?

kovey — 2013-07-12T10:51:46Z

In this blog post, Kovey Coles writes about the activities of the Securities Exchange Board of India (SEBI), discusses the importance of call data records (CDRs), and throws light on the significant transition in governmental leniency towards access to private records.

This research was undertaken as part of the 'SAFEGUARDS' project that CIS is undertaking with Privacy International and IDRC

Introduction

The Securities Exchange Board of India (SEBI) is the country’s securities and market regulator, an investigation agency which seeks to combat market offenses such as insider trading. SEBI has received much media attention this month regarding its recent expansion of authority; the agency is reportedly on track to be granted powers to access telecom companies’ CDRs. These CDRs are kept by telecommunication companies for billing purposes, and contain information on who sent a call, who received a call, and how long the call lasted, but does not disclose information about call content. Although SEBI has emphatically sought several new investigative powers since 2009 (including access to CDRs, surveillance of email, and monitoring of social media), India’s Ministry of Finance only recently endorsed SEBI’s plea for direct access to service providers’ CDRs. In SEBI’s founding legislation, this capability is not mentioned. Very recently, however, the Ministry of Finance has decided to support expansion of current legislation in regards to CDR access for SEBI, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), and potentially other agencies, when it comes to prevention of money laundering and other economic offenses.

SEBI’s Authority (Until Now)

Established in 1992 under the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, SEBI was created with the power of "registering and regulating the working of… [individuals] and intermediaries who may be associated with securities markets in any manner."[1] Its powers have included "calling for information from, undertaking inspection, conducting inquires and audits of the intermediaries and self-regulatory organisations in the securities market."[2] Although the agency has held the responsibility to investigate records on market activity, they have never explicitly enjoyed a right to CDRs or other communications data. Now, with the intention of “meeting new challenges thrown forward by the technological and market advances,”[3] SEBI and the Ministry of Finance want to extend their record keeping scope and investigative powers to include CDR access, a form of communications surveillance.

But the ultimate question is whether agencies like SEBI need this type of easy access to records of communication.

What is the Importance of CDR Access?

Reports on SEBI’s recent expansion are quick to ensure that the agency is not looking for phone-tapping rights, which intercepts messages within telephonic calls, but instead only seeks call records. CDRs, in effect, are “metadata,” a sort of information about information. In this case, it is data about communications, but it is not the communications themselves. Currently, there a total of nine agencies which are able to make actual phone-tapping requests in India. But when it comes to access of CDRs, the government seems much more generous in expanding powers of existing agencies. SEBI, as well as RBI and others, are all looking to be upgraded in their authority over CDRs. Experts argue, however, that "metadata and other forms of non-content data may reveal even more about an individual than the content itself, and thus deserves equivalent protection."[4] Therefore, a second crucial question is whether this sensitive CDR data will feature the same detail of protection and safeguards which exist for communication interception.

One reason for the recent move in CDR access is that SEBI and RBI have found the process of obtaining CDRs too arduous and ill-defined.[5] Currently, under section 92 of the CrPc, Magistrates and Commissioners of Police can request a CDR only with an official corresponding first information report (FIR), while there exists no explicit guideline for SEBI’s role in the process of CDR acquisition.[6] Although the government may seek to relax this procedure, SEBI’s founding legislation prohibits investigation without the pretense of “reasonable grounds," as stipulated in section 11C of the SEBI Act.[7] It has always stood that only under these reasonable grounds could SEBI begin inspection of an intermediary’s "books, registers, and other documents."[7] With the government creating a way for SEBI and similar agencies to circumvent the traditional procedures for access to CDRs, these new standards should incorporate safeguards to ensure the protection of individual privacy. Banking companies, financial institutions, and intermediaries have already been obliged to maintain extensive record keeping of transactions, clients, and other financial data under section 12 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act of 2002.[8] But books and records containing financial data differ greatly from communication data, which can include much more personal information and therefore may compromise individuals’ freedom of speech and expression, as well as the right to privacy.

Significance and Responsibility in this Decision

Judging from SEBI’s prior capabilities of inspection and inquiry, this change may initially seem only a minor expansion of power for the agency, but it actually represents a significant transition in governmental leniency toward access to private records. As mentioned, the recent goal of the Ministry of Finance to extend rights to CDRs is resulting in amended powers for more agencies than only SEBI. Moreover, this power expansion comes on the heels of controversy surrounding America’s National Security Agency (NSA) amassing millions of CDRs and other datasets both domestically and internationally. There is obvious room for concern over Indian citizen’s call records being made more easily accessible, with fewer checks and balances in place. The benefits of the new policy include easier access to evidence which could incriminate those involved in financial crimes. But is that benefit actually worth giving SEBI the right to request citizen’s call records? In the cases against economic offenses, CDR access often amounts only to circumstantial evidence. With its ongoing battle against insider trading and other financial malpractice, crimes which are inherently difficult to prove, SEBI could have aspirations to grow progressively more omnipresent. But as the agency’s breadth expands, citizen’s rights to privacy are simultaneously being curtailed. Ultimately, the value of preventing economic offense must be balanced with the value of the people’s rights to privacy.

[1]. 1992 Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, section 11, part 2(b).

[2]. 1992 Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, section 11, part 2(i).

[3]. “Sebi Finalising new Anti-money laundering guidelines,” The Times of India, June 16, 2013

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/Sebi-finalizing-new-anti-money-laundering-guidelines/articleshow/20615014.cms

[4]. International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance -http://www.necessaryandproportionate.net/#_edn1

[5]. “Sebi to soon to get Powers to Access Call Records,” Business Today, June 13, 2013

http://businesstoday.intoday.in/story/sebi-call-record-access/1/195815.html

[6]. 1973 Criminal Procedure Code, Section 92 http://trivandrum.gov.in/~trivandrum/pdf/act/CODE_OF_CRIMINAL_PROCEDURE.pdf

“Govt gives Sebi, RBI Access to Call Data Records,” The Times of India, June 14, 2013

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-06-14/india/39975284_1_home-ministry-access-call-data-records-home-secretary

[7]. 1992 Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, section 11C, part 8

[8]. 2002 Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, section 12

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/sebi-and-communication-surveillance

Privacy Round Table, Kolkata

praskrishna — 2013-07-10T06:11:59Z

The Centre for Internet and Society, the Federation for Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry, and the Data Security Council of India cordially invite you to attend the "Privacy Round Table" in Kolkata on July 13, 2013, 10.30 a.m. to 4.00 p.m., to discuss the "Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy" by the Justice A.P. Shah Committee, the text of the "Citizen's Privacy (Protection) Bill, 2013, drafted by the Centre for Internet and Society, and "Strengthening Privacy Protection through Co-Regulation" by DSCI.

Reijo Aarino, Data Protection Ombudsman of Finland will be the featured guest for this event. The discussions and recommendations from the meeting will be published into a compilation, and presented at the Internet Governance meeting planned for October 2013.

Click below to download the documents:

Draft Agenda

Time	Detail
10.30	Introduction to privacy frameworks for India: The Draft 2011 Right to Privacy Bill, the Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy, and Strengthening Privacy Protection through Co-regulation.
11.30	Overview, explanation, and discussion: The Privacy Protection Bill 2013
13.00	Lunch
14.00	Open Discussion: Reijo Aarnio, Data Protection Ombudsman of Finland
16.15	Tea

Please send your confirmations for attending the Kolkata Roundtable Privacy on July 13, 2013, to Maria Xynou at maria@cis-india.org

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/privacy-round-table-kolkata

Concerns over central snoop

praskrishna — 2013-07-01T09:33:27Z

Eyebrows have been raised at the Centre’s single-window system to intercept phone calls and internet exchanges — the desi version of the US’s surveillance programme, PRISM — that is expected to roll out this year-end.

The article by Aloke Tikku was published in the Hindustan Times on June 28, 2013. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

The Rs. 400-crore project — tentatively called the Central Monitoring System (CMS) — will not only allow the government to listen to a target’s phone conversation but also track down a caller’s precise location, match his voice against known suspects’ before the call is completed and see what people have been up to on the internet.

And then, it can also use analytics to discover possible links — between suspected terrorists, criminals or just about anybody — from the internet and phone data. All this will be done from one place without keeping the internet or phone service provider in the loop — something the telecom and home ministries insist will enhance citizens’ privacy.

Both ministries also insist that the CMS won’t change the rules of the game. “The process to seek authorisation for interception will not be diluted,” a home ministry official promised.

So is everything hunky dory?

Hardly. But technology — in this case, the CMS — is a smaller part of the problem.

The bigger chunk is the process of approving “lawful interception” orders and the lack of transparency around it.

It was in December 1996 that the Supreme Court held that the State could spy on its citizens in extraordinary circumstances but, as an interim measure, made it mandatory for the home secretary to approve each and every such request. Telecom minister Kapil Sibal, who appeared in this case in the mid-1990s, convinced the court that it didn’t have the powers to order that a judge decide each phone-tapping case. Instead, Sibal suggested that this power remain with the executive on lines of the law in the UK. A former home secretary, however, conceded that they hardly have the time to apply their mind before signing a wiretap order.

That isn’t surprising. The home secretary approves around 7,500-9,000 interception orders every month. That means he or she has to sign an average of 300 orders every day without a break.

If he were to spend just 30 seconds on each case, he would have to keep aside four-and-a-half hours just approving interception orders every day.

An official said the ministry was considering a suggestion to pick up a fixed number of cases at random for closer scrutiny before approval.

Many believe this might not be enough. It is argued that the government — which was trying to replicate surveillance technology from the west — needs to adopt their safeguards and transparency norms too.

Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society, said he didn’t have a problem with CMS as long as it didn’t go for blanket surveillance.

“But there is no reason why the executive — and not a judge — should have the powers to decide on phone-tapping requests,” he said. Or for that matter, why shouldn’t there be an independent audit of phone-tapping decisions, their implementation and outcome?

“The aggregated data should be put in the public domain,” Abraham said. The US has such provisions. So does Britain, which inspired Sibal to argue for retaining interception powers with the executive in the mid-1990s. It is time to follow-up on that model.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/hindustan-times-aloke-tikku-june-28-2013-concerns-over-central-snoop

Way to watch

chinmayi — 2013-07-01T10:17:27Z

The domestic surveillance regime in India lacks adequate safeguards.

Chinmayi Arun's column was published in the Indian Express on June 26, 2013.

A petition has just been filed in the Indian Supreme Court, seeking safeguards for our right to privacy against US surveillance, in view of the PRISM controversy. However, we should also look closer home, at the Indian government's Central Monitoring System (CMS) and other related programmes. The CMS facilitates direct government interception of phone calls and data, doing away with the need to justify interception requests to a third party private operator. The Indian government, like the US government, has offered the national security argument to defend its increasing intrusion into citizens' privacy. While this argument serves the limited purpose of explaining why surveillance cannot be eliminated altogether, it does not explain the absence of any reasonably effective safeguards.

Instead of protecting our privacy rights from the domestic and international intrusions made possible by technological development, our government is working on leveraging technology to violate privacy with greater efficiency. The CMS infrastructure facilitates large-scale state surveillance of private communication, with very little accountability. The dangers of this have been illustrated throughout history. Although we do have a constitutional right to privacy in India, the procedural safeguards created by our lawmakers thus far offer us very little effective protection of this right.

We owe the few safeguards that we have to the intervention of the Supreme Court of India, in PUCL vs Union of India and Another. In the context of phone tapping under the Telegraph Act, the court made it clear that the right to privacy is protected under the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and that telephone tapping would also intrude on the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19. The court therefore ruled that there must be appropriate procedural safeguards to ensure that the interception of messages and conversation is fair, just and reasonable. Since lawmakers had failed to create appropriate safeguards, the Supreme Court suggested detailed safeguards in the interim. We must bear in mind that these were suggested in the absence of any existing safeguards, and that they were framed in 1996, after which both communication technology and good governance principles have evolved considerably.

The safeguards suggested by the Supreme Court focus on internal executive oversight and proper record-keeping as the means to achieving some accountability. For example, interception orders are to be issued by the home secretary, and to later be reviewed by a committee consisting of the cabinet secretary, the law secretary and the secretary of telecommunications (at the Central or state level, as the case may be). Records are to be kept of details such as the communications intercepted and all the persons to whom the material has been disclosed. Both the Telegraph Act and the more recent Information Technology Act have largely adopted this framework to safeguard privacy. It is, however, far from adequate in contemporary times. It disempowers citizens by relying heavily on the executive to safeguard individuals' constitutional rights. Additionally, it burdens senior civil servants with the responsibility of evaluating thousands of interception requests without considering whether they will be left with sufficient time to properly consider each interception order.

The extreme inadequacy of this framework becomes apparent when it is measured against the safeguards recommended in the recent report on the surveillance of communication by Frank La Rue, the United Nations special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of speech and expression. These safeguards include the following: individuals should have the legal right to be notified that they have been subjected to surveillance or that their data has been accessed by the state; states should be transparent about the use and scope of communication surveillance powers, and should release figures about the aggregate surveillance requests, including a break-up by service provider, investigation and purpose; the collection of communications data by the state, must be monitored by an independent authority.

The safeguards recommended by the special rapporteur would not undermine any legitimate surveillance by the state in the interests of national security. They would, however, offer far better means to ensure that the right to privacy is not unreasonably violated. The emphasis placed by the special rapporteur on transparency, accountability and independent oversight is important, because our state has failed to recognise that in a democracy, citizens must be empowered as far as possible to demand and enforce their rights. Their rights cannot rest completely in the hands of civil servants, however senior. There is no excuse for refusing to put these safeguards in place, and making our domestic surveillance regime transparent and accountable, in compliance with our constitutional and international obligations.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/indian-express-june-26-2013-chinmayi-arun-way-to-watch

Govt mulls advisory on privacy issues related to Google, Facebook

praskrishna — 2013-07-02T14:31:48Z

The Government is set to harden its stand against foreign Internet firms in asking them to comply with Indian laws.

The article by Thomas K Thomas was published in the Hindu Business Line on June 10, 2013. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

According to a top Government source, an advisory may be issued in the interest of general public to make them aware of the privacy issued while using services offered by foreign Internet companies such as Google and Facebook.

This follows an international media expose on how US agencies were getting access to user data from Internet companies such as Google and Facebook.

Final Strategy Soon

Top official in the Ministry of Telecom and IT told Business Line that the National Security Advisor, under the Prime Minister’s Officer, is discussing the issue and will outline the final strategy on Wednesday.

The key concern is that the US security agencies may have collected data from key Indian accounts using services from any of the Internet companies. A number of Government officials also use email service from Google and MS Outlook, which may have been accessed by the US agencies.

The other major concern is that Indian security agencies have also been seeking access to data from these foreign companies but so far they have not obliged on grounds that they do not come under the purview of Indian laws.

“If the US Government can get access to data from these companies, why can’t the Indian Government be given access,” posed a top functionary of the telecom ministry.

While Google and other companies have denied knowledge to how the US agencies got access to their networks, industry experts said that it’s time India starts taking concrete steps to address the issue.

B.K. Syngal, Former Chairman, Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd, said, “If we believed that our privacy is sacred then we would have taken effective domestic measures, years ago, to ensure that the information of our citizens remains private. To now say that multiple US companies have betrayed our trust is meaningless.”

Double Standards

Syngal said that there are double standards in the way organisations and Government is handling the issue. “As a start, lets stop giving too much time and space to the so called “Foreign Funded NGOs” teaching us on privacy. Our problem is that we are not China. We are so ill equipped that the third party interests aided and abetted by these NGOs would prevail,” said Syngal.

According to Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, Centre for Internet and Society, companies such as Google and Facebook are foes when it comes to privacy issues and friends when it comes to freedom of speech. “An Indian consumer using any of these foreign websites has no privacy rights whatsoever. The Indian Government also cannot force these companies to follow Indian laws,” said Abraham.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/hindu-businessline-thomas-k-thomas-june-10-2013-govt-mulls-advisory-on-privacy-issues-related-to-google-facebook

Privacy Protection Bill, 2013 (With Amendments based on Public Feedback)

elonnai — 2013-07-12T10:50:22Z

In 2013 CIS drafted the Privacy Protection Bill as a citizens' version of a privacy legislation for India. Since April 2013, CIS has been holding Privacy Roundtables in collaboration with FICCI and DSCI, with the objective of gaining public feedback to the Privacy Protection Bill and other possible frameworks for privacy in India.

This research was undertaken as part of the 'SAFEGUARDS' project that CIS is undertaking with Privacy International and IDRC

As a part of this process, CIS has been amending the Privacy Protection Bill based on public feedback. Below is the text of the Bill as amended according to feedback gained from the New Delhi, Bangalore, and Chennai Roundtables.

Click to download the Privacy Protection Bill, 2013 with latest amendments (PDF, 196 Kb).

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/privacy-protection-bill-2013-with-amendments-based-on-public-feedback

Artificial Intelligence - Literature Review

Shruthi Anand — 2017-12-18T15:12:52Z

With origins dating back to the 1950s Artificial Intelligence (AI) is not necessarily new. However, interest in AI has been rekindled over the last few years, in no small measure due to the rapid advancement of the technology and its applications to real- world scenarios. In order to create policy in the field, understanding the literature regarding existing legal and regulatory parameters is necessary. This Literature Review is the first in a series of reports that seeks to map the development of AI, both generally and in specific sectors, culminating in a stakeholder analysis and contributions to policy-making. This Review analyses literature on the historical development of the technology, its compositional makeup, sector- specific impacts and solutions and finally, overarching regulatory solutions.

Edited by Amber Sinha and Udbhav Tiwari; Research Assistance by Sidharth Ray

With origins dating back to the 1950s Artificial Intelligence (AI) is not necessarily new. With an increasing number of real-world implications over the last few years, however, interest in AI has been reignited over the last few years.

The rapid and dynamic pace of development of AI have made it difficult to predict its future path and is enabling it to alter our world in ways we have yet to comprehend. This has resulted in law and policy having stayed one step behind the development of the technology.

Understanding and analyzing existing literature on AI is a necessary precursor to subsequently recommending policy on the matter. By examining academic articles, policy papers, news articles, and position papers from across the globe, this literature review aims to provide an overview of AI from multiple perspectives.

The structure taken by the literature review is as follows:

Overview of historical development
Definitional and compositional analysis
Ethical & Social, Legal, Economic and Political impact and sector-specific solutions
The regulatory way forward

This literature review is a first step in understanding the existing paradigms and debates around AI before narrowing the focus to more specific applications and subsequently, policy-recommendations.

Download the full literature review

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/artificial-intelligence-literature-review