Centre for Internet and Society

Beyond the PDP Bill: Governance Choices for the DPA

Trishi Jindal and S.Vivek — 2021-11-10T07:32:33Z

This article examines the specific governance choices the Data Protection Authority (DPA) in India must deliberate on vis-à-vis its standard-setting function, which are distinct from those it will encounter as part of its enforcement and supervision functions.

The Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019, was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 11 December 2019. It lays down an overarching framework for personal data protection in India. Once revised and approved by Parliament, it is likely to establish the first comprehensive data protection framework for India. However, the provisions of the Bill are only one component of the forthcoming data protection framework It further proposes setting up the Data Protection Authority (DPA) to oversee the final enforcement, supervision, and standard-setting. The Bill consciously chooses to vest the responsibility of administering the framework with a regulator instead of a government department. As an independent agency, the DPA is expected to be autonomous from the legislature and the Central Government and capable of making expert-driven regulatory decisions in enforcing the framework.

Furthermore, the DPA is not merely an implementing authority; it is also expected to develop privacy regulations for India by setting standards. As such, it will set the day-to-day obligations of regulated entities under its supervision. Thus, the effectiveness with which it carries out its functions will be the primary determinant of the impact of this Bill (or a revised version thereof) and the data protection framework set out under it.

The final version for the PDP Bill may or may not provide the DPA with clear guidance regarding its functions. In this article, we emphasise the need to look beyond the Bill and instead examine the specific governance choices the DPA must deliberate on vis-à-vis its standard-setting function, which are distinct from those it will encounter as part of its enforcement and supervision functions.

A brief timeline of the genesis of a distinct privacy regulator for India

The vision of an independent regulator for data protection in India emerged over the course of several intervening processes that set out to revise India’s data protection laws. In fact, the need for a dedicated data protection regulation for India, with enforceable obligations and rights, was debated years before the Aadhaar, Cambridge Analytica, and Pegasusrevelations captured the public imagination and mainstreamed conversations on privacy.

The Right to Privacy Bill, 2011, which never took off, recognised the right to privacy in line with Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which pertains to the right to life and personal liberty. The Bill laid down express conditions for collecting and processing data and the rights of data subjects. It also proposed setting up a Data Protection Authority (DPA) to supervise and enforce the law and advise the government in policy matters. Upon review by the Cabinet, it was suggested that the Authority be revised to an Advisory Council, given its role under the Bill was limited.

Subsequently, in 2012, the AP Shah Committee Report recommended a principle-based data protection law, focusing on set standards while refraining from providing granular rules, to be enforced through a co-regulatory structure. This structure would consist of central and regional-level privacy commissioners, self-regulatory bodies, and data protection officers appointed by data controllers. There were also a few private members’ bills introduced between 2011 and 2019.

None of these efforts materialised, and the regulatory regime for data protection and privacy remained embedded within the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal Data or Information) Rules, 2011 (SPDI Rules). Though the SPDI Rules require body corporates to secure personal data, their enforcement is limited to cases of negligence in abiding by these limited set of obligations pertaining to sensitive personal information only, and which have caused wrongful loss or gain – a high threshold to prove for aggrieved individuals. Otherwise, the Intermediary Guidelines, 2011 require all intermediaries to generally follow these Rules under Rule 3(8). The enforcement of these obligations is entrusted to adjudicating officers (AO) appointed by the central government, who are typically bureaucrats appointed as AOs in an ex-officio capacity.

By 2017, the Aadhaar litigations had provided additional traction to the calls for a dedicated and enforceable data protection framework in India. In its judgement, the Supreme Court recognised the right to privacy as a fundamental right in India and stressed the need for a dedicated data protection law. Around the same time, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) constituted a committee of experts under the chairmanship of Justice BN Srikrishna. The Srikrishna Committee undertook public consultations on a 2017 white paper, which culminated in the nearly comprehensive Personal Data Protection Bill, 2018, and an accompanying report. This 2018 Bill outlined a regulatory framework of personal data processing for India and defined data processing entities as fiduciaries, which owe a duty of care to individuals to whom personal data relates. The Bill provided for the setting up of an independent regulator that would, among other things, specify further standards for data protection and administer and enforce the provisions of the Bill.

MeitY invited public comments on this Bill and tabled a revised version, the Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019 (PDP Bill), in the Lok Sabha in December 2019. Following public pressure calling for detailed discussions on the Bill before its passing, it was referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) constituted for this purpose. It currently remains under review; the JPC is reportedly expected to table its report in the 2021 Winter Session of Parliament. Though the Bill is likely to undergo another round of revisions following the JPC’s review, this is the closest India has come to realising its aspirations of establishing a dedicated and enforceable data protection framework.

This Bill carries forward the choice of a distinct regulatory body, though questions remain on the degree of its independence, given the direct control granted to the central government in appointing its members and funding the DPA.

Conceptualising an Independent DPA

The Srikrishna Committee’s 2017 white paper and its 2018 report on the PDP Bill discuss the need for a regulator in the context of enforcement of its provisions. However, the DPA under the PDP Bill is tasked with extensive powers to frame detailed regulations and codes of conduct to inform the day-to-day obligations of data fiduciaries and processors. To be clear, the standard-setting function for a regulator entails laying down the standards based on which regulated entities (i.e. the data fiduciaries) will be held accountable, and the manner in which they may conduct themselves while undertaking the regulated activity (i.e. personal data processing). This is in addition to its administrative and enforcement, and quasi-judicial functions, as outlined below:

Functions of the DPA under the PDP Bill 2019

At this stage, it is important to note that the choice of regulation via a regulator is distinct from the administration of the Bill by the central or state governments. Creating a distinct regulatory body allows government procedures to be replaced with expert-driven decision-making to ensure sound economic regulation of the sector. At the same time, the independence of the regulatory authority insulates it from political processes. The third advantage of independent regulatory authorities is the scope for ‘operational flexibility’, which is embodied in the relative autonomy of its employees and its decision-making from government scrutiny.

This is also the rationale provided by the Srikrishna Committee in stating their choice to entrust the administration of the data protection law to an independent DPA. The 2017 white paper that preceded the 2018 Srikrishna Committee Report proposed a distinct regulator to provide expert-driven enforcement of laws for the highly specialised data protection sphere. Secondly, the regulator would serve as a single point of contact for entities seeking guidance and will ensure consistency by issuing rules, standards, and guidelines. The Srikrishna Committee Report concretised this idea and proposed a sector-agnostic regulator that is expected to undertake expertise-driven standard-setting, enforcement, and adjudication under the Bill. The PDP Bill carries forward this conception of a DPA, which is distinct from the central government.

Conceptualised as such, the DPA has a completely new set of questions to contend with. Specifically, regulatory bodies require additional safeguards to overcome the legitimacy and accountability questions that arise when law-making is carried out not by elected members of the legislature, but via the unelected executive. The DPA would need to incorporate democratic decision-making processes to overcome the deficit of public participation in an expert-driven body. Thus, the meta-objective of ensuring autonomous, expertise-driven, and legitimate regulation of personal data processing necessitates that the regulator has sufficient independence from political interference, is populated with subject matter experts and competent decision-makers, and further has democratic decision-making procedures.

Further, the standard-setting role of the regulator does not receive sufficient attention in terms of providing distinct procedural or substantive safeguards either in the legislation or public policy guidance.

Reconnaissance under the PDP Bill: How well does it guide the DPA?

At this time, the PDP Bill is the primary guidance document that defines the DPA and its overall structure. India also lacks an overarching statute or binding framework that lays down granular guidance on regulation-making by regulatory agencies.

The PDP Bill, in its current iteration, sets out skeletal provisions to guide the DPA in achieving its objectives. Specifically, the Bill provides guidance limited to the following:

Parliamentary scrutiny of regulations: The DPA must table all its regulations before the Parliament. This is meant to accord legislative scrutiny to binding legal standards promulgated by unelected officials.
Consistency with the Act: All regulations should be consistent with the Act and the rules framed under it. This integrates a standard of administrative law to a limited extent within the regulation-making process.

However, India’s past track record indicates that regulations, once tabled before the Parliament, are rarely questioned or scrutinised. Judicial review is typically based on ‘thin’ procedural considerations such as whether the regulation is unconstitutional, arbitrary, ultra vires, or goes beyond the statutory obligations or jurisdiction of the regulator. In any event, judicial review is possible only when an instrument is challenged by a litigant, and, therefore, it may not always be a robust ex-ante check on the exercise of this power. A third challenge arises where instruments other than regulations are issued by the regulator. These could be circulars, directions, guidelines, and even FAQs, which are rarely bound by even the minimal procedural mandate of being tabled before the Parliament. To be sure, older regulators including the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) also face similar issues, which they have attempted to address through various methods including voluntary public consultations, stakeholder meetings, and publication of minutes of meetings. These are useful tools for the DPA to consider as well.

Apart from these, specific guidance is provided with respect to issuing and approving codes of practice and issuing directions as follows:

Codes of practice: The DPA is required to (i) ensure transparency,^{^[1]} (ii) consult with other sectoral regulators and stakeholders, and (iii) follow a procedure to be prescribed by the central government prior to the notification of codes of practice under the Bill.^{^[2]}
Directions: The DPA may issue directions to individual, regulated entities or their classes from time to time, provided these entities have been given the opportunity to be heard by the DPA before such directions are issued.^{^[3]}

However, the meaning of transparency and the process for engaging with sectoral regulators remains unspecified under the Bill. Furthermore, the central government has been provided vast discretion to formulate these procedures, as the Bill does not specify the principles or outcomes sought to be achieved via these procedures. The Bill also does not specify instances where such directions may be issued and in which form.

Thus, as per its last publicly available iteration, the Bill remains silent on the following:

The principles that may guide the DPA in its functioning.
The procedure to be followed for issuing regulations and other subordinate legislation under the Bill.
The relevant regulatory instruments, other than regulations and codes of practice – such as circulars, guidelines, FAQs, etc. – that may be issued by the DPA.
The specifics regarding the members and employees within the DPA who are empowered to make these regulations.

It is unclear whether the JPC will revise the DPA’s structure or recommend statutory guidance for the DPA in executing any of its functions. This is unlikely, given that parent statutes for other regulators typically omit such guidance. As a result, the DPA may be required to make intentional and proactive choices on these matters, much like their regulatory counterparts in India. These are discussed in the section below.

Envisaging a Proactive Role for the DPA

As the primary regulatory body in charge of the enforcement of the forthcoming data protection framework, what should be the role of the DPA in setting standards for data protection?

The complexity of the subject matter, and the DPA’s role as the frontline body to define day-to-day operational standards for data protection for the entire digital economy, necessitates that it develop transparent guiding principles and procedures. Furthermore, given that the DPA’s autonomy and capacity are currently unclear, the DPA will need to make deliberate choices regarding how it conducts itself. In this regard, the skeletal nature of the PDP Bill also allows the DPA to determine its own procedures to carry out its tasks effectively.

This is not uncommon in India: various regulators have devised frameworks to create benchmarks for themselves. The Airports Economic Regulatory Authority (AERA) is obligated to follow a dedicated consultation process as per an explicit transparency mandate under the parent statute. However, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) has, on its own initiative, formulated regulations to guide its regulation-making functions. In other cases, consultation processes have been integrated into the respective framework through judicial intervention: the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) has been mandated to undertake consultations through judicial interpretation of the requirement for transparency under the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 (TRAI Act).

In this regard, we develop a list of considerations that the DPA should look to address while carrying out its standard-setting functions. We also draw on best practices by Indian regulators and abroad, which can help identify feasible solutions for an effective DPA for India.

The choice of regulatory instruments

The DPA is empowered to issue regulations, codes of practice, and directions under the Bill. At the same time, regulators in India routinely issue other regulatory instruments to assign obligations and clarify them. Some commonly used regulatory instruments are outlined below. The terms used for instruments are not standard across regulators, and the list and description set out below outline the main concepts and not fixed labels for the instruments.

Overview of regulatory instruments

	Circulars and Master Circulars	Guidelines	FAQs	Directions
Content	Circulars are used to prescribe detailed obligations and prohibitions for regulated entities and can mimic regulations. Master circulars consolidate circulars on a particular topic periodically.	These may be administrative or substantive, depending on the practice of the regulator in question.	Issued in public interest by regulators to clarify the regulatory framework administered by them. They cannot prescribe new standards or create obligations.	Issued to provide focused instructions to individual entities or class of entities in response to an adjudicatory action or in lieu of a current challenge.
Binding character	They are generally binding in the same manner as regulations and rules. However, if they go beyond the parent Act or existing rules and regulations, they may be struck down following a judicial review.	They may or may not be binding depending upon the language employed or the regulator’s practice.	Unclear whether these are binding and to what extent. However, crucial clarifications on important concepts sometimes emerge from FAQs.	Binding in respect of the class of regulated entities to whom this is issued.
Parliamentary scrutiny	Unlike regulations, these do not have to be laid before the Parliament.

Thus, all these instruments, to varying degrees, have been used to create binding obligations for regulated entities. The choice of regulatory instrument is not made systematically. Indeed, even a hierarchy of instruments and their functions are not clearly set out by most regulators. The rationale for deciding why a circular is issued as against a regulation is also unclear. A study on regulatory performance in India by Burman and Zaveri (2018) has highlighted an over-reliance on instruments such as circulars. As per their study, between 2014 and 2016, RBI and SEBI issued 1,016 and 122 circulars, as against 48 and 51 regulations, respectively. These circulars are not bound by the same pre-consultative mandate nor are they mandated to be laid before the Parliament. While circulars may have been intended for routine to routinely used to lay down administrative or procedural requirements, the study narrows its frame of reference to circulars which lay down substantive regulatory requirements. In this instance, it is unclear why parliamentary scrutiny is mandated for regulations alone, and not for instruments like circulars and directions, even though they lay down similarly substantive requirements. Furthermore, there have also been instances where certain instruments like FAQs have gone beyond their advisory scope to provide new directions or definitions that were not previously shared under binding instruments like regulations or circulars.

The DPA has been provided specific powers to issue regulations, codes of practice, and directions. However, the rationale for issuing one instead of the other has been absent from the PDP Bill so far. In such a scenario, it is important that the DPA transparently outlines the types of instruments it wishes to use, whether they are binding or advisory, and the procedure to be followed for issuing each.

Pre-legislative consultative rule-making

Participatory and consultative processes have emerged as core components of democratic rule-making by regulators. Transparent consultative mechanisms could also ameliorate capacity challenges in a new regulator (particularly for technical matters) and help enhance public confidence in the regulator.

In India, several regulators have adopted consultation mechanisms even when there is no specific statutory requirement. SEBI and IBBI routinely issue discussion papers and consultation papers. The RBI also issues draft instruments soliciting comments. As discussed previously, TRAI and AERA have distinct transparency mandates under which they carry out consultations before issuing regulations. However, these processes are not mandated all forms of subordinate legislation. Taking cognizance of this, the Financial Sector Legislative Reform Committee (FSLRC) has recommended transparency in the regulation-making process. This was carried forward by the Financial Stability and Development Council (FSDC), which recommended that consultation processes should be a prerequisite for all subordinate legislations, including circulars, guidelines, etc. A study on regulators’ adherence to these mandates, spanning TRAI, AERA, SEBI, and RBI, demonstrated that this pre-consultation mandate is followed inconsistently, if at all. Predictable consultation practices are therefore critical.

Furthermore, the study stated that it could not determine whether the consultation processes yielded meaningful participation, given that regulators are not obligated to disclose how public feedback was integrated into the rule-making process. Subordinate legislations issued in the form of circulars and guidelines also do not typically undergo the same rigorous consultation processes. Thus, an ideal consultation framework would comprise:

Publication of the draft subordinate legislation along with a detailed explanation of the policy objectives. Further, the regulator should publish the internal or external studies conducted to arrive at the proposed legislation to engender meaningful discussion.
Permitting sufficient time for the public and interested stakeholders to respond to the draft.
Publishing all feedback received for the public to assess, and allowing them to respond to the feedback.

However, beyond specifying the manner of conducting consultations, it will be important for the DPA to determine where they are mandatory and binding, and for which type of subordinate legislations. These are discussed in the next section.

Choice of consultation mandates for distinct regulatory instruments

While the Bill provides for consultation processes for issuing and approving codes of practice, no such mechanism has been set out for other instruments. Nevertheless, specifying consultation mandates for different regulatory instruments is important to ensure that decision-making is consistent and regulation-making remains bound by transparent and accountable processes. As discussed above, regulatory instruments such as circulars and FAQs are not necessarily bound by the same consultation mandates in India. This distinction has been clarified in more sophisticated administrative law frameworks abroad. For instance, under the Administrative Procedures Act in the United States (US), all substantive rules made by regulatory agencies are bound by a consultation process, which requires notice of the proposed rule-making and public feedback. This does not preclude the regulatory agency from issuing clarifications, guidelines, and supplemental information on the rules issued. These documents do not require the consultation process otherwise required for formal rules. However, they cannot be used to expand the scope of the rules, set new legal standards, or have the effect of amending the rules. Nevertheless, agencies are not precluded from choosing to seek public feedback on such documents.

Similarly, the Information Commissioner’s Office in the United Kingdom (UK) takes into consideration public consultations and surveys while issuing toolkits and guidance for regulated entities on how to comply with the data protection framework in the UK.

Here, the DPA may choose to subject strictly binding instruments like regulations and codes of practice to pre-legislative consultation mandates, while softer mechanisms like FAQs may be subject to the publication of a detailed outline of the policy objective or online surveys to invite non-binding, advisory feedback. For each of these, the DPA will nonetheless need to create specific criteria by which it classifies instruments as binding and advisory, and further outline specific pre-legislative mandates for each category.

Framework for issuing regulatory instruments and instructions

While the DPA is likely to issue several instruments, the system based on which these instruments will be issued is not yet clear. Without a clearly thought-out framework, different departments within the regulator typically issue a series of directions, circulars, regulations, and other instruments. This raises questions regarding the consistency between instruments. This also requires stakeholders to go through multiple instruments to find the position of law on a given issue. Older Indian regulators are now facing challenges in adapting their ad hoc system into a framework. For example, the RBI currently issues a series of circulars and guidelines that are periodically consolidated on a subject-matter basis as Master Circulars and Master Directions. These are then updated and published on their website. IBBI also publishes handbooks and information brochures that consolidate instruments in an accessible manner.

While these are useful improvements, these practices cannot keep pace with rapid changes in regulatory instructions and are not complete or user-friendly (for example, the subject-matter based consolidation does not allow for filtering regulatory instructions by entity). Other jurisdictions have developed different techniques such as formal codification processes to consolidate regulations issued by government agencies under one unified code, register, or handbook, websites that allow for searches based on different parameters (subject-matter, type of instrument, chronology, entity-based), and guides tailored to different types of entities. The DPA, as a new regulator, can learn from this experience and adopt a consistent framework right from the beginning.

Further, an ethos of responsive regulation also requires the DPA to evaluate and revise directions and regulations periodically, in response to market and technology trends. A commitment to periodic evaluation of subordinate legislations entrenched in the rules is critical to reducing the dependence on officials and leadership, which may change. For instance, the IBBI has set out a mandatory review of regulations issued by it every three years.

Dedicating capacity for drafting subordinate legislations

The DPA has been granted the discretion to appoint experts and staff its offices with the personnel it needs. A study of European data protection authorities shows that by the time the General Data Protection Regulation, 2016 became effective, most of the authorities increased the number of employees with some even reporting a 240% increase. The annual spending on the authorities also went up for most countries. While these authorities do not necessarily frame subordinate legislations, they nonetheless create guidance toolkits and codes of practice as part of their supervisory functions.

In this regard, the DPA will need to ensure it has dedicated capacity in-house to draft subordinate legislations. Since regulators are generally seen as enforcement authorities, there is inadequate investment in capacity-building for drafting legislations in India.

Moreover, considering the multiplicity of instruments and guidance documents the DPA is expected to issue, it may seek to create templates for these instruments, along with compulsory constituents of different types of instruments. For instance, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner is required to include a mandatory set of components while issuing or approving binding industry codes of practice.

Conclusion

The Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019 (in the final form recommended by the JPC and accepted by the MeitY) will usher in a new chapter in India’s data protection timeline. While the Bill will finally effectuate a nearly comprehensive data protection framework for India, it will also establish a new regulatory framework that sets up a new regulator, the DPA, to oversee the new data protection law. This DPA will be empowered to regulate entities across sectors and is likely to determine the success of the data protection law in India.

Furthermore, the DPA must not only contend with the complexity of markets and the fast pace of technological change, but it must also address anticipated regulatory capacity deficits, low levels of user literacy, the number and diversity of enities within its regulatory ambit, and the need to secure individual privacy within and outside the digital realm.

Thus, looking ahead, we must account for the questions of governance that the forthcoming DPA is likely to face, as these will directly impact how entities and citizens engage with the DPA. In India, regulatory agencies adopt distinct choices to fulfil their functions. Regulators have also fared variably in ensuring transparent and accountable decision-making driven by demonstrable expertise. Even if the final form of the PDP Bill does not address these gaps, the DPA has the opportunity to integrate benchmarks and best practices as discussed above within its own governance framework from the get-go as it takes on its daunting responsibilities under the PDP Bill.

(The authors are Research Fellow, Law, Technology and Society Initiative and Project Lead, Regulatory Governance Project respectively at the National Law School of India University, Bangalore. Views are personal.)

This post was reviewed by Vipul Kharbanda and Shweta Mohandas

References

For a discussion on distinct regulatory choices, please see TV Somanathan, The Administrative and Regulatory State in Sujit Choudhary, Madhav Khosla, et al. (eds), Oxford Handbook of the Indian Constitution (2016).
On best practices for consultative law-making, see generally European Union Better Regulation Communication, Guidelines for Effective Regulatory Consultations (Canada), and OECD Best Practice Principles for Regulatory Policy: The Governance of Regulators, 2014.

^{^[1]} Personal Data Protection Bill 2019, § 50(3).

^{^[2]} Personal Data Protection Bill 2019, § 50(4).

^{^[3]} Personal Data Protection Bill 2019, § 51.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/trishi-jindal-and-s-vivek-beyond-the-pdp-bill

Better Understanding of the Idea of Privacy Sought

praskrishna — 2011-08-08T07:40:18Z

Understanding the ways in which an individual's privacy is violated will help provide a better definition of privacy in India. At a public conference called ‘Privacy Matters' held at the Madras Institute of Development Studies (MIDS) here on Saturday, speakers underscored the need for discussions surrounding the privacy bill.

Prashant Iyengar from Privacy India said, "In India, we do not have a set view on privacy. There is a lot of articulation around privacy in law, yet we do not have an omnibus concept." He stressed the importance of bringing about discussions around the adequacy of safeguards.

Post 26/11 terror attacks, the country has seen an enhancement of electronic surveillance and the proliferation of databases that collect information from individuals, said Santhosh Babu, Secretary, Information Technology Department.

"The problem arises when these databases are misused for political or other reasons. In a legal framework, we have to figure out what information can be given out, what cannot and what can be misused," he said. He stressed the importance of databases going through a software development lifecycle to make them more secure.

Speaking from a media practitioner's perspective, Sashi Kumar, Chairman, Media Development Foundation, said it is the business of the media to conduct sting operations especially when people in power are obfuscating information. “Sting operations are legitimate when larger public good is at stake. We have to be aware of this when we discuss the privacy bill. It should not protect people in power and keep exposure at bay,” he said. He also stressed that privacy is closely linked with the dignity of the person. R. Ramamurthy, Chairman, Cyber Society of India said, “The definition of privacy varies from what it was twenty years ago to what it is today. A lot has changed since the internet came to India.” The statutes that govern all forms of communication in India should be revamped, he said. Discussions around privacy in relation to telecommunications, financial transactions, consumer rights and basic rights followed. The conference was a collaborative effort between Privacy India, Citizen Consumer and Civic Action Group, Chennai and MIDS.

A staff reporter from the Hindu covered the event. The original can be read here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/better-understanding-of-privacy

Best Practices Meet

praskrishna — 2014-08-06T06:25:20Z

The Best Practices Meet 2014 is being organized by DSCI at Hotel Leela Palace on July 9, 2014. Sunil Abraham will participate as a panelist at the event.

SMAC: new paradigm for Security?

Convergence of Social, Mobile, Analytics, and Cloud, is collectively referred as SMAC technologies. The success of social media products and sites such as Facebook, Twitter, Linkedin many more has been driving organizations’ investment in social computing. Mobile is another example of how technologies invented initially for personal use, entrenched itself into the enterprise ecosystem. Social computing and mobile blurs the boundaries between personal, social and business transactions. They lead to the explosion of information, which provides interesting insights, critical for business benefits. This reflects in huge impetus that has been seen in analytics, widely known as Big Data analytics. On the other hand, cloud brings completely new paradigm of organizing entperise IT, developing new products and services and delivering consumer experiences.

Increasing adoption of SMAC stack by enterprises breaks the existing paradigm of security. The data explosion on mobile devices exposes organizations’ information to inadvertent loss of revenue and brand value. Malicious applications may steal vital information stored on an employee’s mobile device and pave the way for a major data breach. Web application attacks remain the most significant threat for environments of cloud-hosting providers, amongst other apprehensions about data security. Data sovereignty also continue to pose serious concerns, which organizations need to tackle while moving their data to the cloud. Big data facilitates advanced analytics; however, requires protection from intrusion, corruption and securing its access. Furthermore, social media platforms are continuously exploited to launch malicious content and stealthy payload on devices. Social technologies are also plagued by the use of malicious techniques to mine confidential personal information under the guise of innocuous looking web pages via social engineering techniques.

Apart from security concerns, privacy supposed to be a big causality, as each component of the SMAC stack is considered intrusive enough to compromise the personal rights. Convergence and nexus of them add to the woes.

The collaborative and cumulative effect of all of these technologies working in unison essentially magnifies the efforts of the organizations that are able to wield them effectively. This evolution is challenging the ability of current security capabilities to address business critical risks. The way forward for organizations would be to understand the perspective of end users and IT infrastructure in terms of its integration with any or all the elements of SMAC. The organizations will have to deal with the new paradigm of security that will take them to more scalable, granualar, complex, independent and diverse challenges.

The DSCI Best Practices Meet, 2014 brings the security community and other stakeholders together, to deliberate and ponder over these diverse set of issues and challenges. It is aimed at deliberating on the new security paradigm from the perspectives of public policy, enterprise strategies, technology and practices.

Click to download the agenda and other details here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/best-practices-meet-2014

Bengaluru gives data safety tips to panel

Admin — 2018-01-16T23:19:00Z

A crucial consultation ahead of the framing of the country's data protection laws witnessed animated discussions here on Saturday.

The article was published in Deccan Herald on January 14, 2018

Participants raised a variety of concerns. Held on the IISc campus, it discussed everything from revenge porn and human genomics to artificial intelligence and the right to be forgotten.

Cybersecurity experts, academics, lawyers and others attended the day-long event.

They made their submissions to the Srikrishna Committee, formed on July 31 last year to frame principles for data protection laws.

The session was chaired by Justice B N Srikrishna, retired Supreme Court judge. Also on the panel were Rama Vedashree, CEO, Data Security Council of India, and Gopalakrishnan S.

The basis of the discussion was a 200-page document drafted by the nine members of the Srikrishna Committee. January 31 is the deadline to respond to the committee's white paper.

Classification of data

Several dystopian scenarios, such as profiling and discrimination with the help of behavioural and psychometric data, led to discussions on the need for classification of data types.

Darshana, a lawyer from the People's Union of Civil Liberties (PUCL), spoke about how people were being denied rations for not holding Aadhaar.

The collection of children's biometric data brought up the question of consent.

Srikrishna clarified the white paper contained a chapter on consent: it suggests an age limit below which parental consent will have to be mandatory.

A discussion on the right to be forgotten arose after some participants sought a provision to revoke consent already given.

Questions associated with genome sequencing were raised by Vijay Chandru, professor, IISc.

"We need to pay special attention to this type of information. The collection of DNA in the form of saliva, when, say, you make a visit to a weight loss clinic, has become the commercial norm. The Insurance Regulatory Act can have huge implications as genetic data can be used to discriminate and deny health coverage," Chandru said.

Sunil Abraham, head of the Centre for Internet and Society, said he was delighted with the quality of debate and discussion.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/deccan-herald-january-14-2018-pranshu-rathee-bengaluru-gives-data-safety-tips-to-panel

Bengaluru cops' twitter handle in ethical storm

praskrishna — 2017-04-07T02:38:24Z

The city's privacy activists are among the most strident in trying to prevent the Union government from gaining unprecedented access to citizens' personal information through Aadhaar. But in their own backyard, Bengaluru police have been publishing on Twitter the phone numbers of thousands of citizens reporting various crimes such as gambling on the streets, random quarrels and harassment of women.

The article by Umesh Yadav was published in the Times of India on April 6, 2017. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.

The police control room has put out more than 46,000 tweets since April 2015 containing the numbers of complainants calling the emergency number 100. The phone numbers of citizens reaching the control room through Bengaluru police's new emergency mobile application, Suraksha, too are being published through this handle.

Thankfully, the Twitter handle, @BCPCR, had a mere 66 followers as on the evening of April 5, nearly 30 per cent of which were various police stations in the city. On Wednesday evening, the police closed the account for public view.

ET has screenshots of tweets from the account. A senior police officer at Bengaluru police's Command Control was unapologetic for the breach of privacy. The tweets are generated automatically and meant to `show' the number of calls received by the control room and the number of people using the new app, he said.

On the matter of compromising the safety of the complainants, the officer said, "It is obvious that the accused will know who registered the complaint and privacy does not matter here."

Expectedly, privacy and law experts are indignant.

"This is horrible and unpardonable," said Supreme Court advocate KV Dhananjay. "The fact that the police did not consider it necessary to ask for permission before broadcasting someone's identity shows how insensitive the Police Commissioner's office has become to the privacy concern of our society." Pranesh Prakash, Policy Director at the Centre for Internet and Society and who has been at the forefront of the campaign against any potential misuse of Aadhaar, too said the "police officer who ordered to create such an account should be held responsible if any harm comes to a complainant."

Complainants ET spoke with were startled about the abuse of their privacy. Gowda, a complainant, who had informed the police control room about the sale of cigarettes within 100 metres of a school, had specifically requested the police to not disclose his identity.

"(This is why) it is better to keep quiet when you see lawbreakers," he said on hearing that Bengaluru police had published his phone number on Twitter.

"This is injustice and this is the reason why people are scared to inform the police of crimes. If the accused send people to beat me, what should I do?" Dhanusha had called the control room about some teenagers who were teasing girls at a bus stop. The police arrived and took the boys in. She, too, is now worried. "If the accused get my number, they are going to harass me. The police do not have any right to display our phone numbers in public."

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-times-of-india-april-6-2017-umesh-yadav-bengaluru-cops-twitter-handle-in-ethical-storm

Behind Modi’s Heartwarming Diwali Ad for Soldiers, An App That’s Primed for Political Messaging

praskrishna — 2016-10-30T07:33:57Z

The campaign, which allows users to send Modi quotes on themes like Ayodhya and the perfidy of the Opposition, raises questions about the boundaries between government, party and personal promotion.

The article by Sangeeta Barooah Pisharoty was published in the Wire on October 29, 2016. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

On October 22, Prime Minister Narendra Modi launched a public campaign, Sandesh2Soldiers, urging the people to be a part of it. The prime minister prodded people to express their gratitude to soldiers guarding the borders through the campaign by sending them personalised messages on the occasion of Diwali.

Such messages can be sent through the Narendra Modi mobile app, the “official app of the prime minister”, or by logging on to www.mygov.in, a central government platform launched by the prime minister in 2014 to facilitate participatory governance by engaging the public. One can also send a message by recording it after dialing a 10-digit number – which would then be aired by All India Radio (AIR).

Media reports said a special module had been created within the mobile app to not only enable people to send text messages to soldiers but also to upload handwritten letters, decorated cards and videos to them expressing their Diwali wishes and feelings for the armed forces.

A special video that carried Modi’s appeal to the public to send messages to the armed forces was shared on social media along with a few other videos to promote the prime minister’s idea. One such video features a child sending a ‘thank you rocket’ to soldiers for defending the nation under hostile circumstances. That the call to send a personal message has come from the prime minister has upped the profile of this campaign.

Bollywood stars like Akshay Kumar, Aamir Khan and Salman Khan, and cricketers such as Virat Kohli, Virendra Sehwag and Mohammad Kaif have also posted their messages to soldiers on Twitter by using the prime minister’s campaign hashtag #Sandesh2Soldiers. Many Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) politicians and ministers have also joined in.

As per a tweet by AIR on October 26, “Around 9,800 persons sent their good wishes to jawans of security forces so far during this festive season”. Last checked, www.mygov.in, run by the National Informatics Centre under the the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, showed 13,000 messages and video uploads recorded. The number is going up by the minute.

While the registration requirement at the government’s www.mygov.in portal only requires the sender to provide her or his name and e-mail address to be able to send a message or upload a video – a usual cyber safety procedure – those who want to use the Modi app for the purpose will have to do more: they will first have to agree to be personally profiled by the prime minister’s “official” mobile application.

Personally identifiable information

This is how things work: to register oneself through the app and send a message, a user not only has to disclose her name, mobile number and email address but also profession, the state and the district she belongs to, her voter identification card number, specific areas of interests and a personal description within “500 characters”.

This has left many potential senders and experts flummoxed. Why does a citizen, in order to express her gratitude to the armed forces on the occasion of Diwali at the call of her prime minister need to share additional information with the app, which amounts to profiling? At a time when the Supreme Court is hearing a bunch of petitions on the mandatory use of Aadhar cards by the government, some of which deal with issues of privacy and the possible misuse of the collected data, this is a relevant question.

“There was absolutely no need for the app to ask for additional information from a user just to send a message to the armed forces. As far as the additional information sought from a user is concerned, it allows the data collector to build a profile of the user but it is not profiling in the modern big data sense wherein multiple data sources are combined to create a complete profile of the data subject,” says Sunil Abraham, director of the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society.

Abraham adds, “There is no guarantee that the data collected (through the app) won’t be used illegally by some commercial enterprise, etc. because our data protection law, Section 43A of the Information and Technology Act, doesn’t apply to the state but only to the private sector. In other words, if the personal information is shared with the government, then it is perfectly legal for the government to disclose the personal information to other government or commercial entities.”

Unlike the MyGov portal, where a user can type or upload a message, the Narendra Modi mobile app also automatically adds a quote from the prime minister below the one typed by the user. It expresses the prime minister’s pride over “the indomitable valour and supreme sacrifice of our armed forces etched in the memory of every Indian”.

The prime minister launched his official mobile app in August last year at a function reportedly organised by MyGov, thus making him the first prime minister to have a mobile app named after him. Designed by a team of six students from Delhi Technical University after winning a two-phased contest launched by MyGov in March last year, the app has been described as “a one-stop destination for knowing about all the latest day-to-day activities of the prime minister.”As per media reports, the app would correspond to the prime minister’s official website, www.pmindia.gov.in.

Obviously then, information on how to access the app and take part in the campaign have been publicised through his portal, www.pmindia.gov.in.

This raises another question. Even though www.pmindia.gov.in is not directly accepting public messages for the armed forces but is only promoting the campaign and giving information on how to download the mobile app for it (thereby proving that it corresponds to the app), it does direct an interested user to the prime minister’s personal website, www.narendramodi.in on clicking its publicity window designed for the campaign.

The user can then download the Modi app from his personal website, which was used extensively during the run-up to the 2014 parliamentary elections by Modi to reach out to voters. So the app not only corresponds to the official website of the prime minister but also with his personal website through the official website. Curiously, it is not possible to access the app from the MyGov portal even though the entity under the Ministry of Electronics and Information launched the app at a function on August 6 in New Delhi reportedly organised by it.

Thus, while the app that seemed to have been developed and launched by a government department can’t be accessed directly through a government portal, it can be accessed through the prime minister’s personal portal. Also, features in the app like “forget password” are handled by his personal website, which communicates with an app user as its “Admin”.

So who runs the app? Is it not the official app of the prime minister of the country? Who owns it? Is it his personal app that he considers “official”? These are questions to which answers are not easily available.

No answers

The Wire made multiple attempts to get an official response, both from the government and the BJP Cyber Cell, about these queries but failed to get an answer. The Wire also failed to get any official clarification to why the app seeks personal details of a user to just send messages to the armed forces.

Calls and text messages to the social media cell of the Press Information Bureau (PIB) – the government’s media interface in the digital space – the office of Anurag Jain, listed in the www.pmindia.gov.in as the “web information office”, and to MyGov, which launched the app at the second anniversary function of the Modi government on August 6 last year in New Delhi, failed to receive a reply. All that a PIB official was willing to say on condition of anonymity to this correspondent, “I think it has been outsourced, we don’t deal with it. May be you can contact the PMO.”

Anurag Jain’s office at the PMO said, “You won’t get any information here on the app and the response of the people for the campaign through it. Call the appointments section, it might know.” But that section didn’t respond.

A mail sent to Arvind Gupta of the BJP’s Cyber Cell too has so far remained unanswered. A BJP source, however, pointed out, “If you go to @narendramodi_in, it clearly mentions that it is the twitter account of narendramodi.in, the personal website of Narendra Modi and also of the Narendra Modi mobile app. So it is his personal app.”

The question of why a personal app of the prime minister is then called his “official” app remains unanswered. Also, why is it then that the bulk text messages sent by a government entity, MyGov, direct the public to the prime minister’s personal app to send a message to the armed forces? Is it personal or official?

Meanwhile, the traffic directed by the prime minister’s official website to his personal portal can make use of the e-greeting section in it to send a Diwali e-card to family, relatives, colleagues, etc.

To send such an e-card, the user needs to follow four mandatory steps – choosing a card from the available options, selecting a pre-written Diwali message; selecting a quote of the prime minister from an exhaustive list made available to the user, and adding the name, salutation and email address of the recipient of the card.

The list of quotes – in English and Hindi – have been culled out of the prime minister’s speeches that straddle a variety of categories including Pakistan, terrorism, ASEAN, Nepal, Bhutan, Swacchh Bharat mission, the idea of India, secularism, disability, caste, dalits, governance, yoga, youth, et al.

It also has “motivation” as a category of prime minister’s sayings. Clicking it will give a user the choice of a long list of the prime minister’s quotes which begins with the need for the world to recognise the sacrifice made by Indian soldiers in the two world wars and ends with a quote on the 2010 judgment given by the Allahabad high court on the disputed site at Ayodhya:

Diwali greetings that can be sent along with the prime minister’s quote on the Ayodhya judgement which has been stayed by the Supreme Court

The quote said, “The Ayodhya judgment will work as a catalyst to maintain peace and unity in the country. This judgment has given a respect to belief and self esteem of the people of India, and it should be linked to self esteem of the country.”

Reacting to the judgment in 2010, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh chief Mohan Bhagwat had expressed “satisfaction”, adding, “The judgment has paved the way for the construction of Ram temple in Ayodhya. The judgment is not a win or loss for anybody. We invite everybody, including Muslims, to help build the temple.”

Constructing the Ram temple in Ayodhya was also in the manifesto of the BJP for the 2014 Lok Sabha polls with Modi as the party’s prime ministerial candidate.

So, even if the Supreme Court had put a stay on the judgment and has been hearing some petitions for and against it, this Diwali, if you wish to send an e-card using that quote of the prime minister to express his mind on the issue, you can.

“I think it is not only improper of the prime minister to allow such a quote to feature in an e-card with his name but it is also contempt of court. Being the prime minister of the country, he has to maintain neutrality. As per the constitution, there is separation of the state from religion. So being the prime minister, he can’t possibly allow someone to use that quote of him,” says well-known constitutional expert and senior Supreme Court lawyer Rajeev Dhavan.

Dhavan points out a precedent: “In 1969, the Supreme Court held as contempt a comment made by the then West Bengal chief minister P.C. Sen in a speech aired by All India Radio. The speech was made at a time when someone had challenged an order of the state government on milk production. Sen’s adverse comment supporting the order was presented first in front of the West Bengal High Court which took cognisance of it and termed it contempt of court. Thereafter, the case came to the SC which also termed it contempt of court as the comment was made while the case was pending in the court.”

Swaying public opinion

As per media reports, the comment on the September 30, 2010, HC order was made by Modi, then the Gujarat chief minister, on the same day, before the SC stayed that order in May, 2011.

Dhavan felt, “That he, as the prime minister, is now openly allowing a user to circulate that quote after the SC has begun hearing the case will attract criminal contempt of court as it can be seen as interfering with the working of the judiciary. He can obviously affect public opinion and can be seen as trying to decide the question. It can be seen as usurping the function of the Judiciary by the Executive.”

The traffic directed by the prime minister’s official website to the personal portal can also make use of any Diwali e-greeting card by picking a quote from a category named “political-general”. Many of the quotes under that category are from the prime minister’s multiple attacks on the main opposition party, the Congress, some of which must have been made before the 2014 Lok Sabha polls, such as this one: “The UPA government is non-serious, it has taken the people for granted & it is not bothered about the youth. Their approach shows lack of faith in democracy. Our goal is to win the trust of the people & give dignity to them…”

“That the prime minister’s official website links people to surf his personal website where they can send e-cards using anti-opposition quotes of the prime minister is extremely contentious. Whichever party had come to power, there has always been a Chinese wall between the institution of the prime minister and the politician. Unfortunately, both have come together in the current dispensation. The common man doesn’t understand it well, so it is taking advantage of technology to erase that difference,” former Information and Broadcasting minister and Congress spokesperson Manish Tiwari said.

Such e-cards are not restricted to Diwali. You can send them on occasions like “Holi, Rakshabandhan, Navaratri, Christmas, Independence Day, Gudi Padwa, Kite Festival, Namo Birthday, Ram Navami, Swami Vivekananda Janma Jayanti” and at any other time by opting for the “political (general)” category.

Narendra Modi implemented the idea of launching e-cards that could go with his quotes in the run-up to the 2014 parliamentary elections. Reports said that “Narendra Modi E-cards” were used by the BJP as a “new marketing strategy” to canvas for its prime ministerial candidate before Holi to bypass the Election Commission of India’s model code of conduct as there was “no mention of rules for social media usage by political parties”.

Meanwhile, those who have signed up for the Narendra Modi mobile app only to send a message to the armed forces have begun receiving regular “infographics” based on the prime minister’s speeches, and also data culled out of news and study reports that are deemed favourable to him and his government. A registered user can further pass on those “infographics” by sharing them on her Facebook page and twitter handle.

The app, though termed “official”, also forwards to a registered user tweets posted only from his personal twitter handle and not from his official handle, @pmoindia. One such tweet that this correspondent received through the app had little to do with the government and entirely with the persona of the politician behind the prime minister. The tweet said, “When @narendramodi demonstrated true leadership at the Patna rally, on this day in 2013…”

Clicking on the link in the tweet takes you to a write-up that talks of the “true grit” of the “BJP’s then prime ministerial candidate” by addressing a rally after a bomb blast in Patna.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-wire-october-29-2016-sangeeta-barooah-pisharoty-behind-modis-heartwarming-diwal-ad-for-soldiers-an-app-that-is-primed-for-political-messaging

BBMP faces ire for publishing pourakarmikas' Aadhaar details on website

praskrishna — 2017-06-06T14:27:27Z

The Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) has published the Aadhaar details and other personal information of thousands of its pourakarmikas - civic workers who sweep streets and collect waste door-to-door.

This has angered activists who believe it could be misused. BBMP claims it was done to bring transparency in the city's solid waste management. The article by Bharat Joshi was published in the Economic Times on May 29, 2017.

The Aadhaar number, provident fund number, employee state insurance (ESIC) number and residential addresses of thousands of pourakarmikas are available ward-wise on the civic body's website. ET accessed as many as 4,215 Aadhaar numbers and 5,744 PF and ESI numbers of pourakarmikas from 58 wards. The number could be much higher across the city's 198 wards. An ESI number grants access to personal details of an employee on the esic.nic.in website, such as father's name and date of birth.

The city has over 30,000 pourakarmikas, most of them Dalit women and employed by contractors. The disclosure of their Aadhaar numbers comes at a time when the Modi administration's push for wider application of the unique identification number has triggered a nationwide debate on privacy.

"(Disclosure) happens because authorities don't read the law," Supreme Court advocate KV Dhananjay said. "There is every possibility of misuse, especially identity theft. What hackers do is they start aggregating such information because the Aadhaar is used as a platform for transfer of benefits. And with Aadhaar set to become the anchor for many things, the BBMP should immediately remove those details."

A recent report by city-based Centre for Internet and Society flagged four government agencies for publishing Aadhaar and other financial data. It blamed the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) for turning a blind eye to the lack of standards prescribed for how other agencies deal with data, such cases of massive public disclosure and "the myriad ways in which it could be used for mischief."

Earlier this month, UIDAI chief executive officer Ajay Bhushan Pandey wrote to chief secretaries of all states, reminding them that publishing an Aadhaar number is prohibited under Sections 29(2), 29(3) and 29(4) of the Aadhaar Act, 2016. "Our intention was not to cause anyone any harm," BBMP Joint Commissioner (solid waste management) Sarfaraz Khan said. The idea was to prevent contractors from taking payments against non-existent pourakarmikas. "We're also planning to make public details of which exact street a pourakarmika is working on."

He added that he would discuss the disclosure with the Commissioner, "If there is any violation, the Aadhaar numbers will be removed."

This points to the need for BBMP to have a policy on data and privacy, said Vinay K Sreenivasa of the Alternative Law Forum. "Of what use is an Aadhaar number to the BBMP? Names and photographs would have sufficed to ensure transparency."

ET Follow-up on Scare in Malleswaram
BBMP Joint Commissioner Sarfaraz Khan was unaware that publishing Aadhaar data is a punishable offence. However, the election wing of the BBMP has ordered a probe after ET reported how a certain Hanumantharaju, claiming to be a municipal official, collected Aadhaar details from residents of the Atma KT Apartment in Malleswaram.

Residents also filed a complaint with the Malleswaram police. "We called the man's mobile number but a woman picked up. Further investigation is underway and BBMP is also checking its records," a police officer said.

Residents also plan to submit a representation to Malleswaram MLA CN Ashwathnarayan. "We have taken this seriously and are awaiting a report from the Malleswaram BBMP revenue office," Assistant Commissioner (election) TR Shobha told ET.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/economic-times-may-29-2017-bharat-joshi-bbmp-faces-ire-for-publishing-pourakarmikas-aadhaar-details-on-website

Banking Policy Guide

Kartik Chawla — 2015-01-22T14:54:57Z

To gain a practical perspective on the existing banking practices and policies in India in this project, an empirical study of five separate and diverse banks has been conducted. The forms, policy documents, and other relevant and available documents of these banks have been analysed in this project.

These documents were obtained from the websites of the respective banks, and wherever they were lacking, from the branches of the banks themselves. Attempts were made to obtain any information required for the project that was not available on the website or in the forms from the officers of the respective banks.

The State Banks of India (hereinafter ‘SBI’), Central Bank of India (hereinafter ‘CBI’), ICICI Bank (hereinafter ‘ICICI’), IndusInd Bank (hereinafter ‘IndusInd’) and Standard Chartered Bank (hereinafter ‘SCB’) are the banks chosen for this project. As mentioned, these banks have been chosen to ensure a diverse sample pool. SBI is an Indian public multinational bank, CBI is an Indian public bank and it is not multinational, ICICI is an Indian private and multinational bank, IndusInd is an Indian private bank which isn’t multinational, and SCB is a British bank operating in India.

The forms and other documents of each of the banks have been compared against a template of twenty nine questions created from the nine principles given in Justice A.P. Shah Group of Experts’ Report on Privacy.

The two services provided by these banks that have been analysed are Opening an Account and Taking out a Personal Loan. This comparison has been done keeping in mind the obligations of the banks under the Master Circular and the KYC Norms detailed in it, Code of Conduct, and the Rules under Section 43A of the IT Act. Attempts have been made to clarify the basis of the response as much as possible. An analysis of the obligations of the banks is present below, along with an explanation of the relevance of various parts of the two services that are analysed.

Click to download:

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/banking-policy-guide

Bali meet to discuss Internet governance issues

praskrishna — 2013-10-23T08:29:23Z

Four-day event hosted by Internet Governance Forum to also discuss Internet access and diversity, privacy, security.

This article by Moulishree Srivastava was published in Livemint on October 22, 2013. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

Representatives of governments around the world, technology executives and activists will discuss issues such as Internet access and diversity, privacy, security, inter-governmental corporation, and Internet governance at a four-day event hosted by the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) that begins on Tuesday in Bali, Indonesia.

J. Satyanarayana, secretary, ministry of communications and information technology, confirmed India’s participation in the forum and said the country would be represented by Dr Govind, a senior director and head of department, e-infrastructure and Internet governance division, department of information technology.

“We will also be taking part in a working group on Internet governance and enhanced cooperation, which will be convened by the United Nations Commission on Science and Technology for Development in November,” said Satyanarayana.

“IGF is a valuable learning forum wherein different stakeholders can discuss Internet governance policy issues without any antagonism. Other fora for Internet policy like ICANN, WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization), ITU (International Telecommunication Union), etc., are places where international law and policy are developed, and do not allow for such learning because negotiations are always very acrimonious. Since IGF is only meant for learning, it does not directly address the global policy vacuum that exists for cyber crime, data protection and privacy,” said Sunil Abraham, executive director of Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society, who will be participating in the Bali event.

“Indian government, private sector, civil society, technical and academic community can become more competent and effective through such a dialogue in other multilateral and multi-stakeholder fora where international Internet standards, policies and laws are formulated. It also helps the stakeholders contribute to the development of internationally interoperable domestic policy,” he added.

In 2006, the UN secretary general established a small secretariat in Geneva to assist him in the convening of IGF. The first meeting was convened in October-November 2006 in Athens. In December 2010, IGF’s mandate was extended for five years.

In its eighth edition, IGF will have detailed discussions on issues such as free flow of information on the Internet, regulatory approaches to privacy, and protection of interests of individuals and communities in cyberspace, Internet surveillance and legal framework for cyber crime, said the forum in a statement on its website.

During the four-event, for instance, one of the workshops “will explore what core principles and strategies are needed to achieve a balanced and fair approach to data protection that is effective internationally and regionally”, according to IGF.

Some of the prominent speakers in the event include Jari Arkko, chairman, Internet Engineering Task Force, Finland; Virat Bhatia, president, South Asia, AT&T Inc.; Chris Painter, coordinator for cyber issues, US department of state; Karen Mulberry, policy adviser, Internet Society; and Matthew Shears, director of Internet policy and human rights, Center for Democracy and Technology.

According to industry estimates, over 2.5 billion Internet users interact in shared cross-border online spaces where they can post content potentially accessible worldwide.

“No clear frameworks exist yet to handle the tensions between these competing normative orders or values and enable peaceful cohabitation in cross-border cyberspace. This challenge constitutes a rare issue of common concern for all stakeholder groups,” said IGF on its website.

According to a UN estimate, nearly 40% of the world’s population will be online by the end of 2013. “The Internet has become an essential tool for the creation of jobs and the delivery of basic public services,” said the UN undersecretary-general for economic and social affairs, Wu Hungbo, in a statement, adding that it is also essential “for improving access to knowledge and education, for empowering women, for enhancing transparency, and for giving marginalized populations a voice in decision-making processes”.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/livemint-moulishree-srivastava-october-22-2013-bali-meet-to-discuss-internet-governance-issues

Balancing vigilance and privacy

praskrishna — 2013-09-05T10:53:28Z

As the government steps up its surveillance capabilities, the entire social contract between the state and citizens is being reformulated, with worrying consequences.

This article by Prashant Jha was published in the Hindu on August 18, 2013. Pranesh Prakash is quoted.

The Indian state is arming itself with both technological capabilities and the institutional framework to track the lives of citizens in an unprecedented manner.

A new Centralised Monitoring System (CMS) is in the offing, which would build on the already existing mechanisms. As The Hindu reported on June 21, this would allow the government to access in real-time any mobile and fixed line conversation, SMS, fax, website visit, social media usage, Internet search and email, and will have ‘unmatched capabilities of deep search surveillance and monitoring’.

Civil society groups and citizens expressed concern about the government’s actions, plans, and intent at a discussion organised by the Foundation for Media Professionals, on Saturday.

The context

Usha Ramanathan, a widely respected legal scholar, pointed to the larger political context which had permitted this form of surveillance. It stemmed, she argued, from a misunderstanding of the notion of sovereignty. “It is not the government, but the people who are sovereign.” Laws and the Constitution are about limiting the power of the state, but while people were being subjected to these restrictions, the government itself had found ways to remain above it – either by not having laws, or having ineffective regulators. States knew the kind of power they exercised over citizens, with the result that ‘impunity had grown’.

“There is also a complete breakdown of the criminal justice system,” Ms Ramanathan said. This had resulted in a reliance on extra-judicial methods of investigation, and ‘scape-goating’ had become the norm. ‘National security’ had been emphasised, re-emphasised, and projected as the central goal. “We haven’t paused to ask what this means, and the extent to which we have been asked to give up personal security for the sake of national security.” It was in this backdrop that technology had advanced by leaps, and made extensive surveillance possible.

The implications are enormous. The data is often used for purposes it is not meant for, including political vendetta, keeping track of rivals, corporates, and digging out facts about a citizen when he may have antagonised those in power.

Pranesh Prakash, director of the Centre of Internet and Society (CIS) looked back at the killing of Haren Pandya, the senior Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader in Gujarat. Mr Pandya was using the SIM card of a friend, and it was by tracking the SIM, and through it his location, that the Gujarat government got to know that Mr Pandya had deposed before a commission and indicted the administration for its role in the riots. Eventually, he was found murdered outside a park in Ahmedabad. The Gujarat Police had accessed call details of 90,000 phones.

It is also not clear whether mining this kind of data has been effective for the national security purposes, which provide the reason for doing it in the first place. Saikat Datta, resident editor of Daily News and Analysis, and an expert on India’s intelligence apparatus, said a core problem was the absence of any auditing and over sight. “There needs to be a constant review of the number of calls, emails under surveillance, with questions about whether it is yielding results. But this does not happen, probably because a majority is not for counter-terrorism. There would be trouble if you build accountability mechanisms.” When he sought information under RTI around precisely such issues, he was denied information on the grounds that it would strengthen ‘enemies of the state’.

Anja Kovacs, who works with the Internet Democracy Project, said this form of “mass surveillance” criminalised everybody since it was based on the assumption that each citizen was a “potential criminal”. She also pointed out that having “more information” did not necessarily mean it was easier to address security threats – there was intelligence preceding the Mumbai attacks, but it was not acted upon. She added, “Most incidents have been resolved by traditional intelligence. Investing in agencies, training them better could be more effective.”

Bring in the caveats

Few argue that the state is not entitled to exercise surveillance at all. In fact, a social contract underpins democratic states. Citizens agree to subject some of their rights to restrictions, and vest the state with the monopoly over instruments and use of violence. In turn, the state – acting within a set of legal principles; being accountable to citizens; and renewing its popular legitimacy through different measures, including elections – provides order and performs a range of developmental functions.

This framework, citizens and civil liberty groups worry, is under threat with governments appropriating and usurping authority to conduct unprecedented surveillance. Citizen groups, technology and privacy experts came together globally to draft the International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communication Surveillance.

It prescribed that any restriction to privacy through surveillance must be ‘legal’; it must be for a ‘legitimate aim’; it must be ‘strictly and demonstrably necessary’; it must be preceded by showing to an established authority that other ‘less invasive investigative techniques’ have been used; it must follow ‘due process’; decisions must be taken by a ‘competent judicial authority’; there must be ‘public oversight’ mechanisms; and ‘integrity of communications and systems’ should be maintained. (Full text available on www.necessaryandproportionate.org)Mr Prakash of CIS, which has done extensive work on surveillance and privacy issues, said, “An additional principle must be collection limitation or data minimisation.” Giving the instance of Indian Railways seeking the date of birth from a customer booking a ticket, Mr Prakash said this was not information which was necessary. But it could be used by hackers and many other agencies to access an individual’s private transactions in other areas. The UPA government is finalising a privacy Bill, but its final version is not yet public, and it is not clear how far the government would go in protecting citizen rights.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/the-hindu-august-19-2013-prashant-jha-balancing-vigilance-and-privacy

Attempted data breach of UIDAI, RBI, ISRO and Flipkart is worrisome

Admin — 2018-01-02T16:20:58Z

Perhaps, we got lucky this time, but the ongoing problem of massive cyber-security breaches wouldn't stop at one thwarted attempt to steal sensitive information from the biggest and most important databases.

This was published by DailyO on October 4, 2017.

An alarming report on a potential data breach impacting almost 6,000 Indian organisations — including the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) that hosts Aadhaar numbers, Reserve Bank of India, Bombay Stock Exchange and Flipkart — has surfaced and supposedly been contained.

A cyber security firm in Pune, Seqrite, had found in its Cyber Intelligence Labs that India's national internet registry, IRINN (Indian Registry for Internet Names and Numbers), which comes under NIXI (National Internet Exchange of India), was compromised, though the issue has reportedly been "addressed".

Sequite tracked an advertisement on the "dark net" — the digital underworld — offering access to servers and database dump of more than 6,000 Indian businesses and public assets, including the big ones such as UIDAI, RBI, BSE and Flipkart.

The report states that the "dealer could have had access to usernames, email ids, passwords, organisation name, invoices and billing documents, and few more important fields, and could have potentially shut down an entire organisation".

The UIDAI has denied the security breach of Aadhaar data in the IRINN attacks, in an expected move. "UIDAI reiterated that its existing security controls and protocols are robust and capable of countering any such attempts or malicious designs of data breach or hacking," said the report, which is basically a rebuttal from the powerful organisation at the heart of centralising all digital information of all Indians.

Though the aggrieved parties have been notified, and the NCIIPC (National Critical Information Infrastructure Protection Centre) is looking at the issue, what this means is that digital information is a minefield susceptible to all kinds of threats from criminals as well as foreign adversaries, along with being commercially exploited by major conglomerates.

Till August 2017 alone, around 37 incidents of ransomware attacks have been reported, including the notorious WannaCry attacks. But what makes the attacks very, very threatening is the government's insistence — illegal at that — to link Aadhaar with every service, and create a centralised nodal, superior network of all networks.

This "map of maps" has been rightly called out as a potential national security threat, as it makes a huge reservoir of data vulnerable to cyberthreats from mercenaries, the digital underworld and foreign adversaries.

A widely circulated report prepared by the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) underlined the major flaws in the 2016 Aadhaar Act, that makes it vulnerable to several digital threats. Photo: Reuters

That the data dump in the digital black market provides access to entire servers for a meagre sum of Rs 42 lakh, as mentioned in the report, is a sign of how insecure our personal information could be on the servers of the biggest government organisations and commercial/online retail giants. This includes the likes of Flipkart, which store our passwords, emails, phone numbers and other important information linked to our bank details and more.

Whilst UIDAI was declared a "protected system" under Section 70 of the Information Technology Act, and a critical information infrastructure, in practice, there are way too many breaches and leaks of Aadhaar data to merit that tag.

Because the current (officially thwarted) attempt to hack into these nodal databases involved the data of hundreds of millions of Indians, the matter has been dealt with the required seriousness. However, as the report states, "among the companies whose emails they found were Tata Consultancy Services, Wipro, Indian Space Research Organisation, Mastercard/Visa, Spectranet, Hathway, IDBI Bank and EY".

This is a laundry list of the biggest and most significant organisations, with massive digital footprints, which are sitting on enormous databanks. Hacking into ISRO, for example, could pose a formidable risk to India's space programmes as well as jeopardise information safety of crucial space projects that are jointly conducted with friendly countries such as Russia, China and the US.

A widely circulated report prepared by the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) on the Aadhaar Act and its non-compliance with data protection law in India underlined the major flaws in the 2016 Aadhaar Act, that makes it vulnerable to several digital threats.

Moreover, CIS also reported how government websites, especially "those run by National Social Assistance Programme under Ministry of Rural Development, National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) run by Ministry of Rural Development, Daily Online Payment Reports under NREGA (Governemnt of Andhra Pradesh) and Chandranna Bima Scheme (also run by Government of Andhra Pradesh) combined were responsible for publicly exposing personal and Aadhaar details of over 13 crore citizens".

The government has been rather lackadaisical about the grave security threats posed by India's shaky digital infrastructure, saying it's robust when it's not: the UIDAI itself has been brushing the allegations of exclusion, data breach and leaking of data from various government and private operators' servers and there have been several documentations of the security threat as well as the human rights violations that the digital breaches pose for India's institutions and its citizens.

As noted welfare economist Jean Dreze says, "With Aadhaar immensely reinforcing the government's power to reward loyalty and marginalise dissenters, the embers of democracy are likely to be further smothered."

Even as India's jurisprudence held privacy and autonomy as supreme, Indians remain vulnerable to institutional failures and an abject lack of awareness on the gravity of digital destabilisation.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/daily-o-october-4-2017-attempted-data-breach-of-uidai-rbi-isro-and-flipkart

Artificial Intelligence in the Governance Sector in India

Arindrajit Basu and Elonnai Hickok — 2018-09-14T11:37:58Z

The use of Artificial Intelligence has the potential to ameliorate several existing structural inefficiencies in the discharge of governmental functions. Our research indicates that the deployment of this technology across sub-sectors is still on the horizons.

Ecosystem Mapping:Shweta Mohandas and Anamika Kundu
Edited by: Amber Sinha, Pranav MB and Vishnu Ramachandran

Much of the technological capacity and funding for AI in governance in India is coming from the private sector - a trend we expect will continue as the government engages in an increasing number of partnerships with both start-ups and large corporations alike. While there is considerable enthusiasm and desire by the government to develop AI-driven solutions in governance, including the release of two reports identifying the broad contours of India’s AI strategy, this enthusiasm is yet to be underscored by adequate financial, infrastructural, and technological capacity. This gap provides India with a unique opportunity to understand some the of the ethical, legal and technological hurdles faced by the West both during and after the implementation of similar technology and avoid these challenges when devising its own AI strategy and regulatory policy.

The case study identified five sub-sectors including law enforcement, education, defense, discharge of governmental functions and also considered the implications of AI in judicial decision-making processes that have been used in the United States. After mapping the uses of AI in various sub-sectors, this report identifies several challenges to the deployment of this technology. This includes factors such as infrastructural and technological capacity, particularly among key actors at the grassroots level, lack of trust in AI driven solutions and adequate funding. We also identified several ethical and legal concerns that policy-makers must grapple with. These include over-dependence on AI systems, privacy and security, assignment of liability, bias and discrimination both in process and outcome, transparency and due process. Subsequently, this report can be considered as a roadmap for the future of AI in India by tracking corresponding and emerging developments in other parts of the world. In the final section of the report, we propose several recommendations for policy-makers and developers that might address some of the challenges and ethical concerns identified. Some of these include benchmarks for the use of AI in the public sector, development of standards of explanation, a standard framework for engagement with the private sector, leveraging AI as a field to further India’s international strategy, developing adequate standards of data curation, ensuring that the benefits of the technology reaches the lowest common denominator, adopting interdisciplinary approaches to the study of Artificial Intelligence and developing fairness,transparency and due process through the contextual application of a rules-based system.

It is crucial that policy-makers do not adopt a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to AI regulation but consider all options within a regulatory spectrum that considers the specific impacts of the deployment of this technology for each sub-sector within governance - with the distinction of public sector use. Given that the governance sector has potential implications for the fundamental rights of all citizens, it is also imperative that the government does not shy away from its obligation to ensure the fair and ethical deployment of this technology while also ensuring the existence of robust redress mechanisms. To do so, it must chart out a standard rules-based system that creates guidelines and standards for private sector development of AI solutions for the public sector. As with other emerging technology, the success of Artificial intelligence depends on whether it is deployed with the intention of placing greater regulatory scrutiny on the daily lives of individuals or for harnessing individual potential that augment rather than counter the core tenets of constitutionalism and human dignity.

Read the full report here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/artificial-intelligence-in-the-governance-sector-in-india

Artificial Intelligence in Governance: A Report of the Roundtable held in New Delhi

Saman Goudarzi and Natallia Khaniejo — 2018-05-03T15:49:40Z

This Report provides an overview of the proceedings of the Roundtable on Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Governance, conducted at the Indian Islamic Cultural Centre, in New Delhi on March 16, 2018. The main purpose of the Roundtable was to discuss the deployment and implementation of AI in various aspects of governance within the Indian context. This report summarises the discussions on the development and implementation of AI in various aspects of governance in India. The event was attended by participants from academia, civil society, the legal sector, the finance sector, and the government.

Event Report: Download (PDF)

This report provides a summary of the proceedings of the Roundtable on Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Governance (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Roundtable’). The Roundtable took place at the India Islamic Cultural Centre in New Delhi on March 16, 2018 and included participation from academia, civil society, law, finance, and government. The main purpose of the Roundtable was to discuss the deployment and implementation of AI in various aspects of governance within the Indian context.

The Roundtable began with a presentation by Amber Sinha (Centre for Internet and Society - CIS) providing an overview of the CIS’s research objectives and findings thus far. During this presentation, he defined both AI and the scope of CIS’s research, outlining the areas of law enforcement, defense, education, judicial decision making, and the discharging of administrative functions as the main areas of concerns for the study. The presentation then outlined the key AI deployments and implementations that have been identified by the research in each of these areas. Lastly, the presentation raised some of the ethical and legal concerns related to this phenomenon.

The presentation was followed by the Roundtable discussion that saw various topics in regards to the usages, challenges, ethical considerations and implications of AI in the sector being discussed. This report has identified a number of key themes of importance evident throughout these discussions.These themes include: (1) the meaning and scope of AI, (2) AI’s sectoral applications, (3) human involvement with automated decision making, (4) social and power relations surrounding AI, (5) regulatory approaches to AI and, (6) challenges to adopting AI. These themes in relation to the Roundtable are explored further below.

Meaning and Scope of AI

One of the first tasks recommended by the group of participants was to define the meaning and scope of AI and the way those terms are used and adopted today. These concerns included the need to establish a distinction between the use of algorithms, machine learning, automation and artificial intelligence. Several participants believed that establishing consensus around these terms was essential before proceeding towards a stage of developing regulatory frameworks around them.

The general fact agreed to was that AI as we understand it does not necessarily extend to complete independence in terms of automated decision making but it refers instead to the varying levels of machine learning (ML), and the automation of certain processes that has already been achieved. Several concerns that emerged during the course of the discussion centred around the question of autonomy and transparency in the process of ML and algorithmic processing. Stakeholders recommended that over and above the debates of humans in the loop [1] on the loop [2] and out of the loop, [3] there were several other gaps with respect to AI and its usage in the industry today which also need to be considered before building a roadmap for future usage. Key issues like information asymmetries, communication lags, a lack of transparency, the increased mystification of the coding process and the centralization of power all needed to be examined and analysed under the rubric of developing regulatory frameworks.

Takeaway Point: The group brought out the need for standardization of terminology as well as the establishment of globally replicable standards surrounding the usage, control and proliferation of AI. The discussion also brought up the problems with universal applicability of norms. One of the participants brought up an issue regarding the lack of normative frameworks around the usage and proliferation of AI. Another participant responded to the concern by alluding to the Asilomar AI principles.[4] The Asilomar AI principles are a set of 23 principles aimed at directing and shaping AI research in the future. The discussion brought out further issues regarding the enforceability as well universal applicability of the principles and their global relevance as well. Participants recommended the development of a shorter, more universally applicable regulatory framework that could address various contextual limitations as well.

AI Sectoral Applications

Participants mentioned a number of both current and potential applications of AI technologies, referencing the defence sector, the financial sector, and the agriculture sector. There are several developments taking place on the Indian military front with the Committee on AI and National Security being established by the Ministry of Defence. Through the course of the discussion it was also stated that the Indian Armed Forces were very interested in the possibilities of using AI for their own strategic and tactical purposes. From a technological standpoint, however, there has been limited progress in India in researching and developing AI.

While India does deploy some Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), they are mostly bought from Israel, and often are not autonomous. It was also pointed out that contrary to reportage in the media, the defence establishment in India is extremely cautious about the adoption of autonomous weapons systems, and that the autonomous technology being rolled out by the CAIR is not yet considered trustworthy enough for deployment.

Discussions further revealed that the few technologies that have a relative degree of autonomy are primarily loitering ammunitions and are used to target radar insulations for reconnaissance purposes. One participant mentioned that while most militaries are interested in deploying AI, it is primarily from an Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) perspective. The only exception to this generalization is China where the military ethos and command structure would work better with increased reliance on independent AI systems. One major AI system rolled out by the US is Project Maven which is primarily an ISR system. The aim of using these systems is to improve decision making and enhance data analysis particularly since battlefields generate a lot of data that isn’t used anywhere.

Another sector discussed was the securities market where algorithms were used from an analytical and data collection perspective. A participant referred to the fact that machine learning was being used for processes like credit and trade scoring -- all with humans on the loop. The participant further suggested that while trade scoring was increasingly automated, the overall predictive nature of such technologies remained within a self limiting capacity wherein statistical models, collected data and pattern analysis were used to predict future trends. The participant questioned whether these algorithms could be considered as AI in the truest sense of the term since they primarily performed statistical functions and data analysis.

One participant also recommended the application of AI to sectors like agriculture with the intention of gradually acclimatizing users to the technology itself. Respondents also stated that while AI technologies were being used in the agricultural space it was primarily from the standpoint of data collection and analysis as opposed to predictive methods. It was mentioned that a challenge to the broad adoption of AI in this sector is the core problem of adopting AI as a methodology – namely information asymmetries, excessive data collection, limited control/centralization and the obfuscatory nature of code – would not be addressed/modified. Lastly, participants also suggested that within the Indian framework not much was being done aside from addressing farmers’ queries and analysing the data from those concerns.

Takeaway Point: The discussion drew attention to the various sectors where AI was currently being used -- such as the military space, agricultural development and the securities market -- as well as potential spaces of application -- such as healthcare and manual scavenging. The key challenges that emerged were information asymmetries with respect to the usage of these technologies as well as limited capacity in terms of technological advancement.

Human Involvement with Automated Decision Making

Large parts of discussions throughout the Roundtable event were preoccupied with automated decision making and specifically, the involvement of humans (human on and in the loop) or lack thereof (human out of the loop) in this process. These discussions often took place with considerations of AI for prescriptive and descriptive uses.

Participants expressed that human involvement was not needed when AI was being used for descriptive uses, such as determining relationships between various variables in large data sets. Many agreed to the superior ability of ML and similar AI technologies in describing large and unorganized datasets. It was the prescriptive uses of AI where participants saw the need for human involvement, with many questioning the technology making more important decisions by itself.

The need for human involvement in automated decision making was further justified by references to various instances of algorithmic bias in the American context. One participant, for example, brought up the use of algorithmic decision making by a school board in the United States for human resource practices (hirings, firing, etc.) based on the standardized test scores of students. In this instance, such practices resulted in the termination of teachers primarily from low income neighbourhoods.[5] The main challenge participants identified in regards to human on the loop automated decision making is the issue of capacity, as significant training would have to be achieved for sectors to have employees actively involved in the automated decision making workflow.

An example in the context of the healthcare field was brought up by one participant arguing for human in the loop in regards to prescriptive scenarios. The participant suggested that AI technology, when given x-ray or MRI data for example, should only be limited to pointing out the correlations of diseases with patients’ scans/x-rays. Analysis of such correlations should be reserved for the medical expertise of doctors who would then determine if any instances of causality can be identified from this data and if it’s appropriate for diagnosing patients.

It was emphasized that, despite a preference for human on/in the loop in regards to automated decision making, there is a need to be cognisant of techno-solutionism due to the human tendency of over reliance on technology when making decisions. A need for command and control structures and protocols was emphasized for various governance sectors in order to avoid potentially disastrous results through a checks and balances system. It was noted that the defense sector has already developed such protocols, having established a chain of command due to its long history of algorithmic decision making (e.g. the Aegis Combat System being used by the US Navy in the 1980s).

One key reason why militaries prefer human in and on the loop systems as opposed to out of the loop systems is because of the protocol associated with human action on the battlefield. International Humanitarian Law has clear indicators of what constitutes a war crime and who is to be held responsible in the scenario but developing such a framework with AI systems would be challenging as it would be difficult to determine which party ought to be held accountable in the case of a transgression or a mistake.

Takeaway Point: It was reiterated by many participants that neither AI technology or India’s regulatory framework is at a point where AI can be trusted to make significant decisions alone -- especially when such decisions are evaluating humans directly. It was recommended that human out of the loop decision making should be reserved for descriptive practices whereas human on and in the loop decision making should be used for prescriptive practices. Lastly, it was also suggested that appropriate protocols be put in place to direct those involved in the automated decision making workflow. Particularly when the process involves judgements and complex decision making in sectors such as jurisprudence and the military.

The Social and Power Relations Surrounding AI

Some participants emphasized the need to contextualize discussions of AI and governance within larger themes of poverty, global capital and power/social relations. Their concerns were that the use of AI technologies would only create and reinforce existing power structures and should instead be utilized towards ameliorating such issues. Manual scavenging, for example, was identified as an area where AI could be used to good effect if coupled with larger socio-political policy changes. There are several hierarchies that could potentially be reinforced through this process and all these failings needed to be examined thoroughly before such a system was adopted and incorporated within the real world.

Furthermore the discussion also revealed that the objectivity attributed to AI and ML tends to gloss over the fact that there are nonetheless implicit biases that exist in the minds of the creators that might work themselves into the code. Fears regarding technology recreating a more exclusionary system were not entirely unfounded as participants pointed out the fact that the knowledge base of the user would determine whether technology was used as a tool of centralization or democratization.

One participant also questioned the concept of governance itself, contrasting the Indian government’s usage of the term in the 1950s (as it appears in the Directive Principle) with that of the World Bank in the 1990s.

Takeaway Point: Discussions of the implementation and deployment of AI within the governance landscape should attempt to take into consideration larger power relations and concepts of equity.

Regulatory Approaches to AI

Many recognized the need for AI-specific regulations across Indian sectors, including governance. These regulations, participants stated, should draw from notions of accountability, algorithmic transparency and efficiency. Furthermore, it was also stated that such regulations should consider the variations across the different legs of the governance sector, especially in regards to defence. One participant, pointing to the larger trends towards automation, recommended the establishment of certain fundamental guidelines aimed at directing the applicability of AI in general. The participant drew attention to the need for a robust evaluation system for various sectors (the criminal justice system, the securities market, etc.) as a way of providing checks on algorithmic biases. Another emphasized for the need of regulations for better quality data as to ensure machine readability and processiblity for various AI systems.

Another key point that emerged was the importance of examining how specific algorithms performed processes like identification or detection. A participant recommended the need to examine the ways in which machines identify humans and what categories/biases could infiltrate machine-judgement. They reiterated that if a new element was introduced in the system, the pre-existing variables would be impacted as well. The participant further recommended that it would be useful to look at these systems in terms of the couplings that get created in order to determine what kinds of relations are fostered within that system.

The roundtable saw some debate regarding the most appropriate approach to developing such regulations. Some participants argued for a harms-based approach, particularly in regards to determining if regulations are needed all together for specific sectors (as opposed to guidelines, best practices, etc.). The need to be cognisant of both individual and structural harms was emphasized, mindful of the possibility of algorithmic biases affecting traditionally marginalized groups.

Others only saw value in a harms based approach insomuch that it could help outline the appropriate penalties in an event of regulations being violated, arguing instead for a rights-based approach as it enabled greater room for technological changes. An approach that kept in mind emerging AI technologies was reiterated by a number of participants as being crucial to any regulatory framework. The need for a regulatory space that allowed for technological experimentation without the fear of constitutional violation was also communicated.

Takeaway Point: The need for a AI-specific regulatory framework cognisant of differentiations across sectors in India was emphasized. There is some debate about the most appropriate approach for such a framework, a harms-based approach being identified by many as providing the best perspective on regulatory need and penalties. Some identified the rights-based approach as providing the most flexibility for an rapidly evolving technological landscape.

Challenges to Adopting AI

Out of all the concerns regarding the adoption of algorithms, ML and AI, the two key points of resistance that emerged, centred around issues of accountability and transparency. Participants suggested that within an AI system, predictability would be a key concern, and in the absence of predictable outcomes, establishing redressal mechanisms would pose key challenges as well.

A discussion was also initiated regarding the problems involved in attributing responsibility within the AI chain as well as the need to demystify the process of using AI in daily life. While reiterating the current landscape, participants spoke about how the usage of AI is currently limited to the automation of certain tasks and processes in certain sectors where algorithmic processing is primarily used as a tool of data collection and analysis as opposed to an independent decision making tool.

One of the suggestions and thought points that emerged during the discussion was whether a gradual adoption of AI on a sectoral basis might be more beneficial as it would provide breathing room in the middle to test the system and establish trust between the developers, providers, and consumers. This prompted a debate about the controllers and the consumers of AI and how the gap between the two would need to be negotiated. The debate also brought up larger concerns regarding the mystification of AI as a process itself and the complications of translating the code into communicable points of intervention.

Another major issue that emerged was the question of attribution of responsibility in the case of mistakes. In the legal process as it currently exists, human imperfections notwithstanding, it would be possible to attribute the blame for decisions taken to certain actants undertaking the action. Similarly in the defence sector, it would be possible to trace the chain of command and identify key points of failure, but in the case of AI based judgements, it would be difficult to place responsibility or blame. This observation led to a debate regarding accountability in the AI chain. It was inconclusive whether the error should be attributed to the developer, the distributor or the consumer.

A suggestion that was offered in order to counter the information asymmetry as well as reduce the mystification of computational method was to make the algorithm and its processes transparent. This sparked a debate, however, as participants stated that while such a state of transparency ought to be sought after and aspired towards, it would be accompanied by certain threats to the system. A key challenge that was pointed out was the fact that if the algorithm was made transparent, and its details were shared, there would be several ways to manipulate it, translate it and misuse it.

Another question that emerged was the distribution of AI technologies and the centralization of the proliferation process particularly in terms of service provision. One participant suggested that given the limited nature of research being undertaken and the paucity of resources, a limited number of companies would end up holding the best tech, the best resources and the best people. They further suggested that these technologies might end up being rolled out as a service on a contractual basis. In which case it would be important to track how the service was being controlled and delivered. Models of transference would become central points of negotiation with alternations between procurement based, lease based, and ownership based models of service delivery. Participants suggested that this was going to be a key factor in determining how to approach these issues from a legal and policy standpoint.

Takeaway Point: The two key points of resistance that emerged during the course of discussion were accountability and transparency. Participants pointed out the various challenges involved in attributing blame within the AI chain and they also spoke about the complexities of opening up AI code, thereby leaving it vulnerable to manipulation. Certain other challenges that were briefly touched upon were the information asymmetry, excessive data collection, centralization of power in the hands of the controllers and complicated service distribution models.

Conclusion

The Roundtable provided some insight into larger debates regarding the deployment and applications of AI in the governance sector of India. The need for a regulatory framework as well as globally replicable standards surrounding AI was emphasized, particularly one mindful of the particular needs of differing fields of the governance sector (especially defence). Furthermore, a need for human on/in the loop practices with regards to automated decision making was highlighted for prescriptive instances, particularly when such decisions are responsible for directly evaluating humans. Contextualising AI within its sociopolitical parameters was another key recommendation as it would help filter out the biases that might work themselves into the code and affect the performance of the algorithm. Further, it is necessary to see the involvement and influence of the private sector in the deployment of AI for governance, it often translating into the delivery of technological services from private actors to public bodies towards discharge of public functions. This has clear implications for requirements of transparency and procedural fairness even in private sector delivery of these services. Defining the meaning and scope of AI while working to demystify algorithms themselves would serve to strengthen regulatory frameworks as well as make AI more accessible for the user / consumer.

[1]. Automated decision making model where final decisions are made by a human operator

[2]. Automated decision making model where decisions can be made without human involvement but a human can override the system.

[3]. A completely autonomous decision making model requiring no human involvement

[4]. https://futureoflife.org/ai-principles/

[5]. The participant was drawing this example from Cathy O’Neil’s Weapons of Math Destruction, (Penguin,2016), at 4-13.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/artificial-intelligence-in-governance-a-report-of-the-roundtable-held-in-new-delhi

Artificial Intelligence for Growth: Leveraging AI and Robotics for India's Economic Transformation

Admin — 2018-05-05T09:08:07Z

Amber Sinha took part in the second international conference organized by ASSOCHAM at Hotel Shangri-La in New Delhi on April 27, 2018.

Keynote Address

12.15 p.m. - 12.30 p.m.: Shri Gopalakrishnan S., Joint Secretary, Ministry of Electronics and IT, Government of India

Special Address

12.30 p.m. - 12.45 p.m.: Dr. Pushpak Bhattacharyya, Director and Professor, Computer Science and Engg, IIT Patna and Chairman, BIS Committee for Standardisation in Artificial Intelligence

Panel Discussion

Session Moderator

12.45 p.m. - 1.40 p.m.: Shri Sudipta Ghosh, India Leader, Data and Analytics, PwC

Panelists

Shri Amber Sinha, Senior Programme Manager, Centre for Internet and Society
Shri Utpal Chakraborty, Lead Architect - AI, L&T Infotech
Shri Atul Rai, CEO & Co-Founder, Staqu Technologies
Shri Prabhat Manocha, IBM

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/artificial-intelligence-for-growth-leveraging-ai-and-robotics-for-indias-economic-transformation

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