Centre for Internet and Society

An Overview of DNA Labs in India

shilpa — 2016-02-02T13:11:31Z

DNA fingerprinting has become the most precise and technologically advanced method for identifying crimes such as murder, kidnapping, robbery and rape. Police and judicial authorities and in some cases even private parties retain this in their records, writes Shilpa in this blog post.

At present, India does not have a national law that empowers the government to collect and store DNA profiles of convicts but if the Parliament of India passes the DNA Profiling Bill,[1] 2007, India will soon join countries such as the US and UK in creating a national DNA database.[2] Government, CBI and organizations connected with the investigation process argue that data retention is necessary to combat terrorism and crime. According to Google Transparency Report [3] for the first half of 2010, India had 1,430 data requests, which made it one of the top nations in generating government inquiries for information.

In this blog I am citing my interviews with DNA labs, Issues regarding lab samples and data, and DNA Profiling Bill 2007 on lab practices. I am thankful to Anthony Jackson and Dr. Helen Wallace, Executive Director from Gene watch UK who helped me with the questionnaire for survey interview.

Interviews with DNA labs

I interviewed few government as well as private labs to find out how DNA practices are being carried out. This was to highlight ways in which DNA testing raises privacy concerns.

In public labs, DNA testing is used for the forensic purposes only. These labs are funded by the government whereas private labs deal with legal as well as private purposes. DNA Labs India (DLI), Truth Labs and Bio-Axis DNA Research Centre (P) Limited are some leading private firms involved in DNA testing.

Dr. Madhusudan Reddy Nandineni, who is the Scientist and In-charge of the Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics (CDFD) talked about the working of DNA practise and services provided by their laboratory. “CDFD located in Hyderabad is an autonomous institution supported by the Department of Biotechnology and Ministry of Science. CDFD provides services for DNA testing for establishment of parentage, identification of mutilated remains, establishment of biological relationships for immigration, organ transplantation, property inheritance cases, identification of missing children and child swapping in hospitals, identification of rapists in rape cases, and murderers in murder cases. CDFD assists police personnel, forensic scientists, lawyers and the judiciary”, says Dr. Madhusudan Nandineni over a telephonic interview.

The ND Tiwari Case (Published in the Deccan Herald, 24 July 2011)
Eighty-five-year-old leader ND Tiwari was asked to undergo a DNA test in the paternity suit filed by Rohit Shekhar who claims to be his biological son. The high court asked the Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagontics (CDFD) at Hyderabad to conduct a DNA test on Tiwari.[4] Also refusing to grant any relief to Tiwari, the court said that considering the age of the leader, it is necessary to have a DNA test so that the Rohit Shekhar is not left without any remedy if something happens to Tiwari. The court said that it is the right of a child to know his or her biological father.[5]

Dr. BK Mahapatra, Assistant Director, Biology & DNA Finger printing Unit at Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Delhi says “CFSL undertakes cases referred by CBI, Delhi police, judiciary, vigilance department of ministries, public undertakings and state/central government departments. We don’t contract with private laboratory to do a DNA testing. We accept all type of DNA cases submissions like criminal, known, unknown, etc. CFSL saves DNA samples for re-testing, however, for this we do have a privacy policy followed by National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories (NABL). It is an autonomous body under the aegis of the Department of Science and Technology, Government of India and is registered under the Societies Act”, he clarified.

In a telephonic interview with Ravi Kiran Reddy, DNA expert, DLI a, tells us about the services provided and security supervise by the laboratory. “DLI provides services for paternity testing, forensic testing, prenatal testing, and genetic testing. DLI contracted with a private laboratory to do DNA testing. We accept all DNA cases like suicide attempts, cases from Indian Army, etc. DLI saves DNA samples for re-testing for six months and if necessary for life time and a database is also maintained. He further said that to protect and secure database, bar coding is being prepared and therefore, no identity is revealed.

Some of the labs refused to participate in the research exercise like the truth labs. Truth Labs is a private lab that provides legal services directly, without a court or police order.[6] Another private laboratory which provides DNA testing is Bio-Axis DNA Research Centre. It also provide various DNA Identification services for private purposes, legal purposes, peace of mind, confidential purposes, immigration purposes, crime investigation and human identification purposes.[7]

Issues Regarding Lab Samples and Data

Readers may have heard of rapists being caught because of a match between a suspect's DNA and sperm left behind in a victim. Or, as often the case, an innocent person may be released because the DNA of that person does not match that found in a crime scene.[8]

Possibility of Framing Innocents: Kshitij Urs, an Action Aid said, “There can be some problems if one were to rely too much on DNA databases in the criminal justice system as DNA evidence can be planted in a crime scene intentionally”, in an event organised by CIS.
Insecurity of Centralised Storage: With DNA tests, a patient's medical file will contain information they would prefer to be confidential. But the whole idea of general DNA testing will only be effective if the data is stored in a single electronic database, which makes the confidentiality problem extremely pressing. For example, the results of DNA testing might reveal that a person who is legally a child's father isn't really his biological father.[9]
Other Privacy Concerns: DNA contains information that raises a much broader privacy and other civil liberties concerns. It can tell investigators about ourselves, our family members, diseases we may have inherited our physical attributes and broad ancestry. Genetic information can be used in all sorts of discriminatory ways.[10]

What can be done?
There should be a DNA retention policy to protect an individual. It will identify personal data which has to be maintained and contain guidelines for how long certain documents should be kept and how they should be destroyed.[11] In the situation of DNA collection and testing privacy cannot be protected simply through consent from an individual. Instead the law must permit specific thresholds to be established in order to cover the privacy needs of different situations. DNA profiling Bill 2007 will regulate the use of DNA profiles which is pending in the Parliament.

DNA Profiling Bill 2007 on Lab Practices

According to the DNA Profiling Bill there are certain rules for the DNA laboratories which are followed by these labs.

Prohibition for undertaking DNA procedures: It states that DNA laboratories have to take prior permission from the DNA Profiling Board to undertake any DNA procedures.
Security and minimize contamination: There should be proper facility of security and minimize contamination of DNA samples.
Confidentiality, Access to DNA Profiles, Samples and Records: DNA Profiling Bill states that all DNA profiles, samples and records forwarded to the DNA laboratory or any authority of the lab has to be kept confidential.
Use of DNA profiles, samples and records: All DNA profiles, samples and records should be used only for facilitating identification of the perpetrator(s) of a specified offence and also to identify victims of accidents, disasters or missing persons or for such other purposes.
Authorised Access: It also says that information stored on the DNA database system may be accessed by the authorized persons for the purposes of forensic comparison permitted under this Act, administering the DNA database system, accessing any information contained in it by law enforcement officers or any other persons, as may be prescribed, in accordance with provisions of any law for the time being in force, inquest or inquiry.
Restrictions on use of information on DNA profiles, samples and data identification records: Laboratory cannot use the information for any purpose other than the purpose for which the communication or access is permitted.
Destruction, alterations, contamination, tampering with biological evidence: The Bill states that whoever knowingly or intentionally destroys alters, contaminates or tampers with biological evidence will be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine not exceeding twenty thousand rupees, or with both.[12]

Conclusion

Currently the Bill allows for the complete storage of DNA of criminals, suspects, victims, offenders and volunteers.
There are no standard practices for data retention across lab. Thereby there is an increased risk that data might fall in wrong hands and information may also be misused. Therefore, DNA databases should be restricted to be stored for not more than a limited time period. Such indefinite retention of the DNA profiles of innocent individuals is a disproportionate and unnecessary interference with an individual’s right to privacy.
DNA labs in India have numerous constraints and operating in different level. Therefore, India has to be having even more carefully designed laws.

List of Laboratories

Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Delhi
Dr. BK Mahapatra
Associate Biology Division
Ph: 9312523536, 24360095
Mail: ssofs_dfs@dfs.gov.in

Centre For Fingerprinting and Diagnostics (CDFD), Hyderabad
Dr. Madhusudan Nandineni
Scientist and In-charge
Ph: 24749331, 24749330
Mail: dsp@cdfd.org.in

DNA Labs India, Hyderabad
Ravi Kiran Reddy
Ph: 9395142800
Mail: info@dnalabsindia.org

Bio-Axis DNA Research Centre
Ph: 9246338983
Mail: drc@dnares.in

Truth Labs, Hyderabad
Ph: 9490690222, 04023390999
Mail: gandhi@truthlabs.org

Notes

[1]http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/DNA-Profiling-Bill

[2]http://www.gene-watch.org/blog/post/India-May-Soon-Have-a-National-DNA-Database.aspx

[3]Amy Miller, “Google’s new tool shows which countries are censoring the internet” http://www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202472346375

[4]Paternity case: No relief for N D Tiwari as Supreme Court allows DNA test http://www.indianexpress.com/news/paternity-case-no-relief-for-n-d-tiwari-as/762146/

[5]Paternity case: ND Tiwari to provide blood sample for DNA test http://www.deccanherald.com/content/165408/paternity-case-nd-tiwari-provide.html

[6]http://www.truthlabs.org/

[7]Bio-Axis Research Centre, http://www.dnatestinginindia.ewebsite.com

[8]Sujatha Byravan , A public, private database http://www.indiatogether.org/2009/sep/hrt-dnadb.htm

[9]Vibhor Verdhan, Data Retention Policies- An Emerging Requirement & Various Compliances http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l428-Data-Retention-Policies.html

[10]Andrei Kislyakov , DNA testing: pros & cons http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20090104/119294260.html

[11]Vibhor Verdhan, Data Retention Policies- An Emerging Requirement & Various Compliances

[12]DNA Profiling Bill http://dbtindia.nic.in/DNA_Bill.pdf

Click here for the Survey Questions

Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is the main constituent of the chromosomes of all organisms, and is found in the form of a double helix within the nucleus of every somatic cell. Consequently, a small sample of human body cells can be decoded to reveal a pattern that is shared only by a genetically identical twin. The DNA of each individual does not change during his lifetime. This technique is commonly used in police investigations and is termed ‘DNA fingerprinting. For more see the Wikipedia definition of DNA.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/privacy/dna-overview

An Open Letter to the Finance Committee: SCOSTA Standards

elonnai — 2013-12-20T03:58:09Z

The UID Bill has been placed to the Finance Committee for review and approval. Through a series of open letters to the Finance Committee, civil society is asking the committee to take into consideration and change certain aspects of the Bill and the project. The below note compares the SCOSTA standard with the Aadhaar biometric standard, and explains why we believe the SCOSTA standard should replace the Aadhaar biometric standard for the authentication process in the UID scheme.

Introduction

This note is intended to demonstrate how the Aadhaar biometric standard is weaker than the SCOSTA standard. Through a comparison of the SCOSTA standard-based smart card and the Aadhaar biometric-based identification number, it will show how the SCOSTA standard is a more secure, structurally sound, and cost effective approach to authentication of identity for India. Though we recognize that Aadhaar biometrics are useful for the de-duplication and identification of individuals, we believe that the SCOSTA standard is more appropriate for the authentication of individuals. Thus, we ask that the Aadhaar biometric based authentication process be replaced with a SCOSTA standard based authentication process.

A background of the two standards

The SCOSTA standard is used in smart cards and was developed by the National Informatics Centre in India. It is:

1. Compliant with the international standard ISO-7816 for smart cards.

2. Based on a public/private key and pin authentication factor

3. Authentication factor refers to an individuals keys, pass-phrases, and pin.

The biometric standard authenticates the identity of an individual based on his or her physical fingerprints and iris scans (in the case of the UID). The standard:

1. Verifies if the individual exists within a known population by comparing the biometric data to those of other individuals stored in a secured centralized database.

2. Based on a symmetric authentication factor

A comparison of the two standards

Standard	SCOSTA - MNIC smart card	Aadhaar Biometric - UID number
Architecture	Decentralized SCOSTA standards require a pair and key combination with a pin, and thus can be structured in a decentralized manner	Centralized Aadhaar biometric standards require symmetric authentication factors, and thus must be structured in a centralized manner
Standards for Technology	Open standard Creates security through transparency	Closed standard Creates security though obscurity
Points of failure	Multiple points of failure The SCOSTA standard has multiple points of failure, because of decentralized structure, thus if one data base is compromised all data is not lost.	Single point of failure The Aadhaar Biometric standard has one single point of failure, because of centralized structure, thus if the data base is compromised all data is lost
Impact on local industry	Encourages Open standards allow local industry to compete in manufacturing technology	Discourages Closed standards allow foreign players to monopolize the manufacturing of technology
Cost analysis	Cost effective Increased competition keeps prices low	Cost ineffective Decreased competition keeps prices high
Revocation	Revocable If the key pair and pin are stolen, a new set of passwords can be issued	Permanent If the biometrics of an individual are stolen, they cannot be re-issued
Possibility of fraudulent authentication	Lower A thief must steal your smart card and your secret pin to commit fraud	Higher A thief only needs to collect your fingerprints using a glass tumbler to commit fraud
Viability of Technology	Proven effective for large populations	Not proven effective for large populations

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/privacy/letter-to-finance-committee

An Interview with Suresh Ramasubramanian

elonnai — 2013-09-06T09:37:47Z

Suresh Ramasubramanian is the ICS Quality Representative - IBM SmartCloud at IBM. We from the Centre for Internet and Society conducted an interview on cybersecurity and issues in the Cloud.

You have done a lot of work around cybersecurity and issues in the Cloud. Could you please tell us of your experience in these areas and the challenges facing them?
a. I have been involved in antispam activism from the late 1990s and have worked in ISP / messaging provider antispam teams since 2001. Since 2005, I expanded my focus to include general cyber security and privacy, having written white papers on spam and botnets for the OECD, ITU and UNDP/APDIP. More recently, have become a M3AAWG special advisor for capacity building and outreach in India.

In fact capacity building and outreach has been the focus of my career for a long time now. I have been putting relevant stakeholders from ISPs, government and civil society in India in touch with their counterparts around the world, and, at a small level, enabling an international exchange of ideas and information around antispam and security.

This was a challenge over a decade back when I was a newbie to antispam and it still is. People in India and other emerging economies, with some notable exceptions, are not part of the international communities that have grown in the area of cyber security and privacy.

There is a prevalent lack of knowledge in this area, which combined with gaps in local law and its enforcement. There is a tendency on the part of online criminals to target emerging and fast growing economies as a rich source of potential victims for various forms of online crime, and sometimes as a safe haven against prosecution.
In a recent public statement Google said "Cloud users have no legitimate expectation of privacy. Do you agree with this statement?
a. Let us put it this way. All email received by a cloud or other Internet service provider for its customers is automatically processed and data mined in one form or the other. At one level, this can be done for spam filtering and other security measures that are essential to maintain the security and stability of the service, and to protect users from being targeted by spam, malware and potential account compromises.

The actual intent of automated data mining and processing should be transparently provided to customers of a service, with a clearly defined privacy policy, and the deployment of such processing, and the “end use” to which data mined from this processing is put, are key to agreeing or disagreeing with such a statement.

It goes without saying that such processing must stay within the letter, scope and spirit of a company’s privacy policy, and must actually be structured to be respectful of user privacy.

Especially where mined data is used to provide user advertising or for any other commercial purpose (such as being aggregated and resold), strict adherence to a well written privacy policy and periodic review of this policy and its implementation to examine its compliance to laws in all countries that the company operates in are essential.

There is way too much noise in the media for me to usefully add any more to this issue and so I will restrict myself to the purely general comments above.
What ways can be privacy of an individual be compromised on the cloud? What can be done to prevent such instances of compromise?
a. All the recent headlines about companies mining their own users’ data, and yet more headlines about different countries deploying nationwide or even international lawful intercept and wiretap programs, aside, the single largest threat to individual privacy on the cloud is, and has been for years before the word “cloud” came into general use, the constant targeting of online users by online criminals with a variety of threats including scams, phish campaigns and data / account credential stealing malware.

Poor device security is another threat – one that becomes even more of a serious problem when the long talked about “internet of things” seems set to become reality, with cars, baby monitors, even Bluetooth enabled toilets, and more dangerously, critical national infrastructure such as power plants and water utilities becoming accessible over the Internet but still running software that is basically insecure and architected with assumptions that date back to an era when there was no conception or need to connect these to the Internet.

Someone in Bluetooth range with the appropriate android application being able to automatically flush your toilet and even download a list of the dates and times when you last used it is personally embarrassing. Having your bank account broken into because your computer got infected with a virus is even more damaging. Someone able to access a dam’s control panel over the internet and remotely trigger the dam’s gates to open can cause far more catastrophic damage.

The line between security and privacy, between normal business practice and unacceptable, even illegal behaviour, is sometimes quite thin and in a grey area that may be leveraged to the hilt for commercial and/or national security interests. However, scams, malware, exploits of insecure systems and similar threats are well on the wrong side of the “criminal” spectrum, and are a clear and present danger that cause far more than an embarrassing or personally damaging loss of privacy.
How is the jurisdiction of the data on the cloud determined?
This is a surprisingly thorny question. Normally, a company is based in a particular country and has an end user agreement / terms of service that makes its customers / users accept that country’s jurisdiction.

However, a cloud based provider that does business around the world may, in practice, have to comply to some extent at least, with that country’s local laws – at any rate, in respect to its users who are citizens of that country. And any cloud product sold to a local business or individual by a salesman from the vendor’s branch in the country would possibly fall under a contract executed in the country and therefore, subject to local law.

The level of compliance for data retention and disclosure in response to legal processes will possibly vary from country to country – ranging from flat refusals to cooperate (especially where any law enforcement request for data are for something that is quite legal in the country the cloud provider is based in) to actual compliance.

In practice this may also depend on what is at stake for the cloud vendor in complying or refusing to comply with local laws – regardless of what the terms of use policies or contract assert about jurisdiction. The number of users the cloud vendor has in the country, the extent of its local presence in the country, how vulnerable its resident employees and executives are to legal sanctions or punishment.

In the past, it has been observed that a practical balance [which may be based on business economics as much as it is based on a privacy assessment] may be struck by certain cloud vendors with a global presence, based on the critical mass of users it stands to gain or lose by complying with local law, and the risks it faces if it complies, or conversely, does not comply with local laws – so the decision may be to fight lawsuits or prosecutions on charges of breaking local data privacy laws or not complying with local law enforcement requests for handover of user data in court, or worst case, pulling out of the country altogether.
Currently, big cloud owners are US corps, yet US courts do not extend the same privacy rights to non US citizens. Is it possible for countries to use the cloud and still protect citizen data from being accessed by foreign governments? Do you think a "National Cloud" is a practical solution?
a. The “cloud” in this context is just “the internet”, and keeping local data local and within local jurisdiction is possible in theory at any rate. Peering can be used to keep local traffic local instead of having it do a roundtrip through a foreign country and back [where it might or might not be subject to another country’s intercept activities, no comment on that].

A national cloud demands local infrastructure including bandwidth, datacenters etc. that meet the international standards of most global cloud providers. It then requires cloud based sites that provide an equivalent level of service, functionality and quality to that provided by an international cloud vendor. And then after that, it has to have usable privacy policies and the country needs to have a privacy law and a sizeable amount of practical regulation to bolster the law, a well-defined path for reporting and redress of data breaches. There are a whole lot of other technical and process issues before having a national cloud becomes a reality, and even more before such a reality makes a palpable positive difference to user privacy.
What audit mechanisms of security and standards exist for Cloud Service Providers and Cloud Data Providers?
a. Plenty – some specific to the country and the industry sector / kind of data the cloud handles. The Cloud Security Alliance has been working for quite a while on CloudAudit, a framework developed as part of a cross industry effort to unify and automate Assertion, Assessment and Assurance of their infrastructure and service.

Different standards bodies and government agencies have all come out with their own sets of standards and best practices in this area (this article has a reasonable list - http://www.esecurityplanet.com/network-security/cloud-security-standards-what-youshould-know.html). Some standards you absolutely have to comply with for legal reasons.

Compliance reasons aside, a judicious mix of standards, and considerable amounts of adaptation in your process to make those standards work for you and play well together.

The standards all exist – what varies considerably, and is a major cause of data privacy breaches, are incomplete or ham handed implementations of existing standards, any attempt at “checkbox compliance” to simply implement a set of steps that lead to a required certification, and a lack of continuing initiative to keep the data privacy and securitymomentum going once these standards have been “achieved”, till it is time for the next audit at any rate.
What do you see as the big challenges for privacy in the cloud in the coming years?
a. Not very much more than the exact same challenges for privacy in the cloud over the past decade or more. The only difference is that any threat that existed before has always amplified itself because the complexity of systems and the level of technology and computing power available to implement security, and to attempt to breach security, is exponentially higher than ever before – and set to increase as we go further down the line.
Do you think encryption the answer to the private and public institutions snooping?
a. Encryption of data at rest and in transit is a key recommendation of any data privacy standard and cloud / enterprise security policy. Companies and users are strongly encouraged to deploy and use strong cryptography for personal protection. But to call it “the answer” is sort of like the tale of the blind men and the elephant.

There are multiple ways to circumvent encryption – social engineering to trick people into revealing data (which can be mitigated to some extent, or detected if it is tried on a large cross section of your userbase – it is something that security teams do have to watch for), or just plain coercion, which is much tougher to defend against.

As a very popular XKCD cartoon that has been shared around social media and has been cited in multiple security papers says -

“A crypto nerd’s imagination”

“His laptop’s encrypted. Let us build a million dollar cluster to crack it”
“No good! It is 4096 bit RSA”
“Blast, our evil plan is foiled”

“What would actually happen”
“His laptop’s encrypted. Drug him and hit him with this $5 wrench till he tells us the password”
“Got it”
Spam is now consistently used to get people to divulge their personal data or otherwise compromise a persons financial information and perpetuate illegal activity. Can spam be regulated? If so, how?
a. Spam has been regulated in several countries around the world. The USA has had laws against spam since 2003. So has Australia. Several other countries have laws that specifically target spam or use other statutes in their books to deal with crime (fraud, the sale of counterfeit goods, theft..) that happens to be carried out through the medium of spam.

The problems here are the usual problems that plague international enforcement of any law at all. Spammers (and worse online criminals including those that actively employ malware) tend to pick jurisdictions to operate in where there are no existing laws on their activities, and generally take the precaution not to target residents of the country that they live in. Others send spam but attempt to, in several cases successfully, skate around loopholes in their country’s antispam laws.

Still others fully exploit the anonymity that the Internet provides, with privately registered domain names, anonymizing proxy servers (when they are not using botnets of compromised machines), as well as a string of shell companies and complex international routing of revenue from their spam campaigns, to quickly take money offshore to a more permissible jurisdiction.

Their other advantage is that law enforcement and regulatory bodies are generally short staffed and heavily tasked, so that even a spammer who operates in the open may continue his activities for a very long time before someone manages to prosecute him.

Some antispam laws allow recipients of spam to sue the spammer in small claims courts – which, like regulatory action, has also previously led to judgements being handed out against spammers and their being fined or possibly imprisoned in case their spam has criminal aspects to it, attracting local computer crime laws rather than being mere violations of civil antispam laws.
There has been a lot of talk about the use of malware like FinFisher and its ability to compromise national security and individual security. Do you think regulation is needed for this type of malware - and if so what type - export controls? privacy regulation? Use control?
a. Malware used by nation states as a part of their surveillance activities is a problem. It is further a problem if such malware is used by nation states that are not even nominally democratic and that have long standing records of human rights violations.

Regulating or embargoing their sale is not going to help in such cases. One problem is that export controls on such software are not going to be particularly easy and countries that are on software export blacklists routinely manage to find newer and more creative ways to attempt to get around these and try to purchase embargoed software and computing equipment of all kinds.

Another problem is that such software is not produced just by legitimate vendors of lawful intercept gear. Criminals who write malware that is capable of, say, stealing personal data such as bank account credentials are perfectly capable of writing such software, and there is a thriving underground economy in the sale of malware and of “take” from malware such as personal data, credit cards and bank accounts where any rogue nation state can easily acquire products with an equivalent functionality.

This is going to apply even if legitimate vendors of such products are subject to strict regulations governing their sale and national laws exist regulating the use of such products. So while there is no reason not to regulate / provide judicial and regulatory oversight of their sale and intended use, it should not be seen as any kind of a solution to this problem.

User education in privacy and access to secure computing resources is probably going to be the bedrock of any initiative that looks to protect user privacy – a final backstop to any technical / legal or other measure that is taken to protect them.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/interview-with-suresh-ramasubramanian

An Interview with Jacob Kohnstamm, Dutch Data Protection Authority and Chairman of the Article 29 Working Party

elonnai — 2013-10-25T04:50:56Z

The Centre for Internet and Society interviewed Jacob Kohnstamm, Dutch Data Protection Authority and Chairman of the Article 29 Working Party.

What activities and functions does your office undertake?

The activities and functions of the Dutch data protection authority can roughly be divided in 4 different categories: supervisory activities, giving advise on draft legislation, raising awareness and international tasks.

The Dutch DPA supervises the legislation applicable in the Netherlands with regard to the use of personal data. The most important law is the Dutch Data Protection Act, but the Dutch DPA also supervises for example the Acts governing data processing by police and justice as well as parts of the Telecoms Act.

The supervisory activities mainly consist of investigating, ex officio, violations of the law, with the focus on violations that are serious, structural and impact a large amount of people. Where necessary, the Dutch DPA can use its sanctioning powers, including imposing a conditional fine, to enforce the law. The Dutch DPA can also decide to examine sector-wide codes of conduct that are submitted to it and provide its views in the form of a formal opinion.

In addition to investigations, the Dutch DPA advises the government, and sometimes the parliament, on draft legislation related to the processing of personal data. Following the Data Protection Act, the government is obliged to submit both primary and secondary legislation related to data processing to the DPA for advice.

As regards awareness-raising, next to publishing the results of the investigations, its views on codes of conduct and its advice on legislation, the Dutch DPA also issues guidelines, on its own initiative, explaining legal norms. Via its websites, the Dutch DPA provides more information to both data subjects and controllers on how data can and cannot be processed. Specifically for data subjects, self-empowerment tools – including standard letters to exercise their rights – are made available. Furthermore, they can contact the Dutch DPA daily via a telephone hotline.

Last but not least, the Dutch DPA participates in several International and European fora, including the Article 29 Working Party of which I am the Chair, the European and the International Conference of data protection and privacy commissioners, of whose Executive Committee I am also the Chair.

What powers does your office have? in your opinion are these sufficient? Which powers have been most useful? If there is a lack, what do you feel is needed?

The Dutch DPA has a broad range investigative powers, including the power to order the controller to hand over all relevant information and entering the premises of the controller unannounced. All organisations subjected to the supervision of the Dutch DPA are obligated to cooperate.

The Dutch DPA also has a considerable range of sanctioning powers, it can for example order the suspension or termination of certain processing operations and can also impose a conditional fine. Currently a bill is before Parliament to provide the Dutch DPA with fining powers as well.

Especially when the bill providing the Dutch DPA with fining powers will be passed, I feel the powers are sufficient, giving us all the necessary enforcement tools to ensure compliance with the law.

How is your office funded?

The Dutch DPA is funded through the government who, together with the parliament, each year determines the budget for the next year. The budget is drafted on the basis of a proposal from the Dutch DPA.

What is the organizational structure of your office and the responsibilities of the key executives?

The Dutch DPA consists of a college of commissioners and the supporting Secretariat, itself consisting of 6 departments and headed by the Director. The Dutch DPA has 2 supervision departments, one for the private and one for the public sector, a legal department, a communications department, an international department and a department providing the operational support.

If India creates a framework of co-regulation, how would you suggest the overseeing body be structured?

Considering the many differences between India and the Netherlands - and Europe - this is a very hard question to answer. But whatever construction is chosen in India, it is of utmost importance to guarantee the independence of the supervisory authorit(y)(ies), who shall be provided with sufficient and scalable powers to be able to sanction violations.

What legal challenges has your office faced?

The biggest legal challenge we face at the moment is the new European legal framework currently being discussed. It is as yet uncertain whether and when this will enter into force, but it is clear that it will bring new challenges for our office.

What are the main differences between your offices?

Generally, I think that the differences between my office and the UK and Canadian offices mostly stem from our different legal and cultural backgrounds, especially the difference between the common law and codified law systems.

In addition, the norms and powers differ per supervisory authority. The Dutch DPA for example can enter a building without prior notice, while the ICO, if I understand correctly, can only enter with the consent of the supervised organisation.

I however prefer to look at the similarities and possibilities to overcome our differences, because I think that we all feel that providing a high level of data protection and ensuring user control are all of our main priorities.

Naturally, I am very curious to hear from Chrisopher and Chantal as well.

What are the most recent privacy developments for each of your respective offices?

The technological developments of the past decades and the increasing use of smartphones and tablets, have also made privacy developments necessary and have obliged us, as data protection authorities, to consider the rules and norms in this new environment.

What would you broadly recommend for a privacy legislation for India?

In my view the privacy legislation in India should in any case contain the basic principles of the protection of personal data, applicable to both the public and the private sector. Naturally with some exceptions for law enforcement purposes.

Furthermore, the Indian law should protect the imported data of citizens from other parts of the world as well, including the EU.

And as mentioned in my answer to question 5, it is of utmost importance that the Indian legislation guarantees the establishment of (a) completely independent supervisory authorit(y)(ies), provided with sufficient sanctioning powers, to supervise compliance with the legislation also of the government, including police and justice.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/interview-with-jacob-kohnstamm

An Interview with Dr. Ann Cavoukian, Information and Privacy Commissioner, Ontario, Canada

elonnai — 2011-12-03T01:26:04Z

Elonnai Hickok interviewed Dr. Ann Cavoukian, Information and Privacy Commissioner, Ontario, Canada. The full interview is reproduced below.

When Canada weighed a broad privacy legislation against sectoral legislation, was the decision close? What were the most decisive factors?

Canada’s legislative privacy regime consists of both broad and sectoral privacy legislation.

Broadly, the use of personal information in Canadian commercial activities is regulated by federal legislation under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), or by provincial legislation that is “substantially similar” to PIPEDA, or by provincial legislation that is “substantially similar” to PIPEDA.

Sectorally, a prime example is the protection of personal health information under Ontario's Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004 (PHIPA).

Regarding the decisive factors surrounding Parliament's passing of a broad private sector privacy statute, you may know that oversight of PIPEDA falls within the jurisdiction of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC). Accordingly, you may wish to focus your contact with the OPC regarding your question. In addition, Industry Canada may have some helpful resources regarding the federal government’s decision to enact PIPEDA.
Do you see the different perceptions and cultural understandings of privacy as something to be addressed through legislation? If not, do you think it should be addressed at all? How?

In an era marked by the widespread use of new information technologies, globalization, and the international flow of personal information, the establishment of global privacy standards is required to effectively protect personal privacy. Fortunately, an international community of data protection commissioners is hard at work contributing to the establishment of a set of global privacy principles. At the annual International Data Protection Commissioners Conference in 2005, Dr. Ann Cavoukian, Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, chaired a Working Group of Data Protection Commissioners that led to the Creation of a Global Privacy Standard. Such a principled but flexible approach can also be seen, for example, in the landmark Privacy by Design (PbD) resolution adopted unanimously, in 2010, by the international Privacy Authorities and Regulators at the International Conference of Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners in Jerusalem.[1]

The resolution recognizes PbD as an “essential component of fundamental privacy protection” – an International Standard, and urges its adoption in regulations and legislation around the world. Governments that employ this internationally recognized standard will be able to both protect privacy and address local and national priorities.[2]
How does the Canadian model implement self-regulation of privacy standards? How is that balanced against legal enforcement of privacy legislation?

In Canada, as elsewhere, private sector privacy regulation recognizes the dual purposes of protecting the individual's right to privacy, on the one hand, and recognizing the commercial need for access to personal information, on the other.[3]

PIPEDA furthers these two purposes by tying a set of flexible, technology-neutral privacy principles to a statutory framework of rules governing the collection, use, and disclosure of personal information.

In particular, Part I of PIPEDA provides the overarching statutory framework, while Schedule I, which was borrowed from the Canadian Standards Association’s Model Code for the Protection of Personal Information, provides flexible, technology-neutral privacy principles. To accomplish the dual purposes that animate PIPEDA and its Schedule, Canada’s Federal Court of Appeal has directed that the interpretation and application of this regulatory framework should be guided by "flexibility, common sense and pragmatism."[4]

Such an approach allows organizations to address their own goals and priorities within a privacy protective framework. Moreover, by incorporating the flexible principles of PbD, organizations can "go beyond mere legal compliance with notice, choice, access, security and enforcement requirements." Instead, they can be empowered to design their own responsive approaches to risk management and privacy-related innovation, within the context of the relevant regulatory framework. This approach allows organizations to develop doubly-enabling, positive-sum solutions that are win/win in nature and appropriate given the size and nature of the organization, the personal information it manages, and the range of risks, opportunities, and solutions available.
Does Canada favor private forms of redress or agency/state enforcement to prevent and remedy privacy violations? In what circumstances is one more effective than the other?

Canadian privacy legislation includes both state enforcement and private forms of redress; neither is necessarily favoured.

For example, under PHIPA, the Attorney General may impose fines of up to $50,000 for individuals and $250,000 for corporations who are found to be in breach of PHIPA. Further, our office has broad powers of investigation and can directly order a custodian to comply with its obligations. An individual affected by a Commissioner’s final PHIPA order may commence a proceeding in the Ontario Superior Court for damages for actual harm suffered.

Another example is under PIPEDA where contravention can result in fines of up to $100,000 depending upon the type and severity of the matter. Further, the federal privacy Commissioner has powers to investigate and report findings with respect to privacy complaints. Following the release of the Commissioner’s report, a complainant may apply to the Federal Court to seek remedies that include damages and an order requiring an organization to correct its practices.

Generally, fines and other penalties imposed on individuals and corporations by the government are effective in deterring certain actions and protecting the public from a variety of harmful practices. On the other hand, a private right of action may be effective when a particular individual is harmed by an individual or corporation and is seeking damages to compensate or redress that particular harm.
What types of privacy violations are the most common? How have these been addressed?

The most common types of privacy violations are inadvertent disclosures or privacy breaches of personal information, including personal health information. In particular, these violations usually stem from the improper retention, transfer and disclosure of personal information.

Privacy breaches are addressed in a variety of ways, depending on the type and amount of information disclosed. For example, under PHIPA, if health information is stolen, lost, or accessed by unauthorized persons, the health information custodian must notify the affected individual at the first reasonable opportunity and should take immediate steps to contain the breach. Further, the Commissioner may order the health information custodian to take corrective action such as requiring the custodian to implement a certain procedure when handling personal health information or conduct privacy training.
What forms of privacy education has Canada pursued? What audiences have been targeted? Which efforts have been the most successful and why?

Canadian institutions and organizations have pursued a wide variety of privacy education initiatives including programs that award professional designations (e.g. IAPP, CAPAPA, University of Toronto Identity, Privacy and Security Initiative, University of Alberta Program).

Our Office has led a wide variety of educational initiatives to spread the word about privacy protection and freedom of information under our Ontario legislation. We have focused on a variety of audiences from the general public to individuals who deal with privacy and access to information issues as part of their daily professional role.

Initiatives include frequent contact between our Information Officers and the public, and dozens of marketing materials geared to providing guidance (e.g. “Circle of Care: Sharing of Personal Health Information for Health-Care purposes”, “What to do When Faced With a Privacy Breach: Guidelines for the Health Sector”). Our Office has developed Educational Resource Guides (Grade 5, Grade 10, Grades 11/12), which have been added to the formal Ontario curriculum to help teachers educate about privacy protection. Commissioner Cavoukian participates in extensive presentations and speeches at numerous conferences and events. As well, representatives from our Office reach out into the community to educate about our offerings and role (hospitals, conference, community events etc.). In addition, to educate Ontarians about privacy protection, the IPC also allots significant resources to many marketing initiatives including a quarterly e-newsletter, video production, and social media outreach. Most recently, we circulated an online tool kit (available via USB as well), to assist new Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Co-ordinators in the public sector. Most of our resources are available in English and French.

Without a doubt, the IPC’s most successful educational effort thus far is in the area of PbD, now an international standard. This Ontario-made solution was created by Commissioner Cavoukian who has led the IPC in partnering with global stalwarts such as IBM, Intel, and Nokia to advance Privacy by Design, and to foster innovation in many fields, including biometrics, the Smart Grid and even Targeted Advertising. Privacy by Design knows no boundaries and makes sense for everyone — especially businesses. Not only is it cheaper to build in privacy before a breach occurs, it is also a compelling way to win the trust of clients and build a successful brand.
What [have] proven to be [the main] challenges or obstacles to protecting privacy in Canada?

The most common obstacle to protecting privacy is that key stakeholders hold on to misconceptions about privacy.
Misconception #1 – Privacy is dead or obsolete.
Misconception #2 – Privacy stops us from performing our job.
Misconception #3 – With the massive growth of online social media, you cannot have both widespread connectivity and privacy.

Not only do these misconceptions contradict each other, they are both dead wrong!

Privacy is alive and well and more relevant than ever. Consider, for example, that the same technologies that serve to threaten privacy may also be enlisted to support it. Properly understood, privacy is becoming increasingly critical to achieving success in the new economy. In this environment, PbD offers a principled, flexible, and technology-neutral vehicle for engaging with privacy issues, and for resolving them in ways that support multiple outcomes in a full functionality, positive-sum, win-win scenario.

It does so by ensuring that privacy is built in right up front, directly into the design specifications and architecture of new systems and processes.

PbD seeks to accommodate all legitimate interests and objectives in a positive-sum “win-win” manner, not through a dated, zero-sum approach, where unnecessary trade-offs are made. PbD avoids the pretense of false dichotomies or unnecessary trade-offs, such as privacy vs. security, demonstrating that it is possible to have both. For more on PbD, go to www.privacybydesign.ca

Dr. Ann Cavoukian, Ph.D., Information and Privacy Commissioner, Ontario, Canada

Dr. Ann Cavoukian is recognized as one of the leading privacy experts in the world. Noted for her seminal work on Privacy Enhancing Technologies (PETs) in 1995, her concept of Privacy by Design seeks to proactively embed privacy into the design specifications of information technology and accountable business practices, thereby achieving the strongest protection possible. In October, 2010, regulators from around the world gathered at the annual assembly of International Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners in Jerusalem, Israel, and unanimously passed a landmark Resolution recognizing Privacy by Design as an essential component of fundamental privacy protection. This was followed by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission’s inclusion of Privacy by Design as one of its three recommended practices for protecting online privacy – a major validation of its significance.

An avowed believer in the role that technology can play in the protection of privacy, Dr. Cavoukian’s leadership has seen her office develop a number of tools and procedures to ensure that privacy is strongly protected, not only in Canada, but around the world. She has been involved in numerous international committees focused on privacy, security, technology and business, and endeavours to focus on strengthening consumer confidence and trust in emerging technology applications.

Dr. Cavoukian serves as the Chair of the Identity, Privacy and Security Institute at the University of Toronto, Canada. She is also a member of several Boards including, the European Biometrics Forum, Future of Privacy Forum, RIM Council, and has been conferred a Distinguished Fellow of the Ponemon Institute. Dr. Cavoukian was honoured with the prestigious Kristian Beckman Award in 2011 for her pioneering work on Privacy by Design and privacy protection in modern international environments. In the same year, Dr. Cavoukian was also named by Intelligent Utility Magazine as one of the Top 11 Movers and Shakers for the Global Smart Grid industry, received the SC Canada Privacy Professional of the Year Award and was honoured by the University of Alberta Information Access and Protection of Privacy Program for her positive contribution to the field of privacy. Most recently in November 2011, Dr. Cavoukian was ranked by Women of Influence Inc. as one of the top 25 Women of Influence recognizing her contribution to the Canadian and global economy. This award follows her recognition in 2007 by the Women’s Executive Network as one of the Top 100 Most Powerful Women in Canada.

Notes

[1].Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario, Landmark Resolution passed to preserve the Future of Privacy, http://www.ipc.on.ca/images/Resources/2010-10-29-Resolution-e_1.pdf
[2].For a discussion of how governments might employ an PbD approach to privacy regulation, see Commissioner Cavoukian’s White Paper, Privacy by Design in Law, Policy, and Practice available at:
http://www.ipc.on.ca/english/Resources/Discussion-Papers/Discussion-Papers-Summary/?id=1095
[3].See the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, S.C. 2000, c. 5 (Can.), http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/sc-2000-c-5/latest/sc-2000-c-5.html.
[4].Englander v. Telus Communications Inc., 2004 FCA 387, Locus Para. 38-46.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/interview-with-anne-cavoukian

An Interview with Activist Shubha Chacko: Privacy and Sex Workers

elonnai — 2012-03-28T06:26:03Z

On February 20th I had the opportunity to speak with Shubha Chacko on privacy and sex workers. Ms. Chacko is an activist who works for Aneka, an NGO based in Bangalore, which fights for the human rights of sexual minorities. In my interview with Ms. Chacko I tried to understand how privacy impacts the lives of sex workers in India. The below is an account of our conversation.

Introduction

In our research we have been exploring where and how privacy is found in different areas of Indian society, law, and culture. As part of our research we have been holding public conferences across the country to raise awareness and gather opinions around privacy. One area that was discussed in the public conference in Bangalore was the privacy of sex workers. Shubha Chacko, who is from Aneka - an NGO located in Bangalore which fights for the human rights of sexual minorities, made a presentation that focused on the privacy challenges that sex workers in India face. In our interview Ms. Chacko pointed out many misconceptions that society holds about sex workers’ lives. She also detailed the challenges of stigma and discrimination that sex workers face, and described the precarious position that sex workers find themselves in as their work is constantly being pushed out of the public sphere by the law and society. I later interviewed Ms. Chacko to follow up on her presentation on privacy and sex workers. During the interview I had the opportunity to speak with both Ms. Chacko and a board member from the Karnataka Sex Workers Union. The following is meant to provide a perspective on how and in what ways society, law, media and tradition invades the privacy of sex workers. Though the piece is focused on the lives of sex workers, many of the issues raised are not limited to only sex workers, but characterize other marginalized communities as well.

When I began the interview with Ms. Chacko I was hoping to do a piece that looked at the different elements of a sex worker’s life, and identified the points at which their privacy was invaded – such as in contacting a client, going to the doctors, etc. After I began my interview only, I realized how privacy impacts sex workers is much more complicated than a life cycle analysis. Among other things, privacy issues for sex workers prompt questions challenging social definitions of public and private, having the right to an identity and a recognized profession, and having the autonomy to control decisions about oneself.

Basic Facts and Background Information:

Karnataka has been found to have 85,000 sex workers, and India has an estimated 2 million female sex workers [1]

Sex work is not against the law in India, but any commercialized aspect of the trade is prohibited – including running a brothel or soliciting a client.

Sex work is a multi-faceted profession with many positive and negative complexities that are rarely known to the public.

Understanding the Challenge of the Public and the Private

My interview with Ms. Chacko began with my seeking an understanding of the challenges that traditional notions of the public sphere and the private sphere pose for sex workers. Ms. Chacko explained that to understand how privacy impacts the life of a sex worker, it is important to first understand that sex workers by profession confront and question traditional conceptions of the public and the private. Sex and everything associated with it is seen as something that is to be kept only in the private sphere. The work of sex workers brings sex into the public sphere, and thus the workers are seen as being public women not entitled to privacy, because they stand on street corners and conduct their work in the public. This notion that sex workers are public women without a right to privacy shows through in the way they are treated by the media, the police, NGOs, and researchers. An example of this tension and society’s response can be seen in the recent elections. On April 6th, a Times of India news article reported that the election commission will be setting up “special booths” for sex workers to vote in because “while the sex workers had been waiting in queues to cast their votes, common people were not comfortable with that”[2]

What is the Challenge of the Public and the Private?

“It starts with a conception of issues around privacy vis-à-vis sex workers. The general perception is that sex workers are considered “public women”, because they are considered available to the public and because they sell sexual services on the streets (and are seen in contrast to the “good” woman who is confined to the private world of the home This then leads people to assume that then sex workers have are not entitled to privacy. Also sex workers are forced to reckon with issues of sex and sexuality, and if you talk about issues of sexuality - issues that are considered private are forced into the public domain, so sex workers by their presence force these issues into the public domain. So notions of privacy become complicated by this challenge of what is public and private, because the sex workers’ presence brings into the public domain what is private.”

How does this tension of the public and the private translate into privacy violations?

"Due to the stigma around sex work all rights of sex workers are seriously compromised; with impunity. Thus, privacy is a threshold issue.

The violation of privacy happens at various points, for example the way the media deals with them – publishing their photographs, outing them without their consent, talking about them without their consent. There are the police who are often engaged in so called “rescue and rehabilitation” work, but in the process of rescuing the sex workers, disregard the harmful impacts that compromising their right to privacy will do to them. The HIV prevention intervention programs that are in place now that target sex workers (along with other ‘high risk groups”) also erode their right to confidentiality. Besides intimate details of their lives being recorded, their address and other coordinates are noted. This information along with other sensitive information including their HIV status, is often accessible to a host of people and is a potential threat to their privacy and anonymity. Researchers and NGOs too often quiz sex workers about a range of intimate details about their lives with little sensitivity and expect them to be totally candid. These interviews also raise questions that relate to privacy."

Stigma, Discrimination, and Identity

Ms. Chacko also spoke about how the stigma and discrimination that sex workers face invades their privacy. Society views sex workers in one light – as immoral women. This stigma is attached to them permanently and is a source of violence and discrimination in the home, from the state, and from society. The sex workers’ right to anonymity and identity is also restricted because of the stigma attached to their work. Sex workers do not have the ability to control information about themselves, and they face challenges in obtaining official documents like a PAN card or a passport. This stigma and its consequences impedes sex workers from functioning comfortably in society and creates a difficult tension for sex workers to live with. Society denies the presence of sex workers, and police patrol parks and other public areas chasing away individuals whom they believe to be sex workers. The increased passivisation of public spaces – parks, (for example) and the over gentrification of the neighborhoods squeeze them out

In New York, one way that sex workers have overcome this constant and sometimes violent confrontation with society is through the use of mobile phones. Sex workers will contact clients only through mobile phones. This allows them to find their clients in private and anonymous ways, and it eliminates the need of a pimp or other type of ring leader. When I asked Ms. Chacko if sex workers are using this same technique in India, she recognized that they are, but said that it is not a yet widely practiced - especially among women in rural areas.

How Restricting is the Stigma?

“Huge - hardly ever does a person’s entire identity get conflated with her with occupation or livelihood option; the way it does with sex workers. … I mean, for example, if you go to a movie - people would not say; oh, look, there is a researcher come to see a movie - people would call you by name, but if a sex worker goes to a movie they always say: oh, look, there is a sex worker. There is only one side to her identity according to society. And everyone wants to know the same thing - How did they get into sex work. There is an excessive interest in this aspect alone (and generally they are seeking simple answers) - they never ask other questions about them as a person, only about them as a sex worker. Thus, real issues of violence and exploitation are never dealt with”.

HIV Initiatives, Medical Counseling , and Privacy

Medical consultations, especially those related to HIV/AIDS, in many ways violate the privacy of sex workers.

HIV Initiatives

HIV initiatives run by the Government are often invasive and function off of privacy-violating techniques. The government runs many HIV initiatives where sex workers are employed to be “peer educators.” A peer educator’s job is to spread awareness about HIV, distribute condoms, and bring sex workers for HIV testing. The privacy and anonymity of peer educators is compromised in the job title itself. Everyone in the community knows that to be a peer educator, one must also be a sex worker. Thus, if a person is a peer educator or with a peer educator, she is immediately outed and identified as a sex worker. Furthermore, HIV testing is compulsory for sex workers, though on paper it looks as though it is a choice. Because there are quotas that must be filled, sex workers often go through HIV testing without full consent.

How do Government HIV Initiatives Violate Privacy?

“The whole HIV intervention itself violates sex workers’ privacy. Both in the sense that people get jobs as peer educators and they have to carry condoms around and talk to other sex workers, and everyone thinks that if you are a peer educator then you are a sex worker, and there is no protection for these people even though it is sponsored by the state government.”

Line Listing

The HIV programs and testing centers also violate the privacy of sex workers. The clinics have a system known as line listing, which is meant to ensure that there are no duplications in data. In order to ensure this they collect identifying information from sex workers including address and phone number. The information is not protected and is easily accessible to whoever wishes to see it.

Line Listing and Privacy

“HIV programs have a process called line listing, which is to ensure that there is no duplication. So they take all your facts from you, and from that a sex workers address and such go out, and it’s put out with no safeguards.”

HIV Counselors and Doctors

HIV counselors also violate the privacy of sex workers. Though a patient’s HIV status is only supposed to be known to the counselor at the testing clinic and the lab technician, it often becomes the case that HIV results are widely shared. As per protocol, doctors and counselors must follow up with sex workers every three months if a sex worker is HIV negative. This is to ensure that they are still HIV negative, and to provide them treatment at the soonest if they do contract the disease. To carry out this follow-up work, counselors keep a list of patients whom they have seen. This list is supposed to be confidential, but other personnel in the hospital are assigned to do the follow-up phone calls, and thus the list is in fact easily accessible. If a person’s name disappears from the list, it is obvious that the person is now HIV positive, and that person’s privacy is violated and her status known.

How does HIV Counseling compromise Privacy?

“…only the counselor and the lab technician is supposed to know about it, but it turns out a whole number of people know about it, because of follow up. The counselor is supposed to follow up on the list with people every three months for further testing, but if you are positive then you do not need to follow up. Plus, these results are shared with everyone. Because of the stigma attached to HIV there is a need for privacy to be protected, so confidentiality is routinely violated.”

Media and Research

Media

Media was another area of contention that Ms.Chacko pointed out. Though the media plays an important role as being a channel for the voice of sex workers, it can also be intrusive on the sex worker by publishing stories without their consent, or reporting in ways that can be misconstrued. Through their coverage, the media can also deepen the stigma against sex workers and place them under an unwanted social spotlight. For example, a news article in The Hindu spoke about the World Cup bringing an “off day” for sex workers.

“With hoards of supporters glued to their television screens for the World Cup cricket final between India and Sri Lanka on Saturday, sex workers are anticipating a slow day, but they are not disappointed. It is a rare weekend for them with their children. The prospects of fewer clients coming in only buoyed the enthusiasm of the women in Sonagachi, the largest red-light area in the city…”[3]

The media is also often a part of raids by cover stories of brothels being uncovered, and in doing so expose the lives of sex workers, often printing sensitive information, including addresses, while portraying the sex workers as victims. The media, along with NGOs and the police will conduct raids that severely violate the privacy of sex workers. For example, in an Express India article a raid was described that took place in Pune with NGOs and the police in which sex workers were dragged out, beaten, and molested by the police against their will [4].

How does the media violate the privacy of sex workers?

“The media conducts raids, and so do NGOs in an attempt to rescue them. Once they are rescued and taken back with police escorts to their village, the whole village knows that she was in sex work, and then her privacy is violated because she was publicly returned. My problem is not about them being rescued, but they need to have consent from the person. If a person wants to do sex work – this decision needs to be respected. The media is difficult because you don’t want to ask for a ban, so we don’t ask for banning, but we do put pressure on the media to be more responsible in their reporting.”

Research/Films

Ms. Chacko also spoke about how research often violates the privacy of sex workers, in ways that range from the words that are used to describe sex workers to the one-sided victim story that is too often used to describe the lives of sex workers, to the methods researchers use to find their facts. Thus, perhaps without meaning to, research can de-legitimatize the work that sex workers do, and can work to increase the amount of violence or abuse that they are exposed to.

Research and Privacy

“Researchers who are writing a report on sex workers - land up in some village and end up violating their privacy as everyone in the village wants to know why the researchers came. The researchers also ask invasive questions. They want to know details about the sex workers’ lives: what kind of sex they have and with whom? What do they experience with their clients? What is their relationship with their partners? What is the status of their relationship.? They do not have a sense of whether the workers will want to talk about their lives or not…Some people make films and some make them in extremely exploitative ways. Films are also often incorrect and invasive of privacy in that way as well.”

The Role of a Privacy Legislation

In our research, we are looking at how a privacy legislation could help remedy the challenges to privacy that different people face in society; or ,if a privacy legislation cannot offer a solution, if there are other ways in which a legislation or society can offer solutions. When I asked Ms. Chacko if a privacy legislation or the right to privacy could improve the lives of sex workers, she was not certain if a privacy legislation would make a difference directly, and thought it might in fact overlook sex workers because currently they are seen in society as immoral women that are not to be afforded the right to privacy. In fact, it is the law and enforcers of the law itself that is invading their privacy. For example, in a study done by the World Health Organization it was found that in India 70 per cent of sex workers in a survey reported being beaten by the police, and more than 80 per cent had been arrested without evidence [5]. Thus, before a right to privacy can apply to sex workers, sex work itself must be decriminalized and recognized as a legitimate profession worthy of labor rights and other rights. Furthermore the debate around sex work needs to move away from the traditional dialogue of who is having sex and who is not to one that looks at what rights should be protected for every person. At that point perhaps a law which protects dignity and regulates the use of information could be useful. On another note, the UID (the Unique Identification Project) could be a potential benefit for sex workers as it would serve as identity that would give only a yes or no response at the time of a transaction.

Could a Privacy Legislation help?

“Some of the privacy is violated by the raids that happen by the police. So those raids are problematic. What kind of laws would help? One would be to decriminalize sex work itself and also work with society to gain understanding and perspective. Because now people think: they are immoral women ,so what privacy do they deserve? The sexual debate should not be about who is having sex and who is not, but about who has the power…”

The Current Law

In India, the Immoral Trafficking prevention Act ( ITPA) is the law that governs sex work. The ITPA does not make prostitution illegal, but instead tries to target the commercialized aspects of the trade such as brothel keeping, pimping, and soliciting. Though the law does not attack the sex workers as individuals, and its stated purpose is to prevent the trafficking of sex workers, the law has become a tool of harassment and abuse by law enforcement agencies. Sections 5A, 5B, 5C, which pertain to trafficking are the most troublesome, because the clauses do not distinguish between trafficking and sex work, but instead defines them as the same[6]. Thus, the new definitions of prostitution and trafficking leave room for reading all sex work as within the meaning of trafficking, and thus criminalizing sex work by defacto.[7] In addition, under the new Section 5C, clients visiting or found in a brothel will face imprisonment and/or fines [8]. Penalization of clients is a significant modification to the the ITPA, which formally targeted 'third parties' profiting from prostitution and not sex workers or clients themselves [9]. Sex workers have fought for a long time to overturn the ITPA. In June 2008, sex workers went on a hunger strike in the hopes of forcing the bill to be discarded [10]. In 2010 sex workers demonstrated against the amendment of the ITPA that would hold the clients of sex workers liable. Despite their protests and demands for their occupation to be treated equally, the Indian courts are slow to move forward and recognize sex work as a dignified profession. “A woman is compelled to indulge in prostitution not for pleasure but because of abject poverty,” the court said last month. “If such woman is granted opportunity to avail some technical or vocational training, she would be able to earn her livelihood by such vocational training and skill instead of selling her body.” The court has also promised to initiate a program in May for vocational training of sex workers [11]. Unfortunately, vocational training fails to address the actual issues and violations that sex workers face – a fact that was demonstrated by one sex worker’s saying: “If we can’t solicit clients without getting arrested, we will naturally rely on pimps to carry on our trade…What we need are practical measures that free us from exploitation created by the law itself.”

Solutions

One of the most impactful source of aid for sex workers currently is the sex workers union. I had the opportunity to speak with a member from the board of the Karnataka Sex Workers
union. She spoke about the challenges that sex workers face and how the Union provides assistance to the sex workers. The union helps them obtain benefits, helps with enrolling their children in schools, and answers questions that they would not be able to seek legal or other assistance on. The union is a confidential and safe space for sex workers to function in society. The person interviewed feels as though the information about herself that should be kept confidential is: her medical information, her clients, where she meets her clients, and information about her family. Ms. Chacko also spoke about the positives that an identity scheme like the UID could have on sex workers, because the transactions would be done through a yes/ no response, and no one will be denied a UID number. Most importantly, Ms. Chacko stressed that it is important to recognize sex work as a legitimate profession,and focus on the actual problems, rather than limiting the debate to stigmas around sex. The interview with Ms. Chacko demonstrated that protection of sex workers’ and sexual minorities’ privacy cannot be addressed simply by a law, but must be embodied by an ethos and a culture before that law is meaningful.

Bibliography

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

An Analysis of the RBI’s Draft Framework on Regulatory Sandbox for Fintech

vipul — 2019-05-08T13:57:49Z

The term Fintech is generally used to describe innovative technology and technological processes being used in the financial services sector.

Click here to download the file.

It originated as a term referring to the back-end technology used by large financial institutions, but has expanded to include technological innovation in the financial sector, including innovations in financial literacy and education, retail banking, investments, etc. Entities engaged in FinTech offer an array of services ranging from peer-to-peer lending platforms and mobile payment solutions to online portfolio management tools and international money transfers.

Regulation and supervision of the Fintech industry raises some unique challenges for regulatory authorities as they have to strike a balance between financial inclusion, stability, integrity, consumer protection, and competition. One of the methods that have been adopted by regulators in certain jurisdictions to tackle the complexities of this sector is to establish a “regulatory sandbox” which could nurture innovative fintech enterprises while at the same time ensuring that the risk associated with any regulatory relaxations is contained within specified boundaries. It was precisely for this reason that establishment of a regulatory sandbox was one of the options put forward by the Working Group on Fintech and Digital Banking established by the Reserve Bank of India in its report of November, 2017 which was released for public comments on February 8, 2018. Acting on this recommendation the Reserve Bank has proposed a Draft Enabling Framework for Regulatory Sandbox, dated April 18, 2019, (“RBI Framework”) which is analysed and discussed below.

Regulatory Sandbox and its benefits

While the basic concept of a regulatory sandbox is to ensure that there is regulatory encouragement and incentive for fledgling Fintech enterprises in a contained environment to mitigate risks, different regulatory authorities have adopted varied methods of achieving this objective. While the Australian Securities and Exchange Commission (ASIC) uses a method where the eligible enterprises notify the ASIC and commence testing without an individual application process, the Financial Conduct Authority, UK (FCA) uses a cohort approach wherein eligible enterprises have to apply to the FCA which then selects the best options based on criteria laid down in the policy. The RBI has, not surprisingly, adopted an approach similar to the FCA wherein applicants will be selected by the RBI based on pre-defined eligibility criterion and start the regulatory sandbox in cohorts containing a few entities at a time.

A regulatory sandbox offers the users the opportunity to test the product’s viability without a larger and more expensive roll out involving heavy investment and regulatory authorizations. If the product appears to have the potential to be successful, it might then be authorized and brought to the broader market more quickly. If there are any problems with the product the limited nature of the sandbox ensures that the consequences of the problems are contained and do not affect the broader market. It also allows regulators to obtain first-hand empirical evidence on the benefits and risks of emerging technologies and business models, and their implications, which allows them to take a considered (and perhaps more nuanced) view on the regulatory requirements that may be needed to support useful innovation, while mitigating the attendant risks. A regulatory sandbox initiative also sends a clear signal to the market that innovation is on the agenda of the regulator.

RBI Draft Framework

Since the RBI has adopted a cohort approach for its regulatory sandbox process (“RS”), it implies that fintech entities will have to apply to the RBI to be selected in the RS. The eligibility criterion provides that the applicants will have to meet the eligibility conditions prescribed by the government for start-ups as per the Government of India, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Notification GSR 364(E) April 11, 2018. The RS will focus on areas where (i) there is an absence of regulations, (ii) regulations need to be eased to encourage innovation, and (iii) the innovation/product shows promise of easing/effecting delivery of financial services in a significant way. The Framework also provides an indicative list of innovative products and technologies which could be considered for RS testing, and at the same time prohibits certain products and technologies from being considered for this programme such as credit registry, crypto currencies, ICOs, etc.

The RBI Framework also lays down specific conditions that the entity has to satisfy in order to be considered for the RS such as satisfaction of the conditions to be considered a start-up, minimum net worth requirements, fit and proper criteria for Directors and Promoters, satisfactory conduct of bank accounts of promoters/directors, satisfactory credit score, technological readiness of the product for deployment in the broader market, ensuring compliance with existing laws and regulations on consumer data and privacy, adequate safeguards in its IT systems for protection against unauthorised access etc. and a robust IT infrastructure and managerial resources. The fit and proper criteria for Directors and Promoters which requires elements of credit history along with the minimum net worth requirements in the RBI Framework are conditions which may be too difficult for some of the smaller and newer start-ups to satisfy even though the technology and products they offer might be sound. The applicants are also required to: (i) highlight an existing gap in the financial ecosystem and how they intend to address that, (ii) show a regulatory barrier or gap that prevents the implementation of the solution on a large scale, (iii) clearly define the test scenarios, expected outcomes, boundary conditions, exit or transition strategy, assessment and mitigation of risks, etc.

The RBI Framework specifies that the focus of the RS should be narrow in terms of areas of innovation and limited in terms of intake. While limits on the number of entities per cohort may be justified based on paucity of resources, limiting the focus of the RS by narrow areas of innovation is a lost opportunity in terms of sharing of ideas and learning from the mistakes of their colleagues who may be employing technologies and principles which could be useful in fields other than those where they are currently being applied.

The RBI Framework specifies that the boundaries of the RS have to be well defined so that any consequences of failure can be contained. These boundary conditions include a specific start and end date, target customer type and limits on number of customers, cash holdings, transaction amounts and customer losses. The Framework does not put in place any hard numbers on the boundary conditions which ensures that the RS process can be customised to the needs of specific entities since the sample sizes and data needed to determine the viability of fintech entities and products may vary from product to product. However a major dampener is the hard limit of 12 weeks imposed on the testing phase of the RS, which is the most important phase since all the data from the operations is generated during this phase and 12 weeks may not be enough time to generate enough reliable data so as to reach a determination of the viability of the product.

Although the RBI has shown a willingness to relax regulatory requirements for RS participants on a case to case basis, it has specified that there shall be no relaxation on issues of customer privacy and data protection, security of payment data, transaction security, KYC requirements and statutory restrictions. Since this is only an initiative by the RBI the RS participants dealing with the insurance or securities sector would not be entitled to any relaxations from the IRDA or the SEBI even if they are found eligible for relaxations from RBI regulations. This would severely limit the efficacy of the RS process and is an issue that could have been addressed if all three regulators had collaborated thereby encouraging innovative start-ups offering a broader spectrum of services.

Once the RS is finished, the regulatory relaxations provided by the RBI will expire and the fintech entity will have to either stop operations or comply with the relevant regulations. In case the entity requires an extension of the RS period, it would apply to the RBI atleast one month prior to the expiry of the RS period with reasons for the extension. The RBI also has the option of prematurely terminating the sandbox process in case the entity does not achieve its intended purpose or if it cannot comply with the regulatory requirements and other conditions specified at the relevant stage of the sandbox process. The fintech entity is also entitled to quit the RS process prematurely by giving one week’s notice to the RBI, provided it ensures that all its existing obligations to its customers are fully addressed before such discontinuance. Infact customer obligations have to be met by the fintech entities irrespective of whether the operations are prematurely ended by the entity or it continues through the entire RS process; no waiver of the legal liability towards consumers is provided by the RS process. In addition, customers are required to be notified upfront about the potential risks and their explicit consent is to be taken in this regard.

The RBI Framework itself lists out some of the risks associated with the regulatory sandbox model such as (i) loss of flexibility in going through the RS process, (ii) case by case determinations involve time and discretional judgements, (iii) no legal waivers, (iv) requirement of regulatory approvals after the RS process is over, (iv) legal issues such as consumer complaints, challenges from rejected candidates, etc. While acknowledging the above risks the Framework also mentions that atleast some of them may be mitigated by following a time bound and transparent process thus reducing risks of arbitrary discretion and loss of flexibility.

Conclusions

While there are some who are sceptical of the entire concept of a regulatory sandbox for the reason that it loosens regulation too much while at the same time putting customers at risk, the cohort model adopted by the RBI would reduce that risk to an extent since it ensures comprehensive screening and supervision by the RBI with clear exit strategies and an emphasis on consumer interests. On the other hand the eligibility criterion for applicants prescribes minimum net worth requirements as well as credit history, etc. which may impose conditions too onerous for some start ups which may be their infancy. Further the clear emphasis on protection of customer privacy and consumer interests also ensures that the RBI will not put the interests of ordinary citizens at risk in order to promote new and untested technologies. That said, the regulatory sandbox process is a welcome initiative by the RBI which may send a signal to the financial community that it is aware of the potential advantages as well as risks of Fintech and is willing to play a proactive role in encouraging new technologies to improve the financial sector in India.

Report of Working Group on Fintech and Digital Banking, Reserve Bank of India, November, 2017, available at https://www.rbi.org.in/Scripts/PublicationReportDetails.aspx?UrlPage=&ID=892

Jenik, Ivo, and Kate Lauer. 2017. “Regulatory Sandboxes and Financial Inclusion.” Working Paper. Washington, D.C.: CGAP, available at https://www.cgap.org/sites/default/files/Working-Paper-Regulatory-Sandboxes-Oct-2017.pdf

Other countries which have regulatory sandboxes are Netherlands, Bahrain, Abu Dhabi, Saudi Arabia, etc.

Report of Working Group on Fintech and Digital Banking, Reserve Bank of India, November, 2017, available at https://www.rbi.org.in/Scripts/PublicationReportDetails.aspx?UrlPage=&ID=892

These conditions are fairly liberal in that they require that the entity should be less than 7 years old; should not have a turnover of more than 25 crores, and should be working for innovation, development or improvement of products or processes or services, or if it is a scalable business model with a high potential of employment generation or wealth creation.

Clause 5 of the RBI Framework.

Clause 6.1 of the RBI Framework.

Clause 6.3 of the RBI Framework.

Clause 6.5 of the RBI Framework.

Clause 6.4 of the RBI Framework.

Clause 6.7 of the RBI Framework.

Clauses 6.2 and 8 of the RBI Framework.

Clause 6.6 of the RBI Framework.

Clause 6.9 of the RBI Framework.

Jemima Kelly, A “fintech sandbox” might sound like a harmless idea. It's not, Financial Times, Aplphaville, https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2018/12/05/1543986004000/A--fintech-sandbox--might-sound-like-a-harmless-idea--It-s-not/

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/vipul-kharbanda-may-8-2019-an-analysis-of-rbi-draft-framework-on-regulatory-sandbox-for-fintech

An Analysis of the CLOUD Act and Implications for India

Elonnai Hickok and Vipul Kharbanda — 2018-08-22T14:55:56Z

India houses the second largest population in the world at approximately 1.35 billion individuals. In such a diverse and dense context, law enforcement could be a challenging job.

Introduction

Networked technologies have changed the nature of crime and will continue to do so. Access to data generated by digital technologies and on digital platforms is important in solving online and offline crimes. Yet, a significant amount of such data is stored predominantly under the control of companies in the United States. Thus, for Indian law enforcement to access metadata (location data or subscriber information), they can send a request directly to the company. However for access to content data, law enforcement must follow the MLAT process as a result of requirements under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA). ECPA allows service providers to share metadata on request of foreign governments, but requires a judicially issued warrant based on a finding of ‘probable cause’ for a service provider to share content data.

The challenges associated with accessing data across borders has been an area of concern for India for many years. From data localization requirements, legal decryption mandates, proposed back doors- law enforcement and the government have consistently been trying to find efficient ways to access data across borders.

Towards finding solutions to the challenges in the MLAT process, Peter Swire and Deven Desai in the article “A Qualified SPOC Approach for India and Mutual Legal Assistance” have noted the importance of finding a solution to the hurdles in the India - US MLAT and have suggested that reforms for the MLAT process in India should not start with law enforcement, and have instead proposed the establishment of a Single Point of Contact designated to handle and process government to government requests with requests emerging from that office receiving special legal treatment.

Frustrations with cross border sharing of data are not unique to India and the framework has been recognized by many stakeholders for being outdated, slow, and inefficient - giving rise to calls from governments, law enforcement, and companies for solutions. As a note, some research has also highlighted that the identified issues with the MLAT system are broad and more evidence is needed to support each concern and inform policy response.

Towards this, the US and EU have undertaken clear policy steps to address the tensions in the MLAT system by enabling direct access by governments to content data. On April 17 2018, the European Union published the E-Evidence Directive and a Regulation that allows for a law enforcement agency to obtain electronic evidence from service providers within 10 days of receiving a request or 6 hours for emergency requests and request the preservation or production of data. Production orders for content and transactional records can be issued only for certain serious crimes and must be issued by a judge. No judicial authorisation is required for production orders for subscriber information and access data, and it can be sought to investigate any criminal offense, not just serious offenses. Preservation orders can be issued without judicial authorisation for all four types of data and for the investigation of any crime. Further, requests originating from the European Union must be handled by a designated legal representative. Preservation orders can be issued for all four types of data. Further, requests originating from the European Union must be handled by a designated legal representative.

On the US side, in 2016, the Department of Justice (DoJ) put out draft legislation that would create a framework allowing the US to enter into executive agreements with countries that have been evaluated as meeting criteria defined in the law. Our response to the DoJ draft Bill can be found here. In February 2018, the Microsoft Ireland Case was presented before the U.S Supreme Court. The question central to the case was whether or not a US warrant issued against a company incorporated in the US was valid if the data was stored in servers outside of the US. On March 23, 2018, the United States government enacted the “Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act” also known as the CLOUD Act. The passing of the Act solves the dilemma found in the Microsoft Ireland case. The CLOUD Act amends Title 18 of the United States Code and allows U.S. law enforcement agencies to access data stored abroad by increasing the reach of the U.S. Stored Communication Act, enabling access without requiring the specific cooperation of foreign governments. Under this law, U.S. law enforcement agencies can seek or issue orders that compel companies to provide data regardless of where the data is located as long as the data is under their “possession, custody or control”. It further allows US communication service providers to intercept or provide the content of communications in response to orders from foreign governments if the foreign government has entered into an executive agreement with the US upon approval by the Attorney General and concurrence with the Secretary of State. The Act also absolves companies from criminal and civil liability when disclosing information in good faith pursuant to an executive agreement between the US and a foreign country. Such access would be reciprocal, with the US government having similar access rights to data stored in the foreign country.

Though the E-Evidence Directive is a significant development, in this article - we focus on the CLOUD Act and its implications for cross border sharing of data between India and the US.

To read more download the PDF

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/an-analysis-of-the-cloud-act-and-implications-for-india

An Analysis of the Cases Filed under Section 46 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 for Adjudication in the State of Maharashtra

bhairav — 2013-10-01T15:29:46Z

This is a brief review of some of the cases related to privacy filed under section 46 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 ("the Act") seeking adjudication for alleged contraventions of the Act in the State of Maharashtra.

Background

Section 46 of the Act grants the Central Government the power to appoint an adjudicating officer to hold an enquiry to adjudge, upon complaints being filed before that adjudicating officer, contraventions of the Act. The adjudicating officer may be of the Central Government or of the State Government [see section 46(1) of the Act], must have field experience with information technology and law [see section 46(3) of the Act] and exercises jurisdiction over claims for damages up to `5,00,00,000 [see section 46(1A) of the Act]. For the purpose of adjudication, the officer is vested with certain powers of a civil court [see section 46(5) of the Act] and must follow basic principles of natural justice while conducting adjudications [see section 46(2) of the Act]. Hence, the adjudicating officer appointed under section 46 is a quasi-judicial authority.

In addition, the quasi-judicial adjudicating officer may impose penalties, thereby vesting him with some of the powers of a criminal court [see section 46(2) of the Act], and award compensation, the quantum of which is to be determined after taking into account factors including unfair advantage, loss and repeat offences [see section 47 of the Act]. The adjudicating officer may impose penalties for any of the offences described in section 43, section 44 and section 45 of the Act; and, further, may award compensation for losses suffered as a result of contraventions of section 43 and section 43A. The text of these sections is reproduced in the Schedule below. Further law as to the appointment of the adjudicating officer and the procedure attendant on all adjudications was made by Information Technology (Qualification and Experience of Adjudicating Officers and the Manner of Holding Enquiry) Rules, 2003.[1]

It is clear that the adjudicating officer is vested with significant judicial powers, including the power to enforce certain criminal penalties, and is an important quasi-judicial authority.

Excursus

At the outset, it is important to understand the distinction between compensation and damages. Compensation is a sum of money awarded by a civil court, before or along with the primary decree, to indemnify a person for injury or loss. It is usually awarded to a person who has a suffered a monetary loss as a result of the acts or omissions of another party. Its quantification is usually guided by principles of equity. [See Shantilal Mangaldas AIR 1969 SC 634 and Ranbir Kumar Arora AIR 1983 P&H 431]. On the hand, damages are punitive and, in addition to restoring an indemnitee to wholeness, may be imposed to deter an offender, punish exemplary offences, and recover consequential losses, amongst other objectives. Damages that are punitive, while not judicially popular in India, are usually imposed by a criminal court in common law jurisdictions. They are distinct from civil and equitable actions. [See the seminal case of The Owners of the Steamship Mediana [1900] AC 113 (HL)].

Unfortunately, section 46 of the Act uses the terms “damage”, “injury” and “compensation” interchangeably without regard for the long and rich jurisprudence that finds them to be different concepts.

The Cases related to Privacy

In the State of Maharashtra, there have been a total of 47 cases filed under section 46 of the Act. Of these, 33 cases have been disposed of by the Adjudicating Officer and 14 are currently pending disposal. [2] At least three of these cases before the Adjudicating Officer deal with issues related to privacy of communications and personal data. They are:

Case Title	Forum	Date
Vinod Kaushik v. Madhvika Joshi	Shri Rajesh Aggarwal Adjudicating Officer, ex-officio Secretary, IT Government of Maharashtra	10.10.2011
Amit D. Patwardhan v. Rud India Chains	Shri Rajesh Aggarwal Adjudicating Officer, ex-officio Secretary, IT Government of Maharashtra	15.04.2013
Nirmalkumar Bagherwal v. Minal Bagherwal	Shri Rajesh Aggarwal Adjudicating Officer, ex-officio Secretary, IT Government of Maharashtra	26.08.2013

In all three cases the Adjudicating Officer was called upon to determine and penalise unauthorised access to personal data of the complainants. In the Vinod Kaushik case, the complainants’ emails and chat sessions were accessed, copied and made available to the police for legal proceedings without the permission of the complainants. In the Amit Patwardhan and Nirmalkumar Bagherwal cases, the complainants’ financial information in the form of bank account statements were obtained from their respective banks without their consent and used against them in legal proceedings.

The Vinod Kaushik complaint was filed in 2010 for privacy violations committed between 2008 and 2009. The complaint was made against the complainant’s daughter-in-law – the respondent, who was estranged from her husband, the complainant’s son. The respondent had, independent of the proceedings before the Adjudicating Officer, instituted criminal proceedings alleging cruelty and dowry-related harassment against her estranged husband and the complainant. To support some of the claims made in the criminal proceedings, the respondent accessed the email accounts of her estranged husband and the complainant and printed copies of certain communications, both emails and chat transcripts. The complaint to the Adjudicating Officer was made in relation to these emails and chat transcripts that were obtained without the consent and knowledge of the complainant and his son. On 09.08.2010, the then Adjudicating Officer dismissed the complaint after finding that, owing to the marriage between the respondent and the complainant’s son, there was a relation of mutual trust between them that resulted in the complainant and his son consensually sharing their email account passwords with the respondent. This ruling was appealed to the Cyber Appellate Tribunal ("CyAT") which, in a decision of 29.06.2011, found irregularities in the complainant’s son’s privity to the proceedings and remanded the complaint to the Adjudicating Officer for re-adjudication. The re-adjudication, which was conducted by Shri Rajesh Aggarwal as Adjudicating Officer, resulted in a final order of 10.10.2011 ("the final order") that is the subject of this analysis. The final order found that the respondent had violated the privacy of the complainant and his son by her unauthorised access of their email accounts and sharing of their private communications. However, the Adjudicating Officer found that the intent of the unauthorised access – to obtain evidence to support a criminal proceeding – was mitigatory and hence ordered the respondent to pay only a small token amount in compensation, not to the complainants but instead to the State Treasury. The Delhi High Court, which was moved in appeal because the CyAT was non-functional, upheld the final order in its decision of 27.01.2012.

The Amit Patwardhan complaint was filed against the complainant’s ex-employer – the respondent, for illegally obtaining copies of the complainant’s bank account statement. The complainant had left the employ of the respondent to work with a competing business company but not before colluding with the competing business company and diverting the respondent’s customers to them. For redress, the respondent filed suit for a decree of compensation and lead the complainant’s bank statements in evidence to prove unlawful gratification. Since the bank statements were obtained electronically by the respondent without the complainant’s consent, the jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Officer was invoked. In his order of 15.04.2013, Shri Rajesh Aggarwal, the Adjudicating Officer, found that the respondent had, by unlawfully obtaining the complainant’s bank account statements which constitute sensitive personal data, violated the complainant’s privacy. The Adjudicating Officer astutely applied the equitable doctrine of clean hands to deny compensation to the complainant; however, because the complainant’s bank was not a party to the complaint, the Adjudicating Officer was unable to make a ruling on the lack of action by the bank to protect the sensitive personal data of its depositors.

The Nirmalkumar Bagherwal complaint bears a few similarities to the preceding two cases. Like the Vinod Kaushik matter, the issue concerned the manner in which a wife, estranged but still legally married, accessed electronic records of personal data of the complainants; and, like the Amit Patwardhan matter, the object of the privacy violation was the bank account statements of the complainants that constitute sensitive personal data. The respondent was the estranged wife of one of the complainants who, along with his complainant father, managed the third complainant company. To support her claim for maintenance from the complainant and his family in an independent legal proceeding, the respondent obtained certain bank account statements of the complainants without their consent and, possibly, with the collusion of the respondent bank. After reviewing relevant law from the European Union and the United States, and observant of relevant sectoral regulations applicable in India including the relevant Master Circular of the Reserve Bank of India, and further noting preceding consumer case law on the subject, the Adjudicating Officer issued an order on 26.08.2013. The order found that the complainant’s right to privacy was violated by both the respondents but, while determining the quantum of compensation, distinguished between the respondents in respect of the degree of liability; the respondent wife was ordered to pay a token compensation amount while the respondent bank was ordered to pay higher compensation to each of the three complainants individually.

The high quality of each of the three orders bears specific mention. Despite the superb quality of the judgments of the Indian higher judiciary in the decades after independence, the overall quality of judgment-writing appears to have declined. [3] In the last decade, several Indian judges have called for higher standards of judgment writing from their fellow judges. [4] In this background, it is notable that Shri Rajesh Aggarwal, despite not being a member of the judiciary, has delivered well-reasoned, articulate and clear orders that are cognisant of legal issues and also easily understandable to a non-legal reader.

In each of these cases, the Adjudicating Officer has successfully navigated around the fact that none of the primary parties were interacting and transacting at arm’s length. In the Vinod Kaushik and Nirmalkumar Bagherwal matters, the primary parties were estranged but still legally married partners and in the Amit Patwardhan matter the parties were in an employer-employee relationship. The first Adjudicating Officer in the Vinod Kaushik matter failed, in his order of 09.08.2010, to appreciate that the individual communications of individual persons were privileged by an expectation of privacy, regardless of their relationship. Hence, despite acknowledging that the marital partners in that matter were in conflict with each other, and despite being told by one party that the other party’s access to those private communications was made without consent, the Adjudicating Officer allowed his non-judicial opinion of marriage to influence his order. This mistake was corrected when the matter was remanded for re-adjudication. In the re-adjudication, the new Adjudicating Officer correctly noted that the respondent wife could have chosen to approach the police or a court to follow the proper investigative procedure for accessing emails and other private communications of another person and that her unauthorised use of the complainant’s passwords amounted to a violation of their privacy.

Popular conceptions of different types of relationships may affect the (quasi) judicial imagination of privacy. In comparison to the Vinod Kaushik matter, the Nirmalkumar Bagherwal and Amit Patwardhan matters both dealt with unauthorised access to bank account statements, by a wife and by an ex-employer respectively. In any event, the same Adjudicating Officer presided over all three matters and correctly found that the facts in all three matters admitted to contraventions of the privacy of the complainants. The conjecture as to whether the first Adjudicating Officer in the Vinod Kaushik matter would have applied the same standard of family unity to unauthorised access of bank account statements by an estranged wife who was seeking maintenance remains untested. However, the reliance placed on the decision of the Delhi State Consumer Protection Commission in the matter of Rupa Mahajan Pahwa, [5] where the Commission found that unauthorised access to a bank pass book by an estranged husband violated the privacy of the wife, would suggest that judges clothe financial information with a standard of privacy higher than that given to emails.

Emails are a form of electronic communication. The PUCL case (Supreme Court of India, 1996)[6] while it did not explicitly deal with the standard of protection accorded to emails, held that personal communications were protected by an individual right to privacy that emanated from the protection of personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Following the Maneka Gandhi case (Supreme Court of India, 1978)[7]

it is settled that persons may be deprived of their personal liberty only by a just, fair and reasonable procedure established by law. As a result, interceptions of private communications that are protected by Article 21 may only be conducted in pursuance of such a procedure. This procedure exists in the form of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Interception, Monitoring and Decryption of Information) Rules, 2009 that came into effect on 27 October 2009 ("the Interception Rules"). The Interception Rules set out a regime for accessing private emails in certain conditions. The powers and procedure of Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("CrPC") may also apply to obtain data at rest, such as emails stored in an inbox or sent-mail folder.

Finally, the orders of the Adjudicating Officer reveal a well-reasoned and progressive understanding of the law and principles relating to the quantification of compensation. By choosing to impose larger amounts of compensation on the bank that violated the privacy of the complainant in the Nirmalkumar Bagherwal matter, the Adjudicating Officer has indicated that the institutions that hold sensitive personal data, such as financial information, are subject to a higher duty of care in relation of it. But, most importantly, the act of imposing monetary compensation of privacy violations is a step forward because, for the first time in India, it recognises that privacy violations are civil wrongs or injuries that demand compensation.

[1]. These Rules were issued vide GSR 220(E), dated 17 March 2003 and published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3(i). These Rules can be accessed here – http://it.maharashtra.gov.in/PDF/Qual_ExpAdjudicatingOfficer_Manner_of_Holding_Enquiry_Rules.PDF (visited on 30 September 2013).

[2]. These cases and statistics may be viewed here – http://it.maharashtra.gov.in/1089/IT-Act-Judgements (visited on 30 September 2013).

[3]. See generally, Upendra Baxi “"The Fair Name of Justice": The Memorable Voyage of Chief Justice Chandrachud” in A Chandrachud Reader (Justice V. S. Deshpande ed., Delhi: Documentation Centre etc., 1985) and, Rajeev Dhavan, "Judging the Judges" in Judges and the Judicial Power: Essays in Honour of Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer (Rajeev Dhavan and Salman Khurshid eds., London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1985).

[4]. See generally, Justice B.G .Harindranath, Art of Writing Judgments (Bangalore: Karnataka Judicial Academy, 2004); Justice T .S. Sivagnanam, The Salient Features of the Art of Writing Orders and Judgments (Chennai: Tamil Nadu State Judicial Academy, 2010); and, Justice Sunil Ambwani, “Writing Judgments: Comparative Models” Presentation at the National Judicial Academy, Bhopal (2006) available here – http://districtcourtallahabad.up.nic.in/articles/writing%20judgment.pdf (visited on 29 Sep 2013).

[5]. Appeal No. FA-2008/659 of the Delhi State Consumer Protection Commission, decided on 16 October 2008.

[6]. (1997) 1 SCC 301.

[7]. (1978) 1 SCC 248.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/analysis-of-cases-filed-under-sec-48-it-act-for-adjudication-maharashtra

An 'app'ening world

praskrishna — 2016-10-05T00:24:19Z

A ‘forward’ has been doing the rounds on WhatsApp about the privacy concerns relating to that instant messaging app; it’s asking for permission to share user data with Facebook.

The article by Chetana Divya Vasudev was published in Deccan Herald on October 4, 2016. Rohini was quoted.

In the WhatsApp notification, asking users to agree to the terms and conditions again, the option to share these user details to help improve ads on Facebook is already selected. Those who are uncomfortable parting with this information have to uncheck it before clicking on the ‘I agree’ button.

“Agreeing to this would mean Facebook can see who you’re chatting with and what you’re talking about,” says tech expert Chinmayi S K. “So if you’re talking about cat adoption, the ads displayed on the side could be relevant to that.”

When it comes to other smartphone apps, she cites Zomato as an example. “It has been asking for user history — previous orders and other such details — to make recommendations,” she says. “This comes with the app update. Tinder, too, is asking for your location using wifi, which is more accurate than the GPRS location.”
It’s alright to agree to these permissions, she says, so long as you’re aware of what you’re signing up for and how that data is going to be used.

If you have qualms about agreeing to this, there are usually alternatives you can find, adds Rohini Lakshane, program officer, Centre for Internet and Society. “If not, it’s usually a trade-off: you have to see how much you want the app,” she points out.

There are, however, other apps that might be duplicates asking for access to your device or files, cautions Chinmayi.

“If a cooking app, a simple one that gives you recipes, asks for your call logs or other files, for example,” she says.

A discerning user, interjects Rohini, will check for permission to access files or functions that are not strictly necessary for the features the app supports. “I don’t want to name anything but some e-commerce and travel apps ask to access your browsing history and the other apps or networks you’re connect to. It could be to serve you contextual ads or content, like Zomato, or to sell it to someone. You never know,” she says. However, some devices or versions of the Android OS let you control what permissions you enable, she informs.

Aeronautical engineer Pavan Raj P V says he takes care not to compromise on his safety, whenever possible. “But there are a few apps that I have on my phone no matter what — Facebook, WhatsApp, LinkedIn, Instagram. Most of them auto-update and require no extra permissions.”

However, he has noticed that LinkedIn asks for access to Gmail contacts that you could accidentally accept “if you’re logging in mechanically”.

Varsha C V, communications specialist at Karnataka State Highways Improvement Project, says, “Last month, my husband asked me to download a Google app for free calls that required all sorts of permissions, such as access to your phone logs. When Skype offers the same features without asking for all this, why should anyone use this app?”

She believes privacy in India is not taken as seriously as it should be. “You should keep in mind that if you’re giving them access to your contacts, you’re also compromising on others’ privacy,” she points out.

Lokanand, a sound engineer, admits to not paying attention to what he’s giving apps access to. “I’m no expert but if you ask me, you download apps because they are useful. So I don’t really bother about what I’m saying yes to.”

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/deccan-herald-chetana-divya-vasudev-october-4-2016-an-appening-world

American Bar Association Online Privacy Conference: A Report

elonnai — 2012-03-21T10:08:36Z

On 10 November 2010, I attended an American Bar Association online conference on 'Regulating Privacy Across Borders in the Digital Age: An Emerging Global Consensus or Vive la Difference'. The panalists addressed many important global privacy challenges and spoke about the changes the EU directive is looking to take.

Introduction

On 10 November, I attended an American Bar Association online conference on “Regulating Privacy Across Borders in the Digital Age: An Emerging Global Consensus or Vive la Difference.” The panel was made up of:

Lisa Sotto, a private practitioner in the US
Billy Hawkes, Commissioner of Data Protection, Ireland
Bojana Bellamy, Director of Data Privacy, London, UK
Hugh Stevenson, Deputy Director of the Federal Trade Commission, US
Jennifer Stoddart, Privacy Commissioner, Canada.

The panelists shared their insight into many issues, including the challenges that cloud computing, behavioural advertising, and cross-border data transfer pose to privacy. The panel also spoke on the need to address concerns of enforcement, data breach, accountability, and harmonization of data protection policies. The conference was very informative, and brought up many points that, as India moves forward with a privacy legislation, should be considered and given thought about.

Technology Concerns: Cloud Computing, Behavioural Advertising, and Cross- border Data Transfer

When speaking about the concerns of cloud computing, behavioural advertising, and cross-border data transfer – the panel was in agreement that privacy policies need to move beyond paper to practice. They questioned whether broad national law can actually address the privacy concerns associated with these issues, or whether internal, specific policies are more effective at protecting data being outsourced to the cloud, passed through the Internet, and sent across borders. Specifically addressing cloud computing internal policies have the potential to be more effective, because data in the cloud is essentially nowhere; it does not reside in one jurisdiction, and thus it is difficult to establish which countries’ laws apply to the data. Additionally, if there is a breach in data, the onus at the end of the day falls on the company that was in possession of the data the data breach. Though internal policies could also be used to address behavioural advertising, the lack of consumer awareness limits how effective a self-regulating program can be. Hugh Stevenson suggested another possibility - creating a system analogous to the “do not call registry” for websites – something like “do not track.” This would allow consumers to opt out of being tracked by cookies etc. on a websites, and force websites to be transparent about their collection and retention of data. Another solution discussed that could work to move policies beyond paper to practice, was the emerging trend of “privacy by design". “Privacy by design” is a mechanism applied by technology manufacturing and technology providing companies where companies will assess privacy risks before they offer a service, or before a product goes onto the market. This might mean a software company or service provider will need a seal before selling their products that indicates the product or service meets a certain privacy standard. If enforced effectively, the system of a seal could be especially effective, because it creates a visual indicator of privacy - allowing consumers to easily and quickly recognize what products are more privacy risky than others, and easily find reliable and secure data processors. The ability of the privacy seal to be applied to all services and sectors, would be particularly useful in a sectoral system like the US, where companies that collect data, but are not apart of the regulated sectors (financial, health, etc) do not come within the purview of the privacy protecting laws.

Privacy Seals Globally? Privacy Seals in India?

If this system of a privacy seal becomes widely used, it will be interesting to see the effect that it has on the international community, and subsequently – the Indian consumer. Even though India does not have a privacy legislation, nor a heightened concern over personal privacy, the Indian consumer does consume American-developed software, phones, computers and other technologies. Perhaps as a “privacy seal” begins to be seen on foreign products used in India, it will create pressure on domestic manufacturers and service providers to meet similar standards with their products. Furthermore, perhaps foreign countries will not want to engage in trade with a company if that company does not use the “privacy seal". Similar pressure is being placed on Chinese-made technologies. For example, the reputation that Chinese phones have of being dangerous and cheap has led some countries, like Australia, to place bans on the phones coming into their borders. Essentially a privacy seal could provide sufficient economic incentives and pressures on companies globally to ensure that their products and practices adequately protect consumer privacy.

Accountability:

In addition to internal policies and seals as ways to push privacy protection beyond theory and into practice, the panel heavily emphasized the need for accountability. Accountability, according to Bojana Bellamy – the EU Data Privacy Director, is increasingly necessary because data is constantly being sent and processed in multiple countries and places across the globe. How to create a greater level of accountability amongst organizations has been a subject of much discussion. Currently the EU is looking at adding an“accountability principle” to the directive. The directive is defining accountability as: showing how responsibility is exercised and making this verifiable -or in simpler terms – compliance with principles in the data protection field. The accountability principle that is being proposed would be comprised of two requirements. One requirement would obligate the data controllers to implement appropriate and effective measures that made sure the principles and obligations of the Directive were being put into effect by organizations. The second would be to require that data controllers demonstrate that these measures have been taken. In practice, this would translate into scalable programs such as the requirement of a privacy impact assessment,monitoring,sanctions, and internal and external audits The legal architecture of the accountability mechanism would be two-tiered. One tier would consist of the basic statutory requirement that would be binding for all data controllers; the second would include voluntary accountability systems. This would also mean that the data controllers would need to strengthen their internal arrangements. Further accountability measures considered by the Directive working party include: Establishment of internal procedures prior to the creation of new personal data processing operations, setting up written and binding data protection policies to be considered and applied to new data processing operations, mapping of procedures to endure proper identification of all data processing operations and maintenance of an inventory of data processing operations, appointment of data protection officer, offering adequate data protection, training, and education to staff members.

Data Breaches:

The panel next discussed data breaches. From the example of the UK, where in 2007 the government lost 24 million records from the Child Benefit Database – clearly date breaches are a continual, often very serious problem. Few people though, realize the extent to which data breaches happen (on their own personal data) and the actual consequences of the breaches, because countries do not have a well defined data breach policies set in place. There are a handful of European countries, like France and Germany, and some American states, like California, that have included data breach requirements into their laws. Also, Despite this, there are no broad statutes for data breach notification in the US or the EU. Also in 2009 the E-Privacy Directive, which applies to ISPs, telecommunication networks, and other electronic communications services, made it mandatory for certain data breaches to be reported.. Whether data breach notification should be made a requirement through legislation is a question many countries are facing. Some countries, like Canada, rely on self-regulation for enforcement of data breaches. Jennifer Stoddart, the data commissioner from Canada, spoke about how self regulation in Canada works. One of the mechanisms that makes self-regulation so effective is the media. If a data breach occurs, through bad press, the media causes the social and monetary costs to increase, so that companies will want to prevent data breaches. The privacy commission of Canada works to help companies remedy the breaches when they occur, but focuses mainly on working with companies to prevent a breach from taking place at all. Challenges and question that self regulation face are:

Will companies work to be less transparent and avoid notification despite the severity of the breach, because of the repercussions?

How will the balance between over-reporting breaches with under-reporting breaches be maintained?
Even if there is a social incentive to provide notification of breach, is it adequate enough to ensure that the notification is comprehensive and that proactive steps are taken by the organization to prevent further breach?
If bad media is the main form of penalty for companies – is this enough penalty, and is it able to take into consideration the context of each privacy breach?

These questions along with the growing number of breaches that are occurring have pushed the EU and other countries to consider integrating data breach statutes into broad legislation.

E-Privacy Directive Breach Notification:

Under the E-Privacy Directive the definition of a personal data breach is “breach of security leading to the accidental or unlawful destruction, loss, alteration, unauthorised disclosure of, or access to, personal data transmitted or otherwise processed in connection with provision of a publicly available electronic communications service in the Community.” Currently the system in the EU is broken down into a two tiered system – a breach notification by the organization to the data controller is the first level. This level includes breaches that have occurred, but do not necessarily harm an individual. The second tier is if the breach impacts the subscriber or individual, than the individual must be notified of the nature of the breach, and recommendations made of measures to mitigate the possible adverse effects of the breach. If the breach is so large that individual notice is impractical, notice of the breach must be posted in the media. Failure to notify or incorrect notification results in sanctions. In the UK, data breach notification must include:

1. The type of information and compromised number of records

2. The circumstances of the loss, release, or corruption

3. Actions taken to minimize or mitigate the effect on individuals involved including whether they have been informed

4. details of how the breach is being investigated,

5. whether any other regulatory bodies have been informed and, if so, their responses

6. remedial actions taken to prevent future occurrences and any other information that may assist the ICO in making an assessment.

Accountability, breach notification: What material should India think about for a legal privacy structure?

Lawrence Friedman once explained that legal systems are living organisms – Bills are constantly being amended, passed, and retracted in order to make the legal structure that governs a society reflect the ethos of that society. Thus, when conceptualizing a new piece of legal legislation it is important to look at what purpose that legislation is going to serve, and if that purpose reflects the ideas, values, attitudes, and expectations that a society has. India is a nation that has enacted statutes and regulations for responding to cultural and economic changes against a backdrop of widely-dispersed population groups with deeply-engrained traditions of government and management. This has led to incongruities, for example, there are strong requirements for government transparency, but at the same time there is a common perception that bribery is necessary to prompt official action. There are laws to protect certain rights, but the average person who takes action will never be afforded redress. Thus, India faces both similar and different challenges that the EU and Western countries are face in concern with privacy. One of the greatest privacy challenges in India today, despite having adopted technology, habits, and practices that put privacy at risk, is the common perception that India does not have any privacy issues. Because it is believed that privacy is not at risk, there is a lack of awareness and understanding as to how to prevent privacy violations. Though the breach notification and accountability components that were discussed in the meeting are very detail-oriented mechanisms, they raise a fundamental question about legal architecture and context. When forming a privacy legislation, a few broad questions that India needs to consider are:

· Does it want a broad legislation, one that could limit business and trade (unless potential trading partners demand such legislation), or sector-based legislations, which risk being too tailored and difficult to harmonize?

· If India wants a broad privacy framework how will this be set up?

· What will be the tools used for civil education?

· How will enforcement take place ?

· Is self regulated accountability or statuary accountability better?

· Will there be a privacy tribunal?

· How will data be categorized?

· Will breaches be notified?

· Will standardized privacy policies be created?

As Hugh Stevenson, the commissioner from the FTC, described - one of the greatest benefits of breach notification was the awareness of privacy that it has brought. As individuals are notified that their information has been compromised, they are becoming more aware of how technologies work and how their information is processed, and what risks are involved and what protective measures they should take. Looking at the prospect of enhanced awareness from making data breach notification mandatory, it seems that it can only be a positive step for India to take towards raising awareness and understanding of privacy. The notification of breach could be required to specifically include a description of why the breach took place, and the steps that individuals could take to further protect their data. A concern that has been voiced - is whether a comprehensive legislation could be implemented? And should India be looking to enact such a comprehensive and detailed legislation when there is no existing privacy legislation to build off of, and no deep culture of privacy? To these concerns I can only speculate that there is always a balance between being overly ambitious in a legislation, and too conservative. It seems that enforcement will in fact always be a challenge in India, and that part of policy-making needs to address this challenge, rather than avoid it.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/privacy/privacy-aba-conference

All India Privacy Symposium Webcast

praskrishna — 2012-02-08T08:20:08Z

Welcome to the Webcast of the All India Privacy Symposium at the India International Centre in New Delhi on 4 February 2012.

Welcome & Introduction to Privacy India

Elonnai Hickok, (Policy Advocate, Privacy India)

Panel I: Privacy and Transparency

Moderator:

Sunil Abraham, (Executive Director, Centre for Internet & Society)

Poster: Srishti Goyal, (Law Student)
Panelists:

Ponnurangam K, (Assistant Prof, IIIT New Delhi)

Chitra Ahanthem, (Journalist, Imphal)

Nikhil dey, (Social & Political Activist)

Deepak Maheshwari, (Director Corporate Affairs, Microsoft)

Gus Hosein, (Executive Director, Privacy International, UK)

Panel II: Privacy and E-Governance Initiatives

Moderator:

Sudhir Krishnaswamy (Professor, Azim Premji University)

Poster: Adrija Das,
Panelists:

Anant Maringanti, (Independent Social Researcher)

Usha Ramanathan, (Advocate&Social Activist)

Gus Hosein, (Executive Director, Privacy International, UK)

Apar Gupta, (Advocate, Supreme Court of India)

Elida Kristine Undrum Jacobsen (Researcher at the International Peace Research Institute, Oslo)

Panel III: Privacy and National Security

Moderator:

Sunil Abraham, (Executive Director, Centre for Internet & Society)

Poster:

Suchitra Menon, (Law Student)

Panelists:

Menaka Guruswamy, (Advocate, Supreme Court, New Delhi)
Prasanth Sugathan, (Legal Counsel, Software Freedom Law Center)
Oxblood Ruffin, (Cult of the Dead Cow Security and Publishing Collective)

Panel IV: Privacy and Banking

Moderator:

Prashant Iyengar (Associate Professor, Jindal Law University)

Poster:

Malavika Chandu

Panelists:

M R Umarji, (Chief Legal Advisor, IBA)
N A Vijayashankar, (Cyber Law Expert)
Malavika Jayaram, (Advocate, Bangalore)

Panel V: Privacy and Health

Moderator:

Ashok Row Kavi, (Journalist & LGBT Activist)

Poster:

Danish Sheikh, (Alternative Law Forum)

Panelists:

K K Abraham, (President, Indian Network for People with HIV)
Dr. B S Bedi, (Advisor, CDAC & Media Lab Asia)
Raman Chawla, (Senior Advocacy Officer, Lawyers Collective)

The Way Forward

Natasha Vaz, (Policy Advocate, Privacy India)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/all-india-privacy-symposium-webcast

All India Privacy Symposium

Natasha Vaz — 2012-03-01T06:16:53Z

Are we citizens or subjects? Experts gather in Delhi for public symposium on privacy, transparency, e-governance and national security in India.

Following 18 months of research by Privacy India, the Centre for Internet and Society and the Society in Action Group, with support from London-based Privacy International, the groups today held an All India Privacy Symposium at the India International Centre in New Delhi. Speakers included Supreme Court Advocate Menaka Guruswamy, Microsoft Director of Corporate Affairs Deepak Maheshwari, social researcher and activist Usha Ramanathan, journalist Saikat Datta and former Chief of RAW Hormis Thorakan.

A few themes recurred across all five panels (Privacy and Transparency, Privacy and E-Governance Initiatives, Privacy and National Security, Privacy and Banking, and Privacy and Health). Perhaps the most prominent was the repeated allegation that the Indian government' technological illiteracy is putting its citizens at risk. One panelist described how an RTI request had recently revealed that the government had no idea how many of its own computers had been hacked or how much data had been stolen – even though this information has been in the public domain since the Wikileaks diplomatic cable releases.

The increased use of public-private partnerships and outsourcing was also a major cause for concern. Public money is being funneled into privately-held commercial enterprises – which, unlike public bodies, are not subject to RTI requests – and spent on e-governance initiatives like UID. Social researcher Anant Maringati spoke of a "hybrid world" in which government projects were fulfilled by completely unaccountable private actors. Advocate Malavika Jayaram remarked that, while private companies tend to have far greater technological expertise than government officials, they are ultimately motivated by profit rather than public benefit; we should therefore ask ourselves whether they can really be trusted with our information.

Government surveillance for the purposes of crime prevention also came under scrutiny, when Saikat Datta described how he himself had been put under illegal surveillance by an unauthorized intelligence agency. He warned of the dangers of excessive wiretapping, a practice that currently generates such a “mountain” of information that anything with real intelligence value tends to be ignored until it is too late, as happened with the Mumbai bombings in 2008. It is clear that the Indian government’s surveillance and interception programmes far exceed what is necessary for legitimate law enforcement.

Overall, panelists at the conference painted a vivid picture of India as a state that has made a habit of invading the privacy of individuals on a massive scale in the name of public benefit and law enforcement. Yet there is a clear sense that the benefits to society are not outweighing the costs to the individual. As Usha Ramanathan commented: “The question is, do we think of ourselves as citizens – or as subjects?”

See the webcast of the event here

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

All India Privacy Symposium

praskrishna — 2012-02-27T11:08:32Z

Privacy India in partnership with the International Development Research Centre, Canada, Society in Action Group, Gurgaon, Privacy International, UK and Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative is organizing the All India Privacy Symposium at the India International Centre, New Delhi on Saturday, February 4, 2012.

Since June 2010, Privacy India has been engaging in discussions with policy makers, the public and sectoral experts about privacy in India. The discussions have ranged from topics of identity and privacy, to minority rights and privacy, and consumer privacy. The findings of our research show that privacy was a neglected area of study for India in the past, however, this is changing. Advancements in technology, the introduction of e-governance initiatives like the National Fibre Optic Network, the introduction of new legislations, and debates surrounding national security, have brought privacy debates to the forefront in India. Although currently sectoral legislation deals with privacy issues, e.g., the Telegraph Act or RBI guidelines for banking, India has just begun to consider a horizontal legislation that deals comprehensively with privacy across all contexts. This conference is an opportunity to look forward to what could be the future scope of privacy in India.

Privacy India was set up in collaboration with the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore and Society in Action Group, Gurgaon, under the auspices of an international organization ‘Privacy International’. Privacy International is a non-profit group that provides assistance to civil society groups, governments, international and regional bodies, the media and the public in a number of countries. For more info, visit its website.

This is a public meeting. For participation in the event, get in touch with Elonnai (elonnai@cis-india.org)

Symposium Advisors

Sunil Abraham, Centre for Internet &Society (www.cis-india.org)
Rajan Gandhi, Society in Action Group
Phet Sayo, IDRC (www.idrc.org)
Gus Hosein, Privacy International (www.privacyinternational.org)
Sudhir Krishnaswamy, Centre for Law and Policy Research, Bangalore (www.clpr.org.in)
Vickram Crishna, Privacy International (www.privacyinternational.org)

Agenda

09:30- 10:00	Registration
10:00- 10:15	Welcome & Introduction to Privacy India Elonnai Hickok (Policy Advocate, Privacy India)
10:15- 10:30	Tea Break
10:30- 11:30	Panel I: Privacy and Transparency Moderator: Sunil Abraham (Executive Director, Centre for Internet & Society) Panelists: Prashant Bhushan (Senior Advocate, New Delhi), Simon Davies (Director General, Privacy International, UK), Ponnurangam K (Assistant Prof, IIIT New Delhi), Chitra Ahanthem (Journalist, Imphal), Aruna Roy (Social & Political Activist), Deepak Maheshwari (Director Corporate Affairs, Microsoft) Poster:Srishti Goyal (Law Student)
11:30- 12:30	Panel II: Privacy and E-Governance Initiatives Moderator: Sudhir Krishnaswamy (Professor, Azim Premji University) Panelists: Anant Maringanti (Independent Social Researcher), Usha Ramanathan (Advocate&Social Activist), Ram Sewak Sharma (Director General, UIDAI), Gus Hosein (Executive Director, Privacy International, UK), R K Singh (Union Home Secretary, New Delhi), Apar Gupta (Advocate, Supreme Court of India) Poster: Adrija Das (Law Student)
12:30- 13:30	Lunch
13:30- 14:30	Panel III: Privacy and National Security Moderator: Justice A P Shah (Former Chief Justice, Delhi High Court)* Panelists: Menaka Guruswamy (Advocate, Supreme Court, New Delhi), Amol Sharma (Journalist, Wall Street Journal)*, Saikat Datta (Journalist, DNA), Eric King (Human Rights and Technology Advisor, Privacy International, UK), Prasanth Sugathan (Legal Counsel, Software Freedom Law Center) and Oxblood Ruffin (Cult of the Dead Cow Security and Publishing Collective) Poster: Suchithra Menon (Law Student)
14:30- 15:30	Panel IV: Privacy and Banking Moderator: Prashant Iyengar (Associate Professor, Jindal Law University) Panelists: M R Umarji (Chief Legal Advisor, IBA), N A Vijayashankar (Cyber Law Expert), Sucheta Dalal (Managing Editor, MoneyLife Magazine)*, Malavika Jayaram (Advocate, Bangalore) Poster: Malavika Chandu (Law Student)
15:30- 15:45	Tea Break
15:45- 16:45	Panel V: Privacy and Health Moderator: Ashok Row Kavi (Journalist & LGBT Activist) Panelists: K K Abraham (President, Indian Network for People with HIV), Shri Sayan Chatterjee (Secretary, National Aids Control Organization), Dr V M Katoch (Secretary, Department of Health Research), Dr B S Bedi (Advisor, CDAC & Media Lab Asia) Poster: Danish Sheikh (Alternative Law Forum)
16:45- 17:00	The Way Forward Elonnai Hickok (Policy Advocate, Privacy India)

Bios of Speakers

Usha Ramanathan

Usha Ramanathan is an internationally recognized expert on the jurisprudence of law, poverty and rights. She writes and speaks on leading issues like the Bhopal gas leak tragedy, mass displacement, civil liberties, criminal law, environment and the judicial process. She is involved in the UID project and has written and debated extensively on it. She is a member of Amnesty International's Advisory Panel on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and has been called upon by the World Health Organisation as a expert on mental health on various occasions. Her writings can be found at http://www.ielrc.org/.

NA.Vijayashankar

NA.Vijayashankar, more popularly known as Naavi, is a Techno Legal Information Security Consultant based in Bangalore, India. Naavi is a pioneer in the field of Cyber Law in India. He is the author of the first book (1999) and first E-Book (2003) on Cyber Laws in India. He has also authored a book titled “Cyber Laws, Corporate Mantra for the Digital Era”, “Cyber Laws Demystified” and “Cyber Laws for Engineers” as well as a book on Cyber Crimes in Kannada.

Naavi is the founder of www.cyberlawcollege.com which is the pioneering virtual educational institution in India dedicated to Cyber Law Education. Cyber Law College presently conducts offline and virtual courses on Cyber Laws. It has conducted several courses in association with law colleges in Karnataka such as KLE Law College, Bangalore, JSS Law College, Mysore, SDM law college Mangalore and KLE Law College Hubli.

Naavi is also the founder of www.naavi.org the premier Cyber Law Portal in India. Naavi has been engaged in the training of Police in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka and conducts several courses in Cyber Laws for different audiences. He has been a guest faculty in a number of institutions including NPA, IDRBT, DTRI, ISACA, NADT, LBS National Academy, Judicial Academies, NALSAR, etc., as well as several law, engineering and management institutions.

Naavi has over three decades of senior Corporate executive experience behind him. He has been an ex-Banker and Consultant to several Companies in IT Services. He has conducted hundreds of training sessions to professionals of various disciplines such as bankers, lawyers, chartered accountants, engineers, software professionals, police and judicial officers through workshops and in-house training programmes in cyber laws, cyber crimes, information security and related areas.

Chitra Ahanthem

Chitra Ahanthem is a features writer with Imphal Free Press, published in Imphal, Manipur. She is also a freelance writer and researcher on issues around HIV/AIDS, child rights, conflict and gender.

Baljit Singh Bedi

Baljit Singh Bedi did his B.Tech and M.Tech. from Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Delhi. After serving for five years in the Centre for Applied Research in Electronics (CARE) IIT, Delhi he joined the Department of Information Technology (DIT), Ministry of Communication & IT (MCIT), Government of India. The major responsibilities and contributions over the years cover conceptualizing, evolving and implementation of a number of major schemes/programmes and projects in the field of electronics and IT applications with primary role in healthcare. He was instrumental in starting an integrated programme in promoting the area of Electronics, IT and Electronic Medical Records (EMR) Standards in Healthcare in India. As the head of Medical Electronics & Telemedicine division, he was looking after the activity of promotion of e-health & tele–health technology and R&D in medical electronics and launched a number of schemes in India. He was part of the National Task Force Telemedicine in India set up by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare (MoH&FW), Government of India and headed the Group on Standards. He was a Member of National Knowledge Commission’s Working Group on India-Health Information Network Development (I-HIND) and is part of the Advisory Group for follow-up implementation program under the consideration of MoH&FW. He is actively involved in policy, development and deployment programmes of IT in Health initiatives of DIT, MoH&FW, and Media Lab Asia. He is a member of the National Committee set up by MoH&FW for EMR Standardization and Heading its Task Group on Interoperability. He is also International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Expert for e-Health Standardization. He is Executive Member of Indian Association of Medical Informatics (IAMI) and President, Telemedicine Society of India (TSI). At present, he is an Adviser to the Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (CDAC), Scientific Society of MCIT, Government of India.

Deepak Maheshwari

Deepak Maheshwari is Director – Corporate Affairs with Microsoft in India and responsible for interactions with the policymakers & regulators as well as with industry associations & the civil society organizations. An active participant and a keen observer of the interplay between technological innovation and socio-economic development, he has been closely associated with development & evolution of Information & Communication Technology policy, law & regulation for more than a decade and is often invited as a speaker and a contributor of articles & opinions in the media.

He has been active in several trade associations and served as committee chair & co-chair. He served for two consecutive terms as the elected secretary in the ISP Association of India and co-founded National Internet eXchange of India (NIXI) as well as the ITU-APT Foundation of India. He is also a member on the academic board of the IIM Ahmedabad- IDEA Telecom Centre of Excellence.

At times mistaken as a lawyer, he was actually awarded degree in engineering by one of India’s leading technical institute IT-BHU. His professional experience of more than 2 decades spans functional responsibilities across sales, marketing, operations and last but not the least, corporate affairs.

*Participants to be confirmed

Download the poster here
Download the agenda here (PDF, 755 KB)

VIDEOS

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/privacy-symposium

Alexa’s recording leak in US ‘echoes’ privacy issues here

Admin — 2018-05-30T00:49:26Z

Market analyst Sanjay Mehta (name changed) has been keeping his Amazon Echo smart speaker mostly unplugged since reports surfaced last week of the device’s voice assistant, Alexa, inadvertently recording and sending out conversations of a family in the US.

The article by Mugdha Variyar was published in the Economic Times on May 29, 2018. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

Digital rights activist Nikhil Pahwa keeps his Google Home smart speaker occasionally plugged out, citing the propensity of the device’s voice assistant to assume it is being queried even when it is not. In the Portland case involving Echo, Alexa had misinterpreted a family’s conversation to be a request to record and send the conversation to a person in the family’s contacts list.

In India, as internet consumers become comfortable using AI-powered voice assistants to play music, set tasks and seek information, they are also waking up to the fragility of data privacy, especially after the infamous Facebook-Cambridge Analytica episode. Indian laws, though, are yet to catch up with technology such as these, say privacy experts.

Globally too, governments are grappling with framing policy around data and privacy. That said, the European Union’s tough privacy laws on how companies can handle user data, introduced last week, are forcing companies to seek consent from customers globally to use their data.

According to Singapore-based market research firm Canalys, 108,000 units of Amazon Echo devices were shipped to sales channels in India in the first quarter of this year. As for Google Home, which was launched here in April, 25,000 devices have been shipped so far.

“It is always the company’s fault when such incidents (Alexa’s recording leak) happen. But if it does happen in India, it will also be the government’s fault since there is a big vacuum when it comes to protecting privacy in the digital age,” said Sunil Abraham, executive director of Centre for Internet and Society.

Abraham said a recording device in homes could open up the possibility of hacking or wiretapping. He, however, added that the Amazon incident would not necessarily create any panic. Amazon did not respond to specific queries about what steps it was taking to ensure such incidents do not occur again.

Google said it provides a Home user control through its activity control feature, ability to delete voice-recording history and control permissions to personal data on Gmail, as well as the option to mute the device.

Abraham cited the principles of data minimisation, that is, bare minimum collection of data, and minimal data retention policies with the user, as the main policy requirements, especially to prevent incidents such as the Alexa leak. “We are hopeful that the Srikrishna Committee will include this in the data privacy law,” he added.

While there needs to be a strong law, there also needs to be a strong citizen advocacy, where users take a company to court for privacy breach. Alexa users should also be sending queries to Amazon about what steps they are taking for privacy protection.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/economic-times-may-29-mugdha-variyar-alexas-recording-leak-in-us-echoes-privacy-issues-here