The Centre for Internet and Society
http://editors.cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 191 to 205.
Internet Researchers' Conference
http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/irc
<b></b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/irc'>http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/irc</a>
</p>
No publishersumandro2019-03-16T04:43:56ZCollectionInternet Histories
http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/internet-histories
<b>The RAW programme has been interested in the histories of computing and Internet in India from its very inception. This cluster addresses the making of Internet in India – from questions of communication infrastructures, regulatory practices and formation of expertise, labour and industries of connecting India to the Internet, integration of Internet and computers into the functioning of the public and private sector agencies in India, coming of Internet-based solutions into the human development topics and practices, to early net cultures and netizens in India, roles of Internet in media and device cultures in India, spaces and geographies of Internet in India; and the making of the Indian cyberspace in terms of contents, users, and real/virtual practices. It is also interested in excavating the longer history(ies) of electronic communication in its various forms in India, and locating its implications and remnants in the contemporary experiences of Internet in India.</b>
<p> </p>
<h2>Projects</h2>
<p> </p>
<ul><li><a href="http://cis-india.org/raw/histories-of-the-internet"><strong>Histories of Internets in India</strong></a> (2008-2011)</li></ul>
<p> </p>
<h2>Publications</h2>
<p> </p>
<ul><li><a href="http://cis-india.org/raw/histories-of-the-internet/rewiring-bodies/"><strong>Rewiring Bodies</strong></a> by Asha Achuthan</li>
<li><a href="http://cis-india.org/raw/histories-of-the-internet/blogs/archives-and-access/archives-and-access"><strong>Archive and Access</strong></a> by Rochelle Pinto, Aparna Balachandran, and Abhijit Bhattacharya</li>
<li><a href="http://cis-india.org/raw/histories-of-the-internet/blogs/law-video-technology/law-video-and-technology-old"><strong>Porn: Law, Video and Technology</strong></a> by Namita Malhotra</li>
<li><a href="http://cis-india.org/raw/histories-of-the-internet/blogs/the-last-cultural-mile/the-last-cultural-mile-blog-old"><strong>The Last Cultural Mile</strong></a> by Ashish Rajadhyaksha</li>
<li><a href="http://cis-india.org/raw/histories-of-the-internet/blogs/internet-society-and-space-in-indian-cities/internet-society-and-space-in-indian-cities-blog-old"><strong>Internet, Society and Space in Indian Cities</strong></a> by Pratyush Shankar</li></ul>
<p> </p>
<h2>Recent Posts</h2>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/internet-histories'>http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/internet-histories</a>
</p>
No publishersumandro2015-10-25T03:59:40ZCollection International Open Data Charter: First Public Draft
http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/international-open-data-charter-first-public-draft
<b>The first public draft of the International Open Data Charter was released at the International Open Data Conference in Ottawa, Canada, May 28-29, 2015. It is being developed by a range of organisations led by the Open Government Partnership (OGP) Open Data Working Group (co-chaired by Government of Canada and the Web Foundation), the Government of Mexico, the Open Data for Development (OD4D) Network, and Omidyar Network. CIS has contributed comments to a previous version of the draft, and also took part in the pre-release meeting of potential stewards of the Charter on May 26 in Ottawa. Here is the text of the draft Charter. Please visit opendatacharter.net/charter/ to submit your comments.</b>
<p> </p>
<h2>Consultation Draft, May 2015</h2>
<p> </p>
<h3>Preamble</h3>
<p> </p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>1)</strong> The world is witnessing the growth of a global movement facilitated by technology and digital media and fuelled by information – one that contains enormous potential to create more accountable, efficient, responsive, and effective governments and businesses, and to spur economic growth.</p>
<p>Open data sit at the heart of this global movement.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>2)</strong> Building a more democratic, just, and prosperous society requires transparent, accountable governments that engage regularly and meaningfully with citizens. Accordingly, there is an ongoing effort to enable collaboration around key social challenges, to provide effective oversight of government activities, to support economic development through innovation, and to develop effective, efficient public policies and programmes.</p>
<p>Open data is essential to meeting these challenges.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>3)</strong> Effective access to data allows individuals and organisations to develop new insights and innovations that can generate social and economic benefits to improve the lives of people around the world, and help to improve the flow of information within and between countries. While governments collect a wide range of data, they do not always share these data in ways that are easily discoverable, useable, or understandable by the public.</p>
<p>This is a missed opportunity.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>4)</strong> Today, many people expect to be able to access high quality information and services, including government data, when and how they want. Others see the opportunity presented by government data as one which can provide innovative policy solutions and support economic and social benefits for all members of society. We have arrived at a point at which people can use open data to generate value, insights, ideas, and services to create a better world for all.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>5)</strong> Open data can increase transparency around what government is doing. Open data can also increase awareness about how countries’ natural resources are used, how extractives revenues are spent, and how land is transacted and managed – all of which promotes accountability and good governance, enhances public debate, and helps to combat corruption.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>6)</strong> Providing access to government data can drive sustainable and inclusive growth by empowering citizens, the media, civil society, and the private sector to identify gaps, and work toward better outcomes for public services in areas such as health, education, public safety, environmental protection, and governance. Open data can do this by:</p>
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify;">showing how and where public money is spent, which provides strong incentives for governments to demonstrate that they are using public money effectively;</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">supporting citizens, civil society organisations, governments and the private sector to collaborate on the design of policies and the delivery of better public services;</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">supporting assessments of the impact of public programs, which in turn allows governments, civil society organisations, and the private sector to respond more effectively to the particular needs of local communities; and</li>
<li>enabling citizens to make better informed choices about the services they receive and the service standards they should expect.</li></ul>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>7)</strong> Open government data can be used in innovative ways to create useful tools and products that help to navigate modern life more easily. Used in this way, open data are a catalyst for innovation in the private sector, supporting the creation of new markets, businesses, and jobs. These benefits can multiply as more private sector and civil society organisations adopt open data practices modelled by government and share their own data with the public.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>8)</strong> We, the adherents to the International Open Data Charter, agree that open data are an under-used resource with huge potential to encourage the building of stronger, more interconnected societies that better meet the needs of our citizens and allow innovation and prosperity to flourish.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>9)</strong> We therefore agree to follow a set of principles that will be the foundation for access to, and the release and use of, open government data. These principles are:</p>
<ul>
<li>Open Data by Default;</li>
<li>Quality and Quantity;</li>
<li>Accessible and Useable by All;</li>
<li>Engagement and Empowerment of Citizens;</li>
<li>Collaboration for Development and Innovation;</li></ul>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>10)</strong> We will develop an action plan in support of the implementation of the Charter and its Technical Annexes, and will update and renew the action plan at a minimum of every two years. We agree to commit the necessary resources to work within our political and legal frameworks to implement these principles in accordance with the technical best practices and timeframes set out in our action plan.</p>
<p> </p>
<h3>Principle 1: Open Data by Default</h3>
<p> </p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>11)</strong> We recognise that free access to, and the subsequent use of, government data are of significant value to society and the economy, and that government data should, therefore, be open by default.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>12)</strong> We acknowledge the need to promote the global development and adoption of tools and policies for the creation, use, and exchange of open data and information.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>13)</strong> We recognise that the term ‘government data’ is meant in the widest sense possible. This could apply to data held by national, federal, and local governments, international government bodies, and other types of institutions in the wider public sector. This could also apply to data created for governments by external organisations, and data of significant benefit to the public which is held by external organisations and related to government programmes and services (e.g. data on extractives entities, data on transportation infrastructure, etc).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>14)</strong> We recognise that there is domestic and international legislation, in particular pertaining to security, privacy, confidentiality, intellectual property, and personally-identifiable and other sensitive information, which must be observed and/or updated where necessary.</p>
<p><strong>15)</strong> We will:</p>
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify;">develop and adopt policies and practices to ensure that all government data is made open by default, as outlined in this Charter, while recognising that there are legitimate reasons why some data cannot be released;</li>
<li>provide clear justifications as to why certain data cannot be released;</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">establish a culture of openness, not only through legislative or policy measures, but also with the help of training and awareness programs, tools, and guidelines designed to make government, civil society, and private sector representatives aware of the benefits of open data; and</li>
<li>develop the leadership, management, oversight, and internal communication policies necessary to enable this transition to a culture of openness.</li></ul>
<p> </p>
<h3>Principle 2: Quality and Quantity</h3>
<p> </p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>16)</strong> We recognise that governments and other public sector organisations hold vast amounts of information that may be of interest to citizens, and that it may take time to identify data for release or publication.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>17)</strong> We also recognise the importance of consulting with citizens, other governments, non-governmental organisations, and other open data users, to identify which data to prioritise for release and/or improvement.</p>
<p><strong>18)</strong> We agree, however, that governments’ primary responsibility should be to release data in a timely manner, without undue delay.</p>
<p><strong>19)</strong> We will:</p>
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify;">create, maintain, and share public, comprehensive lists of data holdings to set the stage for meaningful public discussions around data prioritisation and release;</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">release high-quality open data that are timely, comprehensive, and accurate in accordance with prioritisation that is informed by public requests. To the extent possible, data will be released in their original, unmodified form and at the finest level of granularity available, and will also be linked to any visualisations or analyses created based on the data, as well as any relevant guidance or documentation;</li>
<li>ensure that accompanying documentation is written in clear, plain language, so that it can be easily understood by all;</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">make sure that data are fully described, and that data users have sufficient information to understand their source, strengths, weaknesses, and any analytical limitations;</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">ensure that open datasets include consistent core metadata, and are made available in human- and machine-readable formats under an open and unrestrictive licence;</li>
<li>allow users to provide feedback, and continue to make revisions to ensure the quality of the data is improved as needed; and</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">apply consistent information lifecycle management practices, and ensure historical copies of datasets are preserved, archived, and kept accessible as long as they retain value.</li></ul>
<p> </p>
<h3>Principle 3: Accessible and Usable by All</h3>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>20)</strong> We recognise that opening up data enables citizens, governments, civil society organisations, and the private sector to make better informed decisions.</p>
<p><strong>21)</strong> We recognise that open data should be made available free of charge in order to encourage their widest possible use.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>22)</strong> We recognise that when open data are released, they should be made available without bureaucratic or administrative barriers, such as mandatory user registration, which can deter people from accessing the data.</p>
<p><strong>23)</strong> We will:</p>
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify;">release data in open formats and free of charge to ensure that the data are available to the widest range of users to find, access, and use them. In many cases, this will include providing data in multiple formats, so that they can be processed by computers and used by people; and</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">ensure data can be accessed and used effectively by the widest range of users. This may require the creation of initiatives to raise awareness of open data, promote data literacy, and build capacity for effective use of open data.</li></ul>
<p> </p>
<h3>Principle 4: Engagement and Empowerment of Citizens</h3>
<p> </p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>24)</strong> We recognise that the release of open data strengthens our public and democratic institutions, encourages better development, implementation, and assessment of policies to meet the needs of our citizens, and enables more meaningful, better informed engagement between governments and citizens.</p>
<p><strong>25)</strong> We will:</p>
<ul>
<li>implement oversight and review processes to report regularly on the progress and impact of our open data initiatives;</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">engage with community and civil society representatives working in the domain of transparency and accountability to determine what data they need to effectively hold governments to account;encourage the use of open data to develop innovative, evidence-based policy solutions that benefit all members of society, as well as empower marginalised groups; and</li>
<li>be transparent about our own data collection, standards, and publishing processes, by documenting all of these related processes online.</li></ul>
<p> </p>
<h3>Principle 5: Collaboration for Development and Innovation</h3>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>26)</strong> We recognise the importance of diversity in stimulating creativity and innovation. The more citizens, governments, civil society, and the private sector use open data, the greater the social and economic benefits that will be generated. This is true for government, commercial, and non-commercial uses.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>27)</strong> We recognise that the potential value of our open data is greatly increased when it can be used in combination with open data from other governments, the private sector, academic, media, civil society, and other non-governmental organisations.</p>
<p><strong>28)</strong> We will:</p>
<ul>
<li style="text-align: justify;">create or explore potential partnerships to support the release of open data and maximise their impact through effective use. This may include local, regional, and global partnerships between governments, civil society, and the private sector;</li>
<li>engage with civil society, the private sector, and academic representatives to determine what data they need to generate social and economic value;</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">provide training programs, tools, and guidelines designed to ensure government employees are capable of using open data effectively in policy development processes;</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">encourage non-governmental organisations to open up data created and collected by them in order to move toward a richer open data ecosystem with multiple sources of open data;</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">share technical expertise and experience with other governments and international organisations around the world, so that everyone can reap the benefits of open data; and</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">empower a future generation of data innovators inside and outside of government by supporting an environment optimised for increasing open data literacy and encouraging developers, civil society organisations, academics, media representatives, government employees, and other open data users, to unlock the value of open data.</li></ul>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em>Crossposted from <a href="http://opendatacharter.net/charter/" target="_blank">http://opendatacharter.net/charter/</a>.</em></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/international-open-data-charter-first-public-draft'>http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/international-open-data-charter-first-public-draft</a>
</p>
No publishersumandroOpen DataHomepageOpenness2015-06-02T15:51:12ZBlog EntryInternational Open Data Charter: Comments by CIS
http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/international-open-data-charter-comments-by-cis
<b>The second meeting of Stewards of the International Open Data Charter is in progress in Santiago, Chile, where the revisions made to the Charter based on the comments received during the public consultation period that ended on July 31, 2015, are being re-discussed and finalised by the Stewards. Here we are sharing the comments submitted by us on the first public draft of the Charter published during the International Open Data Conference in Ottawa, Canada, in May 2015. The comments include those submitted by Sumandro and Sharath Chandra Ram.</b>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>The draft International Open Data Charter and all the submitted comments can be accessed here: <a href="http://opendatacharter.net/charter/" target="_blank">http://opendatacharter.net/charter/</a></strong></p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Comments on the Public Draft</h2>
<p><em>Note: The text below contains excerpts from the public draft of the Charter, followed by submitted comments in <strong>bold</strong>.</em></p>
<p> </p>
<p>1) The world is witnessing the growth of a global movement facilitated by technology and digital media and fuelled by information – one that contains enormous potential to create more accountable, efficient, responsive, and effective governments and businesses, and to spur economic growth.</p>
<p><strong>The word ‘movement’ can perhaps be replaced by ‘transformation.’ ‘Movement’ tends to suggest some kind of unity of purpose or objective, which is not perhaps what is meant here. Also, is it possible to add ‘transparent’ to ‘accountable, efficient, responsive, and effective’?</strong></p>
<p>Open data sit at the heart of this global movement.</p>
<p><strong>Perhaps ‘transformation’ and not ‘movement’.</strong></p>
<p>2) Building a more democratic, just, and prosperous society requires transparent, accountable governments that engage regularly and meaningfully with citizens. Accordingly, there is an ongoing effort to enable collaboration around key social challenges, to provide effective oversight of government activities, to support economic development through innovation, and to develop effective, efficient public policies and programmes.</p>
<p><strong>Perhaps insert ‘sustainable’ before ‘economic development’. In the second sentence, none of the action phrases (‘enable collaboration’ and ‘effective oversight’ and ‘innovation’ and ‘develop effective, efficient’) are speaking about either democracy or justice. The focus seems to be completely on effectiveness. Phrases like ‘transparent’, ‘accountable’, and ‘participatory’ should be introduced here.</strong></p>
<p>Open data is essential to meeting these challenges.</p>
<p><strong>The above point clarifies why ‘data is essential’ but not why ‘open data is essential’. The connection between democracy and justice on one hand, and open data on the other is not yet articulated clearly.</strong></p>
<p>3) Effective access to data allows individuals and organisations to develop new insights and innovations that can generate social and economic benefits to improve the lives of people around the world, and help to improve the flow of information within and between countries. While governments collect a wide range of data, they do not always share these data in ways that are easily discoverable, useable, or understandable by the public.</p>
<p><strong>Along with allowing ‘insights’ and ‘innovations’ to develop, can it also be highlighted that open data make decisions and processes transparent?</strong></p>
<p>This is a missed opportunity.</p>
<p><strong>I agree with above comments that it is perhaps better to articulate this not as ‘missed opportunity’ but to highlight this as the very ‘opportunity’ that the open data agenda is interested in capturing.</strong></p>
<p>4) Today, many people expect to be able to access high quality information and services, including government data, when and how they want. Others see the opportunity presented by government data as one which can provide innovative policy solutions and support economic and social benefits for all members of society. We have arrived at a point at which people can use open data to generate value, insights, ideas, and services to create a better world for all.</p>
<p><strong>This point may also mention that some people are interested in using government data to open up government decisions and processes and make them transparent, which is a necessary condition for making the government accountable.</strong></p>
<p>6) Providing access to government data can drive sustainable and inclusive growth by empowering citizens, the media, civil society, and the private sector to identify gaps, and work toward better outcomes for public services in areas such as health, education, public safety, environmental protection, and governance. Open data can do this by:</p>
<p><strong>Perhaps ‘democratic participation’ can be added after ‘sustainable and inclusive growth’. That is: ‘Providing access to government data can drive sustainable and inclusive growth, and democratic participation, by empowering citizens…’</strong></p>
<p>7) Open government data can be used in innovative ways to create useful tools and products that help to navigate modern life more easily. Used in this way, open data are a catalyst for innovation in the private sector, supporting the creation of new markets, businesses, and jobs. These benefits can multiply as more private sector and civil society organisations adopt open data practices modelled by government and share their own data with the public.</p>
<p><strong>The incentive for private sector and CSOs to open up data is not clear. Overall benefit may rise with them opening up data, but how does a private company / CSO benefit by opening up its data?</strong></p>
<p>8) We, the adherents to the International Open Data Charter, agree that open data are an under-used resource with huge potential to encourage the building of stronger, more interconnected societies that better meet the needs of our citizens and allow innovation and prosperity to flourish.</p>
<p><strong>Along with ‘stronger’ and ‘more interconnected’, please mention ‘more transparent’ and ‘more democratic’. Also it is not clear what is meant by ‘stronger’. ‘[B]etter meet the needs of our citizens’ does not necessarily suggest a more democratic or just society, but a more effective welfare distribution system. Please add ‘… and empower the citizens to ensure accountability of the government.’</strong></p>
<p>9) We therefore agree to follow a set of principles that will be the foundation for access to, and the release and use of, open government data. These principles are:</p>
<ol><li>Open Data by Default;</li>
<li>Quality and Quantity;</li>
<li>Accessible and Useable by All;</li>
<li>Engagement and Empowerment of Citizens;</li>
<li>Collaboration for Development and Innovation</li></ol>
<p><strong>Does it makes sense to remove the ‘Quantity and Quality’ point and merging it with ‘Accessible and Usable by All’? Data quantity and quality issues, along with those related to publication of data, can all logically follow under the topic of data access and use. For example, highly aggregated data published once a year without documentation is not really usable data.</strong></p>
<p>10) We will develop an action plan in support of the implementation of the Charter and its Technical Annexes, and will update and renew the action plan at a minimum of every two years. We agree to commit the necessary resources to work within our political and legal frameworks to implement these principles in accordance with the technical best practices and timeframes set out in our action plan.</p>
<p><strong>We (at CIS) strongly feel that the Charter should also prescribe that along with the national Action Plan, Open Data Citizen’s Charters are created for various levels and verticals of the government. This will clarify data publication responsibilities and targets at ministerial and sub-national (including city) governmental levels, and will allow for much more effective monitoring (national and international) of the Action Plan implementation process.</strong></p>
<p><strong>‘[A]t a minimum of every two years’ reads a bit unclear. Does it mean that the Action Plan should be renewed only after two years and not before, or that the Action Plan should be renewed every two years or before that?</strong></p>
<p>11) We recognise that free access to, and the subsequent use of, government data are of significant value to society and the economy, and that government data should, therefore, be open by default.</p>
<p><strong>Along with clarifying the scope of ‘government data,’ the idea of ‘open’ in the context of data needs a clear definition as an independent point. The document is getting into ‘open by default’ without clarifying what is ‘open’, including both necessary and sufficient conditions.</strong></p>
<p>12) We acknowledge the need to promote the global development and adoption of tools and policies for the creation, use, and exchange of open data and information.</p>
<p><strong>I agree with Mike Linksvayer. This is a great opportunity for the Charter to connect the open data agenda with the wider open agendas, especially that of free and open source softwares. It is very important that this point promotes ‘global development of free and open source tools’.</strong></p>
<p><strong>Extending the comment by Jose Subero, along with ‘tools’ and ‘policies’, it will be great to have a mention of ‘standards’ here, which is critical for ensuring ‘interoperability’ and thus ‘harmonisation’.</strong></p>
<p>13) We recognise that the term ‘government data’ is meant in the widest sense possible. This could apply to data held by national, federal, and local governments, international government bodies, and other types of institutions in the wider public sector. This could also apply to data created for governments by external organisations, and data of significant benefit to the public which is held by external organisations and related to government programmes and services (e.g. data on extractives entities, data on transportation infrastructure, etc).</p>
<p><strong>It is wonderful that the point promotes a wide understanding of ‘government data’ but at the same time it should also define a necessary core understanding of data, just to ensure that governments do not interpret this point too narrowly.</strong></p>
<p><strong>Further, a focus only on data created by public agencies can perhaps be too narrow (for the necessary/core understanding of ‘government data’). With public services delivered increasingly by private agencies and public-private-partnerships, it is crucial that ‘government data’ should explicitly include any data coming out of a process funded by public money (the process may be carried out by a public agency or not). This is an extremely important point from a developing country perspective.</strong></p>
<p>14) We recognise that there is domestic and international legislation, in particular pertaining to security, privacy, confidentiality, intellectual property, and personally-identifiable and other sensitive information, which must be observed and/or updated where necessary.</p>
<p><strong>From a developing country perspective, it is very important that the Charter does not keep this critical point dependent on domestic and international legislations. International legislation may not be very developed for all of the mentioned topics, and many countries may not have existing domestic legislations on these topics either. The Charter should mention an internationally acceptable list of concerns / criteria for not opening up data. The list may include the topics mentioned here, like privacy and national security. This need not be a list of sufficient criteria, but of necessary ones.</strong></p>
<p>15) We will:</p>
<ul><li>develop and adopt policies and practices to ensure that all government data is made open by default, as outlined in this Charter, while recognising that there are legitimate reasons why some data cannot be released;</li></ul>
<p><strong>'Administrative reforms’ are most often crucial to make government data ‘open by default, and the same should be mentioned along with ‘policies’ and ‘practices’.</strong></p>
<ul><li>provide clear justifications as to why certain data cannot be released;</li></ul>
<p><strong>This is a great point. Perhaps it can be added that all government agencies should produce a list of all data assets maintained by them, point out the ones that cannot be made open, and provide clear justification as to why those cannot be released. This comment pre-empts 19.1. Perhaps this point about providing justification for not releasing data can be merged with 19.1.</strong></p>
<ul><li>develop the leadership, management, oversight, and internal communication policies necessary to enable this transition to a culture of openness.</li></ul>
<p><strong>Along with ‘leadership, management, oversight, and internal communication’, is it possible to add ‘incentives’? This is often overlooked in implementing open data policies.</strong></p>
<p>16) We recognise that governments and other public sector organisations hold vast amounts of information that may be of interest to citizens, and that it may take time to identify data for release or publication.</p>
<p>17) We also recognise the importance of consulting with citizens, other governments, non-governmental organisations, and other open data users, to identify which data to prioritise for release and/or improvement.</p>
<p>18) We agree, however, that governments’ primary responsibility should be to release data in a timely manner, without undue delay.</p>
<p><strong>Points 16-18 seem to suggest that the ‘quantity and quality’ issue is mostly one of prioritisation. This can be misleading. This is perhaps the ‘quantity’ issue, but not at all the ‘quality’ issue.</strong></p>
<p>19) We will:</p>
<ul><li>...</li>
<li>release high-quality open data that are timely, comprehensive, and accurate in accordance with prioritisation that is informed by public requests. To the extent possible, data will be released in their original, unmodified form and at the finest level of granularity available, and will also be linked to any visualisations or analyses created based on the data, as well as any relevant guidance or documentation;</li></ul>
<p><strong>Please add ‘human- and machine-readable’ along with ‘timely, comprehensive, and accurate’.</strong></p>
<p><strong>Put ‘, and’ between ‘, and accurate’ and ‘in accordance’.</strong></p>
<p><strong>‘Relevant guidance or documentation’ should be mentioned before, and not after, ‘visualisations or analyses’.</strong></p>
<ul><li>ensure that accompanying documentation is written in clear, plain language, so that it can be easily understood by all;</li></ul>
<p><strong>Add that the documentation should be ‘comprehensive’, along with being written in plain language.</strong></p>
<ul><li>make sure that data are fully described, and that data users have sufficient information to understand their source, strengths, weaknesses, and any analytical limitations;</li></ul>
<p><strong>Regarding ‘Full description of data’ — Aggregate data must be accompanied by low level raw data along with details of analytical methods used to arrive at figures. This allows for verification as well as alternate views and detection of statistical anomalies.</strong></p>
<ul><li>ensure that open datasets include consistent core metadata, and are made available in human- and machine-readable formats under an open and unrestrictive licence;</li></ul>
<p><strong>Is this the necessary definition of ‘open data’? If so, it should be much higher up.</strong></p>
<ul><li>allow users to provide feedback, and continue to make revisions to ensure the quality of the data is improved as needed; and</li></ul>
<p><strong>This point should clarify if it is talking about making revisions of the data itself (its content), or how it is being published (its form), or both?</strong></p>
<ul><li>apply consistent information lifecycle management practices, and ensure historical copies of datasets are preserved, archived, and kept accessible as long as they retain value.</li></ul>
<p><strong>The ‘as long as they retain value’ part seems vague. Who is going to take this decision about value? Is it possible to rephrase this as ‘as long as they are demanded by data users’?</strong></p>
<p>21) We recognise that open data should be made available free of charge in order to encourage their widest possible use.</p>
<p><strong>Maybe ‘government data’ and not ‘open data’ (open data already means it is available gratis). Also, along with ‘free of charge’ maybe add ‘under open license’, as that is a critical requirement for ‘widest possible use.’</strong></p>
<p>22) We recognise that when open data are released, they should be made available without bureaucratic or administrative barriers, such as mandatory user registration, which can deter people from accessing the data.</p>
<p><strong>I strongly believe that this point should be removed. Registration of the data user can also be very useful for the government agencies to track demand and actual usage of their datasets. Instead of the government agencies doing such kind of tracking as a background process, it is much better if the data usage monitoring of all users is done transparently. Along with perhaps a public dashboard of data usages of the users of an open data portal. As long as the registration barrier does not involve an approval process by the government agency, it can be allowed.</strong></p>
<p><strong>A more general point should be added as part of this principle, regarding no-discrimination (or approval process) among data users interested in accessing and using of open government data.</strong></p>
<p>23) We will:</p>
<ul><li>release data in open formats and free of charge to ensure that the data are available to the widest range of users to find, access, and use them. In many cases, this will include providing data in multiple formats, so that they can be processed by computers and used by people; and</li></ul>
<p><strong>Please add ‘open license’ along with ‘open formats’ and ‘free of charge’.</strong></p>
<p>24) We recognise that the release of open data strengthens our public and democratic institutions, encourages better development, implementation, and assessment of policies to meet the needs of our citizens, and enables more meaningful, better informed engagement between governments and citizens.</p>
<p><strong>Perhaps add ‘, and makes them transparent’ after ‘strengthens our public and democratic institutions’. Please also add ‘monitoring’ along with ‘development, implementation, and assessment’.</strong></p>
<p>25) We will:</p>
<ul><li>implement oversight and review processes to report regularly on the progress and impact of our open data initiatives;</li></ul>
<p><strong>The functioning of these ‘oversight and review processes’ must be open and transparent themselves. The reporting should be public.</strong></p>
<ul><li>engage with community and civil society representatives working in the domain of transparency and accountability to determine what data they need to effectively hold governments to account; encourage the use of open data to develop innovative, evidence-based policy solutions that benefit all members of society, as well as empower marginalised groups; and</li></ul>
<p><strong>This must also include a point regarding the government proactively seeking data demands from citizens, CSOs, academics, and the private sector.</strong></p>
<p><strong>‘as well as empower marginalised groups’ is too vague. Perhaps it can be made into a separate point, and qualified with what kinds of empowerment is needed – from demanding data, to accessing and using data, to be aware of the data collected from such groups by the government agencies.</strong></p>
<ul><li>be transparent about our own data collection, standards, and publishing processes, by documenting all of these related processes online.</li></ul>
<p><strong>This should be part of point 19.</strong></p>
<p>26) We recognise the importance of diversity in stimulating creativity and innovation. The more citizens, governments, civil society, and the private sector use open data, the greater the social and economic benefits that will be generated. This is true for government, commercial, and non-commercial uses.</p>
<p><strong>The diversity point is almost already made with points 20-21 – widest possible users lead to widest possible use.</strong></p>
<p>28) We will:</p>
<ul><li>...</li>
<li>engage with civil society, the private sector, and academic representatives to determine what data they need to generate social and economic value;</li></ul>
<p><strong>This is also covered under the Principle 3.</strong></p>
<ul><li>provide training programs, tools, and guidelines designed to ensure government employees are capable of using open data effectively in policy development processes;</li></ul>
<p><strong>This should be part of Principle 1.</strong></p>
<ul><li>encourage non-governmental organisations to open up data created and collected by them in order to move toward a richer open data ecosystem with multiple sources of open data;</li></ul>
<p><strong>I agree with ABS. Why not ‘non-governmental organisations and the private sector’?</strong></p>
<p><strong>Also the document shifts back and forth between ‘civil society organisations’ and ‘non-governmental organisations’. If both mean the same in this document, then it should use only one.</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<h2>General Comments on the Charter</h2>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>1. Why not merge the Principle 4 and 5 so as to describe an overall situation of engagement and collaboration. The ends can be commercial acts or towards democratic practices, but the existing principles do not make much a difference between the two types of acts.</strong></p>
<p><strong>2. Further, can a new principle be added at the end that would address the implementation process of the Action Plan? Specifically, it should clarify how the implementation itself be an open process, with not only the Action Plan but annual reports regarding the status of implementation. This principle may connect to the work being done by the Implementation WG.</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/international-open-data-charter-comments-by-cis'>http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/international-open-data-charter-comments-by-cis</a>
</p>
No publishersumandroOpen DataOpen Government DataFeaturedPoliciesOpennessInternational Open Data Charter2015-09-08T11:01:01ZBlog EntryInternational Open Data Charter, Consultation Meeting, Delhi, July 09, 5:30 pm
http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/international-open-data-charter-consultation-delhi-09072015
<b></b>
<p> </p>
<p>This is to invite you to a consultation meeting on the first public draft of the International Open Data Charter, at the CIS office in Delhi, on Thursday, July 09, 2015, at 5:30 pm.</p>
<p>The Charter is being developed by the Open Data Working Group of the Open Government Partnership in consultation with a number of international organisations. Meant for approval and implementation by national governments, the Charter has five key principles:</p>
<ul>
<li>Open by Default;</li>
<li>Quality and Quantity;</li>
<li>Useable by All;</li>
<li>Engagement and Empowerment of Citizens; and</li>
<li>Collaboration for Development and Innovation.</li></ul>
<p>The first public draft of the International Open Data Charter was published in end of May 2015 at the International Open Data Conference in
Ottawa, and can be accessed here: <a href="http://opendatacharter.net/charter/" target="_blank">http://opendatacharter.net/charter/</a>.</p>
<p>Organisations and individuals are invited to submit comments directly on the Charter page, before July 31.</p>
<p>CIS, acting as a general steward of the Charter and a consultation lead, is organising this meeting to discuss the context, the drafting process, and the objectives of this document, and to encourage the participants to comment on the existing text of the Charter.</p>
<p>We keenly look forward to your participation in the consultation meeting on Thursday.</p>
<p>The CIS office address is G 15, Top floor, behind Hauz Khas G Block Market, Hauz Khas, New Delhi 110016.</p>
<p>If you are coming down Aurobindo Marg from AIIMS and towards IIT, then take the left turn into Chaudhary Dalip Singh Marg and come towards the Hauz Khas Police Station, stop when you see a Southy outlet on your right, and enter through the gate on your left (opposite Southy). The CIS office is on the top floor of the first house on your left. <a href="https://goo.gl/maps/kcJoq" target="_blank">Location on Google Map</a>.</p>
<p>Please share this invitation with all relevant individuals, organisations, and networks.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/international-open-data-charter-consultation-delhi-09072015'>http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/international-open-data-charter-consultation-delhi-09072015</a>
</p>
No publishersumandroOpen DataOpen Government DataInternational Open Data CharterOpenness2015-07-07T12:12:50ZEventInternational Open Data Charter, Consultation Meeting, Bengaluru, July 28, 5:30 pm
http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/international-open-data-charter-consultation-bengaluru-28072015
<b></b>
<p> </p>
<p>This is to invite you to a consultation meeting on the first public draft of the International Open Data Charter organised by CIS with <a href="http://www.datakind.org/howitworks/datachapters/datakind-blr/" target="_blank">DataKind</a> and <a href="http://datameet.org/" target="_blank">DataMeet</a> at the CIS office in Bengaluru, on Tuesday, July 28, 2015, at 5:30 pm.</p>
<p>The Charter is being developed by the Open Data Working Group of the Open Government Partnership in consultation with a number of international organisations. Meant for approval and implementation by national governments, the Charter has five key principles:</p>
<ul>
<li>Open by Default;</li>
<li>Quality and Quantity;</li>
<li>Useable by All;</li>
<li>Engagement and Empowerment of Citizens; and</li>
<li>Collaboration for Development and Innovation.</li></ul>
<p>The first public draft of the International Open Data Charter was published in end of May 2015 at the International Open Data Conference in
Ottawa, and can be accessed here: <a href="http://opendatacharter.net/charter/" target="_blank">http://opendatacharter.net/charter/</a>.</p>
<p>Organisations and individuals are invited to submit comments directly on the Charter page, before July 31.</p>
<p>We are organising this meeting to discuss the context, the drafting process, and the objectives of this document, and to encourage the participants to comment on the existing text of the Charter.</p>
<p>We keenly look forward to your participation in the consultation meeting on Tuesday.</p>
<p>The CIS office address is Number 194, 2nd 'C' Cross, Domlur, 2nd Stage, Bangalore 560071 (opposite Domlur Club and near the TERI building).</p>
<p>Please share this invitation with all relevant individuals, organisations, and networks.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/international-open-data-charter-consultation-bengaluru-28072015'>http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/international-open-data-charter-consultation-bengaluru-28072015</a>
</p>
No publishersumandroOpen DataInternational Open Data CharterOpenness2015-08-21T05:45:53ZEventInputs to the Report on the Non-Personal Data Governance Framework
http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/inputs-to-report-on-non-personal-data-governance-framework
<b>This submission presents a response by researchers at the Centre for Internet and Society, India (CIS) to the draft Report on Non-Personal Data Governance Framework prepared by the Committee of Experts under the Chairmanship of Shri Kris Gopalakrishnan. The inputs are authored by Aayush Rathi, Aman Nair, Ambika Tandon, Pallavi Bedi, Sapni Krishna, and Shweta Mohandas (in alphabetical order), and reviewed by Sumandro Chattapadhyay.</b>
<p> </p>
<h4>Text of submitted inputs: <a href="https://cis-india.org/raw/files/cis-inputs-to-report-on-non-personal-data-governance-framework" target="_blank">Read</a> (PDF)</h4>
<h4>Report by the Committee of Experts on Non-Personal Data Governance Framework: <a href="https://static.mygov.in/rest/s3fs-public/mygov_159453381955063671.pdf" target="_blank">Read</a> (PDF)</h4>
<hr />
<h2>Inputs</h2>
<h3>Clause 3.7 (v): The role of the Indian government in the operation of data markets</h3>
<p>While highlighting the potential for India to be one of the top consumer and data markets of the world, it also sheds light on the concern about the possibility of data monopolies. The clause envisions the role of the Indian government as a regulator and a catalyst for domestic data markets.</p>
<p>In doing so, the clause does not acknowledge that the proactive and dominant roles of the Indian government in generation and reuse of data, based on the existing data collection practices, as well as the provisions that have been given, as under the compulsory sharing provisions in the Report, and would continue to be given by the Personal Data Protection Bill. In reality, the Indian government’s role is not just of a catalyst but also of a key player, potentially with monopolistic market power, in the domestic data market, especially due to the ongoing data marketplace initiatives as detailed in published policy and vision documents. [1]</p>
<h3>Clause 3.8 (iv): Introducing collective privacy</h3>
<p>The introduction of collective privacy has initiated an overdue discussion at the policy level to arrive at privacy formulations that account for limitations in the contemporary dominant social, legal and ethical paradigms of privacy premised on individual interests and personal harm. The notion of collective privacy has garnered contemporary attention with the rise of data processing technologies and business models that thrive on the collection and processing of aggregate information.</p>
<p>While the Report acknowledges that collective privacy is an evolving concept, it doesn’t attempt to define either collective or what privacy could entail in the context of a collective. The postulation of collective privacy as a legally binding right is bereft with challenges in both domestic and international legal frameworks. [2]</p>
<p>Central to these challenges is the representation of the group of the entity. While the Report illustrates harms that may be incurred by certain collectives that collective privacy could protect against, these illustrated collectives are already recognised in law as rights-holding groups (society members, for example), and/or share pre-determined attributes (sexual orientation, for example).</p>
<p>The Report does not acknowledge that the very technological processes that may have rendered the articulation of collective privacy necessary, also are intended to create ad-hoc and newer sets of individuals or groups with shared attributes. [3] In doing so, the Report furthers an ontology of groups having intuitive, predetermined attributes that exist naturally, or in law, whereas the intervention of data collection and processing technologies can determine shared group attributes afresh. Moreover, the Report also ignores that predetermined attributes are static, and in doing so, ignores a vast existing literature speaking to fluidity of identities and the intersectionality of identities that individuals in groups occupy. [4] We fully appreciate the challenges these pose in the determination of the legal contours of collective privacy. Much of the Report’s recommendations are premised on the idea of a predetermined collective, rendering more granular exploration of these ideas urgent.</p>
<p>Further, the Report also puts forth a limited conception of privacy as a safeguard against data-related harms that may be caused to collectives. In doing so, it dilutes the conceptualisation of individual privacy as articulated in Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. vs Union Of India And Ors. Notwithstanding this dilution, the illustrations also only indicate harms that may be caused by private actors. Any further recommendations should envision the harms that may also be caused by public data-driven processes, such as those incubated within the state machinery.</p>
<h3>Clause 4.1 (iii) and Recommendation 1: Defining Non-Personal Data</h3>
<p>The Report proposes the definition of non-personal data to include (i) data that was never related to an identified or identifiable natural person, and (ii) aggregated, anonymised personal data such that individual events are “no longer identifiable”. In doing so, they have attempted to extend protections to categories of data that fall outside the ambit of the Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019 (hereafter “PDP Bill”). The Report is cognizant of the fallible nature of anonymization techniques but fails to indicate how these may be addressed.
The test of anonymization in regarding data as non-personal data requires further clarification. Anonymization, in and of itself, is an ambiguous standard. Scholarship has indicated that anonymised data may never be completely anonymous. [5] Despite this, the PDP Bill proposes a high threshold of zero-risk of anonymization in relation to personal data, to mean “such irreversible process of transforming or converting personal data to a form in which a data principal cannot be identified”. From a plain reading, it appears that the Report proposes a lower threshold of the anonymization requirements governing non-personal data. It is unclear how non-personal data would then be different from inferred data as described within the definition of personal data under the PDP Bill. This adds regulatory uncertainty making it imperative for the Committee to articulate bright-line, risk-based principles and rules for the test of anonymization. Such rules should also indicate the factors that ought to be taken into account to determine whether anonymization has occurred and the timescale of reference for anonymization outcomes. [6]</p>
<p>The recommendation also states that the data principal should "also provide consent for anonymisation and usage of this anonymized data while providing consent for collection and usage of his/her personal data". However the framing of this recommendation fails to mention the responsibility of the data fiduciary to provide notice to the data principal about the usage of the anonymized data while seeking the data principal’s consent for anonymization. The notice provided to the data principal should provide clear indication that consent of the data principal is based on their knowledge of the use of the anonymized data.</p>
<h3>Clause 4.8 (i), (ii): Function of data custodians</h3>
<p>The Report does not make it clear who may perform the role of data custodians. The use of data fiduciary indicates the potential import of the definition of ‘data fiduciary’ as specified under Clause 3.13 of the PDP Bill. However, this needs to be further clarified.</p>
<h3>Clause 4.8 (iii): Data custodians’ “duty of care”</h3>
As is outlined in the following section on data trustees, it can be difficult for a singular entity to maintain a duty of care and undertake actions with the best interest of a community when that community consists of sub-communities that may be marginalised.
Further, ‘duty of care’, ‘best interest’, and ‘absence of harm’ are not sufficient standards for data processing by data custodians. Recommendations to the effect of obligating data custodians to uphold the rights of data principals, including economic and fundamental rights need to be incorporated in the framework.
<h3>Clause 4.9: Data trustees</h3>
<p>The committee’s suggestion that the “most appropriate representative body” should be the data trustee—that often being either the corresponding government entity or community body— is reasonable at face value. However, in the absence of any clear principles defining what constitutes “most appropriate” there are a number of potential issues that can appear:</p>
<p><strong>Lack of means for selecting a data trustee:</strong> The report makes note of the fact that both private and public entities can be selected to be data trustees but offers no principles on how these data trustees can be selected, i.e. whether they are to be directly selected by the members of a community, and if so how. Any selection criteria or process prescribed has to keep in mind the following point regarding the potential lack of representation for marginalised communities that could arise from a direct selection of a data trustee by a group of people.</p>
<p><strong>Issues of having a single data trustee for large scale communities and when dealing with marginalised communities:</strong> The report assumes that in instances wherein a community is spread across a geographic region, or consists of multiple sub-communities, then the data trustee will be the closest shared government authority (for example, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India being the data trustee for data regarding diabetes among Indian citizens).</p>
<p><strong>This idea of a singular data trustee assumes that the ‘best interests’ of a community are uniform across that community. This can prove problematic especially when dealing with data obtained from marginalised communities that forms a part of a wider dataset.</strong> It is entirely possible to imagine that a smaller disenfranchised community may have interests that are not aligned with the general majority. In such a situation the Report is unclear as to whether the data trustee would have to ensure that the best interests of all groups are maintained, or would they be responsible for ensuring the best interests of the largest number of people within that community.
There are power differentials between citizens, government agencies, and other entities described by the Report. This places citizens at risk of abuse of power by government entities in their role as trustees, who are effectively being empowered through this policy framework as opposed to a representative mechanism. It is recommended that data trustees be appointed by relevant communities through clear and representative mechanisms. Additionally, any individual should be able to file complaints regarding the discharge of community trust by data trustees. This is necessary as any subsequent rights vested in the community can only be exercised through the data trustee, and become unenforceable in the lack of an appropriate data trustee.</p>
<p>Any legislation that arises on the basis of this report will therefore have to not only provide a means for selecting the data trustee, but also safeguards for ensuring that data collected from marginalised communities are used keeping in mind their specific best interests—with these best interests being informed through consultation with that community.</p>
<h3>Clause 4.10 (iii): Data trusts</h3>
<p>Section 4.10 (iii) notes that data custodians may voluntarily share data in these data trusts. However it is unclear if such sharing must be done with the express consent of the relevant data trustee.</p>
<h3>Clause 4.10 (iv): Mandatory sharing and competition</h3>
<p>The fundamental premise of a mandatory data sharing regime seems increasingly distant from its practical impacts. The EU which earlier championed the cause now seems reluctant to further it on the face of studies which skews towards counteractive impacts of such steps. Such steps could apply to huge volumes of first-party data companies collect on their own assets, products and services, even though such data are among the least likely to create barriers to entry or contribute to abuses of dominant positions. [7] This is hence likely to bring in more chilling effect on innovation and investment than a pro-competition environment. The velocity of big data also adds to the futility of such data sharing mandates. [8] It is recommended that a sectoral analysis of this mandate be undertaken instead of an overarching stipulation.</p>
<p>The Report suggests extensive data sharing without addressing the extent of obligation on the private players to submit to these requests and process them. The availability of meta-data about the data collected may be made easily accessible under mandates of transparency. However, the access to the detailed underlying data will be difficult in most cases due to the current structure of entities functioning in cyberspace, evidenced by the lack of compliance to such mandates by Courts of Law in the EU. Such a system can easily eliminate the comparative advantage of smaller players, helping larger players with more money at their disposal enabling their growth and throttling the smaller players. It could have serious implications on data quality and integrity through the sharing of erroneous data. Access to superior quality digital services in India may also have to be compromised. If this regime is furthered without amends to address these concerns, it might end up counter productive.</p>
<h3>Clause 5.1 (iv): Grievance redressal against state’s role</h3>
<p>This clause acknowledges the vast potential for government authorities and other bodies to abuse their power as data trustee. In addition, it should describe the setting up of impartial and accessible mechanisms for citizens to complain against such abuse of power and appropriate penalties, including the removal of the data trustee.</p>
<h3>Chapter 7, Recommendation 5: Purpose of data-sharing</h3>
<p>Recommendation 5 leaves scope for “national security” as a sovereign purpose for data sharing. This continues to be in line with the trend of having an overarching national security clause, as in the Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019. There could be provisions made to enable access to data for sovereign purposes without such broad definition, replacing it based on constitutional terms which will limit it to the confines laid down in the Constitution. This will effectively curb any misuse of the provision and strongly embed the proposed regulation of non-personal data on constitutional ethos. This can also prevent future conflicts with the fundamental rights.</p>
<p>Platform companies have leveraged their position in society to take on an ever-greater number of quasi-public functions, exercising new forms of unaccountable, transnational authority. It is not difficult to imagine that this trend can continue to non-platform companies, or even taken forward by these very entities which also have access to a large chunk of non-personal data. A strict division between sovereign purposes and core public interest purposes seems difficult. However, it is imperative to have a clearer definition of core public interest purposes and sovereign purposes. The broad based definition may facilitate reduced accountability. Separating government actions from sovereign purposes could bring forth the power imbalance between the State and its people, while in the case of the non-governmental entities, it will facilitate encroachment of government functions by private players. Both these cases may not consider the best interest of the data generators, or the people at large.</p>
<h3>Clause 7.1 (i): Data needs of law enforcement</h3>
<p>Clause 7.1 (i) allows for acquisition of data governed by this framework for crime mapping, devising anticipation and preventive measures, and for investigations and law enforcement. While this may be necessary to be granted to law enforcement in certain cases, this should happen only with an express permission of a court of law. Blanket executive access allows higher possibility of misuse by the people involved in law enforcement.</p>
<h3>Clause 7.2 (iv): Use of health data as a pilot</h3>
<p>The clause suggests the use of health sector data as a pilot use-case. This is highly undesirable due to the inherent nature of high sensitivity of the larger part of data related to the health sector. The high vulnerability of such data to harm the data principals should act as a deterrent in using this as the pilot use-case. Given the mass availability of data related to the health sector due to the pandemic, it creates further points of vulnerabilities which can be illegally monetised and misappropriated. It is recommended that this proposal be scrapped altogether.</p>
<h3>Clause 7.2 (iii): Power of government bodies</h3>
<p>As per this clause, data trustees or government bodies (who could also be acting as data trustees) can make requests for data sharing and place such data in appropriate data infrastructures or trusts. This presents a conflict of interest, as a data trust or government body can empower itself to be the data trustee. Such cases should be addressed within the scope of the framework.</p>
<h3>Clause 8.2 (vii): Level-playing field for all Indian actors</h3>
<p>In terms of this clause the “Non-Personal Data Authority (Authority) will ensure a level playing field for all Indian actors to fulfil the objective of maximising Indian data’s value to the Indian economy”. The emphasis on ensuring a level playing field for only Indian actors instead of non-discriminatory platform for all concerned actors irrespective of the country/nationality of the actor has the potential of violating India’s trade obligations under the WTO. Member states of the WTO are essentially restricted from discriminating between products and services coming from different WTO Members, and between foreign and domestic products and services unless they can avail of exceptions. There is also no clarity on what constitutes ‘Indian Actors’, would a Multi-National Corporation with its headquarters in a foreign State, but its subsidiaries in India also come within its ambit.</p>
<h3>Clause 8.2 (x): Composition of the Authority</h3>
<p>Clause 8.2 (x) states that the Authority will have some members with relevant industry experience. However, apart from this clause, the report is silent on the composition of the Authority. The report recognises that Authority will need individuals/organisations with specialised knowledge, i.e. data governance, technology, latest research and innovation in the field of non-personal data), however, it does not mention or refer to the role of civil society organisations and the need for representation from such organisations in the Authority.</p>
<p>The report frequently alludes to non-personal data being used for the best interest of the data principal and therefore, it is essential that the composition of the Authority reflect the inherent asymmetry of power between the data principal and the State. Considering that the Authority will also be responsible for sharing of community data and with determining the code of conduct for sharing of such data, it is important that the Authority also has adequate representation from civil society organisations along with groups or individuals having the necessary technological and legal skills.</p>
<h3>Clause 8.2 (iii) and (vi): Roles and Responsibility of the Authority</h3>
<p>A majority of the datasets in the country comprise of ‘mixed datasets’, i.e. it consists of both personal and non-personal data. However, there is lack of clarity about the coordination between the Data Protection Authority constituted under the PDP Bill and the Non-Personal Data Authority with regard to the regulation of such datasets. The Report refers to the European Union which provides that the Non-Personal Data Regulation applies to the Non-Personal Data of mixed datasets; if the Non-Personal Data part and the personal data parts are ‘inextricably linked’, the General Data Protection Regulation apply to the whole mixed dataset. However, it is unclear whether the Report also proposes the same mechanism for the regulation of mixed datasets.</p>
<p>Further, the contours of the enforcement role of the Committee should be specified and clearly laid down. Will the Committee also have penal powers as prescribed for the Data Protection Authority under the PDP Bill? Also, will the privacy concerns emanating from the risk of re-anonymisation of data be addressed by the NPD Committee or by the DPA under the PDP Bill. Ideally, it should be specified that any such privacy concerns will fall within the domain of the DPA as the data is then converted into personal data and the DPA will be empowered to deal with such issues.</p>
<h3>Endnotes</h3>
<p>[1] See Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. (2020). National Digital Health Blueprint. Government of India. <a href="https://main.mohfw.gov.in/sites/default/files/Final%20NDHB%20report_0.pdf">https://main.mohfw.gov.in/sites/default/files/Final%20NDHB%20report_0.pdf</a>; Tandon, A. (2019). Big Data and Reproductive Health in India: A Case Study of the Mother and Child Tracking System. <a href="https://cis-india.org/raw/big-data-reproductive-health-india-mcts">https://cis-india.org/raw/big-data-reproductive-health-india-mcts</a></p>
<p>[2] Taylor, L., Floridi, L., van der Sloot, B. eds. (2017) Group Privacy: new challenges of data technologies. Dordrecht: Springer.</p>
<p>[3] Mittelstadt, B. (2017). From Individual to Group Privacy in Big Data Analytics. Philos. Technol. 30, 475–494.</p>
<p>[4] See Taylor, L., Floridi, L., van der Sloot, B. eds. (2017) Group Privacy: new challenges of data technologies. Dordrecht: Springer; Tisne, M. (n.d). The Data Delusion: Protecting Individual Data Isn't Enough When The Harm is Collective. Stanford Cyber Policy Centre. <a href="https://cyber.fsi.stanford.edu/publication/data-delusion">https://cyber.fsi.stanford.edu/publication/data-delusion</a></p>
<p>[5] Rocher, L., Hendrickx, J.M. & de Montjoye, Y. (2019). Estimating the success of re-identifications in incomplete datasets using generative models. Nat Commun 10, 3069 . <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-10933-3">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-10933-3</a></p>
<p>[6] Finck, M. & Pallas, F. (2020). They who must not be identified—distinguishing personal from non-personal data under the GDPR. International Data Privacy Law, 10 (1), 11–36. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipz026">https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipz026</a></p>
<p>[7] European Commission (2020). Communication From The Commission To The European Parliament, The Council, The European Economic And Social Committee And The Committee Of The Regions: A European strategy for data. <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1593073685620&uri=CELEX:52020DC0066">https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1593073685620&uri=CELEX:52020DC0066</a></p>
<p>[8] Modrall, Jay. (2019). Antitrust risks and Big Data. Norton Rose Fullbright. <a href="https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en-in/knowledge/publications/64c13505/antitrust-risks-and-big-data">https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en-in/knowledge/publications/64c13505/antitrust-risks-and-big-data</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/inputs-to-report-on-non-personal-data-governance-framework'>http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/inputs-to-report-on-non-personal-data-governance-framework</a>
</p>
No publishersumandroData SystemsPrivacyResearchers at WorkDigital EconomyData GovernanceSubmissions2020-12-30T09:40:52ZBlog EntryIIRC: Reflections on IRC16
http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/iirc-reflections-on-irc16
<b>The first edition of the Internet Researchers' Conference (IRC) series was held on February 26-28, 2016. It was hosted by the Centre for Political Studies at Jawaharlal Nehru University, and was supported by the CSCS Digitial Innovation Fund. Here we share our reflections on the Conference, albeit rather delayed, and lessons towards the next edition to be held in March 2017.</b>
<p> </p>
<em><strong>Note:</strong> IIRC stands for 'if I remember correctly' in ancient internet acronym culture. Thanks to Sebastian for the inspiration.</em>
<hr />
<p>For several months, we have been trying to organise our thoughts, as well as post-conference documentation efforts, emerging from the Internet Researchers' Conference 2016. We have not been very successful in either till now. And like most unsuccessful ventures, it has been a robust learning experience. We are working on giving the IRC16 Reader a final shape, before it becomes more of an academic legend. We hope to launch the beta version of the Reader in mid-September. Here, let me quickly share my reflections on IRC16, at least what I remember of it.</p>
<h3><strong>A Game of Selections</strong></h3>
<p>The Conference departed from most other academic conferences in two obvious ways: 1) the sessions were not selected by a programme committee but through votes cast by all the teams that proposed a session, and 2) the Conference programme consisted of both panel discussions and workshop sessions, and there was no requirement for the panel discussions to be structured around papers (though some sessions did involve presentation of papers). At the feedback session of the Conference, and also in conversations afterwards, it was pointed out that this manner of session selection (not based on paper abstracts, and through voting by peers) is perhaps “too democratic / too wiki-like,” which undermines the ability to curate the Conference effectively. Several participants also presented the opposite viewpoint – that a more peer-driven selection of sessions better reflects the immediate interests and priorities of the community of internet researchers who are gathering at the Conference. As one participant articulated: “we must have faith in our ignorance.”</p>
<p>We at CIS are still confident about this mode of selection but at the same time we do recognise three key concerns in conducting the selection process:</p>
<ul>
<li><strong>Anonymity:</strong> The anonymous selection process breaks down since we expect the potential participants of the Conference to share early ideas about their potential sessions, and scout for potential session team members, through the mailing list (and elsewhere) before actually submitting the panel proposal. We still prefer that participants discuss the session before proposing it, so perhaps we will have to live with the incomplete anonymity when it comes to the session selection process. Perhaps we can make the votes non-anonymous too to keep parity – that is, all the proposed sessions would be published with the names of their proposers, and all the teams will publicly indicate which other sessions they are voting for.<br /><br /></li>
<li><strong>Disciplinary capture:</strong> While peer-based voting works very well when it comes to reflecting the interests of the community, it might quite easily break down if there is a concentration of teams coming from a specific disciplinary background. How we approach research objects and questions, and hence how we appreciate how exciting a research object or question is, can be quite intimately shaped by our disciplinary locations. A dominance of a specific discipline among the peer-group (that is among all the teams that have proposed sessions) can potentially lead to a 'capture' of the Conference by research objects and questions of interest to specific disciplines. This is something we have to be more aware of when casting our votes.<br /><br /></li>
<li><strong>Peer-review before peer-votes:</strong> The process followed last year only allowed a session team to vote on the sessions proposed by other teams, but not to review and comment on those proposals. This review process is not only useful to infuse the session proposals with ideas and concerns coming from other disciplinary and methodological locations, but also to support the teams to revisit their articulation and structuring of the session before their peers start to cast votes. This is something we must aspire to do during the selection process for IRC17.</li></ul>
<h3><strong>A Clash of Disciplines</strong></h3>
<p>Continuing from the “disciplinary capture” point above, the presence of researchers and practitioners from various fields and disciplines was, according to me, the most exciting part of the IRC16, and also the part that led to significant frustration. I felt that we were able to gather people from various disciplinary backgrounds – academic and otherwise – but could not provide sufficient space or time for the inter-disciplinary conversations to a take more fuller form. We saw clear disagreements emerging between researchers coming from different disciplinary locations, though most of them did not have the opportunity to be developed into a detailed discussion.</p>
<p>This is quite a high ambition for a conference of this kind; that is given the conference was not focused narrowly on a set of topics. Nonetheless, this remains one of the key objectives of the IRC series, and we need to understand how better to create opportunities for participants to communicate their disciplinary concerns and create inter-disciplinary discussions.</p>
<p>One possible way to create context for more inter-disciplinary conversations is by requesting all the sessions’ teams to include members from different disciplines. Also, we can try to keep more open discussion space (but that means less selected sessions) to provide time for the discussions spilling over from the sessions. Thirdly, we can think of including “inter-disciplinary conversations” as one of the key themes for potential sessions of IRC17.</p>
<p>Further, though we experienced several clashes of disciplines, methods, and approaches, these were all limited to a completely anglophone intellectual environment. We failed substantially, as was pointed out by a participant at the feedback session, to create space at the Conference for Indic language practices and concerns – both for researchers and practitioners working in these languages, and the criticisms of anglophone academic framings and practices coming from such researchers and practitioners. This is something we must address proactively during the future editions of the Conference.</p>
<h3><strong>A Storm of Sessions</strong></h3>
<p>One of the often heard criticisms of the conference was regarding the decision to have parallel sessions. While the decision was taken purely to accommodate as many sessions as possible, this of course imposed an undesirable burden upon the participants to choose between two rather desirable sessions. We as organisers of IRC16 faced the same tough decision of choosing between sessions that should both be part of the Conference agenda, and conveniently decided to let the participants choose (instead of us choosing for them). It is quite likely that we would do this again, or at least would like to do this again – that is, we expect that for IRC17 too we would receive a lot of wonderful sessions and decide against a fully single-track conference.</p>
<p>The question of sessions, however, is not only one of tracks. It is also about formats. In the feedback session, there was a clear recognition of the value of “workshop” sessions – that is sessions that involved <em>all</em> the participants <em>doing</em> something – in a conference like this, which is explicitly interested in the conceptual and technical challenges of digital media research. There was also a demand that we have more workshop sessions in IRC17, as opposed to “discussion” sessions that involved paper presentations. While the original plan was that all the participants will primarily be <em>learning</em> or <em>doing</em> something at a workshop session, and will not be talking, as the discussion sessions were primarily meant for talking, the actual sessions in the Conference differed from each other essentially in terms of whether papers were presented or not.</p>
<p>Thus, it perhaps makes sense, for the IRC17 call for sessions, to not to separate out these session types in terms of workshop/discussion but in terms of paper-driven/non-paper-driven. Maybe this separation itself is avoidable and all that we need to say is that the Conference is fundamentally interested in sessions that drive conversations, both intra- and inter-disciplinary. While presentation of papers can surely drive conversations, they are not necessary at all.</p>
<h3><strong>A Feast for Researchers and Practitioners</strong></h3>
<p>A key objective, if not <em>the</em> key objective, of IRC16 was to build a temporary space for researchers and practitioners studying internet and society in India (though not necessarily from or located in India) to gather and share thoughts. While we felt that the conference has been quite effective in doing that, we have been rather clueless when it comes to sustaining the momentum of interactions that was achieved at the Conference, or documenting the various kinds and threads of conversations taking place there.</p>
<p>The first problem, we may say, is not something that CIS (as the organiser of the conference series) should be concerned with too much, since our aim and responsibility is to make possible this <em>temporary</em> space and not to host <em>all</em> conversations and collaborations coming out of it. In fact, we should <em>not</em> be interested in hosting and/or facilitating all such initiatives. The second problem, however, is a serious one for us. Since the Conference is not organised around pre-written papers, we will have to depend on the efforts by the participants either during, or after (or both) the Conference to produce an <em>output</em> that documents, narrates, and/or reflects on the conversations that took place. Such an approach, thus, is fundamentally based upon the trust that the participants will prepare and share these materials <em>after</em> the Conference. On a lighter note, we also hope that social embarrassment and pressure will also play a role here (but that only works when the majority of the participants are actually sharing).</p>
<p>There are two connected points here:</p>
<ul>
<li>While the majority of the documentation happens either at the Conference or after that, what kind of pre-Conference efforts (by the participants) would be useful in ensuring productive sessions?<br /><br /></li>
<li>Who all contribute to this post-Conference Reader? Should it be restricted to teams/people whose sessions were selected, or all who proposed a session, and/or took part in the Conference?</li></ul>
<p>A recommendation at the feedback session of IRC16 touched upon the first question, while the second question is derived from a critical question posed at the same session. The recommendation was that the teams whose sessions get selected for the Conference should share a more detailed session agenda note before the Conference to better inform the participants about the content and approach of the same. The critical question mentioned earlier was regarding the imagination of the <em>community</em> of researchers and practitioners being gathered at the Conference, and if it is only limited to the people whose sessions got selected. In our minds it is clear that everyone gathering at these conferences, and those who proposed sessions but could not attend, are all part of this imagined community, and thus should also contribute to the post-Conference Reader.</p>
<h3><strong>A Dance with Sustainability</strong></h3>
<p>IRC16 was supported very generously by the Centre for Political Studies at JNU (as part of an ongoing project titled <em>UPE2 Project: Politics on Social Media</em>), the CSCS Digital Innovation Fund, and CIS. The first provided us with the conference venue and accommodation, the second provided financial support towards food and travel expenses (and bit of accommodation too), and the third picked up all the remaining expenses and efforts. While we will keep doing what it takes to organise the next editions of IRC, we are dependent on academic and other institutes that are willing to host the event and accommodate the participants, and on various sources of funding that may be available to cover the miscellaneous expenses.</p>
<p>When we started planning for IRC16, we decided not to conceptualise this as part of an ongoing or future project – that is, the conference series should not itself become a <em>deliverable</em> under a project at CIS. While this gives us intellectual and functional independence, it entails serious financial limitations. We are of course open to the conference series becoming a site for developing or communicating a <em>deliverable</em> under an ongoing project at CIS or any other involved actor (especially the host and funding agencies) but such matters, we feel, are best discussed in a case-to-case basis. The bottom line remains that we need financial and human support to take this conference series forward. This is definitely something to be discussed further at IRC17.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/iirc-reflections-on-irc16'>http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/iirc-reflections-on-irc16</a>
</p>
No publishersumandroIRC16Researchers at WorkInternet Researcher's Conference2016-09-06T09:28:51ZBlog EntryIIIT Delhi Workshop on Center for IT and Society
http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/iiit-delhi-workshop-on-center-for-it-and-society
<b>A workshop on the upcoming Center for IT and Society in IIIT-Delhi was organised today, September 17, in the institute. The workshop highlights on the process of establishing a center on IT and Society, which will focus on studying relationships and impact of ICTs and Internet on society and the role that society plays in shaping them, particularly in India. The center will bring together faculty in various humanities and social sciences disciplines, and would also initiate interdisciplinary taught programme in IT and Social Sciences. Sumandro Chattapadhyay was invited to participate in this workshop.</b>
<p> </p>
<h4>URL: <a href="https://www.iiitd.ac.in/it-society">https://www.iiitd.ac.in/it-society</a>.</h4>
<p> </p>
<h4>Participants:</h4>
<ul>
<li>Dheeraj Sanghi, Dean Academics, IIIT-Delhi</li>
<li>Itty Abraham, National University of Singapore</li>
<li>Ravinder Kaur, IIT Delhi</li>
<li>Aaditeshwar Seth, IIT Delhi</li>
<li>Shreekant Gupta, Delhi University</li>
<li>Satish Deshpande, Delhi University</li>
<li>Geetha Venkataraman, Ambedkar University, Delhi</li>
<li>Rohit Negi, Ambedkar University, Delhi</li>
<li>Anindya Chaudhuri, Global Development Network, Delhi</li>
<li>Vibodh Parthasarathi, Jamia Millia Islamia</li>
<li>Suboor Bakht, Heidelberg Centre South Asia, Delhi</li>
<li>Dinesh Sharma, Centre for Media Studies, New Delhi</li>
<li>Odile Henry, Centre for Social Sciences and Humanities (CSH), Delhi</li>
<li>Marine Al Dahdah, Centre for Social Sciences and Humanities (CSH), Delhi</li>
<li>Biswajit Das, Jamia Millia Islamia, Delhi</li>
<li>Deepak Kumar, Jawahar Lal Nehru University</li>
<li>Ravi Sundaram, Centre for the study of developing societies</li>
<li>Rajshree Chandra, Delhi University</li>
<li>Sumandro Chattapadhyay, The Centre for Internet and Society, Delhi</li>
<li>Dibyendu Maiti, DSE, Delhi University</li>
<li>Balaji Parthasarathy, IIIT Bangalore</li>
<li>Anirban Mondal, Shiv Nadar University</li>
<li>Ashokankur Datta, Shiv Nadar University</li>
<li>Ravi Shukla, India Development Centre, Netvision Corporation</li>
<li>Yogendra Singh (professor emeritus), Jawahar Lal Nehru University</li>
<li>Rajiv George Aricat, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore</li>
<li>Arani Basu, Institute fuer Asien- und Afrikawissenschaften, Berlin</li>
<li>Arunima S Mukherjee, Health Information Systems Project</li>
<li>Pankaj Vajpayee, IIIT-Delhi</li>
<li>Raj Ayyar, IIIT-Delhi</li>
<li>Amrit Srinivasan, IIIT-Delhi</li>
<li>Akshay Kumar, IIIT-Delhi</li>
<li>Ganesh Bagler, IIIT-Delhi</li>
<li>Samaresh Chatterjee, IIIT-Delhi</li>
<li>Ponnurangam Kumaraguru, IIIT-Delhi</li></ul>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/iiit-delhi-workshop-on-center-for-it-and-society'>http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/iiit-delhi-workshop-on-center-for-it-and-society</a>
</p>
No publishersumandroResearchers at WorkLearning2016-09-17T14:40:26ZBlog EntryIFAT and ITF - Protecting Workers in the Digital Platform Economy: Investigating Ola and Uber Drivers’ Occupational Health and Safety - Report
http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/ifat-itf-protecting-workers-in-digital-platform-economy-ola-uber-occupational-health-safety-report
<b></b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/ifat-itf-protecting-workers-in-digital-platform-economy-ola-uber-occupational-health-safety-report'>http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/ifat-itf-protecting-workers-in-digital-platform-economy-ola-uber-occupational-health-safety-report</a>
</p>
No publishersumandro2020-08-25T09:56:03ZFileIFAT and ITF - Protecting Workers in the Digital Platform Economy: Investigating Ola and Uber Drivers’ Occupational Health and Safety - Press Release
http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/ifat-itf-protecting-workers-in-digital-platform-economy-ola-uber-occupational-health-safety-press-release
<b></b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/ifat-itf-protecting-workers-in-digital-platform-economy-ola-uber-occupational-health-safety-press-release'>http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/ifat-itf-protecting-workers-in-digital-platform-economy-ola-uber-occupational-health-safety-press-release</a>
</p>
No publishersumandro2020-08-25T10:57:45ZFileIFAT and ITF - Locking Down the Impact of Covid-19 - Report
http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/ifat-itf-locking-down-the-impact-of-covid-19-report
<b></b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/ifat-itf-locking-down-the-impact-of-covid-19-report'>http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/ifat-itf-locking-down-the-impact-of-covid-19-report</a>
</p>
No publishersumandro2020-09-17T17:38:59ZFile IFAT and ITF - Locking Down the Impact of Covid-19 - Press Release
http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/ifat-itf-locking-down-the-impact-of-covid-19-press-release
<b></b>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/ifat-itf-locking-down-the-impact-of-covid-19-press-release'>http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/ifat-itf-locking-down-the-impact-of-covid-19-press-release</a>
</p>
No publishersumandro2020-09-17T17:40:09ZFileHumanitarian OSM: Mapping Nepal
http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/humanitarian-osm-mapping-nepal
<b>To support the disaster relief work in progress in Nepal, the Humanitarian OSM Team (HOT) is busy mapping roads, settlements, and buildings in Nepal. Creating a detailed map of the area in OpenStreetMap will give the relief workers much valuable open data that can be used for planning their efforts. Contribute to the efforts of the Humanitarian OSM to map features in Nepal to support relief work.</b>
<p> </p>
<p>Please join the efforts wherever you are.</p>
<p>The pending tasks are listed here: <a href="http://tasks.hotosm.org/" target="_blank">http://tasks.hotosm.org/</a>.</p>
<p>Documentation to help you through the tasks is here: <a href="https://datameet.hackpad.com/Nepal-Earthquake-Mapping-YDjLauUK0Ek" target="_blank">https://datameet.hackpad.com/Nepal-Earthquake-Mapping-YDjLauUK0Ek</a>.</p>
<p>If you are in Bangalore, head to MapBox office: <a href="https://goo.gl/maps/bkqKF" target="_blank">https://goo.gl/maps/bkqKF</a>.</p>
<p>The DataMeet Delhi chapter will start organising mapping sessions in different offices in Delhi from today 14:00. Follow the DataMeet list for information about that: <a target="_blank">https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/datameet</a>.</p>
<p>Or, you can stay where you are and work on this remotely.</p>
<p>If you need support, please feel free to write to Sajjad [<a href="mailto:sajjadkm@gmail.com">sajjadkm@gmail.com</a>], Shashank [<a href="mailto:srinivasan.shashank@gmail.com">srinivasan.shashank@gmail.com</a>], or Sumandro [<a href="http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/sumandro@cis-india.org">sumandro@cis-india.org</a>].</p>
<p>A big thanks to <a href="http://sajjad.in/" target="_blank">Sajjad</a> for putting it all together and leading the efforts.</p>
<p><em>Image credit: <a href="https://www.mapbox.com/blog/nepal-earthquake/" target="_blank">MapBox</a></em>.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/humanitarian-osm-mapping-nepal'>http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/humanitarian-osm-mapping-nepal</a>
</p>
No publishersumandro2015-04-27T07:46:16ZBlog EntryHow are Indian Newspapers Adapting to the Rise of Digital Media?
http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/how-are-indian-newspapers-adapting-to-the-rise-of-digital-media
<b>How are Indian newspapers adapting to the transition to digital news production, distribution, and consumption? How are they changing their journalistic work, their newsroom organisations, and their distribution strategies as digital media become more important? These are the questions we are pursuing in a joint pilot project with the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, University of Oxford.</b>
<p> </p>
<p><em>Cross-posted from the <a href="http://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/news/new-project-how-are-indian-newspapers-adapting-rise-digital-media">Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism</a></em>.</p>
<hr />
<p>The Indian newspaper market is vibrant and diverse, and rising print circulation has so far shielded it from the digital disruption the industry has faced in many high income countries.</p>
<p>But internet access and use is rapidly growing in India, driven especially, by cheap smartphones and mobile web access. And both attention and advertising is moving to digital media.</p>
<p><em>How are Indian newspapers adapting to this change? How are they changing their journalistic work, their newsroom organisations, and their distribution strategies as digital media become more important?</em> These are the questions we are pursuing in a joint pilot project with the <a href="http://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/">Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism</a>, University of Oxford.</p>
<p>As part of the project we are interviewing editors and journalists working with newspapers in English, Hindi and Malayalam (one newspaper for each language) to better understand how different Indian newspapers are adapting to the rise of digital media.</p>
<p>The study will result in a joint report published by the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at the University of Oxford that we hope will help Indian journalists and newspapers as they navigate their digital transition, their colleagues elsewhere in the world facing similar issues, and academics and media policy makers keen to understand how the development of digital media—and the ways in which other actors respond to these developments—are reshaping our information environment.</p>
<p>We expect to publish the report in December 2016. The research team includes <a href="http://cis-india.org/about/people/our-team#zeenab">Zeenab Aneez</a> and <a href="http://cis-india.org/about/people/our-team#sumandro">Sumandro Chattapadhyay</a> from CIS, and RISJ Director of Research <a href="http://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/people/dr-rasmus-kleis-nielsen-director-research">Rasmus Kleis Nielsen</a>. <a href="http://jmi.ac.in/aboutjamia/centres/media-governance/faculty-members/Mr_Vibodh_Parthasarathi-1620">Vibodh Parthasarathi</a> from CCMG, Jamia Millia Islamia, will contribute to the study as an advisor.</p>
<p>The project builds on a recently completed study of <a href="http://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/publication/digital-journalism-start-ups-india">"Digital Journalism Start-Ups in India"</a> conducted by Arijit Sen and Rasmus Kleis Nielsen.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/how-are-indian-newspapers-adapting-to-the-rise-of-digital-media'>http://editors.cis-india.org/raw/how-are-indian-newspapers-adapting-to-the-rise-of-digital-media</a>
</p>
No publishersumandroDigital NewsJournalismDigital KnowledgeResearchDigital MediaResearchers at Work2016-07-06T14:28:13ZBlog Entry