The Centre for Internet and Society
http://editors.cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 111 to 125.
Comments on the National Geospatial Policy (Draft, V.1.0), 2016
http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/comments-on-the-national-geospatial-policy-draft-v-1-0-2016
<b>The Department of Science and Technology published the first public draft of the National Geospatial Policy (v.1.0) on May 05, 2016, and invited comments from the public. CIS submitted the following comments in response. The comments were authored by Adya Garg, Anubha Sinha, and Sumandro Chattapadhyay.</b>
<p> </p>
<h2>1. Preliminary</h2>
<p><strong>1.1.</strong> This submission presents comments and recommendations by the Centre for Internet and Society (<strong>"CIS"</strong>) on the proposed draft of the National Geospatial Policy 2016 (<strong>"the draft Policy / the draft NGP"</strong>) <strong>[1]</strong>. This submission is based on Version 1.0 of the draft Policy released by the Department of Science and Technology (<strong>"DST"</strong>) on May 5, 2016.</p>
<p><strong>1.2.</strong> CIS commends the DST under the aegis of the Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India, for its efforts at seeking inputs from various stakeholders to draft a National Geospatial Policy. CIS is thankful for this opportunity to provide a clause-by-clause submission.</p>
<h2>2. The Centre for Internet and Society</h2>
<p><strong>2.1.</strong> The Centre for Internet and Society, CIS, <strong>[2]</strong> is a non-profit organisation that undertakes interdisciplinary research on internet and digital technologies from policy and academic perspectives. The areas of focus include digital accessibility for persons with diverse abilities, access to knowledge, intellectual property rights, openness (including open data, free and open source software, open standards, open access, open educational resources, and open video), internet governance, telecommunication reform, digital privacy, and cyber-security. The academic research at CIS seeks to understand the reconfiguration of social processes and structures through the internet and digital media technologies, and vice versa.</p>
<p><strong>2.2.</strong> This submission is consistent with CIS’ commitment to safeguarding general public interest, and the interests and rights of various stakeholders involved. The comments in this submission aim to further the principle of citizens’ right to information, instituting openness-by-default in governmental activities, and the various kinds of public goods that can emerge from greater availability of open (geospatial) data created by both public and private agencies and crucially, by the citizens. The submission is limited to those clauses that most directly have an impact on these principles.</p>
<h2>3. Comments and Recommendations</h2>
<p><em>This section presents comments and recommendations directed at the draft policy as a whole, and in certain places, directed at specific clauses of the draft policy.</em></p>
<p><strong>3.1.</strong> The draft policy should make references to five policies applicable to geospatial data, products, services, and solutions</p>
<p><strong>3.1.1.</strong> CIS observes that the draft policy lists the key policies related to geospatial information and sharing of government data, namely the National Map Policy 2005, the Civil Aviation Requirement 2012, the Remote Sensing Data Policy 2011 and 2012, and the National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy 2012 (“NDSAP”).</p>
<p><strong>3.1.2.</strong> CIS submits that apart from the policies mentioned above, Geospatial Data,Products, Services and Solutions (“GDPSS”) are also intricately linked to concepts of “open standards,” “open source software,” “open API,” “right to information,” and prohibited places” These concepts are governed by specific acts and policies, and are applicable to geospatial data, as follows:</p>
<ul><li>Adoption of Open Standards: CIS observes that the draft policy captures the importance of open standards in the section 1.4 of the draft policy. It states that “A very high resolution and highly accurate framework to function as a national geospatial standard for all geo-referencing activity through periodically updated National Geospatial Frame [NGF] and National Image Frame [NIF] by ensuring open standards based seamless interoperable geospatial data.”<br /><br />CIS submits that the Policy on Open Standards for e-Governance <strong>[3]</strong> which establishes the Guidelines for usage of open standards to ensure seamless interoperability, and the Implementation Guidelines of the National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy, 2012 <strong>[4]</strong> listing two key open standards for geospatial data - KML and GML, should be mentioned in the draft policy.<br /><br />CIS recommends that the final version of the NGP embrace open standards as a key principle of all software projects and infrastructures within the purview of the Policy. This is essential for easier sharing and reuse of open (geospatial) data.<br /><br /></li>
<li>Adoption of Open Source Software: The Policy on Adoption of Open Source Software for Government of India states that the “Government of India shall endeavour to adopt Open Source Software in all e-Governance systems implemented by various Government organisations, as a preferred option in comparison to Closed Source Software” <strong>[5]</strong>. As the draft policy proposed to guide the development of GDPSS being developed and implemented both by the Government of India and by other agencies (academic, commercial, and otherwise), it must include an explicit reference and embracing of this mandate for adoption of Open Source Software, for reasons of reducing expenses, avoiding vendor lock-ins, re-usability of software components, enabling public accountability, and greater security of software systems.<br /><br /></li>
<li>Implementation of Open APIs: To actualise the stated principle to “[e]nable promotion, adoption and implementation of emerging / state of the art technologies” as well as to ensure the “[a]vailability of all geospatial data collected through public funded mechanism to all users,” CIS suggests that final version of the NGP must refer to and operationalise the Policy on Open Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) for Government of India <strong>[6]</strong>. This will ensure that the openly available geospatial data is available to the public, as well as to all the government agencies, in a structured digital format that is easy to consume and use on one hand, and is available for various forms of value addition and innovation on the other.<br /><br /></li>
<li>Right to Information Act 2005: The framework for reactive disclosure of information and data collected and held by the Government of India, as well as the basis for proactive disclosure of the same, is enshrined in the Right to Information Act 2005 <strong>[7]</strong>. The draft NGP, CIS proposes, should refer to this Act, and ensure that whenever an Indian citizen request for such government data and/or information that is of geospatial in nature, and the requested data and/or information is both shareable and non-sensitive, the citizen must be provided with the geospatial data and/or information in an open standard and under open license, as applicable.<br /><br /></li>
<li>Refer to Official Secrets Act, 1923: The Official Secrets Act defines “Prohibited Places” and prohibits all activities involving “sketch, plan, model, or note which is calculated to be or might be or is intended to be, directly; or indirectly, useful to an enemy or (c) obtains collects, records or publishes or communicates to any other person any secret official code or password, or any sketch, plan, model, article or note or other document or information which is calculated to be or might be or is intended to be, directly or indirectly, useful to an enemy” <strong>[8]</strong>. This provides the fundamental legal basis for regulation, expunging, and stopping circulation of geospatial data containing information about Vulnerable Points and Vulnerable Areas. CIS submits that this Act should be referred to in this context of ensuring non-publication of sensitive geospatial data (that is geospatial data related to Prohibited Places).<br /><br /></li></ul>
<h3>3.2. Grant adequate permissions to the public to re-use geospatial data</h3>
<p><strong>3.2.1.</strong> CIS observes that section 1.4 of the draft policy states that, “Geospatial data of any resolution being disseminated through agencies and service providers, both internationally and nationally be treated as unclassified and made available and accessible by Indian Mapping and imaging agencies.”</p>
<p><strong>3.2.2.</strong> CIS recommends the abovementioned section be broadened to include not only availability and accessibility of geospatial data, but also its re-use. Further, such accessibility, availability and re-use should not be only limited to public and private entities such as Indian mapping and imaging agencies, but as well as to Indian people in general.</p>
<p><strong>3.2.3.</strong> CIS further submits that section 1.4 be revised as “[g]eospatial data of any resolution being disseminated through agencies and service providers, both internationally and nationally be treated as unclassified and made available, accessible, and reusable by Indian mapping and imaging agencies in particular, and by the people of India in general.”</p>
<h3>3.3. Ensure Open Access to shareable and non-sensitive geospatial data</h3>
<p><strong>3.3.1.</strong> CIS observes that the draft policy directs all “geospatial data generating agencies” to classify their data into “open access,” “registered access,” and “restricted access.” The document, however, neither defines “geospatial data generating agencies”, nor does it clarify what conditions the data must satisfy to be classified as one of the three types. Without a listing of such conditions (at least necessary, and not sufficient, conditions), nothing restricts the agencies from classifying all generated geospatial data as “restricted.”</p>
<p><strong>3.3.2.</strong> Further, CIS observes that the draft policy aims to provide geospatial data acquired through public funded mechanism to be made available to the public at free of cost. It is submitted that the policy should not only be made available for free of cost, but it should also be made available in open standard format under an open license.</p>
<p><strong>3.3.3.</strong> As defined in the section 1.3, the National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy (“NDSAP”) applies to “all shareable non-sensitive data available either in digital or analog forms but generated using public funds” <strong>[9]</strong>. Clearly all shareable <strong>[10]</strong> and non-sensitive <strong>[11]</strong> geospatial data, either in digital or analog forms, and generated using public funds should be proactively disclosed by the government agency concerns in accordance to the NDSAP. CIS recommends that the draft policy makes an explicit reference to NDSAP when discussing the topic of Open Access geospatial data, and re-iterates the mandate of proactive publication of shareable and non-sensitive government data.</p>
<p><strong>3.3.4.</strong> Further, the process for defining an open government data license to be applied to all open government data sets being published under the NDSAP, and through the Open Government Data Platform India, is in progress. Given this, it is absolutely crucial important that the draft NGP takes this into consideration, and mandates that Open Access geospatial data must be published using the open government data license to be defined by the Implementation Guidelines of the NDSAP, when applicable.</p>
<h3>3.4. Lack of clarity regarding the clearances and permits required for data acquisition and dissemination, and the procedures thereof</h3>
<p><strong>3.4.1.</strong> Section 1.8 of the draft policy states that “[a]ll clearances / permits, as necessary, for data acquisition and dissemination be through a single window, online portal. These clearances be provided within a time span of 30 days of filing the online request.” CIS observes that the draft policy does not specify the kind of clearances/permits needed before a public or private entity, or an individual, can undertake acquisition and dissemination of geospatial data. It neither clarifies under what circumstances and conditions application for such clearance / permits would be required for users.</p>
<p><strong>3.4.2.</strong> Since the recently published draft Geospatial Information Regulation Bill (“GIRB”) 2016, directly addresses this topic of clearance / permit required to acquire and share geospatial information <strong>[12]</strong>, it will be effective if the NGP can refer to this Bill and provide an overall governance framework for the same. Further, CIS noted that the time span of 30 days mentioned in the draft policy is inconsistent with the time period specified in the GIRB (which is 90 days).</p>
<p><strong>3.4.3.</strong> CIS recommends that the draft policy also be amended suitably to include the circumstances and conditions under which required permissions shall be issued. Accordingly, the draft policy should reference the standardised and time bound security vetting process envisaged in the GIRB.</p>
<h3>3.5. Clarification Needed regarding “Cybersecurity is to be ensured through … use of Digital Watermarks for authentication of GDPSS”</h3>
<p><strong>3.5.1.</strong> CIS submits that the draft policy does not elaborate on the use of “Digital Watermarks” to ensure cybersecurity, neither it is explained who will authenticate GDPSS, under what conditions, and for what reasons. CIS recommends that the draft policy be amended suitably to specify the same.</p>
<h3>3.6. Remove Classification of Non-Public (at Present) Satellite / Aerial Imagery as Restricted by Default</h3>
<p><strong>3.6.1.</strong> CIS observes that the draft policy recommends that “[s]atellite/aerial images of resolution other than those currently made available on websites” should all be “classified for restricted access.”</p>
<p><strong>3.6.2.</strong> CIS submits that blanket categorisation of all satellite / aerial imagery of resolution that is not currently available through a public website (for whatever reason it might be) as “restricted access” should be re-evaluated, given the immense importance of such imagery to mapping agencies and industry participants using GDPSS.</p>
<p><strong>3.6.3.</strong> CIS recommends that the section be revised to define clear principles for defining satellite /aerial imagery as “open,” “registered,” and “restricted.”</p>
<h3>3.7. Governance of User-contributed Geospatial Data</h3>
<p><strong>3.7.1.</strong> A key resource and feature of contemporary geospatial industry in particular, and the digital economy in general, is the proliferation of user-contributed and user-generated geospatial data and information. CIS observes that this crucial topic, as well as the unique governance concerns that it raises, has not been addressed in the draft policy at all. CIS requests the DST to consider this matter with due attention to the specific nature and values of such user-contributed and user-generated in the digital economy on one hand, and in emergency contexts such as natural disasters on the other, and prepare a framework for its appropriate governance as part of the NGP itself.</p>
<h3>3.8. Protect Geospatial Privacy of Citizens by Defining Sensitive Personal Geospatial Data and Information</h3>
<p><strong>3.8.1.</strong> CIS observes that the draft policy lacks rules for collection, use, storage, and distribution of geospatial data from an individual’s privacy standpoint. Further, neither does the Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal Data or Information) Rules, 2011 address these concerns <strong>[13]</strong>. Section 3 of the Rules define “Sensitive personal data or information”, which do not include geospatial information.</p>
<p><strong>3.8.2.</strong> The argument of violation of constitutional right to privacy was pleaded in a case against Google and other private mapping agencies in 2008 <strong>[14]</strong>. In the judgment, Madras HIgh Court noted that there existed no legislation/guidelines to prohibit mapping programmes from conducting their activities indiscriminately, and the lack of one thereof prevented the Court from injuncting such activities. Thus, there exists a judicial ambiguity on the aspect of collection and use of geospatial data.</p>
<p><strong>3.8.3.</strong> CIS submits that the draft policy may be suitably amended to ensure that collection, processing and dissemination of geospatial information is in consonance with the constitutionally protection of an individual’s privacy.</p>
<h3>3.9. Clarification Needed regarding “Mechanisms to be put in place to evaluate / audit GDPSS creation, consumption and distribution”</h3>
<p><strong>3.9.1.</strong> The draft policy suggests that “mechanisms to be put in place to evaluate/audit GDPSS creation, consumption and distribution” without clarifying the scope, purpose, and purview of this mechanism, and most crucially it does not describe what exactly will be evaluated / audited. CIS submits that this section is revised and expanded.</p>
<p><strong>3.9.2.</strong> The same section also identifies the need for a “framework to be put in place to assess the data collection versus its utilization towards government program and socio-economic development.” CIS observes that this is a very promising and much welcome gesture by the DST, but this section must be developed as a separate and detailed mandate. At the least, the NGP may suggest that a more detailed guideline document regarding this framework will be developed in near future.</p>
<h3>3.10. Data Taxation and Geospatial Cess</h3>
<p><strong>3.10.1.</strong> The draft policy refers to imposition of “data taxation (geospatial cess)” and use of “licensing” of geospatial data to raise money for geospatial activities of the Government of India. CIS is of the opinion will severely affect the geospatial industry in the country in particular, and will raise the monetary barrier to public use of geospatial data and maps in general; and hence must be strictly avoided.</p>
<h3>3.11. Data Dissemination Cell</h3>
<p><strong>3.11.1.</strong> CIS submits that instead of development of a separate Data Dissemination Cell within all government agencies to operationalise the mandate of the NGP, the Chief Data Officers within all government agencies identified under the implementation process of the NDSAP be given this complementary responsibility. This would ensure effective channelisation of human and financial resources to take forward the joint mandate of NGP and NDSAP towards greater public availability and use of (shareable and non-sensitive) government data.</p>
<h3>3.12. Special Infrastructure for Governance, Management, and Publication of Real-time Geospatial Data</h3>
<p><strong>3.12.1.</strong> A key term that the draft policy does not talk about is “big data.” The static or much-slowly-changing geospatial data such as national boundaries and details of Vulnerable Points and Vulnerable Areas are really a very small part of of the global geospatial information. The much larger and crucial part is the real-time (that is continuously produced, stored, analysed, and used in almost real-time) big geospatial data – from geo-referenced tweets, to GPS systems of cars, to mobile phones moving through the cities and regions. Addressing such networked data systems, where all data collected by digital devices can quite easily be born-georeferenced, and the security and privacy concerns that are engendered by them, should be the ultimate purpose of, and challenge for, a future-looking NGP.</p>
<p><strong>3.12.2.</strong> Further, with increasing number of government assets being geo-referenced for the purpose of more effective and real-time management, especially in the transportation sector, the corresponding agencies (which are often not mapping agencies) are acquiring a vast amount of high-velocity geospatial data, which needs to be analysed and (sometimes) published in the real-time. CIS submits a sincere request to DST to highlight the crucial need for special infrastructure for such data, as well as its governance, and identify the key principles concerned in the next version of the draft NGP.</p>
<h3>3.13. Sincere Request for Preparation and Circulation of a Second Public Draft of the National Geospatial Policy</h3>
<p><strong>3.13.1.</strong> CIS commends the DST for publishing the draft policy, and facilitating a consultation process inviting stakeholders and civil society to submit feedback. The NGP envisages to address crucial concepts of privacy, licensing, intellectual property rights, liability, national security, open data, which cut across and impact various technology platforms, industries and the citizens.</p>
<p><strong>3.13.2.</strong> In view of the multifarious issues highlighted that arise at the intersection of various legal and ethical concepts, CIS respectfully requests the DST to conduct another round of consultation after the publication of the second draft of the NGP. Multiple rounds of consultation and feedback would contribute to the robustness of the lawmaking process and ensure that the final policy safeguards the general public interest, and the interests and rights of various stakeholders involved.</p>
<p><strong>3.13.3.</strong> CIS is thankful to DST for the opportunity to provide comments, and would be privileged to provide further assistance on the matter to DST.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2>Endnotes</h2>
<p><strong>[1]</strong> See: <a href="http://www.dst.gov.in/sites/default/files/Draft-NGP-Ver%201%20ammended_05May2016.pdf">http://www.dst.gov.in/sites/default/files/Draft-NGP-Ver%201%20ammended_05May2016.pdf</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[2]</strong> See: <a href="http://cis-india.org/">http://cis-india.org/</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[3]</strong> See: <a href="https://egovstandards.gov.in/sites/default/files/Published%20Documents/Policy_on_Open_Standards_for_e-Governance.pdf">https://egovstandards.gov.in/sites/default/files/Published%20Documents/Policy_on_Open_Standards_for_e-Governance.pdf</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[4]</strong> See: <a href="http://data.gov.in/sites/default/files/NDSAP.pdf">http://data.gov.in/sites/default/files/NDSAP.pdf</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[5]</strong> See: <a href="http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/policy_on_adoption_of_oss.pdf">http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/policy_on_adoption_of_oss.pdf</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[6]</strong> See: <a href="http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/Open_APIs_19May2015.pdf">http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/Open_APIs_19May2015.pdf</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[7]</strong> See: <a href="http://rti.gov.in/webactrti.htm">http://rti.gov.in/webactrti.htm</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[8]</strong> See: <a href="http://www.archive.india.gov.in/allimpfrms/allacts/3314.pdf">http://www.archive.india.gov.in/allimpfrms/allacts/3314.pdf</a>, sections 2(d) and 3(b).</p>
<p><strong>[9]</strong> See: <a href="https://data.gov.in/sites/default/files/NDSAP.pdf">https://data.gov.in/sites/default/files/NDSAP.pdf</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[10]</strong> See section 2.11 of NDSAP.</p>
<p><strong>[11]</strong> See section 2.10 of NDSAP.</p>
<p><strong>[12]</strong> See: <a href="http://mha.nic.in/sites/upload_files/mha/files/GeospatialBill_05052016_eve.pdf">http://mha.nic.in/sites/upload_files/mha/files/GeospatialBill_05052016_eve.pdf</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[13]</strong> See: <a href="http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/GSR313E_10511%281%29.pdf">http://deity.gov.in/sites/upload_files/dit/files/GSR313E_10511%281%29.pdf</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[14]</strong> J. Mohanraj v (1) Secretary To Government, Delhi; (2) Indian Space Research Organisation, Bangalore; (3) Google India Private Limited, Bangalore, 2008 Indlaw MAD 3562.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/comments-on-the-national-geospatial-policy-draft-v-1-0-2016'>http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/comments-on-the-national-geospatial-policy-draft-v-1-0-2016</a>
</p>
No publishersumandroOpen StandardsOpen DataOpen Government DataFeaturedGeospatial DataNational Geospatial PolicyOpenness2016-06-30T09:40:59ZBlog EntryProtecting the Territory, Killing the Map
http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/protecting-the-territory-killing-the-map
<b>The politics of making and using maps in India has taken a sudden and complex turn with the publication of the draft Geospatial Information Regulation Bill, 2016. Contrary to the expectations arising out of several government schemes that are promoting the development of the new digital economy in India – from start-ups to the ongoing expansion of connectivity network – the Bill seems to be undoing various economic and humanitarian efforts, and other opportunities involving maps. This article by Sumandro Chattapadhyay and Adya Garg was published by The Wire on May 16, 2016.</b>
<p> </p>
<p>Published by and cross-posted from <a href="http://thewire.in/2016/05/16/before-geospatial-bill-a-long-history-of-killing-the-map-in-order-to-protect-the-territory-36453/">The Wire</a>.</p>
<hr />
<p>The global history of cartography is intimately linked with political needs and economic interests, from the public depiction of sovereign territories to navigating treacherous seas to (wrongly) ‘discover’ the land of spices. In India, the politics of making and using maps has taken a sudden and complex turn with the publication of the draft Geospatial Information Regulation Bill, 2016. Contrary to the expectations arising out of several government schemes that are promoting the development of the new digital economy in India – from start-ups to the ongoing expansion of connectivity network – the Bill seems to be undoing various economic and humanitarian efforts, and other opportunities involving maps, by imposing strict guidelines and harsh penalties on the use of maps by private actors, commercial or otherwise.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://mha.nic.in/sites/upload_files/mha/files/GeospatialBill_05052016_eve.pdf">introductory note to the Bill</a> clearly states its primary objective is to ensure the protection of ‘security, sovereignty and integrity of India.’ The concern around ‘security’ is not new when it comes to regulating cartographic activities. It is prominently addressed across the current set of policies and guidelines that govern mapping in India: 1) the National Map Policy, 2005 (“NMP”) and associated guidelines issued by the Survey of India, 2) the Remote Sensing Data Policy, 2011 that regulates satellite-based mapping, and 3) the Civil Aviation Requirement, 2012, which regulates mapping and photography using flights and drones. Protection of ‘sovereignty and integrity,’ however, does not find a mention in any of these map-related policies.</p>
<p>There have of course been several incidents where the government has taken steps (including the temporary blocking of service) against companies that have represented Indian national boundaries that are not in accordance with official maps. Such companies include Google, The Economist, and Al Jazeera. Two companies that have gotten away with no consequences after publicly showing maps of India without certain border regions, interestingly, are <a href="http://www.scoopwhoop.com/news/kashmir-missing-from-india-map/">Facebook</a> and <a href="http://thewire.in/2015/05/14/chinese-state-owned-television-shows-india-map-sans-jammu-kashmir-arunachal-1698/">CCTV</a>.</p>
<p>In the absence of such provisions in the existing map-related policies, thus far, the government has pursued legal action against such ‘anti-national’ depiction of Indian territory under Section 69A of the IT Act, 2000, the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (restricting the collection and sharing of information about ‘prohibited places’), the Customs Act, 1962 (prohibiting the export and import of certain maps), and the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1990.</p>
<p>Though this present Bill has come into public attention rather suddenly, the Indian State has been planning for a comprehensive legal framework for both enabling and restricting mapping, since the coming of the NMP itself. The first avatar of this effort was the Indian Survey Act that was heard about in 2007, but was never made public. More recently, the first report towards the National Geospatial Information Policy (now called the National Geospatial Policy) came out in 2012. Instead of waiting for this comprehensive policy to be discussed and notified, the Bill seems to have come in a hurry to propose a narrowly designed legal instrument. As is often the problem with such precise devices that also want to be exhaustive, the Bill promises much more collateral damage than actual solutions – it ends up killing the map in the name of protecting the territory.</p>
<p>A quick look at case law on map-related disputes informs us about the motivations of the state in enacting this Bill. A major controversy around ‘sovereignty’ in the field of mapping has been about the depiction of international boundaries of India by Google. After several incidents of conflicts between Google’s map makers and the Indian State regarding the depiction of India’s national boundary, the Survey of India filed a police complaint in 2014. As a result, Google presently shows different map tiles to users from India (according to the boundary specified by the Indian State) and different tiles to users from elsewhere. This geo-targeted solution to the depiction of international borders under dispute has been practiced by Google in the case of other countries too, most notably for Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Ukraine and (independent) Crimea.</p>
<p>The internal security concerns have also fuelled conflicts with mapping companies. In 2013, the ‘mapathon’ organised by Google faced a lawsuit for not asking for prior permission from the Survey of India for this exercise in user-contributed mapping. This was preceded by a petition filed by J. Mohanraj in the Madras High Court seeking a complete ban on the Google Earth and Bhuvan (run by ISRO) map applications on the ground that they were both providing information that could be used for planning acts of terror. The petitioner’s argument referred to the provisions of the NMP, and also alleged that such mapping practices violated the individual rights of a person under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court, however, held (2008) that the petitioner was unable to produce any specific “Guidelines/Rules/Law laid down by the Central/State Governments, prohibiting the private organisations or any other individuals to Interactive Mapping Program, covering vast majority of the Planet”.</p>
<p>The trouble with Google re-opened earlier this year as the Pathankot air base was attacked. Incidentally, Vishal Saini, the winner of the 2013 mapathon by Google, contributed to mapping the features of the very same city. Promptly after the attack in January, Lokesh Kumar Sharma filed a case in the Delhi High Court alleging that the availability of sensitive information (from an internal security point-of-view) on Google Maps created security vulnerabilities. In a rather curious manner, the court disposed of the case on February 24, claiming that it has learned from the Additional Solicitor General that ‘steps are in progress to regulate the publication of aerial/satellite geospatial data.’ In hindsight, we see that this was in reference to the draft Bill.</p>
<p>This Bill, evidently, is a product of the Indian State’s inefficient attempts at regulating the making and circulation of maps and geospatial data in digital times. The Bill ends up disregarding the actual features of digital geospatial data and how it forms a fundamental basis (and asset) for today’s digital economy, and, instead, decides to settle for a form of regulation that is much better suited (if at all) to a pre-digital and pre-liberalisation condition. The regulatory measures proposed by the Bill do not only cause worry but also bewilderment. Take for example Section 3 that states that ‘no person shall acquire geospatial imagery or data including value addition of any part of India’ without being expressly given permission for the same or being vetted by the nodal agency set up by the Bill. If implemented strictly, this may mean that you will have to ask for permission and/or security vetting before dropping a pin on the map and sharing your coordinates with your friend or a taxi service. Both involve creating/acquiring geospatial information, and potentially adding value to the map/taxi service as well.</p>
<p>Let’s take an even more bizarre hypothetical situation – the Security Vetting Agency being asked to go through the entire geospatial data chest of Google everyday (or as soon as it is updated) and it taking up to ‘ three months from the date of receipt’ of the data to complete this checking so that Google Maps can tell you how crowded a particular street was three months ago.</p>
<p>Further, a key term that the Bill does not talk about is ‘big data.’ The static or much-slowly-changing geospatial data such as national boundaries and which-military-institute-is-located-where are really the tiny minority of the global geospatial information. The much larger and crucial part is of course the fast-moving big geospatial data – from geo-referenced tweets, to GPS systems of cars, to mobile phones moving through the cities and regions. Addressing such networked data systems, where all data can quite easily be born-georeferenced, and the security and privacy concerns that are engendered by them, should be the ultimate purpose of, and challenge for, a future-looking Geospatial Information Regulation Act.</p>
<p>The present Bill imposes an undesirable bureaucratic structure of licenses and permits upon the GIS industry in the country in particular, and on all sections of the economy using networked devices in general. This will only end up restricting the size of the GIS industry to a few dominant players. For all creators and users of maps for non-commercial, developmental, and humanitarian interests, this Bill appears to be an imminent threat, even if it is never actually applied.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/protecting-the-territory-killing-the-map'>http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/protecting-the-territory-killing-the-map</a>
</p>
No publishersumandroGeospatial Information Regulation BillOpen DataOpen Government DataGeospatial DataOpenness2016-05-17T10:37:14ZBlog EntryLegal Challenges to Mapping in India #1 - Laws, Policies, and Cases
http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/legal-challenges-to-mapping-in-india-1-laws-policies-cases
<b>Responding to the draft Geospatial Information Regulation Bill and the draft National Geospatial Policy made public recently, this post provides an overview of the present configuration of laws, policies, and guidelines that provides the legal framework in India for governance of creation and sharing of geospatial data in India. The post also studies these policies in action by describing the key legal cases around the creation and use of geospatial data. The next post of this series will document the reflections and opinions of the key geospatial industry actors in India, as well as the free and open source mapping community.</b>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>1.</strong> <a href="#1">Introduction</a></p>
<p><strong>2.</strong> <a href="#2">Mapping the Legal Journey of Geospatial Data: Past to Present</a></p>
<p><strong>2.1.</strong> <a href="#2-1">National Map Policy, 2005</a></p>
<p><strong>2.2.</strong> <a href="#2-2">Guidelines issued by Survey of India</a></p>
<p><strong>2.3.</strong> <a href="#2-3">Remote Sensing Data Policy (RSDP)</a></p>
<p><strong>2.4.</strong> <a href="#2-4">Civil Aviation Rules</a></p>
<p><strong>3.</strong> <a href="#3">Incidents of Legal Actions Faced by Agencies</a></p>
<p><strong>3.1.</strong> <a href="#3-1">Google's Mapathon in Legal Trouble</a></p>
<p><strong>3.2.</strong> <a href="#3-2">One Country - Two Boundaries</a></p>
<p><strong>3.3.</strong> <a href="#3-3">J. Mohanraj v Google and Others</a></p>
<p><strong>4.</strong> <a href="#4">Conclusion</a></p>
<p><strong>5.</strong> <a href="#5">References</a></p>
<p><strong>6.</strong> <a href="#6">Author Profile</a></p>
<hr />
<h2 id="1">1. Introduction</h2>
<blockquote>“Maps, like faces, are the signature of history.” – Will Durant <strong>[1]</strong></blockquote>
<p>Throughout the course of history geospatial information has played an important role in technological, economic, political and cultural dimensions of the human society. With technological developments taking place, the field of mapping – that is collection, analysis, and representation of geospatial data – is continuously evolving. On the face of it, creation of geospatial data seems to be an exclusive scientific and technological matter. However, the political and economic facets of geospatial data are often as predominant and complex as its scientific practice. Continuing from the colonial era, the political facet of mapping emerged significantly in the public discourse from the 1990s onwards as digital technologies amplified the ability of non-governmental actors to collect, generate, and share geospatial data, in the form of maps or otherwise <strong>[2]</strong>. This 'democratisation' of the ability to map and share private/user-generated maps structurally undermined the government's ability to have an authoritative and universal voice when it comes to geospatial depiction of the nation and its various components. Similar to the other upsurges in the digitized world, which is often followed by an introduction of legal provisions in order to keep access to and use of digital data under mechanisms of monitoring and permission, mapping in India has also has subsequently been governed under policies addressing both terrestrial mapping and remote sensing. Concerns of national security, naturally, have driven much of these policies.</p>
<p>This post focuses on providing an overview of the present configuration of laws, policies, and guidelines that provides the legal framework in India for governance of creation and sharing of geospatial data in India. The post also studies these policies in action by describing the key legal cases around the creation and use of geospatial data. The next post of this series will document the reflections and opinions of the key geospatial industry actors in India, as well as the free and open source mapping community.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2 id="2">2. Mapping the Legal Journey of Geospatial Data: Past to Present</h2>
<blockquote>“We know every inch of the nation, because we map every inch of it!” – Survey of India <strong>[3]</strong></blockquote>
<p>Aforementioned slogan adopted by the primary organization responsible for mapping all geospatial data in India indicates the importance of the geospatial data and mapping the same. While it indicates the importance of having access to mapping data in order to be aware of the geospatial features of one’s country, it also cleverly reveals the vulnerability that having access to mapped data brings. The phrase can be said to imply that mapping every inch of the country leads to information about every inch of the nation which is useful if in the hands of government agency but repugnant to security if in the hands of external agencies. This conflict between access to information about the country and the security concerns arising from such an open access has led to a rich evolution of legal policies governing the same.</p>
<p>Set up in 1767, Survey of India (hereinafter “SOI”) was required to map the terrains of India to fulfill the commercial and political convenience of the East India Company <strong>[4]</strong>. During these colonial times, maps were considered to be essential for governmental purposes and thus their dissemination to unauthorized persons was barred by Clause 5 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 <strong>[5]</strong>. Thus, till 1950s mapping was being governed by the colonial provisions which maps restricted to official use only <strong>[6]</strong>. With independence, the functions of the SOI shifted mainly towards providing information for the defense forces <strong>[7]</strong>.</p>
<p>An important change came in the form of orders and notifications by Ministry of Defence (hereinafter “MOD”) during 1960s, the major one being the 1965 order that permitted distribution of maps of scale 1:4 M <strong>[8]</strong>. The Map Restriction Policy of the MOD, however, imposed categorical restrictions on sharing of maps, aerial photos, and all geophysical data for various parts of India - with a focus on international border areas in the North-Eastern state, and the coastal zone that included several large cities like Chennai, Kochi, Kolkata, and Mumbai <strong>[9]</strong>. Dr. Manosi Lahiri notes that "[t]his had a far reaching effect on the mapping culture of independent India and perpetuated the perception among many that maps were a security threat" <strong>[10]</strong>." By 1971, however, the functions of SOI extended to catering to inter alia all development activities and was hence brought under the ambit of Department of Science and Technology <strong>[11]</strong>.</p>
<p>However, the catalytic transformation came in the form of National Map Policy, 2005 which made SOI the nodal governmental agency for dealing with all processes involving geospatial data. While harping for open access to geospatial data, the policy accompanied by corresponding guidelines have largely restricted the power to map geospatial data to SOI. The Policy and the guidelines have been discussed in detail as under.</p>
<h3 id="2-1">2.1. National Map Policy, 2005</h3>
<p>The National Map Policy, 2005 (hereinafter, “NMP”) was announced by the Central Government on May 19, 2005 <strong>[12]</strong>. The preamble of the policy identifies the importance of high quality spatial data in various facets such as socio-economic development, conservation of natural resources, infrastructure development etc <strong>[13]</strong>. Topographic map database constitutes the foundation of all spatial data and its production, maintenance, and dissemination has been assigned as a responsibility to SOI, which is to "liberalize access" to spatial data without compromising upon security concerns. Thus, the conflict between national security and right to have access to information regarding one’s country is clearly highlighted in the policy as a need for enactment of the same. Thus, the policy objectives include access to National Topographic Database (NTDB) <strong>[14]</strong> and promotion of geospatial based intelligence, subject to confirmation to national standards of SOI.</p>
<p>In order to realize the security concerns, inter alia, a dual-classification was created amongst the maps, namely - i) <strong>Defence Series Maps (“DSM”)</strong> and ii) <strong>Open Series Maps (“OSM”)</strong>. While the former constitutes of topographical maps that mainly cater to defence and security requirements of the country, the latter supports developmental activities. Hence, DSMs whether in analogue or digital form, fall under the classified category and the power to issue guidelines pertaining to their use vests digit mainly for developmental purposes, they are not openly accessible by ipso facto and need to gain the ‘unrestricted’ tag after clearance from MOD. A table specifying the distinction between DSMs and OSMs in detail has been provided below:</p>
<hr />
<table>
<tbody>
<tr>
<th>Sub-Topic</th>
<th>Defence Series Maps (“DSM”)</th>
<th>Open Series Maps (“OSM”)</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Why are these maps used?</td>
<td>The maps under this series cater to defence and security requirements of the country.</td>
<td>The maps under this series are useful in supporting various developmental activities in the country.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>What are the technical classifications?</td>
<td>Everest/WGS-84 Datum and Polyconic/UTM Projection) on various scales (with heights, contours and full content without dilution of accuracy).</td>
<td>In UTM Projection on WGS-84 datum, bearing different map sheet numbers. (And as provided in Annexure B of the NMP)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Who can use these maps?</td>
<td>Maps (in analogue or digital forms) for the entire country will be classified.</td>
<td>Both hard copy and digital form will become “Unrestricted” after obtaining a one-time clearance of the Ministry of Defence.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>How can the maps be used?</td>
<td>Guidelines regarding the use of DSMs will be formulated by the Ministry of Defence.</td>
<td>Guidelines regarding the use of OSMs will be formulated by SOI regarding aspects like procedure for access, further dissemination /sharing, ways and means of protecting business and commercial interests of SOI etc.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<hr />
<p>While the DSMs are completely classified, restrictive provisions regarding usage and dissemination of OSMs have also been incorporated in the policy. OSMs are not allowed to show any civil and military Vulnerable Areas and Vulnerable Points (VA’s/VP’s). OSMs on a scale larger than 1:1 needs to be disseminated either by sale or an agreement, which will allow the agency to add its own value to the maps obtained, and to share these maps with others.</p>
<p>The primary transaction between SOI and the agency as well as all the subsequent transactions between the agency and other users have to be registered in the Map Transaction Registry for records. While the Map Transaction Registry forms an important part of the NMP, no such registry information has been made available on the official website of SOI as indicated by the screenshot below.</p>
<img src="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/cis-india/website/master/img/SurveyOfIndia_MapTransactionRegistry.png" alt="Map Transaction Registry, Survey of India" />
<h6>Map Transaction Registry, Survey of India, URL: <a href="http://www.surveyofindia.gov.in/pages/view/48">http://www.surveyofindia.gov.in/pages/view/48</a></h6>
<p> </p>
<p>The policy allows users to publish maps on hard copy or web (with or without GIS interface) subject to a certification from SOI in case of depiction of international boundaries. The policy also upholds the validity of the previous MOD notifications pertaining to mapping subject to the modifications introduced by the policy and authorises SOI to issue further guidelines corresponding to the policy.</p>
<h3 id="2-2">2.2. Guidelines issued by Survey of India</h3>
<p>Under the powers vested by the NMP, SOI has issued detailed clarificatory guidelines in furtherance of the policy <strong>[15]</strong>. The restrictions arising on mapping of geospatial data can be attributed to two major factors namely, Security concerns and Copyright provisions <strong>[16]</strong>. Under the guidelines, copyright of both digital and analogue maps has been vested with the SOI. Penal consequences have been mentioned as a result of violation of SOI’s copyrights. In furtherance of security concerns, the guidelines uphold the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) Notification No. 118-Cus./F.No.21/ 5/62-Cus. I/VIII dated 4th May 1963 which prohibits the export of all maps/digital data in 1: 250K and larger scales through any means. Digital Topographical data has been an exclusive licensing domain of only Indian individuals, organisations, firms or companies.</p>
<p>While paper maps can be accessed from SOI offices against payment of price, digitisation of maps has been strictly made forbidden by the guidelines. Ownership of digital data has been vested completely with the SOI and can only be gained against payment after application through a specified proforma.</p>
<h3 id="2-3">2.3 Remote Sensing Data Policy (RSDP)</h3>
<p>In 2011, the confusion pertaining to applicability of NMP to both territorial and satellite mapping was resolved with the release of the Remote Sensing Data Policy (RSDP). The policy recognized the importance of remote sensing data and noted that it was largely used by government and non-government users from Indian and foreign remote sensing satellites. However, again banking upon the need for security considerations, the policy was released with the purpose of “…managing and/ or permitting the acquisition/dissemination of remote sensing data in support of developmental activities" <strong>[17]</strong>. Department of Science (DOS) was made the nodal government agency for all actions pertaining to remote sensing data under the policy.</p>
<p>A basic perusal of the policy indicates a parallelism between the RSDP and the NMP. Thus, similar to NMP, RSDP assures of a government managed Indian Remote Sensing Satellites (IRS) Programme, the data produced by which will be solely owned by the government and other users could only be provided with licences if need be. Any attempt at acquiring and/or dissemination of remote sensing data within India requires permission through the nodal government agency. National Remote Sensing Centre (NRSC) of the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO)/ DOS is vested with the authority to acquire and disseminate all satellite remote sensing data in India, both from Indian and foreign satellites. NRSC is also supposed to maintain a systematic National Remote Sensing Data Archive, and a log of all acquisitions/ sales of data for all satellites. Thus, nodal government agencies were created for both terrestrial mapping and satellite imagery, former being SOI and latter NRSC.</p>
<h3 id="2-4">2.4 Civil Aviation Rules</h3>
<p>Aerial instruments and aircrafts act as important instruments for geophysical surveys and mapping. Thus, this area does not go ungoverned. While, till date, India doesn’t impose an explicit bar on foreign registered aircraft overflying its territory for aerial photography and geo-physical survey, the same is subject to prior clearance under rule 158 and 158A of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 on account of safety and security concerns, the procedure for which has been given under Civil Aviation Rules (CAR) <strong>[18]</strong>. CAR is applicable to inter alia agencies undertaking aerial photography, geophysical surveys etc. An application is required to be made as per Annexure E which inter alia requires confinement of photography/sensing to the exact area as applied and cleared by the Ministry of Defence. The application is forwarded by DGCA to the Ministry of Defence and other agencies responsible for issuing NOC.</p>
<p>DGCA’s restrictions extends to voluntary geographic information with prohibition of civilian drones in India. Unmanned drones are an important equipment used for the purpose of collecting geo-spatial data. The ban on flying drones in India exist from October, 2014 but is not in common knowledge <strong>[19]</strong>. While it is argued that drones could harm people and lead to chances of crashing, the major argument has always been the use of drones by anti-national elements to peruse sensitive places for plotting terror attacks <strong>[20]</strong>. While there is an ambiguity regarding using drones in India, flying drones over defence establishments and historical places is completely banned <strong>[21]</strong>. Thus, civilians using drones for clicking pictures of monuments etc. have often been confronted by the police <strong>[22]</strong>.</p>
<p>Thus, there is no single policy that acts as a deterrent for mapping in India but an accumulation of multiple policies, guidelines and legal provisions that are used by departments of government to restrict mapping in the name of security. These restrictions have also witnessed incidents in their furtherance as detailed below.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2 id="3">3. Incidents of Legal Actions Faced by Agencies</h2>
<p>Since the advent of restrictive mapping policies, numerous incidents have come forth when agencies have found themselves faced by legal actions for violating such policies. In recent times, these incidents were publicly highlighted in 1998 when the sale of the CD-Roms of Delhi Guide Maps created by Eicher were prohibited <strong>[23]</strong>. Eicher has been one of the oldest players of the private mapping market, creating city and road maps for India in the private sector for public distribution. While having faced a ban in earlier times, it is also one of the few companies been able to access the SOI data for value addition. It works in collaboration with SOI now, often launching products in ‘strategic alliance’ with them. After the implementation of NMP, we have witnessed two major legal controversies, both involving SOI on one hand and Google on the other.</p>
<h3 id="3-1">3.1. Google's Mapathon in Legal Trouble</h3>
<p>In furtherance of Google’s constant endeavour to have every nook and corner mapped, Google holds a competition called ‘Mapathon’ each year <strong>[2]</strong>. The competition invites people to map their local surroundings incentivised by lucrative prizes to winners. However, an initiative launched for purely mapping purposes had to face a large legal hurdle in the year of 2013. Google-Mapathon, 2013, held in February-March, had declared Vishal Saini as the 1st winner who had mapped the military-prone city of Pathankot. According to legal provisions governing mapping practices in India, civil and military Vital Areas (VAs) /Vital Points (VPs) cannot be shown on maps in public domain <strong>[25]</strong>. Thus, the tech-giant found itself amidst legal controversy for having held the competition without permission from Survey of India after a concern raised by BJP’s Tarun Vijay. A case was filed by SOI at the R.K. Puram Police Station. The primary contention was that the “Mapathon 2013 activity is likely to jeopardise national security interest and violates the National Map Policy. Citizens of the country, who are ignorant of the legal consequences, are likely to violate the law of the land” <strong>[26]</strong>.</p>
<p>Considering the involvement of a U.S. based company, the investigation was handed over to CBI During the probe, it was alleged by then Surveyor General of India Swarna Subba Rao that Google did not refrain from “polluting” <strong>[27]</strong> the internet with classified material despite having been asked so. Further, then Additional Surveyor-General of India R.C. Padhi wrote claimed that “The Survey of India is only mandated to undertake ‘Restricted’ category surveying and mapping, and no other government/private organisations or any individual are authorised to do so” <strong>[28]</strong>. He told Reuters that some of the information provided by locals to Google could be ‘sensitive’ and the security of the nation could not be compromised at any cost <strong>[29]</strong>.</p>
<p>Google on the other hand said that its primary motive was to map local information of daily needs such as hospitals, restaurants, markets etc. and the competition was in tandem with national laws. Further, it was heard that Google had been approached regarding Mapathon by SOI and it had replied with intimation of willingness to talk to SOI. However, SOI had not reverted back and Google was always ready and willing to talk out the matter. However, the much hyped case did not have a substantial result and CBI had to close the probe on account of lack of evidence <strong>[30]</strong>.</p>
<p>Considered a thing of past, the controversy resurfaced in the recent times of January, 2016 post the Pathankot Air Base strike <strong>[31]</strong>. Google was dragged to the court for having displayed sensitive geospatial data regarding Pathankot that made possible an airstrike at the location. An injunction was sought to refrain Google from showing sensitive military areas and defence establishments on the maps made available by it. While the injunction was refused, Delhi High Court had asked the centre and the additional solicitor to look into the same and keep the court apprised. Thus, this can be termed as an open and unfinished matter ongoing legal contemplation.</p>
<p>While it is understandable that some areas are considered as vulnerable due to security concern. The lost keeps changing often leading to transgression into security places. But the major point being the list of vulnerable areas is classified and not released to public. In absence of such a list, how is it possible for google to vet its data to comply with security concerns.</p>
<h3 id="3-2">3.2. One Country - Two Boundaries</h3>
<p>Another major legal controversies in the field of geospatial mapping has been with regards to wrong depiction of international boundaries of India by Google. A basic perusal of the official website of SOI provides a list of only three documents under the tab of ‘Public Awareness’, all dealing with the crime of depicting wrong Indian boundaries <strong>[32]</strong>. While one of them includes the certified map with correct boundaries, to be complied with, other is a gazette notification bringing the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1961 which criminalized the act of showing wrong depiction of boundaries. Section 69A of the IT Act has also been used earlier to restrict access to links depicting incorrect maps of India <strong>[33]</strong> though it only speaks about restricting public access to data, necessary in the interest of Sovereignty and Integrity inter alia, the section per se does not deal with dissemination of geos-spatial data.</p>
<p>It was in the year of 2014, that on the directions of Department of Science and Technology, SOI filed a complaint against Google at the Dehradun Police Station for depiction of international boundaries not in a “wrong manner” i.e. not in compliance with Government of India authentication <strong>[34]</strong>. The result was that today Google shows different boundaries on Indian domain, in compliance with SOI and different on International domain.</p>
<p>Google was also involved in a controversy when in 2009, Google maps for India marked areas of Arunachal Pradesh, including its capital Itanagar and Tawang, in China <strong>[35]</strong>. It was followed by an apology from Google and an immediate rectification for Indian users. However, Google uses a different version for China and the world creating disparity in the boundary depiction <strong>[36]</strong>.</p>
<p>Google has not been the only platform having faced the anger of Indian community for wrong depiction. In 2011, copies of the Economist Magazine were seized for having depicted the map of Kashmir divided between India, Pakistan and China <strong>[37]</strong>. For similar reasons, Al-Jazeera was taken off air by the Indian government after a 5-day ban imposed under Section 69A of the IT Act <strong>[38]</strong>. Modi’s visit to Queensland University of Technology was accompanied by an “unqualified apology” from the authorities for having depicting Indian map without portions of Kashmir <strong>[39]</strong>. Urban Development Department of Bihar also ended up show-causing one of its employees for putting up wrong map on its website and substituting the same with SOI’s version after media attention <strong>[40]</strong>. India seems to be the country often having been angered due to wrong depictions of maps.</p>
<p>While India seems to be actively involved in Geo-politics, it isn’t the only country Google has fallen in legal trouble with, for wrongly depicting International Boundaries. In 2010, Google gained a lot of media attention for allegedly starting the ‘First Google Maps War’ <strong>[41]</strong>. It occurred when a Nicaraguan official led his forces to the Costa Rican territory on other side of the customary border and used Google Maps as a proof to deny trespassing. Nicaragua and Costa Rica have a long territorial dispute and Google seem to have fuelled it by depicting the Nicaraguan version of border according to which that area of Cost Rican territory came within the boundaries of Nicaragua <strong>[42]</strong>. Despite Nicaragua’s petition to Google to not accept Costa Rica’s petition to shift borders, Google voluntarily changed its borders to comply with the Costa Rican stance <strong>[43]</strong>.</p>
<p>Another such incident followed in the case of Google’s depiction of Dutch-German border with respect to Dollart Bay <strong>[44]</strong>. Germany claimed the border to be closer to Dutch land while Dutch claimed it to be more towards centre. Google, however, chose to depict a self-version that transferred the German city of Emden to the territorial control of Netherlands. This infuriated the city which resorted to expressing its displeasure and asking Google to change the depiction. Google, this time, however remained dormant and no amendment in the depiction of Dutch-German border could be witnessed.</p>
<p>At the time of Crimean referendum supporting independence, U.N. had passed a resolution condemning the same and supporting territorial integrity of Ukraine. Google, however, believed in the contrary and was quick to bring changes into its maps to depict formation of independent Crimea <strong>[45]</strong>. Rather than a mistake, this time, Google had adopted a stance against the UN resolution and used its maps to vocalize the same.</p>
<p>Similarly during the inclusion of South Sudan in the U.N.G.A., while members voted, they were unaware of the exact territorial division between North and South Sudan. It was then that Google initiated the process of collecting geo-spatial information regarding South Sudan from locals in order to better the territorial integrity <strong>[46]</strong>.</p>
<p>Thus, Google has times and again fallen into criticism for wrong depiction of international boundaries and even varied depictions of boundaries as per the perspective of the political entity. However, “Popularity does not bestow authority” <strong>[47]</strong> and Google’s maps cannot be accurately relied upon for proving sovereign territorial holds. Thus, most of the international incidents have witnessed countries resorting to peaceful petitions to Google informing it regarding the inaccuracy of the border and requesting a shift in the same. Hardly has the world witnessed penal provisions being invoked against Google for depicting versions other than the perceived ones.</p>
<h3 id="3-3">3.3. J. Mohanraj v Google and Others</h3>
<p>Apart from the above two incidents, another pertinent case is the 2008 judgment by the Madras High Court in J. Mohanraj v (1) Secretary To Government, Delhi; (2) Indian Space Research Organisation, Bangalore; (3) Google India Private Limited, Bangalore . A writ petition was filed by Mohanraj seeking a complete ban on Google Earth and ‘Bhuvan’; mapping initiatives by Google and ISRO respectively <strong>[48]</strong>.</p>
<p>The petition was allegedly filed in public interest considering the security apparatus of Indian Government along with the threat posed by the terrorists. The petitioner claimed that the initiatives such as Google Earth used high quality satellite imagery to display bird’s eye view of various establishments including minute details and were bound to cover defense establishments and sensitive areas, posing a threat to Indian security. Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam’s speech was referred to indicate his views against such open creation of geospatial data. The provisions of the NMP was highlighted and it was alleged that such mapping practices violated the individual rights of a person under Article 21 of the Constitution. Further, it was claimed that such practices could only be taken up by SOI and were outside the purview of private organizations.</p>
<p>However, the Court held that the petitioner was unable to produce any specific “Guidelines/Rules/Law laid down by the Central/State Governments, prohibiting the private organisations or any other individuals to Interactive Mapping Program, covering vast majority of the Planet”. Since the court could only interpret existing provisions and not lay down guidelines, passed the judgment against the petitioners.</p>
<p>From the above explained incident it seems that the NMP per se does not refrain creation of mapping data by agencies other than SOI. The centre of the conflict seems to lie with the interpretation of the policy by SOI claiming itself to be the exclusive agency entitled to map data. Hence, often though complaints and cases are filed against such activities, no concrete consequence emerges from the same. Further, the courts have also neglected the grievance of the issue and given ambiguous judgments in most cases. Thus no judicial sanction or opposition to the SOI’s guidelines exist till date often allowing SOI to continue with following its own version. While these cannot be termed as a solution, they definitely indicate towards the root of the problem.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2 id="4">4. Conclusion</h2>
<p>It can be concluded from above compilation of legal provisions and incidents that it is perhaps SOI’s interpretation to NMP that gives rise to exclusive authority to map geospatial data and not the policy per se. The objective of the policy clearly advocates for promotion of the use of geospatial knowledge and intelligence. More than one provision under the SOI guidelines indicate towards the arbitrary abuse of power. First, a provision regarding ‘Settlement of disputes’ has been included in the guidelines. Secretary, Department of Science & Technology has been vested with binding decision making powers in case of a dispute on the applicability or interpretation of the guidelines between the SOI and any other person. Thus, instead of a judicial forum, an executive authority has been vested with quasi-judicial powers. Such a dispute resolution mechanism cannot be considered as devoid of bias towards the governmental agency, hampering fair and equal justice. Second, SOI assumed the power of mapping data but under the guidelines considers itself devoid of complete responsibility for the loss caused to any person on account of failure of proper dissemination of data. Third, the SOI has reserved the right to add, delete, modify or amend every provision of the guidelines at any time without assigning any reason or notice.</p>
<p>While depiction of wrong boundaries has been specifically been criminalized and can be accepted as symbolic of sovereign hold over contentious territorial areas, it hardly fulfills a security purpose other than acting as a proof to the international community. The incident regarding Mapathon, on the other hand, though did not result in penal consequences towards Google, seem counterproductive in the first place for asking for a ban on increase of geospatial resource data. Considering the same, prudency demands that India also adopt policies and measures that are more peaceful and accommodating in nature such as resolving territorial matters by talking out with Google and other agencies. The current and proposed stringent penal provisions only act as dis-incentivising measures for geo-spatial agencies to map India, which is not the motive sought to be achieved by the bill.</p>
<p>However, the interpretation of the policy cannot be blamed alone for restrictions such as depiction of VAs and VPs have been specifically mentioned in the policy. Above mentioned policies and guidelines have often been criticized for being overly restrictive in nature and a consequence of colonial hangover. In times of crowdsourcing of mapping data, the need of the hour exist in critically analysing the existent policies and their interpretation. The same is especially so in the absence of a high quality digital version of the correct boundary of India. While a map in PDF form has been put up by Survey of India, the same cannot be converted to digital form to be complied with or used to resolve territorial disputes of detailed nature. This makes it absolutely impossible to completely comply with the Indian version of the boundaries without a proper resource acting as a comparison check. The need of the hour is for the Government to release less ambiguous and specific details as to what it considers to be outside the scope of private mapping and the correct boundaries along with a less stringent policy framework so that India can protect its security, sovereignty and integrity while promoting creation and dissemination of geo-spatial data.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2 id="5">5. References</h2>
<p><strong>[1]</strong> SV Srikantia, 'Restriction on maps: A denial of valid geographic information,' [2000] 79(4), Current Science 484.</p>
<p><strong>[2]</strong> Fatima Alam, 'Mapping the politics of cartography,' Infosys Science Foundation, 31 March 2015, <a href="http://www.infosysblogs.com/infosysprize/2015/03/mapping_the_politics_of_cartog_2.html">http://www.infosysblogs.com/infosysprize/2015/03/mapping_the_politics_of_cartog_2.html</a>, accessed 11 May 2016.</p>
<p><strong>[3]</strong> 'About Us,' Survey of India, <a href="http://www.surveyofindia.gov.in/pages/view/10-about-us">http://www.surveyofindia.gov.in/pages/view/10-about-us</a>, accessed 11 May 2016.</p>
<p><strong>[4]</strong> Ibid.</p>
<p><strong>[5]</strong> R Ramachandran, 'Public Access to Indian Geographical Data,' [2000] 79(4) Current Science 450.</p>
<p><strong>[6]</strong> Ibid.</p>
<p><strong>[7]</strong> Supra, 4.</p>
<p><strong>[8]</strong> “Scale represents the relationship of the distance on the map/data to the actual distance on the ground. Map detail is determined by the source scale of the data: the finer the scale, the more detail.” Seen at <a href="http://gif.berkeley.edu/documents/Scale_in_GIS.pdf">http://gif.berkeley.edu/documents/Scale_in_GIS.pdf</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[9]</strong> Dr. Manosi Lahiri, 'Survey & Mapping in India: The Regulatory Framework,' Directions Magazine India, <a href="https://www.mlinfomap.com/Pdf/Survey&Mapping-Lahiri%202.1.pdf">https://www.mlinfomap.com/Pdf/Survey&Mapping-Lahiri%202.1.pdf</a>, accessed 11 May 2016.</p>
<p><strong>[10]</strong> Ibid.</p>
<p><strong>[11]</strong> Supra, 2.</p>
<p><strong>[12]</strong> ‘Guidelines for implementing National Map Policy,’ Survey of India, <a href="http://surveyofindia.gov.in/files/nmp/Guidlines%20for%20Implementing%20National%20Map%20policy.pdf">http://surveyofindia.gov.in/files/nmp/Guidlines%20for%20Implementing%20National%20Map%20policy.pdf</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[13]</strong> 'National Map Policy, 2005, Preamble,' Survey of India, <a href="http://surveyofindia.gov.in/files/nmp/National%20Map%20Policy.pdf">http://surveyofindia.gov.in/files/nmp/National%20Map%20Policy.pdf</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[14]</strong> Ibid, Objectives.</p>
<p><strong>[15]</strong> Supra, 11.</p>
<p><strong>[16]</strong> Supra, 5.</p>
<p><strong>[17]</strong> 'Remote Sensing Data Policy, 2011,' National Remote Sensing Centre, Indian Space Research Organisation, <a href="http://www.nrsc.gov.in/Remote_Sensing_Data_Policy">http://www.nrsc.gov.in/Remote_Sensing_Data_Policy</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[18]</strong> Civil Aviation Requirement Section 3 Air Transport Series ‘F’ Part I Issue I, 12th October 2010.</p>
<p><strong>[19]</strong> Nandagopal Rajan, 'Why India needs rules for flying drones, soon' (The Indian Express, 9 July, 2015) <a href="http://indianexpress.com/article/technology/gadgets/why-india-needs-rules-for-flying-drones-soon/">http://indianexpress.com/article/technology/gadgets/why-india-needs-rules-for-flying-drones-soon/</a> accessed 11 May 2016.</p>
<p><strong>[20]</strong> TNN, 'Now, flying a drone can land you in prison' (The Times of India, 15 February, 2016) <a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/jaipur/Now-flying-a-drone-can-land-you-in-prison/articleshow/50990613.cms">http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/jaipur/Now-flying-a-drone-can-land-you-in-prison/articleshow/50990613.cms</a>, accessed 11 May 2016.</p>
<p><strong>[21]</strong> Ibid.</p>
<p><strong>[22]</strong> Supra, 19; 20.</p>
<p><strong>[23]</strong> Supra, 5.</p>
<p><strong>[24]</strong> tech2 news staff, 'Why is Google’s Mapathon in hot waters in India? All you need to know' (Tech-2, 12 Aug, 2015) <a href="http://tech.firstpost.com/news-analysis/why-is-googles-mapathon-in-hot-waters-in-india-all-you-need-to-know-228810.html">http://tech.firstpost.com/news-analysis/why-is-googles-mapathon-in-hot-waters-in-india-all-you-need-to-know-228810.html</a>, accessed 6 May 2016</p>
<p><strong>[25]</strong> Supra, 12.</p>
<p><strong>[26]</strong> Supra, 24.</p>
<p><strong>[27]</strong> ‘PTI, 'Google ‘polluted Internet’ with classified material: Survey of India' (The Hindu, 10 August, 2014) <a href="http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/internet/mapathon-2013-row-google-polluted-internet-with-classified-material-says-survey-of-india/article6300853.ece">http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/internet/mapathon-2013-row-google-polluted-internet-with-classified-material-says-survey-of-india/article6300853.ece</a>, accessed 11 May 2016.</p>
<p><strong>[28]</strong> Sandeep Joshi, ‘Google didn’t take permission for Mapathon’ (The Hindu, 24 April, 2013) <a href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/google-didnt-take-permission-for-mapathon/article4648589.ece">http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/google-didnt-take-permission-for-mapathon/article4648589.ece</a>, accessed 6 May 2016.</p>
<p><strong>[29]</strong> Supra, 24.</p>
<p><strong>[30]</strong> Abhishek Sharan, 'CBI may close probe against Google in Mapathon case' (Hindustan Times, 12 February, 2015) <a href="http://www.hindustantimes.com/india/cbi-may-close-probe-against-google-in-mapathon-case/story-CgZYWoP9NgYA3xVepjr5bN.html">http://www.hindustantimes.com/india/cbi-may-close-probe-against-google-in-mapathon-case/story-CgZYWoP9NgYA3xVepjr5bN.html</a>, accessed 6 May 2016.</p>
<p><strong>[31]</strong> PTI, 'Pathankot attack: Sensitive sites on Google Maps under Delhi HC scanner' (Times of India, 15 January, 2016) <a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/Pathankot-attack-Sensitive-sites-on-Google-Maps-under-Delhi-HC-scanner/articleshow/50596143.cms">http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/Pathankot-attack-Sensitive-sites-on-Google-Maps-under-Delhi-HC-scanner/articleshow/50596143.cms</a>, accessed 6 May 2016.</p>
<p><strong>[32]</strong> ‘Public Awareness,' Survey of India, <a href="http://www.surveyofindia.gov.in/pages/display/190-public-awareness">http://www.surveyofindia.gov.in/pages/display/190-public-awareness</a>), accessed 6 May 2016.</p>
<p><strong>[33]</strong> Aman Sharma, '7-year jail, Rs 100 crore fine soon for showing PoK, Arunachal as disputed' (The Economic Times, 05 May 2016) <a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/7-year-jail-rs-100-crore-fine-soon-for-showing-pok-arunachal-as-disputed/articleshow/52117889.cms">http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/7-year-jail-rs-100-crore-fine-soon-for-showing-pok-arunachal-as-disputed/articleshow/52117889.cms</a>, accessed 6 May 2016.</p>
<p><strong>[34]</strong> Jaspreet Sahni 'Survey of India files complaint against Google maps for wrong depiction of India's boundaries' (News18, 13 December 2014) <a href="http://www.news18.com/news/india/survey-of-india-files-complaint-against-google-maps-for-wrong-depiction-of-indias-boundaries-731101.html">http://www.news18.com/news/india/survey-of-india-files-complaint-against-google-maps-for-wrong-depiction-of-indias-boundaries-731101.html</a>, accessed 6 May 2016.</p>
<p><strong>[35]</strong> Itanagar agencies, 'Arunachal fumes over wrong map on iPhone4' (Deccan Herald, 04 October, 2010) <a href="http://www.deccanherald.com/content/101784/F">http://www.deccanherald.com/content/101784/F</a>, accessed 6 May 2016.</p>
<p><strong>[36]</strong> CC, 'How Google represents disputed borders between countries' (The Economist, 04 September, 2014) <a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/09/economist-explains-1">http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/09/economist-explains-1</a>, accessed 6 May 2016.</p>
<p><strong>[37]</strong> The Kashmir Walla, 'Ten Maps of Kashmir That Angered India' (The Kashmir Walla, 14 May, 2015) <a href="http://thekashmirwalla.com/2015/05/ten-maps-of-kashmir-that-angered-india/">http://thekashmirwalla.com/2015/05/ten-maps-of-kashmir-that-angered-india/</a>accessed 11 May 2016.</p>
<p><strong>[38]</strong> Ibid.</p>
<p><strong>[39]</strong> Ibid.</p>
<p><strong>[40]</strong> Ibid.</p>
<p><strong>[41]</strong> Frank Jacobs, 'The First Google Maps War' (The New York Times, 28 February, 2012) <a href="http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/28/the-first-google-maps-war/">http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/28/the-first-google-maps-war/</a>, accessed 11 May 2016.</p>
<p><strong>[42]</strong> Ethan Merel, 'Google’s World: The Impact of "Agnostic Cartographers" on the State-Dominated International Legal System' [2016] <em>Columbia Journal of Transnational Law</em> 442-444.</p>
<p><strong>[43]</strong> Ibid.</p>
<p><strong>[44]</strong> Europe, 'Google map gives German harbour to Netherlands' (BBC, 23 February, 2011) <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-12558741">http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-12558741</a>, accessed 11 May 2016.</p>
<p><strong>[45]</strong> Supra, 42, 448.</p>
<p><strong>[46]</strong> Ibid, 449.</p>
<p><strong>[47]</strong> Supra, 47.</p>
<p><strong>[48]</strong> <em>J. Mohanraj v (1) Secretary To Government, Delhi; (2) Indian Space Research Organisation, Bangalore; (3) Google India Private Limited, Bangalore, 2008 Indlaw MAD 3562</em>.</p>
<p> </p>
<h2 id="6">6. Author Profile</h2>
<p><strong>Adya Garg</strong> is a law student at West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata and has completed her second year. An ardent *SRK fan*, and a dancer at heart, she loves reading books in her free time. Always excited about exploring new fields, she never misses an opportunity to work on areas outside her legal curriculum.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/legal-challenges-to-mapping-in-india-1-laws-policies-cases'>http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/legal-challenges-to-mapping-in-india-1-laws-policies-cases</a>
</p>
No publisherAdya GargGeospatial Information Regulation BillOpen DataOpen Government DataGeospatial DataOpenness2016-05-11T13:43:11ZBlog EntryGoogle, Apple and Microsoft may need licence for satellite mapping in India
http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/news/economic-times-aman-sharma-neha-alawadhi-may-9-2016-google-apple-and-microsoft-may-need-licence-for-satellite-mapping-in-india
<b>Cold response from MNCs like Google to India's security concerns is seen as a prime reason for the proposed legislation to regulate mapping of the country, a move that critics call "return of the Licence Raj" and "digital nationalism".</b>
<p>The article by Aman Sharma and Neha Alawadhi was published in <a class="external-link" href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/google-apple-and-microsoft-may-need-licence-for-satellite-mapping-in-india/articleshow/52180349.cms">Economic Times</a> on May 9, 2016. Sumandro Chattapadhyay was quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>A draft of Geospatial Information Regulation Bill, released last week seeking public comments, says anyone mapping India by a satellite or aerial platform will need a licence from a government "security vetting authority". "India as a responsible power must have established guidelines," Kiren Rijiju, MoS for Home, told ET, reacting to the criticism to the move.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>"We won't create hurdles for business and technological development, but national security considerations must not be compromised either," said Rijiju. Non-compliance could land you in jail for seven years. On the top of that would be a fine of up to Rs 100 crore. BJP MP Tarun Vijay, who has long been campaigning for such a law, said "patriotic Indians" should use the country's own 'Bhuvan' software application for maps.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>"Why do we need Google? We should stop becoming Google's instruments," he told ET. "The patriotic government of Narendra Modi has taken a right step in a big relief to the security establishment. UPA did not take any action despite my pleas to the then Defence Minister AK Antony. I congratulate the Modi government for showing spine in face of arrogance of these IT giants," he said, adding: Google has been "behaving as if it were above Indian law".</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>A top government official involved in the move said maps of India's sensitive installations were available on Google Maps, increasing the security risk of those sites. Demand to mask those were never complied to. "Pathankot air base, which was recently attacked, can be seen on Google Maps. Terrorists plot strikes on sensitive targets studying Google Maps," he told ET.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>"Our plea to black out sensitive installations do not yield results. This Bill is now sending a strong message that US companies cannot be running roughshod over Indian security interests." Companies such as Google, Microsoft and Apple, which have millions of Indians using their maps, would be hit directly by the legislation if it is pushed through. Firms that depend on these maps to provide their services, such as Uber, Zomato and Ola, too would be affected. Google, Apple and Microsoft didn't respond to emails seeking comment.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Mishi Choudhary, legal director at Software Freedom Law Centre, said almost all online businesses today depend on geo-location and provide maps for the use of their services, and that all of them will be forced to seek a licence under the proposed law. "This kind of digital nationalism is a way to create a government-controlled monopoly on all geographical information about the country, conveniently transforming Digital India to Licence India, digitally this time," said Choudhary, who was part<span> </span>of the successful legal fight to scrap Section 66A of the IT Act to ensure freedom of expression on the Internet. An executive at one of the big tech companies said the draft Bill raised far too many questions.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>"On the face of it, the Bill will kill any and every use of the maps. It is also unclear if you get a licence for maps, only you can use it or others can use it, too," he said. "Also, whether every time you update a map, does one have to get a security clearance? Maps have to be live and dynamic, so getting it approved from government each time may not be feasible."</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Those working on mapping and geospatial technology said services such as Google Maps are popular because they are faster and easier to use compared to government-prescribed process.<span> </span>"According to Indian law...if I have to buy certain data, I will have to go to the concerned department, like ISRO's National Remote Sensing Agency, or the Survey of India. In the case of NRSC (for satellite data), they will purchase the data for me, and then I will have to pay. That's a long process and hence people went to services like Google Maps, which are easier," said Devdatta Tengshe, a freelance geospatial information systems consultant.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>The agency removes sensitive zones from the data and takes about two-three months or even more to respond, which is an unrealistic timeline for people working with digital data, he said. There is also apprehension that the Bill will undermine rescue and humanitarian efforts, such as during disasters like the Nepal earthquake.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>"It was user-generated geospatial data that was used by the humanitarian response teams. This situation of lack of openly usable geospatial data holds true for large parts of India, and especially Himalayan India," said Sumandro Chattapadhyay, research director at Centre for Internet and Society. Also of concern is the lack of court's jurisdiction in matters related to the proposed legislation, said SFLC's Choudhary.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>A senior government official, however, said companies should not have a problem to come under regulations on security considerations and that the Bill was up for public comments where the companies can lodge their apprehensions. "We are not banning anyone from mapping India — only that the mapping has to be in line with Indian security considerations regarding sensitive installations and correct boundaries being depicted like not showing PoK and Arunachal Pradesh as out of India," this official said.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>A group of techies have, meanwhile, got together to create a website called savethemap.in, which aims to educate people and make them send out responses to the draft Bill. It will likely come up with a template response, along the lines as the savetheinternet. in campaign that was instrumental in taking the net neutrality debate to the people.</span></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/news/economic-times-aman-sharma-neha-alawadhi-may-9-2016-google-apple-and-microsoft-may-need-licence-for-satellite-mapping-in-india'>http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/news/economic-times-aman-sharma-neha-alawadhi-may-9-2016-google-apple-and-microsoft-may-need-licence-for-satellite-mapping-in-india</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaOpen StandardsOpen DataOpen Government DataOpenness2016-05-10T15:20:39ZNews ItemIntroduction to Python Programming
http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/news/introduction-to-python-programming
<b>Annapoornima K. the founder of Pyladies Bangalore chapter will be teaching Python programming at the Centre for Internet & Society office in Bangalore. The event starts at 10.00 a.m.</b>
<p>The Bangalore chapter of Pyladies international group, this group is a pro-women community that welcomes people from all spheres of life. For more info, <a class="external-link" href="http://www.meetup.com/Bangalore-PyLadies-Foundation/">click here</a>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/news/introduction-to-python-programming'>http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/news/introduction-to-python-programming</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaOpenness2016-04-30T04:44:46ZNews ItemMonitoring Sustainable Development Goals in India: Availability and Openness of Data (Part II)
http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/monitoring-sustainable-development-goals-in-india-availability-and-openness-02
<b>The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are an internationally agreed upon set of developmental targets to be achieved by 2030. There are 17 SDGs with 169 targets, and each target is mapped to one or more indicators as a measure of evaluation. In this and the next blog post, Kiran AB is documenting the availability and openness of data sets in India that are relevant for monitoring the targets under the SDGs. This post offers the findings for the last 10 Goals. The first 7 has already been discussed in the earlier post.</b>
<p> </p>
<p><em>The first part of the post can be accessed <a href="http://cis-india.org/openness/monitoring-sustainable-development-goals-in-india-availability-and-openness-01/">here</a>.</em></p>
<hr />
<h3>Goal #08: <em>Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all</em></h3>
<p>There are fourteen indicators to monitor the goal 8 and the data is available for all the indicators mapped to their respective targets. For most of the indicators, the data availability is not what the indicator demands, but has to be derived from the available dataset.</p>
<p>The data can be accessed freely in the public domain for all the indicators. However, for the subparts in some of the indicators, the data is not accessible freely. There is a cross agency dependency over the data, to arrive at the required indicator.</p>
<p>Data is collected annually for most of the indicators, while the indicators, viz., Indicator 8.3.1.: Share of informal employment in non-agriculture employment by sex; Indicator 8.5.2: Unemployment rate by sex, age-group and persons with disabilities, which are measured by the Census or the planning commission the frequency of data collection becomes decennial or quinquennial. And the Indicator 8.8.2 : Number of ILO conventions ratified by type of convention, which lists the number of conventions the frequency cannot be determined as it's just a list updated whenever there is a ratification of any ILO conventions. Some of the available data are restricted to particular years and most of them are not till date.</p>
<p>Two indicators, i.e., Indicator 8.5.2 and Indicator 8.10.1: Number of commercial bank branches and ATMs per 100,000 adults, which are measured at the level of districts, whereas Indicator 8.7.1: Percentage and number of children aged 5-17 years engaged in child labour, per sex and age group; Indicator 8.8.1: Frequency rates of fatal and non-fatal occupational injuries by sex and migrant status, are measured at the state level. The remaining are measured only at the national level.</p>
<p>Most of the data are collected from the international organisations like ILO, UNEP, UNWTO, etc., from whose source the data are not updated regularly. There is also a need to disaggregate according to the indicator.</p>
<p> </p>
<h3>Goal #09: <em>Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation</em></h3>
<p>When development is through industrialization, sustainable and inclusiveness should be the necessary conditions to attain it. Having said this, the data is available for all the indicators, i.e., twelve indicators, corresponding to the targets as defined for the goal 9. For most of the indicators, the data have to be derived for the required measure to monitor the goal.</p>
<p>From among these indicators, the data is collected annually for most of the indicators, while for the two indicators, Indicator 9.3.1: Percentage share of small scale industries in total industry value added; Indicator 9.3.2: Percentage of small scale industries with a loan or line of credit, the frequency of data collection is once in five years.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Excluding two indicators, i.e., Indicator 9.2.2: Manufacturing employment as a percentage of total employment; Indicator 9.1.1: Share of the rural population who live within 2km of an all season road, for which the data is available at the state level and district level respectively, for the remaining indicators the data is available only at the national level.</p>
<p>The data pertaining to eleven indicators are freely accessible in the public domain, however, for the Indicator 9.b.1: Percentage share of medium and high-tech (MHT) industry value added in total value added, the data is not freely accessible. Most of the freely available data are obtained from the international organisations, along with the official data from the government in India.</p>
<p> </p>
<h3>Goal #10: <em>Reduce inequality within and among countries</em></h3>
<p>Bridging the gap between the global north-south divide through co-operation – social, economical, political, etc., would promote equality. There are twelve indicators for measuring this goal, of which the data is not available for one of the indicators and are available for the remaining indicators.</p>
<p>From the data available, for six of the indicators the data is accessible freely in the public domain, whereas for the five of the indicators – Indicator 10.2.1; Indicator 10.3.1; Indicator 10.4.1; Indicator 10.7.3; Indicator 10.a.1, the data is closed.</p>
<p>Most of the data available are of the national level and for the Indicator 10.7.3: Number of detected and non-detected victims of human trafficking per 100,000, the data includes from the states as well. However, since the goal refers to inequalities within the country as well, the granularity of the data should have been from the state/district level as well.</p>
<p>And, the frequency of data collected are annually for some of the indicators and for some the details cannot be determined or not valid. For most of the indicators the data has to be derived from the available dataset and disaggregated as needed. Also, for some indicators the data is partially available.</p>
<p><strong>Data Not Available:</strong></p>
<ul><li>Indicator 10.7.1: Recruitment cost borne by employee as percentage of yearly income earned in country of destination</li></ul>
<p> </p>
<h3>Goal #11: <em>Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable</em></h3>
<p>Housing and the type of settlements determines the human development and the progress of development of a nation. Therefore for monitoring the goal 11 is implicit to human development. There are thirteen indicators to monitor this goal and out of which the data is available for ten indicators and for the three indicators the data is not available.</p>
<p>For three of the indicators the available data is not freely accessible, while for the remaining ones the data is accessible. And for most of the indicators the data has to be derived as needed.</p>
<p>The data is collected annually for most of the indicators and quinquennially for the Indicator 11.5.1, and for some data the data pertains to particular year and there lacks a sequence of data availability.</p>
<p>For four of the indicators – Indicator 11.2.1; Indicator 11.3.1; Indicator 11.6.1; Indicator 11.a.1, the data is available at the state/city level along with national level. And for the remaining indicators the data is available at the national level alone. Also, some of the data are not up-to-date and refers to data more than 3 or years old.</p>
<p><strong>Data Not Available:</strong></p>
<ul><li>Indicator 11.3.2: Percentage of cities with direct participation structure of civil society in urban planning and management, which operate regularly and democratically</li>
<li>Indicator 11.7.1: The average share of the built-up areas of cities that is open space in public use for all, disaggregated by age, sex, and persons with disabilities</li>
<li>Indicator 11.b.1: Percentage of cities implementing risk reduction and resilience strategies aligned with accepted international frameworks (such as the successor to the Hyogo Framework for Action on Disaster Risk Reduction) that include vulnerable and marginalised groups in their design, implementation and monitoring</li></ul>
<p> </p>
<h3>Goal #12: <em>Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns</em></h3>
<p>Production and consumption should go hand in hand, but over consumption or over production would only lead to destruction of the environment. Therefore goal 12 seeks to ensure a sustainability in both. The data is available for ten indicators out of twelve indicators, and for the two indicators the data is not available, so as to monitor the respective goals. Some of the data are partially available and using the available data the indicators can be derived.</p>
<p>Moreover, the data for six of the indicators which are available are freely accessible in the public domain whereas for the remaining four indicators – Indicator 12.4.1; Indicator 12.4.2; Indicator 12.5.1; Indicator 12.b.1, the data is not open.</p>
<p>While for most of the indicators say, Indicator 12.2.1; Indicator 12.3.1; Indicator 12.5.1; Indicator 12.a.1; Indicator 12.c.1, the data is collected annually, whereas for the others, the data which are available are for particular years or cannot be determined. Except for the Indicator 12.5.1, for which the data is available at the city level, the data for the remaining are of the national order. The data is collected from both the national institutions, ministries and also from the international organisations.</p>
<p><strong>Data Not Available:</strong></p>
<ul><li>Indicator 12.1.1: Number of countries with SCP National Actions Plans or SCP mainstreamed as a priority or target into national policies.</li>
<li>Indicator 12.8.1: Percentage of educational institutions with formal and informal education curricula on sustainable development and lifestyle topics</li></ul>
<p> </p>
<h3>Goal #13: <em>Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts</em></h3>
<p>The impact of climate change is severe, therefore taking an urgent action ensures could reduce the impact. The data is available for four of the indicators out of five, and for one of indicators the data is not available.</p>
<p>The data for three indicators are freely accessible in the public domain, whereas for the Indicator 13.3.1: Number of countries that have integrated mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction and early warning into primary, secondary and tertiary curricula, the data is not open and also not specific to the indicator. The data for some of the indicators are partially available and have to be derived.</p>
<p>The frequency of the data is not uniform and cannot be determined, by the virtue of the indicator itself. For example, the occurrence of a disaster event is random. However, for some of the indicators the reporting is either annual or quadrennial.</p>
<p>The data availability is at the national level and in case of the Indicator 13.3.1., the data is available for two states – Orissa and Tamil Nadu. Data for almost all the indicators are obtained from international organizations and very less data availability from the national databases.</p>
<p><strong>Data Not Available:</strong></p>
<ul><li>Indicator 13.2.1.: Number of countries that have formally communicated the establishment of integrated low-carbon, climate-resilient, disaster risk reduction development strategies</li></ul>
<p> </p>
<h3>Goal #14: <em>Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development</em></h3>
<p> </p>
<p>Oceans are the torchbearers for all the countries. Therefore everything related to oceans, seas and marine resources have an impact on the human life. There are ten indicators corresponding to the targets, of which the data is available for nine indicators and for one indicator the data is not available. The data for some of the indicators are not direct, but need to be derived, while for some indicators the data is partially available. To derive some indicators we need to rely on cross agency data.</p>
<p>For the Indicator 14.a.1: Budget allocation to research in the field of marine technology as a percentage of total budget to research, the data on budgetary allocation doesn't specify to marine technology.</p>
<p>The frequency of data collected for most of the indicators are not available or cannot be determined or not applicable, whereas for some the data is collected annually. And for most of the indicators the data is available at the national level and for the Indicator 14.5.1: Coverage of protected areas in relation to marine areas, the data is available for the states also.</p>
<p><strong>Data Not Available:</strong></p>
<ul><li>Indicator 14.6.1: Dollar value of negative fishery subsidies against 2015 baseline</li></ul>
<p> </p>
<h3>Goal #15: <em>Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss</em></h3>
<p> </p>
<p>This goal on restoring, promoting ecosystem and stopping biodiversity loss, etc., has fifteen indicators mapped to twelve corresponding targets. Of which, the data is available for fourteen of the indicators and the data is not available for the one of the indicators. Data for some of the indicators exist partially and for some the data has to be derived to match the indicators. To arrive at the indicators, the data has to be derived from different datasets available.</p>
<p>Most of the data which are available are closed and only five are accessible in the public platform – Indicator 15.1.1 : Forest area as a percentage of total land area; Indicator 15.4.2: Mountain Green Cover Index; Indicator 15.8.1: Adoption of national legislation relevant to the prevention or control of invasive alien species; Indicator 15.9.1: Number of national development plans and processes integrating biodiversity and ecosystem services values; Indicator 15.a.1: Official development assistance and public expenditure on conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystems.</p>
<p>The frequency of data collected is not available or cannot be determined for majority of the indicators, while the data is annually collected for the ones which can be determined. Furthermore, the data is available at the national level for all the indicators, except the Indicator 15.b.1: Forestry official development assistance and forestry FDI, for which the data is available at the level of states as well.</p>
<p>The data available are collected by international organisations like OECD, FAO, Convention on Biological Diversity, etc., as well as by the national institutions and ministries like Planning Commission, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, etc.</p>
<p><strong>Data Not Available:</strong></p>
<ul><li>Indicator 15.2.2: Net permanent forest loss</li></ul>
<p> </p>
<h3>Goal #16: <em>Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels</em></h3>
<p> </p>
<p>A society which is inclusive, peaceful, provides justice and accountable in all its forms would ensure sustainable development, therefore to promote the aforementioned parameters one has to monitor them through an established measure. There are twenty-one indicators for this goal mapped to the respective targets and out of which the data is not available for five indicators to monitor the goal. From the available dataset, the values need to be derived for some of the indicators and for some indicators the data is directly/partially available.</p>
<p>From among the data which are available, for nine indicators the data is not freely accessible in the public platform, while the remaining six data set are open to access. They are available both from national and international agencies and most of the data are not up to the date.</p>
<p>The data which are available are collected/reported annually. And, excluding four indicators. i.e.; Indicator 16.1.3, Indicator 16.3.1, Indicator 16.4.2, Indicator 16.b.1, the data is available at the state level, while for the remaining indicators the data is available only at the national level. Most of the indicators require data from past 12 months, but the available dataset does not cater the needs, as they are not updated regularly. Finally, the indicators seeks disaggregated data for monitoring the goal.</p>
<p><strong>Data Not Available:</strong></p>
<ul><li>Indicator 16.1.4: Proportion of people that feel safe walking alone around the area they live</li>
<li>Indicator 16.2.3. Percentage of young women and men aged 18-24 years who experienced sexual violence by age 18</li>
<li>Indicator 16.6.2: Percentage of population satisfied with their last experience of public services</li>
<li>Indicator 16.7.2: Proportion of countries that address young people's multisectoral needs with their national development plans and poverty reduction strategies</li>
<li>Indicator 16.a.1: Percentage of victims who report physical and/or sexual crime to law enforcement agencies during past 12 months disaggregated by age, sex, region and population group</li></ul>
<p> </p>
<h3>Goal #17: <em>Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development</em></h3>
<p> </p>
<p>Moving towards achieving SDGs in the global scenario requires support – financial, technological, etc. This support can be strengthened the relationship between the developing and the developed countries. There are twenty-four indicators to monitor the goal 17, out of which the data is available for twenty-three of the indicators and for one of the indicators the data does not exist.</p>
<p>The data which are available are direct as per the indicators, whereas for most of the indicators the data need to be derived. Data is partially available for the Indicator 17.16.1: Indicator 7 from Global Partnership Monitoring Exercise: Mutual accountability among development co-operation actors is strengthened through inclusive reviews.</p>
<p>From the data available for twenty-three indicators, fourteen of the data set are freely accessible and the nine are not open. Also, some of the data which are open are not up to date or the latest data is not open.</p>
<p>The data is collected annually for most of the indicators and for some the data is available for particular year. Also for some of the indicators like Indicator 17.5.1: Number of national & investment policy reforms adopted that incorporate sustainable development objectives or safeguards x country; Indicator 17.6.1: Access to patent information and use of the international intellectual property (IP) system; Indicator 17.18.2: Number of countries that have national statistical legislation that complies with the Fundamental Principles of Official statistics, the frequency cannot be determined or not valid.</p>
<p>Since this indicator speaks at the national level, the granularity of the data pertains to the nation. Most of the data are obtained from the international organisations say UN, World Bank, IMF, OECD, etc., and some are from the national institutions/ministries like Planning Commission, Finance Ministry, etc.</p>
<p><strong>Data Not Available:</strong></p>
<ul><li>Indicator 17.17.1: Amount of US$ committed to public-private partnerships and civil society partnerships</li></ul>
<p> </p>
<h3>Conclusion</h3>
<p>Decision making depends on data, a data should be representative, with high quality and has to be timely collected, which ensures precise assessment of the decision being made. From the analysis it was found that, most of the data which are available are either not freely accessible, outdated and not precise to the need. Most of the SDG indicators are based on disaggregation. The disaggregation is a key to measure to the precision, especially incidences like poverty, food security, health, etc. Therefore, to monitor different parameters we need to identify the different levels prevailing in the parameter to ensure inclusivity.</p>
<p>Said above, the frequency of data collection is either annual, quinquennial and decennial. To enable real time evaluation, the data should be up-to-date. Moreover, for most of the indicators the data availability is at the national level or at the state level and sometimes at the district level. The granularity of data ensures geographic inclusiveness.</p>
<p>In a country like India for close monitoring of progress/development of any sort the data availability should be;</p>
<ul><li>at a granular level of district/block,</li>
<li>collected and updated regularly,</li>
<li>disaggregated by age, sex, and also by social group, and</li>
<li>the data should be open to be able to access in the public domain freely.</li></ul>
<p>Open data will be a crucial tool for governments to meet the transparency and efficiency challenges. For this reason, government data should be open – freely accessible, presented in a format that is comparable and reusable and, ideally, released in a timely manner.</p>
<p> </p>
<h3>Author</h3>
<p>Kiran A B, is a student of Master of Public Policy (MPP) at the National Law School of India University, Bengaluru. Kiran has an undergraduate degree in electronics and communications engineering, and he has three years full-time work experience as a software engineer, working in different technological platforms. His research interest includes interdisciplinary linkages between policy, law and technology.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/monitoring-sustainable-development-goals-in-india-availability-and-openness-02'>http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/monitoring-sustainable-development-goals-in-india-availability-and-openness-02</a>
</p>
No publishersumandroDevelopmentOpen DataOpen Government DataData RevolutionOpennessSustainable Development Goals2016-04-12T04:14:27ZBlog EntryCoinFest 2016
http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/events/coinfest-2016
<b>Coinsecure and India Bitcoin have joined hands to organize to organize CoinFest at the Centre for Internet & Society's Bangalore office on Saturday, April 10, 2016, from 4.00 p.m. to 7.00 p.m.</b>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">CoinFest 2016</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">CoinFest 2015 was a stunning success, taking Canada’s crypto holiday to countries around the world. CoinFest 2016 is building on that momentum, preparing a series of events for April with over two dozen cities planning to participate. This year's CoinFest will celebrate Bitcoin & educate participants about its uses & benefits. Come learn about bitcoin, blockchain, and other digital currencies! Find out how to use them and how this technology is having a positive impact globally!</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Speakers</h3>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.facebook.com/CoinSecure.in/">Coinsecure</a><span> - Benson Samuel & team will be talking about journey of Bitcoin in India.</span></li>
<li><span> </span><a href="https://www.facebook.com/airbitz/">Airbitz</a><span> - Meghan Kellison-Lords & </span><a href="https://www.facebook.com/FactomProject/">Factom</a><span> - Paul Snow will also be participating via Hangouts.</span></li>
</ul>
<p><b><a class="external-link" href="https://www.facebook.com/events/653126684826814/">Follow the event on Facebook</a></b></p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/events/coinfest-2016'>http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/events/coinfest-2016</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaOpennessEvent2016-04-04T15:19:28ZEventConsultation on 'National Geospatial Policy' - Notes and Submission
http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/consultation-on-national-geospatial-policy-03022016
<b>The Department of Science and Technology, Government of India, has constituted a National Expert Committee for developing a draft National Geospatial Policy (NGP) to provide appropriate guidelines for collection, analysis, use, and distribution of geospatial information across India, and to assure data availability, accessibility and quality. A pre-drafting consultation meeting for the NGP was organised in Delhi on February 03, 2016. Ms. Anubha Sinha represented CIS at the meeting, and shares her notes.</b>
<p> </p>
<h3>National Geospatial Policy - Pre-Drafting Consultation Meeting</h3>
<p>Keeping in mind the importance of geospatial data in the context of national development, the Department of Science and Technology, Government of India, has constituted a National Expert Committee for developing a draft National Geospatial Policy (NGP). The Committee is Chaired by Major General Dr. R Siva Kumar, former Head of Natural Resources Data Management System (NRDMS) and CEO of National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI), and Dr. Bhoop Singh, Head of NRDMS and NSDI Division at Department of Science and Technology, as Member Secretary. The Policy aims at providing appropriate guidelines for collection, analysis, use, and distribution of geospatial information across India, and to assure data availability, accessibility and quality.</p>
<p>A pre-drafting consultation meeting for the NGP was organised in Delhi by Dr. Valli Manickam, Professor at the Academic Staff College of India, on February 03, 2016, and CIS was invited to take part in it as the only participant from the civil society. The other participants included representatives from the geospatial industry and industry associations (like FICCI and CII), and Ms. Ranjana Kaul, Partner at Dua Associates. Among the drafting committee members, Major General Dr. R Siva Kumar, Dr. Bhoop Singh, Dr. Sandeep Tripathi (IFS), and Wing Commander Satyam Kushwaha were present.</p>
<p> </p>
<h3>National Geospatial Policy - Concept Note</h3>
<p>The purpose of the meeting was to hear the stakeholders' response to a Concept Note on the NGP, circulated prior to the meeting <strong>[1]</strong>. The Note sets out the principles and concerns of the proposed policy, which plans to guarantee geospatial data availability, accessibility, quality and in consonance with the imperatives of national security and intellectual property rights. The applicability of the policy is aimed at:</p>
<blockquote>all geospatial data created, generated and collected using public funds provided by Central and State Governments and International donor organizations, directly or through authorized agencies.</blockquote>
<p>The note suggests establishment of an "empowered body" to ensure proper creation, updates, management, dissemination, and sharing of the data, and management of an online portal for the same. The institutional mechanism to implement the policy will be composed of an Appellate authority / National High Power Implementation Committee, the NGP Implementation Committee, and the NGP Steering Committee.</p>
<p> </p>
<h3>Notes from the Meeting</h3>
<p>The Welcome Address was delivered by Dr. Bhoop Singh (Head of NRDMS and NSDI Division, DST) who informed the participants that the Expert Committee had already met National Security Council and heard their concerns on the policy. The principles on which the proposed policy is to be based were also shared. The policy resulted from an exercise started two years ago to fix quality and accuracy of geospatial data, which was when it was realised that there were significant gaps that need urgent redressal. It was also identified that in previous initiatives to manage geospatial data at the national level, some data-generating organisations had been left behind. The chief concerns for the Expert Committee are 1) tailoring a policy suited to India's unique security issues, 2) avoiding a blanket open policy that may lead to misuse of low resolution data, 3) heeding restrictions on mapping, considering that 43% of landmass was not represented on maps presently (a probable solution was to do feature based mapping), and 4) clarifying government regulation of drone-based mapping. Security concerns were raised frequently throughout the meeting. The Committee also recognised that for development, data sharing should be made more open. The Committee was keen to have the private industry as a partner in generation of geospatial data.</p>
<p>Private industry representatives agreed with the objectives of the policy and were willing to contribute to geospatial data generation. The Expert Committee mulled over the possibility of creating a Public Private Partnership to cater to data generation. The private industry complained about the lack of efforts in popularising geospatial technologies and making the process of tenders more transparent.</p>
<p>There were suggestions to examine the policies of other jurisdictions facing similar internal security threats as India, and delineating the types of data that could be openly shared (for instance, geospatial data from border regions versus non-border regions). Segregation of restricted and open geospatial data can also be done on the basis of its end-application, such as for military and engineering purposes. Participants also requested the creation of a clear Do's and Don'ts guideline. CIS presented a written submission that raised seven key concerns. These are listed in the section below.</p>
<p>On the question of making an open data policy, it was suggested that the committee needs to decide the fundamental approach of the policy first - whether the policy should be based on prohibition and restriction, or focus on identifying and regulating open and free geospatial. The UN General Assembly document on Principles relating to remote sensing of the Earth from space provides an appropriate international point of reference <strong>[2]</strong>.</p>
<p>After listening to the concerns and comments of the stakeholders, the core committee made the following concluding remarks:</p>
<ul><li>Existing policies of government and defence should be mapped out to avoid conflict or overlap with the proposed NGP policy</li>
<li>The sharing of data vests with government agencies and other organisations recommended by them – there needs to be a transparent mechanism for such recommendation based sharing</li>
<li>Industry should come up with self-regulatory mechanisms, do's and don'ts, and code of conduct</li>
<li>Develop a secure mechanism for providing data on sensitive areas (in terms of national security;</li>
<li>Even the defence agencies sometimes cannot access maps due to policies of the National Remote Sensing Centre and other agencies – such inconsistencies need to be fixed</li></ul>
<p>It was announced that the next consultation will occur in a couple of months, and will be open to the public at large, including representatives of industry, defence, and civil society.</p>
<p> </p>
<h3>Key Concerns about the NGP Concept Note</h3>
<p><strong>1. Complete lack of availability of open geospatial data from Indian government agencies:</strong> No government agency in India publish open geospatial data. While maps are often sold, both in printed and in digital form, they are not provided in a machine-readable open format and under an open license. The concept note towards NGP has made strong commitments towards changing this situation. There is an immediate need to participate in the NGP drafting process, with coordination among various civil society actors interested in open geospatial data, to ensure that these principles are carried into and operationalised in the actual NGP document.</p>
<p><strong>2. Need for explicit and comprehensive set of criteria to determine if a set of geospatial data is sensitive for national security reasons:</strong> In formal and informal conversations with various agencies collecting and creating geospatial data in India, the role played by security agencies in blocking proactive and reactive public disclosure of geospatial data, and even intra-governmental sharing of such data, has been highlighted. Addressing this issue requires development of an explicit and comprehensive list of criteria that will establish a clear and rule-based system for identifying if a specific geospatial data set is to be categorised as “shareable” or “non-shareable.”</p>
<p><strong>3. No clarity regarding legal status of citizen/crowd-sourced geospatial data, and initiatives to generate them:</strong> Open user-contributed geospatial data, especially through the OpenStreetMap platform, has emerged as a key driver of the global geospatial services industry. There is a legal ambiguity created by the National Mapping Policy regarding generation of such data in India, which came into focus when Survey of India filed a case against Google for organising a Mapathon contest, which invited Indian users to add metadata about physical and built features through Google Maps platform.1 The NGP needs to expressly provide legal sanction (and perhaps framework) for citizen/crowd-sourcing of geospatial data.</p>
<p><strong>4. Fragmented institutional structure for collection, management, and distribution of different kinds of geospatial data:</strong> Survey of India, Indian Institute of Remote Sensing, and Indian Space Research Organisation are all key government agencies involved in creating and managing geospatial data. Further, Election Commission of India is involved in preparing geospatial data about electoral units and their boundaries. The National Spatial Data Infrastructure was conceptualised to harmonise and centralise the geospatial data management processes, but is yet to be implemented with the backing of a policy or an Act. The NSDI can be institutionalised via the NGP as the national archive, aggregator, and distributor of open geospatial data, being originally collected and created by a range of government agencies.</p>
<p><strong>5. Integration of National Geospatial Policy with National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy (NDSAP):</strong> The proactive disclosure of “shareable” geospatial data using open geospatial standards and under open licenses must be carried out under the purview of the NDSAP, and through the open government data platform established through NDSAP. The decisions regarding licensing of open government data, as being discussed by the a committee set up under NDSAP, must also be applicable to open geospatial data that will be published following the instructions of the NGP. Further, instead of multiple online sources of open geospatial data collected by various Indian government agencies, must be identified as the primary and necessary source for publication of open geospatial data.</p>
<p><strong>6. Integration of National Geospatial Policy with Right to Information (RTI) Act:</strong> Geospatial data must be treated as a special category of information under the RTI Act, which necessitates that if an Indian citizen requests for geospatial data from a government agency under the purview of RTI Act, the agency must provide the data in a human-readable and machine-readable open geospatial standard, and not only in the printed format, as key qualities of digital geospatial data can be substantially lost when printed in paper.</p>
<p><strong>7. Need for special infrastructure for management and publication of real-time geospatial (big) data, and governance of the same:</strong> With increasing number of government assets being geo-referenced for the purpose of more effective and real-time management, especially in the transportation sector, the corresponding agencies (which are often not mapping agencies) are acquiring a vast amount of high-velocity geospatial data, which needs to be analysed and (sometimes) published in the real-time. The need for special infrastructure for such data, as well as its governance, has not been discussed in the concept note for NGP, which is a major omission.</p>
<p> </p>
<h3>Endnotes</h3>
<p><strong>[1]</strong> See: <a href="https://github.com/cis-india/website/raw/master/docs/DST_National-Geospatial-Policy_Concept-Note_2016.01.21.pdf">https://github.com/cis-india/website/raw/master/docs/DST_National-Geospatial-Policy_Concept-Note_2016.01.21.pdf</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[2]</strong> UNGA 41/65. Principles Relating to Remote Sensing of the Earth from Space: <a href="http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/gares/ARES_41_65E.pdf">http://www.unoosa.org/pdf/gares/ARES_41_65E.pdf</a>.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/consultation-on-national-geospatial-policy-03022016'>http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/consultation-on-national-geospatial-policy-03022016</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaOpen DataOpen Government DataFeaturedGeospatial DataOpennessDigital India2016-03-29T17:03:31ZBlog EntryMonitoring Sustainable Development Goals in India: Availability and Openness of Data (Part I)
http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/monitoring-sustainable-development-goals-in-india-availability-and-openness-01
<b>The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are an internationally agreed upon set of developmental targets to be achieved by 2030. There are 17 SDGs with 169 targets, and each target is mapped to one or more indicators as a measure of evaluation. In this and the next blog post, Kiran AB is documenting the availability and openness of data sets in India that are relevant for monitoring the targets under the SDGs. This post offers the findings for the first 7 Goals, while the next post will cover the last 10.</b>
<p> </p>
<p><em>The second part of the post can be accessed <a href="http://cis-india.org/openness/monitoring-sustainable-development-goals-in-india-availability-and-openness-02/">here</a>.</em></p>
<hr />
<h3>Monitoring Sustainable Development Goals</h3>
<p>The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are an internationally agreed upon set of developmental targets to be achieved by 2030. These are universal goals and targets which involve the entire world, developed and developing countries alike. They aim at integrating and balancing the three dimensions of the sustainable development – economic development, social inclusion, and environmental sustainability. There are <a href="http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/">17 SDGs with 169 targets</a>, and each target is mapped to one or more indicators as a measure of evaluation, covering a broad range of sustainable development issues <strong>[1]</strong>.</p>
<p>To initiate the visioning process for the SDGs, the United Nations established a High Level Panel in the year 2012, comprising of 27 members. The notion of "data revolution for sustainable development" has been one of the most remarkable categories of imagination and operational requirement to emerge from the final report of this High Level Panel. It identified a significant need for massive restructuring of infrastructures for generating global,
reliable, comparable, and timely data. The Independent Expert Advisory Group (IEAG) on "data revolution for sustainable development" has also raised the need for opening up development data. It proposes that open data must be considered as an instrument of ensuring transparency and accountability of the government <strong>[2]</strong>. Further, in a recent post from the World Economic Forum meeting, Stephen Walker and Jose Alonso have noted that "Not only will governments that embrace open data improve their public accountability and efficiency, they will also reap the social and economic benefits of opening up data for citizens" <strong>[3]</strong>. Opening up of government data is expected to transform the relationship between the government and the various stakeholders.</p>
<p>Currently the data is used by the governmental institutions for self-monitoring and making only a limited data available for public access and usage. But SDGs are not only for the government to monitor and realise, the
responsibility lies with various other actors as well.</p>
<p>Open data has a major role to play in transforming the vision of the SDGs into reality, by enabling the informed participation of multiple actors – private companies, non-government organisations, academic and research institutes, civic activists, etc. To plan, monitor, and actualise the path being traversed by a country, open data becomes essential. Also to facilitate public participation in the governance.</p>
<p>In this and the next blog post, I am documenting the availability and openness of data sets in India, which are relevant for the indicators identified for monitoring of targets under the 17 SDGs. This post offers the findings for the first 7 Goals, while the next post will cover the last 10. Along with questions of availability and openness, I have also documented the technical format of the available data, the level of granularity, and also the frequency of its collection, when applicable. The chart below describe the overall situation of availability and openness of data for monitoring SDGs in India.</p>
<p> </p>
<iframe src="https://cis-india.github.io/charts/2016.02.21_monitoring-SDGs-India_01/index.html" frameborder="0" height="580" width="600"></iframe>
<p> </p>
<h3>Goal #01: <em>End poverty in all its forms everywhere</em></h3>
<p>The data is available for most of the indicators either directly or need to be derived, however, data doesn't exist for one of the indicators.</p>
<p>The data exists at the national level and at the state level or both, but data availability at the district/city level would give a better picture. Though NSSO sample survey data includes representative data at the state/UT level, such data is often not made freely accessible. Not all data which have been collected, i.e., from agencies like NSSO, National Family Health Survey, etc., are open in the public domain.</p>
<p>Also, the frequency of data collected for most of the indicators are either decennial or quinquennial, rather an annual survey would facilitate better/close monitoring. Health is an important measure associated with poverty, but the data is decennially collected. There is a need for regular data updation, while considering those data which are supposed to be collected annually.</p>
<p>In this context, to derive certain indicators, say Indicator 1.3.1., there is a cross agency dependency on data, and lacks disaggregation of data. The disaggregation is a key to measure inequality, especially incidences like poverty. So to monitor poverty we need to identify the different strata of poverty and policy can be formulated accordingly.</p>
<p><strong>Data Not Available:</strong></p>
<ul><li>Indicator 1.3.1. Percentage of population covered by social protection floors /systems disaggregated by sex, and distinguishing children, unemployed, old age, people with disabilities, pregnant women/new-borns, work injury victims, poor and vulnerable</li></ul>
<p> </p>
<h3>Goal #02: <em>End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture</em></h3>
<p>Indicators and the data corresponding to them reflects two things, what has been done and what has to be done. The data for fifteen indicators mapped to the targets in goal 2 are available for thirteen of the indicators. The data which are available are likely to match the indicator directly or the data has to be derived for most of the indicators. And for the remaining two indicators the data is not available.</p>
<p>For most of the indicators that have to be derived, there is a strong dependency on the dataset from NSSO sample survey for arriving at the requirement. This dependency comes at a cost, as NSSO sample data are not freely available in the public domain, thus making the overall monitoring dependent on closed data. There is a cross agency reliance on data, for arriving at the indicator, and the data on public platform are not up to date.</p>
<p>Also, the data for majority of the indicators are measured at the national as well as state level, but a goal like ending hunger – providing food security, would definitely require data in the order of district/village level. Though data is available for the Indicator 2.2.1: Prevalence of stunting (height for age <-2 SD from the median of the WHO Child Growth Standards) among children under five years of age, but, the data is from eight states only and the national data is derived from it, too small sample size to extrapolate as the nation's data.</p>
<p>On the frequency of data collection, Indicator 2.c.1: Indicator of (food) Price Anomalies (IPA), are collected monthly and some of the data are quinquennial or decennial. However, most of them are annually collected, enabling better accountability and close monitoring of the goals and to frame actionable policy steps.</p>
<p><strong>Data Not Available:</strong></p>
<ul><li>Indicator 2.5.1: Ex Situ Crop Collections Enrichment index</li>
<li>b. Indicator 2.5.2: Percentage of local crops and breeds and their wild relatives, classified as being at risk, not-at-risk or unknown level of risk of extinction</li></ul>
<p> </p>
<h3>Goal #03: <em>Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages</em></h3>
<p>Data is available for all the twenty-five indicators corresponding to the thirteen targets set to measure goal 3 on health and well-being. Some of the data are direct to the indicator, while some have to be derived from various data set to arrive at the indicator.</p>
<p>Data is open and accessible freely in the public domain for all the indicators, most of the data are from World Health Organisation (WHO) database. However, for finer tunings and up to date data there is dependency on National Family Health Survey (NFHS) which is collected decennially.</p>
<p>The WHO data lacks updation and ones which are available are pertaining to an year, thus making the analysis of the annual trend difficult. While the frequency of data collected for most of the data are annual.</p>
<p>The dataset available are at the national and state level, and two of the data set is measured in the order of cities. Most of the WHO dataset provides data at the national level, whereas NFHS, District Family Health Surveys and other agencies provide data at the lowest order, but such dataset are not freely accessible on the public domain. The updated data on health are not made available freely accessible in the public domain which are derived through health surveys.</p>
<p> </p>
<h3>Goal #04: <em>Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all</em></h3>
<p>Education in India is a fundamental right of every citizen, therefore achieving inclusive, equitable and quality education for all becomes necessary. Said this, to monitor goal 4, data is available for nine indicators out of eleven indicators, and for the remaining two indicators, the data is not accessible or in public domain for free access, and for the sub-part of the indicator on proficiency level. Though data exists for all the indicators, however, for most of the indicators we need to derive from multiple sources. Data does not exist for subparts like psychosocial wellbeing, in the Indicator 4.2.1 and proficiency in functional literacy and numeracy skills as in the Indicator 4.6.1.</p>
<p>The data are collected annually for seven indicators and for the two indicators Indicator 4.3.1 and Indicator 4.6.1, which relies on NFHS and Census data respectively, the data is collected decennially. Also, for some of the indicators the data availability is restricted to particular years or are not up to date.</p>
<p>The data which exists are collected at the national and state level for some of them and for some data set the data exists at the national level only, whereas for the Indicator 4.6.1, the data set is of the order of city. And the disaggregation issue prevails here as well, so to sort data based on the given parameter one has to consult NSSO sample survey or derive from the existing data.</p>
<p><strong>Data Not Available:</strong></p>
<ul><li>Indicator 4.7.1: Percentage of 15-year old students enrolled in secondary school demonstrating at least a fixed level of knowledge across a selection of topics in environmental science and geo science. The exact choice/range of topics will depend on the survey or assessment in which the indicator is collected. Disaggregation: sex and location</li>
<li>Indicator 4.a.1: Percentage of schools with access to (i) electricity; (ii) Internet for pedagogical purposes; (iii) computers for pedagogical purposes; (iv) adapted infrastructure and materials for students with disabilities; (v) single-sex basic sanitation facilities; (vi) basic hand washing facilities</li></ul>
<p> </p>
<h3>Goal #05: <em>Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls</em></h3>
<p>Gender as a social construct has been deprived of equality and equity, therefore, achieving equality and empowering women and girls lays down the path for an inclusive development. In this direction, to monitor the goal 5, data is available for eleven indicators and do not exist for three indicators out of fourteen indicators. However, the Indicator 5.3.2, is not relevant as India does not acknowledge FGM/C. Also, for most of the indicators, the data need to be derived from the given dataset.</p>
<p>For most of the data, the data is collected at the National or state level. Whereas for the Indicator 5.a.1, the data is available at the district/tehasil level and it is based on Agricultural census of India, carried out once in five years.</p>
<p>The collection of data is annual in most cases, decennial in the cases of NFHS data, quinquennial with regard to data on land ownership and rights based on gender. Also, in cases of proportion of women in parliament or number of legal framework – domestic/international, the frequency cannot be determined as its subject to change.</p>
<p>Regarding openness, though data exists, the data is not available to access freely. These data are either from NSSO sample survey and NFHS. For most of the indicators the data exists in general without disaggregation, but, as the goal demands sex based disaggregation, we need to derive from the existing data.</p>
<p><strong>Data Not Available:</strong></p>
<ul><li>Indicator 5.3.2: Percentage of girls and women aged 15-49 who have undergone female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C), by age group (for relevant countries only)</li>
<li>Indicator 5.6.2. Number of countries with laws and regulations that guarantee women aged 15-49 access to sexual and reproductive health care, information and education</li>
<li>Indicator 5.c.1: Percentage of countries with systems to track and make public allocations for gender equality and women’s empowerment</li></ul>
<p> </p>
<h3>Goal #06: <em>Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all</em></h3>
<p>Water is a life giving source, but ensuring water and sanitation in a sustainable way is a challenge indeed. Data is available for all the ten indicators to monitor the goal 6. While for most of the indicators the data has to be derived from the given data set or from other data set. The data set available are in absolute numbers, need to modify as per the indicators.</p>
<p>The data is collected annually for most of the indicators, however, for the indicators, Indicator 6.3.2: Percentage of water bodies with good ambient water quality; Indicator 6.4.1: Percentage change in water use efficiency over time, the data pertains to the specific year, without a time series.</p>
<p>Three of the data are measured at the state level, one at the district level – Indicator 6.2.1, and another at the level of cities – Indicator 6.3.1. For most of the indicators, the data are from international agencies like WHO, UNEP, FAO, etc.</p>
<p>The data for four of the indicators are not freely accessible on the public domain, though data exists. Also, for the Indicator 6.a.1, the available data is not specific to it, but gives an overview. Overall, for the close monitoring of the goal 6, the granularity of the data should be at the district/block level, and must be freely accessible.</p>
<p> </p>
<h3>Goal #07: <em>Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all</em></h3>
<p>Energy is considered one of the basic needs of human life, therefore, providing energy which is reliable and affordable has to ensure sustainability and the kind of energy being produced. The data exists for five of the indicators out of six indicators, however, the data does not exist for one of the indicators. The data for two of the indicators – Indicator 7.2.1, Indicator 7.3.1, have to be derived from the given data set.</p>
<p>For most of the data, the data is collected annually and the data is collected at the national level. However, as to the data availability for the Indicator 7.2.1, the data is available at the state level.</p>
<p>To arrive at the required indicator, there is a dependency over other dataset. Though most of the data are available, for three of the indicators – Indicator 7.2.1: Renewable energy share in the total final energy consumption (%); Indicator 7.3.1. Energy intensity (%) measured in terms of primary energy and GDP; Indicator 7.a.1: Mobilized amount of USD per year starting in 2020 accountable towards the US 100 billion commitment, the data is not freely accessible.</p>
<p><strong>Data Not Available:</strong></p>
<ul><li>Indicator 7.b.1. Ratio of value added to net domestic energy use, by industry</li></ul>
<p> </p>
<h3>References</h3>
<p><strong>[1]</strong> "Indicators and a Monitoring Framework for the Sustainable Development Goals." Sustainable Development Solutions Network. March 20, 2015. Accessed February 16, 2016. <a href="http://unsdsn.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/150320-SDSN-Indicator-Report.pdf">http://unsdsn.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/150320-SDSN-Indicator-Report.pdf</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[2]</strong> "A World That Counts - Mobilising the Data Revolution for Sustainable Development." Report. Independent Expert Advisory Group Secretariat, 2014. Accessed February 19, 2016.
<a href="http://www.undatarevolution.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/A-World-That-Counts.pdf">http://www.undatarevolution.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/A-World-That-Counts.pdf</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[3]</strong> Walker, Stephen, and Jose M. Alonso. "Data Will Only Get Us so Far. We Need It to Be Open." World Economic Forum. January 29, 2016. Accessed February 16, 2016. <a href="http://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/data-will-only-get-us-so-far-we-need-it-to-be-open">http://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/data-will-only-get-us-so-far-we-need-it-to-be-open</a>.</p>
<p> </p>
<h3>Author</h3>
<p>Kiran A B, is a student of Master of Public Policy (MPP) at the National Law School of India University, Bengaluru. Kiran has an undergraduate degree in electronics and communications engineering, and he has three years full-time work experience as a software engineer, working in different technological platforms. His research interest includes interdisciplinary linkages between policy, law and technology.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/monitoring-sustainable-development-goals-in-india-availability-and-openness-01'>http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/monitoring-sustainable-development-goals-in-india-availability-and-openness-01</a>
</p>
No publisherKiran ABOpen DataOpen Government DataData RevolutionOpennessSustainable Development Goals2017-01-02T14:12:58ZBlog EntryNational Koha Conclave
http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/news/national-koha-conclave
<b>Informatics Publishing organized an event at Fortune Park JP Celestial in Bangalore on February 17, 2016. Sunil Abraham delivered the inaugural address on the occasion.</b>
<p>For more info on the event <a class="external-link" href="http://cis-india.org/openness/national-koha-enclave.pdf">see this page</a>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/news/national-koha-conclave'>http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/news/national-koha-conclave</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaOpennessFOSS2016-02-19T16:20:23ZNews ItemOpen Data Hackathons are Great, but Address Privacy and License Concerns
http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/open-data-hackathons-are-great-but-address-privacy-and-license-concerns
<b>This is to cross-publish a blog post from DataMeet website regarding a letter shared with the organisers of Urban Hack 2015, Bangalore, in response to a set of privacy and license concerns identified and voiced during the hackathon by DataMeet members. Sumandro Chattapadhyay co-authored and co-signed the letter. The blog post is written by Nisha Thompson.</b>
<p> </p>
<p>Hackathons are a source of confusion and frustration for us. DataMeet actively does not do them unless there is a very specific outcome the community wants like<a href="https://github.com/datameet/maps/tree/master/parliamentary-constituencies"> freeing a whole dataset </a>or introducing <a href="http://datameet.org/2015/05/13/mumbai-meet-6-data-science-hackathon/">open data to a new audience</a>. We feel that they cause burn out, are not productive, and in general don't help create a healthy community of civic tech and open data enthusiasts.</p>
<p>That is not to say we feel others shouldn't do them, they are very good opportunities to spark discussion and introduce new audiences to problems in the social sector. <a href="http://www.datakind.org/chapters/datakind-blr">DataKind</a> and <a href="https://rhokbangalore.wordpress.com/">RHOK</a> and numerous others host hackathons or variations of them regularly to stir the pot, bring new people into civic tech and they can be successful starts to long term connections and experiments. A lot of people in the DataMeet community participate and enjoy hackathons.</p>
<p>However, with great data access comes great responsibility. We always want to make sure that even if no output is achieved when a dataset is opened at least no harm should be done.</p>
<p>Last October an open data hackathon,<a href="https://www.hackerearth.com/sprints/urban-hack/"> Urban Hack</a>, run by Hacker Earth, <a href="http://www.nasscom.in/">NASSCOM</a>, <a href="http://www.xrci.xerox.com/">XEROX</a>, <a href="https://console.ng.bluemix.net/?cm_mmc=EcoDISA-_-Bluemix_day-_-11-15-14::12-31-15-_-UrbanHack">IBM </a>and <a href="http://wri-india.org/">World Resource Institute India</a> wanted to bring out open data and spark innovation in the transport and crime space by making datasets from <a href="http://mybmtc.com/">Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation (BMTC)</a> and the Bangalore City Police available to work with. A DataMeet member (<a href="http://www.lostprogrammer.com/">Srinivas Kodali</a>) was participating, he is a huge transport data enthusiast and wanted to take a look at what is being made available.</p>
<p>In the morning shortly after it started I received a call from him that there is a dataset that was made available that seems to be violating privacy and data security. We contacted the organizers and they took it down, later we realized it was quite a sensitive dataset and a few hundred people had already downloaded it. We were also distressed that they had not clarified ownership of data, license of data, and had linked to sources like <a href="http://openbangalore.org/">Open Bangalore</a> without specifying licensing, which violated the license.</p>
<p>The organizers were quite noted and had been involved with hackathons before so it was a little distressing to see these mistakes being made. We were concerned that the government partners (who had not participated in these types of events before) were also being exposed to poor practices. As smart cities initiatives take over the Indian urban space, we began to realize that this is a mistake that shouldn't happen again.</p>
<p>Along with <a href="http://cis-india.org/">Centre for Internet and Society</a> and Random Hacks of Kindness we sent the organizers, Bangalore City Police and BMTC a letter about the breach in protocol. We wanted to make sure everyone was aware of the issues and that measures were taken to not repeat these mistakes.</p>
<p>You can see the letter here:</p>
<p><iframe src="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2702333-Appropriate-and-Responsible-Practices-for.html" height="500" width="600"></iframe></p>
<p>We are very proud of the DataMeet community and Srinivas for bringing this violation to the attention of the organizers. As people who participate in hackathons and other data events it is imperative that privacy and security are kept in mind at all times. In a space like India where a lot of these concepts are new to institutions, like the Government, it is essential that we are always using opportunities not only to showcase the power of open data but also good practices for protecting privacy and ensuring security.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><em>Originally posted on DataMeet website: <a href="http://datameet.org/2016/02/02/to-hack-or-not-to-hack/">http://datameet.org/2016/02/02/to-hack-or-not-to-hack/</a>.</em></p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/open-data-hackathons-are-great-but-address-privacy-and-license-concerns'>http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/open-data-hackathons-are-great-but-address-privacy-and-license-concerns</a>
</p>
No publishersumandroPrivacyOpen DataOpen Government DataFeaturedHackathonOpenness2016-02-05T20:37:18ZBlog EntryOER16: Open Culture
http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/news/oer16-open-culture
<b>The 7th Open Educational Resources Conference, OER16: Open Culture, will be held on April 19 and 20, 2016 at the University of Edinburgh. The event is organized by Association for Learning Technology.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">As a part of the programme committee, Subhashish Panigrahi is currently reviewing the submissions for the 7th Open Educational Resources Conference, "OER16: Open Culture" that is being organised during April 19 and 20, 2016 at University of Edinburgh, UK. See the details of the Programme Committee <a class="external-link" href="https://oer16.oerconf.org/about/programme-committee/">here</a>. Download a PDF of the <a href="http://oer16.oerconf.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/23/2015/11/OER16-Flyer-1.0-digital.pdf">flyer for OER16</a>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The vision for the conference is to focus on the value proposition of embedding open culture in the context of institutional strategies for learning, teaching and research. The conference will be chaired by Melissa Highton, Director of Learning, Teaching and Web Services at the University of Edinburgh, and Lorna Campbell, OER Liaison at the University of Edinburgh and EDINA Digital Education Manager.</p>
<p><span>OER16 will focus on:</span></p>
<ul>
<li><span> </span><span>The strategic advantage of open and creating a culture of openness.</span></li>
<li><span> </span><span>Converging and competing cultures of open knowledge, open source, open content, open practice, open data and open access.</span></li>
<li><span> </span><span>Hacking, making and sharing.</span></li>
<li><span> </span><span>The reputational challenges of openwashing.</span></li>
<li><span> </span><span>Openness and public engagement.</span></li>
<li><span> Innovative approaches to opening up cultural heritage collections for education.</span></li>
</ul>
<p><b>Follow #oer16 to keep up to date with all conference news. Register for the event <a class="external-link" href="http://go.alt.ac.uk/OER16-Registration">Now</a>.<br /></b></p>
<ul>
</ul>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/news/oer16-open-culture'>http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/news/oer16-open-culture</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaOpen Educational ResourcesOpenness2016-01-30T06:53:26ZNews ItemApproaching Open Research via Open Data - Presentation at TERI, December 22, 2015
http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/approaching-open-research-via-open-data-2015
<b>The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), Delhi, organised a seminar on 'Open Access in Research Area: A Strategic Approach' on December 22, 2015. We supported the seminar as a knowledge partner. Sumandro Chattapadhyay was invited to deliver a special address. Here are the notes and slides from the presentation.</b>
<p> </p>
<p>The brief presentation foregrounded <em>open data</em> as a crucial part of open research, and also as an instrument of opening up research for public consumption, discussion, and scrutiny.</p>
<p>The presentation started with reference to the <a href="http://cis-india.org/openness/open-access-dialogues-report">Open Access Dialogues</a> organised by The African Commons Project and the Centre for Internet and Society during November 2012 to March 2013 that explored the global open access agenda from a developing world perspective.</p>
<p>I noted that one of the key findings from the Indian participants of the online consultations organised as part of the Open Access Dialogues was the need for a <em>broader vision of open access</em>. Open research data is a key component of this broader vision of open access and open research.</p>
<p>There was a brief discussion of how to start doing and thinking about open data as an approach to open research. I highlighted the need to get started on 1) getting government to open up data relevant to research, 2) opening up academic research data, and 3) sectoral conversations on data standards (technical and semantic); as well as the need to think about 1) open data as bridge across disciplinary communities, 2) quantification of life and the widening sphere of research data, and 3) academic research and public life.</p>
<p>In next slides, I quickly mentioned the international processes going on in the open data landscape - the conversation on open data and Sustainable Development Data, the possibility of using big (social and telecom) data for purposes of development monitoring, and the International Open Data Charter as a set of global principles for open data.</p>
<p>More about the seminar: <a href="http://cis-india.org/openness/teri-seminar-on-open-access-in-research">http://cis-india.org/openness/teri-seminar-on-open-access-in-research</a>.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><iframe src="//www.slideshare.net/slideshow/embed_code/key/la5ulZYBT15DiL" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" height="485" width="595"> </iframe></p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/approaching-open-research-via-open-data-2015'>http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/approaching-open-research-via-open-data-2015</a>
</p>
No publishersumandroOpen DataOpen ResearchOpen Government DataOpenness2016-01-12T14:37:38ZBlog EntryPre-Budget Consultation 2016 - Submission to the IT Group of the Ministry of Finance
http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/pre-budget-consultation-2016-submission-to-the-ministry-of-finance
<b>The Ministry of Finance has recently held pre-budget consultations with different stakeholder groups in connection with the Union Budget 2016-17. We were invited to take part in the consultation for the IT (hardware and software) group organised on January 07, 2016, and submit a suggestion note. We are sharing the note below. It was prepared and presented by Sumandro Chattapadhyay, with contributions from Rohini Lakshané, Anubha Sinha, and other members of CIS.</b>
<p> </p>
<p>It is our distinct honour to be invited to submit this note for consideration by the IT Group of the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, as part of the pre-budget consultation for 2016-17.</p>
<p>The Centre for Internet and Society is (CIS) is a non-profit organisation that undertakes interdisciplinary research on internet and digital technologies from policy and academic perspectives. The areas of focus include digital accessibility for persons with diverse abilities, access to knowledge, intellectual property rights, openness (including open data, free and open source software, open standards, open access, open educational resources, and open video), internet governance, telecommunication reform, digital privacy, and cyber-security. We receive financial support from Kusuma Trust, Wikimedia Foundation, MacArthur Foundation, IDRC, and other donors.</p>
<p>We have divided our suggestions into the different topics that our organisation has been researching in the recent years.</p>
<p> </p>
<h3>Free/Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS) is the Basis for Digital India</h3>
<p> </p>
<p>We congratulate the policies introduced by the government to promote use of free/libre and open source software and that of open APIs for all e-governance projects and systems. This is not only crucial for the government to avoid vendor lock-in when it comes to critical software systems for governance, but also to ensure that the source code of such systems is available for public scrutiny and do not contain any security flaws.</p>
<p>We request the government to empower the implementation of these policies by making open sharing of source code a necessity for all software vendors hired by government agencies a necessary condition for awarding of tenders. The 2016-17 budget should include special support to make all government agencies aware and capable of implementing these policies, as well as to build and operate agency-level software repositories (with version controlling system) to host the source codes. These repositories may function to manage the development and maintenance of software used in e-governance projects, as well as to seek comments from the public regarding the quality of the software.</p>
<p>Use of FLOSS is not only important from the security or the cost-saving perspectives, it is also crucial to develop a robust industry of software development firms that specialise in FLOSS-based solutions, as opposed to being restricted to doing local implementation of global software vendors. A holistic support for FLOSS, especially with the government functioning as the dominant client, will immensely help creation of domestic jobs in the software industry, as well as encouraging Indian programmers to contribute to development of FLOSS projects.</p>
<p>An effective compliance monitoring and enforcement system needs to be created to ensure that all government agencies are Strong enforcement of the 2011 policy to use open source software in governance, including an enforcement task force that checks whether government departments have complied with this or not.</p>
<p> </p>
<h3>Open Data is a Key Instrument for Transparent Decision Making</h3>
<p> </p>
<p>With a wider set of governance activities being carried out using information systems, the government is increasingly acquiring a substantial amount of data about governance processes and status of projects that needs to be effectively fed back into the decision making process for the same projects. Opening up such data not only allows for public transparency, but also for easier sharing of data across government agencies, which reduces process delays and possibilities of duplication of data collection efforts.</p>
<p>We request the 2016-17 budget to foreground the National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy and the Open Government Data Platform of India as two key enablers of the Digital India agenda, and accordingly budget for modernisation and reconfiguration of data collection and management processes across government agencies, so that those processes are made automatic and open-by-default. Automatic data management processes minimise the possibility of data loss by directly archiving the collected data, which is increasingly becoming digital in nature. Open-by-default processes of data management means that all data collected by an agency, once pre-recognised as shareable data (that is non-sensitive and anonymised), will be proactively disclosed as a rule.</p>
<p>Implementation of the National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy has been hindered, so far, by the lack of preparation of a public inventory of data assets, along with the information of their collection cycles, modes of collection and storage, etc., by each union government agency. Specific budgetary allocation to develop these inventories will be crucial not only for the implementation of the Policy, but also for the government to get an extensive sense of data collected and maintained currently by various government agencies. Decisions to proactively publish, or otherwise, such data can then be taken based on established rules.</p>
<p>Availability of such open data, as mentioned above, creates a wider possibility for the public to know, learn, and understand the activities of the government, and is a cornerstone of transparent governance in the digital era. But making this a reality requires a systemic implementation of open government data practices, and various agencies would require targeted budget to undertake the required capacity development and work process re-engineering. Expenditure of such kind should not be seen as producing government data as a product, but as producing data as an infrastructure, which will be of continuous value for the years to come.</p>
<p>As being discussed globally, open government data has the potential to kickstart a vast market of data derivatives, analytics companies, and data-driven innovation. Encouraging civic innovations, empowered by open government data - from climate data to transport data - can also be one of the unique initiatives of budget 2016-17.</p>
<p>For maximising impact of opened up government data, we request the government to publish data that either has a high demand already (such as, geospatial data, and transport data), or is related to high-net-worth activities of the government (such as, data related to monitoring of major programmes, and budget and expenditure data for union and state governments).</p>
<p> </p>
<h3>Promotion of Start-ups and MSMEs in Electronics and IT Hardware Manufacturing</h3>
<p> </p>
<p>In line with the Make in India and Digital India initiatives, to enable India to be one of the global hubs of design, manufacturing, and exporting of electronics and IT hardware, we request that the budget 2016-17 focus on increasing flow of fund to start-ups and Medium and Small-Scale Manufacturing Enterprises (MSMEs) in the form of research and development grants (ideally connected to government, especially defense-related, spending on IT hardware innovation), seed capital, and venture capital.</p>
<p>Generation of awareness and industry-specific strategies to develop intellectual property regimes and practices favourable for manufacturers of electronics and IT hardware in India is an absolutely crucial part of promotion of the same, especially in the current global scenario. Start-ups and MSMEs must be made thoroughly aware of intellectual property concerns and possibilities, including limitations and exceptions, flexibilities, and alternative models such as open innovation.</p>
<p>We request the budget 2016-17 to give special emphasis to facilitation of technology licensing and transfer, through voluntary mechanisms as well as government intervention, such as compulsory licensing and government enforced patent pools.</p>
<p> </p>
<h3>Applied Mathematics Research is Fundamental for Cybersecurity</h3>
<p> </p>
<p>Recent global reports have revealed that some national governments have been actively involved in sponsoring distortion in applied mathematics research so as to introduce weaknesses in encryption standards used in for online communication. Instead of trying to regulate key-length or mandating pre-registration of devices using encryption, as suggested by the withdrawn National Encryption Policy draft, would not be able to address this core emerging problem of weak cybersecurity standards.</p>
<p>For effective and sustainable cybersecurity strategy, we must develop significant expertise in applied mathematical research, which is the very basis of cybersecurity standards development. We request the budget 2016-17 to give this topic the much-needed focus, especially in the context of the Digital India initiative and the upcoming National Encryption Policy.</p>
<p>Along with developing domestic research capacity, a more immediately important step for the government is to ensure high quality Indian participation in global standard setting organisations, and hence to contribute to global standards making processes. We humbly suggest that categorical support for such participation and contribution is provided through the budget 2016-17, perhaps by partially channeling the revenues obtained from spectrum auctions.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/pre-budget-consultation-2016-submission-to-the-ministry-of-finance'>http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/pre-budget-consultation-2016-submission-to-the-ministry-of-finance</a>
</p>
No publishersumandroOpen StandardsOpen SourceCybersecurityOpen DataIntellectual Property RightsOpen Government DataFeaturedPatentsOpennessOpen InnovationEncryption Policy2016-01-12T13:34:41ZBlog EntrySeminar on Open Access in Research Area: A Strategic Approach
http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/teri-seminar-on-open-access-in-research
<b>The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), Delhi, is organising a seminar on open access in research on Tuesday, December 22, 2015. The seminar will focus on: 1) wider access to scientific publications and research data, 2) access to scientific information, and 3) challenges and opportunities of research data. The Centre for Internet and Society is supporting the event as a Knowledge Partner.</b>
<p> </p>
<h2>Background</h2>
<p>Open Access has become central importance to advancing the interests of researchers, scholars, students, business, and the public as well as librarians. Increasingly, research institutions require researchers to publish articles that report research findings openly accessible in open domain.</p>
<p>Open Access pursues to yield scholarly publishing to spread knowledge and allow that knowledge to be built upon. Price barriers should not stop researchers from getting access to research data. Open Access, and the open availability and search ability of scholarly research that it entails, will have a significant positive impact on everything from education to the research practice in various fields.</p>
<p>To explore why Open Access is so important to a number of groups, TERI Library along with The Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) as Knowledge Partner is organizing a half day seminar on <em>Open Access in Research Areas: a Strategic Approach</em> on December 22, 2015 at TERI Seminar Hall, IHC, Lodhi Road, New Delhi.</p>
<p>The Seminar will focus on:</p>
<ul>
<li>
<p>wider access to scientific publications and research data</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>access to scientific information, and</p>
</li>
<li>
<p>challenges and opportunities of research data.</p>
</li></ul>
<p> </p>
<h2>Schedule</h2>
<p>No registration is required to attend the seminar. Seats are limited, and will be provided on first-come-first-served basis.</p>
<p> </p>
<table>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>13:45 - 14:00</td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><strong>Registration and Networking</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>14:00 - 14:10</td>
<td><br /></td>
<td>Welcome Address - <strong>Mr. Prabir Sengupta</strong>, Distinguished Fellow and Director, Knowledge Management Division, TERI</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>14:10 - 14:20</td>
<td><br /></td>
<td>Special Address - <strong>Sumandro Chattapadhyay</strong>, Research Director, The Centre for Internet and Society</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>14:20 - 14:35</td>
<td><br /></td>
<td>Keynote Address - <strong>Dr. K.R. Murali Mohan</strong>, Advisor, Big Data Initiatives Division, Department of Science and Technology</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>14:35 - 14:50</td>
<td><br /></td>
<td>Inaugural Address - <strong>Dr. Chandrima Shaha</strong>, Director, National Institute of Immunology, New Delhi</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>14:50 - 15:00</td>
<td><br /></td>
<td>Setting the Theme and Vote of Thanks - <strong>Dr. P.K. Bhattacharya</strong>, Fellow and Area Convenor, Knowledge Management Division, TERI</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>15:00 - 15:30</td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><strong>Tea and Refreshments</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>15:30 - 17:15</td>
<td><br /></td>
<td><strong>Plenary Session</strong><br />
Chair: <strong>Dr. Ramesh Sharma</strong>, Director, CEMCA<br />
<ul>
<li><strong>Puneet Kishor</strong>, Researcher and Independent Consultant - "Science, Data, and Creative Commons"</li>
<li><strong>Dr. Beth Sandore Namachchivaya</strong>, Associate Dean of Libraries and Professor University of Illinois - "Developing Services, Infrastructure, and Best Practices to Conserve and Provide Access to Research Data: Challenges and Opportunities"</li>
<li><strong>Dr. Usha Mujoo Munshi</strong>, Librarian, Indian institute of Public Administration</li></ul>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/teri-seminar-on-open-access-in-research'>http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/teri-seminar-on-open-access-in-research</a>
</p>
No publishersumandroOpen DataFeaturedOpen ResearchOpen AccessOpennessEvent2015-12-22T05:37:44ZEvent