Centre for Internet and Society

Human Rights vs National Security

praskrishna — 2017-05-20T02:48:20Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/human-rights-versus-national-security.pdf

Human Rights & Privacy Laws

praskrishna — 2013-03-20T05:22:37Z

Human Rights & Privacy Laws

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/PI.png

Human DNA Profiling

praskrishna — 2016-01-03T09:26:04Z

Human DNA Profiling

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/HumanDNA.png

Huge outcry forces India to backtrack on social media data proposal

praskrishna — 2015-10-01T01:31:55Z

Govt retracts move after strongly negative reaction to 90-day message-saving policy

The article was published by Today on September 24, 2015. Pranesh Prakash has been quoted.

Responding to a chorus of withering criticism, Indian officials have withdrawn a draft policy on encryption that would have required users of social media and messaging apps to save plain-text versions of their messages for 90 days so they could be shared with the police.

The proposal, which many condemned as both draconian and impractical, came as an embarrassment days before Prime Minister Narendra Modi travels to Silicon Valley to try to attract investment and promote India as an emerging market for digital technology.

Mr Modi is an avid user of social media and has mobilised large networks of online activists during his party’s campaigns.

The government issued a statement on Tuesday saying the draft proposing that users save messages for three months had been withdrawn, as officials hurried to distance themselves from the idea.

“I wish to make it clear that it is just a draft and not the view of the government,” said Mr Ravi Shankar Prasad, the Minister of Communications and Information Technology.

Internet policy activists discovered the draft on a government website late last week and began to lampoon it online as “absurd”. One offered the example of an iPhone, which automatically encrypts messages.

“They can’t intentionally want people to copy and paste every message a person gets on their iPhone on to another device,” said Mr Pranesh Prakash, a policy director at the Center for Internet and Society in Bangalore.

The draft, which was put forward by a committee of unidentified experts in the Department of Electronics and Information Technology, also overlooked the fact that most Indians use mobile phones with very little storage space, said Mr Nikhil Pahwa, the editor of MediaNama.com, which covers digital media issues in India.

“It is incomprehensible how they would have expected users to keep their messages in plain-text format,” he said. “And I don’t think that anyone can argue that keeping data in a plain-text format makes it secure.”

An official in the Communications Ministry, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorised to talk to the media, said the expert committee had been convened to formulate a policy on the “phenomenal rise” in encrypted communication over the Internet.

He said the committee had intended to require social media platforms and messaging apps, such as WhatsApp and Viber, to save plain-text versions of messages and did not intend to impose that burden on individual users.

“It was interpreted by the netizens as ‘you and I’,” the official said. He added that interpretation was misleading.

But that version of the requirement would also be “outrageous,” Mr Prakash said. For example, WhatsApp uses “end-to-end” encryption and does not save communications between users or have access to plain text, he said.

Mr Prakash said that as officials revised the proposal, the government should reach out to “experts in cryptography and human rights”.

“This is a very crucial combination of three rights: the right to security, the right to freedom of expression, and the right to privacy,” he said.

On television, spokesmen for Mr Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) found themselves debating their counterparts from the opposition Indian National Congress Party, one of whom remarked that “tomorrow they will start demanding that you videograph what has been going on in your bedroom for the past 90 days.”

The BJP’s national spokeswoman, Shaina Nana Chudasama, responded with some exasperation. “I don’t know why we have to have this hue and cry,” she said.

“Our Prime Minister believes in absolute freedom on social media. There is no question of our trying to come down heavily on the freedom of the public at large.” THE NEW YORK TIMES

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/today-september-24-2015-huge-outcry-forces-india-backtrack-social-media-data-proposal

Hubli Workshop Press Coverage

praskrishna — 2013-07-31T07:52:39Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/hubli-workshop-press-coverage.zip

HTTP

praskrishna — 2014-05-22T07:24:27Z

HTTP-HTML

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/HTTP.png

How Web 2.0 responded to Hazare

praskrishna — 2011-04-11T10:38:03Z

Social media often fails to give us time to form critical opinions. ‘It mirrored the spectacle that we were being fed by TV channels', says Nishant Shah in an interview with Deepa Kurup. This news was published in the Hindu on April 11, 2011.

By Day Two of the protests at Jantar Mantar, where social activist Anna Hazare was leading a fast-unto-death against corruption, most commentators were drawing fierce parallels with Tahrir Square, and other pro-democracy revolutions in the Middle-East.

Soon enough, the social media angle raised its head. After a quiet Tuesday, when television channels began to “play up” the protests, Wednesday morning saw social media platforms abuzz with chatter. Initiated by campaign organisers, the India Against Corruption team, Facebook profile badges, missed call campaigns and petitions (most notably on online campaign site Avaaz (where over 6.17 lakh have registered support) entered the scene.

In 140 characters, #janlokpal, #annahazare and the less gracious #meranetachorhain began to trend on Twitter. YouTube shows up around 2,000 video results, a lot of which are amateur videos shot by participants.

‘Causes' application requests for “brandishing corruption”, ‘Like'-this-revolution requests and Tweets on how you can indeed weed out the corruption demon with a Re-Tweet, were abound.

But did this social media buzz translate into more people on the ground? Did the Tweets and chain e-mails, that were doing the rounds fairly early on, manage to drive public opinion, or outrage, as in this case? On this, the jury is divided.

Crunching numbers

Even in the Middle-East, where we saw dictators plug social media channels, experts have downplayed the pivotal role attributed to social media. A tool for sharing information, its standalone role in triggering a revolution has been dismissed by many.

In the current context, this is even more difficult to establish because efforts appear to be all too scattered, unlike in Egypt where the ‘We are all Khaled Said' page by Wael Ghonim, appeared to be a focal point of sorts.

In comparison, a simple search on Facebook reveals over 20 pages that all have around 25,000-30,000 users on-board. Mr. Hazare's Facebook profile page has over 1.3 lakh ‘Likes'.

Gaurav Mishra, social media analyst, pegs the total support at around 15 lakh. Drawing parallels with the citizen activism campaigns that emerged between the terrorist attacks in Mumbai in 2008 and the Lok Sabha elections of 2009 (the former being when social media arrived in India), Mr. Mishra also points out that corruption did go for a Six on Friday (the final day) with IPL4 dominating conversation online.

Nishant Shah, director (research) at the Centre for Internet and Society, points out that while during revolutions, the social media has proved to be a poignant and powerful tool to mobilise resources, last week it emerged that it can not only propagate dubious opinions, but also it often (because it relies on the temporal quality of making things viral) fails to give us time to form critical opinions.

He compares a platform like Avaaz, that mobilised people ‘against corruption', with long-term Ipaidabribe project (using the same digital tools) which actually leads to debate around why corruption is so endemic.

Mirrors TV

Interestingly, as Mr. Shah points out, the social media mirrored the spectacle that people were being fed by TV channels, instead of being a true discursive space of public dialogue. It's now getting clear that they are actually playing out an interesting traction as they supplement each other in bolstering of evidence and participation, he adds.

On the other hand, blogs too were abuzz. However, many did seek to provide deeper perspective, and provided more space for debate and dissent. In fact, progressive blogs even attempted to counter the one-sided commentary provided on traditional visual media.

Click here for the story in the Hindu

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/web2.0-responds-to-hazare

How To Win Friends, FB Style

praskrishna — 2015-10-18T12:02:10Z

True to form—and Facebook—there was a warm, friendly and familial feel to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s townhall meeting at Melon, California, with Mark Zuckerberg on September 27. Modi got emotional (yet again) while talking about his mother. Zuckerberg, the youngish founder of the world’s largest social networking site, got his parents to meet and pose with Modi.

The article by Arindam Mukherjee was published in Outlook on October 12, 2015. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

“The most amazing moment was when I talked about our families,” Zuckerberg wrote in a post, “and he (Modi) shared stories of his childhood....” That’s just the kind of stuff we would see and post on Facebook—the benign visage of a profitable, all-pervasive US-based corporation. (Needless to say, everyone who has worked on this story is a registered user).

Of course, we know Modi too is on Facebook. No other Indian politician has so effectively utilised the power of ‘likes’: and he has got 30 million. The problem with this chummy approach is that one could almost forget that the PM is also the supreme leader of a country that is Facebook’s second-largest market in the world with 125 million users. A few days earlier, Zuckerberg flew to Seattle to meet Chinese President Xi Jinping. Facebook is not present in China. “On a personal note, this was the first time I’ve ever spoken with a world leader entirely in a foreign language,” wrote Zuckerberg in another post.

In contrast, Modi and Zuckerberg were speaking the same language. In fact, they even jointly updated their profile picture on Facebook—wrapped in the shades of the Indian tricolour—to support the Modi government’s Digital India initiative. Millions of Indians followed suit. And that’s when the shit hit the internet—it was discovered that people supporting the Digital India campaign were also putting in a ‘yes’ vote for Facebook’s contentious initiative internet.org (free but restricted net access; see accompanying faqs for all the details). Immediately, Modi became a party to the raging debate in India over net neutrality. This is unfortunate as the Modi government is yet to put on paper its stand on net neutrality. The nervous reaction to this engagement is also a function of the new truism of our times—“with this government, you never know”.

What we do know is that the internet.org class name was built into the code for support for Digital India. Many experts feel this is not a coincidence; rather a clever ploy by Facebook to get the support of Indians and promote its internet.org initiative. This upset a vocal community of activists who see internet.org on the opposite camp. This led to the charge that Facebook was trying to influence the debate. Says Sunil Abraham, executive director with the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), “The moves by Facebook are quite juvenile as it is trying to use the Modi visit to further muddy the net neutrality debate. We should be concerned about Facebook trying to damage the debate in India to spin the PM’s participation in its own favour.” Of course, there are two sides to this debate. There are many people within the government who feel net neutrality is an elitist concern—increasing internet penetration, which Facebook and other such initiatives promise, is the way forward in a poor, unconnected country like India. “Today to talk about net neutrality is to talk about the 20 per cent who have access to the internet,” says telecom expert Mahesh Uppal. “It is unreasonable to dismiss out of hand anybody who offers free service to a subset of websites or services. Eventually, access to internet must come first before we talk about net neutrality.”

Facebook promoted internet.org along with Samsung, Nokia, Qualcomm, Ericsson, MediaTek and Opera Software, the aim being to provide free internet service to developing nations. India, obviously, is a hot target for Facebook. Facebook has a partnership with Reliance in the country; the free internet service will be available only to Reliance users and the free access will be limited to Facebook’s partner sites. The debate over internet.org too has picked up steam in India—big media companies like NDTV and Times of India have pulled out of it on these issues. While Facebook has stressed that internet.org will ensure that the internet reaches people who do not have access to it, there have been concerns that it will restrict internet access only to sites that are internet.org’s partners.

On its part, Facebook has been quick to refute the charge. A spokesperson in the US said, “There is absolutely no connection between updating your profile picture for Digital India and internet.org. An engineer mistakenly used the words ‘internet.org profile picture’ as a shorthand name he chose for part of the code.” The code was changed soon after. Despite repeated requests, representatives from Facebook India were unavailable for comment.

But the damage has been done. Many now openly question Facebook’s motives in India and whether they have been truthful or not. Given all this brouhaha, questions will naturally be raised about Modi’s alignment with Facebook. Digital India is many things—but obviously increasing net penetration is one its goals. “Now whatever he does on net neutrality, it will be seen in terms of whether it will benefit Google or Facebook. That is the risk he took. I would like to know why the diplomatic advisors took the risk of putting the PM in a bargaining position instead of a bonus at the end of a deal,” says Prof Narendar Pani, who teaches at the National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bangalore.

All this matters because the Modi government positions itself as digital-friendly, even though its moves on this front have been invasive (the push for Aadhar despite a legal sanction and increasing reports of monitoring digital conversations), and contradictory (the abortive porn and WhatsApp bans, among others). “The PM is going way beyond the e-governance plan to a stage where the government will just sit and watch people speaking. It is scary,” says internet activist Usha Ramanathan. She feels it doesn’t make sense to have companies like Google sharing ideas with the government while Indian people are being kept out of the loop. “And now Facebook will be joining that gang, it doesn’t make sense. What has Facebook done to get that privilege?” she asks.

Here again there is a carefully worded counter-argument. Former telecom entrepreneur and Rajya Sabha MP Rajeev Chandrashekhar says, “Net neutrality is a definition that would be made in the public domain. It will not be influenced by the PM’s engagement with Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg. Anyone who tries to mess with the definition of net neutrality will be met with a public outcry and judicial intervention.” The substance of this view is that Modi was within his rights to speak to corporations to further Digital India, or Make in India for that matter, and that there should be an open debate on the future direction of net neutrality.

Clearly, the political knives are out. “Either the prime minister is not being briefed properly or he does not read his brief properly,” says former UPA minister Manish Tewari. Arguing that governments should be discussing rules of engagement in cyberspace, and not stakeholders, he asks, “Is India comfortable with that construct especially when the bulk of the technology companies, the root servers which form the underlying hardware of the internet, are all based in the US, and one being in Europe?”

Although the government is yet to firm up its decision on net neutrality and a policy on it is yet to be announced, the debate has already acquired political colour in India, with the Congress and Aam Aadmi Party putting their weight behind the people’s voice. This is the first time that there has been a nation-wide upsurge of such an unprecedented size and magnitude on an internet policy. Says AAP’s Adarsh Shastri, “Facebook, Google etc are just tools. People can use them at will. To make them the mainstay of your programme for digital empowerment is to step on the civil rights and liberties of citizens. Doing this is a complete no-no. Let people access internet as they want is the way to go.”

A consultation paper floated by telecom regulator Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) got almost 15 lakh responses from the Indian public in support of net neutrality. There was also strong opposition to zero rating platforms announced by telecom companies like Airtel which sought to provide free access to some websites on their platform in much the same way that internet.org proposes. And the reactions to the Facebook coding error are a pointer to what people in India think. Says Nikhil Pahwa, editor of Medianama and a leading net neutrality activist, “The reactions of the people to the Facebook event were heartening and showed that people are emotive and there is still mass support for net neutrality. The reaction to the TRAI paper was not a flash in the pan.”

Interestingly, a couple of months ago, a department of telecommunications committee had said that internet.org was a violation of net neutrality and should not be allowed. It will be difficult for Modi and the government to overrule that and give it full and free access in India. Internet experts feel that the engagement with India and Modi was a desperate move by Facebook to get numbers from India. Says internet expert Mahesh Murthy, “Facebook is pulling out all stops to get favour for internet.org and is desperate about it. If India says yes, many others will say yes, but if India says no, other countries will follow.”

Murthy says Facebook’s real problem is that it is finding it difficult to justify its price to earnings ratio as against its user numbers vis-a-vis Google which is much better in this respect. For this, it is desperately trying to get numbers, and with China banning Facebook, the only country left to get numbers is India. The massive electronic and print campaign at the cost of Rs 40-50 crore is a pointer towards this. He says everything about internet.org is about hooking Indians to it.

No wonder, Facebook has been cultivating Indian media. The Modi visit has also been tarnished by the news that Facebook paid for the travel and accommodation of journalists from three Indian newspapers and one magazine to go and cover the Facebook-Modi meeting and get favourable coverage. Says writer-activist Arundhati Roy, “Many journalists covering the event for the Indian media were flown in from India by Facebook. So were some who asked pre-assigned questions at the event. I don’t know who sponsored the crocodile tears and the clothes.” It is also quite strange that the entire display picture and source code controversy got almost no play in the national media which chose instead to talk about Modi’s speech and his tears.

All said and done, it is obvious that Facebook may be seeing India as an easy and vulnerable target which can be manipulated for its own advantage. Says Parminder Jeet Singh, executive director with IT for Change, an NGO working on information society, “India has low internet penetration and lots of people want to get on to the internet. There is low purchasing power but lots of aspiration. So the moment a free service is offered, a whole lot of people are likely to jump on it.” And that is something Facebook may be looking and aiming at.

Currently, three processes are on that will determine how India will look at net neutrality—one at the DoT, one at TRAI and a third one at a parliamentary standing committee. But given the massive people’s response net neutrality has got vis-a-vis TRAI’s paper and also during the present Facebook issue, the outcome is predictable. Or so it seems. There’s a lot of money power at stake. For now, millions of internet Indians have already voted with that dislike button. And then, governments move in mysterious ways.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/outlook-india-october-12-2015-arindam-mukherjee-how-to-win-friends-fb-style

How to Steer Clear of India’s Strict Internet Laws

praskrishna — 2012-11-30T10:13:53Z

The arrest of two women in Mumbai for a Facebook post is the latest heavy-handed move by India’s government to curb what Indian citizens say on the Internet.

The article by Sangeeta Rajesh and Heather Timmons was published in the New York Times on November 20, 2012. Sunil Abraham and Pranesh Prakash are quoted.

The two women were arrested Sunday under a section of the Indian Penal Code that outlaws spreading “statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill- will between classes” after one complained about the citywide strike sparked by the death of the Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackeray and the second woman “liked” her statement.

But the incident was just the latest in a string of recent arrests, detentions and account suspensions in India over online comments. If you live in India and have an opinion someone might not like, but you don’t want to become a target of the law, there’s one easy rule you need to follow, experts say: stay off social media.

Right now, “there’s nothing one can do but to close up your social media accounts” and stop voicing your opinion on the Internet entirely, if you want to guarantee you won’t be arrested in India, said Sunil Abraham, executive director at the Center for Internet and Society in Bangalore. (To be sure, that’s not what most free speech advocates recommend that you do. India Ink will soon have more on a social media activist who is fighting India’s strict Internet controls.)

Mr. Abraham advises extreme caution because India’s free speech rules have been historically weak (read more about India’s long history of censorship here), a relatively new Internet law is extremely broadly defined and police and lawmakers themselves are sometimes confused about what the actual rules themselves say.

A screenshot of Ravi Srinivasan’s twitter page. Mr. Srinivasan was arrested for a tweet he posted.

Late last month, Ravi Srinivasan, a Puducherry businessman and an India Against Corruption volunteer, was arrested for his Twitter post that alleged Karti Chidambaram, the son of Finance Minister P. Chidambaram, had amassed a large amount of wealth. Mr. Srinivasan was arrested Oct. 30 but was later released on bail.

Earlier in October, an associate professor of the National Institute for Fashion Technology in Chennai was arrested after what the Tamil Nadu singer Chinmayi said was a long period of harassment on the Internet, including negative Twitter messages. In August, the Indian government demanded Internet service providers suspend hundreds of Web pages to curb ethnic tension and asked Twitter to suspend accounts parodying government officials. Last year, the central government asked social media companies to prescreen content about India for objectionable remarks.

The key culprits here are revisions to India’s Information Technology Act made in 2008 and 2011, experts say, that leave nearly everything that is transmitted via the Internet open to interpretation by nearly everyone who reads it on the Internet. Things that are considered “annoying” and “offensive” can, under the law, land their sender in jail for up to three years.

While some of India’s nearly 50 million Facebook users and millions of Twitter users are up in arms about the recent arrests in Mumbai and are sharing the woman’s original post, under the theory that the police can’t arrest everyone, conservative advocates don’t recommend that sort of action on the Internet.

V. Vijaya Baskar, an advocate with Madras High Court practicing civil, criminal and family law for over 10 years, said that there are basic guidelines of free speech behavior that should be followed, even by Internet users. The most important, he said, is to avoid the use of obscene language and pictures, which are considered a direct threat. He also advised against getting into confrontations with people you don’t know or recognize on social media.

“If you have a true and verifiable source or documented evidence, then making a public statement is not defamation, but making passing comments of any person, particularly people in public life, will amount to defaming the person and is punishable,” he said.

While India’s government and law officials sometimes come across as not very tech-savvy, Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Center for Internet and Society, said that lawmakers in many countries with a much higher Internet penetration are just as challenged by the Internet. And in India, while the laws are strict, people seldom land in jail for Internet-related offenses, he said.

“The detention law in India, sensibly, defaults to ‘bail, not jail,’ ” he said.

Mr. Prakash said he could not offer any global guidelines to avoid being arrested, and concluded that “each forum has its own rules of etiquette, which cannot be codified or enforced by legislation.” Online speech can be disagreed upon and opinions should be made known, since it is only the “natural tendency for people with extreme views to be more vocal online.”

Not surprisingly, the authorities in India who have been involved in arrests insist they are just doing their job, and doing it well. The Tamil Nadu police, for example, said they acted appropriately in Mr. Srinivasan’s arrest.

R. S. Krishna, inspector general for law and order, told the media that the Puducherry police could not be faulted for filing a First Investigation Report, the precursor to filing charges, against Mr. Srinivasan.

“I am very clear that we have acted purely on the basis of the merit of the complaint, in accordance with the rule of law,” he said. “We are right on our part.”

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/india-blogs-nytimes-november-20-2012-how-to-steer-clear-of-indias-strict-internet-laws

How to Engage in Broadband Policy and Regulatory Processes

praskrishna — 2014-04-03T06:07:04Z

LIRNEasia with the support of the Ford Foundation offered a four-day course in Gurgaon from March 7 to 10, 2014. Sunil Abraham taught on Surveillance and Privacy.

Click to see Sunil Abraham's presentation on Surveillance and Privacy. Also read it on LIRNE asia website here.

Goal

To enable members of Indian civil-society groups (including academics and those from the media) to marshal available research and evidence for effective participation in broadband policy and regulatory processes including interactions with media, thereby facilitating and enriching policy discourse on means of increasing broadband access by the poor.

Outcomes

The objective of the course is to produce discerning and knowledgeable consumers of research who are able to engage in broadband policy and regulatory processes. The course will benefit those working in government and at operators as well.

At the end of the course attendees will:

Be able to find and assess relevant research & evidence

Be able to summarize the research in a coherent and comprehensive manner
Have an understanding of broadband policy and regulatory processes in India
Have the necessary tools to improve their communication skills
Have some understanding of how media function and how to effectively interact with media

Participants will be formed into teams on day1. Both group assignments are connected.

The first assignment requires each group to research on a National Broadband Network (NBN) assigned to them (one of US, Singapore, Hong Kong, Brazil, South Africa, Korea or Colombia) and writing it up based on a template that will be provided. Each team will have to present their findings about the NBN at the end of day 2.

The second assignment is to be performed by teams. It is an oral presentation, accompanied by a policy brief of two pages max. at a mock public hearing at which the Indian Department of Telecommunications (DoT) is seeking input on the question of subsidizing fiber-to-the-home (FTTH) as the second phase of the current INR 20,000 Crore (USD 4 Billion) National Optical Fiber Network initiative. Each team will be assigned a role and they should present the recommendations from the point of view of the assigned ‘role’. All presentations must be evidence based. It is expected that participants will use what they learnt about other NBNs on day 2 to support their argument. Additional research must be conducted on Days 3 and 4.

	Day1 (March 7)	Day2 (March 8)	Day3 (March 9)	Day4 (March 10)
09.00 10.30	S1 Introduction (Rohan Samarajiva RS)	S5 Interrogating supply-side indicators (RS & RLG)	S8 Indian broadband policy & regulatory environment in relation to comparator countries (Satyen Gupta SG)	S13 Lessons from Mexico (Ernesto Flores EF)
10.30 11.00	Break	Break	Break	Break
11.00 12.00	S2 Research on significance of broadband/Internet (Payal Malik PM)	S6 Assessing & summarizing research (RS & NK)	S9 Research on subsidies in broadband eco system (PM)	S14 Spectrum policy debates (Martin Cave (MC)
12.00 13.00	S3 Finding research (Nilusha Kapugama NK)	S7 The art of media interaction (RS)	S10 Making policy & doing regulation (SG & Rajat Kathuria RK) panel discussion	S15 Framing issues (RS)
13.00 14.00	Lunch	Lunch	Lunch	Lunch
14.00 15.00	A1 Group formation; Assignments explained and introduction of Broadband Website (Roshanthi Lucas Gunaratne RLG)	A2 Rewriting research summaries & preparing presentations	S11 Surveillance and Privacy (RS & Sunil Abraham SA)	A5 Mock public hearing (RS & panel)
15.00 15.30	Break	Break	Break	Break
15.30 17.00	S4 Demand-side research (NK)	A3 Presentation & critique of research summaries (RS & Panel)	S12 International policy debates on Internet and broadband (RS)	A5 Mock public hearing & critique (RS & panel)
17.00 onwards	Group work	Group work	Group work	Certificate dinner

Faculty

Rohan Samarajiva, PhD
Rohan Samarajiva, was the founding CEO (2004 - 2012) and Chair (2004 – onwards) of LIRNEasia.

Previously he was the Team Leader at the Sri Lanka Ministry for Economic Reform, Science and Technology (2002-04) responsible for infrastructure reforms, including participation in the design of the USD 83 million e Sri Lanka Initiative. He was Director General of Telecommunications in Sri Lanka (1998-99), a founder director of the ICT Agency of Sri Lanka (2003-05), Honorary Professor at the University of Moratuwa in Sri Lanka (2003-04), Visiting Professor of Economics of Infrastructures at the Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands (2000-03) and Associate Professor of Communication and Public Policy at the Ohio State University in the US (1987-2000). He was Policy Advisor to the Ministry of Post and Telecom in Bangladesh (2007-09).

He serves as Senior Advisor to Sarvodaya (Sri Lanka’s largest community based organization) on ICT matters. Samarajiva is a Board Member of Communication Policy Research south, an initiative to identify and foster policy intellectuals in emerging Asia. He serves on the editorial boards of seven academic journals.

His full CV can be found at http://lirneasia.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/CVApril1long.pdf

Martin Cave, PhD
Martin Cave is a regulatory economist specialising in competition law and in the network industries, including airports, broadcasting, energy, posts, railways, telecommunications and water. He has published extensively in these fields, and has held professorial positions at Warwick Business School, University of Warwick, UK, and the Department of Economics, Brunel University, UK. In 2010/11, Martin held the BP Centennial Chair at the London School of Economics, based in the Department of Law. He is now Visiting Professor at Imperial College Business School.

He is a Deputy Chair of the Competition Commission from January 2012. He has provided expert advice to governments, competition authorities, regulators and firms around the world, focussing particularly upon the communications industries. This work has included reviews of spectrum policies for the Governments of Australia, Canada and the UK; advice on market analysis and access remedies to a large number of regulators in Asia, Australia, Europe and Latin America, including the European Commission. He has provided advice and expert testimony in competition and sector-specific regulatory proceedings to a number of major international firms in Asia, Australasia and Europe. He has also advised UK ministers on matters relating to the water sector, housing, legal services and airports, and advised regulators in the railway and energy sectors. He was a founder member of the Academic Advisory Committee of the Brussels-based think tank, the Centre for Regulation in Europe (www.cerre.eu). In 2009 he was awarded the OBE for public service.

His full CV available on http://www.martincave.org.uk/index.php

Payal Malik
Payal Malik is a Senior Research Fellow of LIRNEasia and an Associate Professor of Economics at the Delhi University. She is currently on deputation to the Competition Commission of India. She is also associated with National Council of Applied Economic Research and Indicus Analytics. She received her Master of Philosophy (M.Phil.), and MA in Economics from the Delhi School of Economics and BA in Economics from Lady Shriram College, University of Delhi. She also has a MBA in Finance from the University of Cincinnati.

She has several years of research experience on the issues of competition and regulation in network industries like power, telecommunication and water. In addition, she has done considerable research on the ICT sector. Recently she has been actively engaged in competition policy research. At LIRNEasia, she has led research on measuring India’s telecom sector and regulatory performance, including a study on Universal Service Instruments. She has written both for professional journals as well as for the economic press. Currently she is a regular columnist for the Financial Express, India and a referee for the Information Technologies and International Development journal published by University of Southern California, Annenberg. Click here to download a detailed version of CV.

Satyen Gupta
Satyen Gupta is the founder and Secretary General, NGN Forum, India. Previously he was the chief of Corporate Affairs, Sterlite Technologies Ltd and headed the Regulatory and Govt. Affairs for BT global Services for SAARC Region and handled Licencing, Regulation, compliance, competition and Industry Advocacy issues. He is also a member, Advisory Board of Creation and Implementation of National Optical Fibre Network for the government of India (2011 onwards). From 2000-2006 he served as the Principle Advisor, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India at the level of additional secretary to the government of India and headed the fixed network division. He is the author of “Everything Over IP-All you want to know about NGN” (2011).

He has conducted and taught many courses on telecommunication technologies, policy and regulation. He is also a Govt. Affairs and Regulatory advocate. He graduated with Hons, in Engineering in 1979 from NIT, Kurukshetra University, INDIA and went on to complete his post graduate studies in Electronics Design Technology at CEDT, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore.

Rajat Kathuria, PhD
Rajat Kathuria is Director and Chief Executive at Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER), New Delhi. He has over 20 years experience in teaching and 10 years experience in economic policy, besides research interests on a range of issues relating to regulation and competition policy. He worked with Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) during its first eight years (1998-2006) and gained hands on experience with telecom regulation in an environment changing rapidly towards competition. The role entailed analysis of economic issues relating to telecom tariff policy, tariff rebalancing, interconnection charges and licensing policy. Market research and questionnaire development and analysis formed an integral part of this exercise. It also involved evaluation of macro level initiatives for transforming the telecom industry. He wrote a number of consultation papers which eventually formed the basis of tariff and interconnection orders applicable to the industry. He has an undergraduate degree in Economics from St. Stephens College, a Masters from Delhi School of Economics and a PhD degree from the University of Maryland, College Park.

Ernesto Flores, PhD
Ernesto M. Flores-Roux majored in Mathematics from the National University of Mexico (UNAM), obtained partial credits in a Masters in Economics (ITAM), and received his PhD in Statistics from The University of Chicago (1993). From 1993 to 2004, he worked for McKinsey & Co., Inc. (Mexico, Brazil), one of the most prestigious international consulting firms, first as a Consultant, then as Partner, and finally as the Partner in charge of McKinsey's Rio de Janeiro office. He specialized in several aspects of the telecommunications industry, including regulation, planning, strategy, and marketing. He assisted the governments of Mexico and Brazil in their deregulation and privatization processes. In 2004, he joined Telefonica, first as Director of Marketing and Strategy in Mexico and then transferring to Telefónica's operations in Peru, China (Beijing), and Brazil. In 2008 he joined the Ministry of Communications and Transport (SCT) in Mexico as Chief of Staff of the Deputy Minister of Communications. In 2009 he joined CIDE (Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas, Mexico City) as an associate professor of CIDE's telecommunications program (Telecom CIDE). He has published several papers in telecommunications policy and has written reports for the IDB, GSMA, UN/CEPAL , Ahciet, CAF, OECD, as well as other publications in industry and academic journals. In 2011 he became a member of the Advisory Council of the Mexican telecommunications regulator (Cofetel – Comisión Federal de Telecomunicaciones).

Sunil Abraham
Sunil Abraham is the Executive Director of Bangalore based research organization, the Centre for Internet and Society. He founded Mahiti in 1998, a company committed to creating high impact technology and communications solutions. Today, Mahiti employs more than 50 engineers. Sunil continues to serve on the board. Sunil was elected an Ashoka fellow in 1999 to 'explore the democratic potential of the Internet' and was also granted a Sarai FLOSS fellowship in 2003. Between June 2004 and June 2007, Sunil also managed the International Open Source Network, a project of United Nations Development Programme's Asia-Pacific Development Information Programme serving 42 countries in the Asia-Pacific region.

Nilusha Kapugama
Nilusha Kapugama is a Research Manager at LIRNEasia and manages the electricity component of the 2012-2014 IDRC Project on ‘Achieving e-inclusion by improving government service delivery & exploring the potential of “big data” for answering development questions’.

She is also working on a systematic review looking at the economic impacts of mobile phones. Previously she managed the Knowledge Based Economy project at LIRNEasia, which looked at the information and knowledge gaps in agriculture supply chains. She also worked on CPR south, LIRNEasia’s capacity-building initiative to develop Asia-Pacific expertise and knowledge networks in ICT policy regulation. She has also done research on broadband quality indicators and national regulatory authority (NRA) website indicators. She has also worked on LIRNEasia’s Virtual Organization Project. She has experience organizing international conferences and training courses.

She holds a master’s degree in development economics and policy from the University of Manchester, UK.

Roshanthi Lucas Gunaratne
Roshanthi is a Research Manager at LIRNEasia and is currently managing the Ford Foundation Funded project on Giving Broadband Access to the Poor in India.

She is also contributing to the IDRC Customer Lifecycle Management Practices Project by conducting research on customer lifecycle management practices in telecommunication sector in Bangladesh.

Before joining LIRNEasia, Roshanthi worked at the Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, Geneva, Switzerland as a Strategic Information Officer. She contributed to the process of defining the Global Fund Key Performance Indicators, and also worked on improving the performance measurements of their grants. Prior to that, she worked as a telecom project manager at Dialog Telecom, and Suntel Ltd in Sri Lanka. As Suntel she managed the design and implementation of corporate customer projects.

She holds a MBA from the Judge Business School, University of Cambridge, UK and a BSc. Eng (Hons) specializing in Electronics and Telecommunication from the University of Moratuwa, Sri Lanka.

Resource Materials

Bauer, Johannes M.; Kim, Junghyun; & Wildman, Steven S. (2005). An integrated framework for assessing broadband policy options. MICH. ST. L. REV. 21, pp. 21-50. http://www.msulawreview.org/PDFS/2005/1/Bauer-Kim.pdf

Broadband Commission (2012). The state of broadband 2012: Achieving digital inclusion for all. http://www.broadbandcommission.org/Documents/bb-annualreport2012.pdf

Government of India, Department of Telecommunications (2012). National Telecom Policy 2012. http://www.dot.gov.in/ntp/NTP-06.06.2012-final.pdf

Government of India, Department of Telecommunications (2004). Broadband policy. http://www.dot.gov.in/ntp/broadbandpolicy2004.htm

Junio, Don Rodney (2012). Does a National Broadband Plan Matter? A Comparative Analysis of Broadband Plans in Hong Kong and Singapore http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2146566

InfoDev. Broadband strategies toolkit. http://broadbandtoolkit.org/en/toolkit/contents

Samarajiva, Rohan (2010). Leveraging the budget telecom network business model to bring broadband to the people, Information Technology and International Development, 6, special edition: 93-97. http://itidjournal.org/itid/article/view/630/270

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/how-to-engage-in-broadband-policy-and-regulatory-processes

How the world’s largest democracy is preparing to snoop on its citizens

praskrishna — 2013-07-15T09:41:21Z

Monitoring system will allow govt to snoop on voice calls, SMSes, and access Internet data.

The article by Leslie D' Monte and Joji Thomas Philip was published in Livemint on July 3, 2013. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

Nothing will be secret or private.

Every conversation on landlines and mobile phones will be heard; some will be recorded. Every move you make on the Internet will be tracked.

Fiction?

By December, when the Nanny State goes live, it will be fact.

Once the government’s innocuously named CMS (communication monitoring system) is in place, the state will be able to snoop on your voice calls, fax messages, SMSes and MMSes, across all phone networks. It will be able to access your Internet data, and see not just what sites you visit but even build a cache of your inbox, to decrypt at leisure.

The process began more than a couple of years ago.

On 29 April 2011, India’s home ministry called for bids to set up communications monitoring systems in all state capitals. The notice, which was published on its website and went almost unnoticed, specified that the system should be able to monitor voice calls, fax messages, SMSes and MMSes, and work across terrestrial networks, GSM and CDMA (the dominant mobile telephony platforms), and the Internet.

	The tender specified that the system should be able to listen in live, and be able to analyse intercepted data. It should have the ability to record, store and playback, without interfering “with the operation of telecommunication network or make the target aware that he is being monitored”. The CMS is no longer a concept. It has undergone successful pilots and is likely to be commissioned by the year-end, according to an internal note dated 10 June from the department of telecommunications (DoT). A top government official, who did not want to be named, said the CMS centralized data centre is likely to be ready by July and commissioned by October. The official also added that the Centre for Development of Telematics (C-DoT), the government’s telecom technology arm, has “signed an agreement with the Centre for Artificial Intelligence and Robotics (CAIR) for Internet Service Provider integration”. This agreement will allow monitoring agencies to track an individual’s Internet use.

The tender specified that the system should be able to listen in live, and be able to analyse intercepted data. It should have the ability to record, store and playback, without interfering “with the operation of telecommunication network or make the target aware that he is being monitored”.

The CMS is no longer a concept. It has undergone successful pilots and is likely to be commissioned by the year-end, according to an internal note dated 10 June from the department of telecommunications (DoT).

A top government official, who did not want to be named, said the CMS centralized data centre is likely to be ready by July and commissioned by October. The official also added that the Centre for Development of Telematics (C-DoT), the government’s telecom technology arm, has “signed an agreement with the Centre for Artificial Intelligence and Robotics (CAIR) for Internet Service Provider integration”. This agreement will allow monitoring agencies to track an individual’s Internet use.

Subsequent media reports, which have cited internal government documents, peg the cost of the CMS at around Rs.400 crore, but there is hardly any official data from the government about the implementation of the CMS.

In its 2012-13 annual report, DoT said the government has decided to set up the CMS for lawful interception and monitoring by law enforcement agencies, “reducing the manual intervention at many stages as well as saving of time”.

The system, according to the report, was to be installed by C-DoT after which the Telecom Enforcement, Resource and Monitoring (TERM) cells would take over. As on 31 March, there were 34 such TERM cells in the country. The current number could not be ascertained.

How does the government justify this invasive system? Its purpose is unclear, but national security is always a handy spectre. And so what if such a system can be misused to bully, spy and curtail the freedom of individuals? Indeed, India’s track record of using existing laws doesn’t inspire confidence.

Student Shaheen Dhada was arrested (under the law) for criticizing the shutdown of Mumbai after the death of Shiv Sena supremo Bal Thackeray on her personal Facebook account. Her friend, Renu Srinivasan, who had “liked” the comment was also arrested. The two were later freed, on bail.

No known safeguards

But how does the CMS work? According to the government official cited above, the Central Bureau for Investigation (CBI), for instance, is likely to be provided interception facilities through the CMS in Delhi initially.

“CBI shall enter data related to target in the CMS system and approach the telecom services provider”, at which point the process is automated, and the provider simply sends the data to a server which forwards the requested information, he explained.

He didn’t mention any safeguards, nor have any been made public, which means that there are likely none. In a Q&A session on the popular social network Reddit on Tuesday, academic and activist Lawrence Lessig, the co-founder of Creative Commons, wrote on the subject of snooping in the US, “I’m really troubled by national security programmes. We don’t know what protections are built into the system.”

That has become the subject of much debate following the leaks by whistleblower Edward Snowden about the US National Security Agency’s surveillance programme.

Lessig pointed out that protection based on code is the only real protection from misuse, as other safeguards are dependent on people choosing not to violate reasonable expectations of privacy.

Which is the heart of the problem. From what we know, the list of agencies with access to data in India is already large: the Research and Analysis Wing, CBI, the National Investigation Agency, the Central Board of Direct Taxes, the Narcotics Control Bureau, and the Enforcement Directorate. More may be added.

For the system to be useful in any practical fashion, access will have to be given to a large number of officials in each of these agencies. And in the absence of safeguards, one must assume that all data is accessible to all officials.

To be sure, some of this information is already being tracked by Internet companies.

Ravina Kothari, a 22-year-old student at Cardiff University, said she learnt a bitter lesson “last year when I Googled my name”. “It revealed all the personal details I had put up on social media sites. My childhood school photos popped up on Google image search results. Worse, I had not put them there. My friends had tagged me in—all so scary. And I can’t do anything about it.”

She has since stopped uploading personal details such as videos, pictures or telephone numbers.

Twenty-one-year-old Shruti Lodha, studying to be a chartered accountant, feels a similar discomfort.

“I am definitely not comfortable with Google, and how every time I Google myself it reveals my identity and shows information that is on social media sites.”

In 2011, 24-year-old Max Schrems of Vienna, Austria, asked the world’s largest social networking site Facebook Inc. for a copy of every piece of information it had collected on him since he had created an account with it two years earlier.

Schrems was delivered a CD packing a 1,222-page file that included information he had deleted, but had been stored on Facebook’s servers, according to ThreatPost, a publication on information technology (IT) security run by Kaspersky Lab, a leading maker of antivirus software.

Had Schrems been a resident of India, he could not have known how much personal information Facebook had on him. Every person in the European Union (EU) has the right to access all the data that a company holds on him or her.

With the CMS, all this information, and much more, can be called up by just about anyone—the taxman, CBI officials, Assam Police (which will also monitor the network according to some reports)—and the old bogey of national security may not even be raised.

Need for a privacy law

Publicly at least, companies agree that the new monitoring systems infringe on our rights. Subho Ray, president, Internet and Mobile Association of India said, “Without any prior permission, government should not take or use any information which is considered private. The biggest challenge for us is that we do not have a privacy law in India.”

Cyber law experts and privacy lobby groups caution that the world’s largest democracy’s attempt to snoop on its citizens with the CMS, ostensibly for security reasons, could be abused in the absence of a transparent process and a privacy law.

The issue has become alarming, they add, with the US admitting to be collecting billions of pieces of information on immigrants—6.3 billion from Indian citizens alone under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, according to an 8 June report in the UK-based The Guardian newspaper.

“We don’t know much about the CMS, except that when implemented, it could be plugged directly into telecom nodes and lead to widespread tapping,” said Apar Gupta, a partner at law firm Advani and Co. specializing in IT law.

“There’s no legal sanction as of now for any type of mass surveillance, such as the one that the CMS suggests,” said Pavan Duggal, a Supreme Court lawyer and cyberlaw expert.

Gupta added that since India lacks privacy legislation, which obliges companies to maintain privacy standards when they export the data which they’ve gathered in India overseas, “this poses a problem”.

N.S. Nappinai, a Bombay high court advocate, said, “India has lived without any codified laws to protect privacy all these years and has relied primarily on Article 21 of the Constitution. Protecting privacy has just become more complicated with the humongous quantity of data being uploaded online. People seem totally unaware of the trouble they are inviting upon themselves.”

Current laws are already compromised

The lack of a privacy law makes it easier for the government to take such extreme steps. The Indian Telegraph Act and the IT Act, 2008 (amendments introduced in the IT Act, 2000), already gives the government the power to monitor, intercept and even block online conversations and websites. The addition of the CMS will greatly widen the number of sources and could simplify access to these records as well.

On 25 April 2011, the government admitted that the existing laws include provisions for interception and pointed out that the Supreme Court had, on 18 December 1996, upheld the constitutional validity of interceptions and monitoring.

While the court had added that telephone tapping infringes on the right to life and the right to freedom of speech and expression, unless permitted under special procedures, these guidelines are not usually implemented, according to activists.

The shortcomings of the existing laws already make it possible to misuse the vast amount of information that is available today. These laws were written at a time when the Internet was not a fact of life, and where the lines between public and private were not already blurred. Given that, the perspectives on privacy can be worrisome.

In a report presented to the Lok Sabha on 13 December 2011, the ministry of planning said, “Collection of information without a privacy law in place does not violate the right to privacy of the individual…There is no bar on collecting information, the only requirement to be fulfilled with respect to the protection of the privacy of an individual is that care should be taken in collection and use of information, consent of individual would be relevant, information should be kept safe and confidential.”

This proposed Right to Privacy Bill was leaked to the public, and eventually nothing came of it.

On 16 October 2012, a commission headed by justice (retired) A.P. Shah issued a report that included the study of privacy laws and related Bills from around the world. The report noted that with the “increased collection of citizen information by the government, concerns have emerged on their impact on the privacy of persons”.

Despite the report being given to the Planning Commission, the government has continued with its plans.

Early this year, a privacy lobby body, the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) drafted the Privacy (Protection) Bill 2013, with the objective of contributing to privacy legislation in India.

CIS worked with the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry and the Data Security Council of India and held round table meetings around the country to bring about a privacy law.

Sunil Abraham, executive director, CIS, said, “While the government sets out to protect national interests, it’s also very important to protect the rights of individuals.”

The way ahead

Human Rights Watch, in a 7 June media release, described the CMS as “chilling, given its (India’s) reckless and irresponsible use of sedition and Internet laws”.

According to Freedom on the Net 2012, released on 24 September, India—which scored 39 points out of 100—was termed “partly-free”. But India is not alone. Around 40 countries filter the Internet in varying degrees, including democratic and non-democratic governments.

YouTube and Gmail (both owned by Google Inc.), BlackBerry, WikiLeaks, Skype (owned by Microsoft Corp.), Twitter and Facebook have all been censored, at different times, in countries such as China, Iran, Egypt and India.

European Union countries have strong privacy laws as is evident from the Schrems case.

Australia is engaged in putting similar safeguards in place. On 24 June, a Senate committee recommended that Australia’s proposed data retention scheme only be considered if it just collected metadata, avoided capture of browser histories and contained rigorous privacy controls and oversight.

Indian politicians could take a cue from such countries when balancing national interest with protecting the privacy of individuals.

Gopal Sathe in New Delhi and Zahra Khan in Mumbai contributed to this story.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/livemint-leslie-d-monte-joji-thomas-philip-july-3-2013-how-the-worlds-largest-democracy-is-preparing-to-snoop-on-its-citizens

How the UID project can be a cause for concern

praskrishna — 2018-04-09T12:59:02Z

The Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), headed by Nandan Nilekani, is the UPA government's most ambitious project, where one billion Indians are branded with a unique identity number.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh handed over the first of the Aadhaar cards at Tembhli village in Nandurbar district of Maharashtra. This mammoth project aims to provide Indian residents with a unique 12-digit identification number that will serve multiple purposes.

Given the reach and the impact of such an exercise there is much excitement around the Unique Identity (UID) number (also known as Aadhaar) drive, along with some confusion.

However, there remains some concerns of identity theft.

For example, the number is linked to their fingerprints and the patterns in their eyes. Since those markers are unique to each of us, no one will steal their rations and wages again. They will be issued only after verification. But our eye's Iris patterns change, with age, disease or malnourishment. Fake fingerprints can very easily be made. Hence, the unique element of these numbers can be tampered.

Sunil Abraham, Director, Centre for Internet and Society said, “If I leave my fingerprints around, my identity can be stolen and transactions done on my behalf.”

Activists claim that in a few years, banks, insurance companies, cell phone providers and hospitals will demand UID number before doing business with you. They could use that number, to share information about anybody.

Hence, Abraham said, “An insurance company and a hospital can merge databases. If you have AIDS or TB, they can bump up your premium, or refuse you cover.”

Usha Ramanathan, lawyer said, “Say I go to Srinagar six times in a month. That information could be accessed by the government because the airlines asked for my number before booking a ticket. And that could make me a suspect. There's something wrong in being treated as a suspect for no other reason, than state paranoia.”

Interestingly, even though India seems excited about this project, Britain recently stopped attempts at biometric based identification systems, after warnings that such a database could easily be hacked.

See the video here.
See the original coverage in IBN Live

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/uid-project-concern

How The U.K. Got A Better Deal From Facebook Than India Did

praskrishna — 2016-11-18T01:56:49Z

The U.K.’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) and India’s Karmanya Sareen shared a similar concern – how messenger application WhatsApp’s decision to share user data with parent Facebook is a violation of the promise of privacy.

The blog post by Payaswini Upadhyay was published in Bloomberg Quint on November 17, 2016. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

Last week, Facebook agreed to address the concerns of the ICO; in India, it didn’t have to.

WhatsApp: New Privacy Policy

In August 2016, WhatsApp issued a revised privacy policy that allowed it to share user information with parent company Facebook. Any user who didn’t want her information to be shared with Facebook had a 30-day period to opt out of the policy. Opting out meant that a user’s account information would not be shared with Facebook to improve ads and product experiences. But, there was a caveat.

The Facebook family of companies will still receive and use this information for other purposes such as improving infrastructure and delivery systems, understanding how our services or theirs are used, securing systems, and fighting spam, abuse, or infringement activities.
WhatsApp Support Team statement on its website

Facebook’s Commitment To ICO

The ICO decided to delve deeper into what Facebook intended to do with the WhatsApp user data. Elizabeth Denham, Information Commissioner, ICO stated in her blog that users haven’t been given enough information about what Facebook plans to do with the information, and WhatsApp hasn’t got valid consent from users to share the information.

I also believe users should be given ongoing control over how their information is used, not just a 30-day window.
Elizabeth Denham, Information Commissioner, ICO

Denham further elaborated ICO’s stand - that it’s important users have control over their personal information, even if services don’t charge them a fee.

We’ve set out the law clearly to Facebook, and we’re pleased that they’ve agreed to pause using data from U.K. WhatsApp users for advertisements or product improvement purposes.
Elizabeth Denham, Information Commissioner, ICO

The ICO has now asked Facebook and WhatsApp to sign an undertaking committing to better explaining to users how their data will be used, and to giving users ongoing control over that information. Additionally, the ICO also wants WhatsApp to give users an unambiguous choice before Facebook starts using that information and for them to be given the opportunity to change that decision at any point in the future. Facebook and WhatsApp are yet to agree to this, Denham stated.

If Facebook starts using the data without valid consent, it may face enforcement action from my office.
Elizabeth Denham, Information Commissioner, ICO

In the U.K., protections in the European Data Protection Directive have been incorporated into local law via the Data Protection Act 1998. The ICO is both the privacy regulator and the transparency (right to information) regulator, Sunil Abraham, executive director at the Centre for Internet and Society pointed out. The regulator can issue enforcement notices and also fine errant actors in the market place, he said.

This is a regulator with expertise, experience and teeth. Come May 25, 2018, the General Data Protection Regulation will come into force and this will give more comprehensive powers to the regulator to investigate and remedy cases like this. The regulator will take each principle from the Directive or Regulation and examine Facebook’s actions comprehensively before deciding on a response.
Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, Centre for Internet and Society

For example, if the regulator determines that the principle of choice and consent has not been complied with, it can force Facebook to reverse its decisions and provide greater transparency and clearer choices, Abraham added.

Karmanya Sareen’s Grievance

Back home in India, just two months ago, Karmanya Sareen, a WhatsApp user, argued before the Delhi High Court against the company’s new privacy policy. The argument was that WhatsApp’s August 2016 notice to its users about the proposed change in the privacy policy violated the fundamental rights of users under Article 21 of the Constitution. Article 21 promises protection of life and personal liberty.

Proposed change in the privacy policy of WhatsApp would result in altering/changing the most valuable, basic and essential feature of WhatsApp i.e. the complete protection provided to the privacy of details and data of its users.
Karmanya Sareen vs Union of India

The Delhi High Court struck down the Article 21 argument saying that the Supreme Court was still deliberating over including right to privacy as a fundamental right. It also pointed to WhatsApp’s 2012 Privacy Policy that allowed the company to transfer user information in case of an acquisition or merger with a third party. The 2012 policy also allowed WhatsApp to change the terms periodically.

Consequently, the Delhi High Court held that it is not open to the users now to contend that WhatsApp should be compelled to continue the same terms of service. However, the court gave WhatsApp two directions to protect users.

WhatsApp to delete from its servers and not share with Facebook or its group companies any information belonging to users who delete their account.

Users who continue to be on WhatsApp, their existing information up to September 25, 2016 cannot be shared with Facebook or any of its group companies.

Did The Delhi High Court Go Easy On Facebook And WhatsApp?

Apar Gupta, an advocate specializing in information technology, points out that the directions given by the Delhi High Court to WhatsApp did not contemplate any additional protection to a user than what was already provided by WhatsApp.

The Delhi Court essentially reproduced WhatsApp’s privacy policy. It did not compel or provide any additional safeguard.
Apar Gupta, Lawyer

Apar attributes this to the absence of a regulatory framework.

The lack of substantive safeguard and enforcement framework in India led to the Delhi High Court upholding WhatsApp’s new privacy policy.
Apar Gupta, Lawyer

Abraham added that the court did not examine the privacy policy from the perspective of data protection principles as would have been the case in EU or any other jurisdictions with a proper data protection law.

The court too admitted this in its order that there existed a regulatory vacuum in India and asked TRAI to look into the matter. Facebook did not respond to BloombergQuint’s query on whether it would implement its U.K. commitments in India as well.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/bloomberg-quint-november-17-2016-payaswini-upadhyay-how-the-uk-got-a-better-deal-from-facebook-than-india-did

How the government gains when private companies use Aadhaar

praskrishna — 2016-04-01T15:58:38Z

This blog post by M. Rajshekhar and Anumeha Yadav was published in Scroll.in on March 24, 2016. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

Last week, Rajya Sabha made a last-ditch attempt to modify the contentious Aadhaar legislation introduced by the Modi government. Since the legislation was introduced as a Money Bill, the Upper House had no powers to amend it. It could only send back the bill with recommended amendments.

One of the clauses which Rajya Sabha wished to amend related to the use of the Aadhaar number, the 12-digit unique identification number assigned after the collection of an individual’s biometrics in the form of fingerprints and iris scans.

Clause 57 said that anyone, whether an individual or a public or private organisation, could use the Aadhaar number. Rajya Sabha voted to restrict the use of the number to the government. After all, the government had justified introducing Aadhaar legislation as a Money Bill by stating that it would be used for delivering government subsidies and benefits funded out of the Consolidated Fund of India. If the delivery of government welfare is the aim of Aadhaar, why should private companies be allowed to use it?

The Rajya Sabha recommended dropping clause 57 to limit the use of Aadhaar to government agencies. But the Lok Sabha rejected its recommendation, and cleared the Bill in its original form, paving the way for private companies to use Aadhaar.

Strikingly, however, well before the Bill was cleared, a private company started advertising its services as “India’s 1st Aadhaar based mobile app to verify your maid, driver, electrician, tutor, tenant and everyone else instantly”. In an article for Scroll.in, legal researcher Usha Ramanathan said, “A private company is advertising that it can use Aadhaar to collate information about citizens at a price. It says this openly, even as a case about the privacy of the information collected for the biometrics-linked government database is still pending in the Supreme Court.”

LinkedIn for plumbers

The company that owns the mobile app called TrustID believes it is not doing anything wrong.

Monika Chowdhry, who heads the marketing division of Swabhimaan Distribution Services, the company that created TrustID, defended the app, saying it offers the valuable service of verifying people's identities. “In our day to day life, we do a lot of transactions with people – like maids or plumbers. Till now, you would have to trust them on what they said about themselves and what others said about the quality of their work.” The company is solving that problem, she said. “We are saying ask the person for their Aadhaar number and name and we will immediately tell you if they are telling the truth or not,” Chowdhry said.

Chowdhry said that over time, the Aadhaar number of individuals will be used to create a private verified database of TrustIDs. “Our plan is to create a rating mechanism,” she said. Referring to the option for maid, plumbers and other service providers on the app, she added: “People like you and me, we have Linkedin and Naukri. What do these people have?”

How does the company use Aadhaar for verification and is there a reason to be concerned?

Aadhaar authentication

After you have logged into the TrustID app, you can choose from a dropdown menu of categories. You can send anyone's Aadhaar number, gender and name – or even biometrics – and the app claims it can verify their identity.

The app performs Aadhaar authentication – which means it matches an Aadhaar number with the information stored against that number in the servers of the Unique Identification Authority of India. At the time an individual enrols for an Aadhaar number, they disclose their name, gender, address and give biometric scans. This information is held in a database maintained by the UID authority.

One of the criticisms of Aadhaar has been that the database of millions of people could be misused in the absence of a privacy law in India. First, there is the question about whether the biometrics are secure. Second, there are risks that accompany the uncontrolled use of unique numbers.

In response, the proponents of Aadhaar have said that the data is encrypted and secure, and can be accessed only by the authority. Those wanting to authenticate – or match – the Aadhaar number cannot directly access the database. They can simply make requests to the authority which authenticates the number for them.

So far, it appeared that the authority was taking Aadhaar authentication requests solely from government agencies. For instance, to pay wages to workers of the rural employment guarantee programme.

But TrustID’s example showed that private companies too have been sending authentication requests to the authority. This is not entirely surprising for those who have followed the blueprint for Aadhaar as envisioned by Nandan Nilekani, its founder. In an interview in 2012, Nilekani spoke about creating a "thriving application system" using Aadhaar for both the public and private sector.

Chowdhary said Swabhimaan Distribution Services registered as an Aadhaar authentication agency in November 2015, and the app was launched in January 2016.

TrustID, or Swabhimaan, is not the only private company that has signed up as an authentication agency for Aadhaar. A quick Google search throws up the name of Alankit, which wants to “provide Aadhaar Enabled Services to its beneficiaries, clients and customers and can further verify the correctness of the Aadhaar numbers provided ” .

This shows the authority entered into agreements with private companies well before the Aadhaar law was passed in Parliament. The companies were running ahead of legislation in a space unbounded by law, and the UIDAI supported them in this.

It is unclear how many private companies were sending requests for Aadhaar authentication. Scroll's questions to Harish Agrawal, the deputy director general of Aadhaar's Authentication and Application Division, remained unanswered.

In an interview to Business Standard, ABP Pandey, the director general of the UIDAI, said, "Usually what happens is that first a law is passed and thereafter the institutions are built and operations start. Here it has happened the other way around. The operations – the enrolment – is almost complete. The organisation is also there and has been working under executive orders. Now everything has to be kind of retrofitted in to the acts and the regulations."

Why is this problematic?

For one, allowing private companies to use the Aadhaar number shows that the government’s stated aims of Aadhaar are misleading.

Both in the Supreme Court and in Parliament, the government has pushed for the use of Aadhaar as an instrument of welfare delivery. It justified passing Aadhaar legislation as a Money Bill by emphasising its importance to its welfare schemes. But as the case of Swabhimaan shows, Aadhaar's uses clearly go well beyond what the Bill's preamble describes as the “targeted delivery of subsidies, benefits and services, the expenditure for which is incurred from the Consolidated Fund of India.”

Two, biometrics and unique identification numbers are a qualitatively new form of private information. As such, they bring unknown risks. India does not have a privacy law, and a law defining the use of biometrics and unique numbers is yet to be created. Delhi-based lawyer Apar Gupta said, “Even the Aadhaar Bill is yet to be approved by the president. Its rules are yet to be drafted. There is not enough legal guidance on its use.”

Three, companies like Swabhimaan would be in a position to construct databases of their own. Take TrustID. When it starts retaining Aadhaar numbers, and adds ratings to them, it creates a database of its own, which amounts to creating profiles of people.

Here, as Ramanathan said, the analogy with the networking site LinkedIn doesn't work. “When I have an account on LinkedIn, I update my data,” she said. But the TrustID app generates profiles out of the ratings that others give. Even if a prospective employee shares his/her Aadhaar number, it does not amount to free consent since getting a job hinges on giving that number.

In the future, companies could use Aadhaar numbers in unknown ways, for instance, to combine multiple databases – banks, telecom companies, hospitals – to create detailed profiles of you and me that they can monetise. In effect, Aadhaar becomes a commercial instrument for private companies, and not just a mechanism for the delivery of government welfare.

Gains for the government

Sunil Abraham, the executive director of the Centre for Internet and Society, further explained the risks that arise when databases are combined. He cited the example of OCEAN, the system created by researchers at the Indraprastha Institute of Information Technology to raise privacy awareness. OCEAN used publicly available information held by the government (voter identity card, PAN card, driving licence) to access details about citizens in Delhi. This public data was combined with people's Facebook and Twitter accounts, and the aggregated results were visualised as a family tree which showed information extending to a person’s parents, siblings and spouse.

"If a company like TrustID tied up with OCEAN, it can create a very detailed profile of an individual," said Abraham. "To continue with the example of a job-seeker, if a employer uses TrustID to verify applicants' identity or profiles, the App may combine a database like OCEAN to track that you logged into Twitter at, say 2 am on most nights. It can profile you as someone who might not turn up at work on time in the morning."

Abraham pointed out that the government too stands to gain by allowing private companies to use Aadhaar for authentication. "Use of authentication by private companies will mean UIDAI can have information on authentications performed on you, or by you, over time in the private sphere as well, say during such a job search," he said. For instance, when TrustID runs a search for your prospective employers using your Aadhaar number, the government knows you have applied for a job at certain companies. "This is unnecessary involvement of the government, giving it access to information in an area that it should not have access to."

Over time, such Aadhaar authentication for private services in companies, hospitals, or hotels will "help the government gain granular data on citizens", he said.

Perhaps that explains why the government rushed the Aadhaar Bill through Parliament, allowing little time and room for public debate.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/scroll.in-march-24-2016-rajshekhar-anumeha-yadav-how-the-govt-gains-when-private-companies-use-aadhaar

How Technology Is and Isn't Helping Fight Corruption in India

praskrishna — 2013-06-05T06:43:43Z

I recently sat down with Sunil Abraham, the founder and executive director of the Center for Internet & Society (CIS) in Bangalore to talk about the center, and his views on the role of technology and openness in politics and society.

The blog post by David Eaves was published in Techpresident on May 28, 2013. Sunil Abraham was interviewed by the author.

Abraham, who founded the CIS in 2008, has been active in the open source and technology space for almost two decades, constantly balancing research and theory, with a strong desire to get his hands dirty and actually make things happen. Prior to starting CIS he held both a Sarai FLOSS fellowship and Ashoka fellowship in which he explored the democratic potential of the Internet. However, before this he worked as a social entrepreneur and free software advocate, founding Mahiti, a company that implemented free software solutions for volunteer organizations. The company continues to thrive today employing over 50 engineers.

Today the Center for Internet and Society serves as a non-profit think tank and advocacy organization that research and explores policy options on freedom of expression, privacy, accessibility for persons with disabilities, access to knowledge and IPR reform, and openness. Over the past five years it has seen its influence grow as it becomes increasingly recognized for its expertise and critical view, within both government and the media, in India.

For part of the conversation I asked Abraham his thoughts on I Paid a Bribe, a website launched in August 2010 that allows users to report when and where they were asked to pay a bribe to a public official.

What follows is a fascinating critique of not just I Paid a Bribe but the UID (biometric ID program being rolled out across India):

Sunil Abraham:

The first complication with I Paid A Bribe is it is a quantitative approach to the problem.

Second, it assumes that those reporting the bribes are honest and don't have any other agendas.

Third, it also depends on the novelty effect. People can get bored when there is no feedback. The loop is not closed. To close the loop, some of the things that go on with anonymous reporting cannot happen, and to close the loop it almost needs to become a paralegal infrastructure. It has to talk to law enforcement and people have to be arrested, prosecuted and put away. To really address a problem like that is complex.

So it fails at each of those challenges.

The real challenge in India is high-ticket bribes that happen at the top of the pyramid. And those bribes are done in a very sophisticated fashion. Ordinarily minds cannot understand those transactions. Take the 2G spectrum scam. [the 2G spectrum scam was a significant scandal in India involving a shortfall of hundreds of millions of dollars in the licenses fees Indian telecom companies were supposed to pay the government for their 2G cellphone spectrum licenses. It is believed that officials were paid off so that lower license fees could be paid]. People still don't know what was the bribe and who paid who the bribe. Nobody knows! There are now 8 or 9 books on the scam and none of these books will tell you who did what. There are lots of charts about where money flowed but what component of that was the bribe and what component of that was legit … why none of these money trails link back to the primary accused … nobody can explain.

[And the big challenge with these high-ticket bribes is that…] The rate of evolution in corruption keeps pace with the rate of innovation in anti-corruption. It will always innovate and modify to protect itself against new approaches.

There are many honest people in government, otherwise this country would be in tatters! If everyone in government was corrupt … but what the system does is almost assume everyone within government is corrupt but that everyone outside of government is innocent. But this is not true at all.

The government represents a sample of the population, so if half the population is corrupt then half the people in government will probably be corrupt, it is not dramatically different. So how does one prevent potential witch hunts or the waste of law enforcement resources following false leads?

With the novelty effect – it feels very difficult to maintain the volume [of complaints] and make grand claims like place "A" is more corrupt than place "B". After some time there will be regional difference and the data will no longer even sound credible to the people involved and its credible will collapse. There is no easy answer this.

So the most effective use of technology in fighting corruption [in India] has been in sting operations.

There you go after high value targets, you don't go after petty corruption at the bottom of the pyramid. You use a competent team, people that know the technology and know the evidentiary value of the technology in a court, you work within the immunity afforded by law to media organizations. Then you build a proper case. Unfortunately the last case that strikes at the heart of corruption in India – the corporate post – you saw how it was crushed by mainstream media because it was not run by a main stream media outfit. And the enemies were too big: the banks that are money laundering. And all banks are money laundering. This is the most fundamental problem to address really because when the bulk of society is outside the tax bracket or the bulk of their transactions are outside the tax bracket then you have normalized criminal behavior in society. It means it is accepted that the average person will engage in tax reduction or tax avoidance. Those type of really high ticket targets – and there are ways to use technology to address issues like this – it needs champions. What "I Paid a Bribe" is trying to do is say that a particular configuration of technology is going to be the solution and that the crowd will address its own problem. This is the assumption there.

That is very different than saying that the solution is never technology, the solution is always people and we need people to drive this, and ethical institutions that are created by these people to drive this. Than what your story of change automatically takes for granted is every time the technology innovates around your current technology fix your going to innovate also. With the other narrative since your technology configuration IS your solution then somehow you hold it sacrosanct and you assume that the corruption is never going to innovate around your fix.

David Eaves: So I think the hope of I Paid a Bribe - right or wrong - was that you could have a radically scaling solution…

Abraham:

If you are going after high-ticket forms of corruption you have to be sophisticated. If you are going after low ticket, bottom of the pyramid forms of corruption you may not have to be.

Take the UID project (biometric ID).

In order to crack bottom of the pyramid corruption, one way to do this is by using biometrics so that the actual recipient who IS supposed to get subsidy or welfare actually gets the subsidy or welfare. But if you just think that through you realize there are so many problems with that.

When the intended beneficiary goes to collect he could be told there is no connectivity, or there is no electricity, or even if the authentication system answered a yes he could be told it was in fact a no. Or even if the authentication system answers a yes he could be given half his entitlement instead of his full entitlement.

And even if the authentication system says yes he may have not been eligible in the first place but could be a local elite who is taking the entitlement.

But on the other hand if we had a system through which there was necessary disclosure of everybody receiving the entitlement and their details were published on a public notice board in the village… then people in the village themselves could tell if those people were the right people to get these subsidies. The local media could come and inspect this, civil society organizations could inspect this. So it is the government becoming more transparent to the citizen rather than the other way around, which with the UID is what happens – the citizen becomes more transparent to the state.

Technology has to be configured in a very careful way at each stage in order to address different types of corruption, and each of those specific technologic choices you make can either increase corruption or decrease corruption or increase the power asymmetry or make it more equitable.

Eaves:So what are the conditions in which I Paid a Bribe might work more effectively?

Abraham:

It might be that I Paid a Bribe only allows for one type of participation. If you look at other forms of commons based peer production projects. I think they offer many types of contributions to the project. So if through the examination of a particular government budget a platform identifies all the public works that are going to be constructed using that budget and then allows state or town or even a locality to monitor the progress on those works then it allows for contributions that are necessarily antagonistic but it also allows for contributions that are antagonistic. So it allows for a conversation with a much more diverse set of people participating.

With I Paid a Bribe, because they want the scale they have taken the simplification very seriously. And it is a light touch transaction – which means once you register a bribe you can more or less forget about it. I think other peer production projects, even Wikipedia, once you start editing a particular page, you may develop an interest in that page. You can set a notification system that will notify you every time that page is edited. It is like the same story on a mailing list, that the rules that existed during the initial days when the mailing list was very small change and get more sophisticated as the mailing list scales. The technological solution has to grow to compliment the age of the community and the community has to be gardened very carefully to retain members. I Paid a Bribe risk ending up being a venting mechanism for the post bribe trauma moment. Which is fine! That is useful in of itself. But if your vision is more than that, if you want to have a movement which is an anti-corruption movement then it cannot be just be a venting mechanism for the anti-bribe trauma.

This is the complication. I'm not dismissing I Paid a Bribe. All I'm saying is, in order to build a community and take it along with you, you cannot keep anything sacred. Not your technological configuration, not how you message, address and bring people into the community, not even your target community – that might change – so it is just like the challenge we have in growing Wikipedia in India. If you were that simple we would the same solution for the different language wikipedias and we would do one homogenous thing across the nation. But the Kannada Wikipedia has only seven active editors, as does the Punjabi Wikipedia, the Hindi Wikipedia has hundreds of editors but they don't like each other and they don't meet in real life. Very unlike the Maleren Wikipedia. So the strategy that needs to be employed is very different for each of these communities. There is almost an automatic tension between simple, scalable and authentic bottom up movement forces.

So as the number of bribes reported on I Paid a Bribe increase – what do you do to ensure that the quality of those reports gets better? And how do you move people from being anonymous reporters to the system to becoming more and more identified? How does a senior cohort of the community get created? I don't know – these things may exist but I don't see it from the outside.

Look at the different in other peer production projects. The brand of the individual and the attribution afforded to each individual is quite explicit and public. I Paid a Bribe is mostly anonymous although I think some of them choose to be public.

Eaves: And you need to feel incredibly confident in your personal security and status to be public in I Paid a Bribe.

Abraham:

Exactly.

This post has been corrected to fix a transcription error. Sunil Abraham said the Kannada Wikipedia has only seven active editors.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/techpresident-david-eaves-may-28-2013-how-technology-is-and-isnt-helping-fight-corruption-in-india