Centre for Internet and Society

Concerns over central snoop

praskrishna — 2013-07-01T09:33:27Z

Eyebrows have been raised at the Centre’s single-window system to intercept phone calls and internet exchanges — the desi version of the US’s surveillance programme, PRISM — that is expected to roll out this year-end.

The article by Aloke Tikku was published in the Hindustan Times on June 28, 2013. Sunil Abraham is quoted.

The Rs. 400-crore project — tentatively called the Central Monitoring System (CMS) — will not only allow the government to listen to a target’s phone conversation but also track down a caller’s precise location, match his voice against known suspects’ before the call is completed and see what people have been up to on the internet.

And then, it can also use analytics to discover possible links — between suspected terrorists, criminals or just about anybody — from the internet and phone data. All this will be done from one place without keeping the internet or phone service provider in the loop — something the telecom and home ministries insist will enhance citizens’ privacy.

Both ministries also insist that the CMS won’t change the rules of the game. “The process to seek authorisation for interception will not be diluted,” a home ministry official promised.

So is everything hunky dory?

Hardly. But technology — in this case, the CMS — is a smaller part of the problem.

The bigger chunk is the process of approving “lawful interception” orders and the lack of transparency around it.

It was in December 1996 that the Supreme Court held that the State could spy on its citizens in extraordinary circumstances but, as an interim measure, made it mandatory for the home secretary to approve each and every such request. Telecom minister Kapil Sibal, who appeared in this case in the mid-1990s, convinced the court that it didn’t have the powers to order that a judge decide each phone-tapping case. Instead, Sibal suggested that this power remain with the executive on lines of the law in the UK. A former home secretary, however, conceded that they hardly have the time to apply their mind before signing a wiretap order.

That isn’t surprising. The home secretary approves around 7,500-9,000 interception orders every month. That means he or she has to sign an average of 300 orders every day without a break.

If he were to spend just 30 seconds on each case, he would have to keep aside four-and-a-half hours just approving interception orders every day.

An official said the ministry was considering a suggestion to pick up a fixed number of cases at random for closer scrutiny before approval.

Many believe this might not be enough. It is argued that the government — which was trying to replicate surveillance technology from the west — needs to adopt their safeguards and transparency norms too.

Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet and Society, said he didn’t have a problem with CMS as long as it didn’t go for blanket surveillance.

“But there is no reason why the executive — and not a judge — should have the powers to decide on phone-tapping requests,” he said. Or for that matter, why shouldn’t there be an independent audit of phone-tapping decisions, their implementation and outcome?

“The aggregated data should be put in the public domain,” Abraham said. The US has such provisions. So does Britain, which inspired Sibal to argue for retaining interception powers with the executive in the mid-1990s. It is time to follow-up on that model.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/news/hindustan-times-aloke-tikku-june-28-2013-concerns-over-central-snoop

Concerns

praskrishna — 2015-10-11T05:29:07Z

Concerns

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

Conceptualise AI

praskrishna — 2019-10-13T03:24:08Z

Conceptualising AI

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/home-images/ConceptualiseAI.jpg

Concept Note: UNICEF & Nasscom Foundation Workshop on Child Online Protection

praskrishna — 2016-02-14T10:16:34Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/concept-note-unicef-nasscom-foundation-workshop-on-child-online-protection

Concept Note: Network Neutrality in South Asia

praskrishna — 2015-12-01T02:34:25Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/concept-note-network-neutrality-in-south-asia

Concept Letter

praskrishna — 2015-03-08T05:04:45Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/concept-letter.pdf

Comsnets

praskrishna — 2016-01-17T15:03:46Z

Comsnet

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

Comsnets

praskrishna — 2016-01-17T15:06:22Z

Comsnet

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

Computer Operation

praskrishna — 2013-01-24T07:32:22Z

Operating a Computer

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

Computer Operation

praskrishna — 2013-01-24T07:08:44Z

Computer Operation

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

Competition Commission of India chairman's participation in Assocham conference raises conflict of interests

praskrishna — 2015-09-19T15:33:11Z

The chairperson of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) and three of the six commission members are participating in a conference organised by Assocham and sponsored by private companies like Ericsson, trade associations and two legal firms specialising in intellectual property cases.

The article by Rema Nagarajan was published in the Times of India on August 6, 2015.

This, civil society organisations argue, raises issues of conflict of interest in a quasi-judicial body like CCI participating in a conference organised by private parties that have cases before the commission.

For instance, the event partner Ericsson is facing CCI investigations on matters related to standard essential patents (SEPs), one of the conference topics, and issues related to licensing of technologies on fair and equitable terms. The vice president and head of the legal section of Ericsson also has a speaking slot in the inaugural event. The brochure clearly states that the event partner on payment of Rs 5 lakh gets several privileges including a speaker's slot in the inaugural and business sections.

Several civil society organisations including Alternative Law Forum, Centre for Internet and Society and IT for Change from Bangalore, Knowledge Commons Collective, National Working Group on Patent Laws, and Software Freedom Law Centre from Delhi have written to the CCI protesting against its participation in the conference.

In their letter to CCI chairperson Ashok Chawla, they pointed out that the day-long conference titled Interface between Intellectual property (IP) and Competition Law, being held in a five star hotel on August 7, was focusing on issues being adjudicated by CCI. While Chawla is listed in the brochure as giving the inaugural address, CCI members GP Mittal and MS Sahoo are chairing two technical sessions and a third member SL Bunker is giving a special address at the valedictory function.

Other speakers include Rajiv Aggarwal, Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks, representatives of Google, Intel, Microsoft, the UK IP Office, senior advocates from three Indian law firms specialising in IP and representatives of international law firms and consultancy firms.

"It is a well-set precedent that judicial and quasi-judicial bodies never directly or indirectly discuss matters pending before them. The conference is centred on discussing issues that are currently under the investigation of CCI along with commercial entities, including one which is facing the investigation," stated the letter adding that all the judicial or quasi-judicial bodies were expected to avoid not only actual conflict of interest but also perceived conflict of interest.

The civil society signatories pointed out that the event was not an academic event but a commercial one organised by a chamber of commerce along with the industry with clear commercial objectives. "The participation of CCI in the event would compromise the credibility and independence of CCI. Therefore, CCI as a guardian of public interest should not be subject to the lobbying efforts of IP owners. Providing privileged access to lobbying efforts of private enterprises like Ericsson, Qualcomm, Microsoft and Intel would cast a dark shadow on the neutrality of CCI," stated the letter requesting Chawla not to participate in the conference and to direct CCI members and CCI staff involved in investigations to avoid participation.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/news/times-of-india-rema-nagarajan-august-6-2015-competition-commission-of-india-chairman-participation-in-assocham-conference-raises-conflict-of-interests

Comparison Table GDPR DPD

praskrishna — 2017-02-07T13:45:58Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/comparison-table-gdpr-dpd

Comparison of National IPR Strategy September 2012, National IPR Strategy July 2014 And Draft National IP Policy, December 2015

praskrishna — 2015-10-15T16:48:50Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comparison-of-national-ipr-strategy-september-2012-national-ipr-strategy-july-2014-and-draft-national-ip-policy-december-2015-1.pdf

Comparative Analysis of DNA Profiling Legislations from Across the World (File)

praskrishna — 2013-05-23T04:17:51Z

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/comparative-analysis-dna-profiling-bill.xlsx

Comparative Analysis

praskrishna — 2014-10-29T13:21:52Z

Comparative Analysis

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