Sunil Abraham's Reddit AMA (2013)

A Reddit “Ask Me Anything” (AMA) titled “I work at the Centre for Internet and Society, India. AMA” took place on Wednesday, 2 January 2013, on r/india. The opening post introduced Sunil Abraham as a policy researcher at the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) and invited questions about his work. The discussion covered Aadhaar and biometrics, privacy and surveillance, Internet governance, censorship, Internet access, free and open-source software, accessibility, open data, Indic languages, and the work and future direction of CIS.

The answers provide a snapshot of technology policy debates in India at the beginning of 2013. They also show a mixture of firm positions, provisional views, references to ongoing work, and clear acknowledgements of questions for which research or information was not yet available.

Background

The AMA began with questions grouped around four subjects: UID and Aadhaar, Internet infrastructure, the work of CIS, and Internet-related law.

On Aadhaar, the discussion focused on the risks of centralised biometric databases, authentication technologies, and the security implications of storing biometric information. Questions about Internet infrastructure included broadband pricing, interconnection, rural access, and the role of Internet service providers. Questions about CIS concerned its research programmes, public participation, funding, and whether it could eventually play a role similar to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) in the United States. Questions about law included privacy legislation, government surveillance, and John Doe orders.

The discussion subsequently expanded into Internet access, Internet censorship, accessibility, Indic-language computing, government websites, open data, Wikimedia projects, free Wi-Fi, VoIP, and the possibility of CIS eventually taking legal cases.

The AMA was verified by a moderator, who noted that verification had been provided through a Twitter account.

Aadhaar and biometrics

The discussion of UID and Aadhaar centred on the risks created by a centralised repository of authentication information. The comparison with the United States Social Security Number system was rejected as a direct equivalence because, unlike the UID central repository discussed in the AMA, the US system was described as not being a centralised store of authentication factors.

The security of the UID database was treated cautiously. The assurance from UIDAI that the data would be safe was contrasted with the absence of certainty about whether it could actually remain secure. A decentralised architecture was presented as reducing the security risk associated with compromise of a single central database.

The discussion also proposed alternative authentication technologies. Digital signatures and smart cards were suggested as preferable approaches, with biometrics ideally being used only for high-value transactions such as land registration.

A particularly unusual proposal was the plan to register for UID and then make the biometrics and UID publicly available online as an electronic art installation titled “plausible deniability”. The idea was discussed in the context of the difficulty of treating biometric information like an ordinary password that can be changed after compromise.

Privacy and surveillance

Privacy legislation was described as important for protecting consumers and the public interest. At the time of the AMA, there was uncertainty about the progress of a new privacy law, with reference to unconfirmed reports that the Department of Personnel and Training was working on a draft based on the Justice A. P. Shah Committee report.

The discussion of government surveillance was based partly on RTI responses. Some responses from BSNL and MTNL were said to indicate that state-run Internet service providers were not carrying out comprehensive data retention or deep-packet inspection, although the possibility that such practices were more common among private ISPs was raised.

The AMA also connected privacy with the broader decline of online anonymity. Governments and corporations were described as continually attempting to exercise greater control over Internet users, while online anonymity had, in the preceding years, become increasingly difficult to maintain.

The position on speech regulation was that regulation of ordinary citizens’ speech should be kept to the absolute minimum and should be limited to situations involving clear and direct harm. Data protection and privacy regulation were presented as areas where regulation could be important for protecting consumer rights and the public Internet.

Internet governance

Internet governance was described as a term without a single universally accepted definition. The AMA distinguished between areas in which India was making progress and areas in which progress appeared limited from the perspective of ordinary citizens.

Access to knowledge was given as an area of progress, while speech regulation and privacy were identified as areas where there appeared to be comparatively little progress.

The role of public pressure was also emphasised. The response did not claim certainty about the willingness of policy-makers and bureaucrats to take Internet governance seriously, instead suggesting that this depended partly on public pressure.

The AMA also noted that India sometimes adopted international practices selectively, while at other times developing its own approach. A more active citizenry was presented as potentially improving the quality of Internet-related policy and implementation.

Internet access and infrastructure

Internet penetration in India was described as “pathetic” at the time, while cheaper devices were seen as likely to contribute to wider adoption.

The discussion of broadband infrastructure included questions about interconnection, peering, rural access, and the structure of the Indian Internet market. No CIS research on interconnection, peering, and transit in India was available at the time of the AMA. The subject was described as important but difficult to study because transit arrangements were dominated by private agreements.

The discussion also considered whether public-private or non-profit approaches could play a role in Internet infrastructure, although no definitive institutional model was proposed in the AMA.

Fair Usage Policies and network neutrality

Fair Usage Policies (FUPs) were discussed in relation to broadband consumption and network neutrality.

The position expressed in the AMA was that FUPs were considered legitimate by the regulator and were increasingly common internationally. At the same time, more crowdsourced research was called for to understand their privacy implications and possible fraudulent billing effects.

Later in the discussion, the impact of FUPs on network neutrality and freedom of expression was considered. The response suggested that users concerned about these issues could approach a court or the competition regulator, while noting that technical research would be needed to demonstrate that an ISP was actually restricting users in a harmful way.

At the time, the view expressed was that India did not necessarily need an explicit network neutrality law, although the issue required further research.

Censorship and freedom of expression

The AMA took a restrictive view of Internet speech regulation. Regulation of ordinary citizens’ speech was described as something that should be kept to the absolute minimum and limited to situations involving clear and direct harm.

When asked to distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable forms of information exchange, the response placed matters such as child pornography, animal pornography, voyeurism, and privacy intrusions in the category of clearly unacceptable material. Other forms of speech were generally treated as permissible, while questions involving potential harm, such as hate speech and public-order concerns, were described as requiring judicial determination.

The AMA also discussed Section 66A of the Information Technology Act and comparisons between Indian and American approaches to freedom of expression. The response rejected the idea that people in the United States have completely unrestricted freedom of expression online and noted that both countries have constitutional and legal restrictions, although the frameworks differ.

Centre for Internet and Society

The AMA described CIS primarily as an organisation conducting policy and academic research. Its work was presented as covering citizen and consumer interests on the Internet and information societies more broadly.

People interested in contributing were encouraged to follow CIS research programmes and projects and to contact the organisation about volunteering. The AMA also described the organisation as open to people with an interest in Internet policy and research, without firm requirements concerning educational qualifications or prior experience.

At the time, CIS was a registered non-profit organisation supported mostly by donor agencies, with some support from individuals and the Indian government.

The discussion of the EFF comparison was particularly candid. EFF was described as financially more resilient because of its ability to raise funds from the public, and as having a larger team of experienced lawyers and the ability to approach courts. CIS was described as stopping at policy research at that point, making it only a “pale shadow” of EFF.

At the same time, the possibility of moving towards a more litigation-oriented role was not rejected. The organisation had medium- and long-term plans to go in that direction, although the response emphasised that courts should be a last resort after other methods of resolving a problem had failed.

Funding and public support

Funding was discussed as a practical limitation on CIS’s ability to expand its activities.

At the time, most donors were providing funding for periods of one or two years. Long-running court cases could be expensive, making a stronger base of financial support from ordinary Internet users important if CIS were eventually to undertake litigation.

The organisation was preparing technical and administrative infrastructure for public fundraising and expected to launch it within the following few months.

Until stronger financial support was available, the organisation expected to concentrate on research and awareness-raising.

Accessibility and inclusion

Accessibility was one of the areas identified in the opening description of CIS’s research programmes.

The AMA referred to work connected with the National Electronic Accessibility Policy and to a CIS report on the accessibility of government websites. The policy had not yet been notified at the time.

The discussion also mentioned work supported by the Hans Foundation on Indic-language support for the NVDA screen reader and the eSpeak text-to-speech engine.

Accessibility was therefore treated not simply as a technical issue but as part of the wider question of whether digital services and information could be accessed by people with disabilities.

Indic languages and access to knowledge

The AMA also addressed the availability of digital content in Indian languages.

When asked for comparative data on consumption of English-language and regional-language content, the response was that CIS did not have such data at the time. It was suggested that some information might potentially be derived from open data sources such as Wikipedia, while the Digital Empowerment Foundation might have relevant knowledge.

The broader discussion connected access to knowledge with the availability of appropriate digital-language infrastructure and content.

Government websites and digital public services

Government websites were discussed in the context of accessibility and the quality of public digital infrastructure.

The AMA referred to CIS’s work on the accessibility of government websites and its related report. Accessibility was presented as an area in which government digital services required attention.

The discussion also touched on the use of technology for public services and civic participation, including questions about how public data and digital systems could be used more effectively.

Open source and technical participation

The AMA repeatedly connected CIS’s work with free and open-source software and open standards.

When discussing streaming and archiving of CIS events, the organisation said that it was using Justin.tv at the time but was looking for community infrastructure that was more friendly to FOSS and open standards. People with technical skills were encouraged to contribute through talks, training, blog entries, and by helping with the research workload.

The discussion therefore presented technical participation as one practical way for people outside the organisation to contribute to Internet policy and research.

Research and public participation

The AMA presented policy and academic research as the core of CIS’s work. It also showed the practical limits of research when reliable information was not available.

Some answers were explicitly uncertain. For example, the response to the status of a privacy law was “No idea”, while the response to some questions about Internet infrastructure acknowledged that CIS had no research on the subject.

This distinction is important when reading the AMA historically. Not every answer was presented as an established institutional finding. Some were personal assessments, some referred to colleagues’ views or existing work, and some openly acknowledged uncertainty.

Public participation was nevertheless presented as important. The discussion repeatedly invited volunteers, technical contributors, researchers, students, and ordinary Internet users to participate in CIS’s work.

Open data and public information

Data.gov.in was described as a “great first step” towards open data and greater transparency.

The response called for more datasets to be released by ministries and departments in accordance with the National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy (NSDAP). CIS’s report on Open Government Data in India was also referenced as covering important initiatives.

The AMA also raised the availability of public map data. When asked about the Survey of India and the possibility of updated, accurate, and freely accessible mapping information, the response was that CIS was not aware of such an initiative and would consider filing RTIs with the Survey of India to learn more.

Wikimedia and free knowledge

The AMA discussed work connected with the Wikimedia Foundation and the development of free knowledge in India.

The proposed approach included transparency about workplans and budgets and working in service of existing communities rather than duplicating their efforts.

Another proposed activity was obtaining content from government through petitioning and Right to Information requests. At the time, a legal opinion was being awaited on the compatibility of licensing RTI responses with Wikipedia.

The discussion therefore connected open government information with wider efforts to expand freely accessible knowledge.

Free Wi-Fi and VoIP

The AMA included specific questions about open Wi-Fi and VoIP.

According to the response, a Department of Telecommunications order was understood to prohibit ISPs from allowing customers to run open Wi-Fi networks. The response suggested that this could probably be challenged as unconstitutional.

IP-to-IP VoIP was described as legal, while IP-to-PSTN calls were not expected to be permitted soon because incumbent telecommunications companies would resist such a change.

A snapshot of technology policy in 2013

The AMA provides a snapshot of how several technology-policy questions were being discussed in India in early 2013.

The questions ranged from the security of a centralised biometric identity system to broadband access, FUPs, online censorship, privacy legislation, government surveillance, accessibility, open data, Indic-language computing, and the legal status of online services.

The discussion also reveals the limits of the available evidence at the time. Some questions were answered with references to existing research or policy work, while others were met with uncertainty, a commitment to investigate further, or a suggestion that additional technical research was required.

The AMA is therefore valuable not only for the positions expressed but also as a record of the questions being asked about Internet policy, digital rights, and access to technology in India at the beginning of 2013.