You might have heard about facial recognition being used for authentication in vaccination centres. So did we — and filed an RTI application to understand the process & authenticate reports. We just got a reply confirming the use of FRT, but without any guidelines in place! (1/n)
Although official statements said that:
a. Biometric authentication for vaccines was not being used, and
b. Aadhaar was not mandatory for vaccine registration — this unchecked roll-out of FRT based systems has, understandably, caused widespread anxiety and apprehension! (2/n)
We filed an RTI application asking the MoHFW to furnish details about the use of FRT in the vaccination process.
You can peruse all of the questions that we asked by taking a look at a copy of the RTI application here: drive.google.com/file/d/1kcfjE1… (3/n)
In response to our RTI application, the MoHFW acknowledged FRT as one of the methods for online verification of beneficiaries, and said that images captured through FRT would be sent to UIDAI for verification and not stored in any distinct database. (4/n)
They informed us that:
a. No additional procurement was made for the implementation of FRT based verification.
b. A pilot project for facial recognition authentication is still under continuation. According to reports, this pilot project is being conducted in Jharkhand. (5/n)
However, copies of privacy impact assessments or legislative and legal orders authorising the use of FRT weren't provided. The ‘Verifier & Vaccinator Module User Manual’ in the COWIN portal, according to whose terms FRT is supposed to be used, was also unavailable. (6/n)
With such a response, the MoHFW has evaded the real issue and failed to supply accurate information. This violates the tenet of transparency under the RTI Act, and creates ambiguities around registration. A universal and inclusive vaccination policy is the need of the hour! (7/n)
The COVID19 vaccines are essential commodities and ensuring equitable access to vaccines is extremely important.
Imposing inaccurate & exclusionary digital ID schemes without privacy safeguards is highly problematic and can adversely impact India’s fight against COVID19! (8/n)
Help us protect and advocate for your digital rights by signing up as a donor! Your support is critical to the work we do — help us safeguard digital rights in India.
.@PUCLindia’s application seeking directions against the continued enforcement of S. 66A of the IT Act, 2000 was heard by the Supreme Court today. IFF provided legal assistance in this case. Thread: (1/n)
Section 66A of the IT Act criminalised “offensive speech” online. In 2015, the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India held that the provision was vague & unconstitutional and declared it void ab initio, i.e. was deemed never to have existed on the statute books. (2/n)
So it makes sense that all pending cases would be dismissed, and no new cases should have been instituted under S.66A, right? Well, in 2018, a research paper by @abhinavsekhri10 and @apar1984 showed that S.66A was being used to prosecute individuals all over the country. (3/n)
Hearing Update: @PUCLindia’s application seeking directions against the continued enforcement of S. 66A of the IT Act, 2000 is listed as item 29 before the Supreme Court. IFF has provided legal assistance in this case. We will keep you updated.
S.66A criminalised “offensive speech” on the internet. In Shreya Singhal vs Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1, Supreme Court struck down S.66A. A summary of the decision in Shreya Singhal is available here - globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/shreya-s…
(2/n)
In 2019, PUCL had approached SC against non-compliance with the decision in Shreya Singhal. SC directed the government to provide copies of the decision in Shreya Singhal to all Chief Secretaries who in turn were directed to sensitise police departments.
Privacy is a right, not a privilege. So why are ASHA workers, who ensure the welfare of rural & marginalised communities, facing mass surveillance? India's incoming data law has a lot to do with these rights violations. A thread on #PrivacyOfThePeople. 1/n internetfreedom.in/privacyofthepe…
Accredited Social Health Activists (ASHA) look over a thousand families in 1 administrative unit, going door-to-door to increase awareness on healthcare, sanitation, etc. in rural communities. Usually, ASHAs belong to the same marginalised groups. 2/n
Battling the issues caused by COVID, ASHA workers now have to resist State surveillance too. A Mobile Device Management app (MDM 360) has been forcefully installed on their phones to track their locations, 'efficiency,' add/delete information, etc. 3/n timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/gurgaon/p…
In keeping with a rising trend of arbitrary suspensions, Twitter has suspended actor and activist Sushant Singh (@sushant_says)'s account for the second time. We assisted him in drafting a representation to Twitter raising issues with its policies. 1/n internetfreedom.in/twitter-must-a…
Earlier, on February 1, access to Mr. Singh’s account was withheld without prior notice in response to a “legal demand”. Twitter later stated that access had been restricted due to a specific tweet. Mr. Singh deleted it, yet access was restored only after a lapse of 12 hours.
2/n
Now on May 26, Mr. Singh's account was withheld in India in response to a legal demand again. No communication from Twitter was received regarding this. Though access was restored a few hours later, Mr. Singh has not received information about the situation to date.
3/n
With over 2.6 million users in India, Clubhouse is growing in popularity- but we are concerned about how it fares in terms of protecting your human rights. Today we bring you our assessment of the app and suggestions on how it can improve its policies. 1/n internetfreedom.in/clubhouse-how-…
Firstly, reports suggest that government law enforcement agencies such as the NIA, CBI, and IB are monitoring conversations on Clubhouse. We have filed an RTI with the Ministry of Home Affairs to determine the veracity of these reports. 2/n thequint.com/tech-and-auto/…
Clubhouse has not provided sufficient safeguards against rising hate speech and disinformation in India, and is not respectful of user privacy. We believe that a social media platform that was rolled out in 2020 should have accounted for these concerns. 3/n
1/ Fact check: We would like to caution against news reports of any social media entity (a significant entity) losing the “protective shield” of an “intermediary status”. This emerges from an incorrect reading of the law. #TwitterBanInIndia timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india…
2/ First! The “intermediary status” is not a registration that is granted by the Government. If you’d like to brush up on this, we’ve got you covered in an explainer we did when incorrect reports emerged over a “social media ban” earlier this month.
3/ The present concerns arise from Rule 7 of the IT Rules, but Rule 7 only says that the provisions of Section 79 of the IT Act won’t apply to intermediaries that fail to observe the IT Rules.