You generate an enormous amount of data merely by engaging with social media. Platforms track every click! And in the absence of data protection regulation, your data may most likely end up with anyone — from a researcher to an advertiser to a foreign intelligence agency. (2/n)
Although the incoming data law is a step in the right direction, rights-based data protection means that users are given certain essential rights against data fiduciaries.
As it stands, your rights to be forgotten, correction, erasure, & data portability can all be denied! (3/n)
Even though the #DataProtectionBill is a start, it can be much better. Here's how:
a. Making it clear that only YOU own your data. Current ambiguities in the bill have great potential for misuse. (4/n)
b. Protect non-personal & anonymized data! Nobody is truly anonymous on the internet, & the government can use S.91 of the bill to get access to such data.
c. As it stands, the govt. doesn't need a reason to ask for your data. Make these requests transparent + accountable! (5/n)
d. Remember how your requests to exercise your digital rights — to be forgotten, and of correction, erasure, and data portability, can be denied by platforms?
There's no real way to contest these super important decisions, and this needs to change! (6/n)
How can we make it better?
1. Make a user's right to privacy the central tenet, and the interests of platforms can be addressed through limited exceptions.
2. Scrap voluntary verification by users. This will allow platforms to commercialise your sensitive & personal data! (7/n)
3. Shift the focus onto the protection of our digital rights, and ensure that we have strong mechanisms around anonymized and non-personal data.
4. Minimise data collection! Platforms should only collect the data they need, and WITHOUT compromising our basic privacy. (8/n)
Help us stand up for your digital rights. Donate to the Internet Freedom Foundation today!
Hearing update: Union of India’s transfer petition is listed as item 7 before Justice Khanwilkar and Justice Sanjiv Khanna of the Supreme Court. The petition seeks to transfer 4 cases that have challenged the validity of IT Rules, 2021 before the Supreme Court. (1/n)
One of these cases is @LiveLawIndia’s petition which is pending before the Kerala High Court. IFF has provided legal assistance to @LivelLawIndia. A blog post summarising the proceedings before Kerala High Court is available here - internetfreedom.in/kerala-hc-gran…
(2/n)
We have previously provided a deep dive analysis of IT Rules, 2021 where we have explained how they are unconstitutional, undemocratic and how they will fundamentally change an Indian user's experience on the internet. internetfreedom.in/intermediaries…
(3/n)
Hearing update: CCI had directed an investigation into WhatsApp’s 2021 Privacy Policy which WA challenged before a judge of the Delhi High Court. The judge did not stay the decision of CCI. WA’s appeal against that decision is listed as item 2 before a division bench of DHC.(1/n)
Competition Commission of India’s decision directing an investigation into WhatsApp’s 2021 Privacy Policy is available here - cci.gov.in/sites/default/…
(2/n)
The decision of the single judge refusing to stay the decision of CCI is available here - drive.google.com/file/d/1SGYJl8…
(3/n)
Facebook India head, Ajit Mohan's petition against the Delhi Legislative Assembly was listed before the Supreme Court today. The SC refused to quash the summons issued to Ajit Mohan by the Delhi Legislative Assembly in relation to the Delhi riots. (1/n)
Mr. Mohan had approached the SC under Art 32 of the Constitution challenging the summons issued by the “Peace and Harmony committee” of the Delhi Assembly to probe ‘the role of fake social media posts in creating communal riots in North East Delhi’ in February 2020.
(2/n)
The Court rejected the argument that the Delhi Assembly has no legislative competence to enquire into the Delhi riots, and held that legislative function is only one of its functions. Investigation of complicated social problems is another.
Here's a transparent thread on the RTI requests and appeals we filed with governmental authorities to protect your free speech, privacy, internet accessibility, and other constitutional rights in June 2021! 1/n internetfreedom.in/digital-transp…
We filed 21 RTI requests, 2 first appeals & 1 second appeal electronically, on various matters pertaining to the digital divide in the vaccination policy, privacy invasion through facial recognition, MoUs to digitalise agriculture in India, and takedowns on social media.
2/n
With @PanopticIndia, we enquired about facial recognition technology, from @NHAI_Official and @AyushmanNHA on GPS imaging at tolls and Aadhaar-based facial recognition for #CovidVaccine. We also filed a first appeal with @BARC_INDIA challenging their vague response on FRT.
3/n
IFF suggests that all #AgriStack implementation be halted till extensive consultations with farmers have been carried out. Issues exist with data localisation & protection, federalism, user rights, and there's a need for public investment.
Robust data standards are also very much a necessity. What is the AgriStack project? Last year, we released an explainer. We have continued to engage with the issue through letters, analyses, & disseminating relevant information. #PrivacyOfThePeople (2/n)
#AgriStack has also been receiving public attention, especially around:
a. The lack of consultations with farmers and farmers’ organisations.
b. The potential threat of the erosion of privacy and data exploitation.
c. The fear of a ‘corporate takeover’ of agriculture. (3/n)
.@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)