Additionally, we are excited to announce a collaboration with robos of Tech Law and Policy, a platform for marginalized genders in the technology law and policy field. Entries in the series may be found here.

We hope you enjoy this latest edition of Metadata by TLF, and as always, please let us know what you think!

Subscribe now

Facebook-Australia stand-off ends as both parties agree to truce

Facebook has reached an agreement with the Australian Government and will restore news pages in the country days after restricting them. The decision follows negotiations between the tech giant and the Australian Government, which is set to pass a new media law that will require digital platforms to pay for news. The law, if passed, will make digital platforms pay local media outlets and publishers to link their content in news feeds or search results. Under the amendments, the Australian Government will give digital platforms and news publishers two months to mediate and broker commercial deals before subjecting them to mandatory arbitration under the proposed media law. Both Google and Facebook have fought against the media law since last year. Google previously threatened to remove its search service from Australia in response to the proposed law. But the company has since struck commercial deals with local publishers including the Murdoch family-owned media conglomerate News Corp. Facebook, for its part, followed through with a threat to remove news features from Australia.

Further Readings:

1. Mike Isaac, Daisuke Wakabayashi, Damien Cave and Edmund Lee, Facebook Blocks News in Australia, Diverging With Google on Proposed Law, The New York Times (February 17, 2021).

2. Vlad Savov, Facebook’s Australia Face-Off Could Backfire Across the Globe, BloombergQuint (February 19, 2021).

3. Colin Packham and Byron Kaye, Facebook Restores News Pages after Australia Agrees to Tweak Media Law, The Wire (February 23, 2021).

4. Gerry Smith, Kurt Wagner, and Angus Whitley, Facebook Cuts Off News in Australia in Fight Over Payments, Bloomberg (February 18, 2021).

5. Gerry Smith, Google signs 3-year deal with Murdoch’s News Corp, will pay for news, The Print (February 18, 2021).

6. David Fickling, Google and Facebook Lose a Battle to Win the War, Bloomberg Opinion (February 18, 2021).

7. Staff, Facebook makes a power move in Australia with news ban, may regret it, Business Standard (February 19, 2021).

Government notifies new IT rules in a bid to curb the misuse of social and digital media

The Central Government notified the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 which will supersede the existing intermediary liability rules made in 2011. These guidelines cover social media companies, digital news media platforms as well over-the-top (OTT) platforms. Among other things, the new guidelines call upon social media companies to set up stronger grievance redressal mechanisms, enable the tracing of originators of ‘unlawful’ messages, and appoint executives to coordinate with law enforcement agencies. The guidelines also call for three-tier regulation mechanism for OTT platforms like Netflix, YouTube, etc. and require them to self-classify their content into five categories based on age suitability. The new guidelines have garnered severe criticism from sections of civil society who fear that it undermines the constitutional protections to free speech and privacy. Among others, they failed to impress the Supreme Court which expressed dissatisfaction with the guidelines for lacking any coercive provisions for violations. In response to this, the Solicitor General offered to a better draft of the rules for the consideration of the Court.

Further Reading:

1. Payaswini Upadhyay, Government Notifies New Rules For Social Media, Digital News And OTT Platforms, Bloomberg Quint (February 25, 2021).

2. Aashish Aryan and Pranav Mukul, Govt frames new rules to hold social media, OTT accountable for content, The Indian Express (February 27, 2021).

3. Anushka Jain, New IT Rules Leave Little Room for Privacy, Free Speech in an Increasingly Surveilled Digital Space, The Swaddle (March 9, 2021).

4. Internet Freedom Foundation, Explainer: How the New IT Rules Take Away Our Digital Rights, The Wire (February 26, 2021).

5. Amit Khare, Doubts about new IT rules are groundless, The Indian Express (March 8, 2021).

6. Radhika Roy, Centre's OTT Rules 'Lack Teeth', Says Supreme Court; Solicitor General Agrees To Present New Draft, Live Law (March 5, 2021).

7. Shreya Agarwal, Breaking: Delhi High Court Issues Notice On Plea Challenging Information Technology (Guidelines for Intermediaries and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, Live Law (March 9, 2021).

WhatsApp to show in-app banner explaining privacy policy

Recently, Facebook-owned WhatsApp announced it would delay enforcement of its new privacy terms, following a backlash from confused users which later led to a legal challenge in India and various regulatory investigations. Following the outcry, WhatsApp attempted to explain that the privacy update was actually focused on optional business features on the app, which allow a business to see the content of messages between it and the end user, and give the businesses permission to use that information for its own marketing purposes, including advertising on Facebook. Additionally, WhatsApp will begin to roll out a small, in-app banner that will ask users to re-review the privacy policies, a change the company said users have shown to prefer over the pop-up, full-screen alert it displayed before. When users click on “to review,” they will be shown a deeper summary of the changes, including added details about how WhatsApp works with Facebook. The changes stress that WhatsApp’s updates don’t impact the privacy of users’ conversations, and reiterate the information about the optional business features.

Further Readings:

1. Ian Carlos Campbell, WhatsApp is having another go at explaining its privacy policy to users, The Verge (February 18, 2021).

2. Staff, WhatsApp to display banner in chats explaining updated privacy policy, The Hindustan Times (February 19, 2021).

3. Soumyarendra Barik, Following Backlash, WhatsApp To Show In-App Banner Explaining Privacy Policy, Medianama (February 19, 2021).

4. Staff, WhatsApp to start showing banner with more information of privacy update, The Indian Express (February 19, 2021).

Myanmar prepares for military to ratchet up control of the internet

Police in Myanmar filed a new charge against deposed leader Aung San Suu Kyi, as the military authorities who seized power in a coup intensified their crackdown against their opponents. The legal manoeuvre comes two weeks after the military seized power in a shocking halt to Myanmar's fragile progress toward democracy, most visible in Suu Kyi's tenure as national leader. Since the coup, the junta has ratcheted up the pressure on protesters resisting the takeover, including violently breaking up some demonstrations and blocking internet access. For a third night in a row, the military ordered an internet blackout, almost entirely blocking online access. Once before in recent weeks, it imposed a similar blackout and has also tried less successfully to block social media platforms. It has also prepared a draft law that would criminalize many online activities. While the military did not say why the internet was blocked, there is widespread speculation that the government is installing a firewall system to allow it to monitor or block most or all online activity.

Further Readings:

1. Burhan Wazir, Myanmar prepares for military to ratchet up control of the internet, Coda (February 3, 2021).

2. Christopher Giles, Myanmar coup: How the military disrupted the internet, BBC News (February 4, 2021).

3. Staff, Myanmar's Suu Kyi faces new charge as crackdown intensifies, Hindustan Times (February 17, 2021).

4. Emmy Sasipornkarn, Myanmar Coup: Military Hardens Online Censorship Campaign, The Wire (February 16, 2021).

New York sues Amazon over pandemic labour conditions

The New York attorney general is suing Amazon over COVID-19 safety protocols, accusing the company of being more concerned with making money than protecting its workers from getting sick. The lawsuit filed involves two Amazon facilities in New York City that employ more than 5,000 workers. It alleges that Amazon failed to disinfect those facilities when infected workers had been present; didn't contact workers when they were exposed to the virus; and made employees work so much that they didn't have time to disinfect their workstations or stay socially distant. The pandemic has exposed how Amazon, the country's second-largest private employer, treats its workers who pack and ship orders.

Further Readings:

1. Staff, New York attorney general sues Amazon over COVID-19 shortfalls, The Economic Times (February 17, 2021).

2. Staff, New York sues Amazon over 'flagrant disregard' of worker safety during pandemic, Hindustan Times (February 17, 2021).

3. Jason Del Rey, New York is suing Amazon over pandemic labor conditions, Recode (February 17, 2020)

4. Karen Weise, New York sues Amazon over worker safety during Covid-19 pandemic, Business Standard (February 18, 2021).

5. Staff, Amazon sued by New York over 'deficient' Covid-19 response, BBC News (February 18, 2021).

RBI extends application deadline as banks and corporate houses come together to set up new umbrella entities for retail payments

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) extended the deadline for submitting applications to set up new umbrella entities (NUEs) from February 26 to March 31 recently. NUEs have been proposed as an alternative to the National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI) which does not have much competition at present. Among other things, NPCI owns and manages the UPI platform and runs the RuPay network that rivals Visa and MasterCard. Top banks and corporate entities are forming partnerships to apply for the license for NUE that will allow them to set up a digital payments network. Those who receive the license will set-up, manage and operate new payment systems in the retail space, including ATMs, points of sales, remittance services, Aadhaar-based payments. The entities will also manage newer payment methods, standards, and technologies. They will frame necessary rules and related processes to ensure that systems and networks are safe and sound and that payments are exchanged efficiently.

Further Readings:

1. Gopika Gopakumar, RBI extends application deadline umbrella entity for retail payments, Livemint (February 26, 2021)

2. Ira Dugal, As Biggies Rush To Apply For An NUE, Where’s The ‘Ah Ha!’ Idea?”, Bloomberg Quint (March 4, 2021).

3. Saritha Rai, New Umbrella Entity is the new digital payments race as Amazon, Google, Facebook jump in, The Print (March 4, 2021).

4. Hamsini Karthik, Explained: What is NUE licence for retail payments and who's interested?, Business Standard (March 4, 2021).

5. Pranav Mukul, Explained: Why NUE marks next inflection point for India’s payments ecosystem?, Indian Express (March 8, 2021).

6. Advait Palepu, New Umbrella Entity: Everything You Need To Know About NPCI’s Potential Rival(S), Medianama (March 8, 2021).

Addendum

Since the previous newsletter, the Blog has hosted some interesting discussions on the most pressing issues in technology law. Shikhar Aggarwal wrote on adopting principles of AI accountability and responsibility while dealing with such systems, while Oshi Priya addressed the issue of data protection in EdTech start-ups. Soham Chakraborty authored a two-part post regarding the controversy over Australia’s proposed law which requires that online platforms pay news publishers for their content. We hosted another engaging two-part essay from Amishi Aggarwal, who discussed the precise nature of the relationship between Internet-of-Things and its users. Finally, we had Lian Joseph and Yashaswini Santuka writing for the Blog as part of a collaboration with robos of Tech Law and Policy, with more to come in this series.

Additionally, with the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting taking over regulation of the OTT industry, our reporter Harsh and Editor-in-Chief Sankalp bring you an Explainer which traces the debate on regulating content on such platforms.

We hope you enjoy this latest edition of Metadata by TLF, and as always, please let us know what you think!

Subscribe now

Facebook Oversight Board picks the first batch of cases for review, adds additional matter from India

Facebook’s Oversight Board (OSB), an independent body set up to review moderation decisions by the company, chose 6 cases to review in the first week of December, 2020 from over 20,000 cases that were referred to it following the opening of user appeals in October 20, 2018. Five of the cases being considered by the OSB were referred via user appeals while the sixth arose from a reference by Facebook. A couple of days after announcing the first batch of cases, the OSB added an additional case for consideration from India. It involves a photo posted on a Facebook group with Hindi text describing the drawing a sword from its scabbard in response to "infidels" criticizing the prophet. The photo also included a logo with the words "Indian Muslims" in English. The accompanying text, also in English, includes hashtags calling President Emmanuel Macron of France "the devil" and calling for the boycott of French products.

Further Reading:

1. FB Oversight Board Picks 6 Cases on Hate Speech, Nudity, Violence, The Quint (December 2, 2020).

2. Emily Bell, Facebook’s Oversight Board plays it safe, Columbia Journalism Review (December 3, 2020).

3. Aditya Chunduru, Facebook's Oversight Board picks up an Indian case for review, Medianama (December 4, 2020).

4. Casey Newton, Facebook’s new Oversight Board is a wild new experiment in platform governance, The Verge (October 23, 2020).

5. Steven Levy, Why Mark Zuckerberg’s Oversight Board May Kill His Political Ad Policy, Wired (January 28, 2020­).

Kerala withdraws ordinance criminalizing online defamation amid free speech concerns

The Governor of Kerala passed an ordinance on November 21, 2020, to criminalize online defamation with jail time and or/fines for offenders who publish such content. The ordinance incorporated Section 118A of the Kerala Police Act which makes intimidation, defamation or insulting of any person through social media an offence punishable with imprisonment of term up to three years and/or rupees 10,000 fine. The intent of the ordinance, according to the Kerala government, was to fight online crimes such as cyberstalking. However, amid criticism from opposition political parties and civil society groups regarding the provision’s potential to curb online freedom of speech, the Kerala government announced its decision to issue a fresh ordinance withdrawing the amendment to the Kerala Police Act. It also submitted to the Kerala High Court that no coercive action including registration of FIRs would be taken on the basis of the new amendment.

Further Reading:

1. N.C. Asthana, Kerala's Draconian Free Speech Law: How the Left Strayed on the Path of the Right, The Wire.

2. Aroon Deep, Kerala passes ordinance to criminalise online defamation and 'humiliation', Medianama (November 23, 2020).

3. Shrutisagar Yamunan, Why the controversial Kerala ordinance to curb ‘abusive’ posts is bad in law, Scroll (November 23, 2020).

4. B.G. Harindranath, 118A OF Kerala Police Act: An Affront On Parrhesia, LiveLaw (November 22, 2020).

Govt. issues new guidelines for Ola, Uber and institutes cap on surge pricing

The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways issued the Motor Vehicle Aggregate Guidelines, 2020 on November 26 under Section 93 of the Motor Vehicles Act (MV Act). The guidelines place significant restrictions on the amount of money aggregators can make through commissions and the imposition of surge pricing. As per the guidelines, drivers will receive at least 80% of the total fare of each ride, with the commission of cab aggregators such as Ola and Uber restricted to a maximum of 20%. The cancellation fee is capped at 10% of the total fare, not exceeding 100 rupees for both drivers and users. Most importantly, aggregators will be allowed to charge a fare 50% lower than the base fare and a maximum surge pricing of 1.5 times the base fare. Various provisions for the welfare of the drivers are also incorporated in the guidelines. The government had amended the MV Act last year, identifying aggregators like Ola and Uber as “digital intermediaries” and giving itself the power to regulate their conduct.

Further Reading:

1. Soumyarendra Barik, In major move, govt caps commissions, surge pricing charged by Ola, Uber, Medianama (November 27, 2020).

2. Alnoor Peermohamed & Aditi Srivastava, New govt rules may narrow earnings of ride-hailing firms like Uber, Ola, The Economic Times.

3. Nandana James, Cab aggregators, drivers unhappy with new guidelines, The Hindu Business Line (December 6, 2020).

4. Soumyarendra Barik, Motor Vehicles Amendment Bill identifies cab aggregators as 'digital intermediaries': gives govt power to regulate them, Medianama (August 1, 2019).

U.S. govt, states hit Facebook with antitrust lawsuit, propose hiving off Instagram, WhatsApp

The Federal Trade Commission sued to break up Facebook, asking a federal court to force the sell-off of assets such as Instagram and WhatsApp as independent businesses. In a lawsuit filed in the Federal Court in Washington, D.C., the Commission alleged that Facebook’s monopoly position arose from its purchase of companies that presented competitive threats and by imposing restrictive policies that unjustifiably hinder actual or potential rivals that Facebook does not or cannot acquire. The lawsuit asks the court to order the “divestiture of assets, divestiture or reconstruction of businesses (including, but not limited to, Instagram and/or WhatsApp),” as well as other possible relief the court might want to add. The announcement is a major step that has been years in the making, with Facebook and several other major U.S. technology companies having grown quickly in the past 10 years with little government oversight.

Further Readings:

1. Aditya Chunduru, US govt, states hit Facebook with antitrust lawsuit, propose hiving off Instagram, WhatsApp,Medianama (December 10, 2020).

2. Nick Statt & Russell Brandom, The FTC is suing Facebook to unwind its acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp, The Verge (December 9, 2020).

3. Kurt Wagner & Sarah Frier, Antitrust lawsuit: Facebook breakup would demolish Zuckerberg's tech empire, Business Standard (December 10, 2020).

4. Elizabeth Dwoskin, Regulators want to break up Facebook. That’s a technical nightmare, insiders say, The Washington Post (December 11, 2020).

5. Matt Stoller & Shaoul Sussman, The US government wants to break up Facebook. Good – it's long overdue, The Guardian (December 11, 2020).

French Data Protection Body fines Google and Amazon over cookie policy

France’s data protection agency, the National Commission on Informatics and Liberties (CNIL),has slapped Google and Amazon with fines for dropping tracking cookies without consent. Google has been hit with a total of €100 million ($120 million) for dropping cookies on Google.fr and Amazon €35 million ($42 million) for doing so on the Amazon.fr domain under the penalty notices issued. The regulator carried out investigations of the websites over the past year and found tracking cookies were automatically dropped when a user visited the domains, which breaches the country’s Data Protection Act. In Google’s case, the CNIL has found three consent violations related to dropping non-essential cookies, whereas Amazon was found to have committed two violations. CNIL also found that the information about the cookies provided to site visitors was inadequate, as under French (and European) law, information should have been provided to the site users regarding the cookies along with their consent.

Further Readings:

1. Advait Palepu, French data authority fines Google $120 million, Amazon $42 million for violating cookie consent rules, Medianama (December 10, 2020).

2. Stephanie Bodoni, Google, Amazon Fined $163 Million by French Data Watchdog, Bloomberg (December 10).

3. Jon Porter, Google and Amazon fined €135M over misuse of cookies by French data watchdog, The Verge (December 10, 2020).

4. Jennifer M. Oliver, Google’s Cookie Conundrum: What’s Essential to Revenue Also Threatens Privacy, The National Law Review (September 7, 2019).

Regulation of Content on OTT Platforms: An Explainer

The over-the-top (‘OTT’) industry in India has been growing exponentially--faster than anywhere else in the world--and pegged to reach a size of $5 billion by the year 2023. With an increase in internet penetration, coverage and speed, the consumption of content available on OTT streaming services is at an all-time high. This has not only increased the accessibility to titles old and new, but has also created a new avenue for content-creation on diverse themes. As the pandemic led to the closure of movie theatres and other forms of public entertainment, OTT platforms have been growing in India along with the rest of the world. 

While the OTT industry in India till has been largely unregulated till now, content hosted and created by OTT platforms has lately come under fire from political/cultural groups as well the government itself. Due to this vacuum, some providers adopted self-censorship practices while some did not.

In this piece, we explain how traditional forms of media are regulated in India and discuss the shifting stances of the government when it comes to regulating content on OTT platforms and the responses to the same by the OTT industry. Crucially, we also shed light on the position that various courts have taken while dealing with petitions to regulate content on OTT platforms. Lastly, we highlight how other countries all over the world have attempted to regulate content on OTT platforms and whether India can learn from their experiences. 

Current Regulatory Framework for Media in India 

Currently in India, content on OTT platforms is largely regulated by provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (‘IT Act’), Indian Penal Code, 1860,  and special legislations like the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950, etc. For example, OTT service providers must ensure that the content on their platform is in compliance with Sections 67A, 67B and 67C of the IT Act. These sections provide for penalty and imprisonment for publishing or transmitting obscene material, sexually explicit material and also material depicting children in sexually explicit acts in electronic form. The same was affirmed by the Delhi High Court in Justice for Rights Foundation v. Union of India. 

There exists no legislation specific to the OTT industry unlike the television and the cinema industry. Television broadcasting in India is regulated by the Cable Networks Television (Regulation) Act, 1995 and the rules laid down under it. The 1994 Rules lay down a Programme Code (‘Code’) which regulates the content on TV. According to the Code, no programme can be transmitted through a cable service which offends against good taste or decency; contains anything obscene, defamatory, deliberate false and suggestive innuendos and half-truths; encourages superstition or blind belief; is likely to encourage or incite violence or contains anything against maintenance of law and order or which promote-anti-national attitudes; etc. If any authorised officer (which includes the District Magistrate, the Commissioner of Police, etc.) discovers that the provisions of the Code have been violated, the officer has the power to seize the equipment of the offending cable operator. 

The public exhibition of films in India is regulated by the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and the rules under it. Under the Act, any person who wishes to exhibit their film must get it certified by the Central Board for Film Certification (‘Board’). The Board can either certify the films under 4 categories, withhold certification until modifications to the film are undertaken or deny certification altogether. The Board is supposed to be guided by principles such as friendly relations with other states, public order, decency and morality, etc. while making its decision.

The OTT Industry and Shifting Government Stances

Lately, there has been a tug-of-war between the government and OTT platforms in India, who have been negotiating with the government under the aegis of the Internet and Mobile Association of India (‘IAMAI’). Initially, the government signaled favouring self-regulation of the OTT industry. In fact, it gave OTT platforms a period of 100 days to formulate a self-regulatory code in March 2020. However, despite several attempts at drafting codes by the IAMAI (find the January 2019 code here, the February 2020 code here, and the September 2020 code here), none seem to have found much favour with the government. While declining to support the latest code, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (‘MIB’) said that it does not classify prohibited content, does not specify a clearly defined code of ethics and has no third party monitoring. Nevertheless, after its latest code failed to impress the government, the IAMAI resolved to come out with another “implementation code” for OTT platforms.

In November 2020, the Cabinet Secretariat issued a notification bringing the OTT industry (along with the digital news industry), which was under MeitY’s jurisdiction earlier, within the purview of the MIB. This marked a significant shift in MIB’s jurisdiction which earlier only included traditional forms of media such as cinema, radio, etc. and not digital media. While the MIB cannot regulate OTT platforms without bringing a specific law in place for the same, the move has sparked censorship concerns. However, some have said that the OTT industry coming under the purview of the MIB is not a cause for worry in itself. At worst, it is a precursor for arbitrary restrictions being placed on the kind of content that can be available on OTT platforms in the future. Interestingly, the government said in the Parliament that there was ‘no plan’ to bring a law to regulate the OTT industry just a couple of months prior to the move.

Role of the Judiciary 

In the absence of any specific framework for content regulation on OTT platforms, courts have by and large resisted attempts by different individuals and groups to bring about regulation of the OTT industry through the judicial route. One of the earliest cases asking for interference by the courts with respect to OTT platforms was Nikhil Bhalla v. Union of India, which was heard by Delhi High Court in 2018. It concerned censoring certain scenes/dialogues in the Netflix series ‘Sacred Games’. The Court took a liberal and expansive view and dismissed the petition saying it doesn’t want to curtail anybody’s rights. In fact, this was one of a few notable instances where the government itself argued against censorship (Justice for Rights Foundation v. Union of India being another such instance). Another case calling for the censorship of a web-series for calling lawyers ‘thieves’ was also dismissed by the Delhi High Court.

Other High Courts such as the Calcutta High Court and the Allahabad High Court have also dismissed petitions that demand regulation/censorship of content on OTT platforms. Given the lack of a specific law governing content on OTT platforms, a division bench of the Karnataka High Court ruled out the applicability of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 to media available on OTT platforms. In all these cases, the courts have deferred to the authority of the government to bring about any changes to the status quo.

International Perspectives

Countries across the world are grappling with how content on OTT platforms can be effectively regulated. In Australia, the OTT sector is governed by the Broadcasting Services Act, 1992 (‘BSA’) and is regulated through a complaints-based mechanism. Content on OTT platforms is certified according to existing categories. Australian residents can register complaints about offensive or illegal online content. Valid complaints are then investigated by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (‘ACMA’) and action is taken on content determined to be ‘prohibited content’ or ‘potential prohibited’ content. It is a similar picture in the case of Singapore, where the categories are enumerated in its content code for OTT services. Singapore goes one step further by allowing OTT platforms to offer certain categories of content only if they provide for a built-in parental lock/age verification system.

While the Australian Classification Board had been responsible for classifying both online as well as offline content so far, Netflix can now assess content and generate a rating on its own following a two-year trial period. Even in the United Kingdom, Netflix has been allowed by the British Board of Film Classification (‘BBFC’) to classify its own material and then use the official British age rating symbols on all of its content. It reached a 100% coverage recently which means all of its content displays the BBFC ratings. 

Conclusion

The nature of OTT streaming is significantly different from traditional broadcasting. Given that OTT streaming operates on a “pull” basis (where consumers can themselves search for a show), the mode of regulation must be different than in the case of the traditional “push” system (where consumers watch a show because that’s when it’s shown). Such a change calls for respecting the consumer’s choice in the kind of content they wish to consume, which necessarily entails divergence from how traditional media is regulated. While the role of the State has been paternalistic in dictating what should and should not be allowed for consumption by the masses, there needs to be more reflection on whether the State should continue to adopt such an attitude in today’s day and age. In this regard, it is to be hoped that the State takes into account the changing nature of the industry as it prepares a code for OTT platforms.

Addendum

Since the previous newsletter, the Blog has hosted some engaging posts on an array of subjects. Continuing with this edition’s theme of OTT platforms, Abhilash Roy and Hrishikesh Bhise published a two-part essay on the Blog outlining how OTT platforms present a regulatory quandary. Vaibhav Parikh authored an engaging post on the topic of open banking, with specific emphasis on on the need for setting uniform standards in the usage of Application Programming Interfaces (“APIs”). Further, the Forum sent its recommendations to the Registrar of Copyrights regarding the ‘private consultations’ taking place with respect to the Copyright Act, a summary of which can be found here. Lastly, the entries forming part of the TLF Editorial Board Test for 2020-2021 were published as a series; and the winning entry of the Ab Initio Essay Writing Competition - hosted by the NALSAR Student Law Review - was published this week.

Please reach out to us for any comments or observations, but before that, we request you to press the big button below:

Subscribe now

Streaming platforms and online news portals brought under the purview of the I&B Ministry

The Cabinet Secretariat issued a notification on November 11, 2020 granting the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting authority over streaming platforms and online news portals. Simply put, this means that platforms such as Netflix, Hotstar, Amazon Prime, etc. will now be under the jurisdiction of the I&B Ministry. While the I&B Ministry cannot regulate these platforms without specific laws being passed towards that end, the notification signals the intent of the government to bring out a regulatory code in the near future. Such a move was expected after Amit Khare, the Secretary of the I&B Ministry, expressed the Ministry’s intent to bring content streamed over OTT platforms under its purview. The online content sector, unlike radio, cinema and television, has till now remained free of censorship. In August 2020, more than a dozen OTT platforms operating in India such as Netflix, Zee5, Voot, Jio, SonyLiv, etc. had signed a self-regulation code aimed at empowering consumers with tools to assist them in making informed choice with regard to viewing decisions for them and their families but the I&B Ministry had refused to support the same.

Further Readings:

1. Priyanka Sharma & Sampada Sharma, OTT platforms come under govt purview, content creators criticise move, The Indian Express (November 11, 2020).

2. Statement: Today’s notification on online news media and OTT platforms will require greater vigilance #LetUsChill, Internet Freedom Foundation (November 11, 2020).

3. Sushovan Sircar, Why Censorship Shadow Looms Over Online News & OTT Under I&B Min, The Quint (November 11, 2020).

4. Aroon Deep, Summary: IAMAI's self-regulation code for Online Curated Content Platforms, Medianama (September 5, 2020).

WhatsApp gets the go ahead to start its UPI payments service

The National Payments Corporation of India allowed WhatsApp to start its UPI payments service, in India in a graded manner. Currently, the UPI ecosystem in India is dominated by two players, PhonePe and Google Pay, who control 80% of the market share. With a market base of over 400 million users and tie ups with ICICI Bank, HDFC Bank, Axis Bank, State Bank of India, and Jio Payments Bank, WhatsApp has the ability to dominate the other players in the ecosystem. However, at the same time that it gave the nod to WhatsApp, the NPCI also introduced a market share cap of 30% on UPI players beginning from January 1, 2021. This means that neither WhatsApp neither any of the existing platforms will be able to handle more than 30% of the total UPI transactions by volume starting 2021.

Further Readings:

1. Pranav Mukul, Explained: What WhatsApp payments means to Indian users; who can use WhatsApp Pay?, The Indian Express (November 8, 2020).

2. Advait Palepu, NPCI introduces market share cap of 30% on UPI players, Medianama (November 6, 2020).

3. Advait Palepu, NPCI allows WhatsApp to roll out UPI services in a graded manner, Medianama (November 6, 2020).

4. Neil Borate, WhatsApp Pay: Five things to know, LiveMint (November 6, 2020).

China unveils draft rules to curb monopolistic practices among internet giants

China unveiled new draft rules to root out monopolistic practices in the internet industry. The move comes in the backdrop of the EU and the U.S. also seeking to curb the power of internet giants. The new draft rules, unveiled by the State Administration of Market Regulation in a 22-page document, will attempt to stop companies from sharing sensitive consumer data, teaming up to squeeze out smaller rivals and selling at a loss to eliminate competitors. Under these rules, violators may be forced to divest assets, intellectual property or technologies, open up their infrastructure and adjust their algorithms. Local internet giants including Ant Group, Alibaba and Tencent could be amongst the firms that are most affected.

Further Readings:

1. Zheping Huang & Coco Liu, China's clampdown on big tech puts more billionaires on notice, Bloomberg, (November 11, 2020).

2. Staff, China to clamp down on internet giants, BBC News (November 11, 2020).

3. Liza Lin, China Targets Alibaba, Other Homegrown Tech Giants With Antimonopoly Rules, The Wall Street Journal (November 10, 2020).

EU files charges against Amazon for breaking competition rules

European Union (EU) regulators filed antitrust charges against Amazon accusing the e-commerce giant of using data to gain an unfair advantage over merchants using its platform. The EU said Amazon had used data on third-party sellers that use its marketplace to boost sales of its own-label goods. It also launched a fresh probe into the possible preferential treatment of sellers that use the tech giant's logistics services. This would not be the first time Amazon has been accused of using its position as an operator of a marketplace to benefit itself as a seller within it. The EU’s investigation into the practice reportedly goes back more than two years. Amazon has denied any wrongdoing claiming that no other company cares for small businesses more.

Further Readings:

1. Staff, Amazon charged with abusing EU competition rules, BBC News (November 10, 2020).

2. Kelvin Chan, EU files antitrust charges against Amazon over use of data, The Associated Press (November 10, 2020).

3. Jon Porter, Amazon reportedly faces EU antitrust charges over use of third-party seller data, The Verge (June 11, 2020).

4. Press Release, Antitrust: Commission opens investigation into possible anti-competitive conduct of Amazon, European Commission.

Google accused of illegally protecting its monopoly over search and search advertising

The U. S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a lawsuit against Google accusing the tech company of abusing its position to maintain an illegal monopoly over search and search advertising. Eleven Republican state attorneys general have joined the DOJ as plaintiffs. According to the DOJ, Google has used its monopoly power to keep competitors out of the search distribution channels they need to scale up by entering intro exclusionary contracts with giants such as Apple. Essentially, Google pays mobile phone companies, carriers and browsers to make the Google search engine a preset default. That blocks competitors from being able to access the kinds of queries and traffic they’d need to refine their own search engine. While it’s not illegal to be a monopoly under U. S. law, it’s a violation for a dominant company to engage in exclusionary conduct to protect or strengthen its market power.

Further Readings:

1. Cecilia Kang, David McCabe and Daisuke Wakabayashi, U.S. Accuses Google of Illegally Protecting Monopoly, The New York Times (October 20, 2020).

2. David McLaughlin, Google Monopoly Case by U.S. Sets Stage for Multi-Pronged Attack, Bloomberg (October 20, 2020).

3. Lauren Feiner, Google sued by DOJ in antitrust case over search dominance, CNBC (October 20, 2020).

4. Jonathan Shieber & Ingrid Lunden, The Justice Department has filed its antitrust lawsuit against Google, Tech Crunch (October 20, 2020).

5. Gilad Edelman, Congress Unveils Its Plan to Curb Big Tech’s Power, Wired (October 6, 2020).

CCI orders investigation into Google’s payment policies and preferential treatment to Google Pay

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) ordered an investigation into Google for abusing its dominant position to force app makers to exclusively use its billing system for in-app purchases and for the pre-installation and prominence of Google Pay on Android smartphones. The investigation has been launched based on an anonymous complaint, which is similar to the one filed against Google before the European Commission (EC). In that case, the EC had fined Google $5 billion for forcing Android phone manufacturers to pre-install the Google search app and the Chrome web browser. If it’s found that Google violated rules by forcing app makers to exclusively use its billing system for in app purchases, it would be a major victory for Indian startups which have been protesting against Play Store’s decision to charge a 30% commission for in-app sales. The CCI has the power to impose a penalty of up to 10% of Google’s turnover in the last three financial years if it finds wrongdoing on Google’s part in its investigation.

Further Readings:

1. Advait Palepu, Competition Commission orders investigation in Google's App Store and GPay, Medianama (November 9, 2020).

2. Tech Desk, Google Pay probe over dominance: What Competition Commission is investigating, The Indian Express (November 10, 2020).

3. Yatti Soni, The Many Sides Of Google Play Store’s 30% Commission & India’s Search For Alternatives, Inc42 (October 2, 2020).

4. Press Release, Antitrust: Commission fines Google €4.34 billion for illegal practices regarding Android mobile devices to strengthen dominance of Google's search engine, European Commission (July 18, 2018).

SC moves to dismiss PIL implicating Jio’s liability in RCom’s AGR dues

Jio was recently made a party in a matter regarding adjusted gross revenue (AGR case) between companies in India and the Department of the Telecommunications and other telecom companies in India. The issue was regarding investigation into whether telcos like RCom, Videocon and Aircel wanted to evade paying their dues to the DoT by filing for insolvency. The DoT had decided that Jio was to be made liable for the 31000 crore AGR dues that RCom owed to the Department, since Jio was using RCom’s airwaves as evidenced by a 2016 spectrum sharing agreement. Jio sought to prove that the spectrum was simply leased and that they didn’t have any exclusive use of the spectrum. They further argued that spectrum sharing agreements do not assume a sharing of liabilities for DoT’s AGR dues.

Further Readings:

1. Ishita Guha & Japnam Bindra, “There's no legal basis for transferring AGR dues of RCom: Jio tells SC”, LiveMint (17 August, 2020).

2. Sanya Talwar, “[AGR Case] SC Seeks Centre's Response On Whether Reliance Jio Should Pay R-Com's Dues” LiveLaw, (17 August, 2020).

3. Special Correspondent, “Trai issues spectrum usage charges sop” Telegraph India, (18 August, 2020).

4. ANI, “SC dismisses plea to direct authorities to immediately recover AGR dues from telcos”, ET Telecom (17 August, 2020).

US Court orders Uber and Lyft to classify drivers as employees

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in a preliminary injunction has ordered Uber and Lyft to reclassify its drivers as employees rather than independent contractors. The decision will entitle drivers to protections that are given to full-time employees. The injunction comes in response to a May lawsuit filed by the state of California against the companies which alleged that the companies were misclassifying their drivers under the state’s new labour law Assembly Bill 5 (AB5) law. The policy as per AB5 sets out a three-pronged test to determine if a worker should be classified as an independent contractor or an employee and is based on whether or not the worker is free from the control of the company. Both Uber and Lyft have expressed their intention to appeal this decision.

Further Readings:

1. Dan Hardman, “California Judge Orders Uber And Lyft To Reclassify Drivers As Employees”, JD Supra (August 14, 2020).

2. Dara Khosrowshahi, “I Am the C.E.O. of Uber. Gig Workers Deserve Better.”, New York Times (August 10, 2020).

3. Anthony Zaller, “Understanding the ABC test for independent contractors in California”, California Employment Law Report (March 29, 2019).

4. Andrew J Hawkins, “California labor commissioner sues Uber and Lyft for alleged wage theft”, The Verge (August 5, 2020).

5. Therese Poletti, “Uber and Lyft’s ‘day of reckoning’ is finally here”, Market Watch (August 13, 2020).

Lagos Government tries balancing act through new e-hailing guidelines

For a country that has banned commercial motorcycles, the state of Lagos was placed in a unique and novel situation when they decided to regulate companies like Uber and Bolt that wanted to set up business operations in Lagos. It was claimed by the Lagos government that the e-hailing companies were involved in a participatory capacity while the policy for the taxi sector was being discussed, however this was not substantiated by either Uber or Bolt. The position in the draft guidelines required each vehicle to pay a license fee, which obstructs Uber and Bolt since most of their drivers worked with them only for ancillary income and had full-time jobs otherwise. The Lagos government subsequently modified this clause by instituting an operator license fee instead.

Further Readings:

1. Olumuyiwa Olowogboyega, “A deep dive into the proposed guidelines for e-hailing companies in Lagos”, Tech Cabal, (11 August, 2020).

2. Staff, “8 things to know about the Lagos e-hailing ride guidelines”, Vanguard, (15 August, 2020).

3. Anibe Idajili, “Lagos State Amicably Resolves Issues Around the Proposed Guidelines for e-hailing Taxi Services”, Tech City, (15 August, 2020).

4. Jennifer Atkinson, “Ultimate Guide To Launch e-Hailing App For Your Local Region”, Your Story, (9 July, 2019).

5. Will Herzog, “Ride-Hailing vs. Ride-Sharing: The Key Difference and Why It Matters”, Ecolane, (18 October, 2018).

Fortnite maker Epic Games sues Apple and Google

Fortnite was banned from the Google Play Store and Apple’s App Store after it tried to push an update which would have bypassed Apple’s and Google’s payment systems. The update in question allowed gamers to avail a 20% discount on in-app purchases if they paid Epic Games directly rather than using Apple or Google’s payment systems. Epic Games claims that the compulsory 30% cut taken by Google and Apple on any in game purchases is anti-competitive and restrictive. The claims are more difficult to prove against Google as it allows game developers to distribute apps through multiple app stores and even through direct links. Google has claimed that the Android system provides developers with a voluntary choice of whether or not they want to use the Play Store. Apple has claimed that Epic Games voluntarily made a choice to host its app on the App Store and making any special arrangement for Fortnite would lead to an uneven playing field for all developers.

Further Reading:

1. Nick Statt, “Epic Games is suing Apple”, The Verge (August 13, 2020).

2. Russel Brandon, “Epic is suing Google over Fortnite’s removal from the Google Play Store”, The Verge (August 13, 2020).

3. Cecilia D’ Anastasio, “Epic Games' Lawsuits Fire a Shot at Apple and Google's App Store 'Monopolies'”, Wired (August 13, 2020).

4. Will Oremus, “Apple’s Secret Monopoly” OneZero, (February 25, 2020).

Australia to regulate tech giants in a bid to save news agencies

Facebook and Google are advocating against new Australian laws that requires the tech giants to pay news media for the content that is available on their platforms. Not only is compliance with this requirement going to cost the intermediaries dearly, non-compliant behaviour leads to heavy fines which is intended to ensure transparency regarding how the algorithms rank content. Google attached an open letter in which the company admitted that it would have to leak user data to news companies so that they may increase their ranking artificially on the search engine. It was mentioned that they partner with Australian news companies and compensates them in addition to driving traffic towards news websites. This move from the Australian government comes because of the many news agencies that have shut down during this pandemic, a situation exacerbated by companies like Google and Facebook that rely heavily on advertising revenue.

Further Readings:

1. Agence France-Presse, “Google slams Australia law forcing tech giants to pay for news”, Manila Bulletin (17 August, 2020).

2. Staff, “Google says Australian law would put search and YouTube at risk”, BBC News (17 August, 2020).

3. Amanda Meade, “Google urges YouTubers around the world to swamp Australian regulator with complaints”, The Guardian (18 August, 2020).

4. Derek Thompson, “The Facebook Effect on the News”, The Atlantic (12 February, 2014).

Qualcomm wins appeal in antitrust case

Qualcomm Inc. has successfully appealed a 2019 judgement which had ruled that the company was charging phone makers “unreasonably high” licensing fees and thereby restricting competition. The ruling had required Qualcomm to renegotiate its current license agreements and refrain from anti-competitive licensing practices in the future, citing the company’s of not extending licenses to rival chip manufactures as an example of its anti-competitive behaviour. However, the appellate court while dismissing this argument said that a business is under no duty to do business under the terms and conditions preferred by its rivals. It also held that Qualcomm was under no antitrust duty to license rival chip manufacturers. The court also warned against applying antitrust laws to disputes that were essentially contractual in nature.

Further Readings:

1. Richard G. Gervase, Miller, Renaud, Song, “Ninth Circuit Reverses FTC Win in FTC v. Qualcomm, Finding No Antitrust Violations from Qualcomm’s Licensing of its Standard-Essential Patents”, The National Law Review (August 13, 2020).

2. John O. McGinnis and Linda Sun, “Justice-FTC Antitrust Feud Is the Wrong Kind of Competition”, Washington Post (August 13, 2020).

3. Sean Hollister, “Qualcomm handed a huge win as US court overturns the ‘no-license, no-chips’ antitrust ruling”, The Verge (August 11, 2020).

4. Multiple Authors, “FTC v. Qualcomm Blog Series”, Truth on the Market (January 22, 2019 – January 22, 2020).

Union Consumer Affairs Minster issues E-Commerce Rules to shift the focus onto consumer protection

In an increasingly globalised world, major retail companies like Amazon have reached even the most inaccessible places. The consumers that are exposed to e-commerce companies can only be protected in the presence of increased accountability. The newly issued E-Commerce Rules set up a Central Consumer Protection Authority to police companies that violate consumer rights. Misleading ads and unfair trade practices are prevented as e-retailers have to mandatorily disclose return, refund, warranty, exchange, guarantee, delivery and grievance redressal details. Henceforth, prices of products cannot be manipulated to produce unreasonable profits for companies. These rules apply to retailers either registered in India or abroad.

Further Readings:

1. Aparajita Saxena, “New ecommerce rules direct Amazon, Flipkart, others to provide more information on products, sellers”, YourStory (25th July 2020).

2. Alnoor Peermohamed and Aditi Shrivastava, “E-commerce companies seek time to comply with labelling rule”, Economic Times Tech (25th July 2020).

3. Laghavi Pahwa, “Consumer Protection (E-commerce) Rules 2020: A Step In The Right Direction?”, LiveLaw (1 August 2020).

4. Lauren Feiner and Annie Palmer, “Trump administration cracks down on counterfeits sold on Amazon and other online retailers”, CNBC (27 January 2020).

5. Press Release, “Social media companies need to do more to fully comply with EU consumer rules”, European Commission (15 February 2018).

Congress questions Big Tech in major antitrust hearing

Jeff Bezos of Amazon, Tim Cook of Apple, Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook and Sundar Pichai of Google answered questioners by videoconference as members of Congress quizzed the titans of Big Tech on topics ranging from abuse of dominance consumer rights. Several pertinent questions were asked of the executives, with Democratic members focusing on the antitrust aspects and Republicans raising concerns of bias and censorship on social media platforms. While no solutions were expected to be reached, the hearings showed the spotlight that Big Tech is increasingly being subjected to, as questions continue to be asked over how much control they should be allowed given social media’s pivotal role in modern life.

Further Readings:

1. Roger McNamee, “A historic antitrust hearing in Congress has put big tech on notice”, The Guardian (31 July 2020).

2. Gilad Edelman, “The Big Tech Hearing Proved Congress Isn’t Messing Around”, Wired (29 July 2020).

3. Staff, “Lawmakers From Both Sides Take Aim at Big Tech Executives”, New York Times (29 July 2020).

130 high profile Twitter accounts hacked in massive cryptocurrency scam

On July 15th, Twitter was hit with a widespread attack wherein the verified accounts of nearly 130 celebrities, politicians, billionaires including Bill Gates, Kanye West, Joe Biden and Barack Obama were taken over and used to request that money be sent to cryptocurrency accounts. A number of people fell prey to the scam which is being called the largest hack in Twitter’s history. In some cases, messages received thousands of likes before they were taken down. It was confirmed by Twitter that the hackers used Twitter’s own administrative tools to take over the accounts. The scam first started when the twitter account of tech billionaire Elon Musk was compromised and a suspicious message requesting money was tweeted. Similar messages were then posted from the accounts of other famous personalities. Numerous law enforcement agencies have started investigating the hack and teenagers from the UK and US have been arrested in connection to the attack.

Further Readings:

1. Casey Newton, “The massive Twitter hack could be a global security crisis” The Verge (July 15, 2020).

2. Staff, “Twitter hack: US and UK teens arrested over breach of celebrity accounts”, The Guardian (July 31, 2020).

3. Joseph Marks, “Twitter breach is another warning shot for election security”, The Washington Post (July 16, 2020).

4. Jaijit Bhattacharya, “Global Twitter Hack Proof Of How Democratic Elections Can Be Manipulated”, Outlook (July 18, 2020).

5. David E. Sanger, Nicole Perlroth & Nick Corasaniti, “What the Twitter Hack Revealed: An Election System Teeming With Risks”, New York Times (July 16, 2020).

Microsoft inching closer to deal to buy TikTok operations in the United States

Microsoft is close to agreeing a deal to take over the operations of ByteDance’s popular app Tiktok in the US, with the company valued at $15 to $30 billion. However, the deal has been paused amid the Trump administration’s concerns regarding the app’s purported threat to national security concerns. On its part, TikTok has promised to create employment opportunities for over thousands of people among other concessions. Though the exact mechanism is yet to be decided, the likely course of actions seems to be a divestiture of TikTok in the US. Assuming the deal goes through, Microsoft will enter the discussions on free speech over social media, a hot button issue which was reopened through the recent antitrust hearings in Washington.

Further Readings:

1. Sarah Frier, “TikTok Draws Interest From Bidders Other Than Microsoft”, Bloomberg Quint (1 August 2020).

2. Kim Lyons, “Microsoft reportedly puts TikTok acquisition talks on hold”, The Verge (1 August 2020).

Apple wins $15 Billion EU court case

The second highest court in the European Union nullified a European Commission order for Apple to pay $15 billion to Ireland in back taxes. The case related to an alleged unfair tax deal struck between Ireland and Apple which reduced Apple’s tax burden for two decades to less than 1% in corporate taxes. Ireland has a favorable taxation policy for tech companies which makes it a global hub for hundreds of multinationals that are attracted by its low 12.5 per cent corporate tax rate and EU market access. This was the EU body’s second failed attempt to demonstrate that a multinational company benefited from state aid, after its earlier case involving Starbucks was overturned. The court held that the EU body did not succeed in “showing to the requisite legal standard” that the tech giant had received an illegal economic advantage in Ireland over its taxes.

Further Readings:

1. Andrew Walker, “Apple has €13bn Irish tax bill overturned”, BBC (July 15, 2020).

2. Keith O'Donnell, Samantha Schmitz & Marie Bentley, “Apple Case: EU Judges Confirm That The European Commission Had It Wrong”, Mondaq (July 23, 2020).

3. Stephanie Bodoni, “Apple, Facebook Court Spats Test EU Role as Global Rulemaker”, Bloomberg Quint (July 14, 2020).

4. Josh White, “Apple wins EU state aid battle over Irish tax structure”, International Tax Review (July 15, 2020).

Turkey passes new social media law

The Turkish parliament has passed a new law on 29th July which gave the government greater powers over content posted on social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter. The law mandates that social media companies must keep their representative offices in Turkey so that complaints regarding online content can be regulated more effectively. In the scenario that the law is not complied with and an official representative is not designated, the government can employ a series of measures including bandwidth reductions, steep fines etc., which impact freedom to access the concerned websites. The law has been labelled as draconian by free speech activists and opposition parties.

Further Readings:

1. Marc Santora, “Turkey Passes Law Extending Sweeping Powers Over Social Media”, New York Times, (July 29, 2020).

2. Gul Tuysuz, “Critics fear Turkey's new social media law could hurt freedom of expression. Here's how”, CNN, (July 29, 2020).

3. Staff, “Turkey: Social Media Law Will Increase Censorship”, Human Rights Watch, (July 27, 2020).

4. Richard Wingfield, “Risks and responsibilities of content moderation in online platforms”, Open Global Rights, (August 1, 2018).

PIL filed seeking identities of content moderation officers

Former RSS ideologue K N Govindacharya filed a public-interest litigation in the High Court of Delhi to prompt Google, Twitter and Facebook to disclose identities of designated content moderation officers on the basis of the Information Technology Rules. In response, Google submitted that the officers worked with government authorities to remove illegal content. Govindacharya claimed that without disclosure of the officers’ identities, no mechanisms to enforce obligations could not be adequately instituted. However, Google responded by stating that revealing the identities of officers would jeopardize their capacity to work efficiently with the government, as they would be exposed to public scrutiny and criticism.

Further Readings:

1. Press Trust of India, “Google to Delhi HC: Can’t publicly disclose details of designated officers in India”, Financial Express, (July 17, 2020).

2. Isaac Chotiner, “The Underworld of Online Content Moderation”, The New Yorker, (July 5, 2019).

ECJ strikes down EU-US data transfer mechanism

The top European court has struck down a data sharing protocol that allowed American companies to transfer personal information about EU citizens to the US for processing. The protocol known as Privacy Shield has been invalidated over concerns of its misuse by mass surveillance programs operated by US intelligence agencies like the NSA. The case was filed by a privacy advocate named Max Schrems against Facebook after shocking revelations about the NSA’s PRISM surveillance program. The program was used for anti-terrorism surveillance and collected user data from big tech companies like Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, Skype, Apple, Facebook and Youtube. The argument used by Schrems was that by sending user data to the US, companies were exposing user data to mass surveillance which contravenes the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Further Readings:

1. Alex Hern, “Tech firms like Facebook must restrict data sent from EU to US, court rules”,The Guardian, (July 16, 2020).

2. Natasha Lomas, “Europe’s top court strikes down flagship EU-US data transfer mechanism”, Tech Crunch, (July 16, 2020).

3. Staff, “CJEU invalidates “Privacy Shield” in US Surveillance case. SCCs cannot be used by Facebook and similar companies.”, noyb, (July 16, 2020).

4. Staff, “Background information on the case”, noyb, (July 16, 2020).

5. Natasha Lomas, “Legal clouds gather over US cloud services, after CJEU ruling”, Tech Crunch, (July 17, 2020).

Tech Companies to stop processing data requests from Hong Kong Government

Facebook, Microsoft, Google and Twitter announced that they would deny law enforcement requests for user data in Hong Kong. The move comes after imposition of a new national security law by China. The new law empowers the police forces to take down internet posts and punish internet companies that do not comply with data requests. If a person is ordered to remove a post and he or she refuses, that person can face a jail sentence of one year. The law also allows for arrest of employees at internet companies for non-compliance. Companies in the Silicon Valley have announced that they would review the security law and in the interim, no requests for user data will be complied with. The Chinese based app Tiktok has pulled it's app from Hong Kong in response to the new law. Telegram and Zoom have also halted processing any data requests from Hong Kong due to concerns over privacy rights of users.

Further Readings:

1. Newley Purnell, “Google, Facebook and Twitter Suspend Review of Hong Kong Requests for User Data”, The Wall Street Journal, (July 7, 2020).

2. Karishma Mehrotra, “Explained: What China security law means for Hong Kong and the global Internet”, The Indian Express, (July 12, 2020).

3. Rita Liao, “The tech industry comes to grips with Hong Kong’s national security law”, Tech Crunch, (July 8, 2020).

4. Rohan Seth & Manoj Kewalramani,“Understanding implications of Hong Kong’s tech ecosystem changes for India”, Deccan Herald, (July 17, 2020).

5. Paul Mozur, “In Hong Kong, a Proxy Battle Over Internet Freedom Begins”, The New York Times, (July 7, 2020).

Tech Companies sued under Illinois Law

Two Illinois residents sued Amazon, Google and Microsoft under the Biometric Information Privacy Act, passed by the Illinois legislature in 2008. The act makes it illegal to collect, store and use biometric information without the written consent of citizens. Steven Vance and Tim Janecyk alleged that their photos were used to train facial recognition technologies without their permission. The photos were used in an IBM program designed to advance the study of fairness and accuracy in facial recognition by looking at more than just skin tone, age and gender. The dataset used in the program included 1 million images of human faces. The lawsuit comes at a time where increased criticism of facial recognition technologies has forced major tech companies to withdraw or temporarily halt their facial recognition programs.

Further Readings:

1. Kirsten Errick, “Parents Sue TikTok Over Biometrics-Based Targeting”, Law Street, (June 29, 2020).

2. Taylor Hatmaker, “Lawsuits allege Microsoft, Amazon and Google violated Illinois facial recognition privacy law”, Tech Crunch, (July 16, 2020).

3. Frank Nolan & Andrew Weiner, “Recent Decisions Clarify Scope of Illinois Biometric Privacy Law”, Law.com, (June 26, 2020).

BuzzFeed reporters fight to document and unseal US court records

Investigative reporters appealed a decision of the U.S. District Court in the U.S. Court of Appeals to gain access to electronic surveillance records. They asserted that the right of the public to access judicial records existed as a fundamental element of the rule of law. The records sought by reporters held information on how the government was using surveillance tools. Three specific instances were allowed by the courts wherein the government was allowed to collect electronic information, email content and metadata about a person through compilation of their calls and messages. The Court of Appeals held that the journalists were to be granted access to these judicial records.

Further Readings:

1. Arundhati Katju, “Live streaming of court proceedings is part of the right to access justice”, Indian Express, (July 3, 2020).

2. Sabrina Conza, “DC Circuit reverses district court ruling on unsealing electronic surveillance records”, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, (July 8, 2020).

3. Ann E. Marimow, “Should the public pay a dime for access to court records?”, The Washington Post, (February 4, 2020).

Reporters fight back against subpoena filed by the Seattle Police Department

Following the death of George Floyd in the United States, voices of dissent arose across the country in the form of physical gatherings and protests. Amidst the furore, weapons were stolen and police vehicles were set on fire on May 30, 2020. At the same time, news agencies were on the ground covering the story. The Seattle Police Department is currently carrying out an investigation to determine the perpetrators in this matter. To this end, they submitted a subpoena requiring 5 news channels to hand over footage that they acquired on May 30 to identify suspects. However, the journalists are fighting back by relying on their First Amendment rights and the Washington Shield law. The reporters claim that they are already in jeopardy when they cover stories; and are intent on fighting the public perception that journalists are an extended arm of law enforcement.

Further Readings:

1. Sabrina Conza, “Seattle police should not be able to subpoena journalistic work product, RCFP brief argues”, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, (June 30, 2020).

2. Hal Bernton, “Seattle Times, other media fight Seattle Police Department subpoena for raw footage, photos of protest”, The Seattle Times, (July 3, 2020).

3. “Freedom of Expression and Public Order”, UNESCO Communication and Information Sector.

India bans 59 Chinese Apps including Tik-Tok

The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology announced in a press release on 29th June that it had invoked its powers under section 69A of the Information Technology Act to ban 59 Chinese applications. The Indian government cited ‘raging concerns on aspects relating to data security and safeguarding the privacy of 130 crore Indians’ as reasons behind the ban. The move comes after a border skirmish with China resulted in the deaths of 20 Indian soldiers. Regardless of the cybersecurity concerns cited in the press release, speculation remains rife over whether the ban was a retaliatory measure in light of the worsening geopolitical situation between India and China. India is a huge market for Chinese apps, particularly for the video-sharing platform Tik-Tok which had previously been banned in February 2019 for encouraging the spread of pornography and ‘cultural degradation’. The ban was ultimately lifted after assurances by Tik-Tok that it had the tools to censor explicit content. The current ban has been called a purely political decision and criticised for its procedural impropriety and its excessive restriction on dissemination of online content.

Further Readings:

1. Tech Law Forum, Representation to MEITY on the Chinese App Ban (July 8, 2020).

2. Anupriya Dhonchak & Nikhil Purohit, “Is India’s ban on Tiktok and 58 other Chinese apps consistent with the provisions of IT Act?”, Scroll, (July 1, 2020).

3. Staff, “India Bans 59 Chinese Apps, Including TikTok, UC Browser, SHAREit”, The Quint, (June 30, 2020).

4. Rajesh Roy and Shan Li, “India Bans TikTok, Dozens of Other Chinese Apps After Border Clash”, Wall Street Journal, (June 30, 2020).

5. Tom Simonite, “Smartphone Apps Are Now a Weapon in International Disputes”, Wired, (June 30, 2020).

6. Aditi Agrawal, “How does a Section 69A blocking order come into existence?”, Medianama, (June 30, 2020).

7. Apar Gupta, “How not to tame the digital dragon”, The Hindu, (July 2, 2020).

European Commission opens up antitrust investigations into Apple

The European Commission, on 16th June 2020 started a formal antitrust investigation to assess whether Apple’s App Store rules violate EU competition rules. The commission also opened another investigation to determine whether Apple’s conduct in connection with Apple Pay violated EU competition rules. Apple imposes two restrictions on companies that wish to distribute their apps through the App Store. Firstly, it makes the use of its own proprietary in-app purchase system “IAP” mandatory for the distribution of paid digital content. It then charges a 30% tax on any subscription fee through IAP. Secondly, it does not allow the app developers to inform users of alternative purchasing possibilities outside of the app. Its rules allow content such as music purchased elsewhere to be consumed on the app itself but does not allow the developer to inform users about such purchasing possibilities. It is alleged that such arbitrary restrictions and high percentage cut fall foul of provisions of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) which prohibit anticompetitive agreements.

Further Readings:

1. Press Release, “Antitrust: Commission opens investigations into Apple's App Store rules”, European Commission (June 16, 2020).

2. Press Release, “Antitrust: Commission opens investigation into Apple practices regarding Apple Pay”, European Commission (June 16, 2020).

3. Daniel Michaels & Sam Schechner, “Apple Faces Two EU Antitrust Probes Over Apps”, Wall Street Journal (June 16, 2020).

4. Mohini Parghi, “App Stores and Abuse of Dominance: The Case Against Apple (Part I)”, Tech Law Forum NALSAR (July 8, 2019).

5. Mohini Parghi, “App Stores and Abuse of Dominance: The Case Against Apple (Part II)”, Tech Law Forum NALSAR (July 8, 2019).

6. David Pierce, “A new email startup says Apple’s shaking it down for a cut of its subscriptions”, Protocol (June 16, 2020).

New York bill to outlaw geofence warrants gains support amid calls for police reform

In April of 2020, lawmakers in New York had introduced the “Reverse Location Search Prohibition Act” which seeks to prohibit geofence warrants and voluntary reverse location requests. A geofence warrant demands private user information stored with tech companies, not of specific suspects of a crime but from any electronic devices that were close to the geographic area that forms the scene of the crime. Often, in the absence of court orders, law enforcement agencies request information from tech companies like Google which have an opt-in location history feature. The bill was originally introduced over fears that governmental measures to tackle the coronavirus crisis could unfairly impinge upon citizens’ right to privacy. It has gained momentum in the past few weeks as calls for police reform have increased in the wake of the killing of George Floyd. Along with privacy and civil rights advocates, Google and Facebook have publicly supported the outlawing of such warrants which have in the past led to innocent people getting arrested by the police.

Further Readings:

1. Issie Lapowsky, “New York lawmakers want to outlaw geofence warrants as protests grow”, Protocol (June 16, 2020).

2. Liz Brody, “Google’s Geofence Warrants Face a Major Legal Challenge”, OneZero (June 11, 2020).

3. Nicolette J. Zulli, “Scaling the (Geo)Fence: New York Lawmakers Push to Outlaw Geofence Warrants amid Ongoing National Debate for Police Reform”, Lexology (June 19, 2020).

4. Emily Glazer & Patience Haggin, “Political Groups Track Protesters’ Cellphone Data”, Wall Street Journal (June 14, 2020).

5. Nathaniel Sobel, “Do Geofence Warrants Violate the Fourth Amendment?”, Lawfare Blog (February 24, 2020).

Systematic strengthening of antitrust laws initiated in Germany

In a move to curb the anti-competitive behaviour displayed by Facebook in Germany, the Federal Cartel Office ordered the social media giant to stop generating super profiles on users. Facebook was combining users’ personal data generated from its own services and from the internet at large, through plug-ins and tracking pixels. This was done without obtaining the prior consent of the user, as Facebook’s standard zero-opt out terms and conditions combined with its dominant and growing market position implicitly permitted it to do so. This pervasive people-profiling was deemed to be an abuse of power and dominant position, leading to a rethink on how to approach the power wielded by data companies.

Further Readings:

1. AP, “Facebook loses antitrust case in Germany”, The Hindu (June 24, 2020).

2. Corrine Reichert, “Apple, Google, Amazon and Facebook CEOs to appear at antitrust hearing on July 27”, CNet (July 6, 2020).

3. Shruti Srivastava, “Jio-Facebook Deal Under Antitrust Review by Competition Commission of India”, NDTV (June 17, 2020).

Paytm approaches Delhi HC alleging lack of action by telecom companies against phishing

Paytm has knocked the doors of the Delhi High Court complaining that the telecom operators are not taking action against fraudsters carrying out phishing activities under Paytm’s name. The petitioner has claimed that its users are being duped using unsolicited commercial communications (UCC) in the form of SMS or voice calls made over telecom companies’ networks.

Phishing is a cybercrime where people are contacted by email, phone calls or text messages by someone posing as a legitimate representative of an organisation to lure them to part with their sensitive data, like banking and credit card details and passwords. Paytm has alleged that even after such irregularities were brought into notice of telecom companies, no action to block the fraudulent registered telemarketers (RTMs) and impose penalties was taken. The Telecommunication Commercial Communication Customer Preference Regulations, 2018 place the burden to prevent UCC on telecom companies, requiring them to register all telemarketers, verify them, assign them header and unique content templates. The petitioner has also alleged that telecom companies do not verify telemarketers before granting them access to their database. The tech giant has claimed that inaction on the part of telecom companies has caused “financial and reputational loss” to it, for which it has sought damages of ₹100 crore.

Further Readings:

1. IANS, “COVID-19 related phishing attacks up by massive 667%: Report”, India TV, (March 26, 2020).

2. Var India, “Paytm Payments Bank takes measures to fight against phishing and fraudsters”, Var India, (January 24, 2020).

3. Supriya Roy, “RJio criticizes Paytm for taking telecom operators to court on phishing frauds: Report” Tech Circle (June 22, 2020).

4. Prathma Sharma, “Paytm claims telecom firms not preventing phishing; HC seeks Centre, TRAI response” Live Mint (June 2, 2020).

Facebook buys tool to hack own user, helps FBI arrest child predator

Facebook paid a cybersecurity consulting firm six figures to hack one of its own users so that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) could arrest him for harassing and terrorising young girls, extorting them for nude photos and videos and making threats. Under his pseudonym of “Brian Kil”, a California man, Buster Hernandez, targeted hundreds of underage girls with blackmail and terroristic threats. He messaged underage girls, falsely claiming that he had some of their nude photos, and asked them to send more explicit pictures and videos. As Hernandez was using a privacy-focused operating system called Tails, it was difficult to unmask him. Tails is a system used by activists and whistle-blowers to anonymise their identity. Facebook paid a security firm to develop a hack that exploited a vulnerability in the Tails OS and eventually helped the FBI apprehend Hernandez. While Facebook’s actions helped nab a serial child predator, it also raised important ethical questions related to users’ privacy, as giving law enforcement agencies zero-day exploits comes with the risk that it could be used in other, less serious cases.

Further Readings:

1. Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai, “Facebook Helped the FBI Hack a Child Predator”, Vice, (June 10, 2020).

2. Joseph Marks, “Two new developments challenge Justice Department arguments on encryption”, Washington Post, (June 11, 2020).

3. Christine Runnegar, “Encryption and Law Enforcement Can Work Together”, Internet Society, (October 26, 2017).

4. Nicole Perlroth, “What Is End-to-End Encryption? Another Bull’s-Eye on Big Tech”, The New York Times, (November 19, 2019).

5. Bedavyasa Mohanty, “The Encryption Debate in India”, Carnegie Endowment For International Peace, (May 20, 2019).

6. Staff, “The International Encryption Debate: Privacy Versus Big Brother”, Lexology, (June 12, 2019).

Amazon, IBM and Microsoft won’t sell police their facial-recognition technology

Microsoft has become the third big tech company after Amazon and IBM to say it won’t sell its facial recognition software to police. On 10th June, Amazon announced that it would implement a one-year moratorium on police use of its facial recognition service, ‘Rekognition’ to give Congress “enough time to implement appropriate rules.” A day earlier, IBM had announced a complete withdrawal from the facial recognition market citing concerns about how the technology can be used for mass surveillance and racial profiling. The trio of tech giants have announced these moves amid protests over racial injustice and police bias following the death of George Floyd, an unarmed black man who died after a Minneapolis police officer dug his knee into his neck for nearly nine minutes. In the past, facial recognition systems have faced criticism for incorrectly identifying people with darker skin. The facial recognition market remains a key emerging business and has invited heavy investment from big tech companies. Numerous studies have shown that facial-recognition systems misidentify people of colour more often than white people. The recent announcements have been welcomed by privacy advocates.

Further Readings:

1. Brian Fung, “Tech companies push for nationwide facial recognition law. Now comes the hard part”, CNN, (June 13, 2020).

2. Nick Statt, “Amazon bans police from using its facial recognition technology for the next year”, The Verge, (June 10, 2020).

3. Jay Greene, “Microsoft won’t sell police its facial-recognition technology, following similar moves by Amazon and IBM”, The Washington Post, (June 12, 2020).

4. Geoffrey A. Fowler, “Black Lives Matter could change facial recognition forever — if Big Tech doesn’t stand in the way”, The Seattle Times, (June 14, 2020).

5. Irina Ivanova, “Why face-recognition technology has a bias problem”, CBS News, (June 12, 2020).

Facebook refuses to share ad revenue with Australian news organisations

Facebook has rejected the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s (ACCC) proposal to share its ad revenue with news organisations. The Government of Australia had asked the ACCC to come with a mandatory code of conduct to address commercial arrangements between digital platforms and news organisations to help create a level playing field. The code is supposed to cover sharing of data, transparency of ranking algorithm, and the monetisation and the sharing of revenue generated from the news. Josh Frydenberg, Australian treasurer, in April had said that “it is only fair that the search engines and social media giants pay for the original news content that they use to drive traffic to their sites.” Meanwhile, Facebook has denied treasurer’s claim and has said that it has statistical evidence to suggest that news content is highly substitutable with other content for their users and news does not drive significant long term value for their business. Though Facebook has supported the idea of a code but is against the regulator’s proposal to form a body with powers to impose penalties and binding dispute resolution.

Further Readings:

1. Naaman Zhou and Amanda Meade, “Facebook says it doesn’t need news stories for its business and won’t pay to share them in Australia”, The Guardian, (June 15, 2020).

2. Josh Taylor, “Facebook and Google to be forced to share advertising revenue with Australian media companies”, The Guardian, (April 19, 2020).

3. Agence France-Presse, “Google Rejects Call for Huge Australian Media Payout”, Gadget 360, (June 1, 2020).

4. Joshua Mcdonald, “Australian Government, Media Companies Challenge Tech Giants Over Sharing Ad Revenue”, The Diplomat, (May 22, 2020).

5. Shawn Lim, “Can Australia save local journalism by forcing Google and Facebook to share out ad revenue?”, The Drum, (April 22, 2020).

US EPA orders Amazon, eBay to stop selling faulty coronavirus, pesticide products

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ordered Amazon and eBay to stop selling unproven or unapproved disinfectants, including products falsely marketed as killing Covid-19. The EPA order will affect over 70 products currently listed on both websites. Failure to comply with the so called- ‘stop-sale’ order will result in fines up to $20,288 per sale. Doug Benevento, associate deputy administrator of the EPA, said that eBay and Amazon not only have a legal obligation but also a corporate obligation to ensure that products like this aren’t on their site. Pesticides and chemicals sold in the United States must be registered with the EPA, which develops risk assessments to determine whether the products pose a threat to harm humans, wildlife, fish, plants and other organisms. The agency also considers whether the use of the chemicals or pesticides poses a significant threat of contaminating groundwater. The order follows an increase in the sale of unregistered products on online marketplaces like Amazon and eBay.

Further Reading:

1. Adi Robertson, “EPA tells Amazon and eBay to stop selling fake coronavirus-killing products”, The Verge, (June 11, 2020).

2. Will Neal & S. Gagne-Acoulon “US Files First Enforcement Act Against COVID-19 Fraud”, (March 23, 2020).

3. Lynn Lazaro, “COVID-19 Counterfeit Products And Fake Goods – Indian Law Perspective”, Mondaq, (April 21, 2020).

Australian Court rules that media companies are liable for defamatory user comments

The Court of Appeal Supreme Court, New South Wales, made the ruling in the matter of Fairfax Media Publications; Nationwide News Pty Ltd and Australian News Channel Pty Ltd v. Voller. The claimant alleged that defamatory comments made on the Facebook pages of a few Australian newspapers were effectively published by the papers, due to which they were liable for the criminal harm caused. Regarding the argument that the media outlets promptly removed the comments about Voller when they became aware of it, the judges said that it was “immaterial” and they should still be held responsible because they had “participated in the publication … from the outset” by inviting comments. “A person who participates in and is instrumental in bringing about the publication of defamatory matter is potentially liable for having done so notwithstanding that others may have participated in that publication in different degrees,” said the ruling. The ruling was criticised by media companies in a joint statement. “The appeal court has shown that Australian defamation law is completely out of step with the realities of publishing in the digital age, and how Australians consume news and information,” said a joint statement from News Corp Australia, Nine and Australian News Channel.

Further Reading:

1. Josh Taylor, “Australian media companies face defamation liability for comments on Facebook after court dismisses appeal”, The Guardian, (June 1, 2020).

2. Mike Cherney, “News Outlets Are Liable for Others’ Facebook Comments, Australian Court Rules”, Wall Street Journal, (June 1, 2020).

3. Hugh Marks, “Digital giants must take rap for comment on their sites”, The Australian Financial Review, (June 1, 2019).

Trump signs Order targeting social media companies

On May 28, President Donald Trump signed an executive order on May 28 targeting Section 230 Communications Decency Act, 1996 which protects internet companies from liability. The move was in response to Twitter fact-checking the president's tweets on mail-in ballots for containing "potentially misleading misinformation." As part of its new policy undertaken amid the coronavirus pandemic, the platform has introduced labels and warning messages that aim to provide “additional context and information” on Tweets containing disputed, misleading or unverified claims related to the pandemic. The executive order doesn't change how Twitter, Facebook or other social media companies operate. Rather, it calls on the government to review federal law that protects online companies from liability for content posted by users, according to a draft of the order. The executive order alleges that online platforms are engaging in “selective censorship”, and that Twitter’s labeling of Trump’s tweets indicated “political bias”. It argues that when online platforms remove or restrict access to content, they engage in editorial conduct and become the “publishers” of all the content posted on their websites. Based on this, the order seeks to revoke the liability shield offered to platforms and exposes them to liability “like any traditional editor and publisher that is not an online provider.”

Further Reading:

1. Tim Wu, “Trump’s Response to Twitter Is Unconstitutional Harassment”, The New York Times, (June 2, 2020).

2. Henry Olsen, “Trump’s social media executive order is a big mistake”, The Washington Post, (May 29, 2020).

3. Andrew Marino, “Vergecast: Examining Donald Trump’s executive order targeting social media”, The Verge, (May 29, 2020).

4. Chris Megerian, “Trump signs order targeting social media companies”, Los Angeles Times, (May 28, 2020).

5. Casey Newton, “Why Twitter labelled Trump’s tweets as misleading and Facebook didn’t”, The Verge, (May 29, 2020).

Arizona sues Google over claims it illegally collected location data despite users opting out

Google kept tabs on the whereabouts of its users even if they had turned off location tracking, an Arizona official alleged in a lawsuit filed on May 27. The suit filed by Attorney General Mark Brnovich stemmed from an investigation that began after The Associated Press reported on Google’s location tracking in 2018.The suit alleges Alphabet’s Google violated the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act and it seeks to claw back profits from the tracking. “Every company has a responsibility to be truthful to consumers,” Brnovich said. “You can’t deceive them, you can’t make misrepresentations.” A Google spokesman said Brnovich and the “contingency fee lawyers” who brought the case have mischaracterized the company’s services. AP reported two years ago that users could pause a setting called location history, and Google’s support page said: “You can turn off Location History at any time. With Location History off, the places you go are no longer stored.” But it was later uncovered that even with the function paused, some Google apps automatically stored time-stamped location data.

Further Reading:

1. Nick Statt, “Arizona sues Google over claims it illegally tracked location of Android users”, The Verge, (May 27 2020).

2. Tony Romm, “Arizona sues Google over allegations it illegally tracked Android smartphone users’ locations”, The Washington Post, (May 28 2020).

G.D.P.R. used to adjudicate family dispute in Netherlands

In a first, Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation (‘G.D.P.R.’) was used to adjudicate a family dispute in the Netherlands. The matter arose when a Dutch woman was requested to takedown pictures of her granddaughter on Facebook and Pinterest. She denied this request from her family, who took her to court on the ground that the child’s privacy had been violated. In the Gelderland province, a judge ruled that the child’s picture could only be uploaded if the mother’s permission was sought in her capacity as legal guardian of the child. Further, it was held that the grandmother’s actions stood in violation of the G.D.P.R. The regulations hold that for a child below 16 years, the posting of pictures can only be authorised by legal guardians. This is a striking instance of how the G.D.P.R. provides individuals with control over how their data is collected, used and stored, which can be enforced against companies, the government and other individuals.

Further Reading:

1. Marc Ehlsof and Celine Van Es, Netherlands: GDPR Update - GDPR In The Netherlands: One Year After, Mondaq, (13 June 2019).

2. Gannon Burgett, Dutch court rules grandmother must remove photos of grandchildren from social media under GDPR, Digital Photography Review, (21 May 2020).

3. Adam Satariano and Claire Moses, Grandmother’s Refusal to Remove Photos From Facebook Tests Privacy Law, The New York Times, (22 May 2020).

Private firms to get access to ISRO facilities

Recently, the Indian government has given the green light to private firms to access the Indian Space Research Organisation’s (ISRO) facilities. This move is in furtherance of increasing private investments in exploration, space technology and development. The government recognises that the private space sector is highly regulated and that may be a barrier to entry and a hindrance in using ISRO’s resources. Participation is encouraged through easing regulatory governance measures. This will enable the private players to improve their products. In the same address, the Finance Minister also promised a liberal geospatial data policy to tech entrepreneurs which will help them economically. Geospatial data about India is bought from foreign countries by Indians who want to work in fields that develop drought prone areas, irrigation facilities, etc. This move has been made in furtherance of having more home-grown space technology, thereby reducing the high costs involved.

Further Reading:

1. ET Bureau, ISRO facilities to open for startups, private firms; new geospatial policy soon, The Economic Times, (16 May 2020).

2. TechGig Correspondent, ISRO opens testing facilities and geospatial data to startups and private companies, TechGig, (18 May 2020).

3. TE Narasimhan, Peerzada Abrar & Samreen Ahmad, Launch pad: Centre opens up space sector for private players to grow, Business Standard, (17 May 2020).

Private firm blocked from buying “.org” domain

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which oversees the internet naming system, decided on 30 April to veto the sale of the rights to the “.org” domain to private equity firm Ethos Capital, which had offered more than $1 billion in a bid to purchase the domain. Approving the sale would have meant handing over a piece of online real estate that house most of the world’s non-profit organizations and charities, and ICANN’s decision was widely hailed as a victory for free speech over the internet. This is despite the promises made by Ethos Capital, which stated that it would set up a “stewardship council” of outside experts and make “public interest commitments” to restrain price increases. The decision was announced by ICANN Chairman Maarten Botterman, who stated that the decision turned on the whether the spirit of dot-org would be preserved if the private equity firm gained control of the domain.

Further Reading:

1. Steve Lohr, “A Private Equity Firm Is Blocked From Buying .Org”, The New York Times (May 1, 2020).

2. Karl Bode, The .Org Domain Will No Longer Be Sold to Private Equity Vultures, Vice (May 1, 2020).

3. Jamshed Avari, ICANN Blocks .org Domain Sale: Why This Matters, in Ten Points, NDTV (May 1, 2020).

Facebook buys $5.7 billion stake in Reliance Jio

On 22 April, Facebook announced that it was investing $5.7 billion in Reliance Jio. As part of the investment Facebook said that it would collaborate with Jio to create new ways for people and businesses to operate more effectively in the growing digital economy. In the press note, Facebook noted the potential of the partnership, stating that “…by bringing together JioMart, Jio’s small business initiative, with the power of WhatsApp, we can enable people to connect with businesses, shop and ultimately purchase products in a seamless mobile experience.” Facebook’s investment translates to a 9.99% equity stake in Jio platform on a fully diluted basis. This is the largest investment for a minority stake by a tech company in an Indian firm. This is also the largest foreign direct investment (FDI) for a minority investment in India. The deal marks a rare coming together of two giants who have a reputation for market domination. Such a broad sweep of an alliance naturally triggers concerns about market dominance which will reportedly be addressed by the Competition Commission of India.

Further Reading:

1. Pankaj Doval, “Facebook-Jio Platforms: Competition panel needs to clear deal”, Times Of India (April 23, 2020).

2. Arindrajit Basu & Amber Sinha, “The Realpolitik of the Reliance Jio-Facebook Deal”, The Diplomat (April 29, 2020).

3. Rahul Matthan, “The Jio-Facebook deal and our need for a privacy law”, Livemint (April 28, 2020).

4. Jaspreet Bindra, “We can mark the day that data actually became the new oil”, Livemint (April 30, 2020).

Cryptocurrency firm Ripple files lawsuit against YouTube over fake “giveaway” videos

Blockchain firm Ripple sued Alphabet Inc’s YouTube on Tuesday, alleging that the video-sharing platform failed to protect consumers from cryptocurrency “giveaway” scams that uses fake social media profiles to dupe victims into sending money. According to a court filing, the company alleges that YouTube has failed to restrict the circulation of videos where scammers are baiting viewers into sending thousands of dollars’ worth of XRP (a cryptocurrency championed by Ripple) by imitating the company and CEO Brad Garlinghouse. The scammers promise to send back up to 5 million XRP, worth nearly $1 million, but victims who participate in the fake “giveaways” never receive any money in return, said the filing. The lawsuit appears poised to raise a fresh challenge around the controversial Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which shields Google, Facebook and other internet companies from liability for material that users post on their platforms. Regulators in Washington are reconsidering the need for the law’s broad immunity, which helped U.S. tech companies grow but is viewed increasingly as a shelter enabling some of the world’s richest companies to avoid investments to curb crime, extremism and misinformation online.

Further Reading:

1. Jeff John Roberts, “YouTube sued by crypto firm Ripple over scam videos, in major challenge to tech giant”, Fortune (April 21, 2020).

2. Adi Robertson, “Cryptocurrency company sues YouTube for letting scammers impersonate its CEO”, The Verge (April 21, 2020).

3. Casey Newton, “A new lawsuit against YouTube shows how hard it is to get the company to respond to abuse”, The Verge (April 22, 2020).

4. Robert Stevens, “Ripple CTO kicked off YouTube a week after lawsuit”, Decrypt (April 29, 2020).

Public Access to Information Suffers Under Coronavirus in the US

Amid the ongoing Covid-19 outbreak, which by some counts has infected more than 50 thousand people in the US, shops and restaurants are not the only operations shutting down. Across the country, local, state, and federal agencies have slowed their responses to public records requests to a crawl. While some agencies face tricky logistical challenges because of how records are kept, others have added new barriers that don’t seem directly related to the pandemic. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has stopped processing electronic records requests, the bureau now requires that requests be sent via postal mail. The State Department meanwhile has gone further, suspending Freedom of Information/Privacy Act operations entirely until further notice. The city of Philadelphia has entered a state of emergency in which all “nonessential” city government operations have been halted, including the processing of public records requests. Other agencies including the Fresno city government; the Hawaii state Judiciary; the Chicago Police Department and the Jefferson Parish Department of General Services have similarly notified persons that responses to their requests are on hold indefinitely due to the country’s public health crisis.

Further Reading:

1. Colin Lecher, “States Are Suspending Public Records Access Due to COVID-19”, The Markup (May 1, 2020).

2. Staff, “Press freedom and government transparency during COVID-19”, Reporters Committee For Freedom Of The Press (Daily Updated Tracker).

3. Mica Soellner, “Coronavirus pandemic leads federal government and states to suspend access to public records”, Washington Examiner (May 4, 2020).

COVID-19 data processing deal between Kerala and data analytics platform Sprinklr comes under heavy scrutiny

Amid the coronavirus pandemic the Kerala government has been forced to grapple with questions of privacy and data security owing to its deal with US-based big data company Sprinklr. The government, which has been praised for its adept handling of the pandemic, has nevertheless come under heavy scrutiny following the deal, with Opposition Leader Ramesh Chennithala criticizing the government for breaching the privacy of people under quarantine. The deal with Sprinklr which allegedly gives the company access to the state’s COVID-19 data, though the government continues to hold the proprietary rights over personal health information of citizens that was collected by field workers. The matter was recently heard by the Kerala High Court which issued preliminary orders declining to interfere with the company’s involvement in processing patient data. However, the Court advised the government to adhere to concerns of privacy and data security, though the state has emphasized its proprietary right over the data and has disclaimed the threat of monetization owing to its ownership.

Further Reading:

1. Special Correspondent, UDF seeks CBI probe into Sprinklr deal, The Hindu (22 April 2020).

2. Nithin Ramakrishnan, 'Sprinklr' Deal And Personal Data Protection Bill, LiveLaw (22 April 2020).

3. Chandrakanth Viswanath, Explainer | How The Sprinklr Row Put Kerala Govt in Hot Water after Flattening Covid-19 Curve, News18 (21 April 2020).

Aarogya Setu raises serious privacy concerns

The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare in India has come under heavy scrutiny for the decisions they have taken to tackle the worsening situation of the COVID-19 pandemic. In a bid to monitor the movement of the Indian citizenry, the government has undertaken a high-profile media campaign to promote the Aarogya Setu app. However, the app has raised serious issues with respect to the kind of data it purports to collect. A user cannot access the application without revealing their location at least once. The application allegedly allots an anonymous identity to the device and reveals the details of infected persons so as to enable healthy citizens to steer clear of places which the affected persons had visited.

Further Reading:

1. HT Correspondent, NITI Aayog defends Aarogya Setu against criticism from privacy groups, The Hindustan Times, (16 April 2020).

2. Manavi Kapur, The coronavirus app Narendra Modi endorsed is a privacy disaster, Quartz India, (15 April 2020).

3. Venkat Ananth, Aarogya Setu's not all that healthy for a person's privacy, The Economic Times, (15 April 2020).

4. Is Aarogya Setu privacy-first? Nope, but it could be-- If the government wanted., Internet Freedom Foundation, (14 April 2020).

Social media monitoring proves its utility in the fight against COVID-19

While platforms like YouTube and Facebook are aware of the conversations taking place in civil society, the data about the same is not available to all business in a uniform manner. As a result, keeping tabs on social media has become the norm for business looking to attract consumers to their products. Companies like Synthesio provide such services through which users can determine the conversations taking place about the business and its products. Synthesio also tracks how the same information is perceived across different platforms and demographics. Companies can track mentions on multiple services and respond quickly. This service has been immensely useful in the current fight against the novel coronavirus, as National Institutes of Health in the USA are employing these tools to find people discussing symptoms like shortness of breath, cough and fever.

Further Reading:

1. John Scott Lewinski, Synthesio Brings COVID-19 Social Media Monitoring Into Graphic Focus, Forbes, (21 April 2020).

2. Theodore F. Claypoole, Data Privacy Risks and COVID-19 Defense, The National Law Review, (24 March 2020).

3. Ronn Torrosian, Why you should invest in social media monitoring, PR Daily, (23 March 2020).

Court rules that photographer gave up copyright in photo by posting on Instagram

A district court in the case of Sinclair v. Ziff Davis, LLC, and Mashable, Inc. found no copyright infringement by the website Mashable in a case where the website the plaintiff’s Instagram photo in an article after an unsuccessful attempt to license the photo directly. The plaintiff, Sinclair, had a “public” Instagram account and posted a copy of the subject photograph. Mashable, a digital media and entertainment platform, published on its website an article about female photographers that embedded the publicly posted photo from Sinclair’s Instagram account. Notably, prior to using the Instagram photo, an employee from Mashable contacted Sinclair about licensing the same photo to be used in the article. Sinclair declined Mashable’s US$50 offer to license the use of the photo. Sinclair later demanded that Mashable remove the embedded photograph from their website and demanded compensation which was refused by Mashable. Sinclair then sued for copyright infringement and argued that Mashable had infringed her copyright in the photo since it did not have permission to use the photo. Mashable contended that it had a valid sublicense from Instagram to use the photo and therefore did not infringe Sinclair’s copyright. The court sided with Mashable and the judge rejected the proposition that Mashable had to get a license directly from Sinclair. Further, the ruling shot down the argument that Mashable had no license because it wasn't the intended beneficiary of Instagram's terms of use.

Further Reading:

1. Adi Robertson, Photographer can’t sue a website for embedding her Instagram post, says court, The Verge, (April 14, 2020).

2. Venkat Balasubramani, Instagram’s TOS Authorizes Third-Party Embedding of Photos–Sinclair v. Mashable, Eric Goldman Blog, (April 15, 2020).

3. Thomas Maddrey, Does Posting To Instagram Create an Unlimited Sublicense? Sinclair v. Ziff Davis and What To Do Now, American Society of Media Photographers Blog, (April 15, 2020).

Apple and Google launch joint COVID-19 tracing tool for iOS and Android

Apple and Google’s engineering teams have banded together to create a decentralized contact tracing tool that will help individuals determine whether they have been exposed to someone with COVID-19. Contact tracing is a useful tool that helps public health authorities track the spread of the disease and inform the potentially exposed so that they can get tested. It does this by identifying and “following up with” people who have come into contact with a COVID-19-affected person. The first phase of the project is an application program interface (‘API’) that public health agencies can integrate into their own apps. The next phase involves a system-level contact tracing system that will work across iOS and Android devices on an opt-in basis. The system uses on-board radios on your device to transmit an anonymous ID over short ranges — using Bluetooth beaconing. Servers relay your last 14 days of rotating IDs to other devices which then look for a match. A match is determined based on a threshold of time spent and distance maintained between two devices. If a match is found with another user that has told the system that they have tested positive, you are notified and can take steps to be tested and self-quarantine. Both Apple and Google say that privacy and transparency are paramount in public health efforts and say they are committed to shipping a system that does not compromise personal privacy in any way. This is a factor that has been raised by the American Civil Liberties Union, which has cautioned that any use of cell phone tracking to track the spread of COVID-19 would need aggressive privacy controls.

Further Reading:

1. Sara Morrison, Apple and Google look like problematic heroes in the pandemic, Recode, (April 16, 2020).

2. Andy Greenberg, Does Covid-19 Contact Tracing Pose a Privacy Risk? Your Questions, Answered, The Wired, (April 17, 2020).

3. Julia Angwin, Will Google’s and Apple’s COVID Tracking Plan ProtectPrivacy?, The Markup, (April 14, 2020).

Facebook to steer users who interact with coronavirus misinformation to WHO ‘mythbusters’ page

Facebook will begin displaying notifications to users who have interacted with posts that contain “harmful” coronavirus misinformation, the company announced on 16th April in a bid to stem the of false information about Covid-19. The new policy applies only to misinformation that Facebook considers likely to contribute to “imminent physical harm” such as false claims about “cures” or statements that physical distancing is not effective. So far, Facebook’s policy has been to remove those posts from the platform. Under the new policy which will be rolled out in the coming weeks, users who liked, shared, commented or reacted with an emoji to such posts before they were deleted will see a message in their news feed directing them to a “myth busters” page maintained by the World Health Organization (WHO). The changes have been prompted by a major study of misinformation on the platform across six languages by Avaaz, a crowdfunded activist group whose researchers say that millions of users continue to be exposed to coronavirus misinformation without any warning regarding the same. The group found that some of the most dangerous falsehoods had received hundreds of thousands of views, including claims like "black people are resistant to coronavirus" and "Coronavirus is destroyed by chlorine dioxide".

Further Reading:

1. Shirin Ghaffary, Facebook will start nudging users who have “liked” coronavirus hoaxes, Recode, (April 16, 2020).

2. Casey Newton, Coronavirus misinformation is putting Facebook to the test, The Verge, (April 17, 2020).

3. Billy Perrigo, Facebook Is Notifying Users Who Have Shared Coronavirus Misinformation. Could It Do the Same for Politics?, Time, (April 16, 2020).

Zoom sued by shareholder for ‘overstating’ security claims

Zoom Video Communications Inc. was hit with a class action suit by one of its shareholders on April 7th which accused the video-conferencing app of overstating its privacy standards and failing to disclose that its service was not end-to-end encrypted. The lawsuit comes in the backdrop of huge privacy and security backlash against the company as security experts, privacy advocates and lawmakers warn that Zoom’s default settings aren’t secure enough. Each Zoom call has a randomly generated ID number between 9 and 11 digits long that’s used by participants to gain access to a meeting. Researchers have found that these meeting IDs are easy to guess and can be cracked using brute force algorithms which allows anyone to enter the meetings. This has led to the phenomenon of ‘zoombombing’ where pranksters join Zoom calls and broadcast porn or shock videos. However, concerns surrounding the company's privacy and security policies do not end there as Zoom was forced to update its iOS app last week to remove code that sent device data to Facebook. Zoom then had to rewrite parts of its privacy policy after it was discovered that users were susceptible to their personal information being used to target ads. The most damning issue however is the company’s blatantly false claim regarding its usage of ‘end-to-end encryption’. Even though the company states on its website that it is employs E2E encryption, what is actually being used is transport encryption. In light of the numerous security lapses, companies like Google and SpaceX have banned their employees from using Zoom for meetings. It is has also been banned by the Taiwanese government over concerns that some Zoom traffic was ‘mistakenly’ routed through China.

Further Reading:

1. Brian X. Chen, The Lesson We Are Learning From Zoom, The New York Times, (April 8, 2020).

2. Casey Newton, What Zoom doesn’t understand about the Zoom backlash, The Verge, (April 2, 2020).

3. Lily Hay Newman, The Zoom Privacy Backlash Is Only Getting Started, Wired, (April 1, 2020).

Governments around the world are increasingly using location data to manage the coronavirus

As the novel coronavirus spreads around the world, an increasing number of governments are relying on mobile carrier data to track information about their citizens. Mobile carriers in the European Union are sharing data with health authorities in Italy, Germany, and Austria to help monitor whether people are following instructions to maintain social distancing. Other countries are using location data from cellphones to track the pandemic in different ways, from Iran's 'AC 19' app, to China’s tracking system that sends information to law enforcement officials, to Taiwan’s “electronic fence” that alerts authorities when a quarantined person moves too far away from their home. Perhaps the most aggressive use of cellphone location tracking is taking place in South Korea where the government has created a publicly available map from cellphone data that people can use to determine if they have come into contact with someone who has been infected with the novel coronavirus. However, accessing this data, even amid a global pandemic, entails complex legal and ethical issues surrounding government access to information that can reveal intimate details about citizens’ lives. There are widespread concerns over when these extreme surveillance measures will be discounted as they have the potential to transform states into authoritarian regimes.

Further Reading:

1. Natasha Singer and Choe Sang-Hun, As Coronavirus Surveillance Escalates, Personal Privacy Plummets, The New York Times, (March 23, 2020).

2. Pallavi Pundir, Coronavirus is Pushing Mass Surveillance in India, and It’s Going to Change Everything, Vice, (April 6, 2020).

3. Rahul Narayan, Privacy, in the time of coronavirus, should not be compromised, Medianama, (April 2, 2020).

WhatsApp tightens message forwarding restrictions to combat coronavirus misinformation

With heightened scrutiny regarding the spread of misinformation over messaging platforms, WhatsApp on April 6, 2020 said it would place new limits on the forwarding of messages. Starting today, messages that have been identified as “highly forwarded” — sent through a chain of five or more people — can only be forwarded to a single person. The move is designed to reduce the speed with which information moves through WhatsApp, putting truth and fiction on a more even footing. It comes after bogus conspiracy theories linking 5G mobile networks with COVID-19 appeared to inspire people to set fire to cell phone masts in the U.K. The attacks resulted in the U.K. government urging social media platforms to take action to combat the spread of such false claims. WhatsApp has appeared to step up its efforts to ensure that its users can get verified information. The World Health Organization has launched a Health Alert in partnership with WhatsApp that has the potential to reach all its users and provide the latest news on coronavirus, which sets up an individual conversation which helps users have their questions answered. Similarly, the Indian government has also created a WhatsApp chatbot to combat misinformation. The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY) in India has urged social media platforms to “take immediate action to disable /remove such content hosted on their platforms on [a] priority basis”.

Further Reading:

1. Casey Newton, WhatsApp puts new limits on the forwarding of viral messages, The Verge, (April 7, 2020).

2. James Temperton, How the 5G coronavirus conspiracy theory tore through the internet, Wired, (April 7, 2020).

3. Janosch Delcker, Zosia Wanat and Mark Scott, The coronavirus fake news pandemic sweeping WhatsApp, Politico, (March 16, 2020).

Health Ministry issues long-awaited Telemedicine Practice Guidelines

The Telemedicine Practice Guidelines of 2020 as notified by the Health Ministry are the first step towards providing for a comprehensive set of rules that make up a regulatory reference point for virtual consultations of patients. The guidelines require identity and age verification of doctors, patients and/or health workers. Consent has also found its place in the guidelines, as patients are provided with a right to stop consultations in situations where the doctor initiates a consultation upon request. Artificial Intelligence or Machine Learning may only facilitate the doctor in taking a decision, but the final prescription of medicines and consultation is not devoid of a human touch. Further, any data, records or documents related to the patient have to be handled by the doctor with due regard to data privacy laws.

Further Reading:

1. Suman Ray, Is Telemedicine a useful tool to fight COVID-19?, Down to Earth, (2 April 2020).

2. Tahir Ashraf Siddiqui, Issuance of Telemedicine Practice Guidelines in India: A long due piece of regulation, Live Law, (1 April 2020).

3. Aditi Tandon, Online help for OPD Patients, The Tribune, (28 March 2020).

Supreme Court quashes RBI circular and permits cryptocurrency trading

A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court on 4th March, 2020, allowed dealing in cryptocurrency, quashing an earlier ban imposed by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) on trading in virtual currencies such as Bitcoin. The development came as a major relief for the sector, as the RBI ban restricted lenders from facilitating banking transactions for cryptocurrency exchanges and traders. The top court's order followed a plea by the Internet and Mobile Association of India (IMAI) objecting to the RBI ban. The industry body - whose members carried out cryptocurrency transactions among each other - had claimed the move effectively banned legitimate business activity via virtual currencies. The petitioners had argued among other things, that the April 2018 RBI circular was violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution which guarantees citizens the freedom to carry on a profession of their choice. The Supreme Court ruled that the RBI circular that prohibited any entity from providing banking services to anyone dealing with virtual or cryptocurrencies was not proportionate. The court said that the RBI has not presented any empirical evidence that virtual or cryptocurrencies have negatively impacted the banking sector or other entities regulated by the RBI.

Further Reading:

1. Aniruddh Nigam, The Supreme Court Lifts the Ban on Cryptocurrencies - Or Does It?, The Wire (March 5,2020).

2. Suhrith Parthasarathy, The Supreme Court’s Cryptocurrency Judgment, Indian Constitutional Law and Philosophy (March 10,2020).

3. Editorial, Double-edged sword: On Supreme Court’s cryptocurrency ruling, The Hindu (March 7,2020).

Senate Judiciary Committee introduces EARN IT Act

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, US Senators Richard Blumenthal, Josh Hawley and Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein on 5th March, 2020 jointly introduced the Eliminating Abusive and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies Act (EARN IT Act) that purports to “encourage the tech industry to take online child sexual exploitation seriously.” Until now, online service providers were not responsible—under what are known as the Section 230 provisions of the Communications Decency Act of 1996—for anything users publish on websites, social media accounts or cloud servers. The concept behind the law is that tech companies have to “earn” their protected immunity from prosecution for any illegal content published by users on their platforms by scanning and decrypting every message, image or post. The EARN IT commission will establish “best practices” that must be followed by the technology companies or they will face criminal prosecution if content on their services is found to be illegal. The law mandates that tech providers either agree to monitor the content and violate the privacy and free speech rights of their users by screening everything they publish, post or store on the service or they agree to be prosecuted by the state for any illegal content that appears on their site.

Further Reading:

1. Issie Lapowsky, With the EARN IT Act, big tech is boxed into a corner again, Protocol (March 11, 2020).

2. Riana Pfefferkorn, The EARN IT ACT: How To Ban End-To-End Encryption Without Actually Banning It, Center For Internet and Society Stanford Law School (January 30, 2020).

3. Casey Newton, Everything You Need To Know About Section 230, The Verge (March 3,2020)

Facebook sued in Australia over Cambridge Analytica data breach

Australia’s information commissioner is suing Facebook over allegedly breaching the privacy of over 300,000 Australians caught up in the Cambridge Analytica scandal. In a case lodged in the federal court on 9th March 2020, the Australian information commissioner Angelene Falk has alleged Facebook committed serious and repeated interferences with privacy in contravention of Australian privacy law because data collected by Facebook was passed onto the This is Your Digital Life app by Cambridge Analytica for political profiling, which was not what it was collected for. The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner also alleges that Facebook "failed to take reasonable steps to protect those individuals’ personal information from unauthorised disclosure."Both are violations of Australia's Privacy Act 1988. The suit alleged the majority of the affected Australians didn't actually install the app themselves. Instead, their data was collected after their Facebook friends downloaded the app, giving them no reasonable opportunity to opt out. The OAIC claims only 53 people in Australia downloaded the ‘This is Your Digital Life’ app. Each alleged violation carries a maximum penalty of $1.7 million, which is a significant mountain of cash by itself. But when multiplied by the 311,127 cases alleged by the OAIC, it grows to the almost comical sum of $529 billion.

Further Reading:

1. Alvin Chang, The Facebook and Cambridge Analytica scandal, explained with a simple diagram, Vox (May 2, 2018).

2. Issie Lapowsky, How Cambridge Analytica Sparked the Great Privacy Awakening, Wired (March 17,2019).

3. Alexandra Samuel, The shady data-gathering tactics used by Cambridge Analytica were an open secret to online marketers. I know, because I was one, The Verge (March 15, 2018).

New app provides "safe paths" during the time of social distancing

The manner in which our societies are currently ordered is being given a serious thought owing to this 2020 Covid-19 pandemic. Amidst the large-scale pandemonium that has entailed due to the coronavirus, while various scientists work on finding a cure for the virus, the info-tech industry is doing its own bit to help governments and health service providers. The people at MIT, Harvard and other software engineers have been working on developing an application called Private Kit: Safe Paths that aims to track all the places that an infected person has visited. The location data of people is shared through encryption, so that people are notified of having contacted an infected person without knowing who the identity of that person.

Further reading:

1. Will Douglas Heaven, https://www.technologyreview.com/s/615372/coronavirus-infection-tests-app-pandemic-location-privacy/, MIT Technology Review (17 March, 2020).

2. Stacy Liberatore, https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-8131363/Apps-alert-users-children-cross-paths-people-infected-coronavirus.html, Daily Mail (19 March 2020).

Israel spyware ‘Pegasus’ used to snoop on Indian activists, journalists, lawyers

In a startling revelation, Facebook owned messaging app WhatsApp revealed that a spyware known as ‘Pegasus’ has been used to target and surveil Indian activists and journalists. The revelation came to light after WhatsApp filed a lawsuit against the Israeli NSO Group, accusing it of using servers located in the US and elsewhere to send malware to approximately 1400 mobile phones and devices. On its part, the NSO group has consistently claimed that it sells its software only to government agencies, and that it is not used to target particular subjects. The Indian government sought a detailed reply from WhatsApp but has expressed dissatisfaction with the response received, with the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology stating that the reply has “certain gaps” which need to be further investigated.

Further reading:

1. Sukanya Shantha, Indian Activists, Lawyers Were 'Targeted' Using Israeli Spyware Pegasus, The Wire (31 October 2019).

2. Seema Chishti, WhatsApp confirms: Israeli spyware was used to snoop on Indian journalists, activists, The Indian Express (1 November 2019).

3. Aditi Agrawal, Home Ministry gives no information to RTI asking if it bought Pegasus spyware, Medianama (1 November 2019).

4. Shruti Dhapola, Explained: What is Israeli spyware Pegasus, which carried out surveillance via WhatsApp?, The Indian Express (2 November 2019).

5. Akshita Saxena, Pegasus Surveillance: All You Want To Know About The Whatsapp Suit In US Against Israeli Spy Firm [Read Complaint], LiveLaw (12 November 2019).

RBI raises concerns over WhatsApp Pay

Adding to the WhatsApp’s woes in India, just after the Israeli spyware Pegasus hacking incident, The RBI has asked the National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI) not to permit WhatsApp to go ahead with the full rollout of its payment service WhatsApp Pay. The central bank has expressed concerns over WhatsApp’s non-compliance with data processing regulations, as current regulations allow for data processing outside India on the condition that it returns to servers located in the country without copies being left on foreign servers.

Further Reading:

1. Karan Choudhury & Neha Alawadhi, WhatsApp Pay clearance: RBI raises concerns data localisation concerns with NPCI, Business Standard (7 November 2019).

2. Aditi Agarwal, ‘No payment services on WhatsApp without data localisation’, RBI to SC, Medianama (9 October 2019).

3. Sujata Sangwan, WhatsApp can’t start payments business in India, YOURSTORY (9 November, 2019).

4. Yatti Soni, WhatsApp Payments India Launch May Get Delayed Over Data Localisation Concerns, Inc42 (9 October 2019).

5. Priyanka Pani, Bleak future for messaging app WhatsApp’s payment future in India, IBS Intelligence (9 November 2019).

Kenya passes new Data Protection Law

The Kenyan President, Uhuru Kenyatta recently approved a new data protection law in conformity with the standards set by the European Union. The new bill was legislated after it was found that existing data protection laws were not at par with the growing investments from foreign firms such as Safaricom and Amazon. There was growing concern that tech giants such as Facebook and Google would be able to collect and utilise data across the African subcontinent without any restrictions and consequently violate the privacy of citizens. The new law has specific restrictions on the manner in which personally identifiable data can be handled by the government, companies and individuals, and punishment for violations can to penalties of three million shillings or levying of prison sentences.

Further reading:

1. Duncan Miriri, Kenya Passes Data Protection Law Crucial for Tech Investments, Reuters (8 November 2019).

2. Yomi Kazeem, Kenya’s Stepping Up Its Citizens’ Digital Security with a New EU-Inspired Data Protection Law, Quartz Africa (12 November 2019).

3. Kenn Abuya, The Data Protection Bill 2019 is Now Law. Here is What that Means for Kenyans, Techweez (8 November 2019).

4. Kenya Adds New Data Regulations to Encourage Foreign Tech Entrants, Pymnts (10 November 2019).

Google gains access to healthcare data of millions through ‘Project Nightingale’

Google has been found to have gained access data to the healthcare data of millions through its partnership with healthcare firm Ascension. The venture, named ‘Project Nightingale’ allows Google to access health records, names and addresses without informing patients, in addition to other sensitive data such as lab results, diagnoses and records of hospitalisation. Neither doctors nor patients need to be told that Google an access the information, though the company has defended itself by stating that the deal amounts to “standard practice”. The firm has also stated that it does not link patient data with its own data repositories, however this has not stopped individuals and rights groups from raising privacy concerns.

Further reading:

1. Trisha Jalan, Google’s Project Nightingale collects millions of Americans health records, Medianama (12 November 2019).

2. Ed Pilkington, Google's secret cache of medical data includes names and full details of millions – whistleblower, The Guardian (12 November 2019).

3. James Vincent, The problem with Google’s health care ambitions is that no one knows where they end, The Verge (12 November 2019).

4. Rop Copeland & Sarah E. needlemen, Google’s ‘Project Nightingale’ Triggers Federal Inquiry, Wall Street Journal (12 November 2019).

Law professor files first ever lawsuit against facial recognition in China

Law professor Guo Bing sued the Hangzhou Safari Park after it suddenly made facial recognition registration a mandatory requirement for visitor entrance. The park had previously used fingerprint recognition to allow entry, however it switched to facial recognition as part of the Chinese government’s aggressive rollout of the system meant to boost security and enhance consumer convenience. While it has been speculated that the lawsuit might be dismissed if pursued, it has stirred conversations among citizens over privacy and surveillance issues which it is hoped will result in reform of existing internet laws in the nation.

Further reading:

1. Xue Yujie, Chinese Professor Files Landmark Suit Against Facial Recognition, Sixth Tone (4 November 2019).

2. Michael Standaert, China wildlife park sued for forcing visitors to submit to facial recognition scan, The Guardian (4 November 2019).

3. Kerry Allen, China facial recognition: Law professor sues wildlife park, BBC (8 November 2019).

4. Rita Liao, China Roundup: facial recognition lawsuit and cashless payments for foreigners, TechCrunch (10 November 2019).

Twitter to ban all political advertising

Twitter has taken the decision to ban all political advertising, in a move that increases pressure on Facebook over its controversial stance to allow politicians to advertise false statements. The policy was announced via CEO Jack Dorsey’s account on Wednesday, and will apply to all ads relating to elections and associated political issues. However, the move may only to prove to have symbolic impact, as political ads on Twitter are just a fraction of those on Facebook in terms of reach and impact.

Further reading:

1. Julie Wong, Twitter to ban all political advertising, raising pressure on Facebook, The Guardian (30 October 2019).

2. Makena Kelly, Twitter will ban all political advertising starting in November, The Verge (30 October 2019).

3. Amol Rajan, Twitter to ban all political advertising, BBC (31 October 2019).

4. Alex Kantrowitz, Twitter Is Banning Political Ads. But It Will Allow Those That Don't Mention Candidates Or Bills., BuzzFeed News (11 November 2019).

Delhi HC orders social media platforms to take down sexual harassment allegations against artist

The Delhi High Court ordered Facebook, Google and Instagram to remove search result, posts and any content containing allegations of sexual harassment against artist Subodh Gupta. These include blocking/removal of social media posts, articles and Google Search result links. The allegations were made about a year ago, by an unknown co-worker of Gupta on an anonymous Instagram account ‘Herdsceneand’. These allegations were also posted on Facebook and circulated by news reporting agencies. An aggrieved Subodh Gupta then filed a civil defamation suit, stating these allegations to be false and malicious. Noting the seriousness of the allegations, the Court passed an ex-parte order asking the Instagram account holder, Instagram, Facebook and Google to take down this content. The Court has now directed Facebook to produce the identity of the person behind the account ‘Herdsceneand’ in a sealed cover.

Further Reading:

1. Trisha Jalan, Right to be Forgotten: Delhi HC orders Google, Facebook to remove sexual harassment allegations against Subodh Gupta from search results, Medianama (1 October 2019).

2. Akshita Saxen, Delhi HC Orders Facebook, Google To Take Down Posts Alleging Sexual Harassment by Artist Subodh Gupta [Read Order], LiveLaw.in (30 September 2019).

3. Aditi Singh, Delhi HC now directs Facebook to reveal identity of person behind anonymous sexual harassment allegations against Subodh Gupta, Bar & Bench (10 October 2019).

4. The Wire Staff, Subodh Gupta Files Rs. 5-Crore Defamation Suit Against Anonymous Instagram Account, The Wire (1 October 2019)

5. Dhananjay Mahapatra, ‘MeToo’ can’t become a ‘sullying you too’ campaign: Delhi HC, Times of India (17 May 2019).

6. Devika Agarwal, What Does ‘Right to be Forgotten’ Mean in the Context of the #MeToo Campaign, Firstpost (19 June 2019).

Petition filed in Kerala High Court seeking a ban on ‘Telegram’

A student from National Law School of India, Bengaluru filed a petition in the Kerala high court seeking a ban on the mobile application - Telegram. The reason cited for this petition is that the app has no checks and balances in place. There is no government regulation, no office in place and the lack of encryption keys ensures that the person sending the message can not be traced back. It was only in June this year that telegram refused to hand over the chat details of the ISIS module to the National Investigation Agency. As compared to apps such as Watsapp, Telegram has a greater degree of secrecy. One of the features Telegram boasts of is the ‘secret chat’ version which notifies users if someone has taken a screenshot, disables the user from forwarding of messages etc. Further, there are fewer limits on the number of people who can join a channel and this makes moderation on the dissemination of information even more difficult. It is for this reason that telegram is dubbed as the ‘app of choice’ for many terrorists. It is also claimed that the app is used for transmitting vulgar and obscene content including child pornography. Several countries such as Russia and Indonesia have banned this app due to safety concerns.

Further Reading:

1. Soumya Tiwari, Petition in Kerala High Court seeks ban on Telegram, cites terrorism and child porn, Medianama (7 October 2019).

2. Brenna Smith, Why India Should Worry About the Telegram App, Human Rights Centre (17 February 2019).

3. Benjamin M., Why Are So Many Countries Banning Telegram?, Dogtown Media (11 May 2019).

4. Vlad Savov, Russia’s Telegram ban is a big convoluted mess, The Verge (17 April 2018).

5. Megha Mandavia, Kerala High Court seeks Centre’s views on plea to ban Telegram app, The Economic Times (4 October 2019).

6. Livelaw News Network, Telegram Promotes Child Pornography, Terrorism' : Plea In Kerala HC Seeks Ban On Messaging App, Livelaw.in (2 October 2019).

ECJ rules that Facebook can be ordered to take down content globally

In a significant ruling, the European Court of Justice ruled that Facebook can be ordered to take down posts globally, and not just in the country that makes the request. It extends the reach of the EU’s internet-related laws beyond its own borders, and the decision cannot be appealed further. The ruling stemmed from a case involving defamatory comments posted on the platform about an Austrian politician, following which she demanded that Facebook erase the original comments worldwide and not just from the Austrian version worldwide. The decision raises the question of jurisdiction of EU laws, especially at a time when countries are outside the bloc are passing their own laws regulating the matter.

Further Reading:

1. Adam Satariano, Facebook Can Be Forced to Delete Content Worldwide, E.U.’s Top Court Rules, The New York Times (3 October 2019).

2. Chris Fox, Facebook can be ordered to remove posts worldwide, BBC News (3 October 2019).

3. Makena Kelly, Facebook can be forced to remove content internationally, top EU court rules, The Verge (3 October 2019).

4. Facebook must delete defamatory content worldwide if asked, DW (3 October 2019).

USA and Japan sign Digital Trade Agreement

The Digital Trade Agreement was signed by USA and Japan on October 7, 2019. The Agreement is an articulation of both the nations’ stance against data localization. The trade agreement cemented a cross-border data flow. Additionally, it allowed for open access to government data through Article 20. Articles 12 and 13 ensures no restrictions of electronic data across borders. Further, Article 7 ensures that there are no customs on digital products which are electronically transmitted. Neither country’s parties can be forced to share the source code while sharing the software during sale, distribution, etc. The first formal articulation of the free flow of digital information was seen in the Data Free Flow with Trust (DFFT), which was a key feature of the Osaka Declaration on Digital Economy. The agreement is in furtherance of the Trump administration’s to cement America’s standing as being tech-friendly, at a time when most other countries are introducing reforms to curb the practices of internet giants like Google and Facebook, and protect the rights of the consumers. American rules, such as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shields companies from any lawsuits related to content moderation. America, presently appears to hope that their permissive and liberal laws will become the framework for international laws.

Further Reading:

1. Aditi Agarwal, USA, Japan sign Digital Trade Agreement, stand against data localisation, Medianama (9 October 2019).

2. U.S.-Japan Digital Trade Agreement Text, Office of the United States Trade Representative (7 October 2019).

3. Paul Wiseman, US signs limited deal with Japan on ag, digital trade,Washington Post (8 October 2019).

4. FACT SHEET U.S.-Japan Digital Trade Agreement, Office of the United States Trade Representative (7 October 2019).

5. David McCabe and Ana Swanson, U.S. Using Trade Deals to Shield Tech Giants From Foreign Regulators, The New York Times (7 October 2019).

RBI Releases Discussion Paper on Guidelines for Payment Gateways and Payment Aggregators

The RBI on 17th September released a discussion paper on comprehensive guidelines for the activities of payment aggregators and payment gateway providers. It was acknowledged that payment aggregators and payment gateways form a crucial link in the flow of transactions and therefore need to be regulated. The RBI has suggested that these entities be governed by the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 which requires all ‘payment systems’ (as defined in the Act) to be authorised by the RBI. Additionally, different frameworks have been proposed for regulating payment aggregators and payment gateways, and full and direct regulation has been discussed in detail. This would entail payment aggregators and gateway services to fully comply with any guidelines issued by the RBI.

Further Reading:

1. Trisha Jalan, RBI proposes regulation, licensing of payment aggregators and gateways, Medianama (18 September 2019).

2. Full regulation by RBI will require payment gateways, aggregators to be incorporated in India, The Hindu (18 September 2019).

3. Shayan Ghosh, RBI could bring payment aggregators, gateways under direct supervision, livemint (18 September 2019).

4. RBI paper on payment gateways: Maintain Rs. 100 crore net worth or wind up operations, moneycontrol, (19 September 2019).

Twitter removes more than ten thousand accounts across six countries

Political turmoil and instability in countries is majorly aggravated by the internet and various portals online. In light of this crisis, Twitter has decided to remove more than ten thousand accounts across six countries. These accounts were found to be actively spreading unrest in countries which were already in the wrath of a political turmoil. Twitter removed more than four thousand accounts in United Arab Emirates and China, around thousand in Ecuador, and more than two hundred in Spain.

Twitter has been making an active effort since the past one year to identify and remove accounts which were agitating sensitive issues in countries facing crisis. Online portals even have the power to sway the election processes in Democratic countries. In order to curb these impending threats, Twitter has been removing certain accounts on its platform. Even though thousands of new accounts are created everyday and several people have termed this removal process as arduous and never ending, these measures have to be taken.

Further Reading:

1. Trisha Jalan, Twitter removes 10,000 accounts from six countries for political information operations, Medianama (23 September 2019).

2. Ingrid Lunder, Twitter discloses another 10,000 accounts suspended for fomenting political discord globally, Tech crunch (20 September, 2019).

3. Abrar-al-Hiti, Twitter reportedly removes over 10,000 accounts that discourage voting, Cnet (2 November 2018).

4. Christopher Bing, Twitter deletes over 10,000 accounts, that sought to discourage voting, Reuters (3 November 2018).

California passes AB 5 Bill requiring business to hire workers as employees

California legislators approved a landmark Bill on 11 September, 2019 that has the potential to disrupt the gig economy. The Bill known as “AB 5” requires companies like Uber and Lyft to treat contract workers as employees, which gives hundreds of thousands of California workers basic labour rights for the first time. Apart from its immediate impact, the move by the California legislature might set off a domino effect in New York, Washington State and Oregon, where stalled moves to reclassify drivers might witness renewed momentum. The move has been criticised by ride-hailing firms Uber and Lyft which built their businesses on inexpensive labour, and the companies have warned that recognizing drivers as employees could destroy their businesses.

Further Reading:

1. Kate Conger and Noam Scheiber, California Bill Makes App-Based Companies Treat Workers as Employees, New York Times (11 September 2019).

2. Manish Singh, California passes landmark bill that requires Uber and Lyft to treat their driver as employees, Tech Crunch (11 Septemer 2019).

3. Rosie Perper, California passes landmark bill to treat contract workers as employees, sending it to the governor for signature, Business Insider (11 September 2019).

4. Alexia Fernandez Campbell, California just passed a landmark law to regulate Uber and Lyft, Vox (18 September 2019).

5. Andrew J. Hawkins, California just dropped a bomb on the gig economy — what’s next?, The Verge (September 18, 2019).

Microsoft Announces Change in Policies

Microsoft has stated that most large tech law companies, will change the manner in which content is moderated on their social media platforms, irrespective of the US Congress implementing new laws. Their Chief Legal Officer and President, Brad Smith has indicated that most companies will take initiative, irrespective of U.S. Lawmakers. The statement has been made in light of the recent Christchurch shootings which were livestreamed on most social media platforms. Further, major tech companies are responding to the changes in laws around the world. S. 230 of the U.S. Communications Decency Act, 1996 presently protects these companies from being sued on the basis of the content that is uploaded by its users. Microsoft itself has claimed that it has refused the government’s requests for facial recognition software due to the fear that it may be misused. The President of Microsoft has called for other tech companies as well to stop following the “if it’s legal, its acceptable approach” since companies need to start refusing selling their products to certain clients, irrespective of the legality of the action. However, ACLU, senior legislative council has accused Microsoft of continuing to sell software that can track faces and fear in real-time, leading to violation of privacy.

Further Reading:

1. Sheila Dang, Microsoft's Brad Smith: Tech companies won't wait for U.S. to act on social media laws, Reuters (13 September 2019).

2. Alex Hern, Microsoft boss: tech firm.s must stop 'if it's legal, it's acceptable' approach, The Guardian (20 September 2019).

3. Tom Simonite, Microsoft’s Top Lawyer Becomes a Civil Rights Crusader, MIT Technology Review (8 September 2019).

4. Microsoft’s Brad Smith: Tech Companies Won’t Wait For U.S. To Act On Social Media Laws, Communications Today (15 September 2019).

Facebook approaches SC in ‘Social Media - Aadhaar linking case’

In 2018, Anthony Clement Rubin and Janani Krishnamurthy filed PILs before the Madras High Court, seeking a writ of Mandamus to “declare the linking of Aadhaar of any one of the Government authorized identity proof as mandatory for the purpose of authentication while obtaining any email or user account.” The main concern of the petitioners was traceability of social media users, which would be facilitated by linking their social media accounts with a government identity proof; this in turn could help combat cybercrime. The case was heard by a division bench of the Madras HC, and the scope was expanded to include curbing of cybercrime with the help of online intermediaries. In June 2019, the Internet Freedom Foundation became an intervener in the case to provide expertise in the areas of technology, policy, law and privacy. Notably, Madras HC dismissed the prayer asking for linkage of social media and Aadhaar, stating that it violated the SC judgement on Aadhaar which held that Aadhaar is to be used only for social welfare schemes.

Facebook later filed a petition before the SC to transfer the case to the Supreme Court. Currently, the hearing before the SC has been deferred to 13 September 2019 and the proceedings at the Madras HC will continue. Multiple news sources reported that the TN government, represented by the Attorney General of India K.K. Venugopal, argued for linking social media accounts and Aadhaar before the SC. However, Medianama has reported that the same is not being considered at the moment and the Madras HC has categorically denied it.

Further Reading:

1. Aditi Agrawal, SC on Facebook transfer petition: Madras HC hearing to go on, next hearing on September 13, Medianama (21 August 2019).

2. Nikhil Pahwa, Against Facebook-Aadhaar Linking, Medianama (23 August 2019).

3. Aditi Agrawal, Madras HC: Internet Freedom Foundation to act as an intervener in Whatsapp traceability case, Medianama (28 June 2019).

4. Aditi Agrawal, Kamakoti’s proposals will erode user privacy, says IIT Bombay expert in IFF submission, Medianama (27 August 2019).

5. Prabhati Nayak Mishra, TN Government Bats for Aadhaar-Social Media Linking; SC Issues Notice in Facebook Transfer Petition, LiveLaw (20 August 2019).

6. Asheeta Regidi, Aadhaar-social media account linking could result in creation of a surveillance state, deprive fundamental right to privacy, Firstpost (21 August 2019).

Bangladesh bans Mobile Phones in Rohingya camps

Adding to the chaos and despair for the Rohingyas, the Bangladeshi government banned the use of mobile phones and also restricted mobile phone companies from providing service in the region. The companies have been given a week to comply with these new rules. The reason cited for this ban was that refugees were misusing their cell phones for criminal activities. The situation in the region has worsened over the past two years and the extreme violation of Human Rights is termed to be reaching the point of Genocide according to UN officials. This ban on mobile phones, would further worsen the situation in Rohingya by increasing their detachment with the rest of the world, thus making their lives at the refugee camp even more arduous.

Further Reading:

1. Nishta Vishwakarma, Bangladesh bans mobile phones services in Rohingya camps, Medianama (4 September 2019).

2. Karen McVeigh, Bangladesh imposes mobile phone blackout in Rohingya refugee camp, The Guardian (5 September 2019).

3. News agencies, Bangladesh bans mobile phone access in Rohingya camps, Aljazeera (3 September 2019).

4. Ivy Kaplan, How Smartphones and Social Media have Revolutionised Refugee Migration, The Globe Post (19 October 2018).

5. Abdul Aziz, What is behind the rising chaos in Rohingya camps, Dhakka Tribune (24 March 2019).

YouTube to pay 170 million penalty for collecting the data of children without their consent

Alphabet Inc.’s Google and YouTube will be paying a $170 million penalty to the Federal Trade Commission. It will be paid to settle allegations that YouTube collected the personal information of children by tracking their cookies and earning millions through targeted advertisements without parental consent. The FTC Chairman, Joe Simons, condemned the company for publicizing its popularity with children to potential advertisers, while blatantly violating the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act. The company has claimed to advertisers, that it does not comply with any child privacy laws since it doesn’t have any users under the age of 13. Additionally, the settlement mandates that YouTube will have to create policies to identify content that is aimed at children and notify creators and channel owners of their obligations to collect consent from their parents. In addition, YouTube has already announced that it will be launching YouTube Kids soon which will not have targeted advertising and will have only child-friendly content. Several prominent Democrats in the FTC have criticized the settlement, despite it being the largest fine on a child privacy case so far, since the penalty is seen as a pittance in contrast to Google’s overall revenue.

Further Reading:

1. Avie Schenider, Google, YouTube To Pay $170 Million Penalty Over Collecting Kids' Personal Info, NPR (4 September 2019).

2. Diane Bartz, Google's YouTube To Pay $170 Million Penalty for Collecting Data on Kids, Reuters (4 September 2019).

3. Natasha Singer and Kate Conger, Google Is Fined $170 Million for Violating Children’s Privacy on YouTube, New York Times (4 September 2019).

4. Peter Kafka, The US Government Isn’t Ready to Regulate The Internet. Today’s Google Fine Shows Why, Vox (4 September 2019).

Facebook Data Leak of Over 419 Million Users

Recently, researcher Sanyam Jain located online unsecured servers that contained phone numbers for over 419 million Facebook users, including users from US, UK and Vietnam. In some cases, they were able to identify the user’s real name, gender and country. The database was completely unsecured and could be accessed by anybody. The leak increases the possibility of sim-swapping or spam call attacks for the users whose data has been leaked. The leak has happened despite Facebook’s statement in April that it would be more dedicated towards the privacy of its users and restrict access to data to prevent data scraping. Facebook has attempted to downplay the effects of the leak by claiming that the actual leak is only 210 million, since there are multiple duplicates in the data that was leaked, however Zack Whittaker, Security Editor at TechCrunch has highlighted that there is little evidence of such duplication. The data appears to be old since recently the company has changed its policy such that it users can no longer search for phone numbers. Facebook has claimed that there appears to be no actual evidence that there was a serious breach of user privacy.

Further Reading:

1. Zack Whittaker, A huge database of Facebook users’ phone numbers found online, TechCrunch (5 September 2019).

2. Davey Winder, Unsecured Facebook Server Leaks Data Of 419 Million Users, Forbes (5 September 2019).

3. Napier Lopez, Facebook leak contained phone numbers for 419 million users, The Next Web (5 September 2019).

4. Kris Holt, Facebook’s latest leak includes data on millions of users, The End Gadget (5 September 2019).

Mozilla Firefox 69 is here to protect your data

Addressing the growing data protection concerns Mozilla Firefox will now block third party tracking cookies and crypto miners by its Enhanced Tracking Protection feature. To avail this feature users will have to update to Firefox 69, which enforces stronger security and privacy options by default. Browser’s ‘Enhanced Tracking Protection’ will now remain turned on by default as part of the standard setting, however users will have the option to turn off the feature for particular websites. Mozilla claims that this update will not only restrict companies from forming a user profile by tracking browsing behaviour but will also enhance the performance, User Interface and battery life of the systems running on Windows 10/mac OS.

Further Readings

1. Jessica Davies, What Firefox’s anti-tracking update signals about wider pivot to privacy trend, Digiday (5 September 2019).

2. Jim Salter, Firefox is stepping up its blocking game, ArsTechnica (9 June 2019).

3. Ankush Das, Great News! Firefox 69 Blocks Third Party Cookies, Autoplay Videos & Cryptominers by Default, It’s Foss (5 September 2019).

4. Sean Hollister, Firefox’s latest version blocks third-party trackers by default for everyone, The Verge (3 September 2019).

5. Shreya Ganguly, Firefox will now block third-party tracking cookies and cryptomining by default for all users, Medianama (4 September 2019).

Delhi Airport T3 terminal to use ‘Facial Recognition’ technology on a trial basis

Delhi airport would be starting a three-month trial of the facial recognition system in its T3 terminal. This system is called the Biometric Enabled Seamless Travel experience (BEST). With this technology, passenger’s entry would be automatically registered at various points such as check-in, security etc. Portuguese company- toolbox has provided the technical and software support for this technology. Even though this system is voluntary in the trial run the pertinent question of whether it will remain voluntary after it is officially incorporated is still to be answered. If the trial run is successful, it will be officially incorporated.

Further Reading:

1. Soumyarendra Barik, Facial Recognition tech to debut at Delhi airport’s T3 terminal; on ‘trial basis’ for next three months, Medianama (6 September 2019).

2. PTI, Delhi airport to start trial run of facial recognition system at T3 from Friday, livemint (5 September 2019).

3. Times Travel Editor, Delhi International Airport installs facial recognition system for a 3 month trial, times travel (6 September 2019).

4. Renée Lynn Midrack, What is Facial Recognition, lifewire (10 July 2019).

5. Geoffrey A. Fowler, Don’t smile for surveillance: Why airport face scans are a privacy trap, The Washington Post (10 June 2019).

UK Court approves use of facial recognition systems by South Wales Police

In one of the first cases of its kind a British court ruled that police use of live facial recognition systems is legal and does not violate privacy and human rights. The case, brought by Cardiff resident Ed Bridges, alleged that his right to privacy had been violated by the system which he claimed had recorded him at least twice without permission, and the suit was filed to hold the use of the system as being violative of human rights including the right to privacy. The court arrived at its decision after finding that “sufficient legal controls” were in place to prevent improper use of the technology, including the deletion of data unless it concerned a person identified from the watch list.

Further Reading:

1. Adam Satariano, Police Use of Facial Recognition Is Accepted by British Court, New York Times (4 September 2019).

2. Owen Bowcott, Police use of facial recognition is legal, Cardiff high court rules, The Guardian (4 September 2019).

3. Lizzie Dearden, Police used facial recognition technology lawfully, High Court rules in landmark challenge, The Independent (4 September 2019).

4. Donna Lu, UK court backs police use of face recognition, but fight isn't over, New Scientist (4 September 2019).

Uber likely to start bus service in India

The San-Francisco cab-aggregator giant, Uber is working on to kick-start an AC bus service in India. With the introduction of AC bus service, Uber is trying to inch closer toward its goals of reducing individual car ownership, expanding transportation access and helping governments plan transportation. Pradeep Parameswaran, Uber India and South Asia head said that “we are in the process of building the product and refining that. Some pilots are live in parts of Latin America and the Middle East. So they are the archetype of markets that would look like India”.

Uber bus will allow commuters to use the Uber app and reserve their seat on an air-conditioned bus. Uber will scan other passengers travelling in the same direction as the rider and hence reaching the destination with fewer stops. Through its bus service, Uber is emphasizing on educational campuses and business centers. Earlier Ola, Uber’s direct competitor, had launched similar kind of bus service in limited cities in 2015 but was stopped in 2018. At present, Gurgaon based Shuttl provides app based bus service to offices. Uber bus service in India is expected to become a reality in mid-2020.

Further Reading:

1. Moupiya Dutta, Uber will be starting a bus service in India by 2020, TechGenyz (8 August 2019).

2. Shreya Ganguly, Uber mulls launching bus service in India, Medianama (9 August 2019).

3. Tenzim Norzom, Ride-hailing major Uber to soon launch bus service in India, Yourstory (7 August 2019).

4. Hans News Service, Uber to start bus service in India, The Hans India (8 August 2019).

5. Priyanka Sahay, India may see Uber buses plying on roads in a year, Moneycontrol (8 August 2019).

WhatsApp Hack Can Alter Messages and Spread Misinformation

The Israeli Research Company, Check Point recently revealed that WhatsApp could be hacked causing serious potential security risks to users at the Annual Black Hat Security Conference on 7thAugust, 2019. According to Roman Zaikin and Oded Vanunu, they were able to change the identity of a sender, alter the text of someone’s reply on a group and even send private messages to another member in the group as a public message, such that the reply is visible to all the participants of a group. They were able to exploit the weaknesses of the application, after they reverse-engineered the source code in 2018 and decrypt its traffic. Since then Check Point has stated that it found three ways to manipulate and alter conversations, all of which are exploited through its quoting feature. The creators did warn WhatsApp in 2018 that the tool could be used by ‘threat actors’ to create and spread misinformation and fake news. Facebook has responded stating that the risk is not serious, and to alter the application would mean having to store data about the sender, leading to lesser privacy for its users.

Further Reading:

1. Davey Winder, WhatsApp Hack Attack Can Change Your Messages, Forbes (7 August 2019).

2. ET Bureau, WhatsApp hack attack can change your messages, says Israeli security firm, The Economic Times (7 August 2019).

3. Shreya Ganguly, Messages and identity on WhatsApp can be manipulated if hacked: Check Point Research, Medianama (9 August 2019).

4. Mike Moore, Hackers can alter WhatsApp chats to show fake information, Tech Radar (9 August 2019).

Facebook's new entity Calibra raises attention of privacy commissioners

Several privacy commissioners across the world raised concerns over the privacy policy of Facebook's new Libra digital currency. The countries which have raised concerns are US, UK, EU, Australia, Canada, Albania and Burkina Faso.

Calibra is the new subsidiary of Facebook and its cryptocurrency is called Libra. Calibra hopes to build a financial service on top of the Libra Blockchain. The privacy concerns raised go beyond the question of financial security and privacy because of the expansive collection of data which Facebook accumulates and has access to. Calibra issued a statement that user information will be shared in only certain circumstances but there is no definite understanding of what such situations are.

Apart from privacy concerns, the joint statement issued by the countries includes several concerns on whether Facebook should be given the right to get involved in the banking sector. If they did, they should seek a new banking charter and should be regulated by all the banking laws. These were few of the concerns raised by privacy commissioners.

Further Reading:

1. Soumyarendra Barik, Privacy commissioners from across the world raise concerns over Facebook Libra’s privacy risk, Medianama (6 August 2019).

2. Nick Statt, Facebook’s Calibra is a secret weapon for monetizing its new cryptocurrency, The Verge (18 June 2019).

3. Reuters, Facebook’s cryptocurrency project raises privacy concerns, asked to halt programme, tech2 (19 June 2019).

4. Jon Fingas, US, UK regulators ask Facebook how Libra will protect personal data, engagdet (8 May 2019).

5. Harper Neidig, Global privacy regulators raise concerns over Libra, The Hill (8 May 2019).

EU General Data Protection Regulation exploited to reveal personal data

University of Oxford researcher James Pavur successfully exposed a design flaw in the GDPR, as a bogus demand for data using the “right to access” feature of the regulation saw about one in four companies reveal significant information about the person regarding whom the request was made. Data provided by the companies contained significant information including credit card information, travel details, account passwords and the target's social security number, which was used by the researcher as evidence of design flaws in the GDPR. Pavur also found that large tech companies did well when it came to evaluating the requests, whereas mid-sized business didn’t perform as well despite being aware of the coming into force of the data protection regulation.

Further Reading:

1. Leo Kelion, Black Hat: GDPR privacy law exploited to reveal personal data, BBC (8 August 2019).

2. Sead Fadilpasic, GDPR requests exploited to leak personal data, IT ProPortal (9 August 2019).

3. John E Dunn, GDPR privacy can be defeated using right of access requests, Naked Security by SOPHOS (12 August 2019).

4. Understanding the GDPR’s Right of Access, Siteimprov (14 June 2019).

Apple to suspend human review of Siri requests

Human reviewers will no longer be used to study conversations recorded by Siri, according to a recent announcement by Apple. The move gives users a greater degree of privacy over their communications, and analysis of recordings will be suspended while the “grading” system deployed by the company is reviewed. The system refers to the manner in which contractors grade the accuracy of the digital assistant’s voice recognition system, with the primary task being to determine the phrase that triggered action by i.e. whether the user had actually said, “Hey, Siri” or if it was something else.

Further Reading:

1. Hannah Denham and Jay Greene, Did you say, ‘Hey, Siri’? Apple and Amazon curtail human review of voice recordings., Washington Post (2 August 2019).

2. Jason Cross, So Apple’s going to stop listening in on your Siri requests. Now what?, Macworld (2 August 2019).

3. Rob Marvin, Apple to Halt Human Review of Siri Recordings, PC Mag (2 August 2019).

4. Kate O’Flaherty, Apple Siri Eavesdropping Puts Millions Of Users At Risk, Forbes (28 July 2019).

US Justice Department’s Big Tech Antitrust Scrutiny

The past month saw a slew of antitrust investigations being opened against big tech companies such as Facebook, Google, Amazon, etc. From the EU’s announcement of an investigation into Amazon’s use of third-party retailers’ data, to the CCI’s order against Google for abusing its dominance in the Android market—the wave against Big Tech’s threats to fair competition has spanned jurisdictions.

In the latest development, the US Justice Department has decided to open a broad investigation into Big Tech companies. The investigation follows bipartisan calls from lawmakers for reigning in the threats posed by big tech to the competitive market. According to the agency, the effort aims to explore grievances raised by consumers and business regarding search, social media and online retail services. This could lead to a heightening of calls for Amazon, Google and Facebook to be broken up. Such companies, especially Facebook, have already faced heat for the way they handle vast amounts of data and jeopardise privacy of individual people.

Further Reading:

1. Tony Romm, Elizabeth Dwoskin & Craig Timberg, Justice Department announces broad antitrust review of Big Tech, The Washington Post (23 July 2019).

2. David McLaughlin, Did Big Tech Get Too Big? More of the World is Asking, The Washington Post (26 July 2019).

3. The Editorial Board, US Justice Department Must Make Antitrust Fit For the Age of Big Tech, Financial Times (28 July 2019).

Australia Competition and Consumer Commission Suggests Crackdown on Google and Facebook

Spelling further trouble for Big Tech, The Australia Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) submitted the Digital Report Inquiry on 26 July, 2019 which limits the market dominance of major players including Facebook and Google. The report had 23 recommendations to promote competition and increase privacy of consumers due to the lack of informed consent of consumers that presently exists. Josh Frydenberg, the treasurer of the ACCC, stated that a new division would “lift the veil” on the advertising and marketing algorithms being used by these companies. The division would also be able to conduct public inquiries and require companies to furnish any relevant information. Inquiries can be held about supply of ad services, sufficient transparency over prices and the existence of competition within the market. The report also recommended the implementation of the Australian Law Commission Report, which suggested the introduction of a statutory tort for serious invasions of privacy and a general prohibition on all unfair trade practices. Additionally, the Chairman of the ACCC, Rod Sims, stated that five investigations were underway against Facebook and Google and more could follow.

Further Reading:

1. Josh Taylor, Facebook and Google face tighter rules in Australia as ACCC releases report, The Guardian (26 July 2019).

2. Aditi Agarwal, Australian Anti-Trust Challenges Market Dominance of Google and Facebook in Advertising and Online News, Medianama (26 July 2019).

3. Holistic, Dynamic Reforms Needed to Address Dominance of Digital Platforms, ACCC (26 July 2019).

4. Tom Westbrook, Australia to 'lift veil' on Facebook, Google Algorithms to Protect Privacy, Reuters, (26 July 2019).

POCSO Amendment Bill expands child porn definition

The Protection of Children from sexual Offences (POCSO) Amendment Bill, 2019 introduced in Rajya Sabha by the Women and Child Development Minister Smriti Irani widened the definition of child pornography that now goes beyond videos. The amended definition now involves any photography, video, digital or computer-generated image indistinguishable from an actual child, and image created, adapted, modified, but appears to depict a child. A new section 15 has also been introduced, which proposes penalties for storage and possession of pornographic material involving children. Although the bill succeeded in garnering support from across the political spectrum, but few MPs criticised the bill for overtly emphasising on punishing the offenders and neglecting the measures to curb sexual assault of children and child pornography.

Further Reading:

1. PTI, POCSO Amendment Bill, With Death Penalty for Aggravated Sexual Assault, Gets Rajya Sabha Nod, News18 (24 July 2019).

2. Deepshikha Ghosh, Derek O’Brien shares sex abuse story, Smriti Irani praises his courage, NDTV (24 July 2019).

3. FP Staff, RS passes bill amending POCSO Act: A look back at case of Dhananjoy Chatterjee, last murderer-rapist to be hanged in country, Firstpost (25 July 2019).

4. PTI, Rajya Sabha passes POCSO (Amendment) Bill, 2019, The Hindu (24 July 2019).

5. Soumyarendra Barik, POCSO Amendment Bill expands child porn definition to 'any visual depiction of sexually explicit content involving children, Medianama (26 July 2019).

Committee recommends Ban on Private Cryptocurrencies in India

The Indian cryptocurrency market received a major jolt on 22nd July 2019, with the Inter-Ministerial Committee set up under the Chairmanship of Economic Affairs Secretary Subhash Chandra Garg recommending a ban on the use of such cryptocurrencies in India. Set up to look into the legality of cryptocurrencies and blockchain technology, the Committee submitted that private currencies should be completely banned in India, and drafted the Banning of Cryptocurrency & Regulation of Official Digital Currency Bill, 2019 which mandates a fine and imprisonment of up to 10 years for offences involving the use of such currencies. However, the Committee approved of the advantages of the underlying blockchain technology and floated the idea of an official RBI-backed cryptocurrency in the future, perhaps suggesting that the future of cryptocurrencies is yet to be resolved.

Further Reading:

1. Asit Ranjan Mishra, Panel favours cryptocurrency ban in India, Livemint (22 July 2019).

2. Mike Orcutt, India might ban cryptocurrency and give its users jail time, MIT Technology Review (25 July 2019).

3. Amol Agrawal, Private crypto ban: Has India gone overboard?, Moneycontrol (23 July 2019).

4. Vikash Kumar Bairagi, Proposed Ban on Cryptocurrency In India: An Analysis Of 'Banning Of Cryptocurrency & Regulation Of Official Digital Currency Bill, Livelaw (28 July 2019).

5. Suprita Anupam, The Aftermath Of India’s Cryptocurrency Ban: Start-ups, Investors Poke Holes In Govt’s Plan, Inc42 (23 July 2019).

ByteDance to invest USD 1 Billion in India over the next three years

Proclaimed to be among the most valuable start-ups in the world, ByteDance plans to invest USD 1 Billion in India over the next three years. ByteDance is the parent company of TikTok, a Chinese video making app which allows users to create and share videos online. On July 17th 2019, the cyber e-security arm of the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology sent a notice to TikTok and Helo raising issues related to anti-Indian activities. They were given an ultimatum to respond by July 22nd or face severe consequences. Previously, they had also faced a one week ban in April 2019. Despite all these encumbrances, ByteDance has a promising plan for India. It plans on investing USD 1 billion over the next three years. They would also be increasing the number of employees in India to 1000 by the end of this year. ByteDance implemented several regulatory and safety measures in order to comply with the cultural and political ideologies of the country.

Further Reading:

1. Ananya Chaturvedi, TikTok and Helo promise to collaborate after India threatens ban, Quartz India, (18 July 2019).

2. Aditi Agrawal, Byte Dance to open a data centre in India, Medianama, (22 July 2019).

3. PTI, TickTocks parent Byte-Dance plans USD 1 Billion investment in India in next 3 years, The Economic Times, (19 April, 2019).

4. IANS, How TickTock made Modi popular among young voters, The Economic Times, (25 May 2019).

5. PTI, TikTok's parent 'very optimistic' on India, to invest $1-bn in next 3 yrs, Business Standard, (19 April 2019).