governance, political economy, institutional development and economic regulation

Archive for the ‘technology’ Category

Data protection – new challenges but lame solutions

LOCK

Safeguarding your privacy from government and the use of your data by companies without asking you or paying you explicitly, are current concerns, even in under developed India, where more than one half of the population remains effectively unhooked to the internet because of patchy service in low population density areas.

The proposed solutions are pretty humdrum. A committee constituted by government under B.N. Srikrishna ( a retired judge of the Supreme Court) has adopted a please-all stance. A new legislation with new government agencies and draconian provisions for imposing penalties, modeled along the European approach seems to be the best that we can come up with.

An institutional approach to data protection

A new Data Protection Authority (DPA) is to be created as an “independent regulator” for monitoring, enforcement, standard setting, adjudication and grievance handling. Will this regulator work when so many others have failed to deliver? Only time will tell. But it cannot worsen the present levels of data protection. It may cost a bit more. But it will also create additional “good” jobs. So, on the whole, we should probably go for it.

A regulatory pancake is undesirable

The committee also recommends, somewhat surprisingly, that the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), which has the mandate to issue Aadhaar and manage its database, should also be given regulatory functions, its autonomy enhanced with enforcement powers over those entities which, in turn, are authorised to access the Aadhaar information. In addition, UIDAI will also become a data fiduciary regulated by the proposed DPA, like any other data fiduciary – all this via amendments in the Aadhaar Act.

This is convoluted, but it preserves the existing Aadhaar Act while also bringing the UIDAI under the mandate of the DPA. Clearly, this device diffuses potential resistance. However, wouldn’t it be sufficient for the UIDAI to be regulated by the DPA? The issue of data privacy in Aadhaar using fiduciaries could be directly regulated by the DPA. Data privacy leaks happen not within the UIDAI database, but in agencies like banks or food distribution centres which are required by the law or by executive order to access the Aadhaar base.

No reciprocity between citizen and State rights

In the context of private data protection versus the State, the committee’s recommendations are fairly status quoist. The committee has ceded regulatory ground, near completely, by exempting all authorities controlled by the government, as defined in Article 12 of the Constitution, from the need to obtain the consent of individuals (termed data principals by the committee). The only restraint is the triple test laid down by the Supreme Court (Puttaswamy case 2017) — State rights limited to those permitted by law; the principles of “necessary” and “proportionate” restraint on privacy and finally restrain only to promote a legitimate interest, such as the “security of the state”.

Trawling Big Data for security of the State

Civil society is almost certain to be unhappy that better and more explicit safeguards haven’t been suggested over public agencies to curb the practise of gathering “intelligence” or exercising “surveillance” in the manner of a “fishing expedition” — casting the net wide to gather all possible information.

The safeguard today is that approvals for interception, under the Telegraph Act 1885, are given by a three-person committee of top bureaucrats. The number of requests — around 8,000 per month — are huge. The secretary-level committee can only hope that their junior staff has sifted the requests carefully. A similar architecture exists in state governments. Under the Information Technology Act 2000, private information stored in computers can be similarly accessed for reasons of state, including crime prevention and detection.

The committee suggests that a new law is needed to exercise better oversight over intelligence-gathering, including wider parliamentary and judicial participation. That will take time. An earlier bill to regulate the functioning of the intelligence agencies had lapsed in 2011.

Cynicism on intra-State mechanisms to check abuse of data privacy are misplaced

Surely, even within the existing laws, there is much scope for improvement. Enhancing the capacity and willingness of government agencies to adopt a minimalist approach to data use is one such. Why not use artificial intelligence to handle the huge workload of identifying unreasonable requests or those drafted without proper application of mind? Why not empower the committee of top government officials to discipline line agencies submitting unreasonable requests? Further, can these high officials themselves not be disciplined if they fail in exercising due care? Why not have a group of ministers exercise regular and specific oversight over them? It is the minister, after all, who is answerable in Parliament.

Consider that the most egregious cases of privacy intrusion relate to the use of state power. A new law to improve state functioning is a narrow and time-intensive approach to the problem. It ignores the fact that “gold standard” laws in a poor, developing country, with massive functional illiteracy, does not really work.

Data is valuable “property”. Harness it to pay “data principals” for its use

The recommendations with respect to safeguarding privacy versus business interests are broadly aligned with the “gold standard” of the European Union General Data Protection Regulations of May 2018. We have a fatal instinct for legislating for gold, but settling finally for results equivalent to baser metals.

The committee has sought inspiration from the Directive Principles of the Constitution. Article 39(b) and (c) enjoin the State to work towards redistribution of the material resources of the community for the common good and to avoid the concentration of wealth and means of production. These are non-justiciable segments of the Constitution meant to guide lawmakers. It is worrying when the judiciary starts second-guessing the lawmakers.

Consider that applying these principles bluntly could mean, at an extreme , that data aggregation should be reserved for the public sector to avoid the concentration of wealth which private data aggregators like Amazon have achieved. This could kill the goose which lays the golden eggs. Reducing inequality is a legitimate concern. But the worst way of going about it is to socialise either the means of production or value creation. More significantly, these ideological considerations are misplaced whilst  thinking through what should be done to protect data without killing the value proposition embedded in its use.

Proposed restraints on business include stiff fines and draconian penal provisions 

JAIL

Businesses and bureaucrats will also view with considerable apprehension the recommendation that severe criminal liability should extend to incidents of “intentional or reckless” harm caused to data principals. That such offences should be “cognisable” — arrest by the police without a warrant and “non-bailable”. Experience shows in the case of criminal penalties, unlike in negotiations, the heavier the stick wielded, the lighter becomes its actual use. The low efficiency of our judicial system also needs to be considered. Such draconian provisions only serve to dissuade honest, lawful businesses, but do little to discipline criminal intent.

The direction for change recommended by the committee is positive, the narrative outstanding and the information collated impressive. An incremental, contextual approach and a near-term vision, would have helped earlier actualisation of its admirable intent.

Adapted from the author’s opinion piece in The Asian Age, August 3, 2018 http://www.asianage.com/opinion/columnists/040818/to-ensure-data-safety-a-better-vision-needed.html

Category:

bureaucracy, Business, India, technology

Tagged with:

Secrecy, privacy and property rights

access denied

Rahul Gandhi alleged, during last week’s doomed-from the-start no-confidence motion in Parliament, that corruption in the 2016 agreement signed by the Narendra Modi government to purchase 36 Rafale fighter jets from France had forced defence minister Nirmala Sitharaman to backtrack from her assurance to disclose details of the price of purchase.

Parliamentary subterfuge – unnecessary, if there is nothing to hide

The matter could have been ended by Ms Sitharaman admitting that being new, she had overlooked the confidentiality clause – a plausible explanation since military purchases are a tough, black box to unravel. Instead, the government chose to hit back by pinning the blame on a 2008 bilateral security agreement signed by the then UPA government with France. This needed both parties to protect classified information which could compromise the security and operational capability of the defence equipment of either.

It is quite a stretch to argue that keeping the price paid a secret meets the test of “necessity” or “proportionality” which guide how much a citizen’s right to know can be restricted. The Chinese or the Pakistanis couldn’t care less what the Indian taxpayer shelled out for the fighter jets.

They likely already know the specifications of our purchases. But at the same time corruption cannot be lightly presumed to be the reason why Ms Sithraman backtracked. Expect this unresolved debate to hang like an ominous cloud as the counter to the BJP’s allegations of corruption during the previous UPA government.

The underside of unrestrained privacy

Privacy is to individuals what secrecy is to the State.  The debate on privacy got muddied by the recent arraignment of WhatsApp for being the conduit of fake news, which incited vigilante violence and hate crimes.

WhatsApp encrypts content in its pipes end-to-end like no one else. Complete secrecy attracts 1.5 billion active monthly users and 60 million messages per day. Its end-to-end encryption cannot even be decrypted by its own administrators. This rabid commitment to secure the privacy of its users doesn’t align with the extant law and is as over-the-top as is our government’s thirst for secrecy. The fundamental right to privacy is restricted by other fundamental rights, including public order, security and those embedded in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, to which privacy was also mapped by the Supreme Court in 2017.

A fundamentalist view on the right to privacy has spawned “dark”, impenetrable means of communication, like WhatsApp. This is a precursor of what could happen if the “dark web” becomes the norm. Similarly, if crypto currencies are allowed to subvert a sovereign’s power to issue currency and bury crime-related financial transactions underground, catastrophe beckons.

WhatsApp managers initially expressed technological helplessness to regulate the unsavoury use of its technology. They are now making conciliatory noises with an eye to their bottomline. Non-compliance could jeopardise their application for adding-on a payments app in India.

Psst! I have a secret

Secrets

Why has WhatsApp been allowed to linger on and not simply told to shut shop, as is China. The bottom-up view is that encrypted communication has wide appeal across political parties and individuals. We all have secrets.

WhatsApp democratises the power to have secrets, unlike the Official Secrets Act 1923, which locates this power only within the State. WhatsApp allows everyone to have secrets. This suits freewheeling democratic India.The last word on the privacy of digital data will be from the Justice B.N. Srikrishna Committee on data protection. This committee, appointed in August 2017, has worked in unprecedented grand isolation. Presumably, things have been decided behind closed doors and the collective wisdom will be revealed in due course.

TRAI recommendations on data privacy and security mundane, at best 

But in chaotic India, surprises are routine. Days before the report was to be submitted, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) published, on July 16, 2018, its recommendations on privacy, security and ownership of data. The TRAI recommendations are unlikely to make the committee pause and think again. It is already broadly agreed that the individual’s ownership of data is paramount. But both the fundamental right to privacy and the right to property over data are restricted. If the necessary safeguards exist to mask sensitive and personal information, the plea of privacy loses force for denying access to data, at least to the State.

Artificial intelligence requires masses of data to train machines to think and behave better than humans. Anonymised data aggregated across a large number of individuals is more valuable than oil, in order to understand and predict contextual human behaviour.

Who is “Free riding” on data?

The debate on free riding on data has focused on how aggregators free ride on individuals data. However, if an aggregator “pays” explicitly for using individual data, ownership over data should stand transferred to the aggregator. Consider that in touristy locations across the world, locals demand a fee to be photographed. Such contracts, for non-anonymised data, with adequate safeguards, should be encouraged not pushed underground.

With respect to strictly anonymised data the right to deny or withdraw access to, despite adequate masking safeguards, can be viewed as anti-development and also at a stretch anti-national. At the very least, denying or withdrawing access to anonymised data should attract a cost to be paid, since it amounts to “free riding” on the technological benefits gained by others providing their anonymised data.

TRAI has passed up an opportunity to assert that the ownership of anonymised aggregate data should vest with the entity doing the aggregation if a specific contract exists with the data generator (app user). This needs to be clarified to retain the value proposition in data aggregation.

A market for anonymised data

Conversely, TRAI has ignored the need for a market to price data. A market exists even today. But it is an informal and non-transparent market which hurts the commercial interests of the individual data owner and puts the controller or processor of data in the driver’s seat. This information asymmetry can be removed through innovative institutional development to ensure that individuals are not shortchanged and have to sell their data cheap – much like innocent tribals selling their land for peanuts. If data is the new oil, it must priced accordingly.

Restore property as a fundamental right 

demolition

We have grossly neglected property rights in general and specifically in the context of  data management. Civil society mostly focuses on safeguarding the privacy aspect of data management. There is a reason for this. Unlike privacy, the right to property stopped being a fundamental right in India in 1978. This makes it difficult to challenge laws infringing on property rights.

Conversely, the higher judiciary has been indulgent in admitting public interest litigation  (writs) challenging laws threatening fundamental rights generally, so privacy gets privileged legally over property. Privacy rights also align with the need to decriminalise gay sex. It is an emotive issue. In comparison, a right to property seems almost crass, where 60 per cent of people own no land or electric consumer durables; 40 per cent of households live in just one room and can fit their possessions into a gunny sack.

But make no mistake. Socialism erred in hiving-off the right to property from human rights. Property is intrinsic to the right to privacy and liberty. But we will have to keep arguing till we fix this error, eventually.

Adapted from the author’s opinion piece in The Asian Age, July 24, 2017 http://www.asianage.com/opinion/oped/230718/whatsapp-row-on-secrecy-privacy-property.html

Category:

India, Judiciary and Law, Law and regulation, Public Institutions, RTI Act, technology

Tagged with:

TRAI should junk net neutrality

Chairman TRAI

Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), was once the gold standard for “light touch” regulation, in stark contrast to electricity regulators, who continue today, to be stuck in byzantine rate of return regulation and administering cross subsidy between classes of users.

TRAI loses industry focus

TRAI has changed since. Consider that on November 29 it recommended to the Department of Telecommunications (DOT) that rural users should get a limited amount of data for free, funded from the Universal Service Obligation Fund (USOF) managed by DOT. To the everlasting credit of DOT, this was shot down, as unnecessary and inconsistent with the basic objective of the USOF, which principally finances telecom infrastructure.

One third of the 250,000 gram-panchayats, targeted under Bharatnet, have been connected to broadband. Tenders have been finalized to connect an additional one half. But Bharatnet is still a work in progress. Diverting funds into revenue expenditure is unwise.

TRAI’s proposal would have taken telecom down the route of electricity regulation, where subsidies for agriculture and domestic users have proved intractable and sap the viability of the distribution utilities.

Intrusive regulation has become the norm for TRAI, suitably packaged as serving the interest of the “small” user. Regulatory experience shows that governments should steer clear of distorting business incentives by subsidizing one technology over another or by benefiting a set of users either at the expense of other users (cross subsidy) or at the expense of budgetary allocations (state subsidy).

Net neutrality has its adherents but is it backward looking

Net Neutrality

It is ironic that, way back in March 2015, Facebook had proposed a privately funded initiative to provide free access to limited or curated content, in collaboration with a Telecom Service Provider (TSP) to the same “small” users, whom TRAI now wants subsidized from public funds.

Curiously, this proposal was shot down by TRAI in February 2016 as violating “net neutrality”, cheered on by vocal, Indian “netizens”. Over 1 million netizens had jammed the servers of TRAI with outraged petitions against Facebook’s proposal. NASSCOM, which represents software and content providers, added its weight to the storm, thereby protecting the business interests of incumbent content providers.

Even IT gurus like Nandan Nilekani opposed the innovative intrusion into the cozy confines of Indian IT. Paying homage to “net neutrality” was, at the time, also justified by pointing to the elaborate systems, for protection of this concept, put in place by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the United States.

United States FCC to roll back “over regulation” and restore net freedom

Ajit PaiToday, a marginally Republican FCC, incidentally helmed by Indian origin, Ajit Pai, is rolling back, what it calls stifling “over regulation” of the net in the name of restoring freedom for innovation. To be sure 22 million US “netizens” have howled in orchestrated protest, against a rule change, seemingly, in favour of business. In this charged debate, anything which is pro-business is anti-consumer. A zero-sum view of commerce which is a familiar story in India.

Closer home, the November 28 recommendations of TRAI on “net-neutrality”, expectedly, carry forward the bloated carcass of Obama style intrusive regulation. TRAI is right in asserting that neutral traffic management is a technical ideal – selective blocking, slowing down or degrading specific content even when line capacity is available is banned. No one contests that generic principle.

Competition is aso an effective tool for optimisation

The real regulatory choice today is between competition in transmission, as a compelling instrument to simulate what “net neutrality” was supposed to do versus continuing with intrusive oversight over quasi-monopolistic transmission providers. Relying on and enforcing competition, seems a more effective, hands-off option in our pervasive, low-oversight ecosystem.

Another reason why “net neutrality” as a principle stands compromised is that increasingly, the transmission needs of content vary. With new services coming online, we will need multiple transmission protocols. Consider that online text need not be continuously streamed without detracting from reader pleasure. But online heart surgery support can be fatal unless continuous streaming is ensured. The same applies to internet access for driverless vehicles. TRAI has recognized these difficulties and the possibility that the Internet of Things will transform the rules for optimum scheduling of transmission.

Regulation by exception is non-transparent

TRAI’s solution falls short of transparent regulation. It has provided for exceptions, on a case-by-case basis, from “net neutrality” norms – for emergencies and unspecified “specialized services”. The latter are distinguished from general services by their targeted appeal to a narrow set of users.

Is net neutrality obsolete?

A better option would have been to review whether “net neutrality” itself is not obsolete because it will become riddled with exceptions. It was an important principle in the 1990s, to ensure market access for fledgling innovators in content provision by prescribing a merit order for getting past monopolistic telecom transmission utilities. But today competition is rife, both in transmission and in content provision. Possibly, the need of the hour for TRAI was to seek pathways downsizing regulations to simply protecting access, to basic internet services, for small users. High value-added services anyway, provide sufficient revenue incentives, for TSPs to push availability.

Providing net access remains a challenge

A massive challenge for India, per TRAI data, is that only one half of Indian citizens are connected to the internet as compared to 81 percent in the US and 76 per cent in China. Competition has reduced the access charge to affordable levels. But the quality of services is low because of under- investment in infrastructure.

Internet Service providers need new pools of revenue

Heavy penalties for non-compliance with quality standards can improve the quality of service. But TSPs finances are already under stress. Spectrum cost is high. If government earnings from spectrum are not to be reduced and user charges are to remain low, TSPs need to find new pools of revenue to fund infrastructure development. Their business models need to go beyond being just “passive pipes” – the role which “net neutrality” forces on them.

Software and content providers are not necessarily winners either in a net neutral environment. Consider that, in 2015 Facebook got stymied in India. But which Indian “edge provider” (jargon for content providers) gained from that blocking action? Rapid growth of infrastructure is the best option to fuel demand for content. This is a better incentive for innovation than protectionist regulation.

“Minimum government, maximum governance” is a Modi mantra. TRAI appears not to have been copied.

Also available at TOI Blogs December 6, 2017 https://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/opinion-india/trai-should-junk-net-neutrality/

Category:

Digital connectedness, Economy, India, technology

Tagged with:

Bad police work or “perfect” murders

Rajesh and Nupur Talwar were having an impromptu pre-birthday celebration for their daughter Aarushi, at their Noida residence on the evening of May 15, 2008. Their live-in, trusted house-help Hemraj was about, as usual. Some time before 6 am the next day, both Aarushi and Hemraj were dead — the victims of horrific violence inside the house. The Talwars say Hemraj killed Aarushi, but ascribe no motive for him to have done that. Also, they have no idea who killed Hemraj, or where. His bloodied body was found on the terrace, which was locked from outside. The key to it was never found.

Changing investigation agencies adds to the confusion on the ground

On May 23, 2008, the Uttar Pradesh police arrested Rajesh Talwar on suspicion of being the prime accused in the double murder. Unhappy with the way the UP police was conducting the investigation, the Talwars petitioned for the case to be transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation. Policing is a state subject under the Constitution. Unless the state government agrees, the CBI has no jurisdiction in such cases. But then UP chief minister Mayawati had no hesitation in letting the CBI carry the ball forward.

The CBI steps in…but shambolic investigations continue

By May 31, 2008 the CBI was officially in charge. By July 11, 2008, the CBI filed a report in the designated CBI court that there was insufficient evidence against Rajesh Talwar, who was consequently released on bail. The next three years were spent trying to find out who did it. Over this period four different investigating officers handled the case. Finally, A.G.L. Kaul, DSP, filed a closure report on January 1, 2011, citing the lack of any conclusive evidence to indict anybody.

CBI court starts proceedings against the Talwars suo motto

To their credit, the Talwars contested the finding and urged further investigations. The CBI court decided to proceed with the case. But it summoned the Talwars as the accused. Courts do have this power. But more usually, this happens when the police seems dilatory in lodging a first information report, not when a closure report has been filed by the police after investigations. The Talwars, possibly shaken by being named as the accused, moved the Supreme Court for relief. But their petition was dismissed. The outcome, two years later, on November 25-26, 2013 was that the Talwars were convicted by a CBI court for the double murders.

Allahabad High Court strikes down the conviction due to insufficient evidence

The Talwars appealed against these convictions. The Allahabad high court has, on October 12, 2017, ruled in favour of the Talwars. It held that the lower court had erred in considering the chain of circumstantial evidence adduced as being conclusive since multiple conclusions could be drawn from the same facts. This is only temporary relief for the Talwars. The CBI has 90 days to appeal to the Supreme Court. But the CBI also has a credibility issue, particularly within the Supreme Court. In 2013 the CBI was described, by a justice of the Supreme Court as a “caged parrot” of the government of the day.

The legal battle may not be over

In our topsy-turvy, anything-is-possible, adversarial, judicial system, the better argued case inevitably wins. It seems a one-sided battle. The Talwars will fight for their continued liberty, the restoration of normalcy and social standing. The CBI will fight to improve its record of convictions and to show that crime does not pay. Sadly, no one is fighting for Hemraj or for the wife and kids he left behind. As for 13-year-old Aarushi, it is difficult to say how she may have wanted things to pan out.

Too many questions, not enough answers

But with shoddy initial investigations and doubtful evidence, that has already been questioned exhaustively in the high court’s order, what another appeal will achieve remains unclear. Once the investigation is compromised the benefit of doubt doctrine ensures that the criminals walk free. Consider, even the weapons used for the murders remain unidentified – a golf club, a khukri, surgical scalpels, a hammer have all been mentioned as possibilities. The motive for murder remains unestablished. It is not even conclusive whether the flat was  locked from inside or not – this is important because it either points the finger of suspicion on the Talwars or opens up the possibility of others being involved. Aarushi’s phone was found and returned some days later by a colony maid. It had been wiped clean of all data. Who took it, wiped it clean and then tossed it aside in the colony? Too many loose ends remain uninvestigated, And what about Aarushi’s new camera – presented to her on the night of the murder? Was it also clean of evidence? Who killed Hemraj? Why and where? There are no evidenced answers.

Poor institutional arrangements for bringing criminals to justice

It is also tragic that despite transferring the case from the allegedly, bumbling UP police — supposedly, more familiar with law and order rather than tricky, crime investigations — to the more savvy and efficient CBI, the results are so pathetic. Justice for Hemraj and Aarushi remains elusive even a decade after.

To be fair to the CBI, conventional crime is not its core mandate. Investigation of economic offences and corruption is its forte. Since 2008, terror-related crime investigations have already been hived off to the new National Investigation Agency (NIA), which can, seamlessly, also deal with crime having national consequences or cross-state crime networks.

Conventional crime is usually dealt by the state police. The deleterious trend of frequent transfer of cases to the CBI dates to the early 1980s. It enables forum shopping, scratch my back bargains and politicisation. It also discourages state police forces from developing their expertise and practices for investigating and prosecuting crime.

The double murder does not qualify for the CBI’s attention. Delhi records 598 murders and Uttar Pradesh 4,860 murders per year. The Aarushi-Hemraj case, however horrific, is a personal tragedy of only two families. The public outcomes are negligible. Its investigation could have remained with the UP police. Transferring the case to the CBI has only muddied things at the field level and encouraged finger-pointing. The then director of the CBI had this to say, in 2014, as part of a tribute to the untimely demise of A.G.L. Kaul, SP, CBI, the last investigating officer: “Despite the many lacunae and loopholes, due to the fact that the case had been handled initially by the UP Police, (Kaul) was able to obtain a conviction.”

Doubtful if India can be policed well from Delhi

Till recently, there was a tendency to centralise financial and administrative resources in the Union government on the grounds of higher efficiency and rectitude. This is self-defeating. The surest way of retaining power is to distribute it to where it can best be administered. The CBI must be honed to do its primary task — bringing moneyed crooks to justice.

Central police organisations are hopelessly outdated in their staffing pattern, skills and equipment. They need knowledge and technology to collect intelligence, investigate and prosecute. Boots on the ground look great in the Republic Day parade. But they are costly and ineffective in tackling 21st century criminals. Leaner, officer-oriented, specialised and mobile security agencies are really the way to go.

Adapted from the author’s article in The Asian Age October 17, 2017 http://www.asianage.com/opinion/columnists/171017/sloppy-cbi-police-work-gives-a-licence-to-kill.html

Category:

crime, India, technology

Tagged with:

Privacy – an elite fantasy

privacy

Elite concerns are usually disconnected from the ground reality. For the 1 per cent of Indian who live privileged, cocooned lives, the judicial right to privacy created by the Supreme Court yesterday will add yet another layer with which they can insulate themselves from the “barbarians at the gate”. So, here is what the rich may now be able to do which they couldn’t earlier.

Is the right to euthanasia next?

First, they may now be able to refuse medical treatment and die in their beds, peacefully, instead of being compulsorily hooked up to tiresome, life-saving machines in hospitals. But try explaining this “right” to the millions of poor Indians for whom just getting admitted to hospitals is still a dream and refusing treatment would be unimaginable.

Deletable past lives

Second, the well-heeled may now be able to press for being judicially forgotten – all traces of their past lives and identities expunged, giving them a fresh start without having to flee to distant London or arid Dubai. Contrast this with the Herculean efforts the average Indian makes to become part of a database and have an officially recognized identity – a voter card, a passport, a PAN card, anything which proves that she exists.

LGBT sex may become legitimate

Third, those with alternative lifestyles – the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual Transgender (LGBT) community might now hope to be free of the notoriously archaic Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalizes everything other than straight sex. But would this give them the right to marry a partner of their choice; adopt children or be socially accepted?

Evidencing crime will become harder

Now ponder the downsides. Law enforcement agencies struggle to manage terrorism, Naxalism, urban mafiosi, drug pushers and armed rural gangsters even today. “Privacy” concerns will provide a legal shield to undermine information collection, crime detection and investigation. Nothing less than the over-the-top, draconian Armed Forces (Special Provisions) Act – used today only in the “disturbed” areas in Kashmir and parts of the North East – would be effective. Since gangsters can afford to hire the best lawyers, the violation of their fundamental right to privacy in the process of enforcing the law, will now become a favourite ploy to keep these worthies free to wreak havoc.

How intrusive is the Indian State anyway?

Will this fundamental to privacy help the 200 million slum dwellers or the unknown millions who sleep under the stars on urban streets? Is not our fear of the “big State” overblown? The India I know is under policed, under governed and under regulated. There is a plethora of agencies, laws and rules to bind down anyone and yet very few – mostly the timid, those mindful of their public image and the law respecting middle class get intimidated by the legal spaghetti. The rich buy their way out of any mess and the poor are so inured to danger and risk that it is second nature for them to live with uncertainty.

Biometric targeting of beneficiaries to be abandoned?

Take the case of Adhaar for verifying the identity of those using the Public Distribution System (PDS). Recent studies in Jharkhand by responsible social scientists – Jean Dreze and Reetika Khera – found that 15 percent of the eligible PDS beneficiaries were excluded because of technical glitches or access problems in using Aadhar as a test of identity. But 85 percent of the beneficiaries were targeted correctly. If the right to privacy eliminates the use of Adhaar, we will be back to what Rajiv Gandhi famously called the 25 percent approach to poverty reduction – where 75 percent of the funds are siphoned-off by intermediaries. How and why would a reversion to a system which has huge inclusion errors (ineligible people getting benefited) be any better?

Big data to be throttled?

Finally, consider how retrograde is the fight by “right to privacy” advocates against big data. It is big data – the billions of pieces of information on human behavior and preferences linked to specific human demographics, which enables algorithms to predict trends, thereby aligning products and services with customer needs. This is what makes big data commercially valuable. In price sensitive markets like India, telecom and e-commerce penetration is being driven by the potential to monetize big data. Putting brakes on this process means putting brakes on the rolling out of technology services which will become more expensive if the actual user is to pay for them.

India lost an opportunity in 2014 when facebook- Bharti Airtel wanted to roll out free internet services on mobiles. TRAI regulations ensured that this venture never took off, thereby slowing down internet access for all except the 300 million people in the upper most income segments who can afford it.

Tilting at windmills

Nandan Nilekani is now an evangelist against “digital colonialism” in the context of tech majors like Google and Amazon aggressively expanding their presence in India. We should be wary of tech industry insiders playing the “anti-foreign” card. Similar attempts were made by the infamous “Bombay Club” to scuttle the 1992 economic liberalization. Their contention was that liberalizing the domestic market was fine but Indian industry should continue to be protected from foreign competition. We are fortunate that the government of the day paid no heed to this self-serving agenda.

Keep India open for competition

India is a big economy with very shallow industrialization. We need to remain open to all economic actors – domestic and foreign who want to invest in India. It would be a huge mistake to emulate the xenophobia of the United States and draw up our bridges. Data is the new oil. Data security needs to be ensured, irrespective of whether data is stored in India, or overseas. But generating anti-foreign hysteria is not in our interest as we try to integrate into global supply chains and become a part of the global value creation eco-system.

It is easy enough to legislate rights. We have many notional rights. Creating a level playing field for all citizens to enjoy these rights, equally, is another matter altogether.

Also at http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/opinion-india/privacy-an-elite-fantasy/

Category:

Economy, India, Law and regulation, poverty, Public Institutions, technology

Tagged with:

Indian Railways: Slow and unsafe

suresh prabhu

It seems to be raining rail accidents these days, with two in swift succession. The hapless Suresh Prabhu is a good general but an unlucky one. He made sweeping changes in Indian railways (IR) since November 2014 when he became Minister. Most dramatic was his willingness to diminish his “empire” by merging the rail budget with the national budget. Similarly, far reaching was his delegation of financial powers for purchase and contracts away from the moribund Railway Board to the General Managers of the sixteen different railway systems which manage operations. Good management practise, yes. But more importantly it severed the ministerial potential for graft. Not many ministers have done similarly elsewhere.

Suresh Prabhu – a good but unlucky minister

Mr Prabhu has offered to resign owning up moral responsibility. Prime Minister Modi may have to let him go, reluctantly. Such is the dharma of politics. Having another accident on his watch would be unacceptable! Of course accidents are unlikely to stop merely by replacing the minister. Data collected by the National Crime Records Bureau records that in 2014 IR suffered 28,360 accidents or 78 accidents per day. So the chances of an accident happening, anytime, are high.

IR is low on transparency 

IR would have us believe otherwise. In a document titled “Transforming Railways, Transforming India” issued in 2016, reviewing achievements since 2014, the number of accidents over the period 2009-2014 is mentioned as an average of 135 per year which resulted in 693 deaths. The National Crime Record Bureau data puts the number of deaths from railway accidents in 2014 as 25,006, with an additional 3,882 people injured. The discrepancy between the IR and the NCRB database is due to creative use of data by IR, which reports only “consequential” accidents involving derailments or collisions. The NCRB data is comprehensive and based on the First Information Report filed with the police for all accidents connected with rail travel.

IR not to blame for 62 percent of accidents

To be sure, not all the 25,006 railway accidents in 2014 were due to the fault of IR. 62 percent of these accidents occurred due to “people” error – travellers walking negligently on railway tracks and getting run over or falling from over full trains. But even around 11,000 accidents  year is worrisome.

Rail still safer than road transport

To be fair to IR, their safety record should be compared with the other option available to travelers – road travel. The safety record of road travel is even worse. NCRB data for 2014 records 450,900 road accidents in that year with 141,526 deaths and 477,700 injured. The combined length of the National and State Highways, which carry the bulk of the traffic, is around 220,000 km or twice the length of rail track. The number of accidents however is 16 times more; the number of deaths is 6 times more and the number of injuries is 123 times more. Whilst the safety of road travel is a poor metric to use, it does provide a perspective of the objective conditions, in which IR operates.

Other than the likely moving out of Suresh Prabhu and the resignation of the the Chairman of the Railway Board, the other – more worrisome fall out – is going to be a typical short-term, defensive response of putting safety above all else. No private utility could have survived without doing as much, routinely. Consider,how tangled the Nuclear Power negotiations became when government legislated to put the onus of criminal and civil liability for accidents on the private sector suppliers of nuclear power equipment. But government service providers have more leeway in avoiding criminal action against them for safety lapses.

Safety or speed – a false binary

But the fact is that choosing between fast, modern trains and safe travel is a false binary. The populist, Luddite approach of slowing down the speed of trains, to avoid mishaps, is like asking car owners to go back to Ambassadors to reduce the risk of accidents by traveling slower. Technology allows you to travel both faster and safer. Air travel is for example both faster and safer than road travel. The Hyper Loop, when it arrives, is expected to boost both safety and speed at lower cost. The Indian Railways compete with other means of transport like road and air. It must provide the expected level of speed, convenience, comfort and safety which comparable transport options already embed. It has failed to do that, thereby losing marketshare to road transport over the last two decades.

Just as high-speed highways and the growing network of air routes has changed the way Indians travel, the Railways must also offer a bouquet of services to suit the differentiated needs of specific routes and category of customers. High-speed, premium railway transport on high-density routes radiating out from the hubs of Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata and Chennai can transform travel by rail. Similarly, the rapid expansion of metro lines is a smart option to reduce the urban carbon footprint and road congestion.

Both speed and safety are a function of reliable track infrastructure adequately insulated for unregulated traffic ingress and suitable rolling stock. The planned high speed, dedicated, rail traffic corridors intend to achieve precisely these objectives – much like expressways do in highways.

Sans investment, neither safety nor speed is possible

None of this — speed, safety or security — is possible, unless we step up investment in Indian Railways. We cannot manage the 108,000 km of track and 11,000 trains which run daily, by jugaad, penny pinching, dodgy maintenance schedules and techniques, antiquated rolling stock, poorly trained and equipped personnel and management systems, which have not changed since the first train ran in 1853.

Corporatize IR for efficiency enhancement

Indian Railways must be corporatized so that it can shine like other public-sector companies like National Thermal Power Corporation, Indian Oil Corporation and Steel Authority of India. This is impossible as a government department because the administrative and financial rules are unsuited to the dynamics of running a business.

rail repair

Shun politics – Let IR become commercially viable

Railway tariff cannot be subject to politics. The same passenger who has no problem paying Re 1 per km for bus travel between cities pays just 28 paise per km of second class, rail travel and 45 paise per km in reserved sleeper class. Suburban rail travellers pay just 18 paise per km. This is an unsustainable and unnecessary subsidy, undeservedly enjoyed, mostly by the middle class. Rail tariff for non-AC travel must be increased to remunerative levels, thereby generating funds for improving the quality of services.

The spate of accidents has focused public attention on the need to restructure IR. What needs to be done is well known – using technology across the service delivery chain – track development and maintenance; signaling; rolling stock; communication; disaster relief and management systems. But none of this will happen unless Indian Railways is set free from the bureaucratic constraints which bind down its management cadres today. We can save lives, reduce the fiscal burden, improve rail services and make the economy more efficient by corporatizing IR.  Time to walk the talk on good economics also being good politics.

Adapted from the author’s article in The Asian Age, August 24, 2017 http://www.asianage.com/opinion/oped/240817/making-trains-safer-and-faster.html

Category:

bureaucracy, corruption, Economy, India, Infrastructure, technology

Tagged with:

How to junk cash and when

cash-2

Going cashless is a good idea. For the government, the biggest gain is an easy audit trail to assess individuals and businesses to tax and to ferret out illegal transactions like the financing of crime, terror, smuggling and drugs. For individuals, plastic (payment cards) and e-money provides far greater security, despite the risk from cybercrime. Businesses also gain. Studies of consumer behaviour show that paying by card or e-money encourages you to spend more than you would otherwise.

So it is no surprise that Prime Minister Narendra Modi, a man in a rush, is pushing the country to abandon cash. But how far are we from the point where a cashless economy can kick in? A US study in California noted in 2012, that even in the case of those who state a preference for paying by card, there is a 49 percent probablity that they will settle payments less than $20 by cash. The probability drops to 8 percent  for payments above $20. In India the inverse is true. At least, 95 per cent of personal consumption related transactions in numbers (not volume) are in cash.

Access to bank accounts is key for going cashless 

bank-access

A 2015 World Bank survey established that increasing the number of banked adults in the economy is the most relevant intervention till one reaches the level of around 800 accounts per 1,000 adults. India stands at a ratio of 480 accounts per 1,000 adults. This is pretty far from the point after which increase in the number of bank accounts cease to matter. Nevertheless, the extension of banking services in India is impressive given the scale of poverty, illiteracy, gender discrimination and the sparse spread of bank branches, particularly in rural areas — just around 40,000 for six lakh villages and a population of 800 million or on average 1 bank branch per 20,000 people..

“Barefoot” banks

post

The high level of poverty in rural areas; low savings and consumption levels make rural branches uneconomic. So innovative mechanisms should be developed to provide “barefoot” banking to the poor. This is virtually impossible via our clunky and inefficient public sector banking system. The Reserve Bank of India revolutionised the licensing of payment banks earlier this year by bringing in a “year-around”, entrepreneur-driven approach of welcoming proposals for opening payment banks -which provide less than the full range of banking services- without inviting proposals for bank licensing through formal rounds, as previously. We need to pursue this approach and establish at least a “payment only” bank branch for every cluster of 5,000 adults. But inevitably this will take time.

e-money is a low cost, “quick win”, to digitise payments

A faster way of displacing cash payments is to scale up the use of e-money. Across economies which do not have universal financial access, over the period 2010 to 2015, the number of e-money accounts have grown at the rate of an astonishing 63 per cent per annum — more than triple the rate at which bank accounts have increased over. Mobile money accounts comprise 55 per cent of such e-money accounts. But, in India, e-money continues to languish at merely 10 per cent of transactions.

Getting merchants digitally ready for Point of Sale applications.    

A more serious missing link for ramping up cashless transactions is the relative scarcity of point of sale (POS) acceptability of cashless transactions. Easy access to POS ready merchants and vendors is key for building the credibility of plastic money as an alternative to cash.

card_swipe_machine

Photo courtesy: thehindu.com

This is a chicken and egg situation. Merchants do not see the value of accepting e-money payments unless enoigh people want to use them. Also, mechants lose interest on the deferred payments into their accounts. On top of this card providers charge merchants upto 3 percent of the transaction value for the service. All this pushes up the prices of customer purchase price of products. Customers in turn, try and dodge the servive tax and additional charges which comes with buying digitally. No wonder then that a mere 1.5 million commercial entities accept cashless transactions in India. Compare this with the 44.7 million registered micro, small and medium enterprises (comprising industrial and service related businesses) with an investment ranging from Rs 1 to 50 million, estimated in India by the 2006 SMSE survey. Bringing all these service providers into the POS net expands the market by an order of magnitude. Why not start by first “Carpet bombing” commercial entities in the 50 largest cities in India, with assistance and persuasion to say no to cash? Lets start by making cities cashless first and let the smaller towns and rural areas follow in an orderly manner.

Make cash transactions more expensive than digital ones

One cannot develop an entire ecosystem for junking cash by fiat alone. The incentive structure, which today privileges cash settlement because of its lower transaction cost, must be reviewed and reversed. The government started the RuPay debit card in 2014 with the hope that it would compete with the international biggies in the business — MasterCard and Visa – and make them look more seriously at the potential fortune which lies at the bottom of the pyramid — the small transactions end of the market.

India has 26 million credit cards and 712 million debit cards. But their use is low at just 12 times per debit card every year at an ATM and barely two transactions per year per debit card at a POS. The corresponding numbers are less than 1 transaction for a credit card at an ATM and 38 at a POS. In comparison in high income economies cards or e-money options are used to conduct around 280 transactions a year per person. We are a long way off from the frontier of cashless transactions. The good news is that we are better off than low and middle-income countries, which averaged just 22 cashless transactions per year per person.

pan

Plastic money becomes expensive to use if the individual transactions are small. Typically, micro-transactions of less than $5 (Rs 340) are not viable through plastic money and would need to be cross-subsidised. This is where e-money becomes the most appropriate vehicle to mop up the micro-transactions market which could account for as much as two-thirds of the total transactions. After all, cigarettes are still sold as singles in India; a paan (betel) costs just Rs 20 and a street meal is Rs 100.

Build the eco-system for expanding payments beyond traditional banks

If the government is serious about junking cash it must engage with commercial entities which have a large , diversified customer base to leverage for diversifying into the payments space. Phone carriers, progressive electricity utilities and the Railways are some options. They can quickly scale up the use of digital money by their customers in collaboration with e-pay platforms and provide some assurance to merchants against the risk of not realising the payments from the e-pay platform. Developing a “reward” based strategy to move 50 per cent of commercial transactions above Rs 500 to digital settlement by 2020 is a reasonable target.

There are some limitations which need to be overcome or gone around- the poor quality of electricity supply, dodgy net connectivity and the additional cost that needs to be borne to digitise small-value transactions via POS arrangements. Regional hackathons to find solutions to specific barriers can pay rich dividends. They can create an ecosystem of innovative thinkers focused on solving the problem. The future is digital. Engage millennials to figure out how to fast forward us there, out of turn.

Adapted from the authors article in the Asian Age November 28, 2016 http://www.asianage.com/opinion/columnists/281116/in-rush-to-go-digital-dont-junk-cash-yet.html

 

Category:

banking, Economy, India, technology

Tagged with:

Is a machine kicking u out?

 

only-humans

Davenport and Kirby’s book “Only Humans Need Apply” Harper.2016 comes with a whiff of optimism and plenty of specific practical advice- based on real life cases- for professionals – scientists, radiologists, teachers, actuaries, financial analysts, lawyers and all “knowledge workers” who fear loss of jobs. This is where it is different from the previous, scarily sensational non-fiction on machines versus humans. The title is an inversion of Jerry Kaplan’s memorable “Humans Need Not Apply”.

Yes, computers are after your job.

loss-job

Yes, computers could be coming after your job. And yes, machines are very smart and becoming smarter. So ignoring them or trying to compete against them is a zero-sum game- the machine will win and you will lose. John Henry, a West Virginia driller learnt that in 1870. He competed against a steam powered drill. He won- only to die from over exertion soon after.

Dirty, dangerous, physically demanding and highly structured jobs like on an industrial production line have been doomed since the 1990s. The US lost more jobs to automation at home, than to outsourcing to India. This trend will worsen. Even “knowledge workers”, highly educated professionals – 25 to 50 percent of the workforce in advanced economies- will get flooded out via automation by 2040. McKinsey estimates automated systems will replace the equivalent of between 110 to 140 million human jobs, by as early as 2025.

Five ways to win the battle

comp battle.jpg

The way out is “augmentation”- keeping humans at the center whilst farming out work machines can do better, as opposed to “autonomy”- progressively substituting humans with machines. Steve Jobs illustrates – a human, “augmented” with a bicycle, becomes far more energy efficient that even a condor, the most energy efficient of all species. Augmentation is more than mere “complementarity” or co-existence with machines. It means actively collaborating with automation and artificial intelligence to sharpen our skills in areas where humans are most competitive.

Take apart your job into two components – structured tasks which can be codified and tasks which cannot – or at least not just yet. Focus on honing the latter. The former will be automated. You have five options to adapt to the future.

Step in: You can’t beat them so collaborate

step-in

You can “step in” by learning how machines can offload your “dodo”, routinized tasks, thereby freeing up space for your core “human” skills. This presents the largest opportunities to partner machines, oversee them, point out errors they have made or help in improving them.

Step forward: Join the race to make computers better

computer-engineer

You could also “step forward” by acquiring the highly specialized quant skills, engineering knowledge and coding expertise needed to create newer and better machines. But the skill requirements would be of a very high level with the need for continuous upgrades.

Step up: Use computers to widen or deepen decision making skils

step-up

“Step up” options involve honing the expertise to take unstructured decisions by integrating information from multiple sources. Warren Buffet defines one such which defies codification – what should a car driver do if the choice is either to mow down a child, who has strayed onto the road, or to plough into a car with four adult passengers? Complex, corporate “trade-offs” in business strategy are no different.

Step aside: Develope skills in managing human behaviour 

ben-bernanke

Others may prefer to “step aside” or take up jobs machines cannot do, like explaining in plain language, to an irate Ben Bernanke, the erstwhile Chairman of the US Federal Reserve, why a computer assessed him as too risky for a mortgage refinance or building relationships in business.

Stepping narrow: Specialise in what computers can’t do.

falconer

“Stepping narrow” is the fifth option. These are jobs so specialized and so restricted- like dealing with special kids or translating lost languages -that they lack the scale required to make automation efficient. In 1997 film maker Errol Morris featured four such narrow specialisations – a topiary gardener, a lion tamer, an authority on the colony behavior of naked mole rats and ironically Rodney Brooks – inventor of autonomous robots.

Computers are  like a horse or a car: They get you where u want to go

Is automation, Keynes’ leisure filled utopia, or a jobless dystopia, scarred by rising inequality and violence? Elon Musk thinks artificial intelligence is “our biggest existential threat”. Stephen Hawking warns that it “could spell the end of the human race”. Bill Gates wonders why “some people are not concerned”.  The authors are clearly not concerned. Nor are 52 percent of nearly two thousand experts polled by PEW. But the near term problem of managing the transition, particularly in poor countries like India, remains a public concern. The authors rightly debunk the option of universal income transfers, as short term palliatives –like NREGA in India – with potentially negative fiscal and work-ethic related unintended consequences.

Governments need to teach us differently for us to adapt

Governments need to reorient education. The focus on science, technology and quant skills is good for those who step in, up or forward. But one half of workers will be stepping aside or narrowly. Education policy does little to encourage these skills. Corporates should get incentives for generating “humans-only” work as Innovation for Jobs (i4j) is doing. International regulation of autonomous machines and artificial intelligence is critical, but absent. We need to collectively “trade off” the benefits from automation against the social cost of increasing joblessness and inequality. Such complex decisions should be a humans-only skill. Unfortunately, we have rarely made wise public choices. This skill needs to be augmented. A first step could be all those concerned reading this book.

Adapted from the authors book review in Business Standard weekend October 22, 2016 http://www.business-standard.com/article/specials/human-factors-in-the-automation-debate-116102101369_1.html

i4j

Category:

Economy, India, jobs, technology

Tagged with:

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: