Tag: Amazon

Metadata by TLF: Issue 13

Posted on by Tech Law Forum @ NALSAR

Welcome to our fortnightly newsletter, where our reporters Kruttika Lokesh and Dhananjay Dhonchak put together handpicked stories from the world of tech law! You can find other issues here. [Ed Note: This newsletter has been prepared by Dhananjay Dhonchak and Sanchit Khandelwal]

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.

Read more

Algorithms: Can They Collude?

Posted on by Tech Law Forum @ NALSAR

This piece has been authored by Lokesh Vyas, a fourth year law student at Institute of Law, Nirma University, Ahmedabad. Here, he gives a lucid explanation of issues posed by the increasing use of algorithms. 

The Cloak of Algorithms

Unlike the traditional market, the digital economy does not have any geographical limits. Thus, there is fierce competition among all the players. However, due to the unequal availability of resources, it is becoming increasingly difficult for new aspirants to join the market. The use of pricing algorithms, presently adversely  affects the present landscape of online retail.

An algorithm is an established computational procedure that takes a set of values, as input and produces another set of values as output. A catena of algorithms is used in the market to create artificial transparency.[1] These algorithms are called pricing algorithms because competitors in the market use them to set prices after gauging market behavior and competitors. They help competitors to outlive others through optimum pricing. Such a scenario creates artificial algorithmic transparency in the market. However, with an increase in such algorithms in the market, it becomes easy to predict the change in the market. An increase in the accuracy of such predictions, not only strengthens the dominance of certain competitors but also eliminates small competitors altogether, hindering consumer welfare.

Unilateral decision making, the right to make intelligent decisions is a fundamental right of any business, since they aim at maximizing profit. The exercise of such a right effectuates conscious parallelism which is a legitimate and obvious factor in any market. However, the artificial transparency that continues to exist due to algorithms enables competitors to control the market.

Further, the increasing transparency in the market creates interdependency among the competitors, thereby incentivizing collusion. Algorithms create a god’s eye view, enabling competitors to monitor activities in the market in real time. Market players are less likely to deviate because of the instantaneous fear of retaliation.

Hence, the algorithms become a cloak to escape liabilities under competition law. Such tacit collusion has not been considered not barred by the law.

Challenges

The primary question is, does traditional competition law accommodate the recent trends in the market such as pricing algorithms and if so, how? The challenge before competition law authorities is to detect whether tacit collusion exists among competitors, and whether it negatively impacts consumer welfare.

Additionally, questions about communication and liability arise. The absence of explicit communication is a major issue when considering collusion, because in order to prove collusion, there must be an existence of communication. Algorithms have enabled companies to escape the necessity of explicit communication.

Another issue associated with such algorithms is that of liability, because there is no human intervention which facilitates such tacit collusion. Thus, it becomes difficult for authorities to ascertain the liability of the final wrongdoer. The three possible assertions with respect to liability are; the liability of the person who invents such algorithms; the liability of the person who deploys them; the liability of the person who gains from such algorithms.[2]

None of the above acts are explicitly prohibited by law unless a mala fide intention [intentional cartelization] to cause harm is proved. Competition law only outlaws bilateral or multilateral decision making by the competitors because it implies the existence of cartelization. By contrast, the adoption of pricing algorithms through undertakings merely enables them to attain dynamic pricing. The issue arises when competitors maximize their profit by colluding with each other, by entering into automatized virtual agreements. As per the current debate on algorithmic collusion, algorithms are used to facilitate an existing price agreement between the competitors. They simply act as intermediaries, as an extension of the human will. Alternatively, the algorithms are designed to result in a tacitly collusive result. Here, unilaterally designed algorithms learn to tacitly understand each other due to limited market characteristics. Presently, two scenarios emerge when considering algorithms that could cause collusion.

The first is the ‘messenger scenario’, since here algorithms acts as an instrument of collusion, including the implementation of agreed price adjustments as well as the monitoring of such agreements. An example of this is the US Department of Justice and UK Competition and Markets Authority’s proceedings regarding the distribution of posters through the Amazon Marketplace. Here, the companies involved initially agreed via e-mail that they would not underbid each other. After an attempt at the manual adjustment of prices had proved too complex, both companies used (different) repricing software. Pertinently, this software made it possible to monitor competitors’ prices and dynamically adjust one’s own prices according to those of competitors. The software was set so that the products were offered at the same price as long as no third (uninvolved) dealer with a lower price was active on the market.

In the second scenario, a collusive market comes about because the behavior of companies is canonically harmonized by using similar algorithms or by using algorithms which adapt to change in the others. Such agreements do not come under the general definition agreement, however there exists a tacit ‘meeting of mind’ among the competitors. Hence, the traditional definition of a contract under competition law needs to revisited in order to include such collusion. Notably, the definitions of an anti-competitive agreement under Section 3 of the Competition Act, 2002, Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 1890, and Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union do not cover mere ‘meeting of mind’ which exists due to such virtual agreements.

The use of algorithms in the market cannot be curbed altogether, since it would tremble the pillar of the digital economy. However, there is a need for regulatory policies to accommodate for the status quo. Pertinently, mutual price monitoring—the crux of tacit collusion which is not prohibited by Competition Law—must be addressed again.

The meaning of communication, a pre-requisite for constituting anti-competitive behavior also needs to be revisited to prevent ‘algorithm driven cartelization’. Pricing algorithms create a barrier for new entrants which in the long run affects market efficiency. Such a barrier is likely to impede the innovation in the market, which has direct nexus with consumer welfare.

Information Technology Act, 2000

There have been a lot of cases where e-commerce platforms and social media websites have been cleped as intermediaries, however, it is largely connected with the content uploading. Similarly, Section 2 of the recent Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 defined aggregators such as Uber and Ola as digital intermediaries or marketplaces which can be used by passengers to connect with  cabs. The question of intermediary liability primarily deals with content uploading or verification, and attracts the applicability of IP laws or other criminal laws.

However, the competition in the market is so fierce today, that independent firms like Feedvisor and Intelligence Node have started offering algorithmic pricing as a service. Here, the question arises whether such firms are intermediaries under section 2(w) of Information Technology Act, 2000 and do not attract liability (see Section 79 of the Act) because they are a link that collects the information of various competitors and compares them to produce the best results for a third party. Thus, the applicability of the safe harbor provision on algorithm deploying companies also needs to be considered, since they are aware about the effects and utilization of these algorithms.

  • Algo 1- Algorithm P
  • Algo 2- Algorithm P

[The above diagram demonstrates a scenario where a common algorithm (Algo P) is used by two different business entities(Firm A & Firm B).]

Conclusion and Suggestions

There have been four approaches to solving the above problems so far:-

  1. To broaden the interpretation of competition laws;
  2. To insert new provisions in the existing legislation;
  3. To use more rigorous alternative methods of dispute resolution; and
  4. To act in a way that parallel consciousness would not happen.

The underlying assumption of all the above approaches is that algorithms are inherently perilous to the market and pose threats to the fair competition in markets. The heart of the entire pricing algorithms debate revolves around the term ‘contract’ which needs to be revisited and interpreted. The term contract/agreement connotes ‘meeting of mind’ and the meeting of mind suggest the intention of the parties to agree on something. The most strenuous task before the competition law agencies is to ascertain such intention even when such explicit agreement is lacking.In order to curb the above challenges, the intervention can either be in the form of making big legal changes (e.g. Expanding the scope of major offenses like cartelization and abuse of dominant position) or to come up with small interventions (such putting a cap on the price change for more than a certain number of times in a day).

Therefore, competition law authorities can retaliate to such changes by bringing enforcement algorithms which can detect deviant or anomalous behavior in the market and thwart them timely.

[1] See Virtual Competition by Ariel Ezrachi and Maurice E. Stucke.

[2] See Virtual Competition by Ariel Ezrachi and Maurice E. Stucke.

Figure taken from here.

Read more

Emergence of OTT Market in India: Regulatory and Censorship Issues

Posted on by Tech Law Forum NALSAR

This post has been authored by Gaurav Kumar, a 3rd year student at Dr. Ram Manhar Lohiya National Law University (RMLNLU), Lucknow. He is also a Contributing Editor at the RMLNLU Arbitration Law Blog.

The media industry in recent times is witnessing a revolution when it comes to censorship of streaming content. As compared to theatres it has become comparatively much easier for the web industry to dodge any moral scrutiny when releasing its work. While the release of the Narendra Modi biopic during the 2019 Lok Sabha Elections caused significant controversy, a web series on the same subject was allowed to air without any issues, though it was later removed by the Election Commission for having violated the Model Code of Conduct.

There have been many instances where the content of a web series has been objected to for promoting vulgarity, violence and attacking political and religious sentiments. The Delhi HC recently witnessed a PIL filed by an NGO called Justice for Rights Foundation seeking framing of guidelines to regulate the functioning of online media streaming platforms such as Netflix, Amazon and others alleging that they show unregulated, uncertified, and inappropriate content. However, the current situation indicates that content produced by such platforms continues to be outside the purview of censorship laws, thereby requiring a regulatory mechanism to balance out the conflicting views of the government, attempting to play a watchkeeping role and the advocates of creative and artistic freedom.

What are OTT platforms?

“Over-the-top (OTT)” is the buzz-word for services carried over networks that deliver value to customers without the involvement of a carrier service provider in the planning, selling, provisioning and servicing aspects. Essentially, the term refers to providing content over the internet unlike traditional media such as radio and cable TV.

The entertainment industry in recent times has gradually moved towards releasing content on streaming platforms such as Netflix and Amazon Prime. This is due to consumer preferences as expressed in a survey report by Mint and YouGov, which reveals millennials’ preference for online streaming as against cable TV. Another finding by Velocity MR expects the audience movement to reach 80% following the implementation of the new tariff regime for pay-television by TRAI, and the positive responses to series like Sacred Games and Mirzapur from critics and audience shows that quality of content is the key factor influencing the move to streaming services.

Considering its increasing popularity it becomes important to understand OTT with an Indian perspective.  In 2015, amid the burning debates of net neutrality, TRAI floated a Consultation Paper On Regulatory Framework for Over-the-top (OTT) services to “analyze the implications of the growth of OTTs”. In this paper it defined the term “OTT provider” as a “service provider which offers Information and Communication Technology (ICT) services but does not operate a network or lease capacity from a network operator.”. Instead, such providers rely on global internet and access network speeds ( to reach the user, thereby going “over-the-top” of a service provider’s network. Based on the kind of service they provide, there are three types of OTT apps:

  • Messaging and voice services;
  • Application ecosystems, linked to social networks, e-commerce; and
  • Video/audio content.

In November, 2018, TRAI came out with another consultation paper considering a “significant increase in adoption and usage” since its last paper. In order to bring clarity with regard to the understanding of OTT, chapter 2 of this Consultation Paper on Regulatory Framework for Over-The-Top (OTT) Communication Services discussed the definitions adopted for OTT in various jurisdictions. However, it failed to formulate a definition due to the lack of consensus at the global level. Moreover, the earlier definition of the 2015-Consultation paper, which has been reiterated in 2018, also appears to lose context because it was more oriented towards the telecom service providers.

TRAI’s approach while discussing OTT services has been to restrict itself to the telecom industry so as to address their complaints regarding interference by OTT services in the domain traditionally reserved for telecom service providers. Even though it includes “video content” as its third category, a lack of clarity for defining web series within the ambit of OTT in India is evident which explains the absence of a regulatory mechanism for the same.

Differences between OTT platforms and conventional media

Conventional media vests the broadcaster with the discretion to air particular content. The viewer in this case involves all age groups and classes who have no control over the content being broadcasted, as a result of which governmental authorities are in charge of determining whether particular content is suitable for being shown to the public. However, the emergence of streaming has enabled a switch to a more personalized platform that caters to individual consumers enabling them to decide for themselves own what they wish to watch, which completely removes the role of government discretion and intervention.

Although there exist rules and restrictions to regulate pay-television operators, they fail to put any checks and balances on the newly emerged online streaming platforms for the significant differences in their structure and technology. The individualized viewing experience that has come up with the OTT media channels has clearly reduced the amount of surveillance, any existing regulatory bodies could have, over these platforms.

Can OTT platforms be regulated using existing laws?

The censorship of films in India is governed by the Cinematograph Act of 1952, which lays down certain categories in order to certify the films which are to be exhibited. Cable Broadcast is governed by the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 and Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994. The Cable TV rules explicitly lays down the program and advertising codes that need to be followed in every broadcast.

Although it can be argued that that online streaming of content can be treated like cable broadcast, this would fail to comply with the legal test when it comes to application of the statute to streaming platforms. Certification for cable television does not require a separate mechanism but rather is done by the Central Board of Film Certification itself, and the cable TV rules restrict any program from being carried over cable if it is in contravention of the provisions – specifically Rule 6(n) of the Cable TV Rules – of the Cinematograph Act.

The problem here arises when defining the category within which web series will fall under the existing laws. Under the Cable TV Act, cable service means “the transmission by cables of programs including re-transmission by cables of any broadcast television signals.”[1] Cable television network is defined as “any system consisting of a set of closed transmission paths and associated signal generation, control and distribution equipment, designed to provide cable service for reception by multiple subscribers.”[2] However, the mode of transmission for OTT platforms is substantially different insofar as the content travels through Internet service providers which are difficult to regulate given their expanding nature. This makes the existing broadcasting laws inapplicable to OTT services.

The future of the OTT market

Censorship has always prevailed in the Indian television and cinema industry. Despite accusation of moral policing the CBFC has continued to censor moves to bring them in line with its understanding of public morality. This involves issues of free speech and expression which has seen the courts get involved in these matters, adjudicating upon directions issued by the CBFC in various instances.

TRAI is presently assessing a consultation process to construct a framework to regulate online video streaming platforms like Netflix, Amazon Prime and Hotstar, etc. on requests made by some of the stakeholders of the film industry. Some major tycoons of the industry such as Netflix, Hotstar, Jio, Voot, Zee5, Arre, SonyLIV, ALT Balaji and Eros Now signed a self-censorship code that prohibits the over-the top (OTT) online video platforms from showing certain kinds of content and sets up a redressal mechanism for customer complaints. However, Amazon declined to sign this code, along with Facebook and Google, stating that the current rules are adequate.

Considering the fact that the OTT media industry is increasing rapidly, sooner or later it will require a regulatory body. Portals like Netflix are not even India-run, which furthers the socio-political pressure to scrutinize western content on the government. Moreover, the spread of this industry to the vulnerable group will always remain a concern. Another problem that might come up with time could be of regulating the prices of the services as seen recently with the Cable TV. This may, in fact, lead to conflicts between this emerging online streaming industry and the pre-existing cable TV industry. The courts are already being approached, against the violent and obscene content of some of the series, indicating the need of immediate attention of the legislature to take appropriate steps. The OTT-boom in the Indian entertainment market has certainly revolutionized the viewing experience but it has posed many questions and loopholes that need to be addressed in the near future.

[1] Section 2(b), Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995.

[2] Section 2(c), Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995.

Read more

Metadata by TLF: Issue 2

Posted on by Tech Law Forum @ NALSAR

Welcome to our fortnightly newsletter, where our editors put together handpicked stories from the world of tech law! You can find other issues here.

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).

Byte dance 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).

Read more

Metadata by TLF: Issue 1

Posted on by Tech Law Forum NALSAR

Welcome to our fortnightly newsletter, where our editors put together handpicked stories from the world of tech law! You can find other issues here.

SC Decides Not to Intervene in Delhi Govt.’s School CCTV Plan

On 6 July 2019, Delhi CM launched a mission to install CCTV cameras in all government schools in Delhi by November. The decision was challenged through a petition filed by an NLU student before the Supreme Court. In the latest development, the Supreme Court has refused to stay the Delhi govt’s plan to install CCTV cameras in school classrooms, which includes a plan to live stream the feed to parents of students. A Bench headed by Ranjan Gogoi did not entertain the plea that this move violated the right to privacy, despite the government making no moves to gain the approval of either the students or parents for the same. This decision is surprising given the recognition of the right to privacy as a fundamental right by a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court in Justice KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India.

Further reading:

Google Employees Admit to Eavesdropping using Google Assistant

In a chilling development, Belgian outlet VRT News has discovered that Google employees systematically listen to audio files recorded by the Google Home smart speakers and the Google Assistant app. Google later conceded that 0.2% of all audio snippets it records are reviewed, to improve their search engine. The App automatically begins recording audio when prompted by a wake-up word or phrase like “Ok, Google”. It even listens to private conversations that are not meant to be recorded. This development comes in the wake of reports that surfaced a few months ago about thousands of Amazon employees around the world listening to audio recorded by Alexa-powered Amazon Echo; this is done to improve Alexa’s voice recognition ability. Google Home’s privacy policy page does not explicitly state that human intervention is used to listen to audio clips. Neither Google nor Amazon’s privacy policies state that they may eavesdrop on personal conversations inadvertently.

Further reading:

Facebook’s draws President Trump’s ire over new cryptocurrency project ‘Libra’

Facebook is no stranger to controversy given the sheer number of data protection issues that have dogged the company in recent years, but the company’s push to join the cryptocurrency race may have earned them the wrath of the most powerful foe of all – US President Donald Trump. The President called out the social media network’s attempts to build a new currency by stating that the USA had just “one real currency”, and further stating that Facebook needed to submit itself to increased oversight of its banking and data protection efforts. This comes as a fresh blow to the company that unveiled their Libra cryptocurrency to widespread doubt and scepticism among those in the bitcoin sector, with many fearing that it represented yet another effort by the company to snoop and collect data on its users and associates. Libra is the name of Facebook’s new cryptocurrency, which differs from other decentralised currencies by virtue of being backed by a reserve of real assets.

Further reading:

Uber to make meal drops via Drones this summer in San Diego

Uber recently announced that Uber Elevate- the aerial arm of the ride share service uber, would start a fast food delivery service by utilising drones this summer. It is supposed to be launched in San Diego.They have been working in close collaboration with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to ensure that they are sticking to all regulations. McDonalds being one of the partners has been working on technology to keep the food fresh and hot during the aerial delivery. The food would land on specially designed landing zones and not in residential apartments. An uber courier would then hand deliver the package to the customer.

Before kickstarting this venture Uber is considering several factors which would impact its operation.Firstly, the special landing zone faces the problem of thefts. Even though the technology has been developed to address these issues, the costs involved inevitably increases. Further, there are several restrictions on the use of drones over densely populated areas. As a result, Uber would not be able to expand its reach. However, Uber considers these drones as a gateway into the rural areas where it is difficult to manually deliver products.It also states that in many places this venture would effectively save time on delivery of fast food.

Further reading:

IIT-M professor suggests simple solution to combat fake news on WhatsApp

While the Central government and messaging service WhatsApp are at loggerheads on making messages traceable to combat fake news, V Kamakoti, a Professor at the Department of Computer Science and Engineering, IIT Madras and a member of the National Security Advisory Board (NSAB) under the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), has come out with the suggestion that the contact number of the originator of a WhatsApp message should tail it when forwarded.

“When somebody creates a message and when WhatsApp encrypt and send the message, along with it, add the author’s phone number as part of the message. It will go whenever the message is forwarded and at any point of time when I read a message, I know who the author is. It cannot be edited, considering it is encrypted. It can be edited only if you copy the content and send it, and then it becomes your own responsibility,” said Kamakoti. This simple solution will also cater to the worries of WhatsApp regarding breaching its privacy policy. There is no need for WhatsApp to breach its privacy policy.

Further reading:

Thailand Passes New Cyber Martial Law

Thailand has passed a cybersecurity act that gives overarching powers to state cyber agencies which has recently become effective. The Act provides that depending upon the severity of cybersecurity threats, people will have to provide access to their data or computer systems, allow the government to monitor their systems or allow officials to test the operation of a computer system and freeze equipment. It also creates a National Cybersecurity Committee that will be able to seize computers and data without a court warrant in cases of a ‘severe cyber threat’. Further, organisations that are classified as Critical Information Infrastructure Organisations (CII Organisations) have additional compliance obligations. The new laws have caused concerns since they may be used to further consolidate the power of the government and crack-down against any opposition through claims of ‘national security’. It may also drive businesses out of the country through the complex compliance burdens. Civil liberties groups believe that any threat to the government will be considered an emergency, allowing them to view and control the majority of the public’s data. Meanwhile, the government has maintained that the act is merely a tool for law enforcement and regulatory control. The new law is part of the pattern of restrictive laws being passed in Southeast Asia, including in Vietnam and Malaysia.

Further Reading:

France bans ‘Judicial Analytics’

France has banned the publication of statistical information about judges’ decisions and shocked the legal industry. “The identity data of magistrates and members of the judiciary cannot be reused with the purpose or effect of evaluating, analysing, comparing or predicting their actual or alleged professional practices,” the law states, and makes it punishable by a maximum five-year prison sentence. The French legislature is trying to turn off the use of A.I. and machine learning to understand or predict judicial behaviour.

In recent years, A.I. has made extraordinary inroads into the practice of law. Recent efforts to digitize legal texts, from federal regulations to courtroom transcripts, have created a nascent global industry in legal analytics. The use of technology to analyse case-law and scrutinize decisions has penetrated deep in both academia and private practice. France banning the use of public information to “assess, analyse, compare or predict” how judges make decisions, will result in less information about how their judicial system works, and people will have access to fewer tools to help them.

Further reading:

Read more