Department Of Public Safety Forensic Laboratory Evidence: Fill & Download for Free

Here is a list of some of the more popular jobs you can use with your Criminal Justice Degree (click this link or scan the QR code below for the complete list)100+ Best Careers in Crime Fighting911 OperatorAccident ReconstructionistAgriculture Enforcement AgentAttorney at LawBackground InvestigatorBail Enforcement Agent/Bounty HunterBank SecurityBureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms AgentCampus Police/SecurityCasino Security SpecialistCivilian Law EnforcementCommunications/DispatcherComputer CryptographerComputer Network Security ManagerConstableCorrections Officer (Jail/Prison)Court:Administrator; Bailiff; Court Advocate; CourtClerk; Court Reporter; Defense Attorney;Judge/Magistrate; Public Defender; Scopist(Transcriptionist)Crime Analyst / Crime Scene InvestigatorCrime Laboratory Technician:Ballistics SpecialistBlood Spatter ExpertComputer Forensic SpecialistDocument Examiner/SpecialistLatent Print Examiner:Fingerprint; Shoe Impression; TireImpression; Tool Marks/ImpressionCrime PhotographerCriminal Justice InstructorCriminal Justice ResearcherCriminalist / Criminal Profiler /Criminologist Drug Enforcement Administration AgentDefense Investigation AgencyDepartment of Defense (DoD):Military Police / Special Agent:US Army Criminal Investigation Division;US Air Force Office of Special Investigations;US Coast Guard Investigative ServiceUS Navy, Naval Criminal Investigative ServicesDepartment of Public SafetyDispute Resolution MediatorDomestic Violence WorkerEnvironmental Protection AgencyEvidence TechnicianExecutive Protection/BodyguardFederal Agency Support ServicesFederal Air Marshal/ Transportation SecurityFederal Bureau of Investigations Special AgentFire Marshal (Arson Investigator)Forensic Examiner:Accountant; Biologist; Botanist; Chemist; Entomologist; PalynologyPathologistGame Warden/Conservation AgentHighway Patrol (State Police/State Trooper)Immigration & Naturalization Service’s AgentInternal Revenue Service Special AgentInsurance Claims Special Investigations Unit

Citizenship in a democratic republic brings with it the obligation to monitor, and express concerns with regard to, the actions of government representatives. However, we must be cognizant of the potential for tyranny of an uninformed populace, and the potential for demagoguery. As Eagleman[i] (2011) began his book on human cognition: “Man is equally incapable of seeing the nothingness from which he emerges and the infinity in which he is engulfed.—Blaise Pascal, Pensées.” And, he also stated, “Just because you believe something to be true, just because you know it’s true, that doesn’t mean it is true” (p. 53).Multiple issues were raised following the unfortunate death of Trayvon Martin at the hands of George Zimmerman.Was racism involved?Was there political pressure to seek prosecution?Was the confrontation asymmetrical—man against boy?Is there evidence supporting self-defense on the part of Zimmerman?Did the “Stand Your Ground” law precipitate this incident?Was Zimmerman a rogue, self-appointed vigilante?Why does Racial Profiling exist?This essay does not attempt to answer all questions. However, it is an attempt to counsel for consideration of what can be determined and how it can contribute to an understanding of a verdict of not guilty; which is not an unequivocal judgment of innocence, but an acknowledgment that there is reasonable doubt as to guilt. What is needed is a dispassionate and objective view.Moreover, statistics (as unreliable as they sometimes are) indicate that racial profiling is not the primary threat to young Black men, that position is held by young Black men. The challenge is what can we do about that?Was racism involved?Zimmerman’s maternal grandmother, who helped raise him,was the son of an Afro-Peruvian great-grandfather. In 2004, Zimmerman entered into an insurance office partnership with an African-American (Francescani, 2012).In September 2011, Zimmerman sent an email message to the Sanford Police Chief (the same one later indicating a lack of probable cause in this case) expressing outrage over the police handling of an assault on a Black man by a relative of a White police lieutenant. This had been preceded by a public statement critical of this same incident at a public meeting in January 2011 (CNN, 2012).During his call to police prior to the contact with Martin, Zimmerman used the term “assholes," and indicated that they always eluded arrest, apparently referring to perpetrators of burglaries and robberies within his community, some of whom were identified as Black (Francescani, 2012).The testimony of a person that spoke to Martin prior to the confrontation with Zimmerman indicated that Martin stated the he was being followed by a “creepy-ass cracker” (abcnews, 2013).Was there political pressure to seek prosecution?The Sanford police chief stated that there was insufficient evidence to arrest Zimmerman (and subsequently stepped-down under pressure). And, the State’s Attorney initially assigned to the case declined to file charges against Zimmerman (Legum, 2012).The governor of Florida then appointed a special prosecutor, who chose to by-pass the Grand Jury process (Vamburkar, 2012). The special prosecutor has admitted submitting a defective affidavit that apparently omitted exculpatory information (Huckabee, 2013), failed to release photographs of Zimmerman’s injuries until after charges were filed, failed to provide exculpatory information to defense attorneys as required by law (realclearpolitics.com, 2013), submitted a request for inclusion of lesser charges at mid-trial when faced with an apparent acquittal (Huckabee), and fired the employee who reported this failure to disclose required information to the defense attorneys (realclearpolitics.com). Alan Dershowitz, a noted civil liberties attorney, a defender of civil rights, and the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, has called for the special prosecutor to be disbarred for the above acts. The special prosecutor also made a post-acquittal statement indicating guilt on the part of Zimmerman (Huckabee).After announcement of the state verdict, the U.S. Attorney General apparently implied that Zimmerman was guilty of something by describing the incident as a “tragic, unnecessary shooting” (Hallowell, 2013). Arguably, this statement could taint the pursuit of federal prosecution, not to mention amount to defamation of an acquitted individual. According to the American Bar Association (2012), Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor:“Except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor’s action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose, refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused.”(Rule 3.8 (f))Judge Jeanine Pirro stated the following:Almost every legal expert on both sides of the aisle agreed, in contrast to special prosecutor Corey, that the evidence presented by prosecutors was insufficient to convict. Which begs the question of whether the charges against George Zimmerman were proper or a capitulation to public pressure by the governor and that appointed state's attorney who continues to say that the public had a right to watch this trial as though it’s theater, as though criminal justice and evidence is about theater for the public’s interest. (realpolitics, 2013, n.p.)Scott (a 42-year-old Black male) confronted three young men reportedly engaged in vehicle burglary in a neighbor’s driveway in New York. Sixteen-year-old Cervini (a White person) reportedly charged Scott, who shot twice and killed him, even though Cervini made no physical contact with Scott. Scott was acquitted in 2009 (Hedeen, 2009). This is in spite of the facts that New York does not have a stand-your-ground law, and it is a general principle of law that the amount of force cannot be unreasonable (Gardner & Anderson, 2000). Presumably, most are unaware of this incident, as opposed to the Zimmerman/Martin incident.The NAACP has indicated that justice has not prevailed in this case (Novogrod, Winter, Connor, & McClam, 2013). And, there have been calls for changes in law to prevent recurrence of this incident (Trotta & Cotterell, 2013). Since the Magna Carta in 1215, our system of law has demanded credibility from witnesses. Subsequently, evaluation of physical and circumstantial evidence has enhanced our ability to judge guilt; and, our senses have been found to be frequently in error, for psychological and neurological reasons (Eagleman, 2011).In this case, according to the jury, there are insufficient credible witnesses, physical, and circumstantial evidence to overcome the beyond a reasonable doubt criteria. Changing the law to get past these purported deficiencies would violate the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of due process of law prior to deprivation “of life, liberty, or property” (Amendment V, 1992).Was the confrontation asymmetrical—man against boy?The reasonableness of self-defense can be dependent upon the relative disparity of the participants, in addition to the determination of who initiated the assault (Gardner & Anderson, 2000). At the time of the incident, according to police reports, Martin was six feet tall and weighed 160 pounds, and Zimmerman was five feet nine inches tall and weighed 170 pounds (wtsp.com, 2012; Rogers, 2012).Photographs of Martin as a younger child were widely distributed, and may have shaped public perceptions (Allen, 2013).In 2005, Zimmerman’s insurance business failed, he was arrested for resisting arrest and battery on a plain-clothes alcohol control agent, and he avoided conviction by participating in a pre-trial diversion program. Also, Zimmerman’s first engagement ended with issuance of mutual restraining orders; although he remains married to another woman (Francescani, 2012).Evidence of Martin's drug use, school suspension, eviction from his mother’s home, possession of a firearm, and past fighting were judged not admissible in the trial (Schneider, 2013).Is there evidence supporting self-defense on the part of Zimmerman?A physician’s report disclosed that Zimmerman had a fractured nose, two black eyes, two lacerations on the back of his head, and a back injury on the day after the fatal shooting.Dr. Vincent Di Maio[ii],a forensic pathologist, testified that in his expert opinion, the wounds suffered by Zimmerman were consistent with the statements of Zimmerman (Alvarez, 2013a).Di Maio also testified that the gunshot wound suffered by Martin was consistent with the statement of Zimmerman. The examination of the clothing worn by Martin and the body of Martin indicate that Martin’s clothing was pulled away from the body, as would be expected if Martin had been straddling Zimmerman and leaning forward; and, the estimated distance of the gun muzzle from the clothing was consistent with Zimmerman’s account.Zimmerman ignored the advice of a police dispatcher to not follow Martin; although, Zimmerman claimed to have been returning to his vehicle when confronted by Martin, with prosecutors being unable to indicate otherwise (Alvarez, 2013b). It is not a criminal violation to follow another person, less any menacing remarks or behavior. And, “all people … may use deadly force, if necessary, to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to themselves or others” (Gardner & Anderson, 2000). And, the distinction between a six foot tall child weighing 160 pounds, and an adult who is five feet nine inches tall and weighs 170 pounds is irrelevant in a rapidly unfolding confrontation.Did the “Stand Your Ground” law precipitate this incident?Included in the judge’s instructions to the jury was the advisement as to the parameters of the stand your ground law. However, Zimmerman’s defense team did not raise this issue. The self-defense claim was based on the inability of Zimmerman to retreat or otherwise prevent his own death or serious bodily injury (Zimmerman was reportedly on his back under Martin); and, although Zimmerman was injured, the Florida law does not require an individual to actually suffer injuries in order to claim self-defense, merely that it this reasonably likely (Alvarez, 2013b).Was Zimmerman was a rogue, self-appointed vigilante?Francescani (2012) provided a detailed description of the evolution of Zimmerman from passive resident to neighborhood watch captain, from being repeatedly menaced by a pit bull in the Fall of 2009; to June 2011, when multiple robberies within the community led the homeowners association to ask him to create a neighborhood watch. A Black neighbor indicated that demonstrators should recognize that, at the time of the incident, numerous crimes in that community had been committed by young Black males.Francescani is a Reuters journalist who provided a lengthy and fairly detailed review of Zimmerman’s background, and it is recommended reading (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/25/us-usa-florida-shooting-zimmerman-idUSBRE83O18H20120425).Why does Racial Profiling exist?Despite the fact that it has been established that there are more intra-racial biological differences than there are differences between races (Banton, 1998), there are cultural differences. Access to health care and education (as it pertains to diet and exercise) are apparent contributors to this situation. In recent decades, health differences between Blacks and Whites have decreased; however, gaps still exist.Hypertension, diabetes, and stroke are much higher in the U.S. Black population, and these ailments are acquired at a younger age (WebMD, 2011). Black men are 35% more likely to die of cancer than Whites, and the disparity for Black women is 18% (WebMD, 2007). In the U.S., Blacks, at about 14% of the population, account for 44% of the new HIV infections, with Black females having rate of infection 15 times higher than White females (WebMD, 2012). According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Blacks have a significantly shorter life expectancy; which is attributed to increased cancer, diabetes, heart disease, stroke, and murder (as cited in DeNoon, 2007).When factors contributing to the likelihood to be arrested for crimes are considered, racism must be included; however, there is statistical support for the argument that Blacks are more likely to engage in criminal behavior. Crime statistics are a relevant consideration in the arena of bias and reality, with about one in three Black males being convicted felons, as opposed to about one in 17 White males (statistics cited below). And, several variables are taken into consideration during the decision-making process regarding prosecution and sentencing; these include prior convictions, employment history, and education level. These considerations contribute to the determination of whether or not the individual will be a contributing member of society, or will return to criminal behavior if not prosecuted and incarcerated.Education plays a major role in employability, and employment can counteract pursuit of criminal activities. The national average for completion of high school by White students is about 75%, and the average for Black students is about 50% (Swanson, 2004). It seems possible that a lack of education, lack of cultural appreciation for education, and a lack of parental expectations perpetuate the problem of black crime; even though racial profiling is a prominent argument for this situation. Empirical research indicates a link between low socio-economic status, poor education, and anti-social behavior (Baron-Cohen, 2011). Lack of employment apparently stems from poor education, which may result in criminal behavior being needed to supply income.In addition to the contribution of familial socio-economic status to deviance, crime can be inter-generational. Studies of repeat offenders indicate that 37% have fathers with criminal records, while 8.4% have non-deviant fathers; and, and research indicates that juvenile delinquents eventually tend to parent deviant children. Moreover, divorce and separation rates are higher in Black homes, and these rates are significantly associated with murder rates (Siegel, 2006).Police must rely on the community as their eyes and ears in areas inaccessible to police in order to address criminal predation. The world of black music provides examples of the Black community’s failure to provide witness information that could reduce crime. Jam Master Jay, Biggie Smalls, and Tupak Shakur were murdered by unidentified perpetrators, and in all of these cases witnesses have been uncooperative. Likewise, rapper Busta Rhymes refused to cooperate after witnessing the murder of his bodyguard, as did 50 other witnesses (Hampson, 2006). Hampson also reported on the nation-wide “Stop Snitching” movement in the Black community. This billboard graced the Houston Montrose area in 2013:Based on then current incarceration rates, about 32% of Black males will be imprisoned during their lifetime, along with 5.9% of White males (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2007). In 2005, one victim and one offender homicides were mostly intra-racial, about 93% for Black victims (with 49% of all homicide victims being Black) and 85% for white victims (Harrell, 2007). Black offenders accounted for more than 50% of the offenders arrested for murder and non-negligent manslaughter (U.S. Department of Justice, 2009). The 2000 census indicated that 77.1% of the U.S. population was White (Census, 2001a), and 12.9% was Black (Census, 2001b). And, Blacks on federal pretrial release had a significantly higher history of failures to appear for court hearings and engaging in escape behavior than Whites (Fennessy & Huss, 2013).Hickey (2006) reported on an extensive study that indicated that out of the 249 serial killers studied, 72% were White, 23% were Black, 3% were Hispanic, 1% were Asian, and 1% were “other.” Since more than 20% of the serial killers have been Black, there is an over-representation of Black serial killers. Hickey reported that, between 1995 and 2004, about 44% of identified serial killers were Black. Walsh (2005) reported serial killing ratios similar to those of Hickey, and commented on the mythological nature of the popular conception that serial killing is a White phenomenon. Hickey also reported that serial killing has been generally intra-racial; however, serial killers do kill people of other races.Safarik, Jarvis, and Nussbaum (2006) studied elderly female sexual homicide and their research population of offenders was found to be 44% White and 42% Black. Safarik et. al determined that, in their elderly female sexual homicide research, "Blacks offend interracially 77% of the time … and Whites only 4%" (p. 113).In attempting to maintain an empathetic frame of mind when interacting with minorities, one must acknowledge that being defensive due to past experience of discrimination has been empirically supported. Research on prejudice (in this case with Jewish males) has indicated that those who have been the subject of prejudice, or perceive that they have been subjected to prejudice, were reportedly more aggressive, sadder, more anxious, and more egotistical than those not perceiving such prejudice (Dion & Earn, 1981). In other words, once a person has been discriminated against, it is more likely that the person will be hypersensitive to perceived discrimination, possibly seeing it where it does not exist. And, more importantly, their perceptions of prejudice interfere with their accepting the culture of the majority group, and encourage differentiation in speech, fashion, and resistance to the adoption of majority group goals.Moreover, our brains are hardwired to be xenophobic (fearful and hateful toward strangers/foreigners or anything that is strange/foreign), according to Eagleman (2011). Therefore, people of different races, ethnicities, cultures, and religions are viewed with suspicion instinctively; and this suspicion can only be overcome by intentionally altering these subconscious reactions, facilitating conformity with societal expectations for acceptance of diversity.While this current discussion concerns self-defense in general, the greater implication concerns the criminal justice system. The problem with racial profiling is that it subjects innocent people to unwarranted suspicion and accusations. No matter what percentage of an identifiable group of people can be considered criminal, there is an additional, and apparently larger, percentage who cannot be considered criminal. And it is a violation of the civil rights of all of these people to make an assumption that is not based on evidence, as opposed to statistical or biased assumptions.It is a display of prejudice (pre-judgment of a person or act without facts of the particular situation) to make a statement such as that of President Obama with regard to the arrest of a Black professor (“Cambridge police acted stupidly,” as cited in Baichwal, 2010, para. 5); for, as the President later admitted, he was not in possession of all of the facts. And, it is a display of prejudice for police to confront minorities based only on the fact that they are minorities. An exacerbating factor to be overcome by police is the instantaneous nature of the decision-making process in the public safety arena.“The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court that sets the legal standard for Use of Force in the United States. … The early application of a reasonable amount of force will result in less force having to be used; less injury to suspects, less injury to officers. … Officers have to use force that’s objectively reasonable based on the totality of the facts and circumstances confronting the officer at the time of the seizure. … Holding the officer to the least intrusive or minimal amount of force is a subjective standard. … Imposing such a requirement would inevitably induce hesitation by officers, and thus deter police from protecting the public and themselves. It would also entangle the courts in endless second guessing of police decisions made under stress and subject them to exigencies of the moment. … The court went on to say that officers … do not have to avail themselves of the least intrusive means of responding to an exigent situation; only a reasonable one.” (Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, n.d.)Decades ago, the Supreme Court ruled that:The wholesale harassment by certain elements of the police community, of which minority groups, particularly Negroes, frequently complain, [n11] will not be [p15] stopped by the exclusion of any evidence from any criminal trial. Yet a rigid and unthinking application of the exclusionary rule, in futile protest against practices which it can never be used effectively to control, may exact a high toll in human injury and frustration of efforts to prevent crime. No judicial opinion can comprehend the protean variety of the street encounter, and we can only judge the facts of the case before us. Nothing we say today is to be taken as indicating approval of police conduct outside the legitimate investigative sphere. (Terry v. Ohio, 1968, para. 19)Presumably, the expectations of police officers as to the increased probability of Black people being engaged in illegal activities (as supported by available statistics) affects how they deal with Black people, hence the “driving while Black” scenario and the existence of racial profiling. Unfortunately, this fuels the negative responses of the Black community, perpetuating a negative spiral contributing to the arrest and incarceration statistics.This state of affairs cannot be cured by emotional calls for “justice” in this specific case. Subversion of due process by popular demand to conform with faulty perceptions is equivalent to vigilantism, nothing more.What must be done is to focus attention on altering the roots of the problem, the underlying precipitators of criminality, like low socio-economic status and low educational achievement, and ensuring equitable treatment and negating bias [color-blindly providing due process (equality under law, based on individual circumstances, not perceived equality of outcome)].This can be done in law enforcement by review processes that evaluate enforcement actions by requiring that officers specifically articulate the circumstances used to determine that an appropriate level of suspicion was reached, such that a reasonably prudent person drawing on relevant experience would agree, according to the U.S. Supreme Court (Terry v. Ohio, 1968), would reach the same conclusion. This is the current standard, and while it can be questioned by the public, it is not public opinion that determines the outcome.As Dr. King indicated, people must be judged on individual character, not skin color; and that includes those defending themselves.Daniel L. Robb, Ph.D.Special Agent, Retired, U.S. Department of Homeland SecurityPrivate Investigator and Personal Protection Officer (Texas License No. 15531)Certified by the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement, Peace Officer (inactive)References:abcnews.com. (2013). Trayvon Martin's friend: 'Creepy-Ass Cracker' comment not racist. Retrieved from: http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/creepy-ass-cracker-is-not-racist-says-trayvon-martins-friend-19506887Alcindor, Y. (2013, July 10). Pathologist supports Zimmerman's description of attack. USA Today. Retrieved from: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/09/george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin--marijuana/2501293/Allen, J. (2013, June 4). Trayvon Martin: How pictures have told his story. http://www.cfnews13.com/content/news/cfnews13/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2013/6/4/trayvon_martin_how_p.htmlAlvarez, L. (2013a, July 9). Martin Was Shot as He Leaned Over Zimmerman, Court Is Told. The New York Times.Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/10/us/teenager-was-over-zimmerman-as-he-was-shot-expert-says.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0Alvarez, L. (2013b, July 12). Zimmerman Case Goes to Jury, With Defense Urging It to Remove Emotion. Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/13/us/zimmerman-trial.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0American Bar Association. (2012).Model rules of professional conduct. Retrieved from: http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/model_rules_of_professional_conduct_table_of_contents.htmlBaichwal, R. (2010, July 22). Obama comments on arrest of Harvard prof. Retrieved from: http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?id=6930219Banton, M. (1998). Racial Theories (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Baron-Cohen, S. (2011). The science of evil: On empathy and the origins of cruelty. New York: Basic Books.Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2007). Criminal Offenders Statistics. Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm#prevalenceCNN. (2012, May 24). Tape showed Zimmerman's anger over black man's beating. Retrieved from: http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/24/justice/florida-teen-shootingDeNoon, D. J. (2007, February 1). Black cancer death rate higher: Late diagnosis, less access to treatment cuts cancer survival for Blacks, report says. Retrieved from: http://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/news/20130718/us-blacks-still-lag-whites-in-life-expectancy-studyDion, K. L., & Earn, B. M. (1981). The phenomenology of being a target of prejudice. In E. Aronson (Ed.), Readings about the social animal (3rd ed.) (pp. 281-292). San Francisco: W. H. Freeman. [Reprinted from The journal of personality and social psychology 32(5), 1975]Eagleman, D. M. (2011). Incognito: The secret lives of the brain, New York: Random House.Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. (n.d.). Use of force. Retrieved from: http://www.fletc.gov/training/programs/legal-division/podcasts/hot-issues-podcasts/hot-issues-transcripts/use-of-force-myths-and-realities-part-i-podcast-transcript.html/?searchterm=use of forceFennessy, M., & Huss, M.T. (2013, January). Predicting success in a large sample of federal pretrial offenders: The influence of ethnicity. Criminal Justice and Behavior, vol. 40 no. 1, 40-56.Francescani, C. (2012, April 25). George Zimmerman: Prelude to a shooting. Retrieved from: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/25/us-usa-florida-shooting-zimmerman-idUSBRE83O18H20120425Gardner, T. J., & Anderson, T. M. (2000).Criminal law: Principles and cases (7th Ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Hallowell, B. (2013, July 15). Eric Holder speaks out on Zimmerman case: Trayvon’s killing an ‘unnecessary shooting’ and calls for ‘difficult’ national dialogue. Retrieved from: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07/15/eric-holder-speaks-out-on-zimmerman-case-says-trayvons-killing-an-unnecessary-shooting-and-nation-must-have-difficult-dialogue/Hampson, R. (2006, March 29). Anti-Snitch Campaign Riles Police, Prosecutors. USA TODAY. Retrieved from: http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2006/03/antisnitch_camp.phpHarrell, E. (2007, August). Special report: Black victims of violent crime. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/bvvc.txtHickey, E. W. (2006). Serial murderers and their victims. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.Hedeen, M. (2009, December, 18). Jury Finds Roderick Scott Not Guilty. Retrieved from: http://rochester.ynn.com/content/top_stories/490926/jury-finds-roderick-scott-not-guilty/Huckabee, M. (2013, July 14). Dershowitz: Zimmerman Special Prosecutor Angela Corey should be disbarred. Retrieved from: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/07/14/alan_dershowitz_zimmerman_special_prosecutor_angela_corey_should_be_disbarred.htmlLegum, J. (2012, March 28). Sanford police recommended charging Zimmerman with Martin’s death, but police chief claimed ‘no probable cause.’ Retrieved from: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/03/28/453675/sanford-police-recommended-charging-zimmerman-with-martins-death/?mobile=ncNovogrod, J., Winter, T, Connor, T., & McClam, E. (2013, July 13). Jury finds George Zimmerman not guilty. Retrieved from: http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/13/19441838-jury-finds-george-zimmerman-not-guilty?literealclearpolitics.com. (2013, July 14). Judge Jeanine Pirro rips Zimmerman Special Prosecutor Angela Corey. Retrieved from: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/07/14/judge_jeanine_pirro_rips_zimmerman_special_prosecutor_angela_corey.htmlReinberg, S. (2013). U.S. Blacks still lag Whites in life expectancy: Heart disease, cancer and murder main contributors to four-year disparity, experts say. HealthDay. Retrieved from: http://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/news/20130718/us-blacks-still-lag-whites-in-life-expectancy-studyRogers, K. (2012, March 28). George Zimmerman weighs 170#; Trayvon Martin 160#. Retrieved from: http://www.examiner.com/article/george-zimmerman-weighs-170-trayvon-martin-160Safarik, M. E., Jarvis, J. P., & Nussbaum, K. E. (2006). Sexual homicide of elderly females: Linking offender characteristics to victim and crime scene attributes, in R. D. Keppel (Ed.). Offender profiling (2nd ed.) (pp. 107-125). Mason, OH: Thompson. (Reprinted from Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Vol. 17, No. 5, 2002. Sage Publications, Inc.)Schneider, M. (2013, May 23). New Trayvon Martin case evidence: Defense team releases photos, texts that teen had on his phone. Retrieved from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/23/trayvon-martin-evidence-photos-texts_n_3327658.htmlSiegel, L. J. (2006). Criminology (9th Ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson.Swanson, C. B. (2004). Who graduates? Who doesn’t? A statistical portrait of public high school graduation, class of 2001. Urban Institute. Retrieved from: http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=410934Terry v. Ohio. 392 U.S. 1. 67. (1968) Retrieved from: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0392_0001_ZO.htmlTrotta, D., & Cotterell, B. (2013, July 17). Zimmerman juror: Self-defense laws should be changed after Trayvon Martin killing. Retrieved from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/17/zimmerman-juror-self-defense-laws_n_3612130.htmlU. S. Census Bureau. (2001a, August). The White Population: 2000. Census 2000 Brief. Retrieved from: http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-4.pdfU.S. Census Bureau. (2001b, August). The Black Population: 2000. Census 2000 Brief. Retrieved from: http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-5.pdfU.S. Constitution. (1992). Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America.U.S. Department of Education. (2005, February 23). President's New High School Initiative, Other Proposed Programs Tackle Issues Important to Hispanics [Press Release]. Retrieved from: http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2005/02/02232005a.htmlU.S. Department of Justice. (2009, September). 2008 Crime in the United States: Table 43: Arrests by race, 2008. Retrieved from: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_43.htmlU.S. Department of Labor. (2008, February 1). Employment status of the civilian population by race, sex, and age. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t02.htmVamburkar, M. (2012, April 9). State Attorney decides against using Grand Jury in Trayvon Martin case. Retrieved from: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/state-attorney-decides-against-using-grand-jury-in-trayvon-martin-case/Walsh, A. (2005), African Americans and serial killings in the media: The myth and the reality. Homicide Studies, 9(4), 271-291. Retrieved from: http://hsx.sagepub.com.ezproxy.apus.edu/cgi/reprint/9/4/271WebMD. (2011). High blood pressure in African-Americans. Retrieved from: http://www.webmd.com/hypertension-high-blood-pressure/guide/hypertension-in-african-americansWebMD. (2012). HIV and AIDS in African-Americans. Retrieved from: http://www.webmd.com/hiv-aids/hiv-aids-in-blacks-alarming-crisiswtsp.com (2012, Mar 29). Trayvon Martin pictures shape our perception on the case. Retrieved from:http://www.wtsp.com/news/article/247690/8/Trayvon-Martin-pictures-shape-our-perception-on-the-casewtsp.com. (2012, March 29). Trayvon Martin pictures shape our perception on the case. Retrieved from:http://www.wtsp.com/news/article/247690/8/Trayvon-Martin-pictures-shape-our-perception-on-the-case[i] Dr. David Eagleman directs the Laboratory for Perception and Action and the Initiative on Neuroscience and Law, Baylor College of Medicine.[ii] Dr. Vincent Di Maio, is a forensic pathologist with more than 40 years of experience (editor-in-chief of the Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology, Professor--Department of Pathology at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, and fellow of the National Association of Medical Examiners and the American Academy of Forensic Sciences), and author of Forensic Pathology and Gunshot Wounds: Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics, and Forensic Techniques, among other works.

bit lengthy but here it isThe State of Privacy in India is the result of an ongoing collaboration by Privacy International and the Centre for Internet & Society.Right to PrivacyThe constitutionThe Constitution of India does not specifically guarantee a “right to privacy”. However, through various judgments over the years, Indian courts have interpreted the other rights in the Constitution as giving rise to a (limited) right to privacy primarily through Article 21, the right to life and liberty. In 2015, this interpretation was challenged and referred to a larger bench of the Supreme Court (the highest Court in the country) in the writ petition Justice K.S Puttaswamy & Another vs. Union of India and Others.The constitutional right to privacy in India is not a very strong right in itself and is subject to a number of restrictions. These restrictions have not been defined or elucidated anywhere and have been identified through the interpretation of various provisions and judgments of the Supreme Court of India:The right to privacy can be restricted by procedure established by law and this procedure would have to be just, fair and reasonable (Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India);Reasonable restrictions can be imposed on the right to privacy in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence; (Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India, 1950)The right to privacy can be restricted if there is an important countervailing interest which is superior to it (Govind v. State of M.P.);The right to privacy can be restricted if there is a compelling state interest to be served (Govind v. State of M.P.);The protection available under the right to privacy may not be available to a person who voluntarily introduces him- or herself into controversy (R. adijagopal v. Union of India).Case LawThere are a large number of cases where Indian Courts have recognised the right to privacy as a fundamental right. Below is a list of landmark cases that have elaborated on the right to privacy along with short points on what the Court has held in those cases:Kharak Singh v. The State of U.P. (1962). In this case before the Supreme Court, a minority opinion recognised the right to privacy as a fundamental right. The minority judges located the right to privacy under both the right to personal liberty as well as freedom of movement.Govind v. State of M.P. (1975). The Supreme Court confirmed that the right to privacy is a fundamental right. It derived the right to privacy from both the right to life and personal liberty as well as freedom of speech and movement. The right to privacy was said to encompass and protect the personal intimacies of the home, the family marriage, motherhood, procreation and child rearing. However, the right to privacy is subject to “compelling state interest”.R. Rajagopal v. Union of India (1994). It was determined by the Supreme Court that the right to privacy is a part of the right to personal liberty guaranteed under the constitution. It recognized that the right to privacy can be both a tort (actionable claim) as well as a fundamental right. A citizen has a right to safeguard the privacy of his or her own family, marriage, procreation, motherhood, child-bearing and education among other matters and nobody can publish anything regarding the same unless (i) he or she consents or voluntarily thrusts himself into controversy, (ii) the publication is made using material which is in public records (except for cases of rape, kidnapping and abduction), or (iii) he or she is a public servant and the matter relates to his/her discharge of official duties.People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (1996). This case before the Supreme Court extended the right to privacy to communications. In doing so, the Court laid down guidelines that form the backbone for the checks and balances in interception provisions in India such as:(i) Interception orders to be issued only by Home Secretaries at both the Central and State governments;(ii) Issues such as the necessity of the information and whether it can be acquired by other means to be considered while making the decision to approve interception;(iii) The addresses and the persons whose communication has to be intercepted should be specified in the order, which means that the interception order cannot be generic; and(iv) Putting a cap of two months on the life of an interception order.District Registrar and Collector, Hyderabad and another v. Canara Bank and another (2004). This Supreme Court judgment refers to personal liberty, freedom of expression and freedom of movement as the fundamental rights that give rise to the right to privacy. The Court also held that the right to privacy deals with persons and not places and that an intrusion into privacy may be by (1) legislative provisions, (2) administrative/executive orders and (3) judicial orders.Petronet LNG LTD vs. Indian Petro Group and Another (2006). In this case before the Delhi High Court, it was established that corporations and companies cannot assert a fundamental right to privacy. Furthermore, the right to privacy is not available against non-state individuals or actors.Selvi and others v. State of Karnataka and others (2010). The Supreme Court acknowledged the distinction between bodily/physical privacy and mental privacy. The scheme of criminal and evidence law mandates interference with the right to physical and bodily privacy in certain circumstances, but the same cannot be used to compel a person "to impart personal knowledge about a relevant fact". This case also establishes the intersection of the right to privacy with Article 20(3) (self-incrimination). An individual's decision to make a statement is the product of a private choice and there should be no scope for any other individual to interfere with such autonomy. Subjecting a person to techniques such as narcoanalysis, polygraph examination and the Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP) test without his or her consent violates the subject’s mental privacy.Unique Identification Authority of India & Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2014). In this case, the Central Bureau of Investigation sought access to the database of the Unique Identity Authority of India for the purposes of investigating a criminal offence. However, the Supreme Court in an interim order held that the Unique Identity Authority of India should not transfer any biometric information of any person who has been allotted an Aadhaar number to any other agency without the written consent of that person.Justice K.S. Puttuswamy (Retd.) & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. (2015). In this Supreme Court order, the issue of privacy was discussed in light of the Unique Identity Scheme. The question before the court was whether such a right is guaranteed under the Constitution, and if it is, the source of this right, given that there is no express provision for privacy in Indian Law. The Attorney General of India argued that privacy is not a fundamental right guaranteed to Indian citizens. Ultimately, the Court left the question to be deliberated by a larger constitutional basis since the earlier judgments that denied the existence of the right to privacy were given by larger benches than the cases where the right to privacy was accepted as a fundamental right. This led to unresolved controversy, leading the Court to refer the matter to a larger bench to be settled.Regional and international conventionsIndia is party to two international instruments containing privacy protections. These are the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (Article 12) and the International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 17).Communication SurveillanceIntroductionIn light of the Mumbai terrorist attacks in 2008, India implemented a wide range of data sharing and surveillance schemes to increase public safety and security by tackling crime and terrorism. However, these projects have since raised serious privacy concerns. The Central Monitoring System was envisioned to centralise the interception of communications data and enable law enforcement agency access to it. If implemented, it would be connected to the Telephone Call Interception System (TCIS) which will help monitor voice calls, SMS and MMS, fax communications on landlines, CDMA, video calls, GSM and 3G networks. Other projects and schemes include the Lawful Intercept and Monitoring (LIM) systems, NATGRID, and CCTNS Project, to name a few.These schemes involve mass interception of communication, keyword searches, and access to users’ data. They suggest that the Indian state is moving towards large-scale monitoring of its population.Surveillance lawsInterception and AccessThere are two major laws that regulate digital and telephonic surveillance, respectively: the Information Technology Act, 2000 (the “IT Act”) and the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (the “Telegraph Act”).Section 5 of the Telegraph Act empowers the Central Government and the State Government to order the interception of messages in two circumstances: (1) in the occurrence of any “public emergency” or in the interest of “public safety”, and (2) if it is considered necessary or expedient to do so, in addition to the following instances: in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India; the security of the State; friendly relations with foreign states; public order; and for the prevention of incitement to the commission of an offense.In 2007, Rule 419A was added to the Indian Telegraph Rules (1951) framed under the Indian Telegraph Act. These Rules provide that orders for the interception of communications must be issued by the Secretary in the Ministry of Home Affairs in the case of the Central Government and the Secretary to the State Government in-charge of the Home Department in the case of a State Government. However, the Rules provide that in unavoidable circumstances an order can also be issued by an officer, not below the rank of a Joint Secretary to the Government of India, who has been authorised by the Union Home Secretary or the State Home Secretary.The IT Act widely regulates the interception, monitoring, decryption and collection of information of digital communications in India. More specifically, section 69 of the IT Act empowers the Central Government and the State Governments to issue directives for the monitoring, interception or decryption of any information transmitted, received or stored through a computer resource. Section 69 of the IT Act expands the grounds upon which interception can take place as compared to the Telegraph Act. As such, the interception of communications under Section 69 is carried out in the interest of: the sovereignty or integrity of India; the defense of India; the security of the State; friendly relations with foreign States; public order; the prevention of incitement to the commission of any cognizable offense relating to the above; and for the investigation of any offense.Although the grounds for interception are roughly the same as under the Telegraph Act (except for the condition of prevention of incitement of only cognizable offences, defense of India and the addition of investigation of any offence), the IT Act does not contain the overarching condition that interception can only occur in the case of public emergency or in the interest of public safety. Additionally, section 69 of the IT Act mandates that any person or intermediary who fails to assist the specified agency with the interception, monitoring, decryption or provision of information stored in a computer resource shall be punished with an imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall be liable for a fine.Section 69B permits authorized authorities to monitor and collect traffic data for the purpose of enhancing cybersecurity and for the identification, analysis and prevention of any intrusion or spread of computer contaminant in the country. A service provider that fails to comply with the provision faces imprisonment up to three years and is liable for a fine. The term “cyber security” has been defined in section 2(nb) of the IT Act as “protecting information, equipment, devices, computer, computer resource, communication device and information stored therein from unauthorized access, use, disclosure, disruption, modification or destruction”. Further clarity on the meaning and importance of the term can be gleaned from the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Monitoring and Collecting Traffic Data or Information) Rules, 2009 which are discussed below.The main difference between Section 69B and Section 69 (the provision for interception) is that while the latter requires the interception, monitoring and decryption of information generated, transmitted, received or stored through a computer resource, Section 69B specifically provides a mechanism for all metadata through a computer resource for the purpose of combating threats to “cyber security”. Directions under Section 69 can be issued by the Secretary to the Ministry of Home Affairs, whereas directions under Section 69B can be issued by the Secretary of the Department of Information Technology under the Union Ministry of Communications and Information Technology.Just like with Rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Interception, Monitoring and Decryption of Information) Rules, 2009 (“IT Interception Rules”) are framed under Section 69 and the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Monitoring and Collecting traffic data or information) 2009. These stipulate who may issue directions for interception and monitoring; how such directions are to be executed; the duration they remain in operation; to whom data may be disclosed; the confidentiality obligations of intermediaries; periodic oversight of interception directions by a Review Committee under the Telegraph Act; the retention of records of interception by intermediaries; and the mandatory destruction of information in appropriate cases.Apart from the above two statues, a number of criminal statutes provide for the interception of communications and how such intercepted communications may be used. The Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 allows for information collected through interception of communications (under the IT Act or the Telegraph Act) to be produced as evidence for an offence under the Act.However, intercepted communications are not admissible unless the accused is given a copy of the order approving the interception, thus making illegal interceptions inadmissible. Therefore, unless the interception order itself was obtained by fraud, this provision acts as a safeguard against the use of illegally obtained interceptions for evidentiary purposes. Apart from this Act there are a number of pieces of state legislation that provide for the interception of communications, including the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crimes Act, 1999 and the Andhra Pradesh Control of Organised Crime Act, 2001 .Apart from the criminal statutes, there are certain other laws that address surveillance activities by Indian law enforcement agencies. These are:The Indian Post Office Act, 1898Section 26 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 empowers the Central Government and the State Governments of India to intercept postal articles. In particular, section 26 of the Act states that: on the occurrence of any public emergency or in the interest of public safety or tranquility, the Central Government, State Government or any officer specially authorised by the Central or State Government may direct the interception, detention or disposal of any postal article, class or description of postal articles in the course of transmission by post. Furthermore, section 26 states that if any doubt arises regarding the existence of public emergency, public safety or tranquility then a certificate to that effect by the Central Government or a State Government would be considered conclusive proof of such a condition being satisfied.Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 regulates targeted access to stored content. In particular, section 91 states that a Court in India or any officer in charge of a police station may summon a person to produce any document or any other "thing" that is necessary for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Under section 91, law enforcement agencies in India can access stored data. If the Commissioner of Police or Superintendent of Police believes that such a document, parcel or thing is required for the above mentioned purposes, he may require the postal or telegraph authority to detain such item pending an order from a court. Section 92 of the Code also allows District Magistrates and Courts to issue directions requiring document, parcel or “things” within the custody of any postal or telegraph authority to be produced before it if needed for the purpose of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under the Code. There is little judicial clarity on the subject but it has been argued that it is possible to interpret the provisions in a way that even private ISPs can be considered as postal or telegraph authorities and thus become subject to interception under this section. The level of protection granted to postal or telegraph authorities under section 92 is higher than that provided to ordinary citizens under section 91 since even a police officer in charge of a police station can ask for items to be produced whereas under section 92 it has to be either the District Magistrate or a specified Court.The Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933Under section 3 of the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933, the possession of wireless telegraphy apparatus without a license is considered an offense. As such, the unauthorised establishment, maintenance or operation of wireless communications networks for the purpose of monitoring, intercepting and surveilling communications is in violation of the Act.Central Motor Vehicles Act 1898 and 2012 RulesIn October 2012, Rule 138A of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 concerning radio frequency identification tags, was proposed. This proposed Rule mandates the installation of radio frequency identification (“RFID”) tags on all light and heavy motor vehicles to enable their instant identification and monitoring by electronic collection toll booths, the police and any other authority or person that is able to query and read RFID tags.Data retentionData retention standards can be found in the operating licenses and in the Information Technology Act, 2000. According to the operating licenses, service providers are required to maintain all commercial records for one year. This includes the called and calling party, their locations, the telephone numbers of call forwarding, data records of failed call attempts, and call data records (CDRs). Under section 3(4) of the Information Technology Intermediary Guidelines Rules, intermediaries are required to retain content that has been removed and associated information for a period of 90 days. Under section 4(2) of the Information Technology Guidelines for Cyber Cafes Rules, cyber cafes are required to retain copies of user identification for a period of one year. Section 5 of the Rules requires cyber cafes to retain logs of user information and browsing history for a period of one year.Surveillance actorsIntelligence AgenciesIn India, surveillance is carried out by central intelligence agencies. There are at least sixteen different intelligence agencies. Intelligence agencies in India are often established by executive order and most of the intelligence agencies in India do not have clearly established oversight mechanisms other than the departments to which they report. For example, CBI and RAW report to the Prime Minister's Office, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence reports to the Finance Ministry, and the Military Intelligence agencies report to the Ministry of Defence. As such, intelligence agencies do not come under the purview of Parliament or the Right to Information Act, and their functionings are not subject to audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General, though many agencies are funded from the Consolidated Fund of India. The following is a list of Indian intelligence agencies:National Technical Research OrganisationResearch and Analysis Wing (R&AW)The Aviation Research Centre (ARC) and the Radio Research Centre (RRC), which are a part of the Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW)Electronics and Technical Services (ETS), which is the electronic intelligence (ELINT) arm of R&AWIntelligence BureauNarcotics Control BureauDirectorate of Revenue IntelligenceCentral Economic Intelligence BureauCentral Bureau of Health IntelligenceDefence Intelligence AgencyJoint Cipher BureauSignals Intelligence DirectorateDirectorate of Air IntelligenceDirectorate of Navy IntelligenceDirectorate of Military IntelligenceDirectorate of Income Tax (Intelligence and Criminal Investigation)Directorate General of Income Tax InvestigationJoint Intelligence Committee (JIC)While the interception activities of intelligence agencies in India must be carried out in accordance with the procedures contained in the Telegraph Act, 1885 and the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Rules framed under those pieces of legislation, non-interception access as well as passive interception surveillance by intelligence agencies is not governed by these pieces of legislation. It is possible that these capabilities may be governed by internal guidelines or the operation manuals, for example, of individual agencies.State Police and ArmyEach Indian state has a dedicated police force made up of different divisions and officers. State police forces have maintained passive interception capabilities. The Army also has passive interception capabilities along the Line of Control to surveil civilian communications.Surveillance capabilitiesCentral Monitoring SystemSince 2009, the Government of India has been developing the Central Monitoring System (CMS), a system that seeks to automate and centralize the interception process. It will allow security agencies to bypass the service provider and directly intercept communications. Regional Monitoring Systems (RMS) for the lawful interception of telecommunications will also be established. The CMS is under the Centre for Development of Telematics (C-DoT), a registered society under Department of Telecommunications and Ministry of Information Technology.NETRANETRA (Network Traffic Analysis) is a software network developed by India's Centre for Artificial Intelligence and Robotics (CAIR), a Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) laboratory. It is intended to be used by the Intelligence Bureau, India's domestic intelligence agency, and the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), the country's external intelligence agency, to intercept and analyse internet traffic using pre-defined filters. It is capable of detecting words like 'attack', 'bomb', 'blast' or 'kill' from public and private internet traffic such as tweets, status updates, emails, internet calls, blogs and forums. It has been reported that through this network, security agencies will also be able to monitor voice traffic on international services like Skype and Google Talk. As part of implementation of the network, a national Internet scanning and coordination centre will be established.NATGRIDThe Ministry of Home Affairs had proposed the creation of a National Intelligence Grid (NATGRID) in India following the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks. The aim of the project was to collect comprehensive patterns of intelligence (21 citizen data sources) that can be readily accessed by 11 intelligence and investigative agencies in real time to track terror activities. These data sources will include bank account details, telephone records, passport data and vehicle registration details, among other types of data. Concerns were raised around NATGRID on grounds of potential violations of privacy and leakage of personal information.New Media WingIn the year 2013, a New Media Wing (NMW) was established under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to publicize government initiatives through multiple social media platforms. NMW monitors online media to track trends and gauge public opinion.BlackBerry controversySince 2008 the Indian Government has sought access to content on BlackBerry phones through a number of different proposals. After much pushback, in 2013, the Company delivered a solution that enables India’s wireless carriers to address their lawful access requirements for consumer messaging services of BlackBerry, including BlackBerry Messenger (BBM) and BlackBerry Internet Service (BIS) email. However, this enabling of lawful access does not extend to BlackBerry Enterprise Server (BES). As a result, the Indian government can now monitor the exchange of emails and email attachments on BlackBerry devices, and also whether messages on BlackBerry Messenger have been marked ‘delivered’ or ‘read.’ The BES was excluded as BlackBerry managed to persuade the government that it did not possess the BES encryption keys.Interception technologiesThe operating licenses for service providers specify the capabilities that the technology must have. See also the section on telecommunications industry licensing for more detail.​To build the technological capacity of intelligence agencies, in 2010, the Indian government dedicated INR 660.92 million (66.92 crores) to revamping the special branches/intelligence agencies. This included enhancing GIS mapping, integrated documentation systems and integrated data centres, voice loggers, IED Jammers, VHF Mobile Jammers. These funds were sanctioned by the High Powered Committee under the Ministry of Home Affairs.Surveillance companiesIndia hosts many security technology expos. These include Ground Zero, Convergence Secutech India, International Police Expo, Secure Cities, defexpo, IFSEC India, and the India International Security Expo. A wide range of technologies is on offer at these events, including access control systems; perimeter protection; surveillance devices; burglar alarm systems; explosive detection and disposal equipment; aviation security; disaster management and NBCW protection equipment; equipment for bank and hospital security; information security devices; audiovisual surveillance and de-bugging devices; equipment for forensic science; and more. A number of world’s largest communications surveillance companies like ZTE, Utimaco and Verint Systems also have India offices. Additionally, command and control servers of intrusion malware FinFisher have been found in India.The Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) published a study of 100 surveillance companies in India. Out of the 100 identified, 76 companies appear to sell surveillance products performing functions such as internet monitoring, social network analysis, data mining and profiling, and also surveillance cameras, analytics, biometric collection, and access control systems. Most of the companies were headquartered in India; however, some were headquartered in countries including the United States, the UK, France and Poland. The research report suggested that biometric technology, access control systems, Internet and phone monitoring solutions as well as RFID and GPS tracking devices are in high demand.The data collected by CIS suggests that the clients for the security solutions include law enforcement agencies, intelligence and securities government agencies, military, internet service providers, telecommunications service providers, corporations and the public. For instance, many of the companies sell CCTV cameras and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) to law enforcement agencies and the Indian military, biometric systems to the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), and possibly phone and Internet monitoring tools to intelligence agencies. Lawful interception technical regulations and standards adhered to by these companies include those proposed by Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS), European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) and Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), and standards such as ISO 9001: 2008, ISO 27001: 2005, STQC Certification, INCITS 379 and BS 7799. However, fewer than half of the companies in the study had publicly available certification information. Similarly, fewer than half of the companies in the study have privacy policies available on their websites. The remaining companies do not clearly define how they handle the data they collected.Surveillance oversight: checks and balancesReview CommitteesThe 419A Rules under the Telegraph Act mandate the creation of a Review Committee with the Cabinet Secretary as its Chairman and the Secretary to the Government in charge of Legal Affairs and the Secretary to the Department of Telecommunications as its members under Rule 16. This Review Committee also oversees interceptions under section 69 of the ITA and the Rules established under section 69B of the Information Technology Act 2000. Every order of interception, monitoring, or decryption under the Telegraph Act as well as the ITA must be sent to the Review Committee within seven days of being issued. The Review Committee is to meet at least once every two months at the central/state level and must validate the legality of the order. The committee has the authority to revoke orders and destroy copies of the intercepted message or class of message.Regulatory bodiesIn India, government departments involved in ensuring and overseeing cyber security are often also involved in some aspect of surveillance, as surveillance is legally justified for cybersecurity and national security purposes in India. Key government departments apart from the security agencies that play a role in ensuring India’s cyber security and overseeing and regulating surveillance in India include the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) and the Department of Electronics and Information Technology (DeitY). Under the DoT, Term Cells play a key role in overseeing the installation of interception equipment.The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) is another government department that plays a role in surveillance. The MHA is responsible for the internal security of the country and the various central security agencies that report to and operate under it. Further, as per the rules promulgated under the IT Act as well as the Telegraph Act, the Secretary of the Ministry of Home Affairs is the "competent authority" to issue interception orders under this legislation in the normal course.TransparencyWhile as per Rule 419A of the Telegraph Rules and Rules under section 69 of the Information Technology Act, service providers are required to maintain the secrecy and confidentiality of the intercepted information and directions for interception, there is no specific prohibition on disclosing the number of surveillance orders issued in an aggregate form. In practice, though, it appears that service providers interpret the requirement of secrecy to extend to aggregate information regarding interception orders as in Vodafone's 2014 'Disclosure Report'. In this report, Vodafone noted that, following Indian law, it could not disclose information on interception of communications and access to communications data it provided or did not provide to the Indian government.RemedyTo date, there is no statutory redress mechanism that an individual can resort to in cases of suspected illegal interception. The most that an individual can do is to approach the court and claim an invasion of his/her right to privacy. In such a case, the redress available would be determined by the Court itself. A number of statutes penalize unlawful surveillance. For example, Section 24 of the Indian Telegraph Act states that the penalty for unlawful interception is a fine of up to 500 rupees and imprisonment of up to one year. In case of unlawful interception by a telegraph officer or person with official duties connected to a telegraph office, the penalty is a fine or imprisonment of up to three years or both. The Rules under section 69 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 provide that service providers or their employees who intentionally and without authorisation attempt to intercept, authorise, or assist any person to intercept information in transmission at any place within India will be punished according to the relevant provisions. In case of unauthorised interception by security agencies, no specific penalty is provided for but there is a “catch-all” penalty under the ITA (section 45) that states that any person who contravenes any provisions of the ITA or the Rules or Regulations under the ITA would be liable to pay a fine not exceeding 25,000 rupees.Surveillance case lawCase law dealing with surveillance has been extremely influential in shaping the privacy landscape in India. The first two cases that established the right to privacy in India, Kharak Singh v. Union of India and Govind v. State of M.P., were decided in the context of the surveillance activities of the police. These two cases have already been discussed above. Apart from the above, the major cases on surveillance are given below:R.M Malkani v. State of Maharashtra, (1972). In this case, it was held that although telephonic conversations of individual citizens are protected against high-handed interference by tapping, illegally obtained evidence would still be admissible in court. It was held that although the conversation was recorded without the consent of the person, that would not prevent it from being admissible as evidence.State (N.C.T. of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru (2005). In this case, the Supreme Court held that the pre-requisite conditions under a special statute such as the Prevention of Terrorism Act for admitting the evidence collected against the accused through the interception of wire, electronic or oral communication have to be complied with before accepting such material as evidence.It therefore appears that under Indian law, if the statute under which a person is being charged is silent as to the admissibility of illegally obtained evidence, then such evidence may be accepted in court. However, it is up to the Judge to decide how much reliance, if any, is to be placed on such evidence. However if the statute in question has a specific procedure by which such evidence has to be collected, then such evidence will not be admitted if the procedure has not been complied with.Examples of surveillanceNews reports indicated that a variety of Indian individuals and groups have been subjected to surveillance including journalists, right to information activists, politicians, NGOs, and free speech activists. Key examples of surveillance include:For a year beginning in 2008, the Indian Income Tax Department, after obtaining the authorisation from the Ministry of Home Affairs, intercepted the telephonic conversations of corporate lobbyist Nira Radia with various prominent personalities including politicians, journalists and business houses for suspected tax evasion, possible money laundering, and restricted financial practices. However, some of the tapes of recorded conversations were leaked publicly. Although the surveillance was legal in this particular case, the publication of the recordings for access of the general public was challenged by Ratan Tata, one of the persons whose conversations with Nira Radia were leaked. Claiming the leak to be an infringement of his right to privacy, he accused the authorities of allowing the unauthorised publication of the recordings and not preventing the dissemination of the information. The case is currently pending in court.In 2015, the Gujarat state government was accused by pro-Patel reservation leader Hardik Patel of tapping his telephone calls, evidence from which led to Hardik and his associates being booked for criminal conspiracy. The Gujarat High Court has questioned the legality of the tapping and has asked the government to furnish an explanation.In 2016, a Supreme Court Lawyer alleged that phone conversations of corporate chiefs, Cabinet Ministers and bureaucrats were tapped by the Essar Group between 2001 and 2006, according to a 29-page complaint submitted on 1 June 2016 to Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The officials have clarified that no formal probe has yet been ordered into the alleged phone-tapping. The purported conversations that were recorded reveal widespread peddling of influence in the corridors of power, “corruption in the business milieu,” brokering of deals and blurring of lines between business and government. Public interest litigation has been filed in this matter and Essar has sought to have the case dismissed, questioning the authenticity of the emails.Data ProtectionData protection lawsIT Act and RulesThe strongest legal protection provided to personal information in India is through section 43A of the Information Technology Act and the Information Technology (Reasonable security practices and procedures and sensitive personal data or information) Rules, 2011 developed under the section. The provision requires a body corporate who 'receives, possesses, stores, deals, or handles' any ‘sensitive personal data’ to implement and maintain ‘reasonable security practices’, failing which they are held liable to compensate those affected. The Rules under section 43A contain the following major requirements:Body corporates must provide a privacy policy to all 'providers of information' (Rule 4);They must obtain consent in letter, fax, or email from the 'provider of information' before collecting, using or disclosing any sensitive personal information (Rule 5(1));Sensitive personal information may only be collected for lawful and necessary purposes (Rule 5(2)(a)). While collecting the information, they must ensure that the individual is informed of the a) fact that the information is being collected; b) the purpose for which the information is being collected; c) the intended recipients of the information; d) the name and the address of the agency collecting information, and the agency that will retain the information (Rule 5(3));Information should only be used for stated and agreed to purposes (Rule 5(5));Individuals should be provided with the option to opt in or out of services prior to the collection of sensitive personal information and should have the ability to withdraw consent at any point in time (Rule 5(7));Individuals should be allowed to review, update, and correct any sensitive personal information that they have provided wherever necessary (Rule 5(6));Body corporates are allowed to retain sensitive personal information only as long as is lawfully necessary (Rule 5(4));Before a body corporate is allowed to disclose or publish sensitive personal information to a third party, consent must be obtained from the individual who the information belongs. The only circumstances under which a body corporate may disclose information is (i) if it is required to do so by a contract with the provider of the information or through the law; or (ii) if it is to be disclosed to a governmental agency mandated under law (Rule 6(1)); andBody corporates must implement security practices and standards which require: a) a comprehensively documented information security programme; b) information security policies must contain managerial, technical, operational and physical security control measures that are commensurate with the information assets being protected (Rule 8).Non-observance of the data protection rules and general negligence with respect to personal data attracts civil liability since the provisions provide that any corporates who fail to observe data protection norms may be liable to pay compensation if they are negligent in implementing and maintaining reasonable security practices and thereby cause wrongful loss or wrongful gain to any person. In addition, body corporates may be exposed to criminal liability under Section 72A of the IT Act if they disclose personal information with the intent of causing wrongful loss or obtaining a wrongful gain.Consumer Protection ActIn 2015, the Consumer Protection Act was enacted. The Act could be an additional source of redress for the misuse of personal data by commercial entities as the Act includes the disclosure of personal information given in confidence as an unfair trade practice (as defined under section 2 (r)) and includes mental or emotional harm resulting from damage to property, among other things, as a harm.The Justice AP Shah Committee on PrivacyThe Planning Commission of the Government of India held meetings of the Group of Experts on Privacy Issues throughout 2012. The Group was chaired by Justice AP Shah, the former Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court. This report entails a list of recommended national privacy principles that should be followed in the creation of a privacy law. According to the report, the national privacy principles of India should be the following:Principle of Notice: This principle requires a data controller to notify all individuals of its information practices before collecting information from them.Principle of Choice and Consent: This principle requires all data controllers to give individuals choices, either through the opt-in method or through the opt-out method, with regard to providing their personal information, and further states that no collection or processing et alia of data should take place without such consent, with the exception of authorised agencies.Principle of Collection Limitation: This principle requires a data controller to collect only as much information as is directly necessary for the purposes identified and notified to the data subject for such collection, and to do so through ‘lawful’ and ‘fair’ means.Principle of Purpose Limitation: It requires that the collection or processing of information be restricted to only as much information as is adequate and relevant. It further states that the collection, procession, disclosure, usage, et alia of personal information by a data controller should be limited to the purpose notified and consented to the individual by the data controller, and that any change in this purpose must be notified to the individual.Principle of Access and Correction: This principle requires that data subjects have access to the data held about them, the ability to seek correction, amendment, or deletion of such data in case of inaccuracy, and the ability to confirm if a data controller is holding any information on them.Principle of Disclosure of Information: This principle secures the right to privacy of a data subject in case the personal information collected by a data controller is disclosed to a third party.Principle of Security: This principle requires that a data controller ensure the security of the collected personal information by ‘reasonable security standards’ to protect from reasonably foreseeable risks, and specifically mentions the following possible dangers: loss, unauthorised access, destruction, use, processing, storage, modification, deanonymisation, and unauthorised disclosure, either accidental or incidental.Principle of Openness: This principle requires a data controller to make public all the information it can about the practices, procedures, policies and systems that it implements in order to comply with the National Privacy principles.Principle of Accountability: This principle makes the data controller accountable for complying with measures that give effect to the Principles. It states that such measures should include mechanisms to implement privacy policies, and specifically mentions the following: training and education, external and internal audits, and requiring organizations or overseeing bodies extend all necessary support to the Privacy Commissioner and comply with the Commissioner’s orders.Draft Legislation on the Right to PrivacySince 2010, starting with an Approach Paper on Privacy, India has been deliberating on the contours of a piece of privacy legislation drafts of which were released in 2011 and 2014. The 2014 version was leaked and is still under proposal as of 2017, but if it became law it would recognize the right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, establish a Data Protection Authority, and establish an alternative dispute mechanism for addressing disputes between data controllers and individuals.Accountability mechanismsPresently, there is no explicit law in India that allows an affected individual to find out what information is held about themselves. Other accountability mechanisms pertaining to data protection include:Freedom of InformationThe Right to Informatiom Act establishes the right of citizens to request information held by public authorities. However, it specifically prohibits disclosure of information that relates to personal information if (i) the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest; or (ii) that would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual. Theseve two conditions are voided if a larger public interest is satisfied by the disclosure of such information.An overview of case law pertaining to the RTI Act, especially sections 6 to 8, gives the impression that the legislature has tried to balance and harmonize conflicting public and private rights and interests by building sufficient safeguards and exceptions to the general principles of disclosure under the Act (Public Information Officer v. Andhra Pradesh Information Commission, 2009 (76) AIC 854 (AP)). This is why it is generally suggested that section 8, when applied, should be given a strict interpretation as it is a fetter on not only a statutory right granted under the RTI Act but also a pre-existing constitutional right (Bhagat Singh v. Chief Information Commissioner, 2008 (64) AIC 284 (Del).) Logical as this argument may seem and as appropriate in some circumstances, it does present a problem when dealing with the privacy exception contained in section 8(1)(j). This is because the right to privacy envisaged in this section has also been traced to the same provisions of the Constitution from which the constitutional right of freedom of information emanates (Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950.) There is an ambiguity regarding the treatment and priority given to the privacy exception versus the disclosure mandate in the RTI Act, as it requires the balancing of not only two competing statutory rights but also two constitutional rights.Regulatory bodiesNo specific body exists to regulate privacy and data protection in India. The Data Security Council of India is a self-regulated organization associated with NASSCOM that works with industry on a voluntary basis to develop codes and practices related to data protection and security. Yet these are non-enforceable and non-binding.Cyber Appellate TribunalsIn India, the first and only Cyber Appellate Tribunal has been established by the Central Government in accordance with the provisions contained under Section 48(1) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The Tribunal, initially known as the Cyber Regulations Appellate Tribunal (CRAT), is known as the Cyber Appellate Tribunal (CyAT) after amendment of the IT Act in 2008. The first Cyber Appellate Tribunal set up by the Central Government is in New Delhi. Although a second branch of the Tribunal was to be set up in Bangalore, as of 2017, there has been no progress on the issue.Furthermore, the position of the Chairperson of the Appellate Tribunal has been left vacant since 2011, after the appointed Chairperson retired. Although judicial and technical members have been appointed at various points, the tribunal cannot hold hearings without a chairperson. A total of 17 judgements have been passed by the Cyber Appellate Tribunal prior to the retirement of the chairperson, while the backlog of cases continuously grows. Despite a writ petition being filed before the Karnataka High Court and the Secretary of the Department of IT's official statement that the Chairperson would be appointed within six months (as of September 2013), no action seems to have been taken in this regard, and the lacunae in the judicial mechanism under the IT Act continues. The proper functioning of adjudicating officers and the Cyber Appellate Tribunal is particularly necessary for the functioning of a just judicial system in light of the provisions of the Act (namely, Section 61) that bar the jurisdiction of ordinary civil courts in claims below the amount of Rs. 5 Crores, where the adjudicating officer or the CAT is empowered.In the April 2017 Finance Bill, it was announced that the Cyber Appellate Tribunal would be dissolved with its functions taken over by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT).Data breaches: Case lawWhile there are a few judicial decisions regarding instances in which employees or others with physical access to data have copied and used data in an unauthorized manner, there do not seem to be any cases yet where it has been alleged that data has been stolen by breaching the security systems of the data processor/controller.Examples of data breachesThere have been a number of data breaches in India. According to the 2015 Breach Level Index report by Gemalto, India had 20 data breaches in 2015 that resulted in 32.1 million records being exposed.In May 2016 it was reported that the ticket-booking website of Indian Railways had been hacked and personal data of around 10 million customers was feared to have been stolen from the servers of the e-ticketing portal. It was reported that IRCTC officials also feared that personal details including phone numbers, date of birth and other such details of its customers had been sold on a CD for Rs 15,000. The Indian Railways Catering and Tourism Corporation denied that their website had been hacked, and claimed that they had not received any indication that a data breach had taken place.In October 2016, malware reportedly introduced in systems of Hitachi Payment Services enabled criminals to steal financial information of customers of a number of banking institutions including Visa, MasterCard, ICICI Bank, Axis Bank and YES Bank. As many as 3.2 million cards were compromised as a result of the breach.In May 2017, a hacker reportedly stole email addresses and password details for 17 millon users of an Indian food delivery app, Zomato. In a statement, Zomato confirmed that no financial information was reportedly compromised.In July 2017, details of customers of mobile operator Reliance Jio were published online. Compromised information included email id, full name, Reliance Jio mobile number, and SIM activation dates. Reliance Jio originally did not autenticate the leak, stating that it was investigating the matter internally. The company reportedly has since filed a police complaint alleging "unlawful access" to its systems.Identification SchemesID cards and databasesIn India, there are two national identity databases: the Unique Identification (also known as Aadhaar) database, and the National Population Registrar (NPR). In addition to these two databases, there are other documents that are used as proof of identity such as passports, PAN cards, ration cards, driving licenses, and electoral documents.The Unique Identity Scheme - AadhaarThe UID scheme is the world’s largest identification number scheme. The UID scheme was first implemented in 2010, and Aadhaar enrollment reached 1 billion in April 2016. The scheme seeks to issue every resident of India a 12-digit identity number based on his/her biometric information (including fingerprints, iris scans, and photographs) and demographic data (including address, name, family name, and age) on a voluntary basis. The number is known as Aadhaar. To enroll in the UID, individuals must go to registrars and enrollment centres with the appropriate documentation. Enrolment centres are agencies under contract with the UIDAI and registrars can be public and private organizations. Once documents are verified and biometrics taken, individuals will receive an acknowledgment slip and their UID number will be sent in the mail. The UIDAI will own and operate a Central Identities Data Repository (CIDR), a centralized database that will contain biometric and demographic data of citizens. The number can be used to authenticate individuals' identities during transactions and when accessing governmental services. To enable the delivery of services, an individual's Aadhaar number is seeded into the database of service providers. Biometric technology used in the scheme must be certified by the Standardisation Testing and Quality Certification Directorate under DeiTy. As of November 2015, certified suppliers include: BioEnable Technologies, Inspirate IT Solutions and Services, Precision Informatic (Madras), Sagem Morpho Security, and Terasoftware, M/s BioEnable Technologies.The UID scheme is run by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), an agency created by the Government of India as an attached office of the Planning Commission of India via Notification No. A.03011/02/2009-Ad. In 2012, a writ petition was filed by Justice K.S. Puttaswamy in the Supreme Court of India challenging the policy of the government in making an Aadhaar card mandatory for every person in India and its subsequent plans to link various government benefit schemes to the card. The court made an interim order on 23 September 2013 whereby it ordered that no person should suffer discrimination in access to services on account of not having an Aadhaar card. Subsequent issues about the constitutional validity of the right to privacy have been raised and the case is pending before the court. On 11 March 2016, the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 (the “Aadhaar Act”) was passed by the Lok Sabha to establish a legislative framework for the Aadhaar scheme.While the Aadhaar Act has been debated and criticized for a number of reasons, it also has a number of privacy implications, some of which are discussed below in brief:The Aadhaar Act entitles every “resident” to obtain an Aadhaar number by submitting his or her biometric information (photograph, finger print, Iris scan) and demographic information (name, date of birth, address) under Section 3(1) of the Aadhaar Act. It has been specified that demographic information will not include race, religion, caste, tribe, ethnicity, language, records of entitlement, income or medical history. Therefore, although the Act specifically provides what information can be collected, it does not specifically prohibit the collection of further information. A resident is defined as any person who has resided in India for a period of at least 182 days in the previous 12 months.The Aadhaar Act provides (under the proviso to Section 28) that Aadhaar number holders may request the UIDAI to provide access to their identity information except their core biometric information. It is not clear why access to the core biometric information (defined as fingerprints, iris scans or other biological attributes which may be specified by regulations) is not provided to an individual. Further, since section 6 seems to place the responsibility of updating and ensuring accuracy of biometric information of the individual, it is not clear how a person is supposed to know that the biometric information contained in the database has changed if he or she does not have access to the same.The Aadhaar Act gives individuals the right to request that the UIDAI alter their demographic if the same is incorrect or has changed and biometric information if it is lost or has changed under Section 31. This section provides for the alteration of identity information but only in the circumstances given in the section, for example demographic information cannot be changed if it has been lost, similarly biometric information cannot be changed if it is inaccurate.Under Section 8(4), the UIDAI is entitled to reply to any authentication query with a positive, negative or any other response which may be appropriate and may share identity information except core biometric information with the requesting entity.The UIDAI has been given the power to appoint any one or more entities to establish and maintain the Central Identities Data Repository (CIDR) under Section 10.The biometric information collected by the UIDAI has been deemed to be an “electronic record” as well as “sensitive personal data or information” under Section 30 of the Act, which would mean that in addition to the provisions of the Adhaar Act, the provisions contained in the Information Technology Act, 2000 will also apply to such information. It must be noted that while the Act details the principle that UIDAI is required to ensure the safety of the information, it does not anywhere establish any guidelines as to the minimum security standards to be implemented by the Authority. However, through this section the legislature has linked the security standards contained in the IT Act to the biometric information addressed in the Aadhaar Act.National Population RegisterThe NPR is legally grounded in the provisions of the Citizenship Act, 1955 and the Citizenship Rules, 2003. Under the NPR, it is mandatory for every resident in India to register in the NPR according to the terms of Section 14A of the Citizenship Act, 1955. The NPR scheme began collecting data in 2010. The data collected under this scheme is managed by the Department of Electronics and Information Technology.The NPR database will include thirteen categories of demographic information and three categories of biometrics. The collection of biometric information is not authorized by the Citizenship Rules and is provided for through guidelines. This is according to the Department of Information Technology National Population Register. The procedures to be followed for creating the NPR have been laid down in the Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and issue of National Identity Cards) Rules, 2003, and the guidelines are issued from time to time.The biometric data collected comprises of two iris scans, ten fingerprints, and a photograph. According to a 2010 Committee note, only the photograph and fingerprints were initially intended to be collected, while the iris scans were added later. The de-duplication of biometrics is currently outsourced to the Unique Identification Authority of India and the collection of biometrics is outsourced to private entities. The NPR involves a dual collection process. In the first stage, a door-to-door data collection is carried out as part of the Census, through a questionnaire without verification or supporting documents. This is followed by a verification process through public display of the information. This data is then digitized. The data subjects are then to give their biometric data at the data collection centres, on the production of the census slip. The biometric data collectors are parties who are empanelled by the UIDAI and are eligible to collect data under the UID Scheme. A subject’s data is aggregated and then de-duplicated by the UIDAI.The ID card for the NPR is proposed to be a smart card with a micro-processor chip and the demographic and biometric attributes of each individual will be personalized in this chip along with the UID number. Currently, the government is only considering the possibility of distributing smart cards to all residents over the age of 18.Voter registrationElections in India are conducted according to constitutional provisions, and supplemented by laws made by Parliament. The Representation of the People Act, 1950 lays out standards and procedures for the preparation and revision of electoral rolls, the carrying out elections, and for post election disputes. The Election Commission of India (ECI) is the permanent constitutional body responsible for overseeing elections in India. One of the functions of the ECI is to prepare electoral rolls of registered voters in all assembly constituencies in India and more recently, to issue photo identity cards (EPIC) to all voters.For the purpose of preparing the electoral rolls, a registration officer may access and request copies of the Register of Births and Deaths and the admission register of any educational institution in any area. The current method of preparing the electoral rolls in India is through house-to-house collection and verification of information. Registration is thus based on locale, and an individual is only permitted to register in one place. The complete electoral rolls – containing details such as full name, relatives, age, sex and EPIC number - are required by law to be available for inspection at office of the registration officer, and copies of the rolls must be supplied to every political party under Rule 22 of the Registration of Elector Rules, 1960. The Election Commission has placed the complete electoral rolls on its website so the complete list is open for inspection by any person with an internet connection. Rule 33 of the Act provides that all citizens may obtain copies of extracts of the rolls pertaining to themselves upon payment of a fee. Copies of the rolls, including photo rolls, requested by citizens under the Right to Information Act may be provided only if they do not deal with specific third-party individuals. For example, it is possible to requisition a specific page of the roll - for instance, page 45 - but it is not possible to specifically requisition the portion of the rolls on which a specific name appears.In addition, it has become common practice for state election commission websites to provide online access to complete lists of electoral rolls that they maintain. Also, with the aim of “changing the way users access their electoral information, that is publicly available, which would make experience of voters simpler, faster and consistent through a national online look-up tool”, the publication of electoral rolls online has raised privacy concerns. Google had proposed to have an “electoral look up services for citizens” in 2014. However, after due consideration, the Election Commission in India decided not to pursue the proposal.SIM card registrationAccording to the Unified Access Service (UAS) license, service providers are required to maintain a subscriber database with required proof of identity and address when issuing SIMs to individuals.Registration for public Wi-Fi accessIn light of national security concerns around the use of public Wi-Fi, the Department of Telecommunication published a regulation in February 2009 defining procedures for the establishment and use of public Wi-Fi to prevent "misuse" of public Wi-Fi and to be able to track the perpetrator in case of "abuse". In this, the DOT has stated that “Insecure Wi-Fi networks are capable of being misused without any trail of user at later date”. Regarding Wi-Fi services provided at public places, the Regulations state that "bulk login IDs shall be created for controlled distribution with authentication done through a centralized server. Individuals using public wifi are required to register with a temporary user ID and password and must submit a copy of photo identity to the provider which is to be maintained for one year and recieve details of a user ID and password via SMS on their mobile phone."There are also rules for using cyber cafes. The Information Technology (Guidelines for Cyber Cafe) Rules, 2011 state that an internet cafe must establish and record the identity of the user and any person who accompanied him or her, keeping the information in the log register for a minimum of one year. Also, the cyber cafe owner is responsible for storing and maintaining backups of records for each access or login by any user of its computer resource for at least one year, including the history of websites accessed and logs of any proxy server installed at the internet cafe.Policies and Sectoral InitiativesCybersecurity policyIn 2013 the Government published a National Cyber Security Policy. The Policy established an umbrella framework for securing Indian cyberspace and lays out the need to develop a national nodal agency to coordinate cybersecurity initiatives, create an assurance framework, encourage the use of open standards across products and services, create a dynamic legal framework for cyber security, create early warning mechanisms, secure e-government services, enhance the security of critical information structure and enable the prevention and investigation of cyber crime.The 2013-2014 report by the Standing Committee on Information Technology noted that a number of initiatives envisioned in the policy had not yet been implemented and recommended the establishment of a National Critical Information Infrastructure Protection Centre and a centralized body to address cybercrime in India. The Committee also noted the need for capacity building and for a legal framework to protect privacy in India.CybercrimeLegislationCybercrime is legally addressed in the IT Act, including in the following sections:Causing damage to computer, computer system, etc. (section 43);Accessing or securing access to such computer, computer system or computer network or computer resource (section 43a) ;Downloading, copying or extracting any data, computer database or information from such a computer, computer system or computer network including information or data held or stored in any removable storage medium (section 43b);Producing or causing to be introduced to any computer contaminant or computer virus into any computer, computer system or computer network (section 43c);Damaging or causing to be damaged any computer, computer system or computer network, data, computer database or any other programmes residing in such a computer, computer system or computer network (section 43d);Disrupting or causing disruption of any computer, computer system or computer network (section 43e);Denying or causing the denial of access to any person authorised to access any computer, computer system or computer network by any means (section 43f);Providing any assistance to any person to facilitate access to a computer, computer system or computer network in contravention of the provisions of this Act, rules or regulations made thereunder (section 43g);Charging the services availed of by a person to the account of another person by tampering with or manipulating any computer, computer system, or computer network (section 43h);Destroying, deleting or altering any information residing in a computer resource or diminishing its value or utility or affecting it injuriously by any means (section 43i);Stealing, concealing, destroying or altering or causing any person to steal, conceal, destroy or alter any computer source code used for a computer resource with an intention to cause damage (section 43j);Dishonestly receiving or retaining any stolen computer resource or communication device knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen (section 66B);Fraudulently or dishonestly making use of the electronic signature, password or any other unique identification feature of any other person; (section 66C)Cheating by impersonation by means of any communication device or computer resource; (section 66D)Intentionally or knowingly capturing, publishing or transmitting the image of a private area of any person without his or her consent, under circumstances violating the privacy of that person; (section 66E)Indulging in cyber terrorism as defined in the Act; (section 66F)Publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form; (section 67)Publishing or transmitting material containing sexually explicit acts, etc. in electronic form; (section 67A)Publishing or transmitting of material depicting children in a sexually explicit act, etc. in electronic form; (section 67B)Failure to protect data; (section 43A)Failure to furnish information, etc; (section 44) andNon-compliance with provisions of the Acts, Rules and Regulations. (section 45)Other than the above-mentioned offences, the ITA also contains a provision that gives legal recognition to electronic records. Thus any offence that may be committed through physical paper would also be considered an offence if committed through electronic means.Regulatory bodiesBroadly, DeitY is responsible for the administration of the Information Technology Act 2000 and other IT related laws. Under DeitY, CERT-IN is the nodal agency for cyber security in India and C-DAC develops indigenous software and technologies that can be used for surveillance and security purposes. The Central Government is currently in the process of approving a National Cyber Coordination Centre, a new security body that would responsible for cyber intelligence and cyber security. The Centre will be established and handled by the Indian Computer Emergency Response Team with the objective of streamlining coordination between intelligence agencies and to screen all forms of metadata, and not personal data. Therefore, it is said to work with Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to analyze the metadata of Indian users but it will not mine information. Other ministries in India that play a role in cyber security in India include:the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, the Ministry of External Affairs, the Prime Minister's Office, and the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology.EncryptionUnder section 84A of the Information Technology Act, the Central Government has the power to set the nationally permitted method and mode for encryption. Currently, the Unified Access License permits 40-bit bulk encryption.In 2015 the Department of Electronics and Information Technology published a draft National Encryption Policy for public comment. The Policy proposed a framework that would allow the government to establish permitted algorithms and key sizes for encryption, require businesses to store encrypted data for 90 days and make the data available to law enforcement agencies when requested, require businesses to provide communications with foreign companies in plain text, and require service providers offering encryption to register with the government. The Policy was harshly criticised by the public, and has been withdrawn for the time being.Licensing of industryIndia has a diverse market of telecommunications and Internet Service Providers. Some major telecom companies include: Bharti Airtel, Aircel LTD, Reliance Communications, Tata Teleservices, Vodafone, MTNL, Idea Cellular, BSNL and Reliance Jio Infocomm. Of these, BSNL and MTNL are state owned service providers.The Department of Telecommunications is the overseeing body for telecommunication and internet service providers in India, responsible for the following areas that are relevant to security and privacy:Development of policy;Licensing and coordination of communication services;Framing of rules related to the security of telecom networks in India and coordination with security agencies on the same;Cooperation and coordination with international bodies related to telecommunications;Promotion of standardization, manufacturing, research and development in telecommunications; andImplementation of relevant laws including the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933, and the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997.Key bodies under the Department of Telecommunications include Telecom Enforcement Resource Management Cells, the Centre for Development of Telematics, the Telecommunication Engineering Centre, the National Telecommunications Institute for Policy Research, Innovation and Training, and the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, and TDAT.Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and Telecom Service Providers (TSPs) in India are required to comply with the License Agreement for Provision of Internet Services, which is issued by the Department of Telecommunications of the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology. This License Agreement is governed by the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933, and by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997. Telecom Service Providers (TSPs) in India have to comply with two license agreements in order to operate: the Cellular Mobile Telephone Service (CMTS) License Agreement and the License Agreement for the Provision of Basic Telephone Services (BTS). The first license agreement applies to cellular mobile communications, whereas the second applies to landlines. The Unified Access Services (UAS) License Agreement applies to both Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and Telecom Service Providers (TSPs) operating in India and serves as an “umbrella” license agreement. These licenses can be amended and updated by the Department of Telecommunications. For example, in 2013, the UAS licence agreement was amended to provide for the technical requirements of the Centralized Monitoring System. Through applicable licenses, a number of security requirements are imposed on service providers, for example, tracing and monitoring capabilities and requirements, provision of subscribers' identity and location, access to law enforcement, retention of subscriber information, and encryption limitations. ​​E-governance/digital agendaFor many years the government of India has been leveraging technology with the goal of better and more efficient government services. In 2006, the Government of India launched National e-Governance Plan (NeGP) and 31 Mission Mode Projects covering various domains were initiated. According to the government, e-Governance as a whole has not been able to achieve the desired impact and fulfil all its objectives and significantly more effort is required to ensure e-Governance in the country promote inclusive growth that covers electronic services, products, devices and job opportunities. In order to transform the entire ecosystem of public services through the use of information technology, the Government of India has launched the Digital India programme with the vision to transform India into a digitally empowered society and knowledge economy. The approach to be adopted to implement this digital agenda has been laid out in the following terms:Ministries/Departments/States would fully leverage the Common and Support ICT Infrastructure established by the central government. The Department of Electronics and Information Technolgy (DeITy) would also lay down standards and policy guidelines, provide technical and handholding support, undertake capacity building, R&D, etc.The existing and ongoing e-Governance initiatives would be suitably revamped to align them with the principles of Digital India.States would be given flexibility to identify for inclusion of additional state-specific projects, which are relevant for their socio-economic needs.e-Governance would be promoted through a centralised initiative to the extent necessary, to ensure citizen centric service orientation, interoperability of various e-Governance applications and optimal utilisation of ICT infrastructure/ resources, while adopting a decentralised implementation model.Successes would be identified and their replication promoted proactively with the required productization and customisation wherever needed.Public Private Partnerships would be preferred wherever feasible to implement e-Governance projects with adequate management and strategic control.Adoption of Unique ID would be promoted to facilitate identification, authentication and delivery of benefits.Restructuring of NIC would be undertaken to strengthen the IT support to all government departments at Centre and State levels.The positions of Chief Information Officers (CIO) would be created in at least 10 key Ministries so that various e-Governance projects could be designed, developed and implemented faster.It appears that the emphasis of the government is on scaling the technology and improving infrastructure to provide services to the end user as promised and issues such as privacy are addressed in principle as some of the platforms employ HTTPS and have associated privacy standards in their terms and conditions - for example, MyGov: A Platform for Citizen Engagement towards Good Governance in India. However, India's data protection provisions under the IT Act do not extend to the public sector and privacy concerns have been voiced about the scheme in of the lack of a comprehensive privacy legislation in India.Some of the Digital India schemes include Digital Locker, in which the government is expected to roll out a national depository that will hold documents like birth certificates, school and college leaving certificates, residence and marriage proof, and even PAN cards in digitized form), MNREGA (which will ensure better implementation of the rural job scheme through mobile monitoring system), MyGov: A Platform for Citizen Engagement towards Good Governance in India (an online portal to engage citizens in governance through a “Discuss”, “Do” and “Disseminate” approach), e-Hospital (a Hospital Management System and patient centric applicatoion software meant ofr Hospitals in Government sectors to enable and avail services like online registration, payment of fees and appointment, online diagnostic reports, checking on the availability of blood online, etc.), eBasta (this project has created a framework to make school books accessible in digital form as e-books to be read and used on tablets and laptops), etc. Some of these, such as Digital Locker, are Aadhaar enabled, though it is clarified that provision of the Aadhaar is voluntary.In furtherance of the Digital India scheme, the Government of India launched an open API policy in 2015. An open API (Application Programming Interface), often referred to as a public API, is a publicly available API that provides programmers with programmatic access to a propriety software application. This set of open API is known as the India Stack, which is a complete set of API for developers and includes the Aadhaar for Authentication, e-KYC documents (safe deposit locker for issue, storage and use of documents), e-Sign (digital signature acceptable under the laws), unified payment interface (for financial transactions) and privacy-protected data sharing within the stack of API. It is envisioned that India Stack will enable the ease in integration of mobile applications with the data securely stored and provided by the government to authenticated Apps. DeitY has notified the open API policy to promote software interoperability for all e-Governance application and systems.Health sector and e-healthIn India, healthcare can be accessed through both state-run and privately owned establishments. Typically, unless accessing healthcare through a specific project or service that requires know your customer norms (like health insurance), individuals do not have to be registered to access healthcare nor is the provision of an identity document mandatory, though some states have plans of linking health databases to Aadhaar.E-Health Record StandardsIndia is in the process of standardizing health records to enhance the interoperability of health databases. To introduce a uniform system for maintenance of Electronic Health Records (EHR ) by the hospitals and healthcare providers in the country, an Expert Committee was set up by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare (MoH&FW). In September 2013, the MoH&FW notified the EHR Standards for India, based on the recommendations of the Expert Committee. The Committee also carefully examined the provisions of open standards and the guidelines as per the norms suggested by DeitY, MCIT and the Government of India. The EHR standards were improved and a revised version was publicly circulated on 18 March 2016 with the aim of ensuring syntactic (structural) and semantic (inherent meaning) interoperability of data amongst systems at all times.The standards contain detailed recommendations on the interoperability and standards, clinical informatics standards, data ownership, privacy and security and the various coding systems. For example, as per the Regulations, sensitive personal data or personal information of the patient as per the Information Technology Act, 2000 is owned by the patients; however the medium for storage or transmission of such data is owned by the healthcare provider. Also, the Standards provide that disclosure of protected/sensitive information for use in treatment, payments and other healthcare operations must be done only after obtaining a general consent of the patient. On the other hand, disclosures for non-routine and most non-health care purposes must be done only after obtaining the specific consent of the patient. Only for certain specified national priority activities, such as notifiable/communicable diseases, may information be disclosed to the appropriate authority as mandated by law without the patient's prior authorization.Health Insurance RecordsIndia's insurance regulator, the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IDRA), has issued a number of guidelines regulating third party administrators, outsourcing of functions, database sharing and health insurance portability, which cumulatively promotes customer confidentiality and privacy in the health insurance sector.The IRDA (Third Party Administrators - Health Services) Regulations place regulatory guidelines on ‘third party administrators’ (TPAs). TPAs have to observe a code of conduct so as to obtain a license from the IRDA. The salient features of the code of conduct in relation to health information privacy requires TPAs to refrain from trading information and the records of its business, maintain the confidentiality of the data collected by it in the course of its agreement, maintain proper records of all transactions carried out by it on behalf of an insurance company and keep them for a period of not less than three years.An exception to the maintenance and information confidentiality clause in the code of conduct requires TPAs to provide relevant information to any court of law or tribunal, the Government, or the Authority in the case of any investigation carried out or proposed to be carried out by the Authority against the insurance company, TPA or any other person or for any other reason.The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Sharing Of Database For Distribution Of Insurance Products) Regulations regulate the conditions under which insurance companies can purchase customer databases from referral companies. The regulations restrict referral companies from providing details of their customers without their prior consent, are forbidden from providing details of any person, firm or company with whom they have not had any recorded business transaction and if they are bound by any confidentiality agreement in the matter of sharing the personal and financial databases of its customers.The IDRA (Insurance Advertisements and Disclosure) Regulations 2000 require insurers or intermediaries to include disclosure statements on their website or portal outlining specific policies vis-a-vis the privacy of personal information.In February 2011, the IRDA issued guidelines permitting insurance companies to outsource their non-core functions which include claim processing for over overseas medical insurance, call centre, telemarketing, data entry, printing and posting of reminders and other documents and pre employment medical checkups among others. The guidelines require the insurer to take appropriate steps that require third party service providers protect confidential information of both the Insurer and its clients from intentional or inadvertent disclosure to unauthorized persons. In addition, if insurers issue policies and data storage in electronic form, it is mandatory for them to do so with the repository service providers authorised by IRDA. Lastly, the guidelines require every insurer to have an in-house Grievance Redressal Machinery to deal with grievances relating to services provided by the outsourced agencies.Legislation and CodesPrivacy safeguards afforded to health information as well as standards around access and disclosure can be found in various pieces of legislation and policy and patient privacy is a recognized principle in Indian jurisprudence. For example, the Rules issued under Section 43A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 classify “medical records and history” as sensitive personal data or information for the purposes of data protection standards and body corporate handling such data must do so in compliance with the Act and Rules. Additionally, the Medical Council of India (MCI) Code of Ethics Regulations sets the professional standards for medical practice. These include that:Physicians are obliged to protect the confidentiality of patients including their personal and domestic lives unless required by law or if there is a serious and identified risk to a specific person and/or community; and notifiable disease;Disclosure of a patient’s prognosis rests with the patient and not the medical attendant;Medical records of their patients for a period of three years;Patients, authorized attendants or legal authorities can request for medical records, which have to be issued within 72 hours.Efforts should be made to computerize medical records for quick retrieval; and thatPublication of photographs or case studies without consent by patients is prohibited. If the identity of the patient cannot be discerned then consent is not needed.Other important legislation include the Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) (PNDT) Act,1994 and associated Rules and the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act 1971 and associated Rules. The former legislation seeks to prevent sex determination and mandates that all records of pregnant women who have undergone an ultrasonography must be preserved for a period of two years. The PNDT (RPM) Rules, 1996 require that when the records are maintained on a computer, the person responsible for such record should preserve a printed copy of the record after authentication. The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act mandates that abortion may only be carried out by a registered medical practitioner under stipulated conditions. Medical practitioners are only allowed to disclose information of those who have terminated a pregnancy to the Chief Medical Officer of the State. Otherwise, it prohibits the disclosure of matters relating to treatment for termination of pregnancy. The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Regulations, 1975 explicitly mandate data collection and processing. Additionally, the Regulations stress the importance of secrecy and security of information. The medical practitioner is required to assign a serial number for the woman undergoing an abortion. Hospitals have to maintain an Admission Register of women who have terminated their pregnancy. They are prohibited from disclosing the information contained to anyone. The admission register is considered ‘secret’ and stored in safe custody of the head of the hospital. It must be destroyed on the expiry of a period of five years from the date of the last entry. It is not open to inspection by any person except with the authority of in the case of a department or other enquiry conducted by the Chief Secretary to the Government of a Union Territory, in case of an investigation into an offence a magistrate of the First Class; and in the case of suit or other action for damages conducted by the District Judge.Proposed LegislationThe Draft Human DNA Profiling Bill was piloted by the Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics in 2007 with the objective of regulating the use of DNA for forensic and other purposes. Later, in February 2012, another draft of the Bill was leaked. This version of the Bill was drafted by the Department of Biotechnology. Another working draft of the Bill was created in April 2012 which sought the creation of DNA databases at the state, regional, and national level. This has been critiqued by the committee chaired by Justice AP Shah in the “Report of Group of Experts on Privacy” for a lack of adequate privacy safeguards. In 2013, a Expert Committee to discuss the draft Human DNA Profiling Bill was constituted by the Department of Biotechnology. The Expert Committee had constituted a Sub-Committee to modify the draft Bill in the light of invited comments/inputs from the members of the Committee. In June 2015, the Department circulated a revised version of the Bill, which was introduced without comprehensive privacy safeguards in place on issues such as consent, collection, and retention and lacked provisions regarding instances when the DNA samples can be collected from the individuals without consent, when DNA samples can be collected from individuals only with informed consent, and how and in what instances individuals can withdraw their consent.Case LawThe courts in India have also been influential in shaping the laws dealing with health and medical privacy. In Raghunath Raheja vs. Maharashtra Medical Council 1996, the Bombay High Court declared that when a patient or his or her relative demands case papers from the hospital or the doctor, the hospital authorities and the doctors concerned must furnish copies of case papers to the patient or his or her near relative. In this judgement, there is a potential for a patient to seek redress for privacy violations, as the High Court treats the patient and his/ her near relatives in the same vein. The High Court has failed to account for the ability of a near relative to demand records from the hospital without the permission and authorization of the patient.Mr. “X” vs. Hospital “Z” was the first decision recognizing sensitive data related to health. The Supreme Court of India granted liberty to clinical establishments to disclose the HIV positive status of an individual to the public, without his or her knowledge. Hospital “Z” disclosed the HIV positive status of Mr. “X” to his fiancée without his consent. After the revelation, his marriage was called off and he was ostracized by the community. Mr. “X” sued Hospital “Z” for violation of privacy by disclosing information about his health, which ought to have been kept confidential. The court affirmed that the disclosure of information prevails over the duty of confidentiality between a doctor and patient to protect public interest (prevention of crime or disorder or protection of health or morals or protection of rights and freedom of others).In Surjit Singh. v. Kawaljit Kaur, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that allowing a medical examination of a women for her virginity amounts to violation of her right to privacy and personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. The wife filed a petition for a divorce on the ground that the marriage had never been consummated, as her husband was impotent. The husband held that the marriage was consummated and he was not impotent. In order to prove that his wife was not a virgin the husband filed an application for her medical examinations. The Court held that such a medical examination would be a roving enquiry and the virginity test cannot constitute the sole basis to prove the consummation of marriage. The incapacity of the husband in any form, physical or mental, may also be the factor for non-consummation of marriage.In Ms. X vs. Mr. Z & Anr, the Delhi High Court held that an aborted foetus was not a part of the body of a woman and allowed the DNA test of the aborted foetus at the instance of the husband even though the application was opposed by the wife on the ground of the right to privacy. The court held that right to privacy is not absolute right and aborted foetus is not part of a woman's body as it is a part which has already been discharged from the body, therefore a DNA test on the aborted foetus does not violate the right to privacy of the woman.In B. K. Parthasarthi vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh, the Andhra Pradesh High Court upheld “the right of reproductive autonomy” of an individual as a facet of his “right to privacy”, which characterized the right to reproduce as “one of the basic civil rights of man”.Smart policingSmart policing (or predictive policing) is still very new in India, with Jharkhand being the only state that appears to already have concrete plans in place to introduce predictive policing. The Jharkhand police began developing their IT infrastructure such as a Geographic Information System (GIS) and server room when they received Rs. 18.5 crore in funding from the Ministry of Home Affairs. The Open Group on E-governance (OGE), founded as a collaboration between the Jharkhand Police and National Informatics Centre, is now a multi-disciplinary group which takes on different IT projects . With regard to predictive policing, in 2013 some members of OGE began developing data mining software which will scan online records that are digitised. According to the group, the emerging crime trends “can be a building block in the predictive policing project that the state police want to try.”The Jharkhand Police was also reported in 2012 to be in the final stages of forming a partnership with IIM-Ranchi. It was alleged the Jharkhand police aimed to tap into IIM’s advanced business analytics skills, skills that can be very useful in a predictive policing context.Presently, in Jharkhand, the emphasis appears on developing a Domain Awareness System, collecting data, and creating new ways to present that data to officers on the ground, instead of using predictive policing software. For example, the Jharkhand police now have in place a Naxal Information System, Crime Criminal Information System (to be integrated with the CCTNS) and a GIS that supplies customised maps. The Jharkhand police’s “Crime Analytics Dashboard” shows the incidence of crime according to type and location and presents it in an accessible portal, providing up-to-date information. Potentially, the domain awareness systems that are taking shape in Jharkhand could pave the way for future predictive policing methods in India.Though not explicitly focused on predictive policing, in 2013 the Ministry of Home Affairs, PM Division published guidelines for the development of mega policing projects. As per the guidelines, it is envisioned that Delhi, Kolkata, Mumbai, Chennia, Hyderabad, Bangalore, and Ahemadabad would implement the Mega City Policing projects. Among other aspects, the guidelines provide instructions for the establishment of Fusion Centres/Data Centres. According to the guidelines: “The Fusion/Data Centre would be playing a crucial role in prevention and detection and also investigation of crime or security related challenges. It will, however be necessary to have up to date and comprehensive databases from various fields, for example, vehicle registration numbers, Unique ID numbers, residential addresses, Pan card details, and crime related details. The accessibilty of these databases by the Fusion Centres will have to be ensured by defining MoU or law enforcement agreements or state legislation to enable the State to have access to the private data on individuals without any encroachment on the privacy rights of the individuals.TransportNational Transport SchemesThe transport sector is not mentioned in the digital India scheme of e-governance, and very few details of the schemes are publicly available. http://Sarathi.nic.in is a national online portal providing various services related to driving license management. The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways has also launched VAHAN as a one-stop portal for a number of services such as issuance of duplicate registration papers, new vehicle registration, NOCs from the department, and transfer of ownership.Intelligent Transport System (ITS) in IndiaThe application of innovative technology in public transport systems in India has increased dramatically over the last few years. For example, in November 2012, the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) implemented a unique ITS solution known as the Mysore Intelligent Transport System (MITRA). The project implementation covers 500 buses, 105 bus stops, 6 bus terminals and 45 bus platforms. It involves real-time monitoring and tracking of buses to help reduce road congestion and other transport issues, dynamic passenger information system (PIS) based on Geographical Positioning System (GPS), application of advanced display and communication technologies, Central Control Station (CCS) and intelligent display boards to improve passenger safety, fleet efficiency, and services to monitor the traffic situation through the transmission of real time information.Similarly, Mumbai Area Traffic Control involves the application of ITS has resulted in maximized traffic flow, reduced congestion and reduction in junction stops and delays to suit traffic conditions at different times of the day. Another project is Bangalore Traffic Improvement Project (BTRAC), which quantifies the reduction in travel time, improvement in travel speed, reduction in accidents, better enforcement action plan, and paperless enforcement of motor vehicles act for the first time in country. As another example, Janmarg (Ahmedabad BRTS) has also utilized the ITS solution in order to constantly maintain the benchmark of operations and service quality.Multiple transit agencies in India have also implemented Electronic Ticketing Machines (ETMs). ETMs generate data that can be analysed for the improvement of services and operations. Examples of cities integrating the use of automated ticketing systems include Mumbai, Indore, Bhopal, Mysore, Vishakhapatnam, Jaipur, Gulbarga, and Bhubaneswar.In 2013, the first pilot corridor of iBUS was launched in Indore. The 11.45-km corridor running along the AB Road from Rajiv Gandhi to Niranjanpur is functional, with 20 median bus stations and a daily ridership of 40,000 passengers and growing (Atal Indore City Transport Services Limited 2014). The system includes off-board payment facilities, a segregated corridor, dual-entry buses, and one of the most advanced ITS systems in India, used for tracking buses. The proposal is to build a network of 120kms of BRTS for the city.In Bangalore city, the Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation (BMTC) launched the Intelligent Transport System (ITS) in May 2016. The aim of the ITS project has been to create a smart transport arrangement for real-time tracking of buses as well as of passenger trips, so as to take data-driven decisions regarding planning of bus routes and schedules on one hand, and to effectively inform potential passengers regarding travel options and time involved. The system comprises of three key elements, namely, the Vehicle Tracking System (VTS), the Passenger Information System (PIS), and the Electronic Ticketing System (ETS). The system also includes a mobile application that provides passengers with information about buses available from a particular stop/location, the route of the buses, the estimated time of arrival, and allows for trip planning. The growing scale of BMTC’s operations includes 6,404 buses and 6,216 schedules, 5,200,000 daily passengers, 2,400 routes and over 75,000 trips, and 12,900,000 KMs of daily service. First of its kind in India, the ITS project in Bangalore has seen integrated implementation of over 10,000 internet-enabled electronic ticketing machines, and over 6,400 vehicle tracking units.Smart citiesThe Indian Government hasannounced the ambitious “Smart Cities Mission” with an aim to develop 100 smart cities in the country. Though the Government did not define a “smart city”, a common definitition is of a city in which modern technology will be harnessed, leading to smart outcomes.Similarly, NASSCOM is working closely with the Ministry of Urban Development to create a sustainable model for smart cities, and due to lack of regulatory standards for smart cities, the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) in India has undertaken to formulate standardised guidelines for central and state authorities in planning, design and construction of smart cities. As leveraging city data and using geographical information systems (GIS) to collect valuable information are commonly used techniques in smart cities, cities across the world are taking note of potential surveillance by way of sensors and tools deployed in city services, leading to concerns around privacy, data protection, and biases. However, in India, the project is at a nascent stage where the dialogue around these issues has not yet matured, and is more focused on political and infrastructural aspects.MigrationIn order to modernize and upgrade the immigration services, the “Immigration, Visa and Foreigners Registration & Tracking (IVFRT)” scheme has been identified and included as one of the Mission Mode Projects to be undertaken by the Ministry of Home Affairs under the National e-Governance Plan (NeGP). This Project seeks to develop and implement a secure and integrated service delivery framework that would facilitate legitimate travelers while at the same time strengthen security. The scope of the project includes 169 Missions, 77 ICPs (Immigration Check Posts), 5 FRROs (Foreigners Regional Registration Offices), and FROs (Foreigners Registration Offices) in the State/District Headquarters.The aims of this project are to authenticate travelers' identities at the Missions, Immigration Check Posts (ICPs) and Foreigners Registration Offices (FROs) through use of intelligent document scanners and biometrics, update foreigner’s details at entry and exit points, and improve tracking of foreigners through sharing of information captured during visa issuance at Missions, during immigration check at ICPs, and during registration at FRRO/ FROs.Emergency responseWhile mobile-based emergency response and disaster related services are mentioned in the National e-Governance plan (NeGP), there are no further details available regarding the state of implementation of this plan. That said, an online emergency response system project by Telecommunications Consultants India Limited has been implemented in three cities to handle emergency situations and make the police more accessible.The system works in the following manner: an individual dials '100' from anywhere in the city for police assistance and the call is answered. A form with pre-filled data fields such as caller number, name, address (name and address as per the database records) is displayed on call taker’s screen while she or he continues to fill the data in as to the “type” of call from information as told by the caller in “description field”. Once the call taker validates and identifies the location from the map with selected landmarks, the case is passed on to the respective dispatcher. The dispatcher assigns a PCR van by selecting the proximity of “idle” vehicles and informs the informs the PCR van on radio and sends the essential data to the PCR van through GPRS. Using Logical Communication, the application software identifies if the vehicle has taken up the task or not. If not, then the dispatcher sends the data again. Once the situation is attended to by the PCR van, the Dispatcher fills in the relevant fields of the form to conclude the transaction.Humanitarian and development programmesInformation technology in the form of internet, GIS, remote sensing, and satellite communication can be of immense help in tracking and planning disaster management. There have been efforts in the past in India to leverage technology during humanitarian disasters, such as using crowd sourcing to aggregate information on a single platform. Yet these instances were mostly limited to voluntary efforts from private citizens or institutions.The only instances of the government using technology like this during major humanitarian disasters was noted in the 2014 floods in Jammu and Kashmir and the 2015 floods in Chennai. In the latter case, geospatial mapping was used to monitor the flood situation and disseminate information to various government agencies.Social mediaIn 2014, it was reported that the New Delhi Police was in the process of establishing a centre to monitor social media content for law enforcement purposes. Apart from this, the Mumbai Police have already launched a Social Media Lab to keep an eye on issues being publicly discussed and to track matters relating to public order. The intent behind the Social Media Lab appears to be to assess changes in mass moods that could lead to gatherings and or possible protests on a large scale. The police have publicly stated that the aim of the Social Media Lab is to keep a tab on the pulse of the people in order to scale up deployment requirements and undertake effective interventions. Although the monitoring of social media platforms for policing purposes raises questions about the permitted scope of state surveillance and citizen’s rights, such issues have not yet clearly been discussed and debated in the Indian justice system.Media outlets report that the social media analytics centre of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting scrutinizes posts on platforms like Twitter and Facebook and generates reports for the Prime Minister’s Office, the National Security Advisor’s Office and various intelligence bureaux, aside from ministries including Home Affairs, External Affairs and Defence. In February 2016, news reports indicated that the government was planning to increase the scope and work of the analytics wing to ensure 24/7 monitoring of social media. It appears that reactions on social media are categorised as positive, negative or neutral, which officials claim helps them in their decision-making tasks. Ministries can also commission special reports and analyses of large events like the Prime Minister’s foreign visits, actions against terror attacks or responses to policies that can impact internal security and external relations.