Launch of Central Suspect Registry to Combat Cyber Crimes

Introduction

In the age of digital technology, the concept of net neutrality has become more crucial for preserving the equity and openness of the internet. Thanks to net neutrality, all internet traffic is treated equally, without difference or preferential treatment. Thanks to this concept, users can freely access and distribute content, which promotes innovation, competition, and the democratisation of knowledge. India has seen controversy over net neutrality, which has led to a legal battle to protect an open internet. In this blog post, we’ll look at the challenges of the law and the efforts made to safeguard net neutrality in India.

Background on Net Neutrality in India

Net neutrality became a hot topic in India after a major telecom service provider suggested charging various fees for accessing different parts of the internet. Internet users, activists, and organisations in favour of an open internet raised concern over this. Millions of comments were made on the consultation document by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) published in 2015, highlighting the significance of net neutrality for the country’s internet users.

Legal Battle and Regulatory Interventions

The battle for net neutrality in India acquired notoriety when TRAI released the “Prohibition of Discriminatory Tariffs for Data Services Regulations” in 2016. These laws, often known as the “Free Basics” prohibition, were created to put an end to the usage of zero-rating platforms, which exempt specific websites or services from data expenses. The regulations ensured that all data on the internet would be handled uniformly, regardless of where it originated.

But the legal conflict didn’t end there. The telecom industry challenged TRAI’s regulations, resulting in a flurry of legal conflicts in numerous courts around the country. The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act and its provisions of it that control TRAI’s ability to regulate internet services were at the heart of the legal dispute.

The Indian judicial system greatly helped the protection of net neutrality. The importance of non-discriminatory internet access was highlighted in 2018 when the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) upheld the TRAI regulations and ruled in favour of net neutrality. The TDSAT ruling created a crucial precedent for net neutrality in India. In 2019, after several rounds of litigation, the Supreme Court of India backed the principles of net neutrality, declaring that it is a fundamental idea that must be protected. The nation’s legislative framework for preserving a free and open internet was bolstered by the ruling by the top court.

Ongoing Challenges and the Way Forward

Even though India has made great strides towards upholding net neutrality, challenges persist. Because of the rapid advancement of technology and the emergence of new services and platforms, net neutrality must always be safeguarded. Some practices, such as “zero-rating” schemes and service-specific data plans, continue to raise questions about potential violations of net neutrality principles. Regulatory efforts must be proactive and under constant watch to allay these worries. The regulatory organisation, TRAI, is responsible for monitoring for and responding to breaches of the net neutrality principles. It’s crucial to strike a balance between promoting innovation and competition and maintaining a free and open internet.

Additionally, public awareness and education on the issue are crucial for the continuation of net neutrality. By informing users of their rights and promoting involvement in the conversation, a more inclusive and democratic decision-making process is assured. Civil society organisations and advocacy groups may successfully educate the public about net neutrality and gain their support.

Conclusion

The legal battle for net neutrality in India has been a significant turning point in the campaign to preserve an open and neutral internet. A robust framework for net neutrality in the country has been established thanks to legislative initiatives and judicial decisions. However, due to ongoing challenges and the dynamic nature of technology, maintaining net neutrality calls for vigilant oversight and strong actions. An open and impartial internet is crucial for fostering innovation, increasing free speech, and providing equal access to information. India’s attempts to uphold net neutrality should motivate other nations dealing with similar issues. All parties, including politicians, must work together to protect the principles of net neutrality and ensure that the Internet is accessible to everyone.

Introduction:

CDR is a term that refers to Call detail records, The Telecom Industries holds the call details data of the users. As it amounts to a large amount of data, the telecom companies retain the data for a period of 6 months. CDR plays a significant role in investigations and cases in the courts. It can be used as pivotal evidence in court proceedings to prove or disprove certain facts & circumstances. Power of Interception of Call detail records is allowed for reasonable grounds and only by the authorized authority as per the laws. 

‍

Admissibility of CDR’s in Courts:

Call Details Records (CDRs) can be used as effective pieces of evidence to assist the court in ascertaining the facts of the particular case and inquiring about the commission of an offence, and according to the judicial pronouncements, it is made clear that CDRs can be used supporting or secondary evidence in the court. However, it cannot be the sole basis of the conviction. Section 92 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 provides procedure and empowers certain authorities to apply for court or competent authority intervention to seek the CDR. 

‍

Legal provisions to obtain CDR:

The CDR can be obtained under the statutory provisions of law contained in section 92 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Or under section 5(2) of Indian Telegraph Act 1885, read with rule 419(A) Indian Telegraph Amendment rule 2007. The guidelines were also issued in 2016 by Ministry of Ministry of Home Affairs for seeking Call details records (CDRs)

‍

How long is CDR stored with telecom Companies (Data Retention)

Call Data is retained by telecom companies for a period of 6 months. As the data amounts to high storage, almost several Petabytes per year, telecom companies store the call details data for a period of 6 months and archive the rest of it to tapes. 

‍

New Delhi 25Cr jewellery heist 

Recently, an incident took place where a 25-crore jewellery theft was carried out in a jewellery shop in Delhi, It was planned and executed by a man from Chhattisgarh. After committing the crime, the criminal went back to Chhattisgarh. It was a case of a 25Cr heist, and the police started their search & investigation. Police used technology and analysed the mobile numbers which were active at the crime scene. Delhi police used advanced software to analyse data. The police were able to trace the mobile number of thieves or suspects active at the crime scene. They discovered suspected contacts who were active within the range of the crime scene, and it helped in the arrest of the main suspects.  From around 5,000 mobile numbers active around the crime scene, police have used advanced software that analyses huge data, and then police found a number registered outside of Delhi.  The surveillance on the number has revealed that the suspected criminal has moved to the MP from Delhi, then moved further to Bhilai Chattisgarh. Police have successfully arrested the suspected criminal. This incident highlights how technology or call data can assist law enforcement agencies in investigating and finding the real culprits.

‍

Conclusion: 

CDR refers to call detail records retained by telecom companies for a period of 6 months, it can be obtained through lawful procedure and by competent authorities only. CDR can be helpful in cases before the court or law enforcement agencies, to assist the court and law enforcement agencies in ascertaining the facts of the case or to prove or disprove certain things. It is important to reiterated that unauthorized seeking of CDR is not allowed; the intervention of the court or competent authority is required to seek the CDR from the telecom companies. CDRs cannot be unauthorizedly obtained, and there has to be a directive from the court or competent authority to do so.

‍

References:

• https://indianlegalsystem.org/cdr-the-wonder-word/#:~:text=CDR%20is%20admissible%20as%20secondary,the%20Indian%20Evidence%20Act%2C%201872.
• https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/needle-in-a-haystack-how-cops-scanned-5k-mobile-numbers-to-crack-rs-25cr-heist/articleshow/104055687.cms?from=mdr
• https://www.ndtv.com/delhi-news/just-one-man-planned-executed-rs-25-crore-delhi-heist-another-thief-did-him-in-4436494

‍

Introduction

According to Statista, the global artificial intelligence software market is forecast to grow by around 126 billion US dollars by 2025. This will include a 270% increase in enterprise adoption over the past four years. The top three verticals in the Al market are BFSI (Banking, Financial Services, and Insurance), Healthcare & Life Sciences, and Retail & e-commerce. These sectors benefit from vast data generation and the critical need for advanced analytics. Al is used for fraud detection, customer service, and risk management in BFSI; diagnostics and personalised treatment plans in healthcare; and retail marketing and inventory management.

The Chairperson of the Competition Commission of India’s Chief, Smt. Ravneet Kaur raised a concern that Artificial Intelligence has the potential to aid cartelisation by automating collusive behaviour through predictive algorithms. She explained that the mere use of algorithms cannot be anti-competitive but in case the algorithms are manipulated, then that is a valid concern about competition in markets.

This blog focuses on how policymakers can balance fostering innovation and ensuring fair competition in an AI-driven economy. 

What is the Risk Created by AI-driven Collusion?

AI uses predictive algorithms, and therefore, they could lead to aiding cartelisation by automating collusive behaviour. AI-driven collusion could be through:

• The use of predictive analytics to coordinate pricing strategies among competitors.
• The lack of human oversight in algorithm-induced decision-making leads to tacit collusion (competitors coordinate their actions without explicitly communicating or agreeing to do so).

AI has been raising antitrust concerns and the most recent example is the partnership between Microsoft and OpenAI, which has raised concerns among other national competition authorities regarding potential competition law issues. While it is expected that the partnership will potentially accelerate innovation, it also raises concerns about potential anticompetitive effects such as market foreclosure or the creation of barriers to entry for competitors and, therefore, has been under consideration in the German and UK courts. The problem here is in detecting and proving whether collusion is taking place. 

The Role of Policy and Regulation

The uncertainties induced by AI regarding its effects on competition create the need for algorithmic transparency and accountability in mitigating the risks of AI-driven collusion. It leads to the need to build and create regulatory frameworks that mandate the disclosure of algorithmic methodologies and establish a set of clear guidelines for the development of AI and its deployment. These frameworks or guidelines should encourage an environment of collaboration between competition watchdogs and AI experts. 

The global best practices and emerging trends in AI regulation already include respect for human rights, sustainability, transparency and strong risk management. The EU AI Act could serve as a model for other jurisdictions, as it outlines measures to ensure accountability and mitigate risks. The key goal is to tailor AI regulations to address perceived risks while incorporating core values such as privacy, non-discrimination, transparency, and security.

Promoting Innovation Without Stifling Competition

Policymakers need to ensure that they balance regulatory measures with innovation scope and that the two priorities do not hinder each other. 

1. Create adaptive and forward-thinking regulatory approaches to keep pace with technological advancements that take place at the pace of development and allow for quick adjustments in response to new AI capabilities and market behaviours.n
2. Competition watchdogs need to recruit domain experts to assess competition amid rapid changes in the technology landscape. Create a multi-stakeholder approach that involves regulators, industry leaders, technologists and academia who can create inclusive and ethical AI policies. 
3. Businesses can be provided incentives such as recognition through certifications, grants or benefits in acknowledgement of adopting ethical AI practices. 
4. Launch studies such as the CCI’s market study to study the impact of AI on competition. This can lead to the creation of a driving force for sustainable growth with technological advancements. 

Conclusion: AI and the Future of Competition

We must promote a multi-stakeholder approach that enhances regulatory oversight, and incentivising ethical AI practices. This is needed to strike a delicate balance that safeguards competition and drives sustainable growth. As AI continues to redefine industries, embracing collaborative, inclusive, and forward-thinking policies will be critical to building an equitable and innovative digital future. 

The lawmakers and policymakers engaged in the drafting of the frameworks need to ensure that they are adaptive to change and foster innovation. It is necessary to note that fair competition and innovation are not mutually exclusive goals, they are complementary to each other. Therefore, a regulatory framework that promotes transparency, accountability, and fairness in AI deployment must be established.

References

• https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/ai-has-potential-to-aid-cartelisation-fair-competition-integral-for-sustainable-growth-cci-chief/article69041922.ece 
• https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/artificial-intelligence-market-74851580.html 
• https://www.ey.com/en_in/insights/ai/how-to-navigate-global-trends-in-artificial-intelligence-regulation#:~:text=Six%20regulatory%20trends%20in%20Artificial%20Intelligence&text=These%20include%20respect%20for%20human,based%20approach%20to%20AI%20regulation. ‍
• https://www.business-standard.com/industry/news/ai-has-potential-to-aid-fair-competition-for-sustainable-growth-cci-chief-124122900221_1.html