- A regulatory agency that is at the government’s mercy to run its financial and administrative operations cannot be expected to be independent:
Relevance: Mains: G.S paper III: Indian Economy
The Centre’s decision to clip the wings of the Securities and Exchange Board of India has not gone down too well with its members. Yet, the Centre is refusing to budge. In a letter dated July 10, SEBI Chairman Ajay Tyagi said the Centre’s decision to suck out SEBI’s surplus funds will affect its autonomy. SEBI employees had also written to the government with the same concern. As part of the Finance Bill introduced in Parliament, the Centre had proposed amendments to the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 that were seen as affecting SEBI’s financial autonomy. To be specific, the amendments required that after 25% of its surplus cash in any year is transferred to its reserve fund, SEBI will have to transfer the remaining 75% to the government. On Friday, the government rejected the plea from SEBI’s officials asking the government to reconsider its decision, thus paving the way for further conflict. Prima facie, there seems to be very little rationale in the government’s decision to confiscate funds from the chief markets regulator. For one, it is highly unlikely that the quantum of funds that the government is likely to receive from SEBI will make much of a difference to the government’s overall fiscal situation. So the amendment to the SEBI Act seems to be clearly motivated by the desire to increase control over the regulator rather than by financial considerations. This is particularly so given that the recent amendments require SEBI to seek approval from the government to go ahead with its capital expenditure plans.
A regulatory agency that is at the government’s mercy to run its financial and administrative operations cannot be expected to be independent. Further, the lack of financial autonomy can affect SEBI’s plans to improve the quality of its operations by investing in new technologies and other requirements to upgrade market infrastructure. This can affect the health of India’s financial markets in the long run. In the larger picture, this is not the first time that the government at the Centre has gone after independent agencies. The Reserve Bank of India and the National Sample Survey Office have come under pressure in recent months, and the latest move on SEBI adds to this worrisome trend of independent agencies being subordinated by the government. The Centre perhaps believes it can do a better job of regulating the economy by consolidating all existing powers under the Finance Ministry. But such centralisation of powers will be risky. Regulatory agencies such as SEBI need to be given full powers over their assets and be made accountable to Parliament. Stripping them of their powers by subsuming them under the wings of the government will affect their credibility.
(Source: The Hindu)
- Save our Heritage:
Relevance: mains: G.S paper I: India Heritage and culture
That a 272-year-old heritage gateway in South Delhi’s Garhi Zharia should crumble speaks very poorly of our concern for old monuments. Its state of dilapidation was not news, but how its façade—and much else—came apart all of a sudden certainly was. The edifice was not among the structures that the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) was tasked with to protect. It was under the care of Delhi Development Authority’s architecture department. Either way, decades of neglect have taken their toll.
It is in the national interest that buildings of historical value be preserved. If civic authorities have too much else to do, then it might be best if the job is turned over to the ASI. Its list of protected monuments could be expanded to include the not-so-famous architectural marvels that dot our landscape. No doubt, the ASI’s own record is not blemish-free. Its defenders say that with 3,600-odd monuments to look after, it can’t do much with its meagre resources. Still, it’s a key responsibility of the 158-year-old organization. As a thumb rule, perhaps the ASI can take charge of all that was built before it was set up. Future generations would be thankful.
(Source: Livemint)
- Use of facial recognition technology in law enforcement can have disastrous consequences
Relevance: mains: G.S paper: III: Science and technology
The Automated Facial Recognition System (AFRS) recently proposed by the Ministry of Home Affairs is geared towards modernising the police force, identifying criminals, and enhancing information sharing between police units across the country. The AFRS will use images from sources like CCTV cameras, newspapers, and raids to identify criminals against existing records in the Crime and Criminal Tracking Networks and System (CCTNS) database.
The Home Ministry has clarified that this will not violate privacy, as it will only track criminals and be accessed only by law enforcement. However, a closer look at facial recognition systems and India’s legal framework reveals that a system like the AFRS will not only create a biometric map of our faces, but also track, classify, and possibly anticipate our every move.
Technically speaking, it is impossible for the AFRS to be truly used only to identify, track and verify criminals, despite the best of intentions. Recording, classifying and querying every individual is a prerequisite for the system to work.
Assumed guilty
The system will treat each person captured in images from CCTV cameras and other sources as a potential criminal, creating a map of her face, with measurements and biometrics, and match the features against the CCTNS database. This means that we are all treated as potential criminals when we walk past a CCTV camera — turning the assumption of “innocent until proven guilty” on its head.
It is assumed that facial recognition will introduce efficiency and speed in enforcing law and order. However, the evidence suggests otherwise. In August 2018, a facial recognition system used by the Delhi police was reported to have an accuracy rate of only 2%. This is a trend worldwide, with similar levels of accuracy reported in the U.K. and the U.S.
Accuracy rates of facial recognition algorithms are particularly low in the case of minorities, women and children, as demonstrated in multiple studies across the world. Use of such technology in a criminal justice system where vulnerable groups are over-represented makes them susceptible to being subjected to false positives (being wrongly identified as a criminal). Image recognition is an extremely difficult task, and makes significant errors even in laboratory settings. Deploying these systems in consequential sectors like law enforcement is ineffective at best, and disastrous at worst.
Fears of mass surveillance
Facial recognition makes data protection close to impossible as it is predicated on collecting publicly available information and analysing it to the point of intimacy. It can also potentially trigger a seamless system of mass surveillance, depending on how images are combined with other data points. The AFRS is being contemplated at a time when India does not have a data protection law. In the absence of safeguards, law enforcement agencies will have a high degree of discretion. This can lead to a mission creep. The Personal Data Protection Bill 2018 is yet to come into force, and even if it does, the exceptions contemplated for state agencies are extremely wide.
The notion that sophisticated technology means greater efficiency needs to be critically analysed. A deliberative approach will benefit Indian law enforcement, as police departments around the world are currently learning that the technology is not as useful in practice as it seems in theory. Police departments in London are under pressure to put a complete end to use of facial recognition systems following evidence of discrimination and inefficiency. San Francisco recently implemented a complete ban on police use of facial recognition. India would do well to learn from their mistakes.
(Source: The Hindu)
- Use Diplomacy against Nuclear Proliferation:
Relevance: mains: G.S paper III: Science and technology
The stance and size of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal have been wrought with speculation. For the first time, the matter has found place in the annual report of India’s ministry of defence, according to which our western neighbour is “relentlessly” expanding its nuclear and missile capabilities. Reliable international estimates suggest that Pakistan now has at least 140 nuclear warheads, slightly more than India does. Given the destructive capacity of a single atomic bomb, the actual count on either side is irrelevant. The point of nukes is to deter enemy attacks, not use them, and that is done through “credible minimum deterrence”, which India achieved in 1998, the year the country tested a series of explosive nuclear devices at Pokhran and spelt out its “no first use” doctrine. New Delhi’s position has been clear: These weapons are to be used only in retaliation to a nuclear attack, but strike back India certainly will. Today, the country is equipped to launch a nuclear-tipped missile from a chosen location on land, high in the air, or off the coast at sea. This “triad” is all it takes to keep adversaries away from any nuclear adventurism against us. The alternative would be mutually assured destruction, or MAD, which no rational player would want.
What should be evident from the above is that an expansion of a nuclear arsenal beyond the bare minimum requirement is irrational. So is participation in a race to stockpile such dangerous arms. Yet, rationality does not always attend every urge known to mankind; unfortunately, far too many countries remain susceptible to oneupmanship over warheads. The absurdity that such a game could go to was seen at the peak of America’s rivalry with the Soviet Union. We had the sordid spectacle of two superpowers trying to outdo each other on how many times either could blow up the world and end all life on the only planet known to have any. The US may currently have much of its attention focused on keeping Iran from going nuclear, the Islamic Republic having restarted uranium enrichment after Washington, DC, withdrew from the cap-and-inspect deal struck with Tehran in 2015, but its general disposition towards existing nuclear powers is significant for the signals it sends. If the US lets its nuke-control treaties with Moscow lapse, for instance, it could be taken as a licence for proliferation by countries keen on acquiring a more menacing war chest. This is no small risk, since the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty between the US and Russia seems decreasingly likely to be renewed. The US security establishment is reported to believe that this arms agreement dating back to the Cold War has outlived its purpose, now that China has emerged as a force to reckon with. Will a multi-country deal be proposed as a replacement? If so, among which countries? Nothing is clear. The best New Delhi can do under these circumstances is track Pakistan’s arsenal closely and deploy diplomacy to show Islamabad the futility of enlarging it.
In the meantime, the international talks that need to begin right away concern the potential militarization of outer space. The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 is inadequate to the task of keeping the dark yonder nuke-free, and with the US keen on setting up a space force, the hope that no nuclear missile shall be aimed at earth from up there appears to be receding. On this, too, India ought to engage the world’s other nuclear powers in a dialogue.
(Source: Livemint)