Kerala government's decision to utilise the services of US company, Sprinklr Inc, to analyse the state's public health data has roiled into a huge political controversy.
The opposition United Democratic Front has alleged that the government has allowed a 'blacklisted foreign firm to siphon off valuable personal medical information of citizens with out their informed consent.
The government denied the charge and clarified that it roped in Sprinklr to analyse the big data to combat COVID-19. On Saturday, Informational Technology department's principal secretary M Sivasankar said that he took the decision to hire Sprinklr.
Here, Sivasankar answers 13 questions raised by former state Chief Secretary Jiji Thomson.
1.
Jiji Thomson (Question): At a time when Kerala is struggling in unison to overcome the COVID-19 pandemic, the Sprinklr contract could have been avoided. This only helped in denting the government’s credibility, no matter where the idea came from.
Sivasankar (Answer): The contract with Sprinklr was part of the huge mission undertaken by the Kerala government to fight COVID-19. No Keralite’s personal data will be illegally handed over through the contract. We have taken all measures to ensure this. The data will be owned by the Kerala government. The contract was signed with a good intention and with all precautions to avoid any financial burden on the government.
2.
Thomson: We can only view with suspicion anyone who offers their services free of cost, be it a native or a foreigner. There are no free lunches, it is said. Nothing comes for free, especially when the offer comes from a foreign company. There was no global tender called for. We did not conduct due diligence as required by law while dealing with a foreign company.
Sivasankar: Sprinklr was set up by a Malayali entrepreneur. This is a global data analytics company capable of analyzing vast databases and information. The company came in contact with the information technology department through the #Future programme organised by the government in 2018. Sprinklr offered the IT department to make available its data analytics software application free of charge to handle the huge data the government will have to deal with in the backdrop of COVID-19 spread. The IT department accepted the offer with the state’s safety in mind because it had realised the possible extent of the epidemic with the help of international prediction models. We did not have to go for tenders because Sprinklr had offered its service free of charge.
3.
Thomson: Even if the state required the services of such a company, the department secretary had to write a note with the approval of the minister concerned. Since this issue was related to public health, the health secretary, with the approval of the health minister, should have recorded the department’s opinion in the file. Even if the deal did not cause any financial commitments, the finance ministry had to vet it closely for any financial loopholes the administrative department would have overlooked. Then it should have gone to the chief secretary. The law department could be asked to have a look at the file if needed. The file should be submitted to the chief minister with a comment by the chief secretary. The chief minister should recommend the file for the consideration of the cabinet. He could take a decision himself in case of urgency and then get the decision ratified by the cabinet. No such procedure was adhered to in this case.
Sivasankar: Health, local self-government and disaster management departments are on the frontline of the fight against COVID-19. The IT department’s role is limited to setting up technical support for them. The IT department is putting in place technical facilities to collect data beginning from the panchayat level. We will need help from modern technology in case of massive spread of the disease as predicted by some models. The IT department prepared the ground to make that technology available. This is the responsibility of the IT department.
4.
Thomson: The claim that the decision was taken in an emergency falls flat. The procedure could be completed within hours. (This is the electronic age. You don’t even need an hour.) What kind of emergency was there to ignore the simple procedure?
Sivasankar: It is not relevant to create a file to take action in the face of a disaster. The decision was taken at the department level by an officer who had the authority to do so. It is an undisputable fact.
5.
Thomson: It is claimed that the data is secure because it is stored in the company’s Amazon Web Server in Mumbai. This is a childish argument. The server belonged to the company whether it is in Mumbai or New York.
Sivasankar: Correct. The server’s location is not relevant since the data is owned by the government.
6.
Thomson: Since a citizen’s data is his property, how can it be supplied to anyone without his consent?
Sivasankar: The government is responsible for the data collected. The government is dutybound to ensure that the people’s security is not compromised.
7.
Thomson: The company says that it would return the data within 30 days of the contract’s expiry with mutual consent. Wasn’t this an afterthought that followed the allegations of the leader of the opposition? As per the letter dated April 11, the Kerala government had a responsibility to supply data. This is missing in the next day’s letter. What explains this volte face?
Sivasankar: The letter dated April 12 only clarified the matters mentioned in the previous day’s letter.
8.
Thomson: Though Sprinkler company’s service comes free, there is a provision to assess the value of the service once the project is completed. What more is required to prove that the service is not free?
Sivasankar: The service is free during the COVID-19 epidemic. The government can decide whether to avail of the service after that, at any stage.
9.
Thomson: The government can argue that it has a “discretionary power” to fix prices. Suppose the government is prepared to pay up only a small sum. The company can challenge it in a court in Manhattan in the United States. The court is sure to reject the price if it is not just and legal. Whose interest will be protected in such a scenario?
Sivasankar: The contract clearly says that the service is free for six months and the government is free to end the contract at any time after that.
10
Thomson: How can data be supplied with retrospective effect from March 25 while the contract was signed only on April 2.
Sivasankar: The contract came into effect on March 25.
11.
Thomson: This purchase order lacks a file number. That is a sign that there was no paperwork related to the contract before that.
Sivasankar: The usual procedure to create a file and assign a number to it is not required in this case. The officers who took the call are authorised to do so. The purchase order signed was in a standard format.
12.
Thomson: How did the information technology secretary missed mentioning the date while signing the contract? It was such a big contract.
Sivasankar: The date is there. The contract clearly says that it is applicable from March 25, 2020.
13
Thomson: Why did the company remove from its ad a clip by the IT secretary singing Kerala’s praises? Why was it removed if everything was transparent?
Sivasankar: The video was removed by Sprinklr. Only they can answer why.
