|
The TLDR: The joint parliamentary committee report submitted its recommendations for a long overdue law that protects your data—from everybody except the government. We look at why Opposition parties are unhappy, and for good reason.
First, some background
- In 2017, the Supreme Court recognised the right to privacy as a fundamental constitutional right—and directed the government to create a framework to protect citizens’ data.
- In 2019, the government introduced the Personal Data Protection Bill that set the basic ground rules for how personal data should be collected and stored.
- It also proposed the creation of a new regulatory agency, the Data Protection Authority (DPA) —which will monitor the implementation of the law.
- A Joint Parliamentary Committee was set up to study the provisions of the bill and give its recommendations—and it submitted its report yesterday.
The bill: requires companies to do the following:
- Tell you about their data collection practices and seek your consent—and store evidence of such consent.
- Create a system that allows you to withdraw your consent.
- Give you the right to access, correct, and erase your data.
- Make changes to protect your data better—and in a manner where privacy is a key consideration in how the business is organized.
- Ensure all “sensitive personal data” is stored in India and that “critical personal data” is not transferred out of India.
Point to note: The bill imposes hefty penalties for violations: Rs 15 crore or 4% of the annual turnover of the company that controls the storage of your data. Also: A fine of Rs 5 crore or 2% of the annual turnover if the company fails to conduct a data audit.
Ok, so what did the report say?
The report did not challenge the crux of the bill but recommended adding new provisions. Let’s start with the rules for social media companies. The government recently implemented new rules to more closely control social media platforms (explained here). The JPC report recommends a slew of new restrictions.
One: Social media companies—which do not act as ‘intermediaries’—should be held responsible for content shared on their platform, and for content from unverified accounts.The key word is ‘intermediaries’—because IT laws grant a ‘safe harbour’ exemption to the likes of Twitter and Facebook so they are not held responsible for what users say or do on their platforms. But this signals that the government is moving toward yanking that protection—or at least making it easier to do so.
Point to note: The government already gave itself the power to require social media platforms to take down content it does not like—and cancel their ‘intermediary’ status if they fail to comply. So this new provision just tightens that screw.
Two: No social media platform should be allowed to operate unless the parent company handling the technology sets up an India office. Again, this will essentially force all platforms to comply with the strict IT rules for news, streaming and social media companies with offices here—including the creation of a three-tier grievance system.
Three: A new media regulatory authority should be set up to regulate content on all platforms—be it online, print or otherwise. The new IT rules envisioned the creation of an industry-wide organisation headed “by a retired judge of the Supreme Court, a High Court or independent eminent person and have not more than six members.” The JPC report goes one step further.
What about protection from government snooping?
|
