DATA PROTECTION BILL HAS MANY GAPS NEEDING FULL DISCUSSION IT DOES NOT PROVIDE ANY EXEMPTION TO MEDIA FROM PRIVACY AND PDP LAWS

Among the bills taken up for discussion during the ongoing winter session of parliament, the
Personal Data Protection (PDP) Bill, 2019, is making some noises in relevant quarters. After two
years of deliberations, the JPC report on PDP Bill was tabled in both houses of parliament on
December 16. The JPC recommendations on the PDP Bill include 3 important and potentially
controversial elements.
First, it doesn’t provide any exemption to journalists and media houses from privacy and data
protection laws. It means a journalist and media house can be easily sued for infringement of
privacy or personal data. Second, it questions the “intermediary” status of social media that
doesn't own responsibility for what’s published on their platforms. So, virtually they allow
anyone to say anything even defamatory claims without any proof. Third, the JPC recommends
bringing non-personal data under the preview of PDP Bill. This proposal has a significant
bearing on businesses that may be forced to disclose all kinds of data — personal and non-
personal.
Finally, it recommends empowering government agencies particularly the Data Protection
Authority (DPA) with unlimited power in matters of data privacy and breach investigations. It
also recommends punishments for violation of privacy and personal data protection laws with
jail terms and cash fines.
The opposition and the stakeholders such as the media and the businesses will raise their voices
against the government trying to curtail their freedom on the pretext of privacy and data
protection. However, given the low-education level among the vast majority of the Indian

population, the idea of personal data protection and how the government might try to use it to
tighten its grip on people and businesses is likely to raise fewer eyebrows, not-withstanding, the
opposition’s fight over the issue.
However, those who understand the matter know privacy and data protection is the next big thing
after the Internet. Think of the cloud, artificial intelligence, analytics, and the metaverse – the
technologies that’s disrupting and reshaping the world order have data at the core of it. The
ownership and piracy of the data, and in turn privacy and protection, is going to be a serious
issue, almost as serious as oil or water is today.
In July 2020, Google CEO Sundar Pichai held a virtual meeting with Indian Prime Minister
Narendra Modi and discussed a range of issues including privacy and data security. The 46-year-
old tech icon of Indian origin believes that privacy is "one of the most important topics of our
time." He thinks the idea of privacy is personal and, therefore, people should be given clear and
individual choices on how their data is going to be used. In this context, the fact that the
government has the largest access to personal and non-personal data is irrefutable. Pichai says,
“Work on privacy and security is never done.”
Does that mean the government must take people into confidence on how it’s going to use
personal and non-personal data? Shouldn’t the government bring all its agencies under the
purview of evolving data protection and privacy laws? A government is not much different from
the people it rules. So, India might take its sweet time before it is able to catch up with the latest
trends on this front.
The creator of bitcoin who goes by the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto is still unidentified after
13 years of creating software as a currency that’s threatening to disrupt international financial
systems. Nakamoto is not alone! In the crypto world, there are hundreds of NFT creators who go
by pseudonyms and choose to remain anonymous, earning millions of dollars for GIFs that exist
barely for a few seconds on the screen. What’s most interesting is the fact that they are
successful in staying anonymous and out of governments’ surveillance in this age and time when
it’s impossible not to leave digital footprints even if you live on an isolated island!
Governments are known to be conservative rather than broad-minded and liberal. But the
changing landscape must make them rethink and reimagine their roles. Framing laws that restrict
freedom and put a break on technology-driven advancements are retrograde at any rate. That
must be shunned. The nearly trillion-dollar company, Facebook dropped its name to pick Meta, making its choices
aligned with what’s trending and what holds the future. Metaverse is going to be a completely
anonymous world, where everyone will have a digital avatar rather than his or her photo on the
status. Blockchain will be the underpinning technology that is and will be beyond any intrusion
or surveillance. It will have its own ecosystem from money to marketplaces, from virtual cities to
smart contracts, and from NFTs to gaming.
The governments need to catch up with emerging technologies, not compete with them. Leave
alone policing! They need to provide more freedom and an enabling environment for the culture
of inventions and innovations to take root. They must project themselves as the protectors of
freedom and privacy at the same time. It’s not the duty of the Opposition every time to remind
the government that it's overshooting its limits. It’s for the governments, too, to realise that they
are not shooting themselves in the foot by their decisions. Not letting the media have its freedom
is surely one such step.