Lawyers often struggle to advise innovative tech businesses due to their risk-averse, backward-looking training. They focus on legal risks, ignoring potential upsides. Modern businesses need lawyers who assess risks realistically, understand regulatory reactions, and advise based on future legal landscapes. Legal education needs a paradigm shift towards solution-focused, forward-thinking training.
British colonial India significantly advanced forensic science, driven by a narrative of native deceit. Techniques like graphology and serological analysis were developed as judicial reliance on forensics grew, due to distrust in native testimonies. This legacy persists in India’s criminal justice system, often prioritizing technology over fundamental rights, as seen in recent DNA data bank legislation.
The argument that data localization will boost India’s AI competence is flawed. Simply storing data in-country doesn’t translate to AI development, as data structures are company-specific and insights are often non-transferable. Instead, focusing on building AI infrastructure, incentivizing researchers, and encouraging homegrown AI development with existing data is more effective for fostering AI prowess.
Stripping away anonymity entirely from social media platforms will never ever be useful. Just because a few have taken advantage of online anonymity for nefarious purposes does not mean that everyone else should be denied the many benefits that technology platforms provide.
Competition law is challenged by the unique dynamics of internet platforms, which prioritize growth and customer lock-in over short-term profits. These platforms often operate at a scale that traditional businesses can’t match, and their data advantage allows them to tailor services precisely. While this leads to better user experiences, it also results in a winner-takes-all dynamic, limiting customer choice. Regulating these platforms is complex, as breaking them up might deny consumers the benefits they offer, and traditional competition remedies may not be applicable to the digital market.
The victory of 16-year-old Kyle “Bugha" Giersdorf in the Fortnite World Cup highlights the global rise of eSports, with millions of viewers and substantial prize money. Despite its popularity, the industry lacks a central governing body, leading to challenges such as player protection, betting, match-fixing, and potential substance abuse. There is a need for appropriate regulation, especially as eSports is poised to flourish in India.
The effectiveness of consent in protecting privacy is diminishing in our data-rich world. A study found that companies’ privacy policies and actual data sharing practices are inconsistent, with technically sophisticated firms sharing less data. A digital consent framework, exemplified by India’s account aggregator system, could enhance privacy protection by allowing dynamic, informed consent, but it currently lacks features to fully ensure privacy, such as purpose limitation and data deletion upon consent revocation. Enhancements to this framework could restore faith in consent as a tool for privacy protection.
India’s draft Personal Data Protection Bill has sparked debate over data localization, with the government insisting on processing personal data within the country. Unlike other nations that restrict data transfers, India has made localization the default, an approach seen as out of character with its global trade stance.
While cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Facebook’s Libra can enable efficient cross-border transfers, India’s existing UPI system, with its robust digital payments infrastructure, already meets the country’s needs and can be internationalized without relying on blockchain technologies.
Regulating technology is challenging due to its rapid evolution, leading to a disjointed patchwork of rules. Governments often react to technology’s harmful impacts rather than proactively anticipating them. Regulatory entrepreneurship, where changing laws is part of the business strategy, complicates this further. To improve technology regulation, the government should focus on real objectives, adopt principle-based laws, and seek expertise from various fields. This approach would ensure more effective, adaptable, and comprehensive technology regulation.
