Disruption always comes from where we least expect it. Lawyers exercise an iron grip over their profession. They determine who can practise law and how they should conduct their business. They organize themselves in bar councils that then determine how they can (and cannot) advertise and with whom they can share profits. If librarians had exerted the same sort of control over the organization of information as lawyers do over the business of the law, the modern internet might never have come to pass. Unless we lawyers can loosen the iron grip that we have over the business of law, the profession might never see the disruption that it needs and deserves.

Justice Brandeis’ dissent in the matter of Roy Olmstead, emphasises the dangers of unchecked government surveillance and the need for privacy laws to evolve with technology, remains highly relevant, especially in discussions about government exemptions in privacy laws and the balance between using technology for social good and protecting civil liberties.

There has been a swift rise in autonomous vehicles on roads. This rapid growth necessitates urgent regulation, particularly around ethical programming decisions and societal impacts. The transition to autonomous vehicles will significantly alter urban life and labor markets, potentially leading to urban segregation and widespread unemployment as human drivers are replaced by robots, underscoring the need for thoughtful societal and regulatory responses to this technological evolution.

Florence Nightingale’s contributions to medical science extended beyond nursing to include statistical analysis, leading to significant hospital reforms. Despite technological advancements, the medical profession still lags in adopting data technologies like AI. Regulations constraining data within national boundaries may hinder the development of these technologies.

The Justice Srikrishna Committee’s data protection framework aims to balance individual privacy with the growth of the digital economy, distinct from models in the US, EU, and China. But the committee missed opportunities to encourage de-identified data use and set impractical standards for anonymization. Concerns arise from the draft law’s definition of harm, potentially hindering AI and machine learning applications in social contexts by categorizing service denial based on evaluative decisions as harmful, which could restrict beneficial financial and social inclusion technologies.

The Srikrishna Committee report on India’s new privacy framework has been criticized for seemingly granting the government latitude in state surveillance, including national security exemptions. While similar exemptions are common in global data protection laws, concerns arise from the report’s failure to address practical concerns and the draft Bill’s inability to hold the government accountable for privacy violations. The penalties, designed with private entities in mind, may leave government data fiduciaries without fear of consequence.

The Justice Srikrishna Committee’s report on data protection proposes a user-centric framework, emphasizing data portability and privacy by design. However, its approach to consent, applying product liability principles and creating a complex, multilayered consent framework, may be impractical and burdensome for businesses, particularly startups. These measures, while aiming to enhance privacy, could introduce additional friction for users and businesses, potentially exacerbating consent fatigue.

The Indian government is leveraging its authority over telecom operators to indirectly regulate entities like WhatsApp and mobile manufacturers, which are beyond its direct control in an attempt to combat issues like fake news and ensure compliance with Do Not Disturb regulations. This approach indicates a strategy to extend regulatory authority into areas beyond its statutory reach, potentially compelling entities to comply to maintain access to the Indian market.

The growth of IoT, particularly in sectors like transportation, faces regulatory challenges in India. Current telecom regulations, including customer verification for SIMs and limits on M2M (machine-to-machine) SIMs, hinder IoT development. We need less burdensome alternatives, like data-only SIMs and automatic deactivation upon removal, to balance industry growth with security concerns.

It is the nature of innovation that the ideas that gain traction are those that offer direct, tangible benefits to users. Since most legal technologies solve client problems they benefit clients more than the lawyers who use them. Legal technologies are slow ideas that will not disrupt the profession. We need fast, disruptive ideas and all that we are getting is incremental improvements in efficiency.