The draft e-commerce policy released by the Indian government has been criticized for its broad and potentially harmful approach. It controversially claims collective ownership of data generated in India, suggesting state management over individual data rights. The policy misunderstands key technologies like AI, overemphasizes network effects, and ventures into unrelated domains like social media and taxation. Overall, it shows a lack of understanding of the sector it aims to regulate, which is disappointing for a technologically advanced nation like India.

Social interactions have shifted from avoiding political and religious discussions to embracing them, as people now surround themselves with like-minded individuals. Social media platforms enable users to mute differing opinions, reinforcing their existing beliefs. We need to consciously engage with diverse viewpoints rather than allowing technology to further entrench tribal behaviors.

Over the past five years, the internet has seen the growth of large technology platforms in various sectors, leading to concerns about competition. Social media and aggregator platforms create a lock-in effect, where users and suppliers feel compelled to join popular platforms, leading to potential monopolies. Traditional competition law views monopolies as harmful, but these platforms challenge this view by improving consumer choice and service quality. However, this shift in market dynamics may harm smaller suppliers, suggesting a need for regulatory protection for these market participants.

Despite a 2014 initiative by the ministry of law and justice that mandated pre-legislative consultation, in most instances the process is largely superficial. We need a more genuine and constructive engagement from both the government and stakeholders, emphasizing compromise and understanding. The government should actively facilitate pre-legislative consultation, evaluate competing suggestions, and align decisions with democratic values to ensure more meaningful participation in policy-making.

The public credit registry (PCR), a centralized credit information system, would improve data quality and help borrowers build reputational collateral. However, a PCR alone isn’t sufficient; lenders also need information on borrowers’ financial assets. The Reserve Bank of India’s account aggregator infrastructure addresses this by allowing borrowers to share financial asset information securely and with consent. While this system limits data misuse, it requires robust legal frameworks to ensure data is used only for intended purposes.

Algorithmic sentencing, using machine learning to assess recidivism risk, has demonstrated consistent outcomes. But is not without flaws, sometimes reflecting human biases. Despite imperfections, I believe algorithms can introduce objectivity and be fine-tuned to reduce biases, making them more reliable than human judgment.

India’s restriction on foreign investment in retail, extended to e-commerce, led to complex structures to navigate the limitation. The government’s recent regulations, instead of simplifying the policy, have endorsed the marketplace model, potentially leading to ongoing convoluted practices that may hinder consumer benefits and business ease.

The Lok Sabha passed the Aadhaar Amendment Bill, aiming to facilitate the continued use of Aadhaar within constraints set by the Supreme Court. The bill emphasizes voluntary use, gives statutory legitimacy to offline verification, strengthens privacy provisions, and controversially allows the private sector to regain access to Aadhaar infrastructure.

Mobile phones provide opportunities to obtain real-time movement information, aiding in crisis management like tracking disease spread. However, the balance between utilizing this data and ensuring privacy is complex. Current anonymization methods are inadequate, and conscientious use obligations may be a more effective approach to protect privacy.

This year marked a significant shift in global privacy regulation, with the enforcement of Europe’s GDPR and similar laws in other regions. While focusing on consent, the inadequacy of this approach was exposed by tech companies’ practices. In India, the privacy debate intensified with court decisions on Aadhaar and the release of the Justice Srikrishna Committee’s draft bill.