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.

The US Supreme Court recemtly ruled that collecting cellphone location data without a warrant violated privacy. This case challenges the third-party doctrine, which states that shared personal information has reduced privacy expectations. The ruling highlights the difficulty of applying traditional legal principles to modern technology, particularly regarding data privacy. This case could guide Indian privacy law, emphasizing the need for clear legislative direction on data collection and privacy.

Benjamin Day published The Sun which was the world’s first penny press newspaper that was entirely ad-supported. This gave rise to advertising as a means to support the cost of news. Warren and Brandeis defined the Right to Privacy which contributed to the decline of yellow journalism. We need a similar reconceptualisation of regulation today to address the menace of ad driven news.

SpaceX’s plans for Mars colonization, challenge traditional space exploration norms dominated by governments. This raises questions about the regulation of private space exploration and the governance of extraterrestrial colonies, highlighting the need for a new regulatory framework as private companies lead space exploration.

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) came into force on 25 May, affecting entities worldwide that do business with EU citizens. While the regulation has stringent requirements for consent and high penalties for non-compliance, it may have unintended consequences. Large platforms can easily adapt, but smaller entities and start-ups may struggle with the complexity and cost of compliance, potentially leading to a consolidation towards large data platforms and a chilling effect on new ventures.

There are inherrent challenges of using autonomous weapons with human oversight - in particular the fact that human judgment becomes an “inconvenient impediment” to the speed of modern warfare. Future wars, especially in the cybernetic arena, may render human intervention meaningless - and that should raise ethical and practical concerns.