European negotiators have agreed on the Digital Markets Act, a law aimed at regulating dominant platforms in Europe. A key focus appears to be interoperability, particularly among messaging platforms. While it is intended to increase competition, mandatory interoperability may degrade privacy and create conflicts with global technology platforms’ policies.
We can have a new international approach to data governance that draws inspiration from the Bretton Woods Agreement. This would call for the creation of a global alliance with a commitment to data protection as well as a Data Stability Board to coordinate regulatory dialogue, aiming for harmonization and interoperability in global data governance.
There are divergent approaches to data regulation across the US, China, and Europe. The US has a laissez-faire approach, China tends to be oriented towards state-centric control, and Europe is overtly rights-based. The growing schisms between these approaches are causing fragmentation, leading to a call for a common ground in global data governance.
Francis Fukuyama coined the term “vetocracy” to describe a gridlocked decision-making system where individuals can prevent policy implementation through vetoes. But while the physical world may suffer from excessive vetocracy, the digital sphere often leans towards autocracy. We need a balance between these two extremes and that is even more important in the context of India’s digital infrastructure. Vetocratic processes can be used to protect core principles, while maintaining flexibility to foster innovation.
There is a growing recognition of the fact that we can use technology tools to make our regulations smarter. There are 2 categories of tools to do this. The first gives users more control over what can be done with their data by placing data in pods and only allowing them to be accessed in accordance with the privacy management protocols. The second unlocks data silos allowing data to move between them with the consent of the user. While these tools seem contradictory they operate at opposite ends of the data spectrum can can be combined to augment statutory frameworks.
The fictional science of psychohistory is predicated on the proposition that while human behaviour is erratic in isolation, when aggregated to population scale it becomes predictable. Today we use big data to predict customer behaviour and third wave economics uses real-time data to solve real world problems. In time this will allow us to understand the steps we need to take to shape desirable outcomes.
On the one hand the internet is so good at remembering things that we have to create legal frameworks to force it to forget. On the other hand, in those instances where we expect the internet to remember things in the same way we used to rely on libraries link-rot and content-drift has resulted in valuable information no longer being traceable.
The concept of a sovereign nation-state grew out of the Treaty of Westphalia that established the absolute authority of a sovereign power over its territory. Technology compresses distances and helped improve control over the far flung regions of nation-states. The internet compressed distances even more. This coupled with globalisation has challenged the concept of sovereignty. Nations have opposed this with data localisation laws and slowly big tech companies are agreeing to be bound by concepts of regional sovereignty.
When measures being put in place to prevent third-party cookies from tracking individuals across the internet, companies that relied on these cookies to deliver personalised services had to find workarounds. Privacy activists are concerned that all this does is concentrate power in the hands of fewer gatekeepers. We can use this opportunity to move away from advertising as the business model for the internet and explore the subscription model.
Nowhere in the world have age verification obligations been imposed on online services like in India’s data protection law. Requiring users to prove their identity before the link they have clicked on can open will break the internet. Requiring children to get parental consent is not necessarily a good thing as parents often have a lesser understanding of privacy risk than their children who are digital natives. Instead we should hold platforms accountable for harms caused to children.
