Regulation

If we are to take a comprehensive approach to tech sector regulation, we need to identify core regulatory objectives, establish regulatory principles, and involving experts in the regulatory process. We need agile governance that encourages multi-stakeholder participation, and allows for the creation of self-regulatory organizations (SROs). We should also establish technical standards organizations (TSOs) to continuously update and maintain digital public infrastructure standards, ensuring their relevance and effectiveness in the rapidly changing tech landscape.

Technological advancements can have a transformative impact. This includes deep neural networks, augmented reality, autonomous transportation, and personalized medicine. I predicts a future where technology will become more intuitive, education will be revolutionized, personal vehicle ownership may decline, and medicine will become highly individualized, though regulators may lag behind these changes.

Trofim Lysenko’s misguided agricultural practices led to famines in the Soviet Union and China, killing millions. This is no different from the modern-day denial of climate science. We need to learn from the past and try not to ignore scientific evidence for political or economic reasons. Else we risk devastating global consequences.

India’s Data Protection Authority (DPA) must adopt technology to manage the high volume of privacy violation complaints and data-breach notifications. The DPA needs experts in technology, law, and privacy to balance privacy protection with technological innovation, requiring members beyond the traditional pool of bureaucrats and retired judges.

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.

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.

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 Supreme Court of India’s ban on liquor sales along highways led to the closure of bars and pubs on Bengaluru’s MG Road and Brigade Road, mistakenly identified as part of NH-4 and NH-7. The excise department’s order, based on outdated map information, ignored the city’s changed highway network, reflecting a broader issue with government map coordination. The Supreme Court later clarified that the ban should not

The QWERTY keyboard layout was designed to slow down typing to prevent mechanical jams. This design has persisted despite alternatives that could improve typing speeds. Path dependence like this is reflected in the legislative process in India, where outdated laws still govern modern technology. We need to break free from path dependence, especially in the context of enacting a new privacy law, to create regulations that are responsive to modern technology.

Lawmaking, fraught with the challenge of foreseeing unintended consequences, often leads to statutes filled with broad, catch-all provisions. These residuary clauses, while providing regulatory flexibility, create uncertainty and potential for overreach. The Other Service Providers (OSPs) regulations in telecom exemplify this, with vague definitions extending regulatory reach to unintended sectors. Precise, purpose-built legislation is advocated over open-ended definitions to avoid such regulatory ambiguities.