GDPR-Lite and Requiring Strengthening – Submission on the Draft Personal Data Protection Bill to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (India)

G. Greenleaf
{"title":"GDPR-Lite and Requiring Strengthening – Submission on the Draft Personal Data Protection Bill to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (India)","authors":"G. Greenleaf","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3252286","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This submission concerns the draft Personal Data Protection Bill which accompanies the July 2018 Report of the Committee of Experts on Data Protection (‘Srikrishna Report’) appointed by the Indian government. \nThe submission makes five general comments about the Bill, on these topics: \n1. The draft Bill is a serious and modern draft law, and should only be strengthened, not weakened by MeitY in preparing a Bill for submission to the legislature. The Indian government has compelling reasons to enact a Bill resembling this draft. \n2. The Report and Bill both reflect a very different regulatory philosophy from the EU GDPR’s radical dispersal of decision-making responsibility (and liability for wrong decisions) to data controllers. The Indian model is more prescriptive, but a justifiable regulatory option, provided it does not include excessive discretion to the government or the Data Protection Authority. \n3. The Bill's data localisation requirements adopt an unjustifiable generic approach to data localisation, through blanket local copy requirements (with exceptions to be specified by government), and export prohibitions also specified by government. \n4. The very broad exemptions from most of the Act for processing in the interests of State security or relating to law enforcement, although purportedly constrained by legality, necessity and proportionality (are dangerously vague). \n5. The lack of complete independence of the DPIA, and the lack of any legislatively guaranteed independence by the Adjudicating Officers, represent unsound policy in relation to bodies whose function is to regulate government as well as the private sector. \nThe submission also includes fifteen more specific recommendations for improvements to the Bill.","PeriodicalId":378533,"journal":{"name":"DecisionSciRN: Legislative & Regulatory Decision-Making (Topic)","volume":"123 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"DecisionSciRN: Legislative & Regulatory Decision-Making (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3252286","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

This submission concerns the draft Personal Data Protection Bill which accompanies the July 2018 Report of the Committee of Experts on Data Protection (‘Srikrishna Report’) appointed by the Indian government. The submission makes five general comments about the Bill, on these topics: 1. The draft Bill is a serious and modern draft law, and should only be strengthened, not weakened by MeitY in preparing a Bill for submission to the legislature. The Indian government has compelling reasons to enact a Bill resembling this draft. 2. The Report and Bill both reflect a very different regulatory philosophy from the EU GDPR’s radical dispersal of decision-making responsibility (and liability for wrong decisions) to data controllers. The Indian model is more prescriptive, but a justifiable regulatory option, provided it does not include excessive discretion to the government or the Data Protection Authority. 3. The Bill's data localisation requirements adopt an unjustifiable generic approach to data localisation, through blanket local copy requirements (with exceptions to be specified by government), and export prohibitions also specified by government. 4. The very broad exemptions from most of the Act for processing in the interests of State security or relating to law enforcement, although purportedly constrained by legality, necessity and proportionality (are dangerously vague). 5. The lack of complete independence of the DPIA, and the lack of any legislatively guaranteed independence by the Adjudicating Officers, represent unsound policy in relation to bodies whose function is to regulate government as well as the private sector. The submission also includes fifteen more specific recommendations for improvements to the Bill.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
GDPR-Lite及有待加强-向电子及资讯科技部提交个人资料保护条例草案拟稿(印度)
该文件涉及印度政府任命的数据保护专家委员会2018年7月报告(“Srikrishna报告”)附带的个人数据保护法案草案。该意见书就下列主题对该法案提出了五点一般性评论:《条例草案》是一项严肃而现代的法律草案,在准备提交立法机关的条例草案时,只应加强而不是削弱它。印度政府有令人信服的理由颁布一项类似于该草案的法案。2. 报告和法案都反映了一种与欧盟GDPR截然不同的监管理念,即将决策责任(以及错误决策的责任)彻底分散到数据控制者身上。印度模式更具规定性,但也是一种合理的监管选择,前提是它不包括对政府或数据保护局的过度自由裁量权。条例草案的数据本地化规定采用了一种不合理的通用数据本地化方法,通过全面的本地副本要求(政府规定的例外情况除外),以及政府规定的出口禁令。4. 为了国家安全的利益或与执法有关的处理而对《法案》的大部分内容的非常广泛的豁免,尽管据称受到合法性、必要性和相称性的限制(危险地含糊不清)。5. 审裁处缺乏完全的独立性,以及审裁处官员缺乏任何法律保障的独立性,这就表明,对于那些职能是管理政府和私营部门的机构来说,政策是不健全的。提交的文件还包括15项具体建议,以改进该条例草案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Labor Market Choices of Migrants and Redistributive Policies Regulating Global Externalities GDPR-Lite and Requiring Strengthening – Submission on the Draft Personal Data Protection Bill to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (India) FATCA, CRS, and the Wrong Choice of Who to Regulate Behavioral Welfare Economics, Libertarian Paternalism, and the Nudge Agenda
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1