Alterations in Personal Data Protection Bill

The World Wide Web was created as a portal for communication, to connect people from far away, and while it started with electronic mail, mail moved to instant messaging, which let people have conversations and interact with each other from afar in real-time. But now, the new paradigm is the Internet of Things and how machines can communicate with one another. Now one can use a wearable gadget that can unlock the front door upon arrival at home and can message the air conditioner so that it switches on. This is IoT.

WHAT EXACTLY IS IoT?

The term ‘Internet of Things’ was coined in 1999 by Kevin Ashton, a computer scientist who put Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) chips on products in order to track them in the supply chain, while he worked at Proctor & Gamble (P&G). And after the launch of the iPhone in 2007, there were already more connected devices than people on the planet.

Fast forward to today and we live in a more connected world than ever. So much so that even our handheld devices and household appliances can now connect and communicate through a vast network that has been built so that data can be transferred and received between devices. There are currently more IoT devices than users in the world and according to the WEF’s report on State of the Connected World, by 2025 there will be more than 40 billion such devices that will record data so it can be analyzed.

IoT finds use in many parts of our lives. It has helped businesses streamline their operations, reduce costs, and improve productivity. IoT also helped during the Covid-19 pandemic, with devices that could help with contact tracing and wearables that could be used for health monitoring. All of these devices are able to gather, store and share data so that it can be analyzed. The information is gathered according to rules set by the people who build these systems.

APPLICATION OF IoT

IoT is used by both consumers and the industry.

Some of the widely used examples of CIoT (Consumer IoT) are wearables like health and fitness trackers, smart rings with near-field communication (NFC), and smartwatches. Smartwatches gather a lot of personal data. Smart clothing, with sensors on it, can monitor the wearer’s vital signs. There are even smart jewelry, which can monitor sleeping patterns and also stress levels.

With the advent of virtual and augmented reality, the gaming industry can now make the experience even more immersive and engrossing. Smart glasses and headsets are used, along with armbands fitted with sensors that can detect the movement of arms and replicate the movement in the game.

At home, there are smart TVs, security cameras, smart bulbs, home control devices, and other IoT-enabled ‘smart’ appliances like coffee makers, that can be turned on through an app, or at a particular time in the morning so that it acts as an alarm. There are also voice-command assistants like Alexa and Siri, and these work with software written by manufacturers that can understand simple instructions.

Industrial IoT (IIoT) mainly uses connected machines for the purposes of synchronization, efficiency, and cost-cutting. For example, smart factories gather and analyze data as the work is being done. Sensors are also used in agriculture to check soil moisture levels, and these then automatically run the irrigation system without the need for human intervention.

Statistics

• The IoT device market is poised to reach $1.4 trillion by 2027, according to Fortune Business Insight.
• The number of cellular IoT connections is expected to reach 3.5 billion by 2023. (Forbes)
• The amount of data generated by IoT devices is expected to reach 73.1 ZB (zettabytes) by 2025.
• 94% of retailers agree that the benefits of implementing IoT outweigh the risk.
• 55% of companies believe that 3^rd party IoT providers should have to comply with IoT security and privacy regulations.
• 53% of all users acknowledge that wearable devices will be vulnerable to data breaches, viruses,
• Companies could invest up to 15 trillion dollars in IoT by 2025 (Gigabit)

CONCERNS AND SOLUTIONS

• Two of the biggest concerns with IoT devices are the privacy of users and the devices being secure in order to prevent attacks by bad actors. This makes knowledge of how these things work absolutely imperative.
• It is worth noting that these devices all work with a central hub, like a smartphone. This means that it pairs with the smartphone through an app and acts as a gateway, which could compromise the smartphone as well if a hacker were to target that IoT device.
• With technology like smart television sets that have cameras and microphones, the major concern is that hackers could hack and take over the functioning of the television as these are not adequately secured by the manufacturer.
• A hacker could control the camera and cyberstalk the victim, and therefore it is very important to become familiar with the features of a device and ensure that it is well protected from any unauthorized usage. Even simple things, like keeping the camera covered when it is not being used.
• There is also the concern that since IoT devices gather and share data without human intervention, they could be transmitting data that the user does not want to share. This is true of health trackers. Users who wear heart and blood pressure monitors have their data sent to the insurance company, who may then decide to raise the premium on their life insurance based on the data they get.
• IoT devices often keep functioning as normal even if they have been compromised. Most devices do not log an attack or alert the user, and changes like higher power or bandwidth usage go unnoticed after the attack. It is therefore very important to make sure the device is properly protected.
• It is also important to keep the software of the device updated as vulnerabilities are found in the code and fixes are provided by the manufacturer. Some IoT devices, however, lack the capability to be patched and are therefore permanently ‘at risk’.

CONCLUSION

Humanity inhabits this world that is made up of all these nodes that talk to each other and get things done. Users can harmonize their devices so that everything runs like a tandem bike – completely in sync with all other parts. But while we make use of all the benefits, it is also very important that one understands what they are using, how it is functioning, and how one can tackle issues should they come up. This is also important to understand because once people get used to IoT, it will be that much more difficult to give up the comfort and ease that these systems provide, and therefore it would make more sense to be prepared for any eventuality. A lot of times, good and sensible usage alone can keep devices safe and services intact. But users should be aware of any issues because forewarned is forearmed.

Introduction

Privacy has become a concern for netizens and social media companies have access to a user’s data and the ability to use the said data as they see fit. Meta’s business model, where they rely heavily on collecting and processing user data to deliver targeted advertising, has been under scrutiny. The conflict between Meta and the EU traces back to the enactment of GDPR in 2018. Meta is facing numerous fines for not following through with the regulation and mainly failing to obtain explicit consent for data processing under Chapter 2, Article 7 of the GDPR. ePrivacy Regulation, which focuses on digital communication and digital data privacy, is the next step in the EU’s arsenal to protect user privacy and will target the cookie policies and tracking tech crucial to Meta's ad-targeting mechanism. Meta’s core revenue stream is sourced from targeted advertising which requires vast amounts of data for the creation of a personalised experience and is scrutinised by the EU. 

Pay for Privacy Model and its Implications with Critical Analysis

Meta came up with a solution to deal with the privacy issue - ‘Pay or Consent,’ a model that allows users to opt out of data-driven advertising by paying a subscription fee. The platform would offer users a choice between free, ad-supported services and a paid privacy-enhanced experience which aligns with the GDPR and potentially reduces regulatory pressure on Meta. 

Meta presently needs to assess the economic feasibility of this model and come up with answers for how much a user would be willing to pay for the privacy offered and shift Meta’s monetisation from ad-driven profits to subscription revenues. This would have a direct impact on Meta’s advertisers who use Meta as a platform for detailed user data for targeted advertising, and would potentially decrease ad revenue and innovate other monetisation strategies.

For the users, increased privacy and greater control of data aligning with global privacy concerns would be a potential outcome. While users will undoubtedly appreciate the option to avoid tracking, the suggestion does beg the question that the need to pay might become a barrier. This could possibly divide users between cost-conscious and privacy-conscious segments. Setting up a reasonable price point is necessary for widespread adoption of the model.

For the regulators and the industry, a new precedent would be set in the tech industry and could influence other companies’ approaches to data privacy. Regulators might welcome this move and encourage further innovation in privacy-respecting business models. 

The affordability and fairness of the ‘pay or consent’ model could create digital inequality if privacy comes at a digital cost or even more so as a luxury. The subscription model would also need clarifications as to what data would be collected and how it would be used for non-advertising purposes. In terms of market competition, competitors might use and capitalise on Meta’s subscription model by offering free services with privacy guarantees which could further pressure Meta to refine its offerings to stay competitive. According to the EU, the model needs to provide a third way for users who have ads but are a result of non-personalisation advertising.

Meta has further expressed a willingness to explore various models to address regulatory concerns and enhance user privacy. Their recent actions in the form of pilot programs for testing the pay-for-privacy model is one example. Meta is actively engaging with EU regulators to find mutually acceptable solutions and to demonstrate its commitment to compliance while advocating for business models that sustain innovation. Meta executives have emphasised the importance of user choice and transparency in their future business strategies.

Future Impact Outlook

• The Meta-EU tussle over privacy is a manifestation of broader debates about data protection and business models in the digital age. 
• The EU's stance on Meta’s ‘pay or consent’ model and any new regulatory measures will shape the future landscape of digital privacy, leading to other jurisdictions taking cues and potentially leading to global shifts in privacy regulations. 
• Meta may need to iterate on its approach based on consumer preferences and concerns. Competitors and tech giants will closely monitor Meta’s strategies, possibly adopting similar models or innovating new solutions. And the overall approach to privacy could evolve to prioritise user control and transparency.

Conclusion

Consent is the cornerstone in matters of privacy and sidestepping it violates the rights of users. The manner in which tech companies foster a culture of consent is of paramount importance in today's digital landscape. As the exploration by Meta in the ‘pay or consent’ model takes place, it faces both opportunities and challenges in balancing user privacy with business sustainability. This situation serves as a critical test case for the tech industry, highlighting the need for innovative solutions that respect privacy while fostering growth with the specificity of dealing with data protection laws worldwide, starting with India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act, of 2023.

Reference:

• https://ciso.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/grc/eu-tells-meta-to-address-consumer-fears-over-pay-for-privacy/111946106 
• https://www.wired.com/story/metas-pay-for-privacy-model-is-illegal-says-eu/ 
• https://edri.org/our-work/privacy-is-not-for-sale-meta-must-stop-charging-for-peoples-right-to-privacy/ 
• https://fortune.com/2024/04/17/meta-pay-for-privacy-rejected-edpb-eu-gdpr-schrems/ 

‍

Introduction

Twitter Inc.’s appeal against barring orders for specific accounts issued by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology was denied by a single judge on the Karnataka High Court. Twitter Inc. was also given an Rs. 50 lakh fine by Justice Krishna Dixit, who claimed the social media corporation had approached the court defying government directives.

As a foreign corporation, Twitter’s locus standi had been called into doubt by the government, which said they were ineligible to apply Articles 19 and 21 to their situation. Additionally, the government claimed that because Twitter was only designed to serve as an intermediary, there was no “jural relationship” between Twitter and its users.

The Issue

In accordance with Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, the Ministry issued the directives. Nevertheless, Twitter had argued in its appeal that the orders “fall foul of Section 69A both substantially and procedurally.” Twitter argued that in accordance with 69A, account holders were to be notified before having their tweets and accounts deleted. However, the Ministry failed to provide these account holders with any notices.

On June 4, 2022, and again on June 6, 2022, the government sent letters to Twitter’s compliance officer requesting that they come before them and provide an explanation for why the Blocking Orders were not followed and why no action should be taken against them.

Twitter replied on June 9 that the content against which it had not followed the blocking orders does not seem to be a violation of Section 69A. On June 27, 2022, the Government issued another notice stating Twitter was violating its directions. On June 29, Twitter replied, asking the Government to reconsider the direction on the basis of the doctrine of proportionality. On June 30, 2022, the Government withdrew blocking orders on ten account-level URLs but gave an additional list of 27 URLs to be blocked. On July 10, more accounts were blocked. Compiling the orders “under protest,” Twitter approached the HC with the petition challenging the orders.

Legality

Additionally, the government claimed that because Twitter was only designed to serve as an intermediary, there was no “jural relationship” between Twitter and its users.

Government attorney Additional Solicitor General R Sankaranarayanan argued that tweets mentioning “Indian Occupied Kashmir” and the survival of LTTE commander Velupillai Prabhakaran were serious enough to undermine the integrity of the nation.

Twitter, on the other hand, claimed that its users have pushed for these rights. Additionally, Twitter maintained that under Article 14 of the Constitution, even as a foreign company, they were entitled to certain rights, such as the right to equality. They also argued that the reason for the account blocking in each case was not stated and that Section 69a’s provision for blocking a URL should only apply to the offending URL rather than the entire account because blocking the entire account would prevent the creation of information while blocking the offending tweet only applied to already-created information.

Conclusion

The evolution of cyberspace has been substantiated by big tech companies like Facebook, Google, Twitter, Amazon and many more. These companies have been instrumental in leading the spectrum of emerging technologies and creating a blanket of ease and accessibility for users. Compliance with laws and policies is of utmost priority for the government, and the new bills and policies are empowering the Indian cyberspace. Non Compliance will be taken very seriously, and the same is legalised under the Intermediary Guidelines 2021 and 2022 by Meity. Referring to Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, which pertains to an exemption from liability of intermediary in some instances, it was said, “Intermediary is bound to obey the orders which the designate authority/agency which the government fixes from time to time.”