The Hindu Editorial Vocabulary– Nov 23, 2022; Day 375

Persisting (Relentless and indefatigable in pursuit or as if in pursuit) issues: On the new data protection bill

Further tightening up of protections is an imperative (Requiring attention or action) in the draft data protection bill

A new draft of the much-awaited data protection Bill, the Digital Personal Data Protection Bill (DPDP Bill) 2022, is now open for public comments. The Government had previously withdrawn an earlier draft by averring (Report or maintain) that it would come up with a “comprehensive legal framework” on data privacy and Internet regulation, and this draft seems to be a standalone (capable of operating independently) attempt at bettering (Get better) its previous iterations (a repeated performance). There are only 30 clauses, for simplicity, but resulting in aspects of privacy protections remaining under-clarified. A case in point is how clauses define the need for consent from data principals for data fiduciaries (trustee) to process their personal data. Now, a notice is to be provided for the consent of the data principal, and the withdrawal of consent should allow for fiduciaries to remove any such data stored or is to be shared with others. The new draft, unlike the 2018 version, does not refer to key data protection principles such as collection limitation — obligations on the data fiduciaries to collect only such personal data that is required for the purpose of processing. It also does not include obligations on data fiduciaries to inform principals about data sharing recipients, duration of storage, etc. Thus, the comprehensive protection to data principals in the form of the information provided on their personal data and processing by data fiduciaries, is now missing. It does, however, include a crucial (Of extreme importance) clause on fiduciaries notifying principals and the data protection authority about breaches (a breaking, infringement, or violation of a promise, obligation, etc) in stored data.

The new draft proposes the establishment of a Data Protection Board of India, whose strength and composition, the process of selection, etc. will be prescribed by the Union government. As with the earlier versions, this diverges (Be at variance with; be out of line with) from the Srikrishna Committee Draft which allowed for judicial oversight (A mistake resulting from inattention) in the selection process of the data protection authority. It is a concern that the proposed board will not have sufficient independence from the Union government; the state is also a data fiduciary which collects vast amounts of individual data. The 2018 Bill allowed for exemptions to be granted to state institutions from acquiring informed consent from data principals or to process their data in the case of matters related only to the “security of the state”, and also called for a law to provide for parliamentary oversight and judicial approval of non-consensual access to personal data. But the new draft Bill continues the wide-ranging and vaguely (Not clearly expressed or understood) worded exemptions and instruments, allowing for the executive to collect information which could amount to mass surveillance (Close observation of a person or group (usually by the police)). Public scrutiny (The act of examining something closely (as for mistakes)) notwithstanding (Regardless of, in defiance of), Parliament should work towards tightening the provisions in the data protection Bill and providing for a robust data protection law.

Want to improve your vocabulary further? Download the Lists of Word-Meanings of Previous Months here.