A student-run group at NALSAR University of Law
[Ed Note: The following post is part of the TLF Editorial Board Test 2020-21. It has been authored by Sankalp Jain, a fourth year student of NALSAR University of Law.]
This post discusses policy responses to the threat of automation on India’s labour, contextualising the same amidst a major technological shift and efforts to revive India’s economy after a nation-wide lockdown crippled it.
[Ed Note: The following post is part of the TLF Editorial Board Test 2020-21. It has been authored by Yashashwini Santuka, a second year student of NALSAR University of Law.]
Advanced systems of healthcare are imperative to the growth of countries, their economies and the well-being of its people. However, developing countries like India are still in the process of adapting to emerging technology in public healthcare due to its resource-constrained setting. The use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in this scenario is rapidly spreading in public health. Effective deployment and adapting to its unique features to transform public health completely might take longer due to the systemic disparities observed in the country. While AI holds promise for the health systems, its uniform implementation may pose an issue to traditional patient care systems, patients’ safety, safety of their private medical records, and affordability. Such a situation requires regulators to take a systemic view of the healthcare industry, and possibly pre-empt the potential impact of the use and regulation of AI. This article explores the contextual limitations of the healthcare industry in India concerning the regulation of technology and AI.
[This post has been authored by Vaibhav Parikh, Legal Counsel at ICICI Bank. Views are personal]
The value of online/ mobile banking rose from INR 69.47 billion in 2016-17 to INR 21,317 billion in 2019-20. Providing data access to third-party firms by banks and other financial institutions has proved to be one of the important reasons for such rapid development in online/ mobile banking, since it has allowed for introduction of innovative financial services and products to customers (Basel Committee Report on Open Banking, Page 8); such as seamless payments transmission between accounts at different banks, instant payments using Unified Payments Interface (“UPI”) and aggregation of all financial accounts onto one dashboard. Gradually, the delivery of financial services and products is also being offered by non-banking third parties, such as fintech firms. These developments are aspects of open banking and are continuously evolving in nature.
[This is the second part of a two-part post authored by Abhilash Roy and Hrishikesh Bhise, fourth-year students at the National Law Institute University, Bhopal. Click here for Part I]
Argument for a Level Playing Field
‘Fair and reasonable opportunities to all market players’ and the concept of ‘a level playing field’ for market participants is important for a regulatory framework. A good regulatory framework is designed to induce confidence in the market and stems from necessity, more so, the imperativeness that positive competition practices in the market thrive and ensure opportunities to all participants without indirectly favouring a specific section of the market. It is evident that absence of a regulatory framework for OTT services is fostering poor competitive environment. For example, massive digital ad-revenue and the power/outreach of internet has facilitated the growth of OTT companies as giants in the industry and gives them an advantage over TSPs with respect to similar services such as messages and VoIP, among other things such as lack of a digital ad-revenue space for TSPs. However, there is ample evidence to suggest that telecom industry is not a ‘victim’ in a clinical sense as TSPs still charge customers for data consumption for using OTT services and an increase in these services results in increased data consumption which then translates to increased revenue for telecom companies. Any regulatory framework would have to be formulated by keeping in mind the revenue model of both stakeholders.
[This is the first part of a two-part post authored by Abhilash Roy and Hrishikesh Bhise, fourth-year students at the National Law Institute University, Bhopal. Click here for Part II ]
The purposes and functions of the internet, as we know it today, have grown manifolds since its inception over thirty years ago. Its importance and use has only grown due to the ongoing pandemic with an estimated 50 to 70% more hits.
Welcome to our fortnightly newsletter, where our reporters Harsh Jain and Harshita Lilani put together handpicked stories from the world of tech law! You can find other issues here.
The Cabinet Secretariat issued a notification on November 11, 2020 granting the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting authority over streaming platforms and online news portals. Simply put, this means that platforms such as Netflix, Hotstar, Amazon Prime, etc. will now be under the jurisdiction of the I&B Ministry. While the I&B Ministry cannot regulate these platforms without specific laws being passed towards that end, the notification signals the intent of the government to bring out a regulatory code in the near future. Such a move was expected after Amit Khare, the Secretary of the I&B Ministry, expressed the Ministry’s intent to bring content streamed over OTT platforms under its purview. The online content sector, unlike radio, cinema and television, has till now remained free of censorship. In August 2020, more than a dozen OTT platforms operating in India such as Netflix, Zee5, Voot, Jio, SonyLiv, etc. had signed a self-regulation code aimed at empowering consumers with tools to assist them in making informed choice with regard to viewing decisions for them and their families but the I&B Ministry had refused to support the same.
[Ed Note: The following post is part of the TLF Editorial Board Test 2020-21. It has been authored by Harsh Tripathi, a second year student of NALSAR University of Law.]
Picture this: A computer software, running on AI-based algorithms, has been deployed to scrutinize housing applications. However, the applications filed by the members of a particular community or people with a particular sexual identity are constantly rejected while most allocations are being made to the members of a different community.
[Ed Note: The following post is part of the TLF Editorial Board Test 2020-21. It has been authored by Saumya Khandelwal, a second year student of NALSAR University of Law.]
Recently, a report on the ‘Non-Personal Data Governance Framework’ was released by an expert committee established by Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) for recommending a framework to regulate Non-Personal Data (‘NPD’). NPD is electronic information that cannot be traced back to an identifiable natural person. The committee, believing in the huge potential of data, strove to create a framework to unlock the economic, social and public value of data. One of the objectives of the report is to wipe out the possibility of data monopolies. It aims to create certainty and incentives for innovation to encourage domestic start-ups, spurring digital economy growth. The recommended framework: enabling start-ups/businesses to access meta-data of data-driven businesses and building data marketplaces for easy exchange of data seeks to provide a level-playing field for all Indian actors. The goal of this article would be to show how the draft framework in its present form cannot achieve the aforementioned objective.
[This post has been authored by Raashi Vaishya, a fourth year student at the NMIMS Kirit P. Mehta School of Law, Mumbai.]
The sentiment of intermediary liability in India can be felt from the dialogue that transpired between Cleopatra and the messenger who informed her about Antony’s marriage. When Cleopatra threatened to treat the messenger’s eyes as balls, he replied, “Gracious madam, I that do bring the news made not the match.”[1]
[Prakarsh and Shruti Mishra are third year students enrolled at the National Law Institute University, Bhopal.]
Any discussion on the issue of blockchain arbitration must begin with an understanding of the technology involved. Blockchain technology is not as new as it is perceived to be. The whitepaper released under the pseudonym of Satoshi Nakamoto brought this technology to fore, originally designed as a public ledger, more than a decade ago in 2008. This technology ever since its inception has rapidly been utilised for several other applications ranging from healthcare, blockchain governance, to even blockchain music.