A student-run group at NALSAR University of Law
[This post has been authored by Varsha Rajesh, a final year law student at School of Law, Christ University, Bangalore.]
In February 2021, the Department of Science and Technology of the Government of India issued the Guidelines for acquiring and producing geospatial data and geospatial data services including Maps which applies to entities collecting geospatial data, mapping and other allied products and services which are offered by the Government and privately-owned bodies.
[This post has been authored by Noyanika Batta, a Senior Associate at Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan Attorneys. She is a 2018 graduate from Gujarat National Law University.]
There exist dichotomous views on the usefulness of surveillance and its relationship with public health. The disease control strategies adopted by the states often necessitate extensive surveillance practices having an overbearing and intrusive effect on the daily lives of its citizens. The debate thus lies in striking the right balance between public health and the need to strengthen public health infrastructures vis-a-vis privacy protection for individual citizens. With the rapid spread of COVID19 debilitating economies and causing health systems across the globe to crumble, it became imperative for governments and organizations to take immediate actions to protect its people. This in turn saw a fierce boom in surveillance technologies dedicated towards monitoring whole populations, with governments trying to chart the virus’ trajectory from broad swathes of personal data. This article seeks to examine the disproportionate risks to data privacy caused by the use of invasive and pervasive technologies such as contact tracing across the world.
[This two-part post has been authored by Riddhi Bang and Prerna Sengupta, second year students at NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad. Part II can be found here]
With the wave of machine learning and technological development, a new system that has arrived is the Facial Recognition Technology (FRT). From invention to accessibility, this technology has grown in the past few years. Facial recognition comes under the aegis of biometric data which includes distinctive physical characteristics or personal traits of a person that can be used to verify the individual. FRT primarily works through pattern recognition technology which detects and extracts patterns from data and matches it with patterns stored in a database by creating a biometric ‘template’. This technology is being increasingly deployed, especially by law enforcement agencies and thus raises major privacy concerns. This technology also attracts controversy due to potential data leaks and various inaccuracies. In fact, in 2020, a UK Court of Appeal ruled that facial recognition technology employed by law enforcement agencies, such as the police, was a violation of human rights because there was “too broad a discretion” given to police officers in implementing the technology. It is argued that despite the multifarious purposes that this technology purports to serve, its use must be regulated.
[Varsha Singh is a fifth-year law student and contributing editor at robos of Tech Law and Policy, a platform for marginalized genders in the technology law and policy field. This essay is part of an ongoing collaboration between r – TLP and the NALSAR Tech Law Forum Blog and is the third post in the series. Previous entries can be found here.]
We live an increasingly online everyday life. Today, internet platforms are at the helm of conversations, dominating interactions and impacting relationships between social actors. These platforms’ power and control play a role in furthering fundamental values such as the right to communication and access to knowledge and information. Policies that govern this control, both at self-regulatory and state levels, should ensure the protection of such rights and freedoms while ensuring that users can reap these platforms’ benefits. The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology recently published Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 to regulate intermediaries. While these guidelines adversely affect users’ rights and freedoms in general, the adverse effect is amplified manifold when it comes to marginalised genders, especially in light of India’s socio-political and cultural contexts.
[The following post has been authored by Yashaswini Santuka, a third year student of NALSAR University of Law. This essay is part of an ongoing collaboration between r – TLP and the NALSAR Tech Law Forum Blog and is the second post in the series. The first entry can be found here, and the rest of series is available here.]
Female healthcare and technology related to it, like other women-centric issues, are often suppressed and kept away from the spotlight. This is the result of years of direct and indirect suppression of women and their autonomy (bodily or otherwise), which has results in an increase in the popularity of technology aimed at “empowering” women. However, if the goal of tech-empowered, health tracking apps is to enable people to make informed medical choices, femtech companies have built apps that go beyond this goal. They have managed to successfully blur the line between healthcare and technology, going so far as to becoming apps designed primarily for men and violating the privacy of those it was meant to benefit. This article seeks to address the blatantly discriminatory nature of these apps, the privacy issues that come with entering data into the apps and the legal protection that users are entitled to.
[This post is authored by Oshi Priya, a third-year student at the National Law University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi.]
Education technology (EdTech) is the means to facilitate e-learning through the combination of software and computer hardware along with educational theory. Though still in its early stages of development, it’s a $700 million industry today in India and is headed for 8-10 times the growth in the next 5 years. Some of the popular EdTech companies in India include Unacademy, BYJU’S, and Toppr, etc.
[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.
[Samraat Basu is a technology and data protection lawyer and Naveen Jain is a corporate lawyer specialising in M&A and PE/VC funding.]
The Indian regulatory landscape regarding the use of remotely piloted and autonomous drones has been evolving over the last few years. In June, the Government of India released the draft Unmanned Aircraft System Rules, 2020 (“UAS Rules”) to regulate the use of drones.
[This post has been authored by Shivang Tandon, a fourth year student at Faculty of Law, Banaras Hindu University.]
The ‘self-incrimination’ doctrine is an indispensable part of the criminal law jurisprudence of a civilized nation. Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution and the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States provide protection against self-incrimination.