Regulation Archives - Page 10 of 11 - Tech Law Forum @ NALSAR

Fake News and Its Follies

Posted on January 18, 2017 by Vishal Rakhecha

Fake news may seem to be very innocuous and in fact might not seem to cause much harm to anyone or have any real-world consequences. Fake news is a phenomenon where a few individuals, sites and online portals create or/and share pieces of information either completely false or cherry-picked from real incidents with the intention to mislead the general public or gain publicity. We all have at least once received a message on WhatsApp groups or on Twitter or on Facebook saying things like – Jana Gana Mana received ‘best national anthem’ award from UNESCO, or that the new Rs 2000 notes have a GPS enabled chip, or that Narendra Modi has been selected as the Best PM in the world by UNESCO. These apparently harmless rumours have done little more than made Twitter trolls target unsuspecting individuals, sometimes even well-known people.

RELIANCE JIO: REGULATORY AND PRIVACY IMPLICATIONS

Posted on September 24, 2016 by Balaji Subramanian

Ed. Note.: This post, by Sayan Bhattacharya, is a part of the NALSAR Tech Law Forum Editorial Test 2016.

In the world of technology dominated by a power struggle in terms of presence and absence in data circles, Reliance Jio has probably made the biggest tech news of the year with its revolutionary schemes. By adopting a loss-leader strategy of immediate loss and ultimate dominance, Reliance Jio has promised its subscribers stellar features like free voice calls, extremely cheap data packages, abolition of national roaming charges and striking down extra rates on national holidays on shifting to its network. This is set to significantly affect competition by taking India’s data scenario from a data scarcity to data abundance mode.

LEGAL ISSUES SURROUNDING SEARCH ENGINE LIABILITY

Posted on September 24, 2016 by Balaji Subramanian

Ed. Note.: This post, by Sayan Bhattacharya, is a part of the NALSAR Tech Law Forum Editorial Test 2016.

Search engines which are quintessential to our internet experience are mechanisms of indexing and crawling through data to provide us with a list of links which are most relevant to both our present and past searches. Figuratively, its functions range from directing users to seats in a movie hall to being the very seat in the movie hall.

The Right to Be Forgotten – An Explanation

Posted on September 24, 2016 by Balaji Subramanian

Ed. Note.: This post, by Ashwin Murthy, is a part of the NALSAR Tech Law Forum Editorial Test 2016.

The right to be forgotten is the right of an individual to request search engines to take down certain results relating to the individual, such as links to personal information if that information is inadequate, irrelevant or untrue. For example, if a person’s name is searched on Google and certain information appears relating to that person, the person can request Google to remove that information from the search results. This has its largest application in crime and non-consensual pornography (revenge porn or the distribution of sexually explicit material depicting a person without their consent). If X committed a petty crime and a person searching X’s name finds this petty crime, it leads to an obvious negative impact to X, in terms of job prospects as well as general social stigmatisation. X can ask the providers of the search engine to remove this result, claiming his right to be forgotten. The right is not necessarily an absolute right – in its current stage of discussion it merely applies to information that is inadequate, irrelevant or untrue and not any and all information relating to the person. Further there lies a distinction between the right to privacy and the right to be forgotten – the right to privacy is of information not available to the public while the right to be forgotten is removal of information already available publicly.

Privacy – A right to GO?

Posted on September 24, 2016 by Balaji Subramanian

Ed. Note.: This post, by Ashwin Murthy, is a part of the NALSAR Tech Law Forum Editorial Test 2016.

For centuries rights have slowly come into existence and prominence, from the right to property to the right to vote and the right against exploitation. In the increasingly digital world of interconnection, the latest right to gain immense popularity is the right to privacy. This right entails the right to be let alone and more importantly the right to protect one’s own information – informational privacy. Thus armed with the right to privacy, one can limit what information others have access to and may use, and thus what information corporations might have or what is up on the Internet. This right to privacy comes in direct contact with applications downloaded on phones, which often ask for permissions to various information on the phone – a device which already possesses a great deal of information of the owner, including the location of the user, their phone number, their emails, their chat conversations and their photos. Applications often ask, either explicitly or in their terms and conditions, for permissions to access varying degrees of the information on the phone, sometimes in a rather unexpected fashion (such as a flashlight app asking for permissions to location), and more recently these apps have been singled out for their questionable privacy settings.

REGULATIONS FOR SELF-DRIVING CARS

Posted on September 24, 2016May 16, 2024 by Balaji Subramanian

Ed. Note.: This post, by Vishal Rakhecha, is a part of the NALSAR Tech Law Forum Editorial Test 2016.

Self-driving cars have for long been a thing of sci-fi, but now with companies like Uber, Google, Tesla, Mercedes, Audi and so many more conducting research in this field they don’t seem as unrealistic. Self- driving cars are vehicles which do not require human supervision, with autonomy of varying degrees. Such technology is already present -to a limited extent – in the form of cruise control, parking assist, etc. The creation of such technology would inevitably require a sound system of rules and regulations. These laws among other things must be capable of setting a set of standards for the companies, securing the physical safety and protecting the privacy of the end user. Presently Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 are the only rules related to automobiles. These laws are inadequate in terms of their application to autonomous cars. This article deals with the changes in the law which may be required to deal with challenges which this new technology may present. These modifications will be essential to ensure the protection of all stakeholders when these contraptions do come on Indian streets. This article will deal with regulations of self-driving cars of level 3 and 4.

Uber – Into the New Tomorrow

Posted on February 15, 2015September 3, 2024 by Jitesh Anand

[Image Source: http://flic.kr/p/jyCqcH]

The rapid influx of technology has in recent times forced various firms to revamp their respective business models. The taxi industry is no exception. In this blog post, I will discuss the government’s ban on Uber cabs and the issue of its compliance with the IT Act, 2000 or the Radio Taxi Scheme, 2006. I will analyze the ban on the lines of the economic concept of ‘entry costs’. I will also deliberate on the need for leveling the play field between both, the radio cab operators and the importance for taxi ‘app’ companies to get a georgia tax id.

December, 2014: Fireworks and more!

Posted on January 2, 2015 by Kartik Chawla

December, 2014, has been the month when the Indian community received a multitude of shocks, one after the other and each one more powerful, on the issue of internet-related legal problems.

First, we had the lamentable Uber issue, which was followed by Airtel announcing (and later withdrawing) its VoIP-data plan, which violated Net Neutrality down to the first principle. This also inspired TRAI to work on a consultation on Net Neutrality. Soon after, we learnt that SoI had filed a case against Google for “displaying an incorrect map” of India. And just as the month was wrapping up, Airtel and Hathway accidentally blocked all of imgur rather than just a single image.

Google’s Commercial Dominance – the Problem of a ‘Free’ Economy

Posted on November 22, 2014July 7, 2024 by Kartik Chawla

(Image Source: https://flic.kr/p/oHcd72)

Just yesterday, the internet became abuzz with the news that the European Parliament (‘EP’) is pressurising the European Union (‘EU’) to break Google Search away from the rest of its services (such as Android, et al). We’ve covered Google’s antitrust woes with the EU on the TLF earlier. According to this Techdirt article here, the EP hasn’t really given any reasons for breaking up Google other than the fact that ‘it’s very big and very European’. (Of course, its powers to even take such actions are themselves quite suspect.)

The Concept of a Software Patent in India

Posted on November 9, 2014 by Shantanu Mathur

Image Source (9 to 5 Mac, available at http://goo.gl/igU7Bd)

A new challenge to the legal profession, particularly in the domain of intellectual property rights, has been that of examining the idea of a software. New software, with varying levels of originality or innovation is created every day. If you made one unlike anybody else ever had before, would you patent it or copyright it? What would be the extent of protection granted by whichever one that you (or the law in your jurisdiction) choose? Should such a right even be given to the innovators? This piece will take a look at the Indian law, establish a position and also discuss changes that can be made to it.