Welcome to our fortnightly newsletter, where our reporters Kruttika Lokesh and Dhananjay Dhonchak put together handpicked stories from the world of tech law! You can find other issues here.
Private firm blocked from buying “.org” domain
[This post has been authored by Suvam Kumar, a 3rd year student at National Law University, Jodhpur.]
[This post has been authored by Lavanya Jha (West Bengal University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata) & Shreya Jha (Amity Law School, Delhi).]
The term Artificial Intelligence (AI) was coined by American computer scientist John McCarthy during the Dartmouth Conference on Artificial Intelligence in 1956. It was understood as a system of solving complex problems through reasoning, knowledge representation, planning, navigation, natural language processing, and perception. The shared conception regarding AI has been that it is a method of data processing, wherein the lack of involvement of a processor allows it to have an independent “mind”. Therefore, a processing device like a digital computer through which AI related tasks are accomplished can be viewed as a fundamentally detached, objective observer whereas intelligent behavior can be viewed as a determinate set of independent elements. AI’s primary features can be characterized as unpredictability, rationality, independence, efficiency and accuracy, thereby allowing it to create “patentable” inventions.
[This post has been authored by Sarthak Gupta of the Institute of Law, Nirma University.]
5G is the next big change awaiting mankind. It is not just an incremental change but rather represents a paradigm shift in technology. Among other things, it is going to have a huge impact on the national and economic security of countries. As a result, a safe and reliable framework for the development of 5G technology is very much critical for a nation’s ability to preserve its sovereignty.
[This is the second part of a two-part article by Muskan Agarwal (National Law Institute University, Bhopal) and Arpita Pandey (National Law Institute University, Bhopal). Part 1 can be found here.]
Previously, the authors looked at the contradictions between blockchain and GDPR with regard to the principal obligations enlisted in GDPR. In this post, the authors will carry out a feasibility assessment of the solutions proposed.
[This is the second part of a two-part article by Muskan Agarwal (National Law Institute University, Bhopal) and Arpita Pandey (National Law Institute University, Bhopal).]
This is the first part of a two-part post that undertakes an analysis of the points of friction present between the fundamentals of blockchain technology and GDPR and of the various solutions that have been proposed to address the inconsistencies.
[This post has been authored by Mohd Rameez Raza (Faculty of Law, Integral University, Lucknow) and Raj Shekhar (NUSRL, Ranchi).]
The Internet is one of the most powerful instruments of the 21st century for increasing transparency in day to day working, access to information, and most important facilitating active citizen participation in building strong democratic societies. Relying on the same belief, the Kerala High Court, in its monumental, decision has held ‘Right to Internet Access’ as a fundamental right. Thus, making the right to have access to Internet part of ‘Right to Education’ as well as ‘Right to Privacy’ under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.