Stakeholders’ responses to the TRAI privacy consultation paper (Part XII of XII): Technological solutions to monitor compliance

This is the twelfth post, in a twelve (12) part series of posts, to map the opinions of all the stakeholders on the basis of their responses to the consultation paper on Privacy, Security, and Ownership of the Data in the Telecom Sector (Consultation Paper) published by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) on 9th August 2017.

In order to address key data privacy and security issues, the TRAI framed twelve (12) questions and invited comments to these questions. In total, fifty-three (53) stakeholders submitted detailed responses. Comments of all stakeholders are available here. Our comments to the Consultation Paper are available here.

The mapping of stakeholders’ opinion, and the analysis of such mapping, is based on the interpretation of all the responses to the Consultation Paper. A few details may have been lost during the interpretation of the responses. All suggestions, requests, and comments, to rectify any such omission(s) or error(s) in this exercise, are duly invited.

“Q.7 How can the government or its authorized authority setup a technology solution that can assist it in monitoring the ecosystem for compliance? What are the attributes of such a solution that allow the regulations to keep pace with a changing technology ecosystem?”

The following table projects the stances of the stakeholders on what measures should be considered to strengthen and preserve the data collected from the people.

*Industry Associations: IAMAI – Internet & Mobile Association of India, ACTO – Association Of Competitive Telecom Operators, ACT – Association for Competitive Technology, ASSOCHAM – Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India, COAI – Cellular Operators Association of India, GSMA – Groupe Speciale Mobile Association, ISPAI – Internet Service Providers Association of India, NASSCOM-DSCI – National Association of Software and Services Companies – Data Security Council of India, USISPF – U.S. India Strategic Partnership Forum, ITI – Information Technology Industry Council, USIBC – US India Business Council, BSA – Business Software Alliance, EBG – European Business Group Federation, BIF – Broadband India Forum, ISACA – Information Systems Audit and Control Association, iSPIRIT – Indian Software Product Industry Round Table.

**Telecom Service Providers: AT&T Global Network Services India Pvt. Ltd., RJIL – Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited, MTNL – Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited, TTL – Tata Teleservices Limited, BSNL – Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, RCOM –  Reliance Communications Ltd.

***Civil Society Organisations/ Think Tanks: NLUD – National Law University, Delhi,  IDP – Internet Democracy Project, CIS – The Centre for Internet and Society, ITfC – IT for Change, SFLC – Software Freedom Law Centre, FCSO – Federation of Consumer and Service Organization, CUTS – Consumer Unity and Trust Society, CGS – Consumer Guidance Society, CPA – Consumer Protection Association, IFF – Internet Freedom Foundation.

INSIGHTS

• Should the government adopt a technology solution to monitor compliance?

• 19% of all stakeholders, including 25% industry associations, 40% telecom service providers, 33.33% civil society organisations, 33.33 individuals and 25% companies/firms, stated that the government should adopt a technology solution to monitor compliance.
• 4% of all stakeholders, including 62.5% industry associations, 60% telecom service providers,33.33% civil society organisations and 25% companies/firms, were against the introduction of a technology solution to monitor compliance.
• 55% of all stakeholders, including 6.25% industry associations, 8.33% civil society organisations and 16.67% companies/firms, were ambiguous about the introduction of a technology solution to monitor compliance.
• 87% of all stakeholders, including 6.25% industry associations, 25% civil society organisations, 66.67% individuals and 33.33% companies/firms, have provided no response to the question or were unclear as to their stance in their response.

• 3% of all stakeholders, consisting of 68.75% of industry associations, 20% of TSPs and 16.67% of companies/firms, opined that the government should encourage self-regulation of the industry and intervene only in case of failure of market forces.

Detailed Mapping of Responses

A detailed mapping of the responses of all the fifty-three (53) stakeholders, including the stances of the stakeholders, their responses to question seven (7) of the Consultation Paper and the suggestions made by them to TRAI in view of the question, is available here.

[This post is authored by Sushma S. Babu, a fourth-year undergraduate student of HNLU, Raipur, under the supervision of Pushan Dwivedi (Associate, TRA) during her internship with TRA].