Ikigai LawIkigai LawIkigai LawIkigai Law
  • About Us
    • About
    • Our Team
    • FinTales
    • Tech Ticker
  • Practice Areas
  • Blog
  • News & Events
    • Ikigai Law in the news
    • Ikigai Law at events
    • Ikigailaw on the social media
  • Careers

Stakeholders’ responses to the TRAI privacy consultation paper (Part III of XII): Cross-border flow of data

    Home Data Governance Stakeholders’ responses to the TRAI privacy consultation paper (Part III of XII): Cross-border flow of data
    NextPrevious

    Stakeholders’ responses to the TRAI privacy consultation paper (Part III of XII): Cross-border flow of data

    By Ikigai Law | Data Governance | 0 comment | 7 February, 2018 | 4

    This is the third 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.

     

    “Q.12 What are the measures that can be considered in order to address the potential issues arising from the cross-border flow of information and jurisdictional challenges in the digital ecosystem?”

     

    The concerns in relation to cross border flow of data and data localisation, raised by stakeholders in their responses to abovementioned question 12 of the Consultation Paper, broadly correspond to the issues raised under chapter 8 and chapter 9 of the White Paper of the Committee of Experts on a Data Protection Framework for India (White Paper). Chapter 8 engaged with a number of issues on cross-border flow of data including international practices, adequacy test, binding corporate rules, model contractual clauses and privacy shield. Chapter 9 dealt with a diverse range of issues including protecting rights of the data subjects, preventing foreign surveillance, easy access of data in support of law enforcement and national security and impact on Indian start-up ecosystem in context of data localisation. The mapping of stakeholders’ opinion, and the analysis of such mapping, has been conducted in context of the issues raised under chapters 8 and 9 of the White Paper, particularly the concerns related to rights of the data subject, foreign surveillance, law enforcement, and impact on the economy, development, and innovation.

    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 ommission(s) or error(s) in this exercise, are duly invited.

     

    The following table projects the stance of the stakeholders to predominant issues concerning cross-border data flow (CBDF) and data localisation:

    Categories of Stakeholders Would restrictions to CBDF hamper the growth, development, and functioning of the digital economy? Should certain categories of data be stored locally? Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties, bilateral agreements, and other arrangements should be pursued to achieve law enforcement and counter terrorism objectives. Data should only be transferred to countries that afford mutual/adequate levels of protection.
    Yes No Yes No
    Industry Associations – 16*

    (IAMAI, ACTO, ASSOCHAM, COAI, GSMA, ISPAI, NASSCOM-DSCI, USISPF, ITI, USIBC, BSA, EBG, BIF, ACT, ISACA, iSPIRT)

    11

    (IAMAI, ACTO, ASSOCHAM, COAI, GSMA, NASSCOM-DSCI, USISPF, USIBC, BSA, EBG, BIF)

    1

    (ITI)

    2

    (COAI, ISPAI)

    7

    (NASSCOM-DSCI, USISPF, ITI, USIBC, BSA, EBG, BIF)

    8

    (IAMAI, ACTO, ASSOCHAM, COAI, ISPAI, NASSCOM-DSCI, ITI, BIF)

    1

    (IAMAI)

    Telecom Service Providers (TSPs) – 10**

    (AT&T, RJIL, Bharti Airtel Ltd., Idea Cellular Ltd., MTNL, Reliance Communications Ltd., TTL, BSNL, Telenor, Vodafone)

    3

    (BSNL, Telenor, Vodafone)

     

    __

    4

    (RJIL, Airtel, Reliance Communications Ltd., BSNL)

    1

    (AT&T)

    5

    (AT&T, Airtel, Idea, Reliance Communications Ltd., Vodafone)

    1

    (Vodafone)

    Civil Society Organisations/ Think Tanks – 12***

    (NLUD, IDP, CIS, ITfC, SFLC, FCSO, CUTS, CGS, CPA, Takshashila Institution, Access Now, IFF)

    2

    (CIS, CUTS)

     

    __

    1

    (CPA)

     

    __

    3

    (CIS, CUTS, CGS)

     

     

    Individuals – 3

    (Sangeet Sindan, Baijayant Jay Panda, Apurv Jain)

     

     

     

    __

     

    __

    1

    (Sangeet Sindan)

     

    __

     

    __

    2

    (Baijayant Jay Panda, Apurv Jain

     

    Companies/Firms – 12

    (SPAN Technologies, TRA,  Zeotap Pvt. Ltd.,  IBM, Make My Trip, Sigfox, Exotel, Mozilla, Citibank, Disney India, KOAN, Redmorph)

    4

    (KOAN, Make My Trip, Sigfox, Mozilla)

    1

    (Span Technologies)

    1

    (Span Technologies)

    3

    (KOAN, Sigfox, Mozilla)

    4

    (KOAN, Sigfox, Exotel, Mozilla)

    2

    (KOAN, Citibank)

     

     

    *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.

     

    ***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

     

    • 37.73% of the stakeholders stated that restrictions to CBDF would hamper the growth, development, and functioning of the digital economy.
    • 3.77% of the stakeholders opined that restrictions to CBDF would not hamper the growth, development, and functioning of the digital economy.
    • 58.49% of the stakeholders did not provide a clear stand on whether CBDF would hamper the growth, development, and functioning of the digital economy.

    Would restrictions to CBDF hamper the growth, development, and functioning of the digital economy?

    Graph illustrating the breakdown of responses

     

     

    • 16.98% of the stakeholders agreed that certain categories of data should be stored locally.
    • 20.75% of the stakeholders responded against certain categories of data being stored locally.
    • 62.26% of the stakeholders did not provide a clear stand on whether certain categories of data should be stored locally

    Should certain categories of data be stored locally?

    Graph illustrating the breakdown of responses

     

    Detailed Mapping of Responses

    A detailed mapping of the responses of all the fifty-three (53) stakeholders, including the stances of the stakeholders, their response to question twelve (12) of the Consultation Paper and the suggestions they have made to the TRAI in view of the question, is available here.

     

     

    [This post is authored by Nehaa Chaudhari, Public Policy Lead, and Pushan Dwivedi, Associate, with valuable contributions from Gokula Krishnan and Sushma S. Babu during their internships with TRA].

    Consultation, Consultation Paper, Cross border data flow, Data Protection, Government, Ikigai Law, Indian government, Innovation, MLATs, Privacy, Recommendation, Srikrishna Committee, Stakeholders, Tech Policy, TRAI

    Ikigai Law

    More posts by Ikigai Law

    Related Post

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

      By Ikigai Law | 0 comment

      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, andRead more

    • Stakeholders’ responses to the TRAI privacy consultation paper (Part XI of XII): Parity in the data protection norms between TSPs and other communication service providers

      By Ikigai Law | 0 comment

      This is the eleventh 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, andRead more

    • Stakeholders’ responses to the TRAI privacy consultation paper (Part X of XII): Safety and security of telecommunications infrastructure and digital ecosystem

      By Ikigai Law | 0 comment

      This is the tenth 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, andRead more

    • Stakeholders’ Responses to the TRAI Privacy Consultation Paper: Part IX of XII – Key Issues Pertaining to Encouraging the Creation of New Data Based Businesses

      By Ikigai Law | 0 comment

        This is the ninth 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,Read more

    • Stakeholders’ responses to the TRAI privacy consultation paper (Part VIII of XII): Key issues pertaining to personal data collection and use

      By Ikigai Law | 0 comment

      This is the eighth 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, andRead more

    Leave a Comment

    Cancel reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    NextPrevious

    Tags

    #DataProtection #Fintales bitcoin Blockchain Budget Consent Consultation Consultation Paper cryptocurrency data Data Controllers data governance Data localisation Data Protection Data Subjects digital economy Digital India Drones E-Commerce Facebook Fintech Government Government of India healthtech Ikigai Law India Indian government Innovation MeITY Notice Payments Personal Data policy Privacy RBI Recommendation Regulation Srikrishna Committee Stakeholders Startups Surveillance Technology Tech Policy TechTicker TRAI

    Connect with Ikigai Law

    Copyright 2018 Ikigai Law | All Rights Reserved             

    Information

    • Practice Areas
    • Blog
    • Careers
    • Contact Us
    • Privacy Policy

    Contact us

    Office
    T-7/402, Commonwealth Games Village Apartment,
    New Delhi, Delhi 110092 India.

    Email Address

    contact@ikigailaw.com

    • About Us
      • About
      • Our Team
      • FinTales
      • Tech Ticker
    • Practice Areas
    • Blog
    • News & Events
      • Ikigai Law in the news
      • Ikigai Law at events
      • Ikigailaw on the social media
    • Careers
    Ikigai Law