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 X of XII): Safety and security of telecommunications infrastructure and digital ecosystem

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

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

    By Ikigai Law | Data Governance | 0 comment | 31 May, 2018 | 2

    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, 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.8 What are the measures that should be considered in order to strengthen and preserve the safety and security of telecommunications infrastructure and the digital ecosystem as a whole?”

    The concerns and suggestions in relation to relation to the safety and security of telecom infrastructure and digital ecosystem, raised by the stakeholders in their responses to abovementioned question 8 of the Consultation Paper, can be traced to Part 4 of the White Paper of the Committee of Experts on a Data Protection Framework for India (White Paper) which deals with the regulation and enforcement of various measures.

    The following table projects the stances of the stakeholders on what measures should be considered to strengthen and preserve the safety and security of telecommunications infrastructure and the digital ecosystem.

    Stakeholders Whether the current safety and security measures pertaining to the telecom infrastructure are sufficient? How should the industry be regulated? No response (8)
    Yes, the equipment needed to attack is not available to everyone. (5) No, current measures are limited. (16) In favor of dynamic government regulation. (10) In favor of self- regulation. (8) In favor of co-regulation by Industry and government. (9)
    Industry Associations – 16*

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

    1

    COAI

    8

    ASSOCHAM

    NASSCOM-DSCI

    USISPF

    USIBC

    BSA

    ACT

    EBG

    BIF

    6

    ISACA

    ITI

    ACTO

    GSMA

    BSA

    EBG

    4

    IAMAI

    BIF

    USIBC

    ACT

    2

    ASSOCHAM

    NASSCOM-DSCI

     __
    Telecom Service Providers (TSPs) – 10**

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

    3

    Idea

    Vodafone

    TTL

    4

    AT&T

    Airtel

    Telenor

    RCOM

    2

    RJIL

    Idea

     __ 3

    AT&T

    Telenor

    Airtel

     __
    Civil Society Organisations/ Think Tanks – 12***

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

    1

    Takshashila

    1

    Accessnow

    1

    FCSO

    1

    SFLC

    1

    Accessnow

    3

    NLUD

    ITfC

    CUTS

    Individuals – 3

    (Sangeet Sindan, Baijayant Jay Panda, Apurv Jain)

    1

    Sangeet Sindhan

    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)

     __ 3

    SPAN

    Mozilla

    IBM

    1

    Citibank

    3

    Disney India

    IBM

    KOAN

    2

    SPAN

    Mozilla

    3

    Make My Trip

    Exotel

    TRA

     

    *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., Telenor, Bharti Airtel, Idea Cellular Ltd, Vodafone.

    ***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, Access Now, Takshashila Foundation.

     

    INSIGHTS

    Whether the current security measures are sufficient?

     

    • 43%  of all stakeholders, comprising of 20% of industry associations, 60% of TSPs and 20% of civil society organisations/think tanks, opined that the current technology was adequate in resisting attacks.
    • 19% of all stakeholders, comprising of 50% of industry associations, 25% of TSPs, 6.25% of civil society organisations/think tanks and 18.75% of companies/firms, opined improvements need to take place.
    • 38% of all stakeholders did not address this question.

     

    What kind of regulation will be the most effective?

     

    • 87% of all stakeholders, comprising of 60% of industry associations, 20% of TSPs and 10% of civil society organisations/think tanks and 10% of companies/firms, were of the opinion that the government should impose dynamic regulations and measures.
    • 09% of all stakeholders, comprising of 50% of industry associations, 12.5% of civil society organisations/think tanks and 37.5% of companies/firms, opined that the regulation should be internal based on existing provisions.
    • 98% of all stakeholders, comprising of 20% of industry associations, 60% of TSPs and 20% of civil society organisations/think tanks, 3.7% of individuals and 25.9% of companies/firms, were of the opinion that there should be a joint effort between the industry and the government to create effective strategies and frameworks to regulate, strengthen and preserve the telecom and digital ecosystem.
    • 06% of all stakeholders did not address this question.

    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 eight (8) 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 Aakash Khatri, a third year student at ILS, Sandesh Atyam, a second year student at NLU, Jodhpur and Sushma S. Babu, a fourth year student at HNLU, Raipur. Pushan Dwivedi (Associate, TRA) gave inputs].

     

    Anonymised Data, Consent, Consultation, Consultation Paper, Data Controllers, Data Protection, Data Subjects, Digital Ecosystem., Government, Ikigai Law, Indian government, Infrastructure, Personal Data, Privacy, Recommendation, Responsibilities of Data Controllers, Srikrishna Committee, Stakeholders, Tech Policy, Telecommunications, TRAI, User Empowerment

    Ikigai Law

    More posts by Ikigai Law

    Related Post

    • 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 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

    • Stakeholders’ responses to the TRAI privacy consultation paper (Part VII Of XII): Definition of personal data, permissible grounds and empowerment of users

      By Ikigai Law | 0 comment

      This is the seventh 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 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

    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