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 XII of XII): Technological solutions to monitor compliance

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

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

    By Ikigai Law | Data Governance | 0 comment | 7 June, 2018 | 2

    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.

     

     

    Should the government adopt a technological solution to monitor compliance? The government should encourage self-regulation of the industry and intervene only in case of failure of market forces. (15)
    Stakeholders Yes (16) No (23) Maybe (4) No response (10)
    Industry Associations – 16*

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

     

    4

    ISPAI

    ACTO

    iSPIRT

    ISACA

    10

    IAMAI

    ASSOCHAM

    GSMA

    NASSCOM – DSCI

    USISPF

    ITI

    BSA

    EBG

    BIF

    USIBC

    1

    COAI

    1

    ACT

    11

    IAMAI

    ASSOCHAM

    GSMA

    ISPAI

    NASSCOM – DSCI

    USISPF

    ITI

    USIBC

    BSA

    EBG

    BIF

    Telecom Service Providers (TSPs) – 10**

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

     

    4

    RCOM

    MTNL

    BSNL

    Vodafone

    6

    AT&T

    RJIL

    Bharti Airtel Ltd.

    Idea Cellular Ltd.

    TTL

    Telenor

    0 0 2

    AT&T

    Airtel

    Civil Society Organisations/ Think Tanks – 12***

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

     

    4

    IDP

    CIS

    CGS

    CPA

    4

    Takshashila Institution

    SFLC

    Access Now

    IFF

    1

    ITfC

    3

    NLUD

    FCSO

    CUTS

    0
    Individuals – 3

    (Sangeet Sindan, Baijayant Jay Panda, Apurv Jain)

     

    1

    Sangeet Sindan

    0 0 2

    Baijayant Jay Panda

    Apurv Jain

    0
    Companies/Firms – 12

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

     

    3

    Mozilla

    Exotel

    Citibank

    3

    IBM

    Make My Trip

    Disney India

    2

    Span Technologies

    Sigfox

    4

    Redmorph

    KOAN

    TRA

    Zeotap

    2

    Exotel

    Disney

     

    *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].

    Compliance, Consent, Consultation, Consultation Paper, Data Controllers, Data Protection, Data Subjects, Government, Ikigai Law, Indian government, Monitoring, Personal Data, Privacy, Recommendation, Responsibilities of Data Controllers, Self-Regulation, Srikrishna Committee, Stakeholders, Tech Policy, 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 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

    • 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

    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