Stakeholders’ responses to the Stakeholders’ responses to the TRAI privacy consultation paper (Part II of XII): Data sandbox

This is the second 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 9^th 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 – thirty (30) firms and organisations, nine (9) telecom service providers (TSPs),  six (6) associations, four (4) consumer advocacy groups and four (4) individuals – 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 ommission(s) or error(s) in this exercise, are duly invited.

Q6. Should government or its authorized authority setup a data sandbox, which allows the regulated companies to create anonymized data sets which can be used for the development of newer services?

Broadly, stakeholders fell into one of four categories:

1. Those who responded in favour of the proposed data sandbox;
2. Those who were not in favour of the proposed data sandbox;
3. Those who responded without commenting specifically in favour of the proposed data sandbox; and
4. Those that did not answer this question.

INSIGHTS

• 45.3%of the total respondents were in favour of the proposed data sandbox.
• 35.8%of the total respondents were not in favour of the proposed data sandbox.
• 9.4% of the total respondents responded without commenting specifically in favour of the proposed data sandbox.
• 9.4%of the total respondents provided no response to the question.

Graph illustrating the breakdown of responses

Stakeholders who were in favour of a data sandbox:

1. Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI)
2. Association Of Competitive Telecom Operators (ACTO)
3. TRA
4. National Association of Software and Services Companies – Data Security Council of India (NASSCOM – DSCI)
5. Information Systems Audit and Control Association (ISACA)
6. IBM
7. Access Now
8. Information Technology Industry Council (ITI)
9. Sigfox
10. KOAN Advisory
11. Internet Democracy Project
12. Citibank
13. iSPIRT
14. The Centre for Internet and Society, India (CIS)
15. USIBC (US India Business Council)
16. IT for Change
17. Software Freedom Law Centre (sflc.in)
18. AT&T Global Network Services India Pvt. Ltd. (AT&T)
19. Sangeet Sindan
20. Apurv Jain
21. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (MTNL)
22. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL)
23. Consumer Unity & Trust Society (CUTS)
24. Consumer Protection Association

Stakeholders who were not in favour of the proposed data sandbox:

1. Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI)
2. Internet Service Providers Association of India (ISPAI)
3. National Law University, Delhi (NLU-D)
4. Zeotap India Pvt. Ltd.
5. MakeMyTrip
6. S. India Strategic Partnership Forum (USISPF)
7. Exotel Techcom Pvt. Ltd.
8. Internet Freedom Foundation
9. Mozilla Corporation
10. Disney Broadcasting (India) Ltd.
11. EBG Federation (EBG)
12. Broadband India Forum
13. Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited (RJIL)
14. Bharti Airtel Limited
15. Reliance Communications Ltd.
16. Tata Teleservices Ltd. (TTL)
17. Telenor India
18. Vodafone
19. Consumer’s Guidance Society

Stakeholders who were ambiguous about the proposed data sandbox:

1. The Associated Chambers of Commerce of India (ASSOCHAM)
2. Business Software Alliance (BSA)
3. Federation Of Consumers And Service Organizations
4. Idea Cellular Ltd.
5. GSM Association (GSMA)

Stakeholders that did not respond:

1. Takshashila Institution
2. Span Technologies
3. Association for Competitive Technology (ACT)
4. Redmorph
5. Baijayant Jay Panda

Stakeholders who emphasised that participation in the sandbox must be voluntary:

1. IAMAI
2. ACTO
3. NASSCOM – DSCI
4. ITI
5. CIS
6. USIBC
7. AT&T
8. Idea Cellular Ltd.
9. GSMA
10. ASSOCHAM

Stakeholders who suggested that a regulatory sandbox be set up:

1. COAI
2. NASSCOM – DSCI
3. KOAN
4. Internet Democracy Project
5. CIS
6. Broadband India Forum
7. Idea Cellular Ltd.
8. Vodafone
9. CUTS

Observations

• There was a split amongst civil society organisations regarding the sufficiency of setting up of a data sandbox. Five of the civil society organisations (namely, CIS, Consumer Protection Association, CUTS, Internet Democracy Project, IT for Change, sflc.in) were in favour of the proposed data sandbox while two (2) stakeholders (Consumer’s Guidance Society and NLU-D) were not in favour. One (1) of the civil society organization (Federation of Consumers and Service Organisations) opined ambiguously on the subject matter and two (2) (Internet Freedom Association and Takshashila Institution) did not respond to the question.
• Majority of the telecom service providers (TSPs) were not in favour of the proposed data sandbox; six (6) TSPs did not want a data sandbox (Airtel, Reliance Jio, Reliance Communications, Vodafone, Telenor and Tata Teleservices), as opposed to three (3) TSPs that did not oppose the setting up of a data sandbox (BSNL, MTNL and AT&T). One (1) TSP (Idea Cellular Ltd.) offered suggestions but did not come out with a clear stance.
• A slim majority of the industry associations was in favour of the proposed data sandbox. Six (6) supported setting up of a data sandbox (IAMAI, ACTO, NASSCOM – DSCI, ITI, iSpirt and USIBC); while five (5) said that data sandboxes were not required (COAI, ISPAI, EGB Federation, BIF and USISPF). Three (3) of the industry associations did not specifically respond to the issue of setting up the proposed data sandbox (ASSOCHAM,  BSA and GSMA). No response to the question was offered by ACT.

Responses Mapped in the Table

A detailed mapping of the responses of all the fifty-three (53) stakeholders, including the stances of the stakeholders, their response to question six (6) 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 Sushma S. Babu, a fourth year undergraduate student of HNLU, Raipur, during her interninship with TRA].