Using incognito mode and VPN may still not ensure total privacy, according to expert

Data has become a critical asset for the advancement of a nation’s economic, social, and technological development. India’s emergence as a global digital economy hub makes it necessary to create a robust framework that addresses the challenges and opportunities of digital transformation. The Indian government introduced the Draft National Data Governance Framework Policy in 2022, aiming to create a comprehensive data handling and governance framework. This policy draft addresses key challenges in data management, privacy, and digital economy growth.  As per the recent media reports, the Draft National Data Governance Policy so prepared is under the finalisation stage, the government specified in its implementation document for the Budget 2023-24 announcement. The policy also aims to address the country's AI adoption and the issue of lack of datasets by providing widespread access to anonymized data.

Background and Need for the Policy

India has a robust digital economy with its adoption of the Digital India Initiative, Aadhaar digital identification, UPI for seamless payments and many more. In India, 751.5 million people connect to the internet, and is home to 462.0 million social media users in January 2024, equivalent to 32.2% of its total population (Data Reportal 2024). This has brought challenges including data privacy concerns, cybersecurity threats, digital exclusion, and a need for better regulation frameworks. To overcome them, the Draft National Data Governance Policy has been designed to provide institutional frameworks for data rules, standards, guidelines, and protocols for the sharing of non-personal data sets in a manner that ensures privacy, security, and trust so that they remain secure, transparent, and accountable.

Objectives omphasizesf the Framework 

The objective of the Framework Policy is to accelerate Digital Governance in India. The framework will standardize data management and security standards across the Government. It will promote transparency, accountability, and ownership in Non-Personal data and dataset access and build a platform to receive and process data requests. It will also set quality standards and promote the expansion of the datasets program and overall non-personal ecosystem. Further, it aims to build India’s digital government goals and capacity, knowledge, and competency in Government departments and entities. All this would be done while ensuring greater citizen awareness, participation, and engagement. 

Key Provisions of the Draft Policy 

The Draft Framework Policy aims to establish a cohesive digital governance ecosystem in India that balances the need for data utilization with protecting citizens' privacy rights. It sets up an institutional framework of the "India Data Management Office (IDMO) set up under the Digital India Corporation (DIC) which will be responsible for developing rules, standards, and guidelines under this Policy. 

The key provisions of the framework policy include: 

• Promoting interoperability among government digital platforms, ensuring data privacy through data anonymization and security, and enhancing citizen access to government services through digital means. 
• The policy e the creation of unified digital IDs, a standardisation in digital processes, and data-sharing guidelines across ministries to improve efficiency. 
• It also focuses on building digital infrastructure, such as cloud services and data centres in order to support e-governance initiatives. 
• Furthermore, it encourages public-private partnerships and sets guidelines for accountability and transparency in digital governance.

Implications and Concerns of the Framework 

• The policy potentially impacts data sharing in India as it mentions data anonymization. The scale of data that would need to be anonymised in India is at a very large scale and it could become a potential challenge to engage in. 
• Data localization and cross-border transfers have raised concerns among global tech companies and trade partners. They argue that such requirements could increase operational costs and hinder cross-border data flows. Striking a balance between protecting national interests and facilitating business operations remains a critical challenge.
• Another challenge associated with the policy is over-data centralization under the IDMO and the potential risks of government overreach in data access.

Key Takeaways and Recommendations

The GDPR in the European Union and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act passed in 2023 in India and many others are the data privacy laws in force in different countries. The policy needs to be aligned with the DPDP Act, 2023 and be updated as per the recent developments. It further needs to maintain transparency over the sharing of data and a user’s control. The policy needs engagement with industry experts, privacy advocates, and civil society to ensure a balance of innovation with privacy and security.

Conclusion

The Draft National Data Governance Framework Policy of 2022 represents a significant stage in shaping India's digital future. It ensures the evolution of data governance evolves alongside technological advancements. The framework policy seeks to foster a robust digital ecosystem that benefits citizens, businesses, and the government alike by focusing on the essentials of data privacy, transparency, and security. However, achieving this vision requires addressing concerns like data centralisation, cross-border data flows, and maintaining alignment with global privacy standards. Continued engagement with stakeholders and necessary updates to the draft policy will be crucial to its success in balancing innovation with user rights and data integrity. The final version of the policy is expected to be released soon.

References

• https://meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/National-Data-Governance-Framework-Policy.pdf
• https://datareportal.com/?utm_source=DataReportal&utm_medium=Country_Article_Hyperlink&utm_campaign=Digital_2024&utm_term=India&utm_content=Home_Page_Link
• https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/2023/03/data-by-people-for-people-tiwari-packer-matthan
• https://inc42.com/buzz/draft-national-data-governance-policy-under-finalisation-centre/  
• https://legal.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/industry/government-unveiled-national-data-governance-policy-in-budget-2023/97680515

‍

AI has grown manifold in the past decade and so has its reliance. A MarketsandMarkets study estimates the AI market to reach $1,339 billion by 2030. Further, Statista reports that ChatGPT amassed more than a million users within the first five days of its release, showcasing its rapid integration into our lives. This development and integration have their risks. Consider this response from Google’s AI chatbot, Gemini to a student’s homework inquiry: “You are not special, you are not important, and you are not needed…Please die.” In other instances, AI has suggested eating rocks for minerals or adding glue to pizza sauce. Such nonsensical outputs are not just absurd; they’re dangerous. They underscore the urgent need to address the risks of unrestrained AI reliance. 

AI’s Rise and Its Limitations

The swiftness of AI’s rise, fueled by OpenAI's GPT series, has revolutionised fields like natural language processing, computer vision, and robotics. Generative AI Models like GPT-3, GPT-4 and GPT-4o with their advanced language understanding, enable learning from data, recognising patterns, predicting outcomes and finally improving through trial and error. However, despite their efficiency, these AI models are not infallible. Some seemingly harmless outputs can spread toxic misinformation or cause harm in critical areas like healthcare or legal advice. These instances underscore the dangers of blindly trusting AI-generated content and highlight the importance and the need to understand its limitations.

Defining the Problem: What Constitutes “Nonsensical Answers”?

Harmless errors due to AI nonsensical responses can be in the form of a wrong answer for a trivia question, whereas, critical failures could be as damaging as wrong legal advice. 

AI algorithms sometimes produce outputs that are not based on training data, are incorrectly decoded by the transformer or do not follow any identifiable pattern. This response is known as a Nonsensical Answer and the situation is known as an “AI Hallucination”. It can be factual inaccuracies, irrelevant information or even contextually inappropriate responses. 

A significant source of hallucination in machine learning algorithms is the bias in input that it receives. If the inputs for the AI model are full of biased datasets or unrepresentative data, it may lead to the model hallucinating and producing results that reflect these biases. These models are also vulnerable to adversarial attacks, wherein bad actors manipulate the output of an AI model by tweaking the input data ina subtle manner.

The Need for Policy Intervention

Nonsensical AI responses risk eroding user trust and causing harm, highlighting the need for accountability despite AI’s opaque and probabilistic nature. Different jurisdictions address these challenges in varied ways. The EU’s AI Act enforces stringent reliability standards with a risk-based and transparent approach. The U.S. emphasises creating ethical guidelines and industry-driven standards. India’s DPDP Act indirectly tackles AI safety through data protection, focusing on the principles of accountability and consent. While the EU prioritises compliance, the U.S. and India balance innovation with safeguards. This reflects on the diverse approaches that nations have to AI regulation.

Where Do We Draw the Line?

The critical question is whether AI policies should demand perfection or accept a reasonable margin for error. Striving for flawless AI responses may be impractical, but a well-defined framework can balance innovation and accountability. Adopting these simple measures can lead to the creation of an ecosystem where AI develops responsibly while minimising the societal risks it can pose. Key measures to achieve this include:

• Ensure that users are informed about AI and its capabilities and limitations. Transparent communication is the key to this.  
• Implement regular audits and rigorous quality checks to maintain high standards. This will in turn prevent any form of lapses.
• Establishing robust liability mechanisms to address any harms caused by AI-generated material which is in the form of misinformation. This fosters trust and accountability.

CyberPeace Key Takeaways: Balancing Innovation with Responsibility

The rapid growth in AI development offers immense opportunities but this must be done responsibly. Overregulation of AI can stifle innovation, on the other hand, being lax could lead to unintended societal harm or disruptions. 

Maintaining a balanced approach to development is essential. Collaboration between stakeholders such as governments, academia, and the private sector is important. They can ensure the establishment of guidelines, promote transparency, and create liability mechanisms. Regular audits and promoting user education can build trust in AI systems. Furthermore, policymakers need to prioritise user safety and trust without hindering creativity while making regulatory policies. 

We can create a future that is AI-development-driven and benefits us all by fostering ethical AI development and enabling innovation. Striking this balance will ensure AI remains a tool for progress, underpinned by safety, reliability, and human values.

References

• https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/technology/tech-news/googles-ai-chatbot-tells-student-you-are-not-needed-please-die/articleshow/115343886.cms
• https://www.forbes.com/advisor/business/ai-statistics/#2 
• https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/artificial-intelligence-trade-secrets-2023-12-11/ ‍
• https://www.indiatoday.in/technology/news/story/chatgpt-has-gone-mad-today-openai-says-it-is-investigating-reports-of-unexpected-responses-2505070-2024-02-21

Introduction

In India, the rights of children with regard to protection of their personal data are enshrined under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 which is the newly enacted digital personal data protection law of India. The DPDP Act requires that for the processing of children's personal data, verifiable consent of parents or legal guardians is a necessary requirement. If the consent of parents or legal guardians is not obtained then it constitutes a violation under the DPDP Act. Under section 2(f) of the DPDP act, a “child” means an individual who has not completed the age of eighteen years. 

Section 9 under the DPDP Act, 2023

With reference to the collection of children's data section 9 of the DPDP Act, 2023 provides that for children below 18 years of age, consent from Parents/Legal Guardians is required. The Data Fiduciary shall, before processing any personal data of a child or a person with a disability who has a lawful guardian, obtain verifiable consent from the parent or the lawful guardian. Section 9 aims to create a safer online environment for children by limiting the exploitation of their data for commercial purposes or otherwise. By virtue of this section, the parents and guardians will have more control over their children's data and privacy and they are empowered to make choices as to how they manage their children's online activities and the permissions they grant to various online services. 

Section 9 sub-section (3) specifies that a Data Fiduciary shall not undertake tracking or behavioural monitoring of children or targeted advertising directed at children. However, section 9 sub-section (5) further provides room for exemption from this prohibition by empowering the Central Government which may notify exemption to specific data fiduciaries or data processors from the behavioural tracking or target advertising prohibition under the future DPDP Rules which are yet to be announced or released. 

Impact on social media platforms

Social media companies are raising concerns about Section 9 of the DPDP Act and upcoming Rules for the DPDP Act. Section 9 prohibits behavioural tracking or targeted advertising directed at children on digital platforms. By prohibiting intermediaries from tracking a ‘child's internet activities’ and ‘targeted advertising’ - this law aims to preserve children's privacy. However, social media corporations contended that this limitation adversely affects the efficacy of safety measures intended to safeguard young users, highlighting the necessity of monitoring specific user signals, including from minors, to guarantee the efficacy of safety measures designed for them.

Social media companies assert that tracking teenagers' behaviour is essential for safeguarding them from predators and harmful interactions. They believe that a complete ban on behavioural tracking is counterproductive to the government's objectives of protecting children. The scope to grant exemption leaves the door open for further advocacy on this issue. Hence it necessitates coordination with the concerned ministry and relevant stakeholders to find a balanced approach that maintains both privacy and safety for young users.

Furthermore, the impact on social media platforms also extends to the user experience and the operational costs required to implement the functioning of the changes created by regulations. This also involves significant changes to their algorithms and data-handling processes. Implementing robust age verification systems to identify young users and protect their data will also be a technically challenging step for the various scales of platforms. Ensuring that children’s data is not used for targeted advertising or behavioural monitoring also requires sophisticated data management systems. The blanket ban on targeted advertising and behavioural tracking may also affect the personalisation of content for young users, which may reduce their engagement with the platform.

For globally operating platforms, aligning their practices with the DPDP Act in India while also complying with data protection laws in other countries (such as GDPR in Europe or COPPA in the US) can be complex and resource-intensive. Platforms might choose to implement uniform global policies for simplicity, which could impact their operations in regions not governed by similar laws. On the same page, competitive dynamics such as market shifts where smaller or niche platforms that cater specifically to children and comply with these regulations may gain a competitive edge. There may be a drive towards developing new, compliant ways of monetizing user interactions that do not rely on behavioural tracking.

CyberPeace Policy Recommendations

A balanced strategy should be taken into account which gives weightage to the contentions of social media companies as well as to the protection of children's personal information. Instead of a blanket ban, platforms can be obliged to follow and encourage openness in advertising practices, ensuring that children are not exposed to any misleading or manipulative marketing techniques. Self-regulation techniques can be implemented to support ethical behaviour, responsibility, and the safety of young users’ online personal information through the platform’s practices. Additionally, verifiable consent should be examined and put forward in a manner which is practical and the platforms have a say in designing the said verification. Ultimately, this should be dealt with in a manner that behavioural tracking and targeted advertising are not affecting the children's well-being, safety and data protection in any way. 

Final Words

Under section 9 of the DPDP Act, the prohibition of behavioural tracking and targeted advertising in case of processing children's personal data - will compel social media platforms to overhaul their data collection and advertising practices, ensuring compliance with stricter privacy regulations. The legislative intent behind this provision is to enhance and strengthen the protection of children's digital personal data security and privacy. As children are particularly vulnerable to digital threats due to their still-evolving maturity and cognitive capacities, the protection of their privacy stands as a priority. The innocence of children is a major cause for concern when it comes to digital access because children simply do not possess the discernment and caution required to be able to navigate the Internet safely. Furthermore, a balanced approach needs to be adopted which maintains both ‘privacy’ and ‘safety’ for young users.

References

• https://www.meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/Digital%20Personal%20Data%20Protection%20Act%202023.pdf 
• https://www.firstpost.com/tech/as-govt-of-india-starts-preparing-rules-for-dpdp-act-social-media-platforms-worried-13789134.html#google_vignette
• https://www.business-standard.com/industry/news/social-media-platforms-worry-new-data-law-could-affect-child-safety-ads-124070400673_1.html

‍