The bill’s goal should be protection, as indicated by its description, and it should make sure that personal information about an individual may only be used by another person or entity with that person’s agreement and for authorised purposes. The exemptions the government has given to itself and its agencies undercut the rules for such protection.
Source: Forum IAS Blog
The measure exempts the State from judicial oversight and legislative control when gathering and processing data. The information gathered in this way may be used to keep an eye on and track down folks.
The measure states that in order to provide State benefits, subsidies, licences, and other things, it is not necessary to get permission from data principals, or the people who own the data.
The fundamental principle of data protection, according to which information should only be utilised for its intended purpose, is compromised by this. Because the government defends itself by acting in good faith, it is challenging to sue the government for compromising one’s personal information.
The measure also enables the government to inform certain people or organisations that they would not require the previous agreement of data subjects in order to handle it. This is done on the justification that the government may want outside assistance from organisations like this to analyse massive amounts of data. However, this goes against the requirement to protect the privacy of individuals and the necessity for data confidentiality.
Source: WION
An independent regulator to safeguard people’s interests is not mentioned in the measure. The government will appoint the members of the proposed Data Protection Board, have the authority to remove them, and set the terms and conditions of their employment. The Right to Information Act, which has already been undermined by several government actions, would suffer a fatal blow as a result of the law.
The RTI Act has been modified to permit public agencies to refuse access to any personal information, even if that information is in the public interest. According to the government, this is because those who live public lives or occupy public office have a basic right to privacy. Ironically, the right to privacy of regular people is not respected to the same extent as that of public leaders.
What do you think about this? Comment below.
