The bill provides a thorough compliance structure for organisations that manage such data, while also acknowledging people’s rights to know why and how their personal data will be gathered, processed, and utilised, as well as their right to have any inaccuracies fixed or have their personal data permanently wiped.
Source: Telegraph India
A Data Protection Authority that the Union government will establish may impose penalties for violations of this law up to a maximum of Rs 250 crore. Wait, it only really applies to private companies that we exchange data with. The government has taken great liberties to exclude itself and its agencies from the bill’s requirements in regards to the personal information we disclose with them.
As many have noted, there are other further critiques of the measure, but let me concentrate on just one here: Additionally, the DPDP Bill wants to change the Right to Information (RTI) Act to exclude any personally identifiable information about persons u2013 in this case, government officials and ministers u2013 from disclosure in responses to RTI requests!
When considered in the context of the DPDP Bill as a whole, the proposed RTI change is not very coherent. In any case, the government has already incorporated a number of safeguards to shield itself from the majority of the data protection duties under the guise of preserving public order, managing international relations, defending national security, and even fighting crime. Why then is it required to also alter the RTI?
Source: Times of India
As you read the specifics, the enigma around the motivation for it only deepens. Only digitally stored personal information is covered by the DPDP Bill itself. Personal information kept on paper is not covered by the proposed data protection framework. However, paper-based personal information would also be covered under the proposed RTI amendment!
Is it not ironic that the government wants us citizens to be totally honest and open with it about our data (even in the name of protecting our own privacy rights), but writes complete exemption from the requirement for transparency to citizens for itself, including by amending the RTI Act? You make a choice and speak up.
What do you think about this? Comment below.
