Google and Indian Privacy Laws (Part I)

-

Google and Indian Privacy Laws (Part I)


Search engines are the most important actors on the Internet today and Google is the undisputed king of search. Google dominates the Internet, guiding users to the information they seek through an ocean of unrelated data with astonishing precision and speed. It is a powerful tool, evoking ambivalent feelings. On the one hand, we adore Google for its simple, modest-looking interface masking a hyper-complicated algorithm, which is the very essence of online ingenuity. We admire it for providing superb services at no (evident) cost, a practical miracle in today's market economy.
On the other hand, we grow wary of Google's increasing clout as the ultimate arbiter of commercial success ("to exist is to be indexed by a search engine") and as a central database for users' personal information, not only logging their search queries but also storing their e-mail (Gmail), calendars (Calendar), photos (Picasa), videos (YouTube), blogs (Blogger), documents (Docs & Spreadsheets), social networks (facebook), news feeds (Reader), credit card information (Checkout) – in short, their entire digital lives.
Google's access to and storage of vast amounts of personal data create a serious privacy problem, Princeton computer scientist Edward Felten had called "perhaps the most difficult privacy [problem] in all of human history." Every day, millions upon millions of users provide Google with unfettered access to their interests, needs, desires, fears, pleasures and intentions. Counter to conventional wisdom, this information is logged and maintained in a form which may facilitate the identification of specific users for various purposes, including not only their targetingwith effective advertising but also prosecution by the government or pursuit by private litigants. Let us put it like this, "link by link, click by click, search is building possibly the most lasting, ponderous, and significant cultural artifact in the history of humankind: the Database of Intentions." This "Database of Intentions" constitutes a honey pot for various actors, ranging from the CBI ,NIA, NTRO etc which expend crores of rupees on online surveillance and cannot overlook Google's information treasure trove, to hackers and data thieves, who routinely overcome information security systems no matter how robust.
A leading advocate for human rights, Privacy International, had initially ranked Google's privacy practices as the worst out of more than 20 leading Internet service providers, including Microsoft, Yahoo, Amazon and eBay. 1Privacy International describes Google as "an endemic threat to privacy."It criticizes Google's "aggressive use of invasive or potentially invasive technologies and techniques" and claims the company "fails to follow generally accepted privacy practices such as the OECD Privacy
Guidelines and elements of EU data protection law." EU data protection regulators time and again have also launched an investigation into Google's data retention and privacy practices, which was quickly expanded to cover other search engines as well. China’s Blockage is well known to the world.

How did Google evolve from being a benevolent giant seeking to "do no evil" into a privacy menace, an unruly private sector "big brother" reviled by human rights advocates worldwide? Are the fears of Google's omniscient presence justified or overstated? What personal data should Google be allowed to retain and for how long? Is Google Intermediary as per The IT Act,2000? What rules should govern access to Google's database? What are the legal protections currently available in India  and are they sufficient to quell the emerging privacy crisis? What does India's New The Privacy Protection Act,2013 have to say? These are the main issues I will address in Part II

1.Privacy International, A Race to the Bottom - Privacy Ranking of Internet Service Companies, A Consultation report

Comments

  1. UnknownMay 30, 2013 at 10:59 PM

    Nice Article by Prashant on a burning topic of Privacy issues.It is thought provoking and there must be debate on issues raised by prashant.
    Alok Tripathi

    ReplyDelete
  2. UnknownJune 1, 2013 at 12:29 AM

    Google is an excellent tool. Any utility has got a negative side to it. For example Power (electricity) has got its negative like if we touch we get shock. But the use it is giving is enormous and we cant live without electricity. Similarly Google also - without it we cant live. And the International community has to regulate it by stricter laws and implementation of the same.

    But don't think too much that it is going to cause damage. Every coin has got two sides to it.

    MadhuSmannava@Blogspot.in

    ReplyDelete
  3. AvinashJuly 4, 2013 at 8:37 AM

    Thank you Mr. Prashant;
    Very Important and Informative, and unaware public should be made aware of the same.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Consumer Dispute resolution under the Telecom Act 2023

-
Image
The Telecommunications Act of 2023 has strengthened the dispute resolution framework by introducing an online grievance redressal system. The aim is to expedite the resolution of conflicts between telecommunications companies and consumers while ensuring transparency in the redressal process. Following an inquiry, a telecom company found violating license or service terms may incur severe penalties, spectrum holdings cancellation, service restrictions, or even be prohibited from providing telecom services, depending on the seriousness of the breach.  How does the online grievance redressal system operate, and who plays key roles?   An Adjudicating Officer (AO), appointed by the Centre and not below the rank of joint secretary, will conduct inquiries to resolve disputes between telecom service providers and consumers. Additionally, a separate Designated Appeals Committee (DAC) will be formed, consisting of officers at the rank of additional secretaries. Individuals dissatisfie...
Read more

Types of Cyber Attacks

-
Image
Types of Cyber Attacks There are several effective methods for disrupting computer systems. We are talking of a method known as cyber attack, or computer network attack , which uses malicious computer code to disrupt computer processing, or steal data.  A brief description of three different methods are shown here. However, as technology changes, future distinctions between these methods may begin to blur. An attack against computers may be targeted or un-targeted (i) disrupt equipment and hardware reliability, (ii) change processing logic, or (iii) steal or corrupt data. The methods discussed here are chosen based on the technology asset against which each attack mode is directed, and the effects each method can produce. The assets affected or effects produced can sometimes overlap for different attack methods.  Conventional kinetic weapons can be directed against computer equipment, a computer facility, or transmission lines to create a physical attack that ...
Read more

What to do when police does not take your FIR?

-
Image
What to do when FIR is not taken by the Police ? A First Information Report is the first legal document that initiates criminal proceedings. The first information received about the commission of a cognizable offense has to be noted down by a Police Officer. It is called as  First Information Report under Section 154 of CRPC. Cognizable and Non-Cognizable Offences: Cognizable offences  are offences where the police can arrest the accused without any warrant. In such offences, the police can Suo-moto take cognizance of the offence and it does not require any sanction from the court in order to begin the investigation. On the other hand,  Non-Cognizable  offences are those in which police cannot make an arrest without taking prior assent from the court. Schedule I of the Criminal Procedure Code clearly distinguishes which offenses are cognizable and which are not. According to section 154(1) of the Criminal Procedural Code,  an FIR can be filed only in cognizable ...
Read more