Explained: JCP Prescription For Information Bill

The Joint Committee of Parliament at the Personal Data Protection Bill has tabled its report. A study its proposals on the character of statistics to be protected, legal responsibility of social media companies, and the implications.

After seventy eight sittings unfold over 184 hours and 20 minutes, and 1/2 of a dozen extensions, the Joint Committee of Parliament (JCP) at the Personal Data Protection Bill tabled its file in each Houses on Thursday. A parliamentary panel on Thursday, December 16, endorsed more difficult norms to modify social media systems with the aid of using retaining them liable for the content material they host and stated that the Union authorities have to make certain information localisation norms are duly observed with the aid of using all nearby and overseas entities, with established order of Data Protection Authority.

It endorsed widening the scope of proposed records safety law to consist of each private and non-private records with “a unmarried management and regulatory body”, and sought more duty for social media systems with the aid of using treating them as ‘publishers’. The report, however, did now no longer endorse any important dilution of the contentious exemption clause, which offers powers to the authorities to preserve any of its organizations outdoor the purview of the records safety law.

Privacy advocates had been opposing the stated provision, and a few competition participants of Parliament (MPs) too had flagged worries thru their dissent notes. The 30-member Joint Committee on Personal Data Protection Act, 2019, led by BJP MP P P Chaudhary, presented its report in both chambers on Thursday, December 16.

Key points of the report include expanding the scope of the bill to also cover non-personal data, stricter regulations for social media platforms and the creation of a statutory media regulator modeled on the Press Council of India. The panel also favored a framework to regulate hardware manufacturers who also collect data alongside software. It supported a certification mechanism for all digital devices and the Internet of Things (IOT) that these designated intermediaries can function as publishers of content in many situations, since they have the possibility to select the recipient of the content and also to exercise control over access to such content hosted by them ”, indicates the report indicating that a mechanism for their regulation.

The panel recommended that all social media platforms, which do not act as intermediaries, be treated as “publishers” and be held accountable for the content they host. In addition, the committee recommended that a statutory media regulator, like the Press Council of India, be established to regulate content on all of these media platforms, regardless of the platform on which they are located. content is published, online, in print or otherwise, “He said. A mechanism should be devised by which social media platforms, which do not act as intermediaries, are held accountable for the content of unaudited accounts on their platforms. must necessarily verify the account, “the report said.

The proposed changes to the bill include the classification of social media platforms as trustworthy data. The committee suggested that no social media platform should be allowed to operate in India unless a parent company has not established there is a local office.It also tried to include non-personal data in its scope, claiming that limiting the new legislation to only the protection of personal data or naming it as the draft law on the protection of personal data is “harmful to life. private ”.

As a result, he suggested changing the title of the bill to the Data Protection Bill, 2021. “The committee therefore recommends that, given that the DPA (Data Protection Authority) will deal with both personal and non-personal data, any other policy / legal framework on non-personal data can be incorporated into the same law instead of separate legislation, ”he said. It is relevant to mention here that the suggestions provided by the panel are not binding.

The committee favored a 24-month timeframe for the implementation of all provisions of the law so that data custodians and data processors have sufficient time to make the necessary changes to their policies, infrastructures and processes. The committee, in its report, said that although there are provisions (in the bill) for the transfer of data across borders, “the central government must take concrete steps to ensure that a mirror copy of the data sensitive and critical personal data already in possession of entities is compulsorily brought to India in a timely manner. “He suggested a 72 hour deadline for reporting the personal data breach.

The panel also spoke in favor of flexible sanction agreements for “fiduciary data” (those which determine the purposes and means of the processing of personal data). Consequently, he recommended reformulating the specific clause to insert the term “what is required, without exceeding” before the sanctions which have been prescribed in the event of a breach of the rules by the data custodian, average, in the country.”From the Committee’s point of view, existing media regulators such as the India Press Council are not properly equipped to regulate the journalism sector that attempts to use modern communication methods such as social media platforms or the internet at large,” it said.

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Most Popular

To Top