Editorial of the Day: An Act to cement digital authoritarianism (The Hindu)

The article discusses the reasons behind the shape and implications of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (Data Act) in India.

• Misplaced Belief in Techno-Solutionism: The article points out that the Data Act is a result of a belief in “techno-solutionism,” the idea that technology can solve all societal problems. India’s recent moves reflect this belief, suggesting that the government relies on the digital revolution to address challenges rather than focusing on transforming the constitution to ensure citizens’ rights and empowerment.
• Surveillance Capital and Surveillance Welfare: The article highlights the connection between surveillance capital (companies profiting from data surveillance) and surveillance welfare (government surveillance initiatives). It suggests that the expansion of state power and surveillance is driven by a collaboration between these two forces.
• Digital Public Goods and Data Exploitation: The government’s digital initiatives, such as the Aarogya Setu app and the Co-Win platform, are criticized for using citizens’ personal data while not prioritizing data protection. The focus on data collection for digital programs seems to undermine citizens’ privacy rights.
• Failure of Digital Programs: The article questions the effectiveness of digital programs like the Smart Cities Mission, which aims to collect and analyze real-time data of residents. It raises doubts about whether such initiatives actually improve safety or quality of life for citizens.
• Mass Surveillance Measures: The article highlights specific instances of mass surveillance, such as the proposal for a “social media communications hub” to monitor citizens’ social media accounts and the creation of a large facial recognition system. It suggests that the Data Act provides legal backing for such intrusive projects.
• Concerns About Data Act Provisions: The Data Act is criticized for imposing duties on citizens while providing their personal data and for imposing fines on marginalized groups if they provide incomplete or incorrect information. This is seen as a way to suppress certain communities and discourage them from engaging with data-sharing processes.

Motivation behind the Act in India:

• Trust and Partisanship: The government argues that there is undue fear-mongering around the Data Act and encourages trust in its ability to handle citizens’ privacy. However, the article suggests that the vague nature of the Act might lead to a divide between those who support a particular political ideology and those who prioritize constitutional rights. The Act could be more appealing to partisan individuals who align with the government’s political views.
• Magical Thinking and Democratic Backsliding: The article challenges the notion that the Data Act will naturally improve over time through experience. It argues that such thinking ignores the potential for democratic erosion in the digital age, citing recent legislation like the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022 and the Registration of Births and Deaths (Amendment) Act, 2023, which contribute to building extensive databases of personal information.
• Total State Control and Private Sector: The Data Act is portrayed as a means to achieve total state control over citizens’ data and activities. The private sector is also implicated in this control, with the government potentially aiming to use citizens’ data for financial gain and economic growth.
• Ministerial Discretion and Vague Regulation: The Data Act is criticized for granting significant discretion to the government, allowing it to exempt companies from compliance or file complaints with a Data Protection Board. This discretion could lead to inconsistent and arbitrary decision-making.
• Influence from China’s National Intelligence Law: The article suggests that the Data Act’s provisions might have been inspired by China’s National Intelligence Law, allowing the government to demand information as it sees fit. This could create a situation where private companies seek government favour for compliance.
• Centralised State Command and Economic Liberty: The article raises concerns about the Act contributing to a centralised state command over the economy, potentially favouring select companies as “national champions.” This concentration of power could lead to less economic freedom and competition.
• Global Rankings and Economic Liberty: The article notes that these developments coincide with a decline in India’s global rankings for economic liberty, as measured by institutions like the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and the Hudson Institute.

Concerns and Implication:

The article  is emphasizing the concerns and implications of the Data Act in India, highlighting the need for citizens and the government to pay attention to the potential consequences. It draws parallels between the current situation and historical instances, particularly referring to the Aadhaar program and the dissenting judgement of Justice D.Y. Chandrachud in the Supreme Court.

• Limited Privacy: The Supreme Court’s decision regarding the Aadhaar program upheld its existence but also imposed limitations. This suggests that while the government’s initiatives may be allowed, they should be subject to certain restrictions to protect citizens’ rights.
• Reference to Solzhenitsyn’s Experience: The dissenting judgement by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud draws inspiration from Nobel Prize-winning author Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s experience in Stalinist Russia. This reference underscores the potential dangers of a society heavily reliant on biometric data and the need for effective data protection to ensure liberty and dignity for citizens.
• Dystopian Realization with the Data Act: The article argues that the concerns expressed by Justice Chandrachud have come to fruition with the enactment of the Data Act. The Act is portrayed as a manifestation of these fears, indicating that the current situation is reflective of a potentially dystopian reality.
• Symptom of Deeper Civic Rot: The article suggests that the Data Act is just one aspect of a larger problem related to civic decay or deterioration. Incremental changes or isolated rulemaking efforts may not be enough to address the broader issues of state coercion and loss of individual rights.
• Call for Constitutional Reboot: The article calls for a more comprehensive and fundamental overhaul of the constitutional framework to address the challenges posed by digital authoritarianism. It implies that a wider reconsideration of the constitution is needed to ensure that citizens’ rights are safeguarded in the digital age.