AN ANALYSIS OF THE LAWS CONCERNING DIGITAL PRIVACY
Main Article Content
Abstract
Both data protection and privacy are crucial components of internet governance. The Data Protection Act is a piece of legislation designed to safeguard individuals' privacy rights. One definition of privacy is the individual's right to manage and disseminate his or her own private information and data in accordance with his or her own goals and values. Numerous judicial decisions in India have elevated the right to privacy to the status of a fundamental right, and statutes have further codified the right as a legal one. The term "internet privacy" can refer to a wide range of issues and debates. The term can refer to both the rights an individual has to control their personal information and the infringements on those rights that occur when that information is transmitted over the Internet. The ever-changing nature of the internet has resulted in a never-ending slew of new privacy-related concerns and problems. Privacy protection in the digital sphere is crucial in the modern world because of the importance of safeguarding our personal information, financial data, sensitive information, online activity, and fundamental rights. To continue reaping the benefits of technological advancements without jeopardising our safety or giving up control of our personal information, it is crucial for individuals, businesses, and governments to take action to protect digital privacy. “The Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019 was introduced in the Lok Sabha on December 11, 2019, by Minister of Electronics and Information Technology Ravi Kumar”. In India, this occurred. The bill's stated goals include, first and foremost, the protection of personally identifiable information, and secondly, the creation of a Data Protection Authority to oversee that protection. This study aims to to examine views of Indian citizens regarding laws concerning digital privacy. For the sake of justification, total 240 respondents has taken through questionnaire by applying 5 point likert scale.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
References
Beck, E. N. (2015). The Invisible Digital Identity: Assemblages in Digital Networks. Computers and Composition, 35, 125–140. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2015.01.005
Cavoukian guchi, N., & Nakashima, Y. (2015). Protection and Utilization of Privacy Information via Sensing. IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems, E98.D(1), 2–9. http://doi.org/10.1587/transinf.2014MUI0001
Cohrs, J. C., Kielmann, S., Maes, J., & Moschner, B. (2005). Effects of Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Threat from Terrorism on Restriction of Civil Liberties. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 5(1), 263–276. http://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1530-2415.2005.00071.x
Cavoukian, A., Chibba, M., & Stoianov, A. (2012). Advances in Biometric Encryption: Taking Privacy by Design from Academic Research to Deployment. Review of Policy Research, 29(1), 37–61. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541- 1338.2011.00537.x
Desai, D. R. (2014). Constitutional Limits on Surveillance: Associational Freedom in The Age of Data Hoarding. Notre Dame Law Review, 90(2), 579–632.
Farinosi, M. (2011). Deconstructing Bentham’s Panopticon: The new metaphors of surveillance in the web 2.0 environment. TripleC, 9(1), 62–76. Retrieved from http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84864790124&partnerID=tZOtx3y1
Ganascia, J.-G. (2010). The generalized sousveillance society. Social Science Information, 49(3), 489–507. http://doi.org/10.1177/0539018410371027
Grodzinsky, F. S., & Tavani, H. T. (2005). P2P Networks and the Verizon v. RIAA Case: Implications for Personal Privacy and Intellectual Property. Ethics and Information Technology, 7(4), 243–250. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-006-0012- 4
Humphreys, S. (2013). Predicting, securing and shaping the future: Mechanisms of governance in online social environments. International Journal of Media & Cultural Politics, 9(3), 247–258. http://doi.org/10.1386/macp.9.3.247_1
Haikola, S., & Jonsson, S. (2007). State surveillance on the internet - The Swedish debate and the future role of libraries and LIS. LIBRI, 57(4), 209–218. http:// doi.org/10.1515/LIBR.2007.209
ITA section 67
ITA section 43, 66, and 66F
Information Technology (Reasonable security practices and procedures and Sensitive personal data or information) Rules, 2011.
Information Technology (Reasonable security practices and procedures and Sensitive personal data or information) Rules, 2011. section 6(1)
Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for monitoring and collection of Traffic Data or other information) Rules 2009
Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for intercepting, monitoring, and decryption) Rules 2009
Jiang, M., & Okamoto, K. (2014). National Identity, Ideological Apparatus, or Panopticon? A Case Study of the Chinese National Search Engine Jike. Policy & Internet, 6(1), 89–107. http://doi.org/10.1002/1944-2866.POI353
Kandias, M., Mitrou, L., Stavrou, V., & Gritzalis, D. (2014). E-Business and Telecommunications. (M. S. Obaidat & J. Filipe, Eds.) Communications in Computer and Information Science (Vol. 456). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-44788-8
Konstadinides, T. (2011). Destroying democracy on the ground of defending It? the Data Retention Directive, the surveillance state and our constitutional ecosystem. European Law Review, 36(5), 722–736. Retrieved from http://www.scopus. com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84868150276&partnerID=tZOtx3y1
Keymolen, E., Prins, C., & Raab, C. (2012). Trust and ICT: New challenges for public administration. Innovation and the Public Sector, 19, 21–35. http://doi. org/10.3233/978-1-61499-137-3-21
Lips, M. (2010). Rethinking citizen-government relationships in the age of digital identity: Insights from research. Information Polity, 15(4), 273–289. http://doi. org/10.3233/IP-2010-0216
Mantelero, A. (2014). The future of consumer data protection in the EU Re-thinking the ``notice and consent{} paradigm in the new era of predictive analytics. Computer Law & Security Review, 30(6), 643–660. http://doi.org/10.1016/j. clsr.2014.09.004
Peppet, S. R. (2014). Regulating the Internet of Things: First Steps Toward Managing Discrimination, Privacy, Security, and Consent. Texas Law Review, 93(1), 85–178.
Russett, P. C. (2011). A Contemporary Portrait of Information Privacy: Collective Communicative Consequences of Being Digital. Review of Communication, 11(1), 39–50. http://doi.org/10.1080/15358593.2010.504882
Roberts, A. (2015). Privacy, Data Retention and Domination: Digital Rights Ireland Ltd v Minister for Communications. Modern Law Review, 78(3), 535–548. http://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12127
Reddick, C. G., Chatfield, A. T., & Jaramillo, P. A. (2015). Public opinion on National Security Agency surveillance programs: A multi-method approach. Government Information Quarterly, 32(2), 129–141. http://doi.org/10.1016/j. giq.2015.01.003
Winkler, T., & Rinner, B. (2011). Securing Embedded Smart Cameras with Trusted Computing. Eurasip Journal on Wireless Communications and Networking. http:// doi.org/10.1155/2011/530354
http://www.zdnet.com/in/india-sets-up-social-media-monitoring-lab-7000012758/
Upadhyay, a. (2014). privacy for online social networks- a conceptual study. Kaav International Journal of Science, Engineering & Technology, 1(4), 75-88. https://www.kaavpublications.org/abstracts/privacy-for-online-social-networks-a-conceptual-study.
Mishra, R. P., & Kapse, S. (2017). Cybercrime: A Hazard to Network Surveillance (1st ed., pp. 447-451). Kaav Publications.
Singh, A., & Kumar, A. (2022). The Legislative and Administrative Framework on Protection of Right to Privacy in Digital India (1st ed., pp. 1-10). Kaav Publications.