Kochhar & Co. reports that, on November 18, 2022, the Government of India (“Government”) released the long-awaited fourth draft of India’s proposed privacy law, now renamed the Digital Personal Data Protection Bill.
Terms and Application
The draft law uses terminology similar to past versions: the data controller is called the “data fiduciary,” the data subject is called the “data principal,” and personal information is referred to as “personal data.” There is no separate category of sensitive personal data.
The law applies only to personal data that is collected either online, or offline where the personal data is in a digitized format. The law will apply to processing of personal data outside India if the processing relates to any profiling of principals in India or offering goods or services within India. The law also exempts processing of data in India of persons located outside India under a cross-border contractual arrangement. This exemption may cover participants in the offshore outsourcing industry. The Government also may exempt certain data processing by its agencies from the application of the draft law.
Rights of Data Principals
Rights provided to data principals include the right to information, right to correction and the right to erasure where the purpose of processing the data is no longer being served.
Grounds for Collection and Processing of Personal Data
Consent is a primary ground for collection and processing of personal data. Consent must be “freely given,” “specific,” and “informed.” To satisfy consent requirements, an “unambiguous indication of consent” must be provided through a “clear affirmative action” for processing of the personal data for the specified purpose.
Data fiduciaries must obtain verifiable parental consent before processing the personal data of children less than 18 years of age. Data fiduciaries also must not engage in tracking or behavioral monitoring of children, targeted advertising directed at children, or any data processing which is likely to cause harm to children. The Government may create exemptions from these requirements.
With the consent of the data principal, a data fiduciary may disclose or transfer personal data to other data fiduciaries, or engage a data processor by contract. Data processors may appoint sub-processors if the contract permits.
Other grounds for collection and processing of personal data include: compliance with law or a court judgment; dealing with epidemics and threats to law and order; network security, prevention of fraud, credit scoring and recovery of debts; where processing of certain personal data is “necessary,” the person voluntarily provides her personal data and “it is reasonably expected that she would provide such personal data;” and where the processing is for a “fair and reasonable purpose,” to be further defined.
Notice Requirements
The notice requirements are now more limited, requiring an itemized disclosure of the types of personal data that would be collected and the purposes of using the personal data.
Data Breach, Data Security and Integrity, and Retention Requirements
Data fiduciaries must maintain the accuracy of personal data, implement appropriate technical and organizational security measures, and take reasonable security safeguards to prevent data breaches. If a data breach occurs, the draft law requires notifying both the Indian data protection authority (called the Data Protection Board of India) and the relevant data principal(s), in a form and manner to be prescribed.
Data may not be retained when the purpose for which the data was collected is no longer being served and the data is not required for legal or business purposes. The Government is exempt from data retention obligations.
Significant Data Fiduciary
The draft law retains the concept of a Significant Data Fiduciary (“SDF”). The Government will notify entities of their status as an SDF. The Government will determine SDF status based on criteria relating to the volume of data, the risk of harm, the potential impact on the sovereignty and integrity of India and the risk to electoral democracy.
SDFs must appoint (1) a data protection officer and (2) an independent data auditor to audit compliance with the law. Privacy impact assessments also may be required. These obligations are in addition to the obligations of every data fiduciary, which include appointing a contact person to whom a data subject may communicate grievances, publishing a grievance procedure and responding to complaints within seven days. Data principals may appeal decisions of data fiduciaries to the Data Protection Board of India.
Data Localization
Unlike prior versions, the draft new law does not include any direct data localization provisions. The Government has the right to provide notice as to which countries personal data may be transferred.
Enforcement
The draft new law prescribes penalties for noncompliance up to 50 million Rupees (approximately $60 million), depending on the violation. For example, failure to take reasonable security safeguards to prevent personal data breaches may result in a penalty of up to 25 million Rupees (approximately $30 million).
Search
Recent Posts
- Website Use of Third-Party Tracking Software Not Prohibited Under Massachusetts Wiretap Act
- HHS Announces Additional Settlements Following Ransomware Attacks Including First Enforcement Under Risk Analysis Initiative
- Employee Monitoring: Increased Use Draws Increased Scrutiny from Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Categories
- Behavioral Advertising
- Centre for Information Policy Leadership
- Children’s Privacy
- Cyber Insurance
- Cybersecurity
- Enforcement
- European Union
- Events
- FCRA
- Financial Privacy
- General
- Health Privacy
- Identity Theft
- Information Security
- International
- Marketing
- Multimedia Resources
- Online Privacy
- Security Breach
- U.S. Federal Law
- U.S. State Law
- Workplace Privacy
Tags
- Aaron Simpson
- Accountability
- Adequacy
- Advertisement
- Advertising
- American Privacy Rights Act
- Anna Pateraki
- Anonymization
- Anti-terrorism
- APEC
- Apple Inc.
- Argentina
- Arkansas
- Article 29 Working Party
- Artificial Intelligence
- Australia
- Austria
- Automated Decisionmaking
- Baltimore
- Bankruptcy
- Belgium
- Biden Administration
- Big Data
- Binding Corporate Rules
- Biometric Data
- Blockchain
- Bojana Bellamy
- Brazil
- Brexit
- British Columbia
- Brittany Bacon
- Brussels
- Business Associate Agreement
- BYOD
- California
- CAN-SPAM
- Canada
- Cayman Islands
- CCPA
- CCTV
- Chile
- China
- Chinese Taipei
- Christopher Graham
- CIPA
- Class Action
- Clinical Trial
- Cloud
- Cloud Computing
- CNIL
- Colombia
- Colorado
- Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States
- Commodity Futures Trading Commission
- Compliance
- Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
- Congress
- Connecticut
- Consent
- Consent Order
- Consumer Protection
- Cookies
- COPPA
- Coronavirus/COVID-19
- Council of Europe
- Council of the European Union
- Court of Justice of the European Union
- CPPA
- CPRA
- Credit Monitoring
- Credit Report
- Criminal Law
- Critical Infrastructure
- Croatia
- Cross-Border Data Flow
- Cyber Attack
- Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency
- Data Brokers
- Data Controller
- Data Localization
- Data Privacy Framework
- Data Processor
- Data Protection Act
- Data Protection Authority
- Data Protection Impact Assessment
- Data Transfer
- David Dumont
- David Vladeck
- Delaware
- Denmark
- Department of Commerce
- Department of Health and Human Services
- Department of Homeland Security
- Department of Justice
- Department of the Treasury
- District of Columbia
- Do Not Call
- Do Not Track
- Dobbs
- Dodd-Frank Act
- DPIA
- E-Privacy
- E-Privacy Directive
- Ecuador
- Ed Tech
- Edith Ramirez
- Electronic Communications Privacy Act
- Electronic Privacy Information Center
- Elizabeth Denham
- Employee Monitoring
- Encryption
- ENISA
- EU Data Protection Directive
- EU Member States
- European Commission
- European Data Protection Board
- European Data Protection Supervisor
- European Parliament
- Facial Recognition Technology
- FACTA
- Fair Credit Reporting Act
- Fair Information Practice Principles
- Federal Aviation Administration
- Federal Bureau of Investigation
- Federal Communications Commission
- Federal Data Protection Act
- Federal Trade Commission
- FERC
- FinTech
- Florida
- Food and Drug Administration
- Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
- France
- Franchise
- Fred Cate
- Freedom of Information Act
- Freedom of Speech
- Fundamental Rights
- GDPR
- Geofencing
- Geolocation
- Georgia
- Germany
- Global Privacy Assembly
- Global Privacy Enforcement Network
- Gramm Leach Bliley Act
- Hacker
- Hawaii
- Health Data
- Health Information
- HIPAA
- HIPPA
- HITECH Act
- Hong Kong
- House of Representatives
- Hungary
- Illinois
- India
- Indiana
- Indonesia
- Information Commissioners Office
- Information Sharing
- Insurance Provider
- Internal Revenue Service
- International Association of Privacy Professionals
- International Commissioners Office
- Internet
- Internet of Things
- IP Address
- Ireland
- Israel
- Italy
- Jacob Kohnstamm
- Japan
- Jason Beach
- Jay Rockefeller
- Jenna Rode
- Jennifer Stoddart
- Jersey
- Jessica Rich
- John Delionado
- John Edwards
- Kentucky
- Korea
- Latin America
- Laura Leonard
- Law Enforcement
- Lawrence Strickling
- Legislation
- Liability
- Lisa Sotto
- Litigation
- Location-Based Services
- London
- Madrid Resolution
- Maine
- Malaysia
- Markus Heyder
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Meta
- Mexico
- Microsoft
- Minnesota
- Mobile App
- Mobile Device
- Montana
- Morocco
- MySpace
- Natascha Gerlach
- National Institute of Standards and Technology
- National Labor Relations Board
- National Science and Technology Council
- National Security
- National Security Agency
- National Telecommunications and Information Administration
- Nebraska
- NEDPA
- Netherlands
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- New Zealand
- Nigeria
- Ninth Circuit
- North Carolina
- Norway
- Obama Administration
- OECD
- Office for Civil Rights
- Office of Foreign Assets Control
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Opt-In Consent
- Oregon
- Outsourcing
- Pakistan
- Parental Consent
- Payment Card
- PCI DSS
- Penalty
- Pennsylvania
- Personal Data
- Personal Health Information
- Personal Information
- Personally Identifiable Information
- Peru
- Philippines
- Phyllis Marcus
- Poland
- PRISM
- Privacy By Design
- Privacy Policy
- Privacy Rights
- Privacy Rule
- Privacy Shield
- Protected Health Information
- Ransomware
- Record Retention
- Red Flags Rule
- Regulation
- Rhode Island
- Richard Thomas
- Right to Be Forgotten
- Right to Privacy
- Risk-Based Approach
- Rosemary Jay
- Russia
- Safe Harbor
- Sanctions
- Schrems
- Scott Kimpel
- Securities and Exchange Commission
- Security Rule
- Senate
- Serbia
- Service Provider
- Singapore
- Smart Grid
- Smart Metering
- Social Media
- Social Security Number
- South Africa
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- South Korea
- Spain
- Spyware
- Standard Contractual Clauses
- State Attorneys General
- Steven Haas
- Stick With Security Series
- Stored Communications Act
- Student Data
- Supreme Court
- Surveillance
- Sweden
- Switzerland
- Taiwan
- Targeted Advertising
- Telecommunications
- Telemarketing
- Telephone Consumer Protection Act
- Tennessee
- Terry McAuliffe
- Texas
- Text Message
- Thailand
- Transparency
- Transportation Security Administration
- Trump Administration
- United Arab Emirates
- United Kingdom
- United States
- Unmanned Aircraft Systems
- Uruguay
- Utah
- Vermont
- Video Privacy Protection Act
- Video Surveillance
- Virginia
- Viviane Reding
- Washington
- Whistleblowing
- Wireless Network
- Wiretap
- ZIP Code