Thread by @gautambhatia88

Some thoughts on this deep dive by the @EconomicTimes into the making of the Data Protection Report (article unfortunately paywalled, but honestly, just this one alone is worth the subscription).

economictimes.indiatimes.com/prime/economy-…

(1/n)

@EconomicTimes When the Data Protection Report came out, many of us voiced concern about how surveillance reform was completely excluded.

Now it turns out that the same people who were drafting the Data Protection Report were also advising government on NATGRID.

(2/N)

@EconomicTimes And not to mention, had argued against the right to privacy in the Supreme Court.

You may have the best will in the world, but simultaneously advising the government on how to facilitate a national surveillance database, while drafting a data protection report...?

(3/n)

This is like putting the wolf in charge of the sheephouse. The wolf may be a nice guy. He's still a wolf.

(4/n)

It was also pointed out when the Data Protection Report came out that it seemed to be explicitly drafted to "save" Aadhaar. Someone sarcastically called it the "Aadhaar Saving Report." Well, the people drafting it had facilitated the Aadhaar Act and defended it in Court.

(5/n)

What you effectively get in the end, therefore, is not "independent" work, but - and there's a lot in the ET report that indicates this, including comments by committee members - work that is beholden to government and private interests, such as NATGRID, Aadhaar etc.

(6/n)

Closing this thread by emphasising once again that this is not about individuals.

This is about a broken system of lawmaking, defined by opacity and backdoor facilitation of government interest under the mask of framing an "independent" Data Protection law.

(7/n)

In conclusion, repeating yesterday's point: the moral and ethical responsibility of wielding law as a weapon against people's rights is a heavy one.

Don't be the drafters of India's equivalent of the torture memos.

(8/8)