Future is Digital; Digital is Data – nothing can be truer than this in view of the pervasiveness of technology across almost all domains of our life. With the increase of digital transactions and the importance of data, its comparison to a valuable resource of wealth is increasingly taking centre stage, which is making its judicial use paramount.

This calls for regulations that enable safeguard, especially pertaining to personal data – the General Data Protection Regulation (EU) and the Personal Data Protection Bill 2019 or PDP (India) are just some examples of steps taken in this direction, but what about non-personal data?

Advertisement

Here are some questions and inputs that serve as food-for-thought. Does the source of the data execute its rights on the same? Yes. So, if the source of origin of data is India, then to what extent does the country, and/or to what extent do its citizens exercise complete rights on the same – right from generation to usage?

Does this right to data restrict derivation of complete value from the same, especially in dire need/emergency or such, irrespective of whether it is personal or non-personal? Data that is personal should be bound by privacy, but in what exceptions is this overruled, if at all?

This is applicable to both consumer personal data and community data, both of which may be residing with or in possession of profit-making companies, not-for-profit entities and/or even government agencies. The issue regarding extraction of value from data generated by Indians should not be mixed up with discussions on who owns, accesses or controls such data or, issues regarding privacy, or security.

Ownership of an asset is not a pre-requisite for value extraction though it is often a pre-requisite for value creation. Ownership is a means to create value, not necessarily a means of extracting value.

For instance, when a scientist develops a patentable idea while working in a private R&D lab, the granted patent is owned by the employing company though the scientist is able to extract a part of the patent value, both as tangible remuneration for his/her work, either as salary and/or as a bonus and intangibles such as internal and external recognition awards. In much the same way, it is not necessary to make Indian citizens own their data for them to be able to extract a part of the value their data generate.

Of course, because data is non-rivalrous (the same data can be used by more than one entity and that too at the same time), the correct discussion should be on how this asset is to be shared among all those who can generate value from it. For this, we need to ensure a mechanism such that anyone who can generate value from the data gets access to it.

Here it is important to keep two things in mind: (a) data capture and storage are costly and (b) it is datasets, rather than raw data, that generate value and this too is a costly process involving both upfront and continuous investments.

The above-mentioned article has been derived from the responses of the Centre for The Digital Future or CDF on the Kris Committee report and its revised version. The above has been compiled by Sarah Berry – Head, Communications, CDF.