Robust Law Changed

Such navigation often requires the law to be adaptable while ensuring continuity to ensure that legal protection is not compromised by changes in the environment. Privacy may have already been protected behind the walls of the home, making the unlawful act of trespassing the right way to protect privacy. In the United States, some Supreme Court justices still argue that the constitutional right to privacy depends on physical intrusion. However, if mobile phones contain much more detail about our privacy than entering a home would reveal, the right to privacy may have to evolve into a breach of reasonable expectations of privacy, for example when a service provider or judicial authorities have remote access to the contents of the phone. To guarantee “concrete and effective” fundamental rights, the law must be sufficiently robust, which means that it must reshape legal standards to provide equivalent legal protection. As we have argued elsewhere, this may mean the need for a technology-specific right – to compensate for a loss of protection due to changes in the technological landscape. Recently (March 2021), I was invited to speak at the Citizens` Debate on AI and Law to present a European perspective on the future of AI regulation. The debate was organised by the new FARI Artificial Intelligence for the Common Good Institute, a collaboration between the Flemish and French free universities in Brussels. This gave me the opportunity to introduce the four Rs that “4R AI” should enable and limit: resilient, robust, reliable and responsible AI and connect it to the idea of robust law. In recent years, as India has been mulling its data protection law, technology and its applications have evolved at a breakneck pace. The internet is getting faster (5G), smartphones are reaching more hands, the number of apps and their features is rapidly increasing, there is an increased use of AI systems, and governments are increasingly relying on technological tools for various tasks such as public service delivery and law enforcement. The increasing use of technological solutions has only intensified during this devastating pandemic.

With that in mind, now more than ever, it`s time for India to establish a strong data protection law to protect privacy. The Global South often looks to India and follows its example in formulating contemporary laws and policies. With India recognized as a leader for its progressive stance on net neutrality and ensuring that internet access remains equal for all, it must also introduce a strong and privacy-friendly data protection law that sets the standard for privacy protection in the Global South. This is part of the government`s efforts to strengthen the country`s digital capital and position India as a model for other countries, especially in the Global South. In Section 1702(c)(5) of FIRRMA, Congress recognized that the Committee may consider whether a covered transaction “may directly or indirectly expose personally identifiable information, genetic information, or other sensitive data of U.S. citizens to access by a foreign government or person who could use such information in a manner that threatens national security.” In addition, technological advances combined with access to large data sets are increasingly allowing the re-identification or de-anonymization of data that was previously unidentifiable. Therefore, it is important for the U.S. government to keep abreast of the threats posed by advances in this technology, including consideration of the potential risks posed by foreign individuals who could exploit access to certain data on U.S.

individuals to target individuals or groups in the U.S. to the detriment of national security. (iii) The Committee will also assess, as appropriate, whether a covered transaction involves the transfer of sensitive data from U.S. persons to a foreign person who, as a result of the transaction, may take actions that threaten to jeopardize the national security of the United States, and whether the foreign person has relevant links with third parties who have attempted to use the information or is able to: such information to the detriment of national security, including through the use of commercial or other means.