25.01.2018 Views

white_paper_on_data_protection_in_india_171127_final_v2

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

6. Are there any other views relat<strong>in</strong>g to the above c<strong>on</strong>cepts?<br />

3. Def<strong>in</strong>iti<strong>on</strong> of Pers<strong>on</strong>al Data<br />

The def<strong>in</strong>iti<strong>on</strong> of pers<strong>on</strong>al <strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> or pers<strong>on</strong>al <strong>data</strong> is the critical element which<br />

determ<strong>in</strong>es the z<strong>on</strong>e of <strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong>al privacy guaranteed by a <strong>data</strong> protecti<strong>on</strong> legislati<strong>on</strong>.<br />

Thus, it is important to accurately def<strong>in</strong>e pers<strong>on</strong>al <strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> or pers<strong>on</strong>al <strong>data</strong> which will<br />

trigger the applicati<strong>on</strong> of the <strong>data</strong> protecti<strong>on</strong> law.<br />

For a fuller discussi<strong>on</strong>, see page 34 above.<br />

Questi<strong>on</strong>s<br />

1. What are your views <strong>on</strong> the c<strong>on</strong>tours of the def<strong>in</strong>iti<strong>on</strong> of pers<strong>on</strong>al <strong>data</strong> or <strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong>?<br />

2. For the purpose of a <strong>data</strong> protecti<strong>on</strong> law, should the term ‗pers<strong>on</strong>al <strong>data</strong>‘ or ‗pers<strong>on</strong>al<br />

<strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong>‘ be used?<br />

Alternatives:<br />

a. The SPDI Rules use the term sensitive pers<strong>on</strong>al <strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> or <strong>data</strong>.<br />

b. Adopt <strong>on</strong>e term, pers<strong>on</strong>al <strong>data</strong> as <strong>in</strong> the EU GDPR or pers<strong>on</strong>al <strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> as <strong>in</strong><br />

Australia, Canada or South Africa.<br />

3. What k<strong>in</strong>d of <strong>data</strong> or <strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> qualifies as pers<strong>on</strong>al <strong>data</strong>? Should it <strong>in</strong>clude any k<strong>in</strong>d<br />

of <strong>in</strong>formati<strong>on</strong> <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g facts, op<strong>in</strong>i<strong>on</strong>s or assessments irrespective of their accuracy?<br />

4. Should the def<strong>in</strong>iti<strong>on</strong> of pers<strong>on</strong>al <strong>data</strong> focus <strong>on</strong> identifiability of an <strong>in</strong>dividual? If yes,<br />

should it be limited to an ‗identified‘, ‗identifiable‘ or ‗reas<strong>on</strong>ably identifiable‘<br />

<strong>in</strong>dividual?<br />

5. Should an<strong>on</strong>ymised or pseud<strong>on</strong>ymised <strong>data</strong> be outside the purview of pers<strong>on</strong>al <strong>data</strong>?<br />

Should the law recommend either an<strong>on</strong>ymisati<strong>on</strong> or psued<strong>on</strong>ymisati<strong>on</strong>, for <strong>in</strong>stance as<br />

the EU GDPR does?<br />

[An<strong>on</strong>ymisati<strong>on</strong> seeks to remove the identity of the <strong>in</strong>dividual from the <strong>data</strong>, while<br />

pseud<strong>on</strong>ymisati<strong>on</strong> seeks to disguise the identity of the <strong>in</strong>dividual from <strong>data</strong>.<br />

An<strong>on</strong>ymised <strong>data</strong> falls outside the scope of pers<strong>on</strong>al <strong>data</strong> <strong>in</strong> most <strong>data</strong> protecti<strong>on</strong> laws<br />

while psued<strong>on</strong>ymised <strong>data</strong> c<strong>on</strong>t<strong>in</strong>ues to be pers<strong>on</strong>al <strong>data</strong>. The EU GDPR actively<br />

recommends psued<strong>on</strong>ymisati<strong>on</strong> of <strong>data</strong>.]<br />

6. Should there be a differentiated level of protecti<strong>on</strong> for <strong>data</strong> where an <strong>in</strong>dividual is<br />

identified when compared to <strong>data</strong> where an <strong>in</strong>dividual may be identifiable or reas<strong>on</strong>ably<br />

207

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!