JPC on data protection: Paytm says yes to govt regulation, Google differs

Financial services provider Paytm and global search engine giant Google, which deposed before the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) with their inputs on the personal data protection architecture in India, posted a wide divergence on the issue of government regulation. While Paytm was open to being regulated and even offered to provide an encryption key to the government, Google wanted minimal government control. Both were cross-questioned on the feasibility of their position.

Paytm said it wanted the government to ensure that all companies in the digital sphere offering services in India also had their servers in the country. It offered two sets of encryption keys — one that would stay with it and the other with government — to facilitate greater vigilance. However, several members intervened and said the purpose of the Personal Data Protection Bill 2019 was not to empower the government, but the Indian citizen.

Google, on the other hand, sought minimal regulation and was asked how, in that case, it would prevent “wrong” data — that could cause division, hate and strife — from being uploaded. A member referred to the observation of the Delhi High Court earlier today that data uploaded by Google had contributed to rioting and arson in Delhi a few months ago. Google was asked what policies it had in place to prevent this from happening and also how it operated in other countries, including China, where it is not allowed a direct presence but has a footprint.

According to sources, Google was asked about the company’s different businesses in India and quizzed on the revenue it makes and the taxes it pays in the country. And, also about where it stores the users’ personal data.

The Sundar Pichai-headed firm was asked about the status of the case in the US where the Justice Department has issued its antitrust lawsuit against the search giant. It is reported that China is also preparing to launch an antitrust probe into Google and is looking into allegations that the company has leveraged the dominance of its Android mobile operating system to stifle competition.

“They (JPC) also wanted to understand Google’s engagement with China and asked about Chinese investments in the company,” said a source. 

Both agencies however, felt that the appointment of a regulator, with such wide ranging powers as envisaged in the draft Bill, would be a mistake. Google said that a regulator whose role was not clearly defined, would have so much on the plate that it would be impossible for companies to get clearances in time. Some JPC members agreed that the purpose of the new law was not to prevent or curtail business but to protect the privacy rights of citizens.

Paytm also had doubts about the definition of personal and non-personal data. It told the committee that confusion about this could have serious consequences and sought clarity on where personal data stopped and non-personal data began.

Regarding the JPC meeting, a Google spokesperson on Thursday night said that the company’s goal is to create the best possible products for users, from Search to Android to YouTube, making relevant information readily accessible around the world. 

“Every year, we issue hundreds of improvements to our algorithms so as to ensure they surface high quality content in response to user queries,” said the spokesperson. “We welcome the opportunity to help policymakers understand our business and the work we do to keep the Internet open and support the calls for comprehensive, baseline privacy regulation.”

The Google spokesperson said that it believes that regulation can support a dynamic marketplace for businesses of all types and sizes. “We sincerely hope this consultative process will help the Committee achieve its objective of protecting the interests of citizens and promoting innovation,” said the spokesperson.

The JPC is in the final lap of hearing witnesses. Between November 4 and 6, telecom giants Jio, Bharti Airtel and Trucaller will appear before it to give their views on personal data protection.