Abstract
Governance of data, essentially a free-flowing product of the industrial (technology-driven) revolution 4.0, has been the subject of much discussion and policy action among States. Such governance, however, has presented questions turning the traditional understanding of the right to regulate, which is based on the geographic location, heads down, given that the task of establishing the location of the data and thereby its linkages with a specific territory is involuted and arduous. On the other hand, concerns remain about the privacy-related issues of the data, either located or handled overseas, thereby presenting difficulties in access and administration of data. This research addresses the model of governance of data via the path of data sovereignty and, therefore, insistence on data localization. It further presents the law in India, sparse as it is, through the lens of jurisprudence and law reform efforts, wherein the eagerness to ringfence the data is evident, even in disregard of the contractual obligations.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Interim orders in Balu Gopalakrishnan and others v State of Kerala and others W. P.(C). Temp. NO.84 OF 2020, https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Balu-gopalakrishnan-v-State-of-kerala.pdf accessed 21/09/2021. The Kerala High Court exercised jurisdiction despite the presence of a forum selection clause that vested jurisdiction in the courts of New York.
- 2.
Circular on Storage of Payment System Data issued by India’s central bank, the Reserve Bank of India, dated 6th April, 2018. https://rbi.org.in/Scripts/BS_CircularIndexDisplay.aspx?Id=11244 accessed 17/09/2021.
- 3.
Effective July 2021, the payments firm Mastercard has been barred from adding new customers in India thereby significantly impacting its business which otherwise covered a third of credit and debit card business in India. https://theprint.in/economy/what-is-data-localisation-why-mastercard-amex-diners-club-cant-add-more-customers-in-india/703790/ accessed 17/09/2021.
- 4.
Haibach (2015) p. 252, 253–54.
- 5.
Simpson (2016) P. 669, 670–73.
- 6.
Ji (2020) p. 1283.
- 7.
Uta (2007) p. 1, 4.
- 8.
See, for example, the extensive guidance from UK in, Hale, T. et al., ‘ global panel database of pandemic policies (Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker)’ (2021) 5, Nature Human Behaviour 529–538 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01079-; on the position in India, https://vidhilegalpolicy.in/blog/indias-covid-19-response-calls-for-urgent-data-disclosure-norms/
- 9.
Nectar (2020).
- 10.
- 11.
It is reported that by January 2021, internet connectivity covered 4.66 billion active internet users worldwide - 59.5 percent of the global population, a whopping 92.6 percent (4.32 billion) accessed the internet via mobile devices. https://www.statista.com/statistics/617136/digital-population-worldwide/ accessed 18/09/2021.
- 12.
Jeff (2019).
- 13.
Perry (2016).
- 14.
David and David (1996) pp. 1367, 1402.
- 15.
- 16.
Clinton and Gore Jr, ‘A Framework for Global Electronic Commerce’ https://clintonwhitehouse4.archives.gov/WH/New/Commerce/read.html accessed 21/09/2021.
- 17.
Brief for Appellant at 3, Microsoft Corp. v United States (In re Warrant to Search a Certain E-Mail Account Controlled & Maintained by Microsoft Corp.), 855 F.3d 53 (2d Cir. 2017) (No. 14–2985). Interestingly, the pleadings by Microsoft or the arguments made within the amicus curiae brief submitted by Ireland (which argued that Ireland’s sovereignty was being threatened) did not refer to any specific law of Ireland being violated by compelling Microsoft to locally store emails in Ireland. Also see, Google Inc. v Equustek Sols. Inc., [2017] 1 S.C.R. 824, 828 (Can.) The court, reiterating the jurisdiction of Canadian courts, observed, “If Google has evidence that complying with such an injunction would require it to violate the laws of another jurisdiction, including interfering with freedom of expression, it is always free to apply to the British Columbia courts to vary the interlocutory order accordingly. To date, Google has made no such application.”).
- 18.
UNGA Doc A/68/98, (2013) pp. 19–20.
- 19.
UNGA Doc A/70/174, (2015) p. 13.
- 20.
Ibidem, p. 23.
- 21.
- 22.
Kuehl (2009) pp. 1, 28.
- 23.
Tsagourias (2018) pp. 523, 539.
- 24.
Wu (1997) p. 647.
- 25.
See, Clinton William and Albert (2000); Ironically, the United States pleaded for a regulation-free internet, premised on the inherent difficulty nature of the cyberspace and an idealism-driven motive to keep it free, and also an awareness of the difficulties in regulating cross-border activity. Referring to Bill Clinton’s comment that regulating the internet would be like ‘nailing jell-o to the wall, Laskai commented that in the initial years of the internet it was presumed that cyberspace would elude any efforts at territorialized regulation. Laskai (2016), Adam (2020) p. 87, Woods (2016) p. 729, 741.
- 26.
- 27.
Ibidem, p. 353.
- 28.
Laskai, cit., see footnote n. 25. Laskai recalled that as early as 1997, attempts to regulate the internet by China through a multifaceted system of Internet censorship were noticed and critiqued as well, notably by Geremie R. Barmé and Sang Ye in an article they wrote for Wired magazine in 1997 who termed it as the Great Firewall.
- 29.
- 30.
Mueller Milton (2017).
- 31.
Microsoft cit., see footnote n. 17. Note that this dispute saw amicus curiae briefs being filed on behalf of European Union, New Zealand, Great Britain, apart from Ireland.
- 32.
Russia and China have been noted within the literature as being the early movers towards a positivist normative regime in international law, but their attempts were unsuccessful. See, Mačák (2016).
- 33.
Ibidem, 127.
- 34.
Tallinn Manual on International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare (2013).
- 35.
Osula and Rõigas (2016).
- 36.
Macak, cit., see footnote n. 33.
- 37.
Macmillan Inc. v Bishopsgate [1996] 1 WLR 387 (Eng.). see, Huang cit., see footnote n. 6, p. 1285.
- 38.
Marcus (2020)
- 39.
McKinsey (2016), According to McKinsey, it is estimated some 900 million people have international connections on social media, and 360 million take part in cross-border e-commerce. While digital technologies significantly enhanced the response mechanisms in combating the pandemic, they are also of immense value to the economic recovery. See, Marcus, cit., see footnote n. 38.
- 40.
Huang, cit., see footnote n. 6, p. 1286; Also see, Mueller Milton (2020) p. 779. Mueller asserts that given cyberspace’s unique technical structure, it is best administered through an approach styled upon the idea of global commons.
- 41.
Idem.
- 42.
David and Federico (2016) p. 223.
- 43.
GDPR, Regulation 2016/679, of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the Protection of Natural Persons with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data and on the Free Movement of Such Data, and Repealing Directive 95/46/EC, 2016 O. J. (L 119) 1 (EU), at art. 1.2; see Directive 95/46/EC, of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the Protection of Individuals with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data and on the Free Movement of Such Data, art. 1(1), 1995 O. J. (L 281) 31; Huang (n 6) 1287.
- 44.
Article 16, TFEU is as follows,
-
1.
Everyone has the right to the protection of personal data concerning them.
-
2.
The European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, shall lay down the rules relating to the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies, and by the Member States when carrying out activities which fall within the scope of Union law, and the rules relating to the free movement of such data. Compliance with these rules shall be subject to the control of independent authorities. Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) art. 16, Oct. 26, 2012, O. J. (C 326) 47. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:12012E/TXT:en:PDF accessed 10/10/2021.
-
1.
- 45.
Warren and Brandeis (1890) pp. 193, 195–96.
- 46.
US Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, 552a (as amended) https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:5%20section:552a%20edition:prelim accessed 12/10/2021; Raul, et. al, (2014) p. 268, 269.
- 47.
Roe v Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 153 (1973) at [78] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113 accessed 12/10/2021. In Whalen v Roe 429 U.S. 589, 605–06 (1977) while the Supreme Court of the United States outlined a right to “information privacy” in the Fourteenth Amendment, nevertheless upheld a New York statute that mandated identification of records of physicians and patients in with regard to certain specified drug prescription records. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/429/589/ accessed 24/09/2021.
- 48.
See, for instance, Am. Fed’n of Gov’t Emps. v Dep’t of Hous. & Urban Dev., 118 F.3d 789, 791 (D. C. Cir. 1997).
https://casetext.com/case/american-federation-of-gov-employees-v-hud?__cf_chl_jschl_tk__=pmd_9eSHLg6DS0D01ybjR66cJ_aoCoqugd3bo0IwftuNnNg-1632570610-0-gqNtZGzNAlCjcnBszQuR accessed 25/09/2021.
- 49.
See, generally, Paul M. Schwartz, (1995) p. 553, 574–82.
- 50.
Liquormart, Inc. v Rhode Island, 517 U.S. 484, 503, 116 S. Ct. 1459 (Opinion of Stevens, J.) The Judge observed, ‘‘The First Amendment directs us to be especially sceptical of regulations that seek to keep people in the dark for what the government perceives to be their own good.”.
- 51.
Sorrell v IMS Health Care, 564 U.S. 552, 561 (2011) wherein the Court heard a plea of first amendment violation by the Vermont Prescription Confidentiality Law that prohibited disclosure or otherwise allowing pharmacies to share prescriber-identity information with anyone except for marketing reason. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/10-779.pdf accessed 24/09/2021.
- 52.
Ibidem, 560.
- 53.
Huang, cit., see footnote n. 6, p. 1289.
- 54.
Benjamin Haas (2017).
- 55.
E-Commerce Law of the People’s Republic of China (Adopted at the Fifth Session of the Standing Committee of the 13th National People's Congress on August 31, 2018) https://ipkey.eu/sites/default/files/documents/resources/PRC_E-Commerce_Law.pdf accessed 10/10/2021; Huang, cit., see footnote n. 6, p. 1289.
- 56.
Adopted at the Third Session of the Thirteenth National People’s Congress on May 28, 2020.
http://www.npc.gov.cn/englishnpc/c23934/202012/f627aa3a4651475db936899d69419d1e/files/47c16489e186437eab3244495cb47d66.pdf accessed 11/10/2021.
- 57.
Huang, cit., see footnote n. 6, p. 1290.
- 58.
Sherry and Nolan (2015).
- 59.
Ye Zhu v Baidu, Nanjing Intermediate People’s Court (2014) Ning Min Zong Zi No. 5028. See, Ken Oliphant et al. (2018) pp. 1, 2.
- 60.
Huang, cit., see footnote n. 6, p. 1294.
- 61.
Christopher (2011).
- 62.
- 63.
Gopalakrishnan et. al. v State of Kerala et. al. cit., see footnote n. 1.
- 64.
Ibidem, 6.
- 65.
Idem, 2.
- 66.
Idem, 10.
- 67.
Idem, 11.
- 68.
Idem, 21.
- 69.
Idem, 23.
- 70.
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v Union of India & Ors. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 494 of 2012 & connected matters, https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2012/35071/35071_2012_Judgement_26-Sep-2018.pdf accessed 21/09/2021.
- 71.
Constitution of India (1950)
- 72.
For a detailed discussion, see, ELP Discussion Paper: Justice BN Srikrishna Committee - White Paper on Data Protection (2017).
https://elplaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/ELP-Discussion-Paper-Justice-BN-Srikrishna-Committee-Data-Protection-2.pdf accessed 11/10/2021.
- 73.
Ibidem.
- 74.
Vrinda et al. (2017).
- 75.
Other regulatory mechanisms addressing data governance in India include,
-
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (‘CPA’) and Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020;
-
rules made by the Reserve Bank of India (‘RBI’).
-
rules imposed by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (‘TRAI’);
-
rules imposed by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India;
-
rules imposed by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’);
-
various decisions of Indian courts; and.
-
Unified Licence Agreements issued pursuant to the National Telecom Policy, 2012 by the Department of Telecommunications (‘DOT’).
-
- 76.
The Committee of Experts on a Data Protection Framework for India (2018).
- 77.
Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Recommendations on Privacy, Security and Ownership of the Data in the Telecom Sector (2018).
- 78.
Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy (2012)
- 79.
The Personal Data Protection Bill (2019).
- 80.
For a detailed discussion, see, ELP Discussion Paper, cit. footnote n. 72.
- 81.
For a detailed discussion, see, Chacko and Misra, ‘India—Data Protection Overview’ (2021) https://www.dataguidance.com/notes/india-data-protection-overview accessed 12/10/2021.
- 82.
Idem.
- 83.
Regulatory Divergence: Costs, Risks, Impacts: An International Financial Sector Study by Business at OECD and the International Federation of Accountants (2018) p. 5.
- 84.
David (2020).
- 85.
Idem.
- 86.
For a detailed reading of the OECD’s work on Privacy law see, The OECD Privacy Framework (2013).
- 87.
Measuring the Economic Value of Data and Cross-Border Data Flows: A Business Perspective (2020) p. 28.
- 88.
Casalini and González (2019).
- 89.
Mattoo and Wunsch (2004) p. 765.
- 90.
Article 40 of the draft Personal Data Protection Bill states: ‘Every data fiduciary shall ensure the storage, on a server or data centre located in India’.
- 91.
GDPR, Article 47.
- 92.
UNGA, cit. footnote n.19&20.
- 93.
Liisi (2020).
- 94.
Idem.
References
Adam T, Clyde Wayne C (eds) Who rules the net? internet governance and jurisdiction. Cato Institute, Washington DC
Adam S (2020) An emerging china-centric order: China's vision for a new world order in practice (The National Bureau of Asian Research 2020) Special Report 87
Anna-Maria O, Henry R (2016) Introduction. In: Osula A-M, Rõigas H (eds) International cyber norms: legal, policy and industry perspectives. NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence, Tallinn, Estonia
Benjamin H (2017) Man in China sentenced to five years’ jail for running VPN. Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/22/man-in-china-sentenced-to-five-years-jail-for-running-vpn. Accessed 25 Sept 2021
Broeders D, van den Berg B (eds) Governing cyberspace: behavior, power, and diplomacy. Rowman & Littlefield
Broeders D, van den Berg B (eds) China's conception of cyber sovereignty: rhetoric and realisation. Governing cyberspace: behavior, power, and diplomacy. Rowman & Littlefield
Casalini F, López González J (2019) Trade and cross-border data flows. OECD Trade Policy Papers, No. 220. OECD, Paris
Charles RA, Manoranjan Tasha D, Vivek M (2014) United States. In: Raul AC (ed) The privacy, data protection, and cybersecurity law review (1st edn). Law Business Research Ltd.
Christopher K (2011) Regulation of transborder data flows under data protection and privacy law: past, present and future. OECD Digital Economy Papers, No. 187. OECD, 2011. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/5kg0s2fk315f-en.pdf?expires=1632583184&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=5B68A70E599A3E4DF254649D803CFD8B. Accessed 25 Sept 2021
Clinton William J, Albert G Jr (2000) A framework for global electronic commerce. https://clintonwhitehouse4.archives.gov/WH/New/Commerce/read.html. Accessed 21 Sept 2021
Constitution of India (1950) Part III enumerated the fundamental rights. https://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/COI_1.pdf. Accessed 24 Sept 2021
David J, David P (1996) Law and borders: the rise of law in cyberspace. Stanford Law Rev 48:1367, 1402
David C, Federico F (2016) Bridging the transatlantic divide? The United States, the European union, and the protection of privacy across borders. 14 ICON 220, 223.
David M (2020) Digital trade and digital sovereignty: navigating best practice for cross border data transfers, Working Paper 2020 (available on file with the authors)
ELP Discussion Paper: Justice BN Srikrishna Committee—White Paper on Data Protection (2017)
Geoffrey H (2007) Cyberspace and sovereignty: thoughts on physical space and digital space. In: Cavelty MD, Mauer V, Krishna-Hensel SF (eds) Power and security in the information age: investigating the role of the state in cyberspace. Ashgate
Georg H (2015) Cloud computing and European union private international law. J Priv Int Law 11:252, 253–254
Jeff D (2019) How much data is generated each day? World Economic Forum
Ji Huang (2020) Applicable law to transnational personal data: trends and dynamics. German Law J 21:1283
Kerr Orin S (2015) The fourth amendment and the global internet. Stanford Law Rev 67:285, 287–288
Kuehl Daniel T (2009) From cyberspace to cyberpower: Deining the problem. In: Kramer FD, Starr SH, Wentz LK (eds) Cyberpower and national security. National Defense University Press, pp 1, 28
Laskai L (2016) Chapter 6—Nailing Jello to a Wall. In: The China story. https://www.thechinastory.org/yearbooks/yearbook-2016/chapter-6-nailing-jello-to-a-wall/. Accessed 21 Sept 2021
Liisi A (2020) International law and international cyber norms: a continuum? In: Broeders D, van den Berg B (eds) Governing cyberspace: behavior, power, and diplomacy. Rowman & Littlefield
Mathew C, Aadya M (2021) India—data protection overview. https://www.dataguidance.com/notes/india-data-protection-overview. Accessed 26 Sept 2021
Mačák K, Is the international law of cyber security in crisis? In: 2016 8th international conference on cyber conflict (CyCon), pp 127–139
Marcus D (2020) Digital resilience in the age of a global pandemic: how can privacy assist in risk mitigation? 17(1&2) Privacy Law Bull 2
Mattoo A, Wunsch S (2004) Pre-empting protectionism in services- the GATS and outsourcing. J Int Econ Law 7(4):765
McKinsey (2016) Digital globalisation: the new era of data flows. https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/mckinsey-digital/our-insights/digital-globalization-the-new-era-of-global-flows. Accessed 24 Sept 2021
Measuring the Economic Value of Data and Cross-Border Data Flows: A Business Perspective, August 2020, at 28 https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/6345995e-en.pdf?expires=1632666746&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=1E3EC06588AE601125E29ECC1472E796. Accessed 25 Sept 2021
Michael SD (2016) All your data are belong to Us: consumer data breach rights and remedies in an electronic exchange economy. Univ Color Law Rev 87:669, 670–673
Milton M (2017) Internet fragmentation exists, but not in the way that you think (Council on Foreign Relations, 12 June 2017) https://www.cfr.org/blog/internet-fragmentation-exists-not-way-you-think. Accessed 23 Sept 2021
Mitchell Andrew D, Jarrod H (2017) Don’t fence me in: reforming trade and investment law to better facilitate cross-border data transfer. Yale J Law Technol 19:182, 186
Mueller Milton L (2020) Against sovereignty in cyberspace. Int Stud Rev 22(4):779
Nectar G (2020) A Chinese Australian Woman breached coronavirus quarantine in Beijing to go for a Jog—and lost her job, CNN. https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/20/asia/beijing-coronavirus-woman-fired-intl-hnk/index.html
Nicholas T (2015) The legal status of cyberspace. In: Tsaugourias N, Buchan R (eds) Research handbook on international law and cyberspace. E Elgar
Oliphant K, Pinghua Z, Lei C (eds) The legal protection of personality rights: Chinese and European perspectives. Brill, pp 1, 2
Perry BJ (2016) A declaration of the independence of cyberspace. Electronic Frontier Foundation. https://www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence>. Accessed 20 Sept 2021
Regulatory Divergence: Costs, Risks, Impacts: An International Financial Sector Study by Business at OECD and the International Federation of Accountants, (2018) 5 https://biac.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/IFAC-OECD_Regulatory-Divergence_V9_singles.pdf. Accessed 26 Sept 2091
Report of the Group of Experts on Privacy (2012) https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/report-of-group-of-experts-on-privacy.pdf. Accessed 10 Sept 2021
Rosalyn H (1994) Problems and process: international law and how we use it. Clarendon, Oxford
Shahmel A, Christopher F (2016) The TPP and the digital trade agenda: Digital Industrial Policy and Silicon Valley’s influence on new trade agreements. LSE international development, working paper No. 16–175, at page 11. https://www.lse.ac.uk/international-development/Assets/Documents/PDFs/Working-Papers/WP175.pdf. Accessed 25 Sept 2021
Schiff BP (2002) The globalisation of jurisdiction. Univ Pa Law Rev 151:311
Schia Niels Nagelhus and Gjesvik Lars (2017) China’s Cyber Sovereignty (Norwegian Institute of International Affairs (NUPI) 2017) http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.sau.ac.in/stable/resrep07952. Accessed 22 Sept 2021
Schwartz Paul M (1995) Privacy and participation: personal information and public sector regulation in the United States. Iowa Law Rev 80:553, 574–582. (Digital copy of the print version available with the author)
Shane G (2000) Commercialization of the internet: the interaction of public policy and private choices or why introducing the market worked so well. Innov Policy Econ 1:151
Sherry G, Nolan S (2015) Chinese appellate court provides guidance for lawful use of cookies. Hogan Lovells. https://www.hldataprotection.com/2015/08/articles/international-eu-privacy/chinese-appellate-court-provides-guidance-for-lawful-use-of-cookies/. Accessed 25 Sept 2021
Smith Bradford L (2020) The third industrial revolution: law and policy for the internet. Recueil des Cours 282:229
Snijders H, Weatherill S (eds) E-commerce law: national and transnational topics and perspectives. Kluwer Law International
The Committee of Experts on a Data Protection Framework for India, A Free and Fair Digital Economy Protecting Privacy, Empowering Indians (2018). https://www.meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/Data_Protection_Committee_Report.pdf. Accessed 20 Sept 2021
The personal data protection bill, 2019 Bill No. 373 of 2019,
Tallinn Manual on International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare, prepared by the International Group of Experts at the invitation of the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Center of Excellence. More information available at http://csef.ru/media/articles/3990/3990.pdf
Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Recommendations on Privacy, Security and Ownership of the Data in the Telecom Sector (2018)
The OECD Privacy Framework (2013) https://www.oecd.org/sti/ieconomy/oecd_privacy_framework.pdf. Accessed 26 Sept 2021
Tsaugourias N (2018) Law, borders and the territorialisation of cyberspace. Indones J Int Law 18(4):523, 539
UNGA (2013) Group of governmental experts on developments in the field of information and telecommunications in the context of international security, 24 June 2013, UN Doc A/68/98, [19]–[20]
UNGA (2015) Group of governmental experts on developments in the field of information and telecommunications in the context of international security, 22 July 2015, UN Doc A/70/174, [13]
Uta K (2007) Jurisdiction and the internet. CUP, pp 1, 4
Vrinda B, Amba K, Smriti P, Faiza R (2017) An analysis of puttaswamy: the supreme court's privacy verdict. https://www.indrastra.com/2017/11/An-Analysis-of-Puttaswamy-Supreme-Court-s-Privacy-Verdict-003-11-2017-0004.html. Accessed 11 Oct 2021
Warren SD, Brandeis LD (1890) The right to privacy. Harvard Law Rev 4:193, 195–196
William C (2000) President of the United States, Permanent Normal Trade Relations Status for China. Speech at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies of the Johns Hopkins University. http://www.techlawjournal.com/cong106/pntr/20000308sp.htm. Accessed 22 Sept 2021
Woods AK (2016) Against data exceptionalism. Stanford Law Rev 68:729–741
Woods AK (2018) Litigating data sovereignty. Yale Law J 128:328, 352
Wu TS (1997) Cyberspace sovereignty?—the internet and the international system. Harvard J Law Technol 10:647
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/04/how-much-data-is-generated-each-day-cf4bddf29f/>. Accessed 19 Sept 2021
https://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/RecommendationDataPrivacy16072018_0.pdf. Accessed 22 Sept 2021
https://prsindia.org/files/bills_acts/bills_parliament/2019/Personal%20Data%20Protection%20Bill,%202019.pdf. Accessed 21 July 2021
https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Balu-gopalakrishnan-v-State-of-kerala.pdf. Accessed 21 Sept 2021
https://elplaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/ELP-Discussion-Paper-Justice-BN-Srikrishna-Committee-Data-Protection-2.pdf. Accessed 11 Oct 2021
Acknowledgements
This research is supported by the Indian Development Fund 2020-2021.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Garimella, S.R., Parthiban, B. (2022). Ringfencing Data?—Perspectives on Sovereignty and Localisation from India. In: Sooksripaisarnkit, P., Prasad, D. (eds) Blurry Boundaries of Public and Private International Law. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-8480-7_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-8480-7_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-16-8479-1
Online ISBN: 978-981-16-8480-7
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)