We're liveblogging the data protection consultation discussion from Delhi. Comments are largely paraphrased. Please read in reverse chronological order. [and we're done for today] 1533hrs: Naveen, STAR: What we believe is that most of the concerns are rising from the fact that most of the notices are highly complex. That will enable people to consent for allowing the usage of the data. Purpose limitation should be on the basis of what the consumer wants. 1537hrs: Usha Ramanathan: an accusation of rape or murder. If that gets found, or of someone is a witness or a complainant. we need the idea of proximity. 1537hrs: Justice Srikrishna: in a family court, a judge controls the proceedings. All reports are anonymised. Allegations will be there to understand, for posterity. That information is today protected. 1535hrs: You've mentioned the idea of some things that should not be digitised. One thing bothering me is digtisation of courts. When cases can filed, many things get said. Then it results in what it results in. Everything is getting into the digital space. It ahs huge implications for sociology of our country. Many statements are made and meant only for the courtroom. When they become a part of public commons it becomes dangerous. 1530hrs: Kamlesh Bajaj: There have been other judgments re EU GDPR, and talked about personal information on a company register. That should not be erased. Public interest should be larger than personal right in some cases. 1530hrs: Smitha Krishna Prasad, CCG at NLU Delhi: We…
