In a curious move, the Trump administration this week asked American diplomats across the world to oppose digital sovereignty initiatives of foreign countries. In a borderless world of technology, nations trying to protect sovereignty through various rules and regulations are being seen as potentially problematic for business, while also raising questions about the rule of law in the emerging world order of seamless internet and computing. So what is digital sovereignty? How are countries trying to protect it? And how is the US opposing it? Here is what you should know:<h2>What is digital sovereignty?</h2>Digital sovereignty is the ability of a nation, organisation, or individual to exercise control over their own digital destiny. It includes independent decision-making and governance on digital infrastructure, software, standards, data flows, storage, processing, and related technologies. It also aims to minimise undue dependence on or interference from foreign entities, governments, or companies. Digital sovereignty is about achieving autonomy in the digital realm to align with local laws, values, security needs, and economic priorities in a globally interconnected but geopolitically contested digital landscape.In practice, it involves protecting a nation’s digital infrastructure, software, standards, data flows, storage, processing, and related technologies. Preventing dependence on foreign entities while aligning with local laws, security, values, and economic priorities is another aspect. Digital sovereignty balances global connectivity with strategic autonomy.<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/india-ai-impact-summit-sarvam-ai-on-india-s-ai-sovereignty-push-1771577981834/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/india-ai-impact-summit-sarvam-ai-on-india-s-ai-sovereignty-push-1771577981834/embed</a><h2>Key aspects of digital sovereignty</h2>Data sovereignty is control over data ownership, collection, storage, processing, flows, and transfers, and may include data localisation or cross-border restrictions.Technological and infrastructure sovereignty ensures autonomy over hardware, networks, cloud infrastructure, and critical systems, reducing reliance on foreign providers.Software and standards sovereignty is influence over software ecosystems, open standards, algorithms, and protocols to protect national interests.Operational sovereignty is the ability to make independent operational and regulatory decisions, avoid extraterritorial legal pressures, and foster domestic innovation.Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-freedom-gov-portal-eu-content-vpn-digital-governance-1771479157581">US to launch an online portal featuring banned content from around the world</a><h2>Why is the US opposed to digital sovereignty of foreign nations?</h2>The US instructed diplomats to oppose foreign policies imposing data localisation or restricting US tech firms. In its view, such policies disrupt global data flows, increase costs, limit artificial intelligence (AI) and cloud computing deployment, expand government control, and could enable censorship. The underlying objective is for the US to maintain the global dominance of American tech firms, ensure economic advantage in AI and cloud computing, and counter foreign protectionism.Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/russia-restricts-calls-on-whatsapp-telegram-to-promote-digital-sovereignty-here-s-real-reason-behind-the-move-1755155215471">Russia restricts calls on WhatsApp, Telegram 'to promote digital sovereignty': Here's REAL reason behind the move</a><h2>From China to the European Union, how nations are asserting digital sovereignty</h2>China’s digital sovereignty ecosystem includes the Great Firewall, the Digital Silk Road, and support for domestic firms. China has some of the most assertive state-controlled digital sovereignty policies. Key laws include the Cybersecurity Law, covering AI governance, network obligations, and extraterritorial reach. The Data Security Law and the Personal Information Protection Law (PIPL) govern data classification, data localisation, and cross-border control. The 15th Five-Year Plan also addresses AI and technological self-reliance.&nbsp;India has taken a pragmatic, growth-oriented digital sovereignty strategy. The Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act covers data protection, selective localisation, and cross-border discretion. The Economic Survey of 2025–26 favours open data flows. India is also creating local AI models, such as Sarvam AI (2026), and has sectoral policies for financial data and domestic infrastructure.The European Union follows a rights-based, regulation-heavy approach to digital sovereignty. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) governs personal data control. The Digital Services Act (DSA) and Digital Markets Act (DMA) regulate platforms, competition, and antitrust. The Data Act covers industrial data access. The Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act) implements risk-based AI regulation. The EU also has a Cloud Sovereignty Framework guiding cloud controls within the bloc, with ongoing work on the establishment of a European Data Union.Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/eu-india-must-build-own-ai-capacity-with-home-grown-data-says-top-eu-official-virkkunen-at-new-delhi-summit-1771403148699">EU &amp; India must build own AI capacity with home-grown data, says top EU official Virkkunen at New Delhi summit</a><h2>How foreign nations’ digital sovereignty affects the US</h2>US companies are affected by the data laws of countries where they have large customer bases. The EU’s GDPR, DSA, and Data Act impose strict data protection, cross-border limits, fines, and increasing compliance costs for US firms. India’s data localisation and Personal Data Protection rules require local infrastructure, raising operational costs for cloud and platform services. China’s Cybersecurity Law, Data Security Law, and PIPL enforce localisation and cross-border restrictions, limiting US market access and favouring domestic firms.These policies fragment the internet. Compliance with different countries’ digital sovereignty laws increases global operational costs and challenges the US model of open, innovation-driven digital markets.

Digital sovereignty is now becoming the next big geopolitical contest. This is pitting the US against other nations on issues like control over data, technology, and digital infrastructure. It is high time you know about it

In a curious move, the Trump administration this week asked American diplomats across the world to oppose digital sovereignty initiatives of foreign countries. In a borderless world of technology, nations trying to protect sovereignty through various rules and regulations are being seen as potentially problematic for business, while also raising questions about the rule of law in the emerging world order of seamless internet and computing. So what is digital sovereignty? How are countries trying to protect it? And how is the US opposing it? Here is what you should know: What is digital sovereignty? Digital sovereignty is the ability of a nation, organisation, or individual to exercise control over their own digital destiny. It includes independent decision-making and governance on digital infrastructure, software, standards, data flows, storage, processing, and related technologies. It also aims to minimise undue dependence on or interference from foreign entities, governments, or companies. Digital sovereignty is about achieving autonomy in the digital realm to align with local laws, values, security needs, and economic priorities in a globally interconnected but geopolitically contested digital landscape. In practice, it involves protecting a nation’s digital infrastructure, software, standards, data flows, storage, processing, and related technologies. Preventing dependence on foreign entities while aligning with local laws, security, values, and economic priorities is another aspect. Digital sovereignty balances global connectivity with strategic autonomy. https://www.wionews.com/videos/india-ai-impact-summit-sarvam-ai-on-india-s-ai-sovereignty-push-1771577981834/embed Key aspects of digital sovereignty Data sovereignty is control over data ownership, collection, storage, processing, flows, and transfers, and may include data localisation or cross-border restrictions. Technological and infrastructure sovereignty ensures autonomy over hardware, networks, cloud infrastructure, and critical systems, reducing reliance on foreign providers. Software and standards sovereignty is influence over software ecosystems, open standards, algorithms, and protocols to protect national interests. Operational sovereignty is the ability to make independent operational and regulatory decisions, avoid extraterritorial legal pressures, and foster domestic innovation. Also read: US to launch an online portal featuring banned content from around the world Why is the US opposed to digital sovereignty of foreign nations? The US instructed diplomats to oppose foreign policies imposing data localisation or restricting US tech firms. In its view, such policies disrupt global data flows, increase costs, limit artificial intelligence (AI) and cloud computing deployment, expand government control, and could enable censorship. The underlying objective is for the US to maintain the global dominance of American tech firms, ensure economic advantage in AI and cloud computing, and counter foreign protectionism. Also read: Russia restricts calls on WhatsApp, Telegram 'to promote digital sovereignty': Here's REAL reason behind the move From China to the European Union, how nations are asserting digital sovereignty China’s digital sovereignty ecosystem includes the Great Firewall, the Digital Silk Road, and support for domestic firms. China has some of the most assertive state-controlled digital sovereignty policies. Key laws include the Cybersecurity Law, covering AI governance, network obligations, and extraterritorial reach. The Data Security Law and the Personal Information Protection Law (PIPL) govern data classification, data localisation, and cross-border control. The 15th Five-Year Plan also addresses AI and technological self-reliance. India has taken a pragmatic, growth-oriented digital sovereignty strategy. The Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act covers data protection, selective localisation, and cross-border discretion. The Economic Survey of 2025–26 favours open data flows. India is also creating local AI models, such as Sarvam AI (2026), and has sectoral policies for financial data and domestic infrastructure. The European Union follows a rights-based, regulation-heavy approach to digital sovereignty. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) governs personal data control. The Digital Services Act (DSA) and Digital Markets Act (DMA) regulate platforms, competition, and antitrust. The Data Act covers industrial data access. The Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act) implements risk-based AI regulation. The EU also has a Cloud Sovereignty Framework guiding cloud controls within the bloc, with ongoing work on the establishment of a European Data Union. Also read: EU & India must build own AI capacity with home-grown data, says top EU official Virkkunen at New Delhi summit How foreign nations’ digital sovereignty affects the US US companies are affected by the data laws of countries where they have large customer bases. The EU’s GDPR, DSA, and Data Act impose strict data protection, cross-border limits, fines, and increasing compliance costs for US firms. India’s data localisation and Personal Data Protection rules require local infrastructure, raising operational costs for cloud and platform services. China’s Cybersecurity Law, Data Security Law, and PIPL enforce localisation and cross-border restrictions, limiting US market access and favouring domestic firms. These policies fragment the internet. Compliance with different countries’ digital sovereignty laws increases global operational costs and challenges the US model of open, innovation-driven digital markets.

Digital sovereignty is becoming the next big geopolitical contest. This is pitting the US against other nations on issues like control over data, technology, and digital infrastructure. It is high time you know about it

What is digital sovereignty, which the US wants to fight in foreign nations?

By Mallika Singh

India on Monday <a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/asean-summit-india-decides-not-to-join-rcep-259919">pulled out of</a> the proposed Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) stating that the agreement “does not satisfactorily address India's outstanding issues and concerns.” 
&nbsp; 
Prime Minister Modi, while speaking at the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) summit in Thailand said that “neither the Talisman of Gandhiji nor my own conscience permits me to join the RCEP.” 
&nbsp; 
RCEP is a proposed Free Trade Agreement (FTA) that was being negotiated between 16 countries - the 10 member states of ASEAN along with India, Australia, China, Korea, Japan, and New Zealand. 
&nbsp; 
While the exact details of what the agreement entails are yet to be released, its aim, as established in 2012 in Cambodia, was to increase trade by decreasing tariffs and barriers between member states, boost exports, and create an alternative market for investment. 
&nbsp; 
India chose to withhold from joining the trade agreement due to “significant outstanding issues, which remain unresolved”.

"The present form of the RCEP agreement does not fully reflect the basic spirit and the agreed guiding principles of RCEP,” Prime Minister <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-not-to-join-rcep-goes-against-countrys-core-interests-259904">Narendra Modi </a>said.

New Delhi’s stand on data localisation is one of the key issues at conflict as RCEP norms support the free flow of data which hampers India’s digital sovereignty. &nbsp;

According to NITI Aayog, the policy think tank of India, the country has a growing trade deficit with ASEAN member states and China. Participating in RCEP would have only widened these deficits. 
&nbsp; 
With the ongoing United States-China trade war, signing the trade agreement would have interfered with India's attempt to augment its ties with the United States.

China’s dumping policy also presented itself as a potential threat to India, where access to an open market might have lead China to dump its products in regional Indian markets. &nbsp;

India felt that there was “inadequate” protection provided to its domestic markets which would have had to suffer losses as cheaper products from China threatened to “flood” Indian markets.

The dairy industry was also expected to face the burden of the trade deal due to the introduction of competition from New Zealand and Australia.

India also failed to receive any assurance on its demand for greater market access and concerns over non-tariff barriers as China has in the past used these to curtail India’s exports to the country.

India expressed dismay at 2014 being set as the base year for tariff reductions instead of 2013. This would have gone against the country's interests as several import duties have gone up since 2014. 
&nbsp; 
RCEP is supposed to be one of the world’s largest trade pacts and the largest regional trading agreement yet. The member countries account for half of the world’s population and almost one-third of the Global Gross Domestic Product.

Becoming a member of the RCEP would have provided New Delhi with an alternative market, reducing its dependence on Western nation-states, an increase in export-oriented Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), and a boost to its service sector.

Although India currently backed out of one of the biggest free trade deals in the world, the remaining 15 members agreed on the negotiated terms and will be signing it next year. 
&nbsp;

By Mallika Singh India on Monday pulled out of the proposed Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) stating that the agreement “does not satisfactorily address India's outstanding issues and concerns.

By Mallika Singh India on Monday pulled out of the proposed Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) stating that the agreement “does not satisfactorily address India's outstanding issues and concerns.” Prime Minister Modi, while speaking at the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) summit in Thailand said that “neither the Talisman of Gandhiji nor my own conscience permits me to join the RCEP.” RCEP is a proposed Free Trade Agreement (FTA) that was being negotiated between 16 countries - the 10 member states of ASEAN along with India, Australia, China, Korea, Japan, and New Zealand. While the exact details of what the agreement entails are yet to be released, its aim, as established in 2012 in Cambodia, was to increase trade by decreasing tariffs and barriers between member states, boost exports, and create an alternative market for investment. India chose to withhold from joining the trade agreement due to “significant outstanding issues, which remain unresolved”. "The present form of the RCEP agreement does not fully reflect the basic spirit and the agreed guiding principles of RCEP,” Prime Minister Narendra Modi said. New Delhi’s stand on data localisation is one of the key issues at conflict as RCEP norms support the free flow of data which hampers India’s digital sovereignty. According to NITI Aayog, the policy think tank of India, the country has a growing trade deficit with ASEAN member states and China. Participating in RCEP would have only widened these deficits. With the ongoing United States-China trade war, signing the trade agreement would have interfered with India's attempt to augment its ties with the United States. China’s dumping policy also presented itself as a potential threat to India, where access to an open market might have lead China to dump its products in regional Indian markets. India felt that there was “inadequate” protection provided to its domestic markets which would have had to suffer losses as cheaper products from China threatened to “flood” Indian markets. The dairy industry was also expected to face the burden of the trade deal due to the introduction of competition from New Zealand and Australia. India also failed to receive any assurance on its demand for greater market access and concerns over non-tariff barriers as China has in the past used these to curtail India’s exports to the country. India expressed dismay at 2014 being set as the base year for tariff reductions instead of 2013. This would have gone against the country's interests as several import duties have gone up since 2014. RCEP is supposed to be one of the world’s largest trade pacts and the largest regional trading agreement yet. The member countries account for half of the world’s population and almost one-third of the Global Gross Domestic Product. Becoming a member of the RCEP would have provided New Delhi with an alternative market, reducing its dependence on Western nation-states, an increase in export-oriented Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), and a boost to its service sector. Although India currently backed out of one of the biggest free trade deals in the world, the remaining 15 members agreed on the negotiated terms and will be signing it next year.

RCEP pull-out: India stands by reduced trade deficits, data localisation, and enhancing domestic markets

In an exclusive conversation with WION's principal diplomatic correspondent Sidhant Sibal, European Union's ambassador to India Tomasz Kozlowski welcomed New Delhi's role in global governance and said it is in favour of India's efforts to develop Chabahar port to connect with Afghanistan. But on India's data localisation plans, the ambassador said it may be a burden for the free flow of business data. Here is the full interview.

WION: How do you characterize New Delhi-Brussel ties and why is India an important ally for Brussels?

Kozlowski: The European union perceives India as an extremely important partner for the European Union. First of all, India enjoys very high economic growth, India is growing, it has a huge economic potential for bilateral, mutually beneficial cooperation for the future, that is why we have a well-established cooperation partnership.

The second rationale is India is an important international partner -- very much respected and very influential. We are looking for partners all around the world with whom we share the same approach on global governance. India and EU are promoting rules based on the international order to multilateral approach. That is why we think we can make an impact on shaping or reshaping global political and economic governance.

WION: How do you see the current economic environment in India, especially the ease of doing business?&nbsp;

Kozlowski: According to the European economic community in India, and we have 6,000 EU companies, EU is the largest trading partner. Europe is one of the largest foreign investors in India and provider of technology.

According to our business community, the business environment has improved substantially in the last few years. Of course, the situation might be better in the future. The fact the business environment is better is reflected in the 'ease of doing business' ranking in which India stands 77th.&nbsp;

WION: The India-EU Free trade agreement has been stuck for 10 years with no progress, any comments?&nbsp;

Kozlowski: Concerning EU India trade ties, EU is the largest trading partner for India. we have here the presence of European companies. EU is fully committed to having a comprehensive, economically meaningful, mutually beneficial agreement and we are in the process of discussing, very actively, the way forward for a possible FTA.

WION: Connectivity is the new geopolitical currency. Your reaction to India connecting EU through Chabahar?

Kozlowski: &nbsp;EU is in favour and support of all connectivity initiatives between India and EU. A few months ago, EU approved its own strategy on connectivity. We are in favour of India's efforts to rebuild or develop Chabahar port as an entry point to Afghanistan, further to central Asia and even to Europe. We are very much in favour.

WION: Your take on the privacy debate in India and EU? Any comments on India's data localisation plans?

Kozlowski: Privacy is an important right for the citizens of India and for the European Union. EU approved its own regulations which are known as GDPR. As I understand, India is working on its own privacy law.

With respect to data location, we don't share India's sentiment to such a solution. We think such steps may be a burden for the free flow of business data between India and its partners. &nbsp;

WION: Your reaction to the Brexit development that is taking place and Brexit's impact on India-EU ties?

Kozlowski: Brexit is a very unfortunate development but we respect the decision taken by the British people which are now followed by the British government.

From the point of view of EU, we are prepared for signing an agreement with the UK in coming days on the Brexit and it will not impact EU-India relations. We are committed to honouring all our agreement in developing cooperation.

In an exclusive conversation with WION's principal diplomatic correspondent Sidhant Sibal, European Union's ambassador to India Tomasz Kozlowski welcomed New Delhi's role in global governance and said it is in favour of India's efforts to develop Chabahar port to connect with Afghanistan.

In an exclusive conversation with WION's principal diplomatic correspondent Sidhant Sibal, European Union's ambassador to India Tomasz Kozlowski welcomed New Delhi's role in global governance and said it is in favour of India's efforts to develop Chabahar port to connect with Afghanistan. But on India's data localisation plans, the ambassador said it may be a burden for the free flow of business data. Here is the full interview. WION: How do you characterize New Delhi-Brussel ties and why is India an important ally for Brussels? Kozlowski: The European union perceives India as an extremely important partner for the European Union. First of all, India enjoys very high economic growth, India is growing, it has a huge economic potential for bilateral, mutually beneficial cooperation for the future, that is why we have a well-established cooperation partnership. The second rationale is India is an important international partner -- very much respected and very influential. We are looking for partners all around the world with whom we share the same approach on global governance. India and EU are promoting rules based on the international order to multilateral approach. That is why we think we can make an impact on shaping or reshaping global political and economic governance. WION: How do you see the current economic environment in India, especially the ease of doing business? Kozlowski: According to the European economic community in India, and we have 6,000 EU companies, EU is the largest trading partner. Europe is one of the largest foreign investors in India and provider of technology. According to our business community, the business environment has improved substantially in the last few years. Of course, the situation might be better in the future. The fact the business environment is better is reflected in the 'ease of doing business' ranking in which India stands 77th. WION: The India-EU Free trade agreement has been stuck for 10 years with no progress, any comments? Kozlowski: Concerning EU India trade ties, EU is the largest trading partner for India. we have here the presence of European companies. EU is fully committed to having a comprehensive, economically meaningful, mutually beneficial agreement and we are in the process of discussing, very actively, the way forward for a possible FTA. WION: Connectivity is the new geopolitical currency. Your reaction to India connecting EU through Chabahar? Kozlowski: EU is in favour and support of all connectivity initiatives between India and EU. A few months ago, EU approved its own strategy on connectivity. We are in favour of India's efforts to rebuild or develop Chabahar port as an entry point to Afghanistan, further to central Asia and even to Europe. We are very much in favour. WION: Your take on the privacy debate in India and EU? Any comments on India's data localisation plans? Kozlowski: Privacy is an important right for the citizens of India and for the European Union. EU approved its own regulations which are known as GDPR. As I understand, India is working on its own privacy law. With respect to data location, we don't share India's sentiment to such a solution. We think such steps may be a burden for the free flow of business data between India and its partners. WION: Your reaction to the Brexit development that is taking place and Brexit's impact on India-EU ties? Kozlowski: Brexit is a very unfortunate development but we respect the decision taken by the British people which are now followed by the British government. From the point of view of EU, we are prepared for signing an agreement with the UK in coming days on the Brexit and it will not impact EU-India relations. We are committed to honouring all our agreement in developing cooperation.

EU envoy welcomes India's move to develop Chabahar

India’s data localisation policy has come under the rich world’s scanner. Ironically, while holding monopolistic power on data, rich nations have audaciously termed India’s policy as being perverse for an emerging economy out to damage its lucrative successful export sectors built on its software supremacy.

The trigger for this tirade of being protectionist stems from a spate of proposals and potential laws on data localisation declared by Indian authorities recently.

The draft e-commerce policy placing a ban on the global transfer of data generated by Indian e-commerce users demonstrate and reinforce the authorities’ resolve to keep data close to their chest.

It is not just India that alone is an outlier in this gambit as such localisation policies have been in vogue in developed and developing countries since the inception of the Internet.

To boot there are genuinely solid and valid reasons for impeding the free flow of data, the principal one being obsessive concerns and dread over privacy.

Even as some of the fiercest restrictions on data movements are in paranoid-about-personal liberty and freedom States such as Russia and China, 22 out of the 27 nations of the European Union (EU) too follow data localisation measures.

In its latest Trade &amp; Development Report (TDR), 2018, Geneva-based UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) contends many governments are using data localisation measures, akin to what they deployed when they designed their foreign direct investment policies.

This was sought to be purported to goad domestic linkages of foreign investments and to foster domestic digital capacities and infrastructure to upgrade value chains.

In this context, localisation steps encompass requirements such as locating servers and/or computing facilities within national boundaries which can encourage foreign firms to invest in domestic digital infrastructure and allow local authorities to enforce national laws.

It is small wonder that many analysts have dubbed data the “new oil”, not only because they have to be extracted and processed from an initially unrefined and raw state, but presumably because processed data could invest its owners with monopolistic powers.

Unlike oil, however, data is not a finite resource with the ability to exclude competitors from access, thereby building even more monopoly muscles and rent-seeking proclivity.

The primordial and prime-mover gains commanded by digital giants such as Amazon, Alibaba, Google, Facebook in amassing data have allowed them to avail of big data analytics to outfox rivals, considered minnows or even obstruct potential ones from contesting the heft and might of a few at the top of the heap.

This has also practically nullified and rendered nugatory any established competition or anti-trust policies that are incongruent to digital economy management.

According to UNCTAD, the exponential growth and operation of Uber — the world’s biggest taxi service provider that owns no taxis but remote-controls cab aggregators effectively put paid to local taxi operators such as the eponymous TSR in Delhi, which had to fold up from a big scale operation to skeletal one now with Uber and small platform service providers dominating the landscape.

In pitching for the priority need to retain their data sovereignty to build their digital skills and preclude rules, which restrict their ability to monitor the flow of their national data, UNCTAD maintains that classification of data into personal and non-personal data and designing respective data policies are crucial steps in building digital infrastructure.

Even as India’s draft e-commerce policy is pilloried for making Indian consumer data to be held locally, UNCTAD has rightly argued the need for recognising the associated risks when domestic producers and consumers linked to e-commerce platforms are made international.

By willfully or unwarily bearing such risks, not only do countries unnecessarily expose their consumers to new products and producers, but also risk reducing domestic market shares of their indigenous producers and in the process, lose out on valuable data that is generated by the transactions of consumers and producers.

This is so because the “network effects” of these platforms permit them to glean gargantuan data of connected economies, which can then be used by these global monopoly platforms to foresee market trends, inundate the consumers with products associated to their tastes and preferences based on personal data analytics.

This would also help them effectively reorganise and refocus national production and sales. Wisely, UNCTAD sounded out the bugle that many of the proposals in the World Trade Organization (WTO), if accepted, would not allow governments to restrict the outflow of the data of their producers and consumers in the future.

That is the reason why India stoutly opposed new issues at the Buenos Aires (Argentina) meeting of the WTO in December 2017, when the leader of the Indian delegation and Union Commerce Minister, Suresh Prabhu, rejected bringing in new issues such as e-commerce into negotiations as “extremely divisive”.&nbsp;

India’s view was that gains from e-commerce must not be confused with gains from negotiating binding rules in this domain. That is also the reason why it supports the continuation of the 1998 Work Programme with a non-negotiating mandate.

In the end, gains from e-commerce now emerging as a big fancy among the demographically dynamic youth of the country can become a reality only if domestic authorities encourage national e-commerce platforms, nurture and protect them with the objective of improving domestic and global market access of their producers.

(This article was originally published on DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-gains-of-domestic-data-mining-2683052">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

India’s data localisation policy has come under the rich world’s scanner. Ironically, while holding monopolistic power on data, rich nations have audaciously termed India’s policy as being perverse for an emerging economy out to damage its lucrative successful export sectors built on its software supremacy.

India’s data localisation policy has come under the rich world’s scanner. Ironically, while holding monopolistic power on data, rich nations have audaciously termed India’s policy as being perverse for an emerging economy out to damage its lucrative successful export sectors built on its software supremacy. The trigger for this tirade of being protectionist stems from a spate of proposals and potential laws on data localisation declared by Indian authorities recently. The draft e-commerce policy placing a ban on the global transfer of data generated by Indian e-commerce users demonstrate and reinforce the authorities’ resolve to keep data close to their chest. It is not just India that alone is an outlier in this gambit as such localisation policies have been in vogue in developed and developing countries since the inception of the Internet. To boot there are genuinely solid and valid reasons for impeding the free flow of data, the principal one being obsessive concerns and dread over privacy. Even as some of the fiercest restrictions on data movements are in paranoid-about-personal liberty and freedom States such as Russia and China, 22 out of the 27 nations of the European Union (EU) too follow data localisation measures. In its latest Trade & Development Report (TDR), 2018, Geneva-based UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) contends many governments are using data localisation measures, akin to what they deployed when they designed their foreign direct investment policies. This was sought to be purported to goad domestic linkages of foreign investments and to foster domestic digital capacities and infrastructure to upgrade value chains. In this context, localisation steps encompass requirements such as locating servers and/or computing facilities within national boundaries which can encourage foreign firms to invest in domestic digital infrastructure and allow local authorities to enforce national laws. It is small wonder that many analysts have dubbed data the “new oil”, not only because they have to be extracted and processed from an initially unrefined and raw state, but presumably because processed data could invest its owners with monopolistic powers. Unlike oil, however, data is not a finite resource with the ability to exclude competitors from access, thereby building even more monopoly muscles and rent-seeking proclivity. The primordial and prime-mover gains commanded by digital giants such as Amazon, Alibaba, Google, Facebook in amassing data have allowed them to avail of big data analytics to outfox rivals, considered minnows or even obstruct potential ones from contesting the heft and might of a few at the top of the heap. This has also practically nullified and rendered nugatory any established competition or anti-trust policies that are incongruent to digital economy management. According to UNCTAD, the exponential growth and operation of Uber — the world’s biggest taxi service provider that owns no taxis but remote-controls cab aggregators effectively put paid to local taxi operators such as the eponymous TSR in Delhi, which had to fold up from a big scale operation to skeletal one now with Uber and small platform service providers dominating the landscape. In pitching for the priority need to retain their data sovereignty to build their digital skills and preclude rules, which restrict their ability to monitor the flow of their national data, UNCTAD maintains that classification of data into personal and non-personal data and designing respective data policies are crucial steps in building digital infrastructure. Even as India’s draft e-commerce policy is pilloried for making Indian consumer data to be held locally, UNCTAD has rightly argued the need for recognising the associated risks when domestic producers and consumers linked to e-commerce platforms are made international. By willfully or unwarily bearing such risks, not only do countries unnecessarily expose their consumers to new products and producers, but also risk reducing domestic market shares of their indigenous producers and in the process, lose out on valuable data that is generated by the transactions of consumers and producers. This is so because the “network effects” of these platforms permit them to glean gargantuan data of connected economies, which can then be used by these global monopoly platforms to foresee market trends, inundate the consumers with products associated to their tastes and preferences based on personal data analytics. This would also help them effectively reorganise and refocus national production and sales. Wisely, UNCTAD sounded out the bugle that many of the proposals in the World Trade Organization (WTO), if accepted, would not allow governments to restrict the outflow of the data of their producers and consumers in the future. That is the reason why India stoutly opposed new issues at the Buenos Aires (Argentina) meeting of the WTO in December 2017, when the leader of the Indian delegation and Union Commerce Minister, Suresh Prabhu, rejected bringing in new issues such as e-commerce into negotiations as “extremely divisive”. India’s view was that gains from e-commerce must not be confused with gains from negotiating binding rules in this domain. That is also the reason why it supports the continuation of the 1998 Work Programme with a non-negotiating mandate. In the end, gains from e-commerce now emerging as a big fancy among the demographically dynamic youth of the country can become a reality only if domestic authorities encourage national e-commerce platforms, nurture and protect them with the objective of improving domestic and global market access of their producers. (This article was originally published on DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Gains of domestic data mining

Watch: WION Dispatch, 1st November, 2018

WION Dispatch: US warns India on data localisation

With the RBI data localisation mandate becoming effective as of October 15, the debate on its legality and viability is revived. Reports indicate that whilst most entities subject to regulation by RBI have complied, the larger multinationals, who probably account for the larger quantum of transactions, are still resisting compliance.

RBI’s circular of April 2018 pertains only to banks and payment systems that it regulates. Its mandate for data localisation also was restricted to all aspects of payments data. The multitude of commercial establishments, which have and utilise financial data, will be covered only under the provisions of the proposed Personal Data Protection (PDP) Bill, 2018. The deadline for public comments is now closed and the presentation of the final draft Bill is expected soon.

Presently, the draft PDP Bill also clearly provides for localisation of critical personal (CP) data but leaves definition thereof to the Central government. Global trends that are elicited and the recommendations accompanying the draft PDP Bill clearly indicate that a wide spectrum of CP, including data of critical infrastructure, finance and health would probably form part of CP.

RBI may have jumped the gun with its circular pre-dating the draft PDP Bill and Report, but it is not off the mark in its call for localisation. Many of us were sceptical about the call for localisation keeping in mind business needs and practicalities, but there cannot be any quandary about protecting critical data from rampant dissemination.

The objections to data localisation range from economic to absurd – additional costs and teething problems that any change in processes entail, do not appear to be the real reasons for the objections though they are projected, as such. The other objections touted at most discussions across India are (a) possibility of surveillance by Indian law enforcement agencies, (b) breaches and vulnerabilities of systems and (c) purported availability of better infrastructure outside India. The other and more recent objections including from USA is for “free flow of data” to enable businesses and to “benefit users”.

Each of the above objections to data-sharing appears specious. Surveillance was and continues to be a matter of grave concern, but to claim that it is a malaise restricted to India is untenable. Indians would, in fact, benefit from localisation to the extent that there would be immediate access to remedies against violation of due process. This would not be the case if their rights are violated outside India.

System vulnerability too is not confined to India. As with the vulnerability of systems in USA or Europe, so would it be in India. Similarly, the need to create local infrastructure and systems only spells business opportunities for India. The cost is an on-time investment and the returns and benefits are likely to be sustained over long periods of time.

Finally, free flow of data is and continues to be the bedrock of the Internet, but the very jurisdiction seeking this is the one which moved away from a Net Neutrality regime. That does not justify India opting for protectionist or exclusionary processes. Again, this would be so only if the data localization sought is intended or will result in the same.

Data localisation mandated under the RBI circular and that which is envisaged under the draft PDP Bill are not completely protectionist. It is limited to financial data under the RBI circular and CP under the draft PDP Bill.

Scratch the surface and the real reason for opposition comes to the fore. The need for one of the largest caches of data, as India is, stems not just from commercial interests or profits, but from the larger issue of “Control”. USA’s attempt to flex its muscles to coerce RBI to reverse its position or to extend an extremely elongated compliance window indicates its intent.

Data sharing and control over data has become the new battleground for control. Many an instance of not just data collation or analysis, but of manipulation using data analytics demonstrates the power of data. USA’s ‘‘Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act’’ or the ‘‘CLOUD Act’’ and its overreaching provisions for interception and procuring of data of any online user is another illustration of the vulnerabilities that Indians’ data may be subjected to with unfettered data transfers.

The Justice Srikrishna Committee Report indicates that the decision to allow free flow of data and to limit restrictions only to CP indicates a well thought out process.

Apart from the loss of control, the next large concern appears to be jurisdiction. There has been consistent resistance from multinationals to subject themselves to India’s jurisdiction. Instances abound of government authorities’ orders and in many instances, even court orders not being complied with on grounds of jurisdiction. Localization would necessarily ensure not just ease of obtaining data for investigative, tax and other government purposes, but also for victims and litigants to enforce their rights more expeditiously.

The final fear-factor appears to be the nemesis of “taxation”. The Income Tax Act, 1961 already defines the principal place of business-wide enough to encompass the place where a business, profession or vocation is situated. Localization by itself would mean implementation of local infrastructure, which may give the taxman his much-needed jurisdiction.

Data localisation is here to stay. RBI’s circular and its implementation by a substantial number of entities governed by it has already proven feasibility. National interests, the exercise of sovereignty, need for easy access to data and possibly preventing foreign surveillance and dissemination are all bound to prevail over external pressure, for the Indian government to pass the provisions for data localisation. 
&nbsp;

(This article was originally published on DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-us-flexes-cyber-muscles-2676092">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

&nbsp;

With the RBI data localisation mandate becoming effective as of October 15, the debate on its legality and viability is revived. Reports indicate that whilst most entities subject to regulation by RBI have complied, the larger multinationals, who probably account for the larger quantum of transactions, are still resisting compliance.

With the RBI data localisation mandate becoming effective as of October 15, the debate on its legality and viability is revived. Reports indicate that whilst most entities subject to regulation by RBI have complied, the larger multinationals, who probably account for the larger quantum of transactions, are still resisting compliance. RBI’s circular of April 2018 pertains only to banks and payment systems that it regulates. Its mandate for data localisation also was restricted to all aspects of payments data. The multitude of commercial establishments, which have and utilise financial data, will be covered only under the provisions of the proposed Personal Data Protection (PDP) Bill, 2018. The deadline for public comments is now closed and the presentation of the final draft Bill is expected soon. Presently, the draft PDP Bill also clearly provides for localisation of critical personal (CP) data but leaves definition thereof to the Central government. Global trends that are elicited and the recommendations accompanying the draft PDP Bill clearly indicate that a wide spectrum of CP, including data of critical infrastructure, finance and health would probably form part of CP. RBI may have jumped the gun with its circular pre-dating the draft PDP Bill and Report, but it is not off the mark in its call for localisation. Many of us were sceptical about the call for localisation keeping in mind business needs and practicalities, but there cannot be any quandary about protecting critical data from rampant dissemination. The objections to data localisation range from economic to absurd – additional costs and teething problems that any change in processes entail, do not appear to be the real reasons for the objections though they are projected, as such. The other objections touted at most discussions across India are (a) possibility of surveillance by Indian law enforcement agencies, (b) breaches and vulnerabilities of systems and (c) purported availability of better infrastructure outside India. The other and more recent objections including from USA is for “free flow of data” to enable businesses and to “benefit users”. Each of the above objections to data-sharing appears specious. Surveillance was and continues to be a matter of grave concern, but to claim that it is a malaise restricted to India is untenable. Indians would, in fact, benefit from localisation to the extent that there would be immediate access to remedies against violation of due process. This would not be the case if their rights are violated outside India. System vulnerability too is not confined to India. As with the vulnerability of systems in USA or Europe, so would it be in India. Similarly, the need to create local infrastructure and systems only spells business opportunities for India. The cost is an on-time investment and the returns and benefits are likely to be sustained over long periods of time. Finally, free flow of data is and continues to be the bedrock of the Internet, but the very jurisdiction seeking this is the one which moved away from a Net Neutrality regime. That does not justify India opting for protectionist or exclusionary processes. Again, this would be so only if the data localization sought is intended or will result in the same. Data localisation mandated under the RBI circular and that which is envisaged under the draft PDP Bill are not completely protectionist. It is limited to financial data under the RBI circular and CP under the draft PDP Bill. Scratch the surface and the real reason for opposition comes to the fore. The need for one of the largest caches of data, as India is, stems not just from commercial interests or profits, but from the larger issue of “Control”. USA’s attempt to flex its muscles to coerce RBI to reverse its position or to extend an extremely elongated compliance window indicates its intent. Data sharing and control over data has become the new battleground for control. Many an instance of not just data collation or analysis, but of manipulation using data analytics demonstrates the power of data. USA’s ‘‘Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act’’ or the ‘‘CLOUD Act’’ and its overreaching provisions for interception and procuring of data of any online user is another illustration of the vulnerabilities that Indians’ data may be subjected to with unfettered data transfers. The Justice Srikrishna Committee Report indicates that the decision to allow free flow of data and to limit restrictions only to CP indicates a well thought out process. Apart from the loss of control, the next large concern appears to be jurisdiction. There has been consistent resistance from multinationals to subject themselves to India’s jurisdiction. Instances abound of government authorities’ orders and in many instances, even court orders not being complied with on grounds of jurisdiction. Localization would necessarily ensure not just ease of obtaining data for investigative, tax and other government purposes, but also for victims and litigants to enforce their rights more expeditiously. The final fear-factor appears to be the nemesis of “taxation”. The Income Tax Act, 1961 already defines the principal place of business-wide enough to encompass the place where a business, profession or vocation is situated. Localization by itself would mean implementation of local infrastructure, which may give the taxman his much-needed jurisdiction. Data localisation is here to stay. RBI’s circular and its implementation by a substantial number of entities governed by it has already proven feasibility. National interests, the exercise of sovereignty, need for easy access to data and possibly preventing foreign surveillance and dissemination are all bound to prevail over external pressure, for the Indian government to pass the provisions for data localisation. (This article was originally published on DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

RBI data localisation: US flexes cyber muscles

As many as 80 per cent players in the payment industry, including Amazon, Paytm and WhatsApp, have complied with the norms for <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/us-senators-writes-to-modi-to-soften-data-localisation-stance-171380">local storage of data</a>, with RBI's deadline coming to close on Monday, sources said.

However, they said some debit/credit companies are yet to comply with data storage norms and have reportedly sought more time.

The Reserve Bank is not contemplating review of its notification on data localisation norms, the sources said.

In April, the central bank had given six months to global payment companies to store transaction data of Indian customers within India.

Although 80 per cent of the players operating in India have complied with the Reserve Bank directive, some global financial technology companies have reportedly sought an extension to the October 15 timeline.

"The RBI will look at things on a case-to-case basis from tomorrow while handling the subject," one of the sources said, without mentioning if the central bank would take action or impose penalties for non-compliance.

Digital payments platform PhonePe said it has informed the Reserve Bank of India of its full compliance with the data localisation mandate to ensure payments data of Indian users is stored within the country.

The central bank's data localisation policy had elicited mixed response from the payment services industry. While some of the prominent domestic payment companies like Paytm and PhonePe have been supportive of the dictum, global players like Google (that offers Google Pay) had argued for free movement of data.

Some international players have appealed for more time for compliance and also asked that they be allowed to mirror the data.

Paytm, which had vociferously supported data localisation, said critical data must not be allowed to go out of the country, not even for processing.

"We have complied to this mandate since day one and have welcomed this initiative right from the beginning. It is important that we do not become mere internet colonies for global companies, and make every organisation accountable towards the security and privacy of data of our fellow countrymen," a Paytm spokesperson said.

US-based messaging platform WhatsApp has already said it has developed a system to store payments-related data in India.

An Amazon spokesperson said "compliance with local laws and regulation is a top priority for us in all the countries we operate in. We continue to work closely with the regulators towards this".

Google is learnt to have agreed to follow the RBI's local data storage norm for payment services but has asked for time until December to ensure compliance, a government source had indicated recently.

Critics of <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/us-wants-to-prohibit-data-localisation-top-trade-official-says-amid-looming-rbi-directive-171256">data localisation</a> argue that the move would have negative effects on the ability of companies to do business in India.

Finance Minister Arun Jaitley recently held a meeting with RBI Deputy Governor BP Kanungo and others to discuss the data localisation norm for global financial technology companies.

IT industry body Nasscom said access to information can be ensured irrespective of location of the data.

"Access can be provided even if the data is stored outside India. It is not clear how this (data localisation mandate) ties in with the overall objective of ensuring enforcement," Nasscom Senior Director and Head Public Policy Ashish Aggarwal said.

Moreover, the instances of problems being faced in accessing data need to be seen in the larger perspective of total number of transactions.

Nasscom has favoured free flow of data, Aggarwal said adding that imposition of conditions that are "onerous and unnecessary" may trigger a retaliatory measures from other countries.

In its April monetary policy review, the RBI had said that in order to ensure better monitoring of payment service operators it was important to have "unfettered supervisory access to data stored with these system providers as also with their service providers/ intermediaries/third party vendors and other entities in the payment ecosystem".

"All system providers shall ensure that the entire data relating to payment systems operated by them are stored in a system only in India," it had said.

The RBI had further said that data should include the full end-to-end transaction details, information collected, carried, processed as part of the message, payment instruction.

As many as 80 per cent players in the payment industry, including Amazon, Paytm and WhatsApp, have complied with the norms for local storage of data, with RBI's deadline coming to close on Monday, sources said.

As many as 80 per cent players in the payment industry, including Amazon, Paytm and WhatsApp, have complied with the norms for local storage of data, with RBI's deadline coming to close on Monday, sources said. However, they said some debit/credit companies are yet to comply with data storage norms and have reportedly sought more time. The Reserve Bank is not contemplating review of its notification on data localisation norms, the sources said. In April, the central bank had given six months to global payment companies to store transaction data of Indian customers within India. Although 80 per cent of the players operating in India have complied with the Reserve Bank directive, some global financial technology companies have reportedly sought an extension to the October 15 timeline. "The RBI will look at things on a case-to-case basis from tomorrow while handling the subject," one of the sources said, without mentioning if the central bank would take action or impose penalties for non-compliance. Digital payments platform PhonePe said it has informed the Reserve Bank of India of its full compliance with the data localisation mandate to ensure payments data of Indian users is stored within the country. The central bank's data localisation policy had elicited mixed response from the payment services industry. While some of the prominent domestic payment companies like Paytm and PhonePe have been supportive of the dictum, global players like Google (that offers Google Pay) had argued for free movement of data. Some international players have appealed for more time for compliance and also asked that they be allowed to mirror the data. Paytm, which had vociferously supported data localisation, said critical data must not be allowed to go out of the country, not even for processing. "We have complied to this mandate since day one and have welcomed this initiative right from the beginning. It is important that we do not become mere internet colonies for global companies, and make every organisation accountable towards the security and privacy of data of our fellow countrymen," a Paytm spokesperson said. US-based messaging platform WhatsApp has already said it has developed a system to store payments-related data in India. An Amazon spokesperson said "compliance with local laws and regulation is a top priority for us in all the countries we operate in. We continue to work closely with the regulators towards this". Google is learnt to have agreed to follow the RBI's local data storage norm for payment services but has asked for time until December to ensure compliance, a government source had indicated recently. Critics of data localisation argue that the move would have negative effects on the ability of companies to do business in India. Finance Minister Arun Jaitley recently held a meeting with RBI Deputy Governor BP Kanungo and others to discuss the data localisation norm for global financial technology companies. IT industry body Nasscom said access to information can be ensured irrespective of location of the data. "Access can be provided even if the data is stored outside India. It is not clear how this (data localisation mandate) ties in with the overall objective of ensuring enforcement," Nasscom Senior Director and Head Public Policy Ashish Aggarwal said. Moreover, the instances of problems being faced in accessing data need to be seen in the larger perspective of total number of transactions. Nasscom has favoured free flow of data, Aggarwal said adding that imposition of conditions that are "onerous and unnecessary" may trigger a retaliatory measures from other countries. In its April monetary policy review, the RBI had said that in order to ensure better monitoring of payment service operators it was important to have "unfettered supervisory access to data stored with these system providers as also with their service providers/ intermediaries/third party vendors and other entities in the payment ecosystem". "All system providers shall ensure that the entire data relating to payment systems operated by them are stored in a system only in India," it had said. The RBI had further said that data should include the full end-to-end transaction details, information collected, carried, processed as part of the message, payment instruction.

Google, WhatsApp must comply with India's data localisation policy, says RBI as deadline ends

Two US senators have called on Prime Minister Narendra Modi to soften India's stance on data localisation, warning that measures requiring it represent "key trade barriers" between the two nations.

In a letter to Modi dated Friday, US Senators John Cornyn and Mark Warner - co-chairs of the Senate's India caucus that comprises over 30 senators - urged India to instead adopt a "light touch" regulatory framework that would allow data to flow freely across borders.

The letter comes as relations between Washington and New Delhi are strained over multiple issues, including an Indo-Russian defence contract, India's new tariffs on electronics and other items, and its moves to buy oil from Iran despite upcoming US sanctions.

Global payments companies including Mastercard, Visa and American Express have been lobbying India's finance ministry and the Reserve Bank of India to relax proposed rules that require all payment data on domestic transactions in India be stored inside the country by October 15.

The letter is most likely a last-ditch effort after the RBI told officials at top payment firms this week that the central bank would implement, in full, its data localisation directive without extending the deadline, or allowing data to be stored both offshore as well as locally - a practice known as data mirroring.

"We see this (data localisation) as a fundamental issue to the further development of digital trade and one that is crucial to our economic partnership," the U.S. senators said in the letter that has not been previously reported.

Modi's office did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment.

Localisation push

Other than the RBI proposal, India is working on an overarching data protection law that calls for storing all critical personal data in India. E-commerce and cloud computing policies are also being developed.

The letter also raised concerns on the draft data protection bill and e-commerce policy framework that called for stringent localisation measures.

These measures have unnerved some tech companies who fear it will increase their infrastructure costs, hit their global fraud detection analytic platforms and affect planned investments in India at a time when more and more Indians are going online and using digital payments.

US lobby groups, that represent companies such as Facebook Inc, Amazon.com and Alphabet Inc-owned Google, have also voiced concerns about the proposals.

Shamika Ravi, a member of Modi's economic advisory council, had earlier told Reuters that the moves were in the "long-term strategic and economic interest" of the country.

The senators added that any concerns related to "protection and security" as well as access to data for lawful purposes were possible without restrictions on physical location, according to the letter.

Government sources have previously told Reuters though, that stringent data localisation measures were essential for gaining easier access to data during investigations.

The measures in India come at a time when countries around the world are announcing stringent rules to regulate how firms store data and protect privacy, in the aftermath of Facebook's Cambridge Analytica scandal.

Two US senators have called on Prime Minister Narendra Modi to soften India's stance on data localisation, warning that measures requiring it represent "key trade barriers" between the two nations.

Two US senators have called on Prime Minister Narendra Modi to soften India's stance on data localisation, warning that measures requiring it represent "key trade barriers" between the two nations. In a letter to Modi dated Friday, US Senators John Cornyn and Mark Warner - co-chairs of the Senate's India caucus that comprises over 30 senators - urged India to instead adopt a "light touch" regulatory framework that would allow data to flow freely across borders. The letter comes as relations between Washington and New Delhi are strained over multiple issues, including an Indo-Russian defence contract, India's new tariffs on electronics and other items, and its moves to buy oil from Iran despite upcoming US sanctions. Global payments companies including Mastercard, Visa and American Express have been lobbying India's finance ministry and the Reserve Bank of India to relax proposed rules that require all payment data on domestic transactions in India be stored inside the country by October 15. The letter is most likely a last-ditch effort after the RBI told officials at top payment firms this week that the central bank would implement, in full, its data localisation directive without extending the deadline, or allowing data to be stored both offshore as well as locally - a practice known as data mirroring. "We see this (data localisation) as a fundamental issue to the further development of digital trade and one that is crucial to our economic partnership," the U.S. senators said in the letter that has not been previously reported. Modi's office did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment. Localisation push Other than the RBI proposal, India is working on an overarching data protection law that calls for storing all critical personal data in India. E-commerce and cloud computing policies are also being developed. The letter also raised concerns on the draft data protection bill and e-commerce policy framework that called for stringent localisation measures. These measures have unnerved some tech companies who fear it will increase their infrastructure costs, hit their global fraud detection analytic platforms and affect planned investments in India at a time when more and more Indians are going online and using digital payments. US lobby groups, that represent companies such as Facebook Inc, Amazon.com and Alphabet Inc-owned Google, have also voiced concerns about the proposals. Shamika Ravi, a member of Modi's economic advisory council, had earlier told Reuters that the moves were in the "long-term strategic and economic interest" of the country. The senators added that any concerns related to "protection and security" as well as access to data for lawful purposes were possible without restrictions on physical location, according to the letter. Government sources have previously told Reuters though, that stringent data localisation measures were essential for gaining easier access to data during investigations. The measures in India come at a time when countries around the world are announcing stringent rules to regulate how firms store data and protect privacy, in the aftermath of Facebook's Cambridge Analytica scandal.

US senators writes to Modi to soften data localisation stance

The US wants to prohibit data localisation to ensure that there is a free flow of information across borders, a senior Trump administration official has said, amidst reports that major American IT companies are up in arms against the latest Indian directive which kicks off next week.

Data localisation is an act of storing data on any device that is physically present within the borders of a particular country where the data was generated. 
The Reserve Bank of India (RBI), in a circular in April, said all system providers will have to ensure that the entire data relating to payment systems operated by them are stored in a system only in India. It gave time till October 15 to comply with the mandate.

"We want to have prohibitions on data localisation to ensure that there's free flow of information, free flow of data across borders, disciplines around countries requiring companies to give up their source code, permanent ban on taxation or duties on digital transmissions," Dennis Shea, Deputy US Trade Representative and US Ambassador to the WTO, told a Washington audience on Friday.

"And by the way, South Africa and India want to rethink the current moratorium on those duties," Shea said in response to a question at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a top American think-tank.

American financial companies are believed to have approached the administration against an RBI directive which, beginning October 15, requires them to store in India any payment-related data from transactions that take place inside the country.

India has rejected their request of mirroring.

"If implemented, this policy will put an unnecessary burden on American companies and hurt consumers, who will endure higher costs and increased cybersecurity risks," Republican Strategist Andy Surabian, who is also a political adviser to Donald Trump Jr, wrote in BreitBart News this week.

"And they are planning to do all of this in spite of the unprecedented level of economic support the US has provided India over the course of decades. The Trump administration should stand up to these reckless actions, just like they have done in other situations when Americans were getting bullied and pushed around," Surabian demanded.

During his CSIS appearance, Shea did not specifically pointed out India on the data localisation issue, but made his views pretty clear where the Trump administration stands on this issue.

Shea said the US is very engaged at the multilateral issue and has a very high-ambition approach to that.

The general view is that the negotiation part of this process may begin early next year, or perhaps a ministerial statement around Davos.

Other members of the WTO, he said, have lower ambitions so "how this works out still remains to be seen," he added.

Mobile messaging platform WhatsApp has said it has built a system that stores payments-related data in India, in line with RBI's data localisation policy.&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

The US wants to prohibit data localisation to ensure that there is a free flow of information across borders, a senior Trump administration official has said, amidst reports that major American IT companies are up in arms against the latest Indian directive which kicks off next week.

The US wants to prohibit data localisation to ensure that there is a free flow of information across borders, a senior Trump administration official has said, amidst reports that major American IT companies are up in arms against the latest Indian directive which kicks off next week. Data localisation is an act of storing data on any device that is physically present within the borders of a particular country where the data was generated. The Reserve Bank of India (RBI), in a circular in April, said all system providers will have to ensure that the entire data relating to payment systems operated by them are stored in a system only in India. It gave time till October 15 to comply with the mandate. "We want to have prohibitions on data localisation to ensure that there's free flow of information, free flow of data across borders, disciplines around countries requiring companies to give up their source code, permanent ban on taxation or duties on digital transmissions," Dennis Shea, Deputy US Trade Representative and US Ambassador to the WTO, told a Washington audience on Friday. "And by the way, South Africa and India want to rethink the current moratorium on those duties," Shea said in response to a question at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a top American think-tank. American financial companies are believed to have approached the administration against an RBI directive which, beginning October 15, requires them to store in India any payment-related data from transactions that take place inside the country. India has rejected their request of mirroring. "If implemented, this policy will put an unnecessary burden on American companies and hurt consumers, who will endure higher costs and increased cybersecurity risks," Republican Strategist Andy Surabian, who is also a political adviser to Donald Trump Jr, wrote in BreitBart News this week. "And they are planning to do all of this in spite of the unprecedented level of economic support the US has provided India over the course of decades. The Trump administration should stand up to these reckless actions, just like they have done in other situations when Americans were getting bullied and pushed around," Surabian demanded. During his CSIS appearance, Shea did not specifically pointed out India on the data localisation issue, but made his views pretty clear where the Trump administration stands on this issue. Shea said the US is very engaged at the multilateral issue and has a very high-ambition approach to that. The general view is that the negotiation part of this process may begin early next year, or perhaps a ministerial statement around Davos. Other members of the WTO, he said, have lower ambitions so "how this works out still remains to be seen," he added. Mobile messaging platform WhatsApp has said it has built a system that stores payments-related data in India, in line with RBI's data localisation policy.

US wants to prohibit data localisation, top trade official says amid looming RBI directive

data-localisation

Data Localisation, News on Data Localisation, stories on Data Localisation, articles on Data Localisation, Data Localisation stories at Wion, Data Localisation news, Data Localisation latest news