Share on Facebook

In this blog post I am borrowing more than just the title from Niel Postman’s seminal work on media studies. I am also borrowing the metaphors which were utilized by him, originally spawned by my personal heroes, George Orwell and Aldous Huxley. I quote the thesis of Postman’s work which has been succinctly stated at the wikipedia page (for I cannot improve on it) :

“Postman distinguishes the Orwellian vision of the future, in which totalitarian governments seize individual rights, from that offered by Aldous Huxley i Brave New World,where people medicate themselves into bliss, thereby voluntarily sacrificing their rights. Drawing an analogy with the latter scenario, Postman sees television’s entertainment value as a present-day “soma”, by means of which the consumers’ rights are exchanged for entertainment.”

I am also embedding a youtube clip for those who are do not have time to read the book (however I recommend it for a read to anyone who has an opinion on public discourse and mass media)

When I look at my friend feed on Facebook or Twitter it’s not a simple Orwell versus Huxley debate. To frame it as such would lead it the obvious conclusion that Huxley was right as we are saturated with entertainment, through game applications such as Farmville or Friend Tests/Quizzes which promote textbook narcissism. Moreover, the content of data, is by itself not rich or advancing social interests through being creative (I hope I am pardoned for content metering as it seems to be opposed to our democratic values of multiculturalism where there is only content, no objective “good” or “bad” content. Of course this doctrine has its limitations in penal law. For a recent post on this problem please see Fleeing from Judgment).

This deluge of “mindless” information which hinders our task of intelligent choice (or creates it in the first place), is also a problem of decreased privacy as highlighted in 1984. Here the centralized big brother which is the totalitarian government has to a certain extent been replaced by information island rulers (Mark Zuckerberg, Biz Stone). These island rulers collect, aggregate and publish information on us back to the other followers. Hence, we are ourselves generating the data, which is being utilized in an Orwellian method for a Brave New World. Any thoughts? Share them along with a post on how many crops you cultivated online today.

Personal Disclosure: I am also an active user of Facebook and Twitter. Whereas I use these tools as contact management and to share relevant information I do not use for Quizzes, Farmeville and the like. I agree that some level of privacy will always be invaded for the exchange information and the consequent benefit, however, sharing of inconsequential details, “mindless” and “useless” information will unquestionably “dumb” us. I agree I cannot precisely define and differentiate between “good”, “bad” or “mindless” content and the “relevant information” that I publish. However, I do believe, that there are links between lowering the levee of privacy and the flood of information medicating us everyday. This post to a large extent is theoretical, I do not know how metered should privacy be, or how it should be safeguarded.  What interests me is also how a legal response to the “inflicted pleasure” will be possible and consistent with our libertarian values by creating laws to safeguard privacy (once the theoretical boundaries are drawn, if they can be).

Share on Facebook

Share on Facebook

Share on Facebook

It would seem natural and obvious to a user of social media that technology is changing the norm of privacy. Here the change is not limited to technology itself but the sociological response to it, as I sense we become more agreeable to share personally identifiable information. This change may be natural and obvious, however it raises several issues for law and policy with nuanced interests requiring balancing. In the background of this debate, I recently attended a conference titled, “Privacy Law, Technology Policy and the Internet” on 25^th-26^th February, 2010 at Hyderabad, India. The conference was organized under the aegis of the Set-Dev Project generously funded by the European Union.

An interesting and diverse range of papers were presented reflecting the plurality of the participants backgrounds, which included, computer scientists, sociologists, litigation lawyers, law professors and students. To set the conference in context, Prof. Joseph Cannataci, presented his paper stating the need for an interdisplinary approach to examine the changes and challenges which are being posed by technology in India today.  Mr. Salman Warris who heads the practice at FoxMandal Little presented a paper on the safe harbor provisions provided to intermediaries by virtue of the IT (Amendment) Act, 2009. Another paper which I found interesting was the one presented by Yasho Vardhan Redy and Prof. Navjyoti Singh, on the recent government decision of issuing a Unique Identification Number to every citizen. The paper highlighted how the coding of the software itself could ensure a reasonable level of privacy is maintained while issuing such a number and the personally identifiable information linked to it.

My paper was concerned with the growth of online intermediaries and the absence of a privacy framework to govern them. I basically contended that the law of privacy in India has been developed through constitutional adjudication and hence is limited and suited to be applied against state instrumentalities rather than private intermediaries. In the absence of any such regulation, internet users in India are wholly dependent on the contracts which are drafted by the online service providers, unlimited by any legal limitation to safeguard the privacy of the user. The thin protection, if any, accorded to the privacy of users is highlighted by the recent statement of the CEO of Facebook who states, that, privacy is a “fading norm”. Interested readers can find an abstract of my paper on the following link.

Share on Facebook

Share on Facebook

The Bt-brinjal consultation process has been unprecedented in several respects. Often we find politician’s referring to the metaphorical device of a “public debate” without following up on it. However,  Minister of State for Environment and Forests, Mr. Jairam Ramesh followed through on his promises. What we saw were 7 public consultations, in which 8000 people participated. Views of expert scientists, farmers, chief ministers, non-governmental organisations were also solicited and considered.

Through these consultations, the Minister of State for Environment and Forests on  released a decision on laying a moratorium on the commercial implementation of Bt-brinjal. I have yet to come across such a well written government decision. The recording of reasons reflects the sharp divergence of opinion which the public consultation evoked. The decision itself notes that,

“Strong views have been expressed on the Bt-binjal issue, both for and against. My objective is to arrive at a careful, considered decision in the public and national interest”

The opinion clearly identifies the relevant issues, as, (1) preserve the genetic diversity (2) effects on human consumption. It then proceeds to record the insufficient data and studies conducted independently to demonstrate the safety of Bt-brinjal in this respect. The Minister, using the precautionary principle imposes a moratorium on the commercial use of Bt-brinjal (citing the Supreme Court decision in A.P. Pollution Board v. M.V. Nayudu 1999 (2) SCC 718). The operative part of the decision is quoted below :

“based on all the information presented in the preceding paragraphs and when there is no clear consensus within the scientific community itself… it is my duty to adopt a cautious precautionary principle based approach and impose a moratorium on the release of Bt-brinjal till such time independent scientific studies establish to the both the public and professionals the safety of the product…”

Above this, what I find laudable in the decision is the attempt to limit the decision and the process to Bt-brinjal only, away from the larger issue of genetically modified crops. There is an acute awareness which is shown that any wide or overly broad indictment of GM Crops will have a harmful affect on private investment in agriculture as well the development of new crops to lower the dependence on cancer causing pesticides. Towards this the use of scientific uncertainty as a concept to the limited case of Bt-brinjal seems correct and pragmatic.  What remains now is a moratorium and there is need to avoid the issue being decided by political considerations rather than scientific ones. Here the steps being taken to set up a National Biotechnology Regulatory Authority and its workings will be of immense importance.

Share on Facebook

Share on Facebook

TRAI will be holding Open House Discussion on the Amendments required in the Telecom Consumers’ Protection and Redressal of Grievances Regulations, 2007 and Foreign Investment in Broadcasting Sector on 24^th and 25^th February at Delhi. Interested Stakeholders/industry representatives are invited to participate. For more details please click here and here.

Share on Facebook

Share on Facebook