Data security is a weak link in the India & United States trade dispute.
 |
| Photo (https://unsplash.com/photos/KgLtFCgfC28) |
The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) reserves the unlimited right to all financial services companies in India, such as digital payments, to store and handle their customers' financial transactions in India. More importantly, it will be binding on all, a notification issued by the RBI in April 2018 said. There was a major discomfort over that. Now, months after the notification was issued, the RBI has clarified its position on the matter.
In fact, the notification was targeted at US-based companies such as MasterCard, Visa, American Express, Pay-Pal, Facebook and Google. Because, they were not appreciating the RBI. Of course, even if the RBI issues a notification, what exactly will be the guidelines for its implementation? What kind of information is to be stored in India? Importantly, if these payment companies want to take the infrastructure of their operations elsewhere, what to do? There was uncertainty in front of many companies in this regard. Now that the RBI has given its own explanation, these companies may have been relieved. Of course, one important point to note here is that although the RBI has clarified its role, it has not formally clarified the guidelines.
Meanwhile, media reports have suggested that WhatsApp is ready to accept the rules, as expected by Facebook-owned company RBI. Because, they want to grow their own payment business in India. In fact, this is exactly the opposite of what Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said to investors in April. Because at the time, Zuckerberg said, "In a country where information laws and regulations are very controversial. We will not store any information in a place where the information of the citizens is likely to be misused or misused, and the government will try to forcefully make the information of the citizens available to itself. You can be sure of that. ”
It should be noted here that there is no provision in India to protect user information. This is because there is still debate in India over whether to pass the Privacy Act. In fact, it is clear that this is a major flaw or a weak link between the trade disputes between India and the United States.
Intellectual Property Rights in the United States vs. Right to Information in India :
As the use of the Internet has increased in India, the central government has begun to assert its right to information. More importantly, despite the lack of clear guidelines on the Privacy Act, regulators have put in place a number of policies to control information. The Center for the Internet and Society recently published an article on 10 measures for somewhat, but not necessarily, localization of information in health, telecommunications, Internet trade - business, insurance, and other important areas. This includes storing copies of specific types of information, the need to create content at the local level, as well as legislation for the exchange of information between the two countries, stipulating conditions for storing that information locally.
With such a large crop of policy advice, the Indian judiciary has in a sense been sidelined. Most of the measures that are proposed in such policies are contradictory. For example, if the information is stored locally, the main purpose or reason behind it is related to the security of that information. However, if a company stores information locally, there is no local framework to handle it securely.
In India, when it comes to policy thinking, it is always said that 'information is a new kind of fuel'. The idea behind this is that the information created by the Indians is a kind of natural resource. The government should protect the storage of that information by localizing it. Basically, it is wrong to think so. In fact, no information is like the fuels that are found and limited in different forms. Therefore, new concepts need to be considered when it comes to controlling information. And this is exactly what India's policy makers are playing.
The pain of mentioning US-based companies is different. There is a certain local tone behind it. That is, the representatives of these companies withdrew from the discussion because they could not fulfill any of the objectives of "national interest". The RBI and the US-India Strategic Partnership Forum (USISPF - which was represented by representatives representing the interests of US companies) had closed-door discussions, and even fizzled out. The delegates later accused the RBI of being biased. During the discussion, the RBI had emphasized on the information provided by an Indian think tank, iSPIRT (Indian Software Product Industry Roundtable).
The reactions to these discussions also reverberated at the International Summit. At the recent G20 summit, India boycotted the Osaka track on the digital economy. Because India felt that decisions based on bilateral coordination on trade in the Osaka track would not be given much importance and hence digital industrialization would not be allowed. The Osaka track was intended to enact legislation that would facilitate the exchange of information between the two countries and reject the issue of localization of information.
Indian Foreign Secretary Vijay Gokhale has said that information is a new kind of asset and regulation of information should be focused on the local level. In fact, in the current era of trade and commerce on the Internet, it can be said that such a dilemma is being faced by the developed and developing nations everywhere. The controversy has escalated beyond security. This is because the United States has begun implementing their CLOUD (Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act) for security systems to retrieve information stored on servers by them or any other country. Now going to the center of this issue, take note of the differences in the ongoing debate on the issue of localization of information storage from a US perspective.
Conflicts over the Localisation of information storage have created trade tensions:
The 2019 National Trade Estimate (NTE - The 2019 National Trade Estimate) released by the US Trade Representative (USTR) emphasizes the need for the United States to maintain its leadership in a world with an open liberal market economy and to address barriers to digital trade.
It says, "Whenever a government or country obstructs the exchange of information between the two countries or discriminates against foreign digital services, the local industrial enterprises suffer huge losses as they are only able to take advantage of the digital services between the two countries." It is not possible. "
It is safe to say that US President Donald Trump's "America First" policy around the world presents traditional principles of US foreign policy. But at the same time, this policy has certainly created some opportunities to create new equations in some cases. For example, Trump's emphasis on relations with Israel and the United States' Sunni allies in Central Asia has led to a shift in Iran toward neo-conservative cash.
At a time when the Trump administration has begun rebuilding America's trade relations with other countries by going against global liberal policies and imposing sanctions as punishment, the United States' concern about local industrial enterprises gaining ground in other countries may seem cruel.
On the one hand, while Trump is rebuilding US trade relations on the basis of "fairness and mutual consent," US trade unions have long argued that the NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement), a free trade agreement with Canada and Mexico, lacks digital trade regulation. Read broke. In the same vein, the growing differences between the US and India over the localization of information storage have stalled trade talks between the US and India.
That is why N.T.E. The fact that India's decision on financial services providers such as payments is not given much importance has become a major impediment to digital trade, as well as trade between the US and India.
Carter Mantra - Trying to resolve disputes by noting that some issues are different:
The United States has pursued a policy of discussing trade while touching on the issue of Trump's extremism to reduce trade with other countries. At the same time, the US Trade Policy Representative (USTR) has adopted a policy of discussing long-term issues in the bilateral trade between the US and India, such as the entry of US dairy products into the Indian market and the limitation of medical equipment.
Earlier, these issues were not given much importance in the context of long-term and promising strategic political relations between India and the United States. This is also called the Carter mantra. US - Former US Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter is known as the mantra or policy that really shaped India's defense technology and trade. Therefore, the United States, without giving much importance to other tariff differences, focused on how to enhance political and strategic relations between the two countries by achieving minimal and positive development.
However, in recent times, tensions in bilateral trade have escalated and this policy has lagged behind. For example, the Trump administration has stripped India of its status as a beneficiary developing country, and in response, India has imposed excise duties on 28 US products.
Personal relations between the leaders of India and the United States have been good for a long time. Importantly, the basis of this personal relationship is the institutional as well as the forum for discussion, the political authorities at various levels, the legal, the military as well as the public-private relations between the United States and India.
Going beyond that, incumbent US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo visited India last month. Prior to that, the United States had introduced H1N1 for citizens of countries that would localize information. B. It was decided to increase the limit for issuing visas to 15 per cent. As a result, India's माहिती 150 billion IT sector was in turmoil. Because the United States produces about 8,500 h. Visas are delivered. About 70 per cent of these visas are issued to Indian citizens. Given the broader relationship between the United States and India, such reports seem to have dealt another blow to Pahma's Carter mantra by diverting the issues of the time, in order to normalize bilateral relations between the two countries.
Of course, the two countries have emphasized on enhancing their political and strategic ties, as they see the continuation of mutually agreed agreements in the defense trade sector. And by reducing tensions between them, efforts have been made to chant the Carter mantra.
Importantly, each subject is different, and it is clear that there has been an open effort to restore this policy. For example, during his visit to India, Mike Pompeo visited H.B.B. He tried to allay the fears of Indians about the distribution of visas. At the same time, Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal had deliberately tried to make it clear that India was also looking at each issue differently, saying that internet trade would be excluded from the policy of consistent protection of information and the issue would be handled by the IT department itself.
Last but not least, personal relations between the leaders of India and the United States have always been good. Importantly, the basis of this personal relationship is the institutional as well as the forum for discussion, the political authorities at various levels, the legal, the military as well as the public-private relations between the United States and India. This is exemplified by the existence of 2 + 2 level discussions between the heads of state and foreign affairs in the US and India, as well as the existence of a working group in a strategic partnership with the Indian Ministry of Petroleum and the US Department of Energy.
From now on, the use of this platform could lead to a series of troubling developments in the two countries at the strategic level. Because, India has given S. from Russia. The purchase of the 400 technology / system has led to the possibility of imposing sanctions on India under the CAATSA Act, which was introduced by the US to impose sanctions on those who go against its own policies. At the same time, in the wake of rising tensions between the US and Iran, India has reduced its oil purchases from Iran and is moving towards an air-based economy.
Given the growing tensions between the United States and India over the localization of information storage, and the need to differentiate between the two issues at the same time, the two countries need to discuss and find a way to resolve the issue. In this regard, India-US trade dialogue as well as the US-India CEO Forum can play an important role in initiating dialogue in the interest of both the public and private sectors.
Post a Comment