 Today actually we will be discussing not so much the NPD framework in fact not at all the NPD framework except for a few concepts from that framework but we'll be trying to understand something else that is happening in the context of in the context of the way in which technology is being rolled out and the kind of imagination that is being used that's being deployed in bringing technology to this country and that's become important not just for this country but for many other countries because we are not merely doing it here the those who are creating this are also exporting it to many other countries it's being done directly to African countries to Latin American countries it's also been being done through the World Bank it's being done through multilateral institutions of that kind so we need to understand what it is and the big pride of what's happening in India today is that it's the first time that many things have for instance it's the first time that there is such a large IT database that has been created nowhere in the world do you have an IT database of this kind nowhere in the world do you have a program of financial inclusion like you have financial inclusion even as we start and since Ben is here I should just say that my understanding of financial inclusion is being informed about various aspects of finance including credit including savings including what you can do with it and what can be done with what you have but of course in this country as I see it it's been reduced to having a bank account and having some money is put into it and learning how to take them out of it if you're able so but this idea you know that financial inclusion because we have such a large number of bank accounts that it's the largest that it's ever happened in the world that this is the first country where we went to the extent of being cashless paperless and presenseless anywhere in the world so there are many firsts that you know the largest biometric database so all these you know the grand ideas that the grand notion that we are we have the largest and the first of all of these things is one way in which we've been introduced to what is happening in our midst so it's the so today at the focus of what I'm going to do today and this is something that's been holding my attention for some time now is this idea of eminent domain and eminent domain sounds like a technical term and it's something that is lawyers we use all the time so I should just say that it's actually a pretty simple notion it's a doctrine that was created so that the state the state could take private land to use it for a public purpose on payment of compensation so the idea was that there will be various circumstances where I mean land is not owned by the state the state can only take some land and you put it to another use but it doesn't own any land at all that's how it began so but the state will have the authority to be able to take private land and put it to use for a public purpose on payment of compensation there are various you know 17th and 16th and 17th century philosophers who've written about this political philosophers who've written about this including Hugo Grosius and Rousseau so we've all sat and looked at that to see at that time what did it mean and what has what has it become since I find that a lot of us who work on technology are not fully aware of the kinds of the kinds of doctrines ideas notions which have developed in law and in political philosophy which is actually determining or which will either it's determining the way things are happening around us today in relation to technology and in relation to data in relation to our uses of technology and the uses that are being imposed on us we are also not fully cognizant of how people have responded to these various notions and doctrines so the idea that the state can take private land and convert it to a purpose that the state thinks is a public purpose how have people responded to that how have institutions responded to that and the the question that could well be asked is why is this relevant in the context of technology because the uses to which technology is being put the various kinds of relationships that are being developed and which are evolving between date between technology and technology controllers between technology controllers and the state between the state and the resource that's being created all these have already been experimented in political philosophy before they are not new so to think that we are seeing it for the first time in in humanity's existence that is not correct so just a little bit to say that this is not really to do with whether it's technology or land or minerals or water it is to do with authority power and control and that is common never mind what we are looking at so power authority and control are the three concepts which will help us understand what's happening in the context of technology just like we understood it in the context over a period of time it took us some time to understand it in relation to land and there have been many ideational conflicts and resolution of conflict that has happened in the context of land over especially over the past 30 40 50 years why is that period important because it was an approach it was a period of decolonization post colonization where we were no longer being governed by a foreign power but we were governing ourselves and so it the kind of engagement we had with the state and what we could expect from the state also changed we have a constitution now and a lot of the conflicts of ideas are located in the constitution so those who know technology need to know the constitution and those who study the constitution need to understand how technology controllers understand technology and what kind of imagination they have it is my broad premise that we need a completely altered imagination I don't think we can proceed with this imagination and a simple reason for that is that the excitement with which we started adopting and using technologies at the beginning of this century has changed dramatically where today we are facing a lot of anxiety when we think of these technologies and we are having to suppress those anxieties every time we use them we are also facing a situation where we feel that we are helpless in the face of this technology and helplessness is not a great way for any people to exist we are help you know being helpless or choiceless is not a way for any people to exist so there is it is to deal with this if the technologies and the way they've rolled out is producing anxieties and if it's producing choicelessness then there is something that is wrong with the way that imagination has gone and we need to alter that imagination this is the imagination of a set of people who have worked on this and produce this imagination there is nothing to say that there can't be other sets of people with other imaginations who will then either challenge these or contribute to these or try and dislodge this imagination while putting in its place maybe another or at least being able to demonstrate that this imagination anyway cannot continue so that's the I almost said simply stated and then said no I shouldn't say that so this is the complex you know kind of question that's floating in my mind and which I'm taking this opportunity to unburden on to you so now what was this about eminent domain eminent domain really started about land it also extended to the idea of the forest but it was also on the you know even the forest was seen as the forest which is on a particular land so it was about saying you know the colonial state was saying that we need to be able to keep you know we have various projects of development and expansion for which we need various resources and we can't if it belongs to some people for instance railways you know railways is like what today you call a linear project and if the railways had to be rolled out and if the if that project of development and expansion had to move on the state needed the power to be able to take land and anything that was on land in the way whatever came in the way so you find that and this is true of forest too so even the railways themselves for instance needed for the sleepers it needed forests and it needed the trees it should be quite clear that it is not the forest that it needed the trees so to capture that tree it cordoned off lands fenced off forests fenced off lands and said any tree here nobody else is allowed to get in there everybody get out whoever's there you are all encroaches when you're there and this now will best in the state and the state will manage and decide how to use this you know how to use these forests so we've come from there that's the heritage from where we have come and in 1894 there was a law that was passed called the land acquisition act which consolidated all these practices and for those who some of you are too young to have and maybe not in the same field too so you may not have noticed but actually you see them even today every other day in the paper you'll have something or the other that's happening there is a whole study and collection of information that's happening by a group called land conflict watch the conflicts are huge they are all over the country if you look at the map with where it's dotted you'll find that the dots are all over the country and often overlapping one with the other so this the what the land acquisition act did was it gave legal status to the power of the state to be able to take private land for a public purpose and to make it to bring it under the control of the state without any encumbrance this is an important concept to understand because we see that in the context of data that is it will be the land will be there will be a process there will be a notification that will be issued saying we want this land anybody can object then they will decide on the objection so the person who wants the land will be the person decide person the sense the entity which will be deciding on whether they should or should not have that land and then once it is decided there will be a compensation that's paid into the you know to pay to the person who's interested and that interest will seize from that day and after that it is all under the control of the state so this without any encumbrances is a very important notion that exists and we are seeing that being brought into the idea of data and personal information which when it reaches a certain point so when you reach the non-personal data framework you'll find that it is there it says that once it reaches you know once it reaches a certain point after that it's no longer anybody's it is free for everyone to use so in in the non-personal data framework this they call it non-rivalrous so it doesn't need it you know it means that not just one person needs to use it there is no rivalry everybody can use it so it's an extraordinary kind of thing to say that data at some point disengages itself from person and the person has no control over it it will be among those who are going to use it for creating businesses this is not like I said a new notion so this idea of cutting off the person from what belongs with them regardless of what is done with it after that is a notion that has existed for at least 140-150 years and we are seeing that come back in the context of data I just want to clarify one thing here that we know that there are all these questions that are going on which I think are extremely important and urgent questions about what Google Microsoft Amazon varies on whoever whoever you can think of who's got all these massive amounts of data about their ability to collect this data to retain this data to process this data to use this data and to abuse this data we've seen Facebook all of them we've seen this you know this whole thing happen over this period of time and the questions that are being asked about antitrust about monopolies about abuse you know about having done things that they ought not to have done these are all questions that are here that are here today and they have to stay till they are resolved but it is important to remember that these companies they became what they did because they were allowed to do what they wanted and there were no rules stopping them from doing it then so we are fighting with both our hands tied at the back and with very little on our side except the knowledge that these that if these companies take over our lives there is no life left I mean it's really like handing it over to them and that's it after that you know you can be controlled by them like they tell us everything is convenient everything is efficient it's convenient for you not to have to go and put your signature it's convenient for you not to have to be pressed and it's convenient now for you not to have to think for yourself these companies will think for you Amazon will tell you which book to read Google will tell you which article to read you really don't have to do any thinking or working for yourself and this is presented to us as an advantage that's being given to us in our lives I have no clue how I mean why would I have it's like converting many things into vestiges in the human body and in the human mind so it's an extraordinary time and I think the battle that we are fighting with these major companies is a very important battle it's also a very important battle because we are seeing their collaboration with the state if it wasn't obvious before I think Snowden has opened it out and given to us bit by bit about what this means so this kind of collaboration in which we are not apart but off which we are apart that's you know that's something that is truly extraordinary and needs to be just not just urgently but I mean we need something dramatic happening in detail what we are discussing today is there are little parts of that that will come into this but largely it is the other aspect of this which is developing and in which India has taken a lead now on the the idea of eminent domain therefore like I said in the beginning was only about private land being taken for a public purpose on payment of compensation it had to be there for private land what about land that is not private that question never really got resolved and after independence in the early years in 1951 we asked this question you know this question was asked interestingly by the only people who have the wherewithal to ask the question which is Amindar's they raised the question saying who is the state is the state a super landlord is it some kind of an owner or a super owner that it is above the law he doesn't have to conform to anything at all everything belongs to it and what is this public purpose you're saying you want to take it away from us for what the for what was answered by saying that listen breaking down these structures feudal structures doing away with this Amindari system is the public purpose but on the question of who is the state the question has really remained unanswered for a very long time the when the uid litigation was on and we brought that question up in you know the question was brought up it was asked to say who is the state within the constitution what is the relationship of the state to a people is it a relationship of where the state will dictate and people will act which means that there are limits to the rights of people but there are no limits to the power of the state or is it the converse that there are limits to the power of the state but you have to have as expansive an understanding of the rights of people as is possible the job of the state is to expand the rights of the people the question of course in the context of technology and the way it said is which is not a question at all I think is convenience more important than rights or rights more important than convenience I think I can't think of anything more conveniently in life than rights so I don't know that that's a question at all but when you so when you look at what the when you look at what it is that happened with this with court saying till about 1950 till the 51 judgment came in between 1894 and 1951 there had been a number of decisions where basically they had said if the state says that it is a public purpose then we can't ask any question about we just we will accept that it's a public purpose so the court the state decides what is a public purpose and so the idea of challenging a public purpose became very difficult the second thing that happened was that the idea of imminent domain itself stopped having the capacity to be questioned because it became entrenched that the state can take land for a public purpose the only thing was about compensation and how much should be paid as compensation that by now we know those anyone who studied constitutional law will know that battling over how much should that compensation be is like we have lost the battle because we are handing over enormous powers over resources which are very important and significant to people to the state now what to say that the state could do with it the state could therefore structure what it wanted to do with land the state could decide what the public purpose would be the state could take over that land the state may or may not use that land for the purpose for which it said it could use it it may or may not use that land at all but it will no longer be yours it will not return to the person for whom that to whom that land belongs this is a very important concept and it's one of those you know after the narmada movement started against the dams against the sadhas or over dams it said that time that the question started being raised about imminent domain but even then people were just saying don't be unkind to the people who are there don't be unkind to the affected population don't have policies which will destroy the lives of the affected population at that time people were still not saying you don't you state don't have the power to do it you don't have the authority to do it the constitution doesn't give you that power so where are you getting this power from to take everything away from the people and to make that which is common lands like grazing land or anything that doesn't belong to a person to be treated as if it is state property it is not state property that battle is an important battle for us to go back to to understand what is being what you know what is at stake when we say that data can just become public everybody can use it you'll have multiple startups and you know and it's not your business any longer what is being done with your data so it's important for us to see that the it's also interesting that in the case of land just like it's happening in the case of technology law came much after the practices were established and that is very significant which means that we have no norms and we will then make the law on the basis of what whoever it is whether it's the company or the government or you know whoever has the wherewithal to be able to intervene in this whatever it is that they think should be in the law after having experimented with it that is when the law will be made which basically means law is not normative law is made up for the convenience of those who want to use whatever resource exists so and that has very serious consequences as you can imagine for data too for instance the UID didn't have a law it started in 2009 it started collecting everybody's data it started commanding people to use that data but there was no law and if people hadn't gone to court and got a stay order even normally there would have been nothing that they could have relied on and if the court at that stage had said well it's too early I don't really know what to say one could have understood why not because for the court to understand the technology can produce these kinds of effects it would have taken more time than it would have taken for instance for a person who is in technology sitting there and watching so it is extraordinary that the court did understand that there was a problem and in 2013 gave you know stayed the idea of mandatory industries even which was you know even which was breached all the time but some normativity had been introduced because of that so I just wanted to pause at this time to say that there is a distinction between normativity and pragmatism Pragmatism depends on the person who has the power to be pragmatic it does away with other people's rights so we just need to remember what that can mean it's a very interesting thing I mean that it's a very long story the eminent domain and this land acquisition story but just to know this that till 1894 you had the law in 1927 you had a forest act which basically made encroaches of people who are on that land and then you had the forest conservation act which came in in 1980 which said that the decision to make you know the decision to be made about diverting forest land for a non-forest purpose will now vest with the central government and not with the states which basically meant that it was not to conserve forests as much as decide who will have the power to decide on diverting a forest for a non-forest purpose and then later you had the land acquisition act itself being amended and that is the 20 year period is something everyone should study because it required people beginning to understand what was getting lost because you had that old law and how it benefited no one who was affected whereas it was attempting there were experiments being done with what that land would be used for take the nano project for instance the nano project they started it in singhore singhore had a huge problem with it people protested they moved to gujarat the project failed but for those who lost their land it remains lost in singhore because they sent them away from there they've been able to retrieve some parts of it but it had already been worked on and there are all manner of problems with that so these are really what i would call burning the boats projects where you burn what was there before so that you can't go back to it whether you go forward or not a lot of technology projects today are like that the uid project is a classic of how it is like that as in fact is the financial inclusion project where the way it is being done now where you say everybody will have a bank account and money will be put into that and that's the beginning and the end of that so what that it's like you have no other means if an energy worker doesn't have a bank account which they are able to make work which means either your biometric has to work or your business correspondent has to have a training where they'll do something different you can't be paid in cash because now today that is seen just payment and cash is seen as akin to corruption so there are ways of thinking that have to change to introduce all of this one of the very significant things in this in land acquisition is that you know it used to people work working on land acquisition used to call this you know who are opposed to land acquisition of this kind used to call it robbing the rich to robbing the poor to give to the rich so it's like an inverse robin hood you know so why are you taking the land that the poor have and then handing it to the rich so that they can make something that may add to the gdp maybe it will but it doesn't benefit all those that you're throwing out of the system so various kinds of concepts developed around us the idea of marginalization in technology it's manifesting as exclusion and there it manifested as marginalization and over a period of time we found that marginalization didn't stay with the margins it kept expanding because they became more and more irrelevant to the development project so for those who were on that project they were not interested in those who were getting marginalized and that kept growing we are seeing signs of that already in the data project already i mean it didn't require a hundred years for that to happen we are already seeing that happen the other element of that you know which came after years of battle the 2013 law the land acquisition act that law is the first time that the law acknowledges project affected people and this is not people who've been affected badly by the projects these are people who been affected badly by the project the numbers have kept growing into millions over the years and they kept getting sideline till public action public call for action and movements from the ground demanded attention and said that you have to listen to what is being said what's happening to people on the ground you can't ignore those so there are people who are land owners and people who can show a legal interest in land they would get compensated to a certain extent because it was it wasn't replacement value it was market value market value will be on the basis of circle rates so you keep having various ways in which you reduce the cost to the project of displacing people the idea of development shifted into becoming the displace displacement project around the late 80s and early 90s and it was possible to demonstrate how many people millions of people and invariably it would be people who can least afford to get left out of the system who would suffer the most in this and we saw that happening in the land acquisition context and it took a lot of you know lot of negotiation and understanding getting people you know getting people in general to understand this to say that we have not just people who are losing land we are having people who are losing a lot which is not even recognized which is not even put into the computer and that is how you have in the 2013 law the idea of project affected people just think about what it means that 70 years after a 73 years after a no 63 years after a constitution you've had to include a category who got who got totally excluded from the development project over this period the question is can we afford to have another set of that happening with data there is one word that never gets spoken which is not relevant when you think about the land acquisition issue but which is supremely relevant when it comes to what is getting lost in the context of data and that is surveillance it is extraordinary I mean we all know of the book by Shoshana Zuboff called surveillance capitalism I don't think it is only about capitalism I think in India we have seen a very very interesting phenomenon which is common to what happened with land in land too the state was asking the especially since the late you know since the 80s and 90s the state was asking private industry to create more and more GDP so saying you have to create the pie from which we can distribute to others and we need you to do this so that we are a force to content within the world I actually think in the 50s and 60s I have a certain sympathy with what happened then because we were very very newly out of being colonized and we had to establish that we could exist on our own you know when Gandhi said leave us to God our anarchy that's what happened and we had to create our own something between God and anarchy and that's that was the project and it was many experiments and it was by the third five-year plan that they started recognizing oh there are people getting marginalized people who ought to be benefiting are having to become people who sacrifice for development and that should not be so you know we have seen these we've seen these processes through the years we've learned from those processes through the years in forest rites it was 2006 before the forest rights fact came in and the law says we this is a historic injustice that has been done these are words in the law historic injustice what was that historic injustice that you made people who were on land you know on land in the midst of forests you made people who were perfectly legal and who had every right legal is what legal is a constructed you know constructed entity right it's not there's nothing people live so these are people who are living there who through law were rendered illegal and they said for you know for about whatever 90 years 80 years we've been keeping you in this state and that is a historic injustice and they did not say they will give them land they said we will recognize your rights this is something that's happened as recently as 2006 so we can't say let's have 100 years of technology doing whatever it wants and then we will think of historic injustices historic injustice does happen projects do affect people exclusion and marginalization are built into these and in addition to what happened with and invariably the people who get affected are the people who can least afford to take this on themselves increasingly we are seeing the normalizing of various things that shouldn't even exist in a society and that normalizing includes the includes surveillance I'll just move to technology itself and I just want to say of you know the the idea that the next big GDP thing is going to come through data and what are the kind of systems that have been used to make this happen the first thing we find is e-government so the the story goes and I will for the moment I will still take it as a story goes Heather Brooks is a respected journalist so I would take her word for it but you should know that that's where it comes from that after the dot-com bust after the Y2K got over which still today nobody knows whether it was a hope or it was genuinely something whatever it was lots of companies made lots of money from it and they gained a certain traction for themselves and then you hear of technology companies approaching the EU and saying listen if if you're not going to be supported then we will collapse and you won't have that assistance either so the EU decides in their Lisbon meeting that they're going to help these technology companies survive and they are going to draw from it too that's that's when you see the beginning of well actually beginning and it's like a mushrooming of key governance projects around the world so when anything happens in every jurisdiction then I think we really need to sit up and take notice because it's coming from somewhere it's not coming from within so that e-governance project from that time on you find that it is technology controllers and those who profited from certain forms of technology who hold control over these systems and one of the things that is constantly done is to say is to make the state believe maybe rightly that the state has no ability to deal with technology so all that the state has has to be handed over to these private companies which will then help run the state and the state should let them run with whatever they have and make their own business out of this has become the pattern that we have here so unlike many other jurisdictions including the problems that we have with the Google's and Facebook's of the world here there is a collaboration between the state and technology control I think one thing we must acknowledge is that people who call themselves libertarians people who say that you know let's not have supervision from the state let's not have regulation we will do self-certification and the state should just step off they don't seem to exist anymore because what they are saying is step away from me but step into other people's lives so that I can have what I want which is how this whole technology project has gone on so mission mode projects are identified all of them have to become technology projects so it doesn't matter that we have a huge divide you know digital divide it doesn't matter that we don't have electricity in most parts in many parts of the country it doesn't matter that connectivity will be low but even more importantly it doesn't matter that literacy should be you know educational literacy should be our priority and without that this in any case will mean nothing the straight way impact of that is converting a citizen into a subject this is something we've been saying for a while and data seems to assist in doing this one of the questions and the way in which data is being handled one of the questions that has been you know that that we've been asking ourselves and finding answers to is why is it that artificial intelligence is becoming such a big deal now machine learning algorithmic learning you know everything is going to be taken care of by all of this why is it that it's coming now it seems to be coming now because on the one hand you have all these companies that are collecting all this detailed information about us and like you will know our Harari said in a recent talk that you know when you if you read your book on Kindle it knows how fast you read it knows how many pages you read at a time it knows when you stop it knows how long you take and with a little bit of addition of facial recognition just a camera on the Kindle it will be able to say whether your board reading it whether you're excited you know how you feel about the whole thing and it therefore is analyzing you whereas you are just living so it really knows more about you and your moods and how long you've taken than you know for yourself you're not keeping track of all this because that's not how people live so this you know this is one whole thing I got sidetracked with that but I just since I don't want to take more time than I should I'll just move on to say that see there are some ideas that have come up in this period which we need to interrogate very closely when land acquisition was happening and the eminent domain principle was being used by the state to take see they expanded the idea of eminent domain they said okay the doctrine itself says private land for a public purpose but actually all land in this territory I can decide what I want done with it so the state assumed more and more power onto itself not even authority more and more power onto itself and that's the way in which the state like all whether it's private land public land community land all of it became something that the state could control go to your NDPF document and see if you see some reflection of this in that document you will find that it is there you know and that's the introduction of the idea of community for instance only to say that community is too whole data and therefore we want to take it away from them is a very interesting phenomenon they've brought and it's come from people who are not anthropologists and therefore have no what to do with the idea of of community in this period you find a few new notions that have come in one notion that has come in is this idea of the state as a series of startups it's fascinating the idea is that and all of these have to do with the potential of technology so whether it is swachh Bharat whether it is a health national health mission in you can keep naming them I mean you'll find that there are a number that come like this where it's like a startup it will be handed over to an individual who's seen as a professional who will then constitute the team for himself and then enforce the project and get it done now in my understanding startups may fail or may succeed if they fail they disappear if they succeed then to the extent that they succeed it benefits somebody one of the fascinating things that I find about what is happening in the context of data is that it doesn't matter if a lot of it fails if 40% fails it's okay 60% will work so for whether it's for your GDP or whether it's for control or whatever it is for even 60% is fine in some cases maybe even 30% will be fine if you've had nothing before so all these failures of technology that you find in different places become irrelevant mainly because it was not nobody expected it to succeed and when they say oh nothing succeeds 100% I would agree but when something's that is supposed to cover a whole population and create an ID for instance for a whole population succeeds to heaven knows how much because it's never audited and you find a government circular which says that you know fingerprint may not work and that's what we are going to use for one nation one ration so if your fingerprint will not work and there are a whole series yours doesn't work your family's doesn't work there are only people above 60 and less than 15 there are disabled people there are people who can't get up and walk if all of these and if you're a migrant worker maybe with the kind of work you do your fingerprint won't work you can nominate somebody else to give their fingerprint for you so these are nominated identities even that is not acknowledged as a problem it is still seen as a solution so in many in data I find the distortions that are going to come in through algorithms and through machine learning is going to be huge because some people will get left out wrong data will be getting fed will keep getting fed in and you're going to have all of this happen and it doesn't matter because for business that is enough that level of accuracy is enough it is for people that that level of accuracy is not open this produces the second phenomenon of what's called a self-cleaning mechanism so the the systems can't undertake the responsibility of ensuring that what has been collected is clean good data but if you wanted to work for you if you want your bank account to work if you want your mobile phone to work if you want your income tax returns to be filed if you want to be able to do any of this and not get either you know become a criminal or to become have your money frozen or whatever then it is for you to make sure that your data is properly loaded onto the system the system may not cooperate so if you look at what's happening on GSTN today you'll find that the Chartered Accountants Association is going on a huge trial because the process that has been created the GSTN is not able to deliver what it's what it was and people are struggling Chartered Accountants are fed up I hear and of course I'm kidding now that many of them have gone bald out of pulling their hair out they do a little a day but it happens over a period of time right so this tells you about the non-performance of technology but it doesn't matter because the ambitions in this are different they are not about people being able to get what they want or it's not about facilitating it it is about making as much business as you can for the company so when we are looking at something like the non-data protection framework it is important to remember that there are certain things that they are saying one they are saying you are going to get separated from your data or your data is going to get separated from you then it's with us we are the entrepreneurs we are the startup geniuses and we are going to be making all these businesses and India is going to become this great up and to do that you have people who are planning these businesses who are sitting inside government and what does that government report I'll just read a few things that have come up the first is an idea of trickle up so we those of us who are really old and gray dealt with this idea of trickle down that is you create a sufficient pie and then if it's big enough then it will start trickling down so the important thing in the early years was to say that we really need to have a lot so that it can reach you know it will trickle down to even the poorest that didn't happen and we brought in a welfare state and we said okay we'll do redistribution trickle up is different and I'm going to just quote here but there is something happening in India that we need to recognize that is this is saying beyond the market so you have the market beyond the market there is something happening in India that we need to recognize which is that Indians will be data rich before they are economically rich thanks to everybody having smartphone sensors and so on so suddenly an individual has a digital footprint that is far more than the wealth he has to whom therefore the business models that will emerge in India will be those that allow people to take their digital wealth and convert that into economic wealth so my digital footprint will become your economic wealth and that is the trickle up so this is a notion that has been introduced where the whole non personal data framework is about this trickle up it's about saying all the data trickles up from every source that you can find that's one then the ambitions of collecting more and more data so that you know you're going to be some kind of a global whatever house is in the national health stack where they say it will potentially benefits to the central government it will potentially place India at the forefront of medical research in the world for the national health stack yeah the design is geared to generate vast amounts of data resulting in some of the largest health databases and then it's what you laughed at amika with secured anonymized data by now I think we know there is no such thing as anonymization especially when the three massive words that were produced of unique ubiquitous and universal I'm never tired of saying it because I think we need to remember what this is about every person being uniquely identified not necessarily by biometrics but actually by number ubiquitous which means put it in every database every database and universal because you can't exist without it you can't function without it and therefore you have these three this is the way by which corporate interest business interest technological business interest has entered government and told government to act so that it can garner all this data it's a very interesting time that it has come because with the present government they see privatization as the answer to everything it is only private companies that are going to be able to do this so whether it is in the context of disinvestment which started about 20 years ago or 14 years ago or it is in the context of companies which are going to do this you know like who has the capacity for instance to run an electricity station it's only going to be a private company airports private ports private things that were earlier seen as not even safe to hand over to the private are today being hacked over because the state sees its answer in privatization some of the resistance to the farm farm laws for instance is seen in fact people tell us these are not farmers laws please notice it is farm laws and it is because they see their answer when they say that farmers will get more money they they could even believe that it is this privatization that is going to produce more wealth in this process we've also had a shift happening in what we are in relation to all of this data so first when the the you know the terminology came along with the ui so it came with calling it said kyc just know your citizen then it became kyr which is know your residence then it became kyc again which is know your customer between knowing your customer and knowing your citizen that's where these rest and it is from that so knowing your citizen and knowing your customer has huge amounts of surveillance built into it it is being denied again and again and again now what is fascinating for me is that I think yesterday perhaps there was a the government has again given an idea that maps making of maps can be handed over to private agencies earlier it was something that only the state could do and others could adopt it but now they've said there are different kinds of maps you know that you need to have and these maps are being created for private businesses who want a certain kind of map it wants to know for instance where all the people are who want to go to a gym or who need to go to a gym and therefore have to be motivated to go to a gym so you make a map which will indicate where all these people are so that we can take our business to them maybe Zomato will say okay that's the place for us also to go because it means that that's where people are eating too much and therefore they need to go to the gym I don't know but it's that kind of personalized map that they are talking about and saying that this will help in the making of a smart city the smart city project has been you know debated endlessly but very few people from positions of authority listening is basically you know it it's meant to be efficient it has a huge surveillance factor built into and everywhere you'll find that they have to put in a token thing on privacy because privacy has to be talked about after the judgment of the court and I'll just have one little snide word at this point before I wind up which is that you know when the attorney general stood up and at one time the attorney general stood up and said what makes people think that they have absolute right over their bodies this was about biometrics and said what do you mean we tell you give you have to give this is a very strong eminent domain principle where the state is saying your body is mine and I will tell you what to do with it if I tell you part with your DNA you'll part with your DNA if I tell you you've got to give your fingerprint you've got to give your fingerprint so it's a very significant kind of statement demonetization was another time when eminent domain was practiced saying what you have belongs with the state the state will tell you where you have to give it and how much it will give back to you and what it will do with you after it's found out what you have or don't have very significant statement these are not just policy statements this is about a dramatic change in the relationship between a state and a people and that's what we and so now actually I find the non in this non personal data framework a sadly weak document not weak in terms of what it wants to do but it almost seems to be pleading to say please let us get all this data you know we'll try and do some business out and I actually find that it's inexcusable that they've had this data for a very long time to yesterday day before again they've said fast tag if you refuse to have a fast tag then you're going to be penalized I mean you shouldn't have it in a little while they might actually I don't know what they may do with it but right now they've said if you don't have it you'll have to pay twice the amount now a fast tag is now something embedded in the car the registration of your car will be easily identifiable because the department is selling that data to you have this data wherever you travel at what speed you travel with cities you go to how often you go all of that being tracked and the libertarians in the corporate world don't seem to have any problem with it they're pushing for it in fact it comes from their reports so it's a you know it's a it's a time when I think the lessons from eminent domain and the idea that the state owns first question is who is the state does the state own us really and every time to say okay the snide one was this that they went to court and said no privacy okay people of this country don't have a right to privacy the UID AI was represented the government was represented I mean the central government you had the finance department everybody was represented to say there is no right to privacy then the court gives a resounding judgment where nine of them say there is no question it's not just a right it's not just a fundamental right it is an inherent right it is an innate right all other rights depend upon it there's no question of taking away this time the next thing you hear is that the proponents of the UID AI are saying excellent judgment this is exactly what we wanted so if that is exactly what you wanted why is every policy that is coming after that I mean even if it is face saving I mean they'd gone to court and said we don't believe people have this right the truth is that when they went to court and said that it was an open statement to all of us that these projects cannot survive privacy the test of privacy they will lose out so I'll just stop with saying this there is a whole lot more I don't know I mean it's like and our past structured part unstructured kind of thing but I'll just stop with saying this that see today we are seeing a relationship between the state and business interest which is you know we've gone through many phases of this where there's collaboration of various kinds today we are actually seeing them working together and refusing to acknowledge rights in pd and that is these are strange times this is not something that you know that we can see as something that will pass if this is not addressed today and if we don't understand what it is and if we don't take the history of other movements that have had to struggle for so long to get where they've where they've got whether it's you know because of land it was difficult to do that with water otherwise water was getting privatized rivers were getting privatized and they said this doesn't belong with you so that party has already happened so we need to learn from the history of various ways in which the state and state and business interest has been construed over a period of time or else we are going to find ourselves waiting for another hundred years to recognize a historic injustice which i think is a bad thing thank you so much usha it was i think for me a very eye-opening conversation before i just hand it on to bennie i i'll urge anyone else who we've been getting some questions on youtube and here if you have more please add them and we'll just try to answer them after bennie's response on this and perhaps before she starts i'd also be interested if there is time to understand from both of you what it means in context of us producing the data and then it belonging to the state as opposed to the land which is already inherently existing or the water which is already there perhaps some insights from both of you on that would be wonderful let's say thanks usha and thanks ambika very quickly i have to say i'm not an eagle scholar and yeah therefore obviously not a best position to kind of continue applying the eminent domain but i'll quickly go over some points speak very closely to what usha has kind of brought us but i think the caveat upfront is that we basically analyzed the paper from the perspective of regulatory theory and a very cold economic type analysis and it's it's to say that even that kind of analysis has raised pretty similar questions what usha has alluded to so maybe i'll just what i'll do is i'll keep my comments very anchored in the context of the npt framework because honestly my theory is not as strong or as impressive so i'll quickly get down to business so basically as we do a lot of economic analyses and regulatory analysis what we look for is what is the specific articulated market failure that we're trying to kind of solve for and therefore what is the intervention then that the government may have in terms of creating a regulator or in terms of regulating the free market and because i am in financial inclusion for me consumer protection and worldwide consumer protection is one kind of market failure that requires the state the government the regulator whatever we want to call it to intervene in the workings of the mechanics of the free market and help basically tip the uneven scales in some sense so i i'll enter the kind of conversation with that kind of a lens and here's what we found when we were going through this particular framework the exact market failure is not very clear when i read the paper over and over which is to say that we do not know that what is causing the creation of a full-fledged npt regime which is obviously uh requiring the creation of new institutions it requires the it requires a full spectrum of uh you know institutional machinery and we are still not clear what is the end objective of it and what is the market failure the urgent need for the government to do this maybe it is forward-looking and in that case it brings us to the second question then that uh what can we achieve to have happened differently uh once this framework kicks in right once we have the data trustee we once we have the entire ecosystem of the communities of the data trustee of the hvds how is it that uh there would be anything different or what what the end outcome would be how do we even envisage that or how do we then actually assess it is kind of unclear so i'll quickly make very short three points that i have uh first of all it's not very clear that what is the public what is the case for actually mandating private entities beyond a certain threshold to first give away the variety of data that they're collecting and then if there is interest in the variety of that data making some data fields public or giving away some data fields we do not really understand the rationale i mean of course there's this whole philosophical political economic debate but even the cold economic rationale of that is not clear the reason that i say that is that in a couple of jurisdictions we've seen that there is a case to be made that whatever data is collected by the government must be made public the rationale there is that the data that the government collects uh has the ex-checkers money behind it so you know the entire machinery that you set up to collect that data is actually funded by the citizens and therefore that data should not be the property of the government so it's a little bit reverse of you know the eminent domain in some sense that it should not be the property of the government and if it can be opened up in uh um how do i say in a gradual manner in a you know uh with kind of caution to all kinds of risks that could come and if you could still open it for public use then government must do it because ultimately the government doesn't really own it and it's the public's money that has gone into collection of it so there is a case for opening up publicly collected data right and then there is like conditions on what is public good and uh what is uh how much data can you uh share and what kinds of data you can share and there's a sliding scale in the case of Australia that if the sensitivity of data is too high then that can't be shared uh if it's too less then it can be shared only with government departments like so on and so forth and there is a clear roadmap there here what we're not able to understand is that what logic is kind of you know backing this whole uh ask of saying that private entities will make their data public uh one is asking for rationale just for the sake of rationale to be able to kind of assess the merits of intervention itself second reason why we're kind of talking about it over and over is that uh in fact there is some academic literature to show that maybe you know opening up data sets or requiring competitors to share data there are instances where this has actually made the market less competitive and it has made it easier for providers to collude you know because they share not sensitive personal information but strategically sensitive information so then you can actually see which products are being demanded the most what is the price that your competitors are asking for and then there can be an anchoring effect so there could be all those anti-competitive effects of actually sharing strategically important data and putting them all on a data set because a lot of consumer surplus uh and I don't have a kind of uh a theoretical backing to say this but this is my hunch by reading a couple of things that a lot of consumer surplus also gets generated because uh providers don't necessarily know how what the consumer's reservation price is right so they assume that the consumer is not willing to pay as much money and therefore they down price their offering but once you actually see that other people are able to charge a markup and still get customers then what you're able to see is that the general average markup in the industry can go up and this is actually a case that the EU is currently looking on it's called uh Insurance Ireland where what has happened is that insurers in Ireland they created a group and that group was actually exchanging data amongst themselves and that revealed a lot of strategically important information and the group was able to better signal pricing and product design and the EU is currently seeing if that had huge anti competitive uh effects and if there was a loss of consumer surplus because of that so not only are we not able to clearly say why we need NPD there is also a fear that this kind of an arrangement can actually lead to the reverse which is you know uh it can actually facilitate in some sense collude uh so then uh you know not knowing why we're even doing this or why this arrangement is important becomes even more important because there is absolutely no sense of what we are trying to solve for here and the downside of it is now becoming clear so that's just one point that we don't know legally as well as economically what is the merit of asking private enterprises to open data and what its potential downfall would be that's just one the second uh and actually when Osha was uh talking and taking us through the eminent domain with this bit resonated quite well with me because as we looked at the long laundry list of public use uh we didn't know if I mean if we look at the definition of public use in this paper it's framed very widely and almost anything and everything could fit into it right so if you're a private entity but uh your business could actually benefit through financial inclusion for instance then uh you could get data you could get access to hvds under this data set so and that's just financial inclusion because that's the one I mean it's just occupational hazard but there are a couple of other things on that list right so it is to say that any private entity that remotely works in the proximity like you don't have to be path breaking or you don't have to say that there is a demonstrable public good that I'm actually you know here to provide for and I absolutely must have access to that data the current framing of that public good is extremely loose so then what you're saying is you're trying to invite more people in which is great uh but I don't know if inviting people in by making the date of incumbents open is the best or the most competitive strategy that is out there and we need to measure both the pros and cons of it and uh there is no uh you know very and there is no principle based thinking of what is public good use of you know at what stage do you need to come with a proof of concept and say that if I were given this data then I'd definitely be able to deliver or there is no uh and it's beautiful because it's non-personal data right like for personal data no matter how hard we struggle to adhere to principles there are well established principles of data protection non-personal data seems to have absolutely no fetters so there is no talk of data minimization there is no talk of purpose limitation we also see it in consent that I mean no matter how ineffective consent is this one is even worse because it's like a blank check consent right you don't even know which all parties will get your data later or what use they might be put to but here give us your consent that you're okay with it like it it is completely broken down it is absolutely not a lever of accountability so there is absolutely no principle level friction or fetters that have been thought through in how that data would be used even if one buys the first premise that it needs to be put in the oven then who gets access to that data there doesn't seem to be a lot of principle thinking on it I think the third where a kind of similar point that we came up was that the sharing of data is considered as an unadulterated code as if you know nothing bad could come off it which is quite interesting because as we talk to more providers at least in the fintech space or even actually more and more empirical research happening in this field tells us that the diminishing returns to data is a thing like each you know marginal marginal marginal utility of data declines and each data point doesn't have the same value as the previous one in fact it's likely to add lesser and lesser value as the quantity of data increases so on the one point the business value of data so to say for the lack of a better word is not necessarily going up as you're increasing the quantity of data but the risks of privacy are definitely going up when you are increasing the quantity of data so it's quite odd to think that you're definitely even if optimizing for economic value was your only objective that's not to that's not you know monotonic and more and more economic value is not being tapped as more and more data is being shared but definitely more and more privacy is being risked so then if those two are known facts how are we still in a position to say that we need data to be floating around and you know it needs to be widely shared because there seems to be I mean we need to take a step back and kind of look at the two next to each other and see where the optimization is and where we really need to draw that line I say that even more because I think that a minute domain and again I'm not a legal scholar but and I don't know how much black I'm going to say for what I'm going to say next but this is my thinking that in some sense people can never be fully compensated for the land that was taken away and that's known and it's not just a parcel of land but the rights it represents it all of that but in some sense land does have some severity and you know some fungibility which is to say that okay that land once taken from the person this continues to be theirs and at the same time in a very limited sense another parcel of land can be given it is fungible not to a great extent I mean if today someone was to kind of evict me from my own house and give me another house it wouldn't be the same and I know that but it's all the more dissimilar for data on both counts right because there is never a disassociation it you cannot severe it from me there is no severe ability and it's not fungible which is to say that tomorrow if my data is leaked you can't say that here take 10 new data points about you it's not going to work out like that so I think that this problem is if if it is if there is such a thing it is more enduring and more transformative than eminent domain because it is irreversible on many counts on many more counts and that has not been taken into account at all the like the report begins with saying that it has two objectives one is to kind of protect communities from the harm from data and second is to give the communities the help them basically leverage the value of their data however the report has a very narrow conceptualization of harm in fact it doesn't define harm to begin with and the only kind of harm that it does talk about is privacy harm and it's quite it's it's a hard one to kind of wrap our arms around because we know that anonymization I mean how do I say it's not perfect right even if it worked it's never going to be perfect and therefore the privacy risk never really goes away the privacy harm never really goes away and it's an admission in the report itself so you know that the privacy harm is inherent it might be high or low in some cases but it's always there and then given the harm you are taking the decision to go for the economic benefits knowing very well that the harm is very much there can materialize at any point and knowing that you may not even be able to gauge the full magnitude of the harm beforehand right so it's the report itself is kind of conditioned on a conflict that the harm is definitely there but there is economic gain to be made but there is no inherent principle that says that how do you weigh between the two and how much privacy harm is okay what is your risk appetite and how are you deciding that because as Usha said privacy is an innate right right so just how much of it is tradeable and that kind of a thinking doesn't come through at all these two are taken separately as if one had to do nothing and that's the only kind of harm interestingly that the report talks about there is no other kind of harm but we do know from our own experience you know a cab cab hail companies being called by codes to save the discriminate if there's differential pricing that's very small example but we do know about how things are panned out in the world that with data harms strike very much at the center of human rights there is discrimination there is systematic discrimination there's marginalization exclusion none of those harms are talked about and so I don't know if there are any kind of control knobs in the system that will blow up that will dial up if those kinds of harms are high and that would basically come into the consideration of saying no this is an hvd that should not be created at all right so that's that's the other part and then the whole I think why personally I am finding it a bit hard to kind of make peace with this framework is because the whole point was to give life to community rights but I don't think we did quite achieve that in this framework one is because our whole understanding of community is it doesn't map on to how communities are created actually right so the closest parallel that I can think of is probably geographical indication in IP like they want to do something like that that you know this is a community and the rights belong to this community but the great thing about IP is and I don't know what its redistributional effects are again but the great thing about IP is that to some extent the community is organic and the people know that they belong to that community right so the right itself is germane because it comes from the acknowledgement that we are a community but actually when I come to an npd and when so many people's data are just you know enmeshed together and people don't even know what's happening to their data there is absolutely no sense of community people don't know which communities they belong to I could be a diabetic I could be a rash driver and I could be okay I don't want to implicate myself any further but I could be both of those and therefore I'd be I mean by this reports counts I'd be at least in three data sets right I'd be in the diabetic data set I'd be the rash driver data set I'd be in the resident of daily data set right now which community am I a part of and when a harm basically when I suffer a harm how do I know that which community's data was used badly and which rights of mine were infringed and whom am I going to basically go and galvanize and say hey our rights have been you know violated and this also brings me to your point about the NGO about menstrual rights and health so if I want to take that analogy then this framework requires that mother's NGO actually have all the technical know-how capabilities etc to first host an hvp which I think is a huge barrier anyway if we wanted to bring the marginalized I mean if we really wanted to invert the flow of wealth and benefits and for it to reach the last mile then this framework is a no starter I'm sorry but how will someone actually create a section 8 company have a cloud computing have a cloud storage all of those technical and then be you know on their toes always to actually ensure that it remains anonymized nobody identifies it all of that goes into it and interestingly there is no mention that the government will actually help upscale or provide infrastructure to marginalized communities who might didn't you know putting their data out there there is no notion of that there is a notion that a government can be a represent a government department can be a representative or a section 8 can be a representative to be a data trustee and then you need the support of minimum members of the community to kind of give their blessings and for the thing to come to life but a criteria of minimum number of members does not say that the most vulnerable members give their blessing right so even within the community then like we're basically reproducing all the social structures that are there right now and we're reproducing them in the virtual world as well and it's it's not solving anybody's problem and then if I dig deeper in the data trustee framework we don't know how representative the data trustees are going to be there is no kind of support for marginalized communities to have their data trustees and then there is very little you know to say that how what the consultation process would look like how would they make decisions what happens if you disagree with the decision of a data trustee like all of that I know there is some amount of legal jurisprudence on data trustees but as I understand it and as I understand it is that it has to be left for the members of the trust to kind of you know for it to be hashed out and in the absence of a template in the absence of guiding principles of how the data trustees must operate there is a huge fear that you know those people who have agencies will end up capturing institutions so their entire representativeness appears to be fragile to me that's one the second is because communities online work very differently than communities in the real world where where online people don't even know which communities they belong to the whole idea of community rights is very weak and therefore if you had to galvanize people for grievance, redress to hold your data trustee accountable all of that or to make sure that your voice is heard as a stakeholder all of that is immensely hard even for people like me when we've heard about consent fatigue when we've heard about all of those things I don't know you know being part of like 20 trustees how many of us are going to pay attention to who's using my data how and this is us so of course and we are not the mainstream and we are not by any stretch of imagination representative of the representative right so that's the second level of problem the third level of problem is that the benefits that accrue to the communities I think again there is a lot of weakness in my reading of the paper I could only find at best indirect benefits that there's going to be innovation and everybody it's it's a rising tide and everybody benefits right but there is no one to one mapping but the harms are many one to one map right so it's like the risks are highly concentrated but the benefits are not in which is not to say that the whole thing should be transactional but it is to say that you still can't kind of you know there is still a burden on you to redistribute this because there is no automatic mechanism in this framework that makes sure that the benefits are transferred to the most vulnerable or the people who contribute to most data for instance I can I have a feeling that I mean women users okay fine our proportion is less I know all about digital divide but even by our proportion and by our representativeness in our data footprint we'd be surprised we got equal amounts of innovations for us right so I mean there is nothing to say that all the systematic imbalances that already exist there's nothing in there to correct it so there's this these four problems basically the lack of a rationale for wanting private sectors to give away their data the wide description definition of a public good basically considering that sharing of data is an unadulterated global good and the whole weak conceptualization of community are in fact a lack of nuance and defining an online community and thinking how they're going to work out like these for me are the four biggest kind of challenges that this framework has mounted but it's sorry I'm interrupting you I think we just have about six minutes left and okay I think Usha wants to respond to you I'm sorry some of you have sent some questions maybe I'll quickly read the responses and observations out Usha and then you can close it off and I'll just say thank you so there is some very interesting thought processes where people are saying that perhaps the sale and the cost of maintaining the data platform will be so high that eventually the state will have to sell everything and we will eventually also become slaves like surveillance in to prevent terrorism there is a lot of data collection without proportional reward of course we've spoken of this a bit more another question from Ani Dalal is saying that is there a possibility of open source data smart city platforms etc frameworks to be developed as a response to this conundrum finally Nadika also mentions that how looking into that point of land for development and the recourse around it but how npd doesn't recognize that the data principle or individual or the owner of the data can get that and it's become this aim office floating thing yeah some some things that are coming out I'll quickly maybe I'll just give you four minutes and then a quick one minute to say thank you to everyone one minute to say thank you you don't need so but yeah I'll be quick and I really think those questions are very good discussion points and I feel bad that we can't go down but I just want to say three four things quickly not necessarily just in the contradiction to what you're saying Denny but to clarify some things first is that you were saying government information must be public and that's a common understanding and it's because the X checker pays for all of this I think there might be two points with you on this that the whole right to information came in because we were looking for accountability and not just for transparency with no other purpose and what we are seeing happening now is because they're saying oh money is coming from the X checker the people who are being made most transparent other four and if you look at many databases you'll find that the last four digits of their bank account will the bank account number will be there the last four digits of UID will be there the code of the bank branch will be there so what else is left for you to know about them so there are various ways in which you can actually aggregate information on this and I think it is important to recognize that there are communities of people and communities of interests who've been saying we do not wish to have this kind of convergence of our data being possible this takes us back to the land acquisition question because the idea of the state as a custodian and not as an owner of the land is a very important it's not theirs to give if I leave it with the state it is still mine so you can't say state has it they used taxpayers money therefore give everything to everyone I think really need to have a long hard discussion on this the second is that we've gone through phases we went through the data sharing policy in 2012 see the thing is UID was the starting point for many of these you know with you fill in a word and these ideas yeah so the first is the data sharing policy which came in 2012 where they basically said whichever department holds data they are the owners of that data so when did we hand over ownership to the state I never did so that's one then we come up with the idea that data is a public good and therefore it has to be made publicly available to be used for the public good before then you have the Shri Krishna committee report saying that well you have individual rights so that you can hack it over to the community then you have data protection law which says we will collect everything and then be careful with it but you have to give us all that we asked you for much before all of this you have a collection of statistics act that says give me all your information if I ask you you have to tell otherwise you go to jail this is a 2008 legislation and then you have now this actually I was fascinated to hear you because it doesn't seem like there's in this document really has only one place where it should go you know not the waste paper basket but the shredder and it really sounds ridiculous I read it and tried to be very you know good and kind it's very hard then we also need to remember that they are you know now we are talking about health ID we are talking about vaccination certificates which are going to be global vaccination certificates the ambitions and imagination of today are not coming from the people it is coming from people who want to be able to manage and control and know the people it is the story of Red Riding Hood and let's all go back and read it and see when grandma was asked why do you have such big guys grandma what did she say yeah what did the wolf say and I was thinking you know that when you were talking about competition I'm not sure that that should be the basis on which we think about whether something is good or bad it can be an element which comes after you've said some other things are all right but it can't be the starting point I feel the other thing is that okay we all have to say it so I'm going to say it to anonymization does not protect anybody you've said it you've said it you know and the A and the B have said it it has to go all the way up to you and said so I'm being the you it's just not okay it is not even a treat leave and so we should just you know one of the most interesting concepts that has come in in recent times is this idea of presenselessness which came along with the financial inclusion thing where they said cashless paperless presenseless like it is something that is good many of the communities that you were talking about and much of what we are talking about in terms of poverty in terms of marginalised impoverishment exclusion all of that those are all places where we need intermediation by state they are saying now we will do disintermediation because we are introducing technology in within the place of the administrator who will know you is the technology who will know you is not the person who's going to administer all those policies on you think about what this means the there is a very important distinction that's been made between data as property and data as right and the reason that has come is because it took a long time for land and related interests to be converted into recognition as a right that was the battle it's not just property so we shouldn't fall into the trap of making data into property it's not property it's a right that you know it has to fit within the rights regime that we do have you said that you know land is kind of reversible data is not actually which is why I was saying that when they say we cut you off from your relationship with land and then you change it you know if they were going to bring down a if they're going to mine an area for instance you're not going to be able to restore it and give it back to those people so it's a very there is a lot in that sense too that is similar which we need to get and the last thing that I'll say is you know about harm it's not only that they recognize the harm but it is also that they are saying when something may harm us when you make the law don't make that no don't make it don't make us liable for anything so it's fine if harm before somebody else but just remember we are good guys we are not doing it to cause harm harm is just an incidental thing sometimes maybe it's terrible harm the most important thing in all of this is basically they are now willing to convert all that is out now this is that I don't know if there is a bastion beyond the bastion of my personal information my biometrics have gone my you know bodily information is now going all my data is going is there a bastion beyond this is there any further to go anything else that the state can lay an imminent domain flame on