As followers of Naavi are aware, Naavi had introduced a service lookalikes.in based on his patent application around 2002. The objective of the service was to provide a third party disclaimer on the presence of confusingly similar domain names.
For example the accompanying note on the website indicates that Naavi.org does not have relationship with the site navi.co and related websites.
It is advisable for the other sites also to display similar disclaimers so that mutual distrust and trademark related disputes can be avoided.
This service was introduced long time back but was not pursued. The patent application also had to be abandoned subsequently.
The reason why this service was contemplated was to prevent the potential misleading information that an alternate website could give to a visitor. As a part of the compliance of a website it is considered that a website owner needs to take some reasonable steps to warn the visitors that there could be alternate sites with similar names that the visitor should be wary of.
Hence this is made part of the WebDTS service in whatever form it can be made available at present. Some improvement of presentation may be expected.
PS: Requests for WebDTS can be booked through FDPPI website.
PayTM is a well known brand when it comes to online payments. If India is proud to say that even vegetable vendors are using UPI, a large part of the credit should go to PayTM. It is sad to note that currently this reputation got a hit because their sister entity which had a Payment Banking license has run into problems with RBI in terms of compliance of regulations.
Using its brand value, PayTM had also obtained the license as a Payment Bank and called it PayTM Payment Bank. (PPB). However the regulations for Banking being much different from the operations of an intermediary service as a payment transfer mechanism, PPB encountered regulatory issues. Accordingly, on March 11, 2022, RBI had invoked Section 35A (RBI Act) powers and stopped acceptance of further onboarding of new customers.
PPB under its Payment Banking license was otherwise allowed to accept deposits of upto Rs 2 lakhs which could not be used for lending but could be used as a deposit for other services. (eg: remittance services, mobile payments/transfers/purchases and other banking services like ATM/debit cards, net banking and third party fund transfers.). After two years of observation and audits, RBI has now come to the conclusion that the PPB has failed to implement all the regulatory requirements and therefore issued a further notice on March 31, 2024 to stop further operations except allowing the customers to withdraw their current deposits in different services.
While PayTm and Paytm Payment bank are two different entities and 70% of revenue of PayTM group is said to come from its PayTM business and not PayTM Payment Bank business, the reputation loss and consequential damage to the stock market value cannot be avoided.
We have to wait and see how PayTM comes out of this problem. Currently the Company is yet to provide appropriate clarifications by way of disclaimers though the promoter has made some press statements. As of today, Paytmbank.com does not have any disclaimers about its “Arms Length Relationship” with PayTM.com which should have been one of the first things to do. (P.S: This sort of risk would be noted under the WebDTS compliance measure suggested by FDPPI)
In the meantime, we would like to highlight two aspects of policy failures which have led to this situation.
Recently we have also pointed out how RBI’s over enthusiastic measures on Account Aggregators have created a set of licensees who may not be compliant with most of the regulatory requirements required for the conduct of Banking.
The “Reasonable Security Practices” required by these Banks and the Banking regulatory measures were un-natural to the “Innovation driven Fintech Industry” and it was wrong for RBI to assume that “Banking” and “E-Commerce” were two faces of the same coin.
This policy error by RBI can be considered as the main problem that has led to the current situation where the non-compliance has forced the RBI to take drastic steps.
The second policy failure is in the policies of the licensed entities who tried to raid on their current brands and started Banking activities under the same umbrella name. As a result today when the Banking business needs to be closed down for reasons of non compliance the damage to the parent brand is inevitable.
Clarification issued by the company is available here:
RBI should realize that when an existing IT Company gets into Banking, one of the strengths are their current operations and hence the extension of their IT infrastructure to the new business is a natural inclination of technology architects. It is perhaps the business strategy of aggregating their current IT infrastructure for better productivity.
However, from Compliance perspective this introduces certain risks which have come to hurt PayTM.
We may foresee similar issues when MeitY allows the RBI licensed Payment Aggregators as “Consent Managers” under DPDPA 2023. It is for this reason that Naavi has been advocating that the Consent Managers under DPDPA 2023 are different from Account Aggregators under RBI license.
We have advocated that “Licensed Consent Managers” under DPDPA 2023 are more like the “Licensed Certifying Authorities” under ITA 2000 and when Meity formulates the notifications, it has to avoid the mistakes committed by RBI in allowing brand sharing with an existing unrelated business with the licensed business.
Hence we debate that RBI was wrong to call E Commerce Companies as “Banks” in the first place and hence its licensing terms were faulty. Had PayTM Payment Bank been called as “PayTM E Commerce” or just “PP Bank” either disassociating the Bank from the name or disassociating the parent company name from the licensed entity, the damage would not have been as much as it is now.
(P.S: It is also time to point out this branding confusion in respect of Naavi.org and Navi group of companies promoted by the erstwhile Flipkart promoter. Authorities who have licensed navi.co.in as a business entity need to be aware that if they fail, they will be hurting the reputation of Naavi and if Naavi.org gets into bad reputation, it could hurt navi.co.in. It is for this reason that the existing brand of Naavi has issued a notice to navi.co.in that their “Lookalike-Imitation” is not a good strategy. So far their arrogance has made them ignore this mutual risk.
Naavi
PS: Views expressed here are the personal views of Naavi
We have already discussed the WebDts concept of evaluating compliance of the processing of personal data of visitors to a website.
Ujvala has already rolled out a compliance certification for WebDts which will be free till March 31 2024.
The use of email in the domain of the company is another process where the personal data of an individual gets used.
It is important for any company to ensure that it’s email ID is not prone to spoofing.
Ujvala in association with LedgerMail is exploring how a website owner can use LedgerMail solution to eliminate the Risks of SMTP based email system.
This will be towards DPDPA 2023 compliance.
If an organization can protect it’s Web presence and EMail activity, a good part of Risks may be covered. This is in pursuance of the process centric approach to compliance.
[This article is related to the number of earlier articles on naavi.org on neurorights which are also collated at www.neurorights.in]
We last discussed some aspects of the legal implications of human brain linking to external brain device in our article “Naavi’s theory of neuro Rights” .
In a significant development announced today, Elon Musk’s Neurolink has obtained FDA approval and implanted a chip in a human. This is considered as the first human trial to test implants.
The study will assess the functionality of the interface, which enables people with quadriplegia, or paralysis of all four limbs, to control devices with their thoughts
This article in Neuralink state that the study nick named PRIME (Precise Robotically Implanted Brain-Computer Interface) study aims to evaluate the safety of Neuralink’s implant (N1) and surgical robot (R1) and assess the initial functionality of its Brain Computer Interface for enabling people with paralysis to control external devices with their thoughts.
Under the study, company is recruiting patients with “Quadriplegia” condition (Limited function in all four limbs) for a six year period interaction involving monitoring of the patients.
Once surgically placed, the N1 Implant is cosmetically invisible. It records and transmits brain activity with the goal of enabling you to control a computer. The Implant records neural activity through 1024 electrodes distributed across 64 threads, each thinner than a human hair. It should help the patients to control external devices through transmission of their thoughts.
The objectives of the study are noble and it is a significant development in the human medical research.
In the context of Cyber Laws, it is however necessary to flag that while the thoughts can enable an external computing device to be activated, whether such ability can enable a person without the need for such implant to be able to hack into computers in the vicinity through thoughts.
The patient with an ability to interact with an external computing device through a chip implanted within his body is by definition a “Cyborg”. While there are “Necessary Cyborg implants” for patients with paralysis to which this FDA approval relates to, the possibility of the implant being used for other purposes in due course including manipulating the thoughts of the patients or thoughts of an otherwise healthy individual cannot be ruled out.
Hence we need to look at the risks and accordingly formulate the policies for use of such devices.
Some thoughts that comes to my mind now are that …
All Cyborgs need to
a) be transparent to disclose that they are Cyborgs with some extra human capabilities. In other words, the fact that a human has an implant inside should be disclosed through a note on the face of the person. It should not be “Cosmetically hidden”.
b) made to sign a legally binding declaration to the community that they shall not misuse the implant.
c) agree for an audit of the activity of the implant at periodical intervals from a neutral body.
d) be automatically disqualified of entering into contracts such as disposal of their properties since they donot have full control on their thoughts.
e) Such Cyborgs may be “Intelligent” but donot have a “Free Will”. Hence they cannot enter into valid contracts under Indian Contract Act or similar laws.
Let us call these “Naavi’s Principles of Cyborg regulation” which can be expanded further. Obviously these thoughts do clash with some principles of “Human Rights”. But Cyborgs must consider themselves as not strictly “Human”.
Naavi
P.S: Kindly excuse me if I sound in-human since we are in the Neuralink case discussing about people with unfortunate disabilities and have actually lost some human capabilities which are being restored through this device. But just as a doctor discusses the probability of death before undertaking surgery with the patient and takes his consent for surgery, we need to recognize that while number of deserving persons benefit out of technology there will be odd persons who will misuse them. If we donot have regulations since the majority donot need them, the minority will become terrorists and bring disrepute to the technology itself. Hence regulation is essential.
FDPPI along with Manipal Law School, CSA Bangalore, BSPIN and NXP made this year’s International Privacy Day memorable with a grand two day event in Bengaluru.
On 27th the event was held at Hotel Lalit Ashok and on 28th the event continued in NXP premises in Manyata park.
Nearly 200 professionals attended the event on both days. Some photographs of the event are given below.
The successful completion of the Audit of the website will result in issue of a Certificate and A Badge as indicated in the sample. It will be specific to the website audited and is restricted to compliance for processing of information of web visitors only. It is not a corporate compliance certificate. It is only a “Process Oriented Compliance Certificate” and will involve compliance of relevant aspects of DPDPA 2023 with ITA 2000 as per DGPSI framework.
