See
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/storage/0,39020366,39208014,00.htm for details. The same happened a few days back in India that led to the starting of the “legislative process” in India though it was not needed at all.
The following articles will give a clear picture of the existence of the Data Protection Law in India:
(1) The existence of the Data Protection laws in India-
http://perry4law.blogspot.com/2005/05/mandates-of-wto.html (2) The need to satisfy the requirements of Constitution of India-
http://perry4law.blogspot.com/2005/05/data-protection-law-in-india.html (3) The Privacy and Data rights of netizens-
http://perry4law.blogspot.com/2005/06/privacy-and-data-rights-of-netizens.html (4) The need and manner of Data Protection-
http://perry4law.blogspot.com/2005/06/needs-and-modes-of-data-pr_111773529833410003.html It is surprising that despite the proven fact of "sufficient Data Protection Law" in India, we are facing the tremendous pressure of foreign countries.
The proposed change in the Information Technology Act, 2000 for conferring data protection or its separate enactment is not only unwarranted but is equally based on misinterpretation of the provisions of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957 and the TRIPS Agreement.
The concerns and apprehensions of the MNCs are far-fetched and unwarranted. The TRIPS Agreement and the Copyright Act, 1957 provides sufficient safeguards for preventing violations of databases of MNCs. The data, information and details provided by the MNCs will get the protection of ‘Data Property” if the same involves intellectual creations within the meaning of Article 10(2) of the TRIPS Agreement. If they fail to satisfy the requirement of Article 10(2), still they will be protected as copyright. The brightest and the positive aspect of this situation is that even non-data items are also protected, both under the TRIPS Agreement and the Copyright Act, 1957. Thus, the MNCs should concentrate on their “business initiatives” rather than wasting their resources and time on unnecessary concerns.
(See
http://perry4law.blogspot.com/2005/05/mandates-of-wto.html for more details). It must be appreciated that it is not the “enactment” of a law but the desire, will and efforts to accept and enforce it in its true letter and spirit, which can confer the most strongest, secure and safest protection for any purpose. The enforcement of these rights requires a “qualitative effort” and not a “quantitative effort”. The “enforcement” problem cannot be “bypassed” and “labeled” as inadequacy of data protection laws in India. For instance, if we do not enforce the provisions of Copyright Act, 1957 or the Trade Marks Act, 1999, properly, then we can again argue that these Acts need to be amended to accommodate the wishes of MNCs. Any objection of lack of data protection laws in India is raised only due to the ignorance of the availability of data protection laws in India.
India has a sound cyber law regime and both paper based and electronic form data can be effectively and legally protected in India. Any objection regarding “insufficient” cyber law or Data protection law is only a misconception and ignorance of law in this regard.
It seems the difference between “Data protection laws” and their “enforcement” is not clear to the persons agitating against insufficient data protection laws in India. India has sufficient data protection laws and these laws only require sound techno-legal enforcement.
Let us hope the same hue and cry will not be raised this time that may ultimately result in the wastage of valuable time, money and resources.
Email:: 
URL::