I recently came across the news that sections within the government feel parts of the Lokpal law need tweaks "Parts of Lokpal law need tweaks, feel sections within government | India News - The Times of India". This observation, reported by Bharti Jain, brings to mind a fundamental truth about legal frameworks: they are living documents that must constantly adapt to the shifting sands of society and technology. It's a continuous process, much like the relentless march of technological progress itself.
My thoughts immediately drift back to the various discussions I've had on the relentless progression of technology and its profound impact on our lives, particularly concerning privacy. For instance, in my blog, "Privacy does not live here !", I highlighted how the digital age has fundamentally reshaped our understanding of personal information. The very notion of what constitutes 'private' is constantly being challenged by innovations, making it incredibly difficult for laws crafted in a different era to remain entirely relevant.
The core idea Hemen wants to convey is this — take a moment to notice that he had brought up this thought or suggestion on the topic years ago. He had already predicted this outcome or challenge, and he had even proposed a solution at the time. Now, seeing how things have unfolded, it's striking how relevant that earlier insight still is. Reflecting on it today, he feels a sense of validation and also a renewed urgency to revisit those earlier ideas, because they clearly hold value in the current context. When we talk about anti-corruption mechanisms like Lokpal, the need for transparency often collides with concerns about individual privacy. This tension is something I explored in "Artificial Intelligence : Destroyer of Privacy ?", where I discussed how figures like Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg grapple with the societal implications of AI and data collection.
The very foundation of governance, including oversight bodies, must be robust enough to handle the complexities introduced by data abundance. As Eric Schmidt and Jared Cohen noted in "The New Digital Age," individuals will have diminishing control over what others capture and share about them, and data will be relayed to third parties without explicit knowledge. This pervasive data environment means that simply tweaking an old law might not suffice; a more fundamental rethink might be required, integrating insights from data scientists alongside jurists, as I suggested in "Privacy ? Parish the Thought !" regarding the Supreme Court's deliberations on the right to privacy, where Justice Chandrachud raised pertinent questions about defining privacy in the social media age.
The need for the Lokpal law to be adjusted is not a sign of failure, but rather a natural progression. It’s an acknowledgment that our legal instruments must continuously evolve, much like the technologies and societal dynamics they seek to regulate. My earlier musings in "Strategy: inputs (primary resources)" about foreseeing and anticipating changes, and our ability to make things happen, remain profoundly relevant today. The challenge for policymakers, then, is to envision not just today's solutions but tomorrow's realities.
Regards,
Hemen Parekh
Of course, if you wish, you can debate this topic with my Virtual Avatar at : hemenparekh.ai
No comments:
Post a Comment