Modern privacy law is based on principles of data protection that were first articulated in the 1970s. As a result, it is based on the idea that we should collect as little data as possible to safeguard personal privacy. In the age of AI and big data, that approach is fast losing its relevance.

We built technology systems to enable data portability, only to realise that system-to-system integration is a non-trivial lift. A far simpler solution is to create self-custodial verifiable credentials that are capable of being verified without relying on their issuers.

The recent advances in de-extinction technology offer hope for endangered species. But before we leap to deploy these technologies we should consider the legal and ethical consequences of what we are about to unleash.

We have been trained to think that all bias is bad. And that we should do all we can to rid ourselves of it to avoid being unfair. What we often fail to realise is that bias is a shortcut that allows us to cut through the noise and zero in on the data we need to process.

If India is to achieve its data centre ambitions, it needs to find new sources of efficient power. While nuclear is a solution, it will take too long to come on stream. We need alternatives, and enhanced geothermal might just be it.

There are many possible futures for AI. Even if we cannot predict exactly which path it will take, as long as we remain clear-eyed about the possible consequences of the actions we take today, we will be able to mitigate the outcomes that could result over the next few years.

The climate consensus is rapidly unravelling. With the developing world consistently failing to make the level of commitment required to prevent global warming from exceeding 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels, we need to think differently about achieving sustainable development. Could we apply DPI Thinking to this problem?

Content moderation is a wicked problem - that calls on us to balance the fundamental right to speech and expression with the need to prevent the spread of harmful content. This is a delicate balance that we need to strike with careful attention to constitutional principles.

All we need to do to address our food insecurity is learn to better preserve food after it has been harvested. However, the technology we rely on to do that comes at a great cost. We need to find an alternative approach - one that prevents spoilage without harming the environment.

The challenge with regulating technology is that laws always lag behind the technologies they regulate. One way to address this is to adopt a philosophy of incremental regulation that follows in lockstep with technological evolution. This requires a theoretical understanding of the evolutionary dynamics of technology.

Since data allows us to price risk more accurately and, at the same time allows us to offer incentives for appropriate behaviour, it is a very useful tool for insurers looking to achieve optimal risk pooling. However, if we take it too far we risk ending up in a surveillance society.

The introduction of the term Consent Manager in the Digital Personal Data Protection Act gave rise to considerable speculation. No other data protection law had anything like it, and the law itself was unclear as to what role these entities played. Now that the Rules are with us, things are a little clearer. This is a link-enhanced version of an article that first appeared in the Mint. You can read the original here. When India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDP Act) was enacted in ...