Fragile defence?

In another ad hoc response, the Indian government banned 54 Chinese mobile applications recently — taking the total number of banned apps over the past two years close to 300. The core apprehension of the government remains unchanged — around sovereignty, security and integrity of the nation, and public order. This time around it also pointed out that the new bunch of apps to be banned are "rebranded or rechristened avatars" of the previously banned apps. While the government's concern around putting a check on appropriation of sensitive personal data by companies of foreign countries is indeed genuine, the route it seems to take might not yield the best results. There's a global intricate network of data transactions in place, through applications, websites and even digital devices. The digital platforms we use on a daily basis transact in our personal data. To ensure the security of personal data of citizens, any particular nation will need to erect a strong semi-permeable safety valve around itself. Those potentially at the receiving end need to be safeguarded through a robust framework. What India on the contrary, through its ad hoc bans, is trying to target is the sources that might be carrying out data breach exercises. The problem with this approach is that such sources are present in limitless numbers and perpetrators of data invasion can easily redesign the banned entities in a matter of time, with little cost involved. The 'digital strike' — striking as it may seem in its naming — hardly offers any solution in action. It is true that a foolproof safety valve is a farcical concept but the degree of safety provided by such firewalls will go a long way in determining the safety and security of the nation. Furthermore, India's 'digital strikes' remain limited to a select nation, China, and are seen as a response to the heightening of geopolitical tensions. A sense of imparting punitive action seems to drive such actions. At best, these actions can have only a pinching and pricking effect on China and a handful of companies linked with it. For instance, Sea Limited's Free Fire Illuminate — one of the major gaming applications banned this time around — has a meagre 3 per cent of its stakes involved in the Indian market. This is despite the phenomenal rise of the gaming application in India after the PUBG ban. In narrowing its focus to using 'data security' as a tool to punish an adversary nation, what India leaves out is a vast virtual frontier that can be invaded by any other country — for extracting benefits or inflicting pain. Will India go after all countries with similar bans one by one? That would be highly implausible and nonsensical. Chinese applications may be a major source of threat but those are not the only ones — as we are made to believe. Also, will India keep imposing bans year after year as newer 'avatars' of banned apps arrive and already invade a significant amount of personal data of citizens? What about the data that would already have been breached by invasive platforms? Let alone the appropriate technologies for maintaining data security, India falls far behind in having even a solid policy framework for data protection. While the ban on applications linked with China is a step in the right direction and shows awareness of the government around data invasion and security breach, it also points towards a gaping hole that is thus far left largely unaddressed. It must be noted that the issue is not just about data breach. Online gaming platforms like Free Fire also manipulate the psyche of the youth in a significant manner. Furthermore, where adults find themselves contending with monthly subscriptions of OTT platforms, journalism websites and other things to the tune of Rs 200 to Rs 500 on a monthly basis, there is no limit to what a kid could spend on Elite Pass, air drops and cosmetics of characters in games like Free Fire. Even teens are known to spend multiples of thousands in rupees on a monthly basis for, at least apparently, futile pursuits. Data security and 'national interest' are however the key concerns and the government must move beyond rhetoric.