Under the finalised version of the Digital Personal Data Protection Rules (DPDP Rules, 2025), the government has allowed for real-time location tracking of children without verifiable parental consent in the interest of children’s safety.
This provision raises questions about the circumstances in which anyone would want to surveil a child without parental consent and the impact of real-time tracking on how a child engages with the world around him/her.
“Live monitoring does not create safety. True safety comes from prevention, stronger institutional practices, and better accountability, not from watching children constantly,” Chitra Iyer, Co-Founder of social impact consulting firm Space 2 Grow, told MediaNama. She expressed concern about the impact this provision would have on a child’s emotional well-being.
“No international privacy framework, including the GDPR, treats live tracking of children as a normal or mandatory safety measure. Global norms, in fact, caution against it because it violates a child’s right to privacy,” she added.
Who does this exemption apply to?
As per Iyer’s interpretation of the rules, the exemption would apply to the data fiduciaries that the government has exempted from the verifiable parental consent requirement, such as educational institutions, creche and childcare staff, and those providing transportation services to these locations.
“To allow real-time tracking of children by ‘educational institutions’ is not an answer to safety. The term Education within the rule includes – any learning institution, including vocational training centres – this is vague and it is unclear whether it includes only schools, or edtech companies or private tutors and the hundreds of vocational training private centres,” Iyer stated. She argued that without clear limits, the exemption opens doors for unnecessary surveillance of children and lots of data on children’s movement by data fiduciaries, who may not need this.
However, others agree with this broader interpretation, arguing that the location tracking for child safety, as well as the many other purposes that are exempt from the verifiable parental consent mandate, are more universal in nature.
“Unlike Part A of the Fourth Schedule which mentions the classes of data fiduciaries that are exempt from verifiable parental consent and the tracking/behavioral monitoring restrictions, Part B of the Schedule is a more universal exemption for digital services for certain purposes outlined in that table. It is a lot more catered towards establishments that have a digital presence,” Sidharth Deb, Associate Director, Public Policy at The Quantum Hub, mentioned.
On the other hand, unlike Deb, Iyer suggests that Part A and Part B of the schedule are interconnected. But she says that going back to the Act and the Rules, there is room for interpretation that any data fiduciary could be exempt from seeking consent…
Source link
Disclaimer
We strive to uphold the highest ethical standards in all of our reporting and coverage. We blogs.grocliq.com want to be transparent with our readers about any potential conflicts of interest that may arise in our work. It’s possible that some of the investors we feature may have connections to other businesses, including competitors or companies we write about. However, we want to assure our readers that this will not have any impact on the integrity or impartiality of our reporting. We are committed to delivering accurate, unbiased news and information to our audience, and we will continue to uphold our ethics and principles in all of our work. Thank you for your trust and support.
Website Upgradation is going on for any glitch kindly connect at [email protected]
