Naavi.org

The Society is discussing the impact of AI on the professional front such as whether it will replace jobs, if so what kind of jobs and how should we brace for the impact. Organizations have already realized that the days of having software developers who have software coding skills only is over.

Today software coding has been entirely taken over by AI and the surviving software engineers are only those who have demonstrated their ability to use AI to develop codes automatically. At the ground level the number of employees will dwindle and soon will become negligible. The days AI will take over many tasks in the Advertising and Marketing are not far behind.

In the filed of Finance the operations are already automated to the extent that we are totally dependent on software for every aspect of finance. AI can only worsen the things. We are already seeing this in the Banks where we have “Zombies” as counter clerks who know nothing but pushing keys on the key board and know little of Banking.

Legal Research is the domain of AI and lawyers feel comfortable in using AI to draft petitions and prepare argumentative notes. Teachers will soon have to shift to teaching AI as everything else will be taken over by AI.

While these developments are easy to recognize, what has not yet caught the attention is the psychological impact of AI development on humans particularly in the development of human brains.

We have discussed the concept of “AI Cult Syndrome” , “Cyber hypnotism” , “Impact of Binaural Beats”, need for “neuro rights protection “ at different points of time on this website. (Please check with Vishy for more information). Now it is time to also discuss the impact of AI on human brains and more particularly on “Developing Brains” of children.

As humans make AI more and more intelligent, will AI make humans more and more zombies with no independent thinking ability. We are aware that our memory power has been adversely affected with the increased use of computing devices with search assistance. (Eg; We cannot remember phone numbers as we used to do a few years back and want our phones to remember them. We cannot remember street maps mentally and want Google maps). Now as we start using AI to think for ourselves, there is a real danger of us as humans using less and less of our core abilities of the brain and gradually degrade them to the status of “Let me ask my AI Assistant”. Where to draw the boundaries for the “Assistant” and retain our own native intelligence will be a challenge.

To this, I am adding a new dimension on “Im[act of AI learning on children’s mental development”. As we start teaching mobile and computer to children we have seen the growth of “Addiction”. We have seen the behaviour of Children of today who cannot eat without watching cartoons on the mobile. Experts recognize that this is due to Chemical changes induced in the brain as a result of their experiences on the screen. This is leading to a mental health issue which we today club under a single category of “Addiction”.

Psychologists observe the following:

1.The dopamine feedback loop created by screen use is a key neural mechanism underlying this addiction-like behavior

2.Excessive screen time during critical periods of brain development can alter the structure, function, and connectivity of neural circuits, especially those involved in reward processing and impulse control

3.There is emerging evidence that screen dependency disorders (SDDs) in children are associated with changes in neural tissue and function, and may even influence gene expression related to brain development

4.Children’s brains are more plastic and vulnerable than adults’, making them more susceptible to these changes

5.Some children may have genetic predispositions (such as certain dopamine receptor variants) that make them more vulnerable to developing screen dependency and related behavioral issues

6.Dopamine release from screen use mimics the reward pathways activated by addictive substances, reinforcing screen-seeking behaviors

7.Structural and functional brain changes can occur with excessive screen use, particularly in developing brains, potentially leading to long-term issues with impulse control, attention, and emotional regulation

8.Behavioral patterns such as needing screens to eat are reinforced by habit and the strong association between digital content and pleasurable experiences

9.Physical and mental health consequences include disrupted sleep, increased sedentary behavior, unhealthy eating habits, and higher risk of anxiety and depression

10. Limiting screen time and encouraging screen-free mealtimes are important steps to protect children’s neurological and overall health.

In this context when we start teaching AI skills to Children either through gamification or otherwise, it is not clear what would be the impact on the human brain development at an early age.

The AI-Chair of FDPPI would like take this up as a project and start gathering information on this critical subject. We also invite large corporations to sponsor research activity in this aspect and some academic institution can take it up as their project. FDPPI’s AI Chair would like to assist in such a project.

We look forward to receiving public comments on this proposition.

Naavi

Naavi.org is pleased to announce that it has proposed setting up of an academic chair in association with FDPPI on AI. The activities will involve effective application of AI in the field of Privacy and Data Protection.

A note on the proposal is available here: Note on proposed FDPPI Chair. A research report on the status of AI in India as gathered from public resources is also enclosed for information.

In the light of these developments, Ujvala Consultants Pvt Ltd which is already a patron member of FDPPI and Naavi has proposed setting up of an Academic Chair in FDPPI to focus on the activities related to AI in Privacy inparticular.

The Chair will undertake Research and analysis, create awareness and Education, besides engaging in Policy advocacy. It will also establish collaboration with other academic organizations,, NGOs and like minded individuals and business entities.

The Chair may involve in activities such as webinars, workshops, training sessions and publication of reports as may be required.

The “AI Chair” will be led by Naavi who will be paid an honorarium from Ujvala Consultants Pvt Ltd. The Chair will also welcome further funding support from other organizations as may be required on case to case basis.

You may watch out for more information on this project and volunteer to contribute to this project.

As a part of this project, Naavi.org has introduced an AI Assistant “Vishy” to assist Naavi as we go forward. Since the entire activities of the Chair at present will be virtual, Vishy will also be a “Virtual Assistant to Naavi”. Vishy is today a supporting assistant to Naavi and may eventually grow into a sophisticated independent AI agent by himself. Apart of Vishy is available in the “Perplexity site search” facility already available at www.naavi.org. I look forward to the support of AI start ups particularly those in Bengaluru to support me in this endeavour.

Naavi

Naavi.org has content since 1998 related to Cyber Laws and Data Protection. Prior to 12.12.12, the site had a html structure and became a bit more organized. Some of the readers have called this the “Wikipedia of Cyber Laws in India”. In order to facilitate the site search we had added a Google Site search as well as Bing Site search. Now we have added a Site search facility from Perplexity which can take Natural language queries and perhaps provide better information to the visitor.

Please explore and give me a feedback.

The link is available on the right hand column and also here:

Perplexity Site Search of Naavi.org

Madam

I have sent emails drawing your attention and tried to contact your office by phone. It appears that there is no system in your office or in the office of any of HESCOM directors to at least acknowledge my email which had a complaint.

I am now with this public notice, publishing my complaint in the form of the following letter.

Earlier, on 17th March 2025, I had sent an email which has not been replied to and I am continuing to receive electricity charges notification in my SMS.

I have indicated two apprehensions in my communication.

1. Linking some body’s electricity meter to another person may put the other person under a presumption that he is supporting the people living in the address. If they are engaged in any illegal activities, vicarious liabilities may get attached to the person whose phone number is associated with the meter.
2. Karnataka has a scheme of subsidy for electricity under the Government guarantee scheme and there is a possibility that bogus meter accounts may be in operation for the purpose of claiming the subsidy.

Hence I am giving an indication of a potential crime/s and the lack of response from HESCOM and others indicates possible complicity in such a scam.

I would like each of the persons mentioned in the emails, namely

ACS ENERGY <prs.energy@gmail.com>,
secyfr-fd@karnataka.gov.in,
md.hescom.kn@gmail.com,
md@hescom.co.in,
mdpckl@gmail.com,
energyds123@gmail.com,
dt@hescom.co.in,
“dt.hescom@gmail.com” <dt.hescom@gmail.com>,
“psfa.hescom@gmail.com” <psfa.hescom@gmail.com>,
“df.hescom@gmail.com” <df.hescom@gmail.com>,
sangha659@gmail.com,
KEBEA ENGINEER <kebea1963@gmail.com>,
shivp.tm1@98410spice

to respond to me and clarify that they are not accomplices to this possible crime.

If there is no response, I am intending to file an FIR to initiate further action.

Regards

Na.Vijayashankar

Recently, the Government had amended the Aadhaar Act 2016 allowing private sector to use Aadhaar authentication for delivering services, (Also refer article in HT). This would allow e commerce, travel, tourism, hospitality and health sector in Non Government sector to use Aadhaar authentication. This was a significant departure from the Supreme Court ruling which had disallowed the use of Aahaar by private sector. On 25th March 2025, MeitY had issued further clarifications through a circular and prescribed standard operating procedures for permitting the use of Aadhaar by non Government entities.

A new Aadhar App with face recognition has also been introduced whereby Hotels, airports and other verification points can use a Face Recognition App instead of providing copies of Aadhaar.

To supplement these efforts of finding more uses for Aadhaar in business, the Government is now set to make further amendments to bring the use of Aadhaar in tune with the DPDPA 2023. The IT Minister Mr Ashwin Vaishnaw has stated that substantial amendments would be made in the Aadhaar Act to harmonize it with the DPDPA 2023.

The minister has stated that the amendments will focus on prevention of re-use of consent and purpose based data minimization.

With these changes the possibility of use of Aahdaar for verification of age under the DPDPA will be also facilitated.

We look forward to the details to be announced.

As expected, some murmurs of discontent has started and the possibility of a legal challenge of the amendments may not be ruled out.

Naavi

Also refer:

https://www.amsshardul.com/insight/the-aadhaar-ammendment-and-its-discontent

https://www.livemint.com/news/govt-to-amend-aadhaar-act-for-improved-consent-dpdp-act-alignment-11744210744283.html

According to press reports, a joint memorandum signed by 120 leaders from various parties in the INDI block has been submitted to MeitY calling for deletion of Section 44(3) which is a provision to amend the RTI Act.

We have already discussed this issue earlier but would like to place our counter views once again.

Currently the RTI Act under Section 8(1) states:

8. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,—
* * * * *
(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:
Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.

The current amendment states as follows:

44 (3) In section 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, in sub-section (1), for clause (j), the following clause shall be substituted, namely:—   

“(j) information which relates to personal information;”.

In other words, instead of the long paragraph which stated that in responding to an RTI request, personal information disclosure of which has no public interest may be withheld from being disclosed. The present amendment simply says that information related to personal information is not under an obligation to disclose.

As expected the George Sorros media outlets have called this amendment “Draconian” and called for its repealing. (Report from Hindu: Report in tehelka.com). It is clear that the opposition is politically motivated to object to the Bill and delay its notification under some pretext or other and this is one such attempt.

In our view this issue is not related to the industry and hence it is not of consequence to the industry.

The DPDPA Rules at present does not include notification of Section 44 and hence this objection does not affect the release of the DPDPA Rules 2025 as is presently envisaged. Section 44 however contains the amendment to ITA 2000 also and hence till this section is notified, the operation of Section 43A of ITA 2000 will continue. The consequences are marginal and not significant.

There is one other aspect to be considered. The RTI act applies to Government organizations which all have “Public” interest embedded into its activities. If an RTI activist is asking for any information, it is related to a public activity. The personal information related to the activity is therefore either that of an official who has public duties or some members of public whose information may be embedded in the disclosed activity.

Data of a public official such as name and designation etc is not “Personal data” but is like “Business Contact Data”. Hence it is possible to treat the information of the official associated with an activity to be disclosed as “Non Personal Data”.

Hence there is no need for any repealing of the section. for this purpose.

At best, an explanation can be added in the rules that ” Information related to an official holding a public function in the Government or a Business function in a Non Government entity is considered as “Public or Business Contact” and not “Personal Data”.

On the other hand it is possible that in some query , information about a member of the public may come out of the disclosure with or without other beneficiaries in the same category.

It can also be argued that as a “Beneficiary” of a “Public service” the member of the public may not be entitled to withholding the fact that he was a beneficiary of a public scheme. Hence there is a ground for considering that the DPDPA does not prevent such disclosures if we can properly classify “Beneficiary Data” of a public scheme as not personal data.

If we have any objection about disclosure of names of members of public who are not connected with the subject query on hand, it will related to the use of some Government services only. Disclosures of these may be redacted where feasible. If there is any suspected fraud, perhaps after the release of the basic information, release of identity of the individuals may have to be sought by a separate appeal.

One positive aspect of this INDI press conference is the confirmation that they donot have objection to any other provision of the Bill or the Rules and hence the rules should be notified quickly.

What we need to do now is to educate the Government departments that any data of a project beneficiary where public funds are involved has to be classified as “Not Personal Data”. This can be added as an explanation in the DPDPA Rules 2025 which discusses the “Legitimate use” for use of personal data for Government schemes.

Naavi