From GDPR to DPDP: A Quick Comparison Ahead of My Research

 

Key Differences Between GDPR and DPDP by Anupam Tiwari 

This post is a bit of a departure from my usual IT-focused content. I’m currently working on a paper titled “DPDP-Aware Federated Model Unlearning: An Experimental Study”, and as part of my research, I wanted to get a clear understanding of India’s proposed Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act. While my main work revolves around federated learning and model unlearning, this post serves as a quick reference comparing DPDP with the European GDPR, helping me and hopefully you grasp the key differences before diving deeper into DPDP-related experiments. 

Should Standards Bodies and Cryptographic Developers be Held Liable for Encryption Failures?

1.    In an age where data privacy and security are paramount, encryption has emerged as the bedrock of digital trust. It’s what keeps our financial transactions, sensitive personal data, and corporate secrets safe from unauthorized access. But what happens when encryption itself—the very framework that data protection laws and industries rely on—is compromised? Should standards bodies and cryptographic developers bear the weight of liability for such failures?

2.    As data breaches and cyber threats grow in sophistication, this question becomes more pressing. Here’s why attributing liability or penalties to standards organizations, certifying authorities, and cryptographic developers could enhance our digital security landscape.

 

The Importance of Encryption Standards

3.    Encryption protocols, such as AES, RSA, and newer algorithms resistant to quantum attacks, form the foundation of data protection frameworks. Global regulations like GDPR, CCPA, and India’s upcoming Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act rely on these protocols to ensure that personal and sensitive data remain inaccessible to unauthorized parties. If encryption fails, however, it’s not just individual companies or users at risk—entire sectors could suffer massive exposure, eroding trust in digital systems and putting critical information at risk.

Why Liability Should Extend to Standards Bodies and Developers

4.    While organizations implementing encryption bear the primary responsibility for data protection, the bodies that create and certify these protocols also play a critical role. 

5.    Here’s why penalties or liability should be considered:

• Encouraging Rigorous Testing and Regular Audits
  Standards bodies like NIST, ISO, and IETF establish widely adopted encryption protocols. Liability would push these organizations to conduct more frequent and intensive audits, ensuring algorithms hold up against evolving cyber threats. Just as companies face penalties for data breaches, certifying authorities could face accountability if they fail to spot and address weaknesses in widely used protocols.

• Improving Transparency and Response Times If a protocol vulnerability is discovered, standards bodies must respond swiftly to prevent widespread exploitation. Penalties could drive faster, more transparent communication, allowing organizations using the protocols to take proactive steps in addressing vulnerabilities.

• Mandating Contingency and Update Plans Holding developers accountable would encourage them to prepare fallback protocols and quick-patch solutions in case of a breach. This might include keeping secure, verified backup protocols ready for deployment if a primary standard is compromised.

• Creating a Secure Backup Ecosystem Implementing “backup” cryptographic protocols could add resilience to the security ecosystem. Standards bodies would regularly update these backup algorithms, running them through rigorous testing and ensuring they’re ready if a main protocol fails. This approach would offer organizations implementing these protocols a safety net, reducing their dependency on a single encryption standard and bolstering the security framework as a whole.

• Enhanced Accountability in High-Stakes Industries Certain sectors—like healthcare, finance, and national defense—handle data so sensitive that any encryption breach could lead to catastrophic consequences. In these cases, stronger regulatory oversight could require standards bodies and certifiers to focus even more on high-stakes applications, tying liability to the industry impact and motivating specialized security measures for these areas.

 

Balancing Penalties and Incentives

6.    Alongside penalties, incentives for timely vulnerability reporting could encourage cryptographic researchers and developers to disclose potential weaknesses promptly. This combination of incentives and liabilities would cultivate a more open and responsive environment for cryptographic development, minimizing risk while promoting trust.

The Future of Encryption and Shared Responsibility

7.    The potential for encryption compromise, especially with advancements in quantum computing, necessitates a shift in how we approach responsibility in the data protection ecosystem. Attributing liability to standards bodies and cryptographic developers could reshape how encryption is developed, tested, and maintained, ensuring that digital security doesn’t hinge on blind trust alone.

Conclusion

8.    As digital reliance grows, so too must our accountability structures. A compromised encryption protocol impacts far more than just individual companies; it can shake entire sectors. By attributing liability to the creators and certifiers of encryption standards, we foster a collaborative, transparent, and robust approach to data security. In doing so, we not only protect sensitive information but also fortify trust in the very systems we rely on in our digital world.