[kictanet] Data Protection Bill: Portability section

Fri Jul 5 18:38:43 EAT 2019

I imagine no company wants to transfer for free, but I would argue that we also have to consider the competition and consumer welfare aspects of data rights alongside firms interests. I would argue the prevention of pricing as a barrier to consumer benefit of their own data outweighs cost aspects for firms. If the “technically feasible” criteria is applied properly then the incremental cost per user should be minimal. 

Rafe Mazer
Consumer Protection and Behavioral Research Consultant
Nairobi, Kenya
+254 723950645
@rkmazer

> On 5 Jul 2019, at 11:23 AM, Liz Orembo <lizorembo at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Thank you for starting this discussion Rafe,
> 
> I agree 30 days to honor consumer data request could be too long compared to Access to Information Act that gives 21 days. Perhaps we should leave it for the data protection authorities to set guidelines for different industries and probably encourage automated retrieval of personal data by the end users.
> 
> I am also of the view that data portability cannot be free of charge in all circumstances. I get the point that the term 'reasonable' may be subject to abuse (perfect demonstration is in the presidential elections petition), but there is also a cost element to collecting data. Why would a company want to transfer it for free to another company? Of course would love to hear others opinion on this.
> 
> 
>> On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 5:40 PM Rafe Mazer via kictanet <kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke> wrote:
>> Hi KICTA Net members. I'm Rafe Mazer, a consumer protection in digital financial services specialist working in Kenya the past 5 years (and globally on this toic for 10+ years.)
>> 
>> I just saw the new Data Protection Bill within the National Assembly (http://parliament.go.ke/sites/default/files/2019-07/The%20Data%20Protection%20Bill%2C%202019.pdf) and wanted to raise a discussion internally about Section 38 on Data Portability to see if KICTA Net may want to engage further on the topic. Specifically there are two aspects that were concerning:
>> 
>> 1. The allowance for 30 days to honor a data subject's request for information held on them. 
>> In a digital economy, this is an excessively long period, and also quite a blunt instrument to apply across the entire economy, where health records are different from government records are different from financial records, etc. This would also kill the utility of portability in spaces like FinTech. Imagine I want to use my economic history with data controllers to get competing mobile loan offers. It could take up to 30 days to share that information, which is not aligned with the near-instant nature of these products and consumers' expectations on timing. Already the Bill rightly notes portability should only apply where "technically feasible" to exempt low-tech industries or providers, so there is no sense is saying that those who are deemed to be able to comply technically with portability should have up to 30 days to do so. If this language is kept in it will be used to delay--and defacto deny--consumer use of their data for increased choice in digital segments of the economy.
>> 
>> Further, since access to information is included in the same section as portability, and they are not explicitly differentiated, you could argue data controllers have not just 30 days to honor a portability request, but to even tell you what data they hold on you the data subject. This is far too long a time to permit for a basic consumer data right. Right now some providers offer financial statements to the data subject much faster than that--in minutes or seconds--but allowing 30 days could encourage setting practices to that standard going forward, reducing consumer access to their own data not improving it.
>> 
>> 2. The allowance of a "reasonable fee" to be charged for a portability request could lead to anti-competitive and excessive pricing. "Reasonable" is highly subjective, and we have seen Competition Authority already had to intervene to stop anti-competitive use of wholesale USSD rates in mobile financial services (https://techweez.com/2017/03/17/cak-wants-safaricom-lower-ussd-charges-mobile-banking/). It is highly likely a "reasonable fee" window would be deployed similarly where beneficial to firms and require ex-post intervention. The original language from the 2018 Bill where this was free of charge seems a much better approach. 
>> 
>> Curious to hear others' thoughts or context on this section, and how KICTANet could help to fix this section for the final version of the Bill so we don't create an anti-innovation and anti-consumer portability regime that will be the law of the land.
>> 
>> Thanks for the chance to share and discuss on this platform,
>> 
>> Rafe Mazer
>> _______________________________________________
>> kictanet mailing list
>> kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke
>> https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/kictanet
>> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/KICTANet/
>> 
>> Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/lizorembo%40gmail.com
>> 
>> The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development.
>> 
>> KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications.
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Best regards.
> Liz.
> 
> PGP ID: 0x1F3488BF
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/pipermail/kictanet/attachments/20190705/3bcd9a8b/attachment.htm>