In today's digital age, the "Right to Be Forgotten" represents a fascinating
evolution of personal privacy rights. Once, privacy was as simple as closing a
door; now, it has expanded to the idea of "deleting" aspects of oneself from the
internet's ever-watchful eye[1]. RTBF is a data protection principle that
empowers individuals to request the deletion or de-indexing of their personal
data, essentially giving them control over which parts of their past are allowed
to persist online. [2]
The journey of RTBF began with a case that put digital privacy in the limelight:
Google Spain v. AEPD and Mario Costeja González (2014)[3]. This landmark ruling
by the Court of Justice of the European Union recognized RTBF as a crucial
component of an individual's data protection rights, enabling people to request
the removal of links to outdated or irrelevant information about them from
search engines. As a result, RTBF quickly became a cornerstone of the European
Union's General Data Protection Regulation[4], specifically under Article 17,
which codifies the "right to erasure." With its inclusion in the GDPR, Right to
be forgotten formally entered the global privacy arena, igniting debates and
inspiring similar initiatives worldwide. The premise was simple: people should
not be haunted by all aspects of their digital past indefinitely.
Meanwhile, RTBF is being closely scrutinized in India, where privacy concerns
have surged following Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India
[5](2017). This pivotal case recognized privacy as a fundamental right under
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. While India has yet to implement a
nationwide Right to be forgotten statute like the GDPR. As India progresses
toward digitalization, a fine balance must be struck between protecting
individuals' rights and preserving access to information, particularly in
sectors such as public record-keeping, journalism, and historical archives.
However, just as legal systems began accommodating RTBF, a new contender emerged
on the technology front-blockchain. Blockchain, the technology underlying
cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum, brings an inherent challenge to RTBF:
it is designed to be an immutable, decentralized ledger of records. [6]At its
core, blockchain operates through a distributed network of participants who
maintain a continuously growing chain of "blocks," each containing data and a
unique cryptographic hash linking it to the previous block. This interconnected
structure ensures that any alteration to a single block would disrupt the entire
chain, making data on the blockchain essentially tamper-proof and permanent[7].
In a world where data deletion is central to privacy rights, blockchain's
permanence is both a feature and a formidable obstacle.
This tension brings to the fore complex legal and technical questions: Can a
technology built on immutability be compatible with a law founded on deletion?
Should exceptions be made for blockchain, or should data protection laws evolve
to meet the demands of emerging technologies? Addressing these questions is
particularly relevant to India as the country seeks to leverage blockchain in
public and private sectors.
This article delves into the Right to Be Forgotten and blockchain conundrum
through a comprehensive analysis of Indian laws, technological nuances, and
international perspectives. Drawing from technical literature, legal
commentaries, and case law, this article also examines the potential solutions
or frameworks that may bridge the gap between an individual's right to privacy
and blockchain's commitment to transparency and immutability. By the end, we aim
to offer a nuanced perspective on how the Right to be forgotten can coexist-if
at all-with blockchain technology in a manner that respects both personal
privacy rights and the integrity of data records.
Blockchain Technology and Data Immutability
Blockchain technology, first conceptualized in the early 2000s and later
popularized with the emergence of Bitcoin in 2009, is transforming various
sectors by providing a secure, transparent, and decentralized method for
recording transactions and storing data. The foundational properties of
blockchain-decentralization, transparency, and immutability-make it distinct
from traditional data storage systems and enable unique applications across
industries.[8] However, these very attributes pose significant legal and ethical
challenges, particularly concerning the "Right to Be Forgotten", as blockchain's
immutable structure resists modification or deletion of stored data.
- Basics of Blockchain Technology
At its core, blockchain is a decentralized digital ledger that records
transactions across multiple computers so that the recorded data cannot be
altered retroactively. The primary components of a blockchain include blocks,
each containing transaction data and a unique identifier called a hash. These
blocks are sequentially linked to each other, forming a chain where each block's
hash is dependent on the data contained within it as well as the hash of the
previous block, thus creating an unbreakable sequence.[9] Any attempt to alter a
single block would necessitate altering all subsequent blocks, which would
require a consensus from the entire network-a feat virtually impossible due to
the distributed nature of blockchain.
Three essential characteristics of blockchain technology are decentralization,
transparency, and immutability. Unlike centralized databases controlled by a
single authority, blockchain is decentralized and operates across a network of
nodes, where each participant has an identical copy of the blockchain[10]. This
decentralization ensures that no single entity has control over the data, which
makes blockchain highly resistant to manipulation and enhances trust among
users. Transparency is inherent in blockchain design, as each participant can
view and verify transactions, although this transparency varies between public
and private blockchains. Immutability-the inability to alter data once added-is
the defining feature of blockchain, providing a high level of security and
reliability[11] but also introducing significant challenges, especially in cases
where data modification or deletion is legally or ethically required, as seen
with RTBF.
Blockchain networks are categorized into public and private blockchains, each
with distinct implications for data accessibility and control. Public
blockchains, like Bitcoin and Ethereum, are open networks where anyone can
participate as a node, view the ledger, and access data. [12]The decentralized,
permissionless nature of public blockchains contributes to their immutability
and transparency but poses challenges for data privacy and erasure, as any data
stored on a public blockchain becomes virtually permanent and accessible to all
participants.
In contrast, private blockchains are permissioned networks, where access is
restricted to authorized users, often implemented by businesses or organizations
seeking to leverage blockchain's benefits without sacrificing data control.
While private blockchains offer greater flexibility in data management and can
incorporate features that allow limited data modification, they are still
fundamentally structured around the principles of transparency and
immutability[13]. Consequently, the distinction between public and private
blockchains impacts the feasibility of RTBF implementation, as public
blockchains generally resist any form of data alteration, while private
blockchains may allow limited compliance with RTBF under strict controls.
- Data Blocks and Hashing: How Blockchain Data is Stored and Why It's Nearly
Impossible to Alter
Imagine a blockchain as a long, unbreakable chain made of data blocks-each block
is like a digital journal page. Every page (or block) contains a record of
transactions, a timestamp, and a unique cryptographic signature called a
hash-think of it as a fingerprint for that page. When a new page is written, it
also includes the fingerprint of the previous page. This creates a continuous
chain where each block's identity depends on the one before it.
Now, here's where the magic (and the challenge) happens: The hash acts as a
strict guardian of the block's integrity. If even a tiny detail in a block's
data is changed, the hash changes completely, like a fingerprint that no longer
matches. Because each block's fingerprint is linked to the next, changing one
block would break the entire chain. This makes blockchain extremely immutable,
meaning that once something is recorded, it's set in stone. You can't just go
back and alter it without everyone noticing[14].
But this immutability, while great for securing data, presents a dilemma when it
comes to the Right to Be Forgotten-the idea that individuals can request the
removal of personal data. In traditional databases, if someone wants their
information deleted, they can ask the database admin to remove it. However, in blockchain, this is a tall order. There's no central authority to grant such a
request, and since data is stored across many different places (nodes), deleting
or modifying it would require agreement from everyone involved-a nearly
impossible feat, especially on public blockchains. In short, while blockchain's
unchangeable nature is what makes it so secure, it also makes it a bit like
an ancient library that once a book is written, can't be taken down-even if
the author wants it removed. And that's the challenge when it comes to
respecting the Right to Be Forgotten[15]
- Blockchain Applications Impacting RTBF
One notable application of blockchain that impacts RTBF is smart contracts,
which are self-executing contracts with terms directly written into code on the
blockchain. These contracts automatically execute once specific conditions are
met, often involving interactions with personal data that cannot be modified or
deleted due to blockchain's immutability. For instance, in a decentralized
application (DApp), personal information embedded within a smart contract may
remain permanently on the blockchain, posing right to be forgotten compliance
issues[16]. Even though smart contracts offer significant advantages in
automation and reliability, they complicate RTBF implementation by storing data
in a way that defies traditional data protection principles.
Cryptocurrencies are the most well-known blockchain application and highlight
the conflict between RTBF and blockchain technology. Cryptocurrency transactions
are permanently recorded on the blockchain, making it impossible to delete or
modify transaction history. This persistence creates challenges for individuals
wishing to erase or anonymize their transaction data, as even pseudonymous
transactions can sometimes be traced back to real identities[17].
Additionally, digital identity management on blockchain presents further RTBF
conflicts. In digital identity systems built on blockchain, personal information
such as identification numbers, biometrics, or other sensitive data may be
stored or referenced in a blockchain ledger. The permanence of this data
directly contradicts RTBF principles, as individuals are unable to remove their
personal information once registered on the blockchain[18].
Legal Tensions Between Blockchain and RTBF
The collision between blockchain technology and the Right to Be Forgotten
highlights fundamental legal and technological incompatibilities. RTBF, rooted
in data protection principles, requires organizations to delete or "forget" an
individual's personal information upon request, especially when such data is no
longer relevant or necessary. In contrast, blockchain technology is built upon
the principle of immutability, where data entered onto a blockchain ledger
becomes virtually permanent due to its decentralized structure and cryptographic
chaining of blocks. [19]
For example, if a user's personal data is recorded in a
transaction on a public blockchain like Ethereum, it becomes accessible to all
network participants and remains unalterable. Any attempt to delete or alter one
block would require changing all subsequent blocks-a nearly impossible task
without consensus from the entire network.
This immutability is both the strength and limitation of blockchain: while it
ensures data integrity and security, it contradicts RTBF's emphasis on data
erasure. The core legal question here is: Can a technology founded on
unchangeable records comply with a law that demands deletion?
Research publications have contributed significantly to the academic discourse
surrounding the Right to be forgotten and its compatibility with blockchain.
Viktor Mayer-Schönberger's seminal book, "Delete: The Virtue of Forgetting in
the Digital Age", [20]argues that the ability to forget or erase certain data is
essential in the digital era, as it allows individuals to move beyond past
mistakes and reinvent themselves. Mayer-Schönberger advocates for RTBF as a
necessary counterbalance to the internet's memory, especially as data permanence
can unfairly limit opportunities for those seeking a fresh start.
One potential compromise to achieve a "soft" version of Right to be forgotten on
blockchain is through encryption and pseudonymization[21]. With encryption, data
is scrambled into an unreadable format accessible only by those with a
decryption key. In theory, encrypted data could still exist on the blockchain
while remaining inaccessible, thus making it effectively "forgotten." However,
this method is imperfect, as encrypted data could eventually be decrypted if
keys were compromised or advances in technology made decryption feasible.[22]
Pseudonymization-the process of substituting personally identifiable information
with unique identifiers-could provide some privacy protections on blockchain
without requiring data deletion. For instance, instead of storing a user's real
name, a pseudonym or a unique hash representing that user's identity could be
recorded[23]. Although this method increases privacy, it does not align fully
with RTBF, as pseudonymized data is not erased and could still potentially be
re-identified.[24]
Balancing these priorities is challenging because the Right to be forgotten
implies a legal right to data deletion, whereas blockchain's transparency
demands open and accessible records. For instance, in financial systems, the
ability to verify transaction history is essential for preventing fraud, yet
individuals may also want their financial records erased from public view.
This
raises ethical questions: should the transparency of financial transactions
override an individual's right to erase outdated or sensitive information?
Consider a blockchain used by a charity to publicly track donations for
transparency. If a donor wishes to have their contribution erased for privacy
reasons, this request conflicts with the charity's goal of transparent
accounting. The charity would face a legal dilemma-erasing the donation record
would break the transparency chain, potentially damaging its credibility.
Comparative Analysis with EU GDPR
The EU General Data Protection Regulation, implemented in 2018, is the most
comprehensive legal framework addressing the Right to be forgotten. Article 17
of the GDPR[25] defines the "right to erasure" and establishes clear guidelines
for compliance, providing individuals with a robust right to request data
deletion. However, like the Data Protection Act, the GDPR's Right to erasure
provision clashes with blockchain's immutable structure, leading to debates on
how RTBF can be meaningfully applied in blockchain contexts.
The GDPR's guidelines emphasize data minimization and privacy by design,
encouraging organizations to adopt practices that limit unnecessary data
collection and protect personal information[26]. In blockchain systems, these
principles are challenging to implement due to the technology's permanent and
transparent nature. In response, some EU countries have explored creative
interpretations, such as using pseudonymization and off-chain storage to align
blockchain projects with GDPR requirements[27].
While these techniques do not
offer full RTBF compliance, they mitigate privacy risks and are considered
permissible under EU interpretations. The difference between the GDPR and
India's data protection act lies in their respective enforcement mechanisms and
the scope of RTBF. GDPR allows for substantial fines for non-compliance,
creating a strong incentive for blockchain platforms to seek GDPR-friendly
adaptations[28]. In India, enforcement mechanisms are still evolving, and the
lack of technical specificity around RTBF on blockchain suggests that businesses
may struggle to adopt feasible compliance solutions.
As blockchain adoption continues to expand, Indian legal frameworks must address
the unique challenges posed by immutable technologies. While encryption,
pseudonymization, and off-chain solutions provide partial compliance, these
methods fall short of true RTBF adherence, suggesting that existing laws may
require rethinking to keep pace with blockchain's growth. Ultimately, striking a
balance between privacy rights and the societal benefits of blockchain will
require collaborative efforts between legal authorities, technologists, and
policymakers.
Case Studies and Jurisprudence Analysis
The evolving jurisprudence surrounding the Right to Be Forgotten reflects the
tension between individual privacy rights and the public's right to access
information. Landmark cases in both India and international courts have shaped
the understanding of the Right to be forgotten, laying the foundations for how
it is applied today, particularly in light of blockchain's data permanence.
The Google Spain v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD) and Mario
Costeja González (2014)[29] case is a landmark ruling by the Court of Justice of
the European Union that significantly shaped the global understanding of the
right to be forgotten. In this case, Costeja González, a Spanish citizen,
petitioned Google to remove links to an old newspaper article detailing his past
financial difficulties, arguing that it was no longer relevant and infringed
upon his privacy rights. The Court ruled in favor of González, establishing that
individuals have the right to request the deletion of outdated or irrelevant
information, effectively codifying the right to erasure within the European
Union.
The Google Spain ruling provided a blueprint for RTBF, serving as a
precedent for nations exploring RTBF legislation. While India's legal framework
differs from that of the EU, the Google Spain decision highlights RTBF's role in
balancing personal privacy with the public's right to information[30].
Additionally, this case illustrates the complexities of enforcing the Right to
erasure on platforms with global reach, as requests for deletion in one
jurisdiction may not apply in others.
The
Vikram v. India Kanoon [31] case is a significant milestone for RTBF in
India. In this case, the petitioner, Vikram, requested that an online legal
database, India Kanoon, remove records related to a past criminal proceeding in
which he had been acquitted. He argued that keeping these records publicly
accessible infringed upon his right to privacy, particularly given that the case
no longer held any relevance or public interest. Vikram's request was rooted in
the desire to avoid potential harm to his reputation and employability,
advocating for RTBF as a necessary mechanism to ensure personal dignity.
The
Gujarat High Court's ruling in favor of the petitioner underscored that an
individual should not be perpetually bound by records of past legal encounters,
particularly when they have been acquitted or exonerated. While the court did
not explicitly label this right as the right to be forgotten, it recognized an
individual's privacy right to request the erasure of certain records[32].
The landmark
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India [33] case
transformed India's legal landscape regarding privacy. In a historic ruling, the
Supreme Court of India held that privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21
of the Indian Constitution, encapsulating the right to life and personal
liberty. This recognition has broader implications, laying the groundwork for RTBF by affirming individuals' control over their personal data and reputations.
The Puttaswamy case catalyzed discussions on data protection and RTBF, with the
Supreme Court underscoring the need for comprehensive data protection
legislation in India. While the ruling did not directly establish RTBF, its
emphasis on autonomy, dignity, and personal freedom serves as the philosophical
basis for RTBF-related claims. Consequently, as India drafts and enacts data
protection laws, the principles laid out in Puttaswamy are expected to shape
RTBF provisions and their potential application to emerging technologies like
blockchain.[34]
Numerous academic critiques address the feasibility of the right to be forgotten
in the blockchain context, with scholars often debating the effectiveness of
technical solutions like "data obsolescence.[35]" Data obsolescence refers to
the practice of rendering data useless or inaccessible after a certain period
without outright deletion. For instance, data stored on a blockchain could be
encrypted and then "forgotten" by discarding the decryption keys. However,
critics argue that this solution falls short of true data erasure, as the
underlying data remains intact, contradicting RTBF's purpose[36].
Potential Solutions and Legal Reconciliation
The Right to Be Forgotten (RTBF) and blockchain technology embody two
conflicting paradigms-one focused on individual data privacy and deletion, and
the other on decentralized transparency and immutability[37]. The tension
between blockchain's immutable structure and the Right to Be Forgotten presents
both a legal and technological dilemma. Reconciling these two forces requires
innovative approaches that respect the integrity of blockchain while also
allowing individuals greater control over their personal data.
Data Minimization and On-Chain/Off-Chain Solutions
Data minimization is a foundational principle in privacy law that restricts the
collection and storage of personal information to what is strictly necessary.
Applying data minimization to blockchain would involve storing only essential
information on-chain, while more sensitive or identifiable data is stored
off-chain in a centralized or hybrid database[38]. By limiting the amount of
personal data directly stored on the blockchain, this approach can help achieve
some degree of RTBF compliance.
For example, a reference link or hash could be
stored on-chain, pointing to off-chain data, which can be erased or modified
without disrupting the blockchain's integrity. This off-chain approach also
provides flexibility, as sensitive data can be modified or deleted without
altering the blockchain. However, this solution comes with its own limitations,
such as reduced decentralization, potential security risks, and reliance on
third-party storage providers[39].
Smart Contract Design for Privacy
Smart contracts are programmable codes on blockchain that execute automatically
when specific conditions are met. Privacy-focused smart contract design can
incorporate RTBF-friendly clauses, allowing users to have greater control over
their data. [40]For example, a smart contract could be programmed to include an
expiration clause where personal data is removed or anonymized after a specified
period or user-defined trigger.
Another approach is to design smart contracts
that store only pseudonymous data on-chain, with a system that allows data
owners to control the visibility or lifespan of their data through additional
conditions. While smart contract privacy mechanisms may enhance RTBF compliance,
they still face the challenge of blockchain immutability, as modifying or
deleting data would still conflict with the fundamental design of most
blockchains[41]. Despite this limitation, the ability to automate data
anonymization or control access provides an alternative path for
privacy-conscious applications.
Regulatory Sandboxes
Regulatory sandboxes offer a testing ground for blockchain projects to explore
RTBF compliance mechanisms in a controlled environment. By creating a sandbox,
regulators can support companies experimenting with privacy-centric blockchain
designs, providing them with temporary exemptions from RTBF requirements while
they develop innovative solutions. [42]This framework allows regulators to
collaborate with technologists and privacy experts to better understand
blockchain's limitations and develop new compliance standards that could
eventually be incorporated into legislation. For example, a sandbox initiative
could allow financial services companies to trial anonymization techniques or
explore hybrid storage models that limit personal data on-chain. Through such
projects, the Indian government can gain insight into how RTBF might be enforced
practically without stifling innovation.
Homomorphic Encryption and Zero-Knowledge Proofs
Homomorphic encryption allows data to be processed without decrypting it, thus
preserving privacy while enabling calculations on encrypted data. This
technology could enable users to interact with data on a blockchain without
exposing their identity or personal details, offering an alternative form of
privacy without requiring data erasure. [43]For instance, a user's identity
could be verified through homomorphic encryption without revealing the actual
identity, potentially making certain blockchain applications compliant with RTBF
requirements by ensuring that personal data remains inaccessible even though
it's stored on-chain.
Zero-Knowledge Proofs (ZKPs) are another cryptographic method that enables one
party to prove knowledge of certain information without revealing the
information itself. ZKPs could support RTBF by verifying user identities or
credentials without storing personal data on the blockchain[44]. However, these
advanced cryptographic techniques are still evolving and may not be feasible for
all blockchain applications due to high computational demands and cost.
Pseudonymization Techniques
Pseudonymization involves replacing identifiable information with pseudonyms,
allowing data to be stored and processed without linking it directly to an
individual. In blockchain contexts, pseudonymization could support RTBF
compliance by obfuscating personal data without altering the blockchain
structure.[45] For instance, a user's identity could be represented by an
anonymous identifier or a cryptographic hash, thus limiting the amount of
identifiable information stored directly on-chain. Although pseudonymization
does not equate to full data deletion, it reduces privacy risks and can act as a
viable compliance solution, especially in public blockchain networks where
complete erasure is impractical.
India's privacy laws can be amended to better address the challenges posed by
blockchain technology. Legislative amendments could include specific provisions
for decentralized technologies, allowing for exemptions where strict RTBF
compliance is technically impossible or would compromise blockchain's core
benefits. For instance, lawmakers could define "effective erasure" in a way that
includes pseudonymization or encryption techniques that render data inaccessible
without requiring deletion.
Additionally, the right to be forgotten requests in blockchain contexts could be
limited to cases where data has significant implications on individual
reputation or employability, aligning with India's broader legal principles.
Such adjustments would help bridge the gap between the rights enshrined in RTBF
and the technical realities of blockchain.
Further research is needed to assess the technical feasibility and scalability
of cryptographic techniques like homomorphic encryption and zero-knowledge
proofs within blockchain systems. As these technologies mature, they may become
essential tools for balancing privacy with transparency, especially for
industries that require data permanence, such as healthcare and finance.
[46]Additionally, the effectiveness of off-chain storage models, regulatory
sandboxes, and hybrid blockchain structures should be studied to understand
their potential in achieving RTBF compliance without undermining the security
and decentralization of blockchain networks.
On the legislative front, lawmakers must develop a nuanced understanding of
blockchain's capabilities and limitations to create realistic and enforceable
privacy standards. As India finalizes its Data Protection Bill, there is an
urgent need to clarify RTBF's applicability to blockchain-based applications and
to consider exemptions or alternative standards for decentralized platforms.
Such legislative adjustments are essential to foster blockchain innovation while
respecting individual privacy rights.
The Right to be forgotten and blockchain debate highlights the challenges of
applying traditional data protection principles to emerging technologies. A
balanced approach is essential, one that respects privacy rights without
stifling the transformative potential of blockchain. Through technological
innovation, legislative foresight, and collaborative regulatory experimentation,
it is possible to chart a path that harmonizes RTBF with blockchain. This
balance will ultimately enable individuals to retain control over their personal
data while benefiting from the transparency, security, and trust that blockchain
offers. As blockchain continues to evolve, so too must the legal frameworks that
govern it, ensuring that innovation and privacy are upheld as complementary
rather than opposing principles.
End Notes:
- Mayer-Schönberger, V. (2009). Delete: The Virtue of Forgetting in the Digital Age. Princeton University Press.
- Nakamoto, S. (2008). Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
- Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos and Mario Costeja González, Case C-131/12, [2014] ECR I-317.
- European Union. (2018). General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)
- Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Another v. Union of India and Others, (2017) 10 SCC 1
- Supra note 1
- Supra note 2
- Antonopoulos, A. M. (2017). Mastering Bitcoin: Unlocking Digital Cryptocurrencies. O'Reilly Media.
- ibid
- Bashir, I. (2017). Mastering Blockchain: Unlocking the Power of Cryptocurrencies, Smart Contracts, and Decentralized Applications. Packt Publishing.
- Supra note 10
- Supra note 8
- ibid
- Wright, A., & De Filippi, P. (2015). Decentralized blockchain technology and the rise of lex cryptographia. SSRN Electronic Journal
- Zyskind, G., & Nathan, O. (2015). Decentralizing privacy: Using blockchain to protect personal data. 2015 IEEE Security and Privacy Workshops.
- Supra note 10
- Supra note 14
- Finck, M. (2018). Blockchain and the General Data Protection Regulation: Can distributed ledgers be squared with European data protection law? European Parliamentary Research Service.
- Supra note 15
- Mayer-Schönberger, Viktor. Delete: The Virtue of Forgetting in the Digital Age. Princeton University Press, 2009
- Smith, John. Balancing Privacy and Immutability: A 'Soft' Right to be Forgotten on Blockchain. Journal of Blockchain Research, vol. 12, no. 3, 2023, pp. 45-63.
- ibid
- ibid
- Supra note 18
- European Union. (2018). General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)
- ibid
- Wright, A., & De Filippi, P. (2015). Decentralized blockchain technology and the rise of lex cryptographia, SSRN Electronic Journal
- Fairfield, J. A. T. (2015). BitProperty: Blockchains and Private Law in the Digital Age, Indiana Legal Studies Research Paper.
- Supra note 3
- ibid
- Vikram Singh v. India Kanoon and Others, 2019 SCC OnLine Mad 7399.
- ibid
- Supra note 5
- Supra note 5
- Supra note 27
- Supra note 10
- Supra note 18
- ibid
- supra note 14
- Smart Contract Design for Privacy Protection in Blockchain Networks. Blockchain and Privacy Law Review, vol. 3, no. 4, 2020, pp. 201-218
- ibid
- Supra note 10
- Homomorphic Encryption as a Tool for Data Privacy in Cloud Computing. Journal of Cryptographic Research, vol. 29, no. 6, 2021, pp. 542-560.
- ibid
- Exploring Pseudonymization Techniques for Privacy in Digital Data Processing. Journal of Data Privacy and Protection, vol. 15, no. 2, 2022, pp. 120-135.
- ibid
Please Drop Your Comments