The released paper emphasised tech impartiality and concrete blockchain problems, as well as the crucial areas of the bill that affect blockchain. In their exploration, the authors emphasised the aspect of ‘ data fiduciary ’, ‘ data anonymization ’, ‘ right to erasure ’, and ‘ transnational transfers. ’

While pertaining to data fiduciary, the authors of this paper stated that” the current bill is unfit to concentrate on the challenges faced by blockchain technology.” A data fiduciary is someone who decides how and why particular data is reused. And the problems state the lack of blockchain to allow an individual or group of people to always hold the control over data, since it’s grounded on decentralised technologies.
“ This creates a problem for the bill, which calls for the identification of a data fiduciary to be responsible for thedata.It may be delicate to apply the bill’s vittles without a clear Data Fiduciary, ” said the report.

The authors concentrated on the need to cover data on the blockchain in the below– mentioned problems.” Technologies similar as anonymization, pseudonymization, and encryption are critical for icing the security of data on a blockchain, but the bill doesn’t give acceptable guidance on its use,” they wrote further.
“ To back up the point about transnational transfers, the current bill doesn’t adequately address them, ” mentioned authors. “ As blockchains are jurisdictionless, it becomes a precedence to secure transnational transfers through recognised channels while clinging to important exposure morals. It goes on to say that the current interpretation of the bill is grounded on the’ announcement by edict‘ paradigm, which is precious and delicate to manage, ” stated the report.