Authors: Javvadi Vaishnavi
Abstract
This paper investigates the legal, constitutional, and ethical vacuums surrounding the management and protection of personal data in the digital afterlife. As data-driven innovation and artificial intelligence accelerate, the “informational bodies” of deceased individuals are increasingly exposed to monetization and algorithmic manipulation by the Digital Afterlife Industry (DAI) without explicit, systemic safeguards.Drawing on a comparative legal analysis of the United States’ fiduciary framework (RUFADAA), the European Union’s enforcement limits under the GDPR, and India’s recently enacted Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, this study highlights a severe structural asymmetry in data governance.
Furthermore, the paper identifies a conceptual parallel with trade economics, utilizing India’s post-2014 import tariff policy to demonstrate that regulatory insulation at the border absent integrated domestic capacity and structural alignment fails to compress aggregate dependencies or alter systemic exposures. Thepaper concludes by proposing a normative realignment grounded in Luciano Floridi’s Information Ethics, advocating for Lex Informatica architecture and the re-theorization of digital remains as an inalienable component of human dignity.
Keywords: Digital afterlife, post-mortem privacy, informational body, DPDP Act 2023, GDPR Article 17, RUFADAA, Information Ethics, Make in India, import tariffs.
Introduction
Modern human existence leaves a deep, permanent, and highly structured digital trail comprising behavioral,social, financial, and communication footprints. While international law has been spending the past ten years working on building strong data rights for people who are alive, such as the EU’s GDPR and India’s DPDP Act of 2023, the issue of post-mortem data rights is still highly fragmented.This point of extinction for data protection safeguards introduces a critical friction zone between the absolute contractual control wielded by dominant technology platforms and the moral, emotional, or economic demands of surviving heirs and fiduciaries.
The central puzzle motivating this paper is the persistent mismatch between state-centric regulatory intentions and real-world outcomes. On one front, the law struggles to protect individual autonomy beyond life, leaving digital remains vulnerable to commercial exploitation by the emerging Digital Afterlife Industry (DAI). “The comparative approach helps to understand how regulatory approaches respond to vulnerabilities identified in various sectors.” On another front, when states attempt to construct protectionist or regulatory frameworks to insulate their borders whether to protect data privacy or to compress external economic dependencies under frameworks like India’s Make in India initiative the structural patterns reveal a striking asymmetry. Broad state exemptions and a failure to build intrinsic, localized supply-side capacity often result in policy failures where the underlying vulnerabilities remain entirely unaltered.
This paper asks four interrelated questions:
1.Can privacy be defined for the informational body after death?
2.How are the issues of digital asset succession and data after death regulated in other jurisdictions?
3.How does the DPDP Act, 2023 in India solve privacy and data protection issues after death?
4.What are the similarities between the regulatory approaches to data management and the Indian policies on
tariffs after 2014?
Literature Review
Digital Assets and Posthumous Inheritance
Rise in the use of digital technology has brought about a change in how people generate, store and share personal information. The various things including social media profiles, emails, cloud storage, digital assets and online communication constitute the digital footprint of a person. While physical property can be disposed of after someone passes away, digital property has a tendency of outliving its owner. (Mali & Prakash, 2019).
Another major topic of study concerns digital assets and inheritance after one’s death. In their paper, Mali and Prakash investigate the problems concerning digital assets, online accounts, and virtual properties in terms of inheritance. It is argued in the paper that existing laws of inheritance cannot deal with the problems of digital inheritance. (Mali & Prakash, 2019).
It becomes crucial according to the authors for legal systems to have the capacity to be able to regulate digital inheritance and the management of the deceased’s digital assets. The article plays an important role in highlighting how digital footprints remain after death and the issues that arise in relation to transferring them. Nonetheless, in emphasizing the issues of ownership and succession, it pays little attention to the privacy of the data of the deceased individual.1
Posthumous Privacy and Data Protection in the Digital Afterlife
The introduction of artificial intelligence has made things even more complicated in relation to the digital afterlife issue. In this case, AI-powered chatbots and virtual representatives raise new issues related to privacy, identity, and consent. Sciolla and Pagallo consider the Digital Afterlife Industry as well as the increasing role of artificial intelligence in recreating dead people based on their digital traces. The research notes that representations powered by AI can bring up privacy, consent, digital identity, and data protection issues. (Sciolla & Pagallo, 2025).
On top of that, the authors state that current legislation cannot deal with the issues of digital . The authors claim that proper governance should not only rely on ethical considerations but also on the right legal measures to control the use of one’s personal information after his or her demise. Nevertheless, the study fails to provide an elaborate legal framework on how to protect .2
1Dr Prashant Mali and Aswathy Prakash G, Death in the Era of Perpetual Digital Afterlife: Digital Assets, Posthumous Legacy,
Ownership and Its Legal Implications (2019–20) 15 The National Law Journal 124.
2Jacopo Ciani Sciolla and Ugo Pagallo, No Peace After Death? The Impact of AI-Driven Memorial Chatbots on Privacy and Data Protection (2025) 16(6) Information 426.
AI Afterlife and Digital Identity Preservation
According to the current literature, digital afterlife studies have moved from focusing on digital inheritance to covering issues of privacy, security, and even artificial intelligence. Even though there is ample research on topics such as digital asset ownership, AI-based memorialization, and perceptions of AI-based Afterlife technologies, these are usually covered in isolation from one another. On the other hand, Mali and Prakash concentrate more on digital asset ownership and succession while Sciolla and Pagallo look at issues on privacy and data protection. 3(Sciolla & Pagallo, 2025).
Therefore, the field still lacks an all-encompassing body of literature that discusses digital inheritance, posthumous privacy, data control, and artificial intelligence-assisted identity formation within one cohesive framework. It is especially important in today’s world where the presence of digital footprint extends beyond one’s lifetime and continues to define the person even after death.
The gap thus signifies the requirement for further studies into privacy, control over personal information, digital heritage, and AI-generated digital identities in one legal context. Studies on this topic can contribute to the creation of laws which will balance digital legacy, personal autonomy, privacy and technology development within modern-day digital societies. (Sciolla & Pagallo, 2025).
Research Gap
Current research indicates that the study of digital afterlife has moved beyond the issue of digital inheritance to other themes such as privacy, data protection, and artificial intelligence. The topic areas have been studied individually by researchers; for instance, some scholars have looked into the area of digital assets ownership, while others have looked into AI memorials.There has been extensive research on digital inheritance, posthumous privacy, and AI-created digital identities individually. There is, however, a gap in the literature on the formation of an integrated legal context dealing with all of these topics together. (Mali& Prakash, 2019; Sciolla & Pagallo, 2025; Lei et al., 2025).
3Ying Lei, Shuai Ma, Yuling Sun and Xiaojuan Ma, AI Afterlife as Digital Legacy: Perceptions, Expectations and Concerns (CHI 2025).
Research Methodology
This study utilizes a qualitative, descriptive-comparative, and doctrinal research design to analyze the intersection of informational privacy, constitutional law, and technology policy across multiple datasets. A comparative legal analysis is suitable for this research because it will be focusing on the ways through which various legal systems treat posthumous data, assets, and privacy
Primary legal data sources include the statutory text of India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023; the historical case law of the Supreme Court of India under Article 21; the US Revised Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act (RUFADAA); and European Union regulatory documentation. Quantitative data regarding privacy enforcement is extracted from the CMS GDPR Enforcement Tracker (2019–2026), comprising 131 distinct enforcement cases across EU/EEA jurisdictions. Macroeconomic trade data is sourced from the World Integrated Trade Solution (WITS) database, the World Bank’s World Development Indicators, UN COMTRADE, and India’s Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics (DGCI&S) annual reports covering the 2010–2023 trade window.
Methodological parameters are structured around secondary quantitative profiling, percentage analysis, and descriptive trend evaluation. Jurisdictional evaluation disaggregates post-mortem data mechanisms into clear comparative legal indicators. Economic trade analysis tracks annual average applied tariff rates alongside nominal import values and bilateral partner shares. Causal claims are intentionally avoided; the study relies on indicative descriptive synthesis to evaluate whether observable empirical trends align with the legal and political narratives of structural insulation and import substitution.
Analysis and Findings
The Global Post-Mortem Governance Matrix
The empirical investigation confirms a severe global fragmentation regarding how posthumous data rights are structured and enforced.
Table 1: Jurisdictional Post-Mortem Data Frameworks and Operational Scope
The analysis of the CMS GDPR tracker highlights an intensive enforcement record under Article 17 (Right to Erasure) for living individuals, with a total of €128,643,937 extracted across 131 actions. However, the distribution of these penalties exposes radical structural variances among national regulators:
France: Imposed only 6 enforcement cases, yet recorded the highest average fine of €10,508,833, driven by a single €40,000,000 penalty against CRITEO in 2023.
Italy: Pursued a high-volume administrative strategy, processing 30 distinct cases with an average fine of €1,271,750.
Spain: Logged 25 enforcement cases, with an average fine profile of €444,560.
Romania: Followed a high-volume, low-severity trajectory, generating 24 cases but maintaining an average fine of only €7,125.
This quantitative reality indicates that despite a nominally unified law, real-world enforcement is completely fragmented across borders. Consequently, GDPR has one distinct strength of being a reasonably strong and enforceable model in regard to living individuals, which is evident from the extent of the enforcement activities of the regulation. Nevertheless, the limitation of GDPR in the context of afterlife governance is that protection offered by the GDPR is only limited to living natural persons.Crucially, because the GDPR restricts its scope to living “natural persons,” deceased users are entirely excluded from this multi million Euro protective framework, leaving their digital footprints subject to corporate contract terms.
State Power and Constitutional Asymmetry in India
An analysis of India’s legislative response reveals that while Section 14 of the DPDP Act, 2023 introduces a narrow nomination right for deceased data principals, the broader statute introduces significant constitutional weaknesses when evaluated against the Puttaswamy proportionality test. Its strength is its recognition, through the process of nomination, that matters relating to personal data will persist even after the lifespan of the data principal. Nonetheless, such protection is incomplete due to the absence of an all encompassing posthumous privacy regime under the Act.
The text codifies broad, indeterminate state exemptions that empower the Central Government to authorize non-consensual data processing and structural surveillance across public sector networks under the guise of “public order” and “governance”. This creates a severe regulatory asymmetry: private data fiduciaries face stringent penalties and must accommodate interoperable “consent managers,” whereas state instrumentalities are exempted from conducting mandatory data protection impact assessments or maintaining judicial insulation from the executive-controlled Data Protection Board of India. This concentration of executive discretion facilitates the continuous tracking and mapping of personal data, violating the core constitutional requirement that any state intrusion into privacy must be narrowly tailored and tightly constrained by judicial oversight.
Structural Exposure The Import Tariff Disconnect
The structural disconnect observed in data governance finds an absolute parallel within India’s macroeconomic performance data under the Make in India program (2014–2023). An analysis of trade values demonstrates that the application of border-level tariff insulation failed to generate aggregate importcompression.
Table 2: India Merchandise Import Trajectories and Average Applied Tariffs
┌──────┬─────────────────────────────┬───────────────────────
────┐
│ Year │ Merchandise Imports (USD) │ China Partner Share (%) │
├──────┼─────────────────────────────┼───────────────────────
────┤
│ 2010 │ ~369 Billion
│ 2013 │ ~467 Billion
│ 2014 │ ~461 Billion
│ 2019 │ ~514 Billion
│ 2022 │ ~718 Billion (Peak)
│ 2023 │ ~675 Billion
│ ~11%
│ ~12.5%
│ ~13.5%
│ ~16%
│ ~17.5%
│
│
│
│
│
│ ~18% (Historical High) │
└──────┴─────────────────────────────┴───────────────────────
────┘
Note: Import totals reflect current USD goods values compiled via World Bank and DGCI&S reporting. The statistical association between average applied tariff trajectories and aggregate import compression
Source: Compiled by the author using data from the World Bank (2024), Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics (DGCI&S) (2025), and United Nations COMTRADE Database (2024).
The statistical association between average applied tariff trajectories and aggregate import compression is effectively non-significant. India’s merchandise import bill nearly doubled over the 2010–2023 period despite targeted tariff hikes.
This outcome is explained by a stark sectoral asymmetry:
High-Tariff Concentration: Tariff hikes were heavily concentrated in agricultural commodities and finished consumer goods categories, where domestic political constituencies are strongest and domestic substitutes exist. Together, these sectors represent less than 12% of total import volumes.
Low-Tariff Insulation: The massive sectors that drive India’s overall trade deficit—mineral fuels (31%), electrical machinery (HS-85), and nuclear reactors/industrial components (HS-84)—were structurally insulated from high tariffs because they function as essential inputs for domestic manufacturing and energy systems. Consequently, India’s dependence on imports from China expanded rather than contracted, with China’s share of the import basket reaching its highest recorded level of 18% in 2023. Absolute import values from China near-tripled, rising from USD 40 billion in 2010 to over USD 102 billion by FY2023–24. This demonstrates that border insulation, absent systemic domestic capacity creation, cannot reshape an economy’s external dependencies.
Discussion and Conclusion
The empirical and doctrinal findings of this study demonstrate a persistent structural parallel between data governance and macroeconomic trade policy: states repeatedly deploy narrow, border-level insulation mechanisms that fail to address the core vulnerabilities of the digital and physical infrastructure. Just as import tariffs cannot compress trade deficits when downstream domestic manufacturing remains completely dependent on external component ecosystems, narrow post-mortem nomination tools (such as Section 14 of the DPDP Act) cannot secure privacy in the digital afterlife when data remains governed by standard platform contracts and broad state surveillance exemptions. It does not mean that there are any similarities between the regulation of data privacy and the tariff. However, the two cases demonstrate the way in which insulation of a particular type can be ineffective because it does not deal with the real structural factors that cause vulnerability. For example, the law regarding data privacy cannot really protect individuals as long as the platform continues to have substantial influence over digital data; the same applies to tariff protection that cannot really make any difference when the product relies on imports.
To resolve the post-mortem privacy crisis, this paper advocates for a profound philosophical and structural realignment:
[ ARCHITECTURAL SYNTHESIS ]
│
┌────────────────────────┴────────────────────────┐
▼ ▼
[ ETHICAL RE-THEORIZATION ] [ LEX INFORMATICA DESIGN ]
┌───────────────────────────────┐
┌───────────────────────────────┐
│ • Reject Property Analogy │ │ • Hardcode Opt-Out Defaults │
│ • Data as a Constitutive self │ ──► UNION ◄── │ • Hard Delete Inactive Vaults │
│ • Protection of the implicit │ │ • Judicially Insulated Review │
│ “Informational Body” │ │ • Enforceable Horizontal Tort │
└───────────────────────────────┘
└───────────────────────────────┘
First, we must reject the property and reductionist models of data privacy. Personal data is not an external commodity to be bought, sold, or inherited; it is a constitutive part of individual identity. Drawing on Luciano Floridi’s Information Ethics, human beings must be understood as semantic, informational entities inhabiting a shared infosphere. Consequently, a deceased individual’s persistent digital footprint constitutes an “informational body” that retains inherent moral claims and dignity long after biological death. The extraction, manipulation, or commercial profiling of this footprint by the DAI to build generative AI “griefbots” or automated deepfakes without prior consent constitutes a direct assault on human dignity, structurally analogous to the physical desecration of a human corpse. (Bruneault, Sabourin Laflamme &Wernaart, 2023).
Second, this ethical re-theorization must be directly embedded into network architecture via Lex Informatica. Privacy-Enhancing Technologies (PETs) must be systemically integrated into social media infrastructure, legally mandating platforms to set their post-mortem default configurations to “opt-out” of data persistence. Silence or inactivity must be programmed to trigger automated, end-to-end user data deletion rather than maximizing corporate monetization.
Finally, privacy protections must achieve horizontal effect in civil law, allowing surviving families to sue corporate fiduciaries for non-material dignity harms. Concurrently, to comply with the constitutional standards of Puttaswamy, state exemption clauses must be strictly narrowed, subjecting public sector data harvesting to independent, judicially insulated review boards. Only by reinforcing internal structural capacity—both through code architecture and robust civil liberties safeguards—can a democratic society preserve individual autonomy in these digital times.
With respect to the research questions, the results show that post-mortem digital privacy laws still exhibit fragmentation in various jurisdictions and that current legal frameworks concerning inheritance, privacy, and AI-generated identities have been developed partially. The examination of the DPDP Act, 2023 of India also shows that the awareness of posthumous interests is still low and should take into account not only constitutional privacy but also the power of the state. Finally, the comparative analysis shows that individual regulatory interventions can be ineffective in the case when structural vulnerability persists. Thus, in order to develop an adequate governance framework, it is necessary to include protection of posthumous privacy, control over personal data, security from AI exploitation, and appropriate judicial review. This study will add value to the further development of digital privacy laws in that privacy protection should cover all stages of personal data, including postmortem stage.
Limitations
Several methodological and data constraints must be acknowledged. First, the quantitative data extracted from the CMS GDPR tracker depends entirely on the public disclosure practices of national Data Protection Authorities (DPAs); less transparent regulators may be under-represented in the case volume dataset.
Second, the simple Pearson correlation computed between annual tariff rates and merchandise import volumes is purely descriptive and does not capture complex econometric variables such as exchange rate shocks, global energy price adjustments, or income effects. Third, the aggregate tariff averages retrieved via WITS mask intense internal variations across specific sub-lines, meaning that hyper-specific tariff escalation in narrow product lines may be concealed within broader sectoral indicators. Finally, because both the Indian DPDP nomination right (Section 14) and the accompanying rules are nascent, there is a total absence of long-term domestic judicial enforcement data, requiring the post-mortem section of this study to rely on qualitative comparative profiling rather than empirical case outcomes.
References
Anand, R., and Khera, P. (2021). Impact of import tariff increases on Indian manufacturing competitiveness. Working Paper. New Delhi: National Institute of Public Finance and Policy.http://Anand, R., and Khera, P. (2021). Impact of import tariff increases on Indian manufacturing competitiveness. Working Paper. New Delhi: National Institute of Public Finance and Policy.
Baldwin, R. E. (1969). The case against infant-industry tariff protection. Journal of Political Economy, 77(3), 295–305. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/259517?utm_
Bhagwati, J., and Desai, P. (1970). India: Planning for industrialization. London: Oxford UniversityPress. https://books.google.com/books/about/India_Planning_for_Industrialization.html?id=8OOwAAAAIAAJ&utm_
Bhagwati, J., and Desai, P. (1970). India: Planning for industrialization. London: Oxford University Press.http://Bhagwati, J., and Desai, P. (1970). India: Planning for industrialization. London: Oxford University Press.
Bhatia, G. (2014). State Surveillance and the Right to Privacy in India: A Constitutional Biography. National Law School of India Review, 26(2), 127158.https://repository.nls.ac.in/nlsir/vol26/iss2/3/?utm_
Bloustein, E. J. (1964). Privacy as an Aspect of Human Dignity: an Answer to Dean Prosser. New York University Law Review, 39, 962-1007.https://courses.ischool.berkeley.edu/i205/s10/readings/week11/bloustein-privacy.pdf?utm_
Bruneault, F., Sabourin Laflamme, A., and Wernaart, B. F.W. (2023). The privacy of the dead: Human dignity in digital afterlife: an information ethics perspective. In B. Wernaart (Ed.), Applied human rights (pp. 185-204). Wageningen Academic Publishers.http://Bruneault, F., Sabourin Laflamme, A., and Wernaart, B. F.W. (2023). The privacy of the dead: Human dignity in digital afterlife: an information ethics perspective. In B. Wernaart (Ed.), Applied human rights (pp. 185-204). Wageningen Academic Publishers.
Chang, H.-J. (2002). Kicking away the ladder: Development strategy in historical perspective. London: Anthem Press.https://books.google.com/books/about/Kicking_Away_the_Ladder.html?id=X5N7JMS1wNYC&utm_
Chaum, D. (1985). Security without identification: Transaction Systems to make big brother obsolete. Communications of the ACM, 28, 1030-1044https://chaum.com/security-without-identification/?utm_
Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT). (2014). Make in India: Policy overview and sectoral targets. New Delhi: Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India. https://www.dpiit.gov.in/ministry/about-us/details/Title%3DMake-in-India-%28MII%29-ITMwETMtQWa?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics (DGCI&S). (2025). A quick view of
India’s trade scenario: CY 2024. Kolkata: Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India.
Dixit, A. (2026). Data Protection in India after the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023: A Critical Evaluation of Privacy and State Power. Indian Journal of Legal Review, 6(1), 116-130.http://Dixit, A. (2026). Data Protection in India after the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023: A Critical Evaluation of Privacy and State Power. Indian Journal of Legal Review, 6(1), 116-130.
Edwards, L., and Harbinja, E. (2013). Protecting Post-Mortem Privacy: Reconsidering the Privacy Interests of the Deceased in a Digital World. Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal, 32(1), 101 147.https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Protecting+Post-Mortem+Privacy%22+Edwards+Harbinja&utm_
Flaherty, D. H. (1999). Some Reflections on Privacy and Technology. Manitoba Law Journal, 26(2), 219-234.https://www.canlii.org/w/canlii/1999CanLIIDocs141.pdf?utm_
Floridi, L. (2013). The ethics of information. Oxford University Press.https://academic.oup.com/book/35378?utm_
Fried, C. (1968). Privacy. The Yale Law Journal, 77(3), 475-493.https://www.jstor.org/action/doBasicSearch?Query=%22Privacy%22+Charles+Fried+1968&utm_
Gavison, R. (1980). Privacy and the Limits of Law. The Yale Law Journal, 89(3), 421-471.https://www.jstor.org/stable/795891?utm_
Gellert, R., and Gutwirth, S. (2013). The legal construction of privacy and data protection. Computer Law and Security Review, 29(5), 522-530.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259123301_The_legal_construction_of_privacy_and_data_protection?utm_
Goldstein, M., and Khan, M. S. (1985). Income and price effects in foreign trade. In R. W. Jones and P. B. Kenen (Eds.), Handbook of International Economics (Vol. 2, pp. 1041–1105). Amsterdam:
Elsevier.https://ideas.repec.org/h/eee/intchp/2-20.html?utm_
Holvast, J. (2009). History of Privacy. In V. Matyáš et al. (Eds.), The Future of Identity (pp. 13-42). IFIP International Federation for Information Processing.https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22History+of+Privacy%22+Holvast+2009&utm_
Hufbauer, G. C., and Jung, E. (2021). How import tariffs have affected manufacturing in India. Policy Brief. Washington, DC: Peterson Institute for International Economics.https://www.piie.com/search?search=How+import+tariffs+have+affected+manufacturing+in+India&utm_
Kale, S. N. (2024). Right to Privacy in India and USA with Special Reference to Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Thesis. Modern Law College, Savitribai Phule Pune University.https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Right+to+Privacy+in+India+and+USA%22+Kale&utm_
Koopman, R., Wang, Z., and Wei, S.-J. (2014). Tracing value-added and double counting in gross exports. American Economic Review, 104(2), 459–494.https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257%2Faer.104.2.459&page=152&utm_
Krueger, A. O. (1975). The benefits and costs of import substitution in India: A microeconomic study. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22The+benefits+and+costs+of+import+substitution+in+India%22+Krueger&utm_
Krueger, A. O., and Tuncer, B. (1982). An empirical test of the infant industry argument. American Economic Review, 72(5), 1142–1152.https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22The+benefits+and+costs+of+import+substitution+in+India%22+Krueger&utm_
Krugman, P. R., Obstfeld, M., and Melitz, M. J. (2018). International economics: Theory and policy (11th ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education.https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/international-economics/P200000006023?utm_
Lace, S. (Ed.). (2005). The Glass Consumer, Life in a surveillance society. National Consumer Council.https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22The+Glass+Consumer%22+Lace+2005&utm_
Lukács, A. (2016). What is Privacy? The History and Definition of Privacy. Jurisprudence, Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, University of Szeged, 256-265.https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22What+is+Privacy%3F+The+History+and+Definition+of+Privacy%22+Lukacs&utm_
Mazzone, J. (2012). Facebook’s Afterlife. North Carolina Law Review, 90, 1643-1688.https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Facebook%27s+Afterlife%22+Mazzone&utm_
Mehta, P. S. (2022). India’s electronics import dependence and the limits of domestic substitution. https://cuts-international.org/?s=India%27s+electronics+import+dependence&utm_
Mohanty, S. K. (2019). Rising protectionism in India and its implications for manufacturing. Research and Information System for Developing Countries Discussion Paper. New Delhi: RIS.https://www.ris.org.in/?utm_
Nissenbaum, H. (1998). Protecting Privacy in an Information Age: the Problem of Privacy in Public Law and Philosophy, 17(5-6), 559-596.https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Protecting+Privacy+in+an+Information+Age%22+Nissenbaum&utm_
Öhman, C., and Floridi, L. (2017). The political economy of death in the age of information: a critical approach to the digital afterlife industry. Minds and Machines, 27(4), 639-662.https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11023-017-9445-2?utm_
Rajah, R. (2021). India’s China trade exposure: Structural dependency and the limits of decoupling.Sydney: Lowy Institute.https://www.lowyinstitute.org/search?search=India%27s+China+trade+exposure&utm_
Solove, D. J. (2002). Conceptualizing privacy. California Law Review, 90(4), 1087-1142. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=313103&utm_
Solove, D. J. (2004). The digital person. Technology and privacy in the information age. New York University Press.https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22The+Digital+Person%22+Solove+2004&utm_
Solove, D. J. (2011). Nothing to Hide: the False Tradeoff between Privacy and Security. Yale University Press.https://yalebooks.yale.edu/?s=Nothing+to+Hide+Solove&utm
Stokes, P. (2015). Deletion as second death: the moral status of digital remains. Ethics and Information Technology, 17(4), 237-248.https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Deletion+as+second+death%22+Stokes&utm_
Szabó, M. D. (2005). Kísérlet a privacy fogalmának meghatározására a magyar jogrendszer fogalmaival. Információs Társadalom, 2, 44-53 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22K%C3%ADs%C3%A9rlet+a+privacy+fogalm%C3%A1nak+meghat%C3%A1roz%C3%A1s%C3%A1ra%22&utm
Topalova, P., and Khandelwal, A. (2011). Trade liberalization and firm productivity: The case of India.Review of Economics and Statistics, 93(3), 995-1009.https://direct.mit.edu/rest/article/93/3/995/57937/Trade-Liberalization-and-Firm-Productivity-The?utm_
United Nations COMTRADE Database. (2024). India bilateral trade data: India-China merchandise trade, 2010–2023. New York: United Nations Statistics Division.https://comtradeplus.un.org/?utm_
Warren, S. D., and Brandeis, L. D. (1890). The Right to Privacy. Harvard Law Review, 4(5), 193 220.https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22The+Right+to+Privacy%22+Warren+Brandeis+1890&utm_
Westin, A. F. (2003). Social and political dimensions of privacy. Journal of Social Issues, 59(2), 431-453.https://spssi.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1540-4560.00072?utm
World Bank. (2024). World Development Indicators: Merchandise imports, India (current USD), 2010–2023. Washington, DC: The World Bank Group.https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/TM.VAL.MRCH.CD.WT?locations=IN&utm_
World Integrated Trade Solution (WITS). (2023). India trade summary: Applied tariffs and partner shares, 2023. World Bank.https://wits.worldbank.org/CountryProfile/en/Country/IND/Year/LTST/Summarytext?utm_
Sciolla & Pagallo (2025)http://Sciolla & Pagallo (2025)
