NEW DELHI: NITI Aayog program director Arnab Kumar , while allaying privacy concerns related to Aarogya Setu, said that the contact tracing app comes with a “kill switch” which allows authorities to store data only for a limited period of time. Digital rights activists and lawyers, however, said that the app has left some questions unanswered, especially in areas of accountability and transparency.“Privacy first is not something we say lightly. We have a kill switch. The data that we will collect will be stored on our servers for only 45 days for people who test negative. For people who are tested positive, we will retain the data for 60 days from the moment they test negative,” Kumar said at a webinar on Saturday.He emphasised three “sacrosanct” principles when it came to the app: privacy, availability and inclusivity. “We have ensured that when your personal data is saved on our servers, it cannot be looked at by anyone, except people who are working with the government on containing Coronavirus,” the NITI Aayog programme director said.Experts on the panel, however, pointed out that the app does not lay down guidelines about who is authorised to look at the data. "The data collected by the app is extremely sensitive since it's related to a person's health. Any initiative that builds a database should inspire trust, but the app does not specify which arms of the government will be authorised to use the data," said legal director of the Software Freedom Law Centre (SFLC), Prasanth Sugathan.He also added that the app "evades" scrutiny as it's not open sourced and does not give permission for "reverse engineering". "When an app is open sourced, developers can borrow from the best practices from around the world and this promotes transparency. Reverse engineering, too, allows people to verify if the app is being used for the purpose it stated in the first place," said Sugathan at the webinar organised by thinktank Skoch.Sidharth Deb from digital advocacy group, Internet Freedom Foundation, also said that Aarogya Setu did not have "safety thresholds" as it does not operate within a proper legal framework. "We do not have a proper data protection bill, and our surveillance laws are archaic. So, there is a possibility of the app being converted into a system of mass surveillance,” he said.Supreme Court lawyer Pawan Duggal said that while the app represented a “quantum leap forward, it also had chinks in the armour.” “The app states that the govenrment would not be liable for unauthorised access of data," he said, adding that there is little accountability in case of misuse of data.Other panelists, which included lawyers Pratibha Jain and Tushar Sannu, argued that the app had necessary safeguards in place, and it's utility could not be questioned, especially since it is being used at an unprecedented time of medical emergency. "Rights of privacy is important, but we also need navigate our way around this pandemic," said Sannu.