On a day when Goa Bench of Bombay High Court upheld the right to privacy, Central government’s notification empowering 10 agencies to snoop into personal systems comes as a rude shock to citizens. The high court came hard at the petitioner seeking health status of ailing chief minister Manohar Parrikar be made public. It not only drew the Lakshman Rekha but slammed moves of making serious inroads in the territory of privacy of an individual which it said is impermissible in law.
Seen through a lens of individual proprietary, the Gazette notification dated December 20 authorizing 10 police and intelligence agencies to intercept, monitor and decrypt any information on any computer resource in the country appears to be complete invasion of privacy.
If phone-tapping and intercepting data in motion were considered as infringements on personal space, the Centre has taken it a step further. The notification empowers listed agencies to snoop into revived, stored and generated content, including emails of individuals. The government has logged in to Section 69(1) of the IT Act to give it a legal standing, guarding itself against a backlash citing Supreme Court judgements on fundamental rights. It may be noted that the definition of ‘computer resource’ in the IT Act is wide enough to include not just computers and tablets, but also smartphones and smartwatches. And to top it all, persons refusing to cooperate could face a stiff fine and a jail term of up to seven years.
Security of India vis-Ã -vis other countries is an acceptable parameter, but intentions behind snooping for maintenance of public order, or the prevention or investigation of any related acts are questionable. These clauses give enough scope for the powers that be to exploit the situation to its advantage.
There are many questions that remain unanswered. For initiating data interception an order is required to be passed by the Union Home Secretary which has to be recorded in writing, but the catch is that it need not be made public. What about exposing personal systems to malware and viruses while agencies go about their job of interception? Whose responsibility is it in cases of loss of crucial and sensitive data?
The only silver lining is the Union Home Secretary’s order has not outlined a specific time period and by law it cannot be in force for more than 180 days at a stretch.
People of India want to know the motive behind this notification which virtually makes us a surveillance state. Why is the government so suspicious of its own people when it knows that terrorism is largely imported and not home-grown? No government in power could afford to work against popular sentiment and risk a crucial electoral battle, especially when it is delicately poised, unless if there is a larger theory behind it.
