0.1527
900 319 0030
x

MHA Notification on Computer Surveillance – II

iasparliament Logo
December 25, 2018

Click here to know more on the issue

What is the stand of the government?

  • Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) recently authorised 10 Central agencies to intercept, monitor, and decrypt online communications and data.
  • The notification was described as an incremental step towards a surveillance state by many experts.
  • However, the government defended that the notification created no new powers of surveillance.
  • It was only issued under the Information Technology Rules sanctioned in 2009.  
  • It further mentioned that every specific surveillance requests had to be authorised by the MHA in accordance with law.

What are the concerns?

  • The existing surveillance framework is carried out by -
  1. Telephone surveillance is sanctioned under the 1885 Telegraph Act (and its rules)
  2. Electronic surveillance is authorised under the 2000 Information Technology Act (and its rules)
  • Bureaucratisation - Under both these acts, surveillance requests have to be signed off by an official who is at least at the level of a Joint Secretary.
  • However, these decisions about surveillance are taken by the executive branch (including the review process), with no parliamentary or judicial supervision.
  • Opacity - An individual will almost never know that he/she is being under surveillance.
  • Thus, finding out about surveillance and then challenging it before a court, is a near-impossibility.
  • Vagueness - The surveillance regime is vague and ambiguous which includes very wide phrases such as “friendly relations with foreign States” or “sovereignty and integrity of India”.
  • Faster clearance - There is almost no information available about the bases on which surveillance decisions are taken, and how the legal standards are applied.
  • A 2014 RTI request revealed that, on an average, 250 surveillance requests are approved every day.
  • This shows that approvals are being cleared without an independent application of mind.

What should be done?

  • The right to privacy is not absolute and hence surveillance is essential to ensure national security and pre-empt terrorist threats.
  • However, there must be a parliamentary oversight over the surveillance agencies that conduct surveillance.
  • All surveillance requests must necessarily go before a judicial authority, which can apply an independent legal mind to the merits of the request.
  • Every surveillance request must mandatorily specify a probable cause for suspicion and the proposed target of surveillance.
  • Also, evidence obtained through unconstitutional surveillance must be statutorily stipulated to be inadmissible in court.
  • Also, surveillance requests can be subject to judicial review, provided a lawyer to present the case on behalf of the target of surveillance.
  • The Right to privacy judgment has taken a firm stand on the side of fundamental rights.
  • Citizens’ initiatives such as the Indian Privacy Code have also proposed legislative models for surveillance reform.
  • Thus, it is right time for the parliament to take these measures forward and ensure a balance between security of the state and privacy of the individual.

 

Source: The Hindu   

Login or Register to Post Comments
There are no reviews yet. Be the first one to review.

ARCHIVES

MONTH/YEARWISE ARCHIVES

Free UPSC Interview Guidance Programme